Evidence

[Wondering1701]

I'll preface this by stating that I am atheistic. However, I have a very religious friend, and I am trying to see things from his perspective. What I am trying to understand, at a very basic level, is how someone can believe in a supernatural deity. There simply is no credible evidence to support the existence of one. Arguments like, "Well, then, where did all of this come from?" don't work because all they do is make the situation even more complicated. What created the creator? Then, it seems to me that tremendous amounts of (for lack of a better word) insanity are constructed around this belief in a mystic being (or beings). There are entire doctrines, entire codes of ethics, entire books that claim to have all the answers, but they are vague and antiquated. Even within the same religious tree, people can't agree on what they are supposed to mean. How can anyone view something so ambiguous, be it the Quran or the Bible or any other text, as a legitimate source of information or even guidance? Why is it that new religions, such as Scientology, are met with such disgust even though, objectively speaking, they are no more absurd? I mean no disrespect. I simply do not understand.

 

[fallingblood]

Faith. It is simple as that; faith.

Everyone has some form of working hypothesis. For Christians, part of that working hypothesis is dependent on a Christian faith. It doesn't need to be proven, as it is real for them, and that is enough.

 

[Wondering1701]

Faith. It is simple as that; faith.

That really doesn't answer my question. "Faith" isn't an argument. In fact, faith in the face of evidence to the contrary is just a polite way of saying delusion.

 

[fallingblood]

That really doesn't answer my question. "Faith" isn't an argument. In fact, faith in the face of evidence to the contrary is just a polite way of saying delusion.

Why must there be an argument? If can say that I have felt God, or that my personal experiences show that there is a God. However, we both know that isn't actual evidence that will be accepted. That doesn't mean it is delusion though.

Not everything can be proven. And for much, there is no need to. I don't need a reason to prove that God exists. I have faith that God exists, and that is enough.

 

[Draka]

If you're looking for scientific evidence of Deity then no wonder you come up lacking. Science deals with the natural physical world. Deity reaches beyond this natural world. Any evidence required for a person to believe would therefore be something personally experienced on a level beyond just this physical existence. Now, true, while some people may just be convinced with words from books, may have been "talked a good game", some people actually have been recipients of all the "evidence" they require to at least believe in something. What they deduce that something to be, well that very much depends on what "evidence" they were presented with and who they are and many other factors surrounding them. Hence the many different religions and spiritual paths in this world.

 

[George-ananda]

I'll preface this by stating that I am atheistic. However, I have a very religious friend, and I am trying to see things from his perspective. What I am trying to understand, at a very basic level, is how someone can believe in a supernatural deity. There simply is no credible evidence to support the existence of one. Arguments like, "Well, then, where did all of this come from?" don't work because all they do is make the situation even more complicated. What created the creator? Then, it seems to me that tremendous amounts of (for lack of a better word) insanity are constructed around this belief in a mystic being (or beings). There are entire doctrines, entire codes of ethics, entire books that claim to have all the answers, but they are vague and antiquated. Even within the same religious tree, people can't agree on what they are supposed to mean. How can anyone view something so ambiguous, be it the Quran or the Bible or any other text, as a legitimate source of information or even guidance? Why is it that new religions, such as Scientology, are met with such disgust even though, objectively speaking, they are no more absurd? I mean no disrespect. I simply do not understand.

Well then what does one believe? Atheism with its physicalist/materialist outlook (physical matter and energy are all that exists) does not make sense to me either. I have been an armchair student of the paranormal for decades now and am quite convinced that things exist that cannot exist in the materialist paradigm.

The groups I found that makes the most sense of all this comes from eastern traditions with its explanations of why these paranormal phenomenon exist and the framework/paradigm in which it happens.

I'm a convert to the non-dual (Advaita) school of Hinduism.

 

[Windwalker]

I'll preface this by stating that I am atheistic. However, I have a very religious friend, and I am trying to see things from his perspective. What I am trying to understand, at a very basic level, is how someone can believe in a supernatural deity. There simply is no credible evidence to support the existence of one.

This is an extraordinarily complex topic. No one easy to understand reason. People believe many varied things about God, for many and varied reasons. You have to start by asking what specifically is it that they believe, and why. And how that is not some universal, one-size-fit's all way of thinking about God. How your friend believes may be touching into areas that aren't remotely the same for another.

However, perhaps at a very basic level you could say that belief in God is predicated on an existential question. That is of course if it is personal, and not some social symbol, in which case as a social symbol it is more about group identity that finding some sense of 'answer' to personal questions of being.

How deeply do you really wish to explore this question? How much do you really wish to understand? Perhaps you just wish to ask is it legitimate to believe in God? That's an easy answer. Yes. But that does not in anyway entail that one has divorce from reason to believe in God - just because of the few fringe who deny science and whatnot.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

It's just a feeling that you have that encourages you to hold your faith

 

[The Wizard]

I'll preface this by stating that I am atheistic. However, I have a very religious friend, and I am trying to see things from his perspective. What I am trying to understand, at a very basic level, is how someone can believe in a supernatural deity. There simply is no credible evidence to support the existence of one. Arguments like, "Well, then, where did all of this come from?" don't work because all they do is make the situation even more complicated. What created the creator? Then, it seems to me that tremendous amounts of (for lack of a better word) insanity are constructed around this belief in a mystic being (or beings). There are entire doctrines, entire codes of ethics, entire books that claim to have all the answers, but they are vague and antiquated. Even within the same religious tree, people can't agree on what they are supposed to mean. How can anyone view something so ambiguous, be it the Quran or the Bible or any other text, as a legitimate source of information or even guidance? Why is it that new religions, such as Scientology, are met with such disgust even though, objectively speaking, they are no more absurd? I mean no disrespect. I simply do not understand.

One can't really judge the value of another's beliefs unless they have walked in their shoes. They have no idea or omnipresent measuring device that can prove where said person's beliefs has taken them or what those beliefs have did for them. Many have faiths and beliefs for objective reasons/values as well, as myself. I believe what I do becouse it transports me in a different relationship or better synchronicity with the world about me. Things are improved, enhanced, better- and just peachy. There is no reason to attempt some sort of acceptable or scientific substantiation becouse if so then it wouldn't even be "a belief" in the first place. By nature, beliefs don't require other people's understanding becouse that is impossible... no way to know the relationship it makes for the believer to his/her world and life..

Requiring evidence for a belief don't make any sense in the first place...imo.

 

[paarsurrey]

I will give a quote:

Doubt is useful for a while. ... But we must move on. To choose doubt as a philosophy of life is akin to choosing immobility as a means of transportation."
-Yann Martel, Life of Pi

We must travel with certainty.

 

[Koldo]

I'll preface this by stating that I am atheistic. However, I have a very religious friend, and I am trying to see things from his perspective. What I am trying to understand, at a very basic level, is how someone can believe in a supernatural deity. There simply is no credible evidence to support the existence of one. Arguments like, "Well, then, where did all of this come from?" don't work because all they do is make the situation even more complicated. What created the creator? Then, it seems to me that tremendous amounts of (for lack of a better word) insanity are constructed around this belief in a mystic being (or beings). There are entire doctrines, entire codes of ethics, entire books that claim to have all the answers, but they are vague and antiquated. Even within the same religious tree, people can't agree on what they are supposed to mean. How can anyone view something so ambiguous, be it the Quran or the Bible or any other text, as a legitimate source of information or even guidance? Why is it that new religions, such as Scientology, are met with such disgust even though, objectively speaking, they are no more absurd? I mean no disrespect. I simply do not understand.

Usually it is simply the case that one has been born into an environment where believing in deities is the standard. Most people won't go through DNA tests to check whether their parents are indeed their biological parents. In the same way, most people don't need to fact check the existence of their gods to believe in them. And once this belief has been set into place, the information will be catalogued in a way that supports the existence of these deities.

 

[Breathe]

What I am trying to understand, at a very basic level, is how someone can believe in a supernatural deity. There simply is no credible evidence to support the existence of one.

Speaking for myself: life experiences that lead one to believe that there is. Many people doubt and test their beliefs, but later find them validated or find validation elsewhere, or even no validation.

A massive problem, however, is many people can't get past the surface of a text.

Then, it seems to me that tremendous amounts of (for lack of a better word) insanity are constructed around this belief in a mystic being (or beings). There are entire doctrines, entire codes of ethics, entire books that claim to have all the answers, but they are vague and antiquated.

Because they work for people. There's nothing wrong with a scripture being 'antiquated'.

Even within the same religious tree, people can't agree on what they are supposed to mean. How can anyone view something so ambiguous, be it the Quran or the Bible or any other text, as a legitimate source of information or even guidance?

Because they work for people.

Why is it that new religions, such as Scientology, are met with such disgust even though, objectively speaking, they are no more absurd?

I have no problem with many new religious movements; some, however, I find distasteful: I am uncomfortable around people trying to get money for holiness, and I am uncomfortable with people who use their claims to be messengers, Gods, whatever, for selfish reasons; this can apply to any religion.

I mean no disrespect.

If this is true, then perhaps you should phrase things more considerately.

 

[rusra02]

I'll preface this by stating that I am atheistic. However, I have a very religious friend, and I am trying to see things from his perspective. What I am trying to understand, at a very basic level, is how someone can believe in a supernatural deity. There simply is no credible evidence to support the existence of one. Arguments like, "Well, then, where did all of this come from?" don't work because all they do is make the situation even more complicated. What created the creator? Then, it seems to me that tremendous amounts of (for lack of a better word) insanity are constructed around this belief in a mystic being (or beings). There are entire doctrines, entire codes of ethics, entire books that claim to have all the answers, but they are vague and antiquated. Even within the same religious tree, people can't agree on what they are supposed to mean. How can anyone view something so ambiguous, be it the Quran or the Bible or any other text, as a legitimate source of information or even guidance? Why is it that new religions, such as Scientology, are met with such disgust even though, objectively speaking, they are no more absurd? I mean no disrespect. I simply do not understand.

No credible evidence to support the existence of God? An explorer finding ancient ruins in the jungle rightly concludes intelligent persons created these structures. The Bible reasons this way: " because what may be known about God is manifest among them, for God made it manifest to them. For his invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship." (Romans 1:19,20) The fact that we cannot fully grasp concepts such as a Creator that has always existed, should not cause us to reject the evidence we are eyewitnesses to, IMO. I do understand your confusion. The many false religions and their myths have caused many to give up in their search for the truth. I find the Bible to be a convincing and accurate source of information about our Creator, his purposes, and proof of his existence and love for us. The evidence for God is there for those searching for it.

 

[Wondering1701]

So, basically, the impression I'm getting is that you believe what you believe because you believe it. If a belief in a god is something that is just out there in the ether for people to feel, then why is there so much disagreement? With so many different religions out there, even if there is a supernatural power, almost everybody has to be wrong.

 

[Wondering1701]

If this is true, then perhaps you should phrase things more considerately.

There is a difference between being blunt and being inconsiderate. Frank questions will get frank responses.

 

[Breathe]

There is a difference between being blunt and being inconsiderate. Frank questions will get frank responses.

There is a line, and not everyone is going to answer if you don't ask it nicely.

 

[Windwalker]

With so many different religions out there, even if there is a supernatural power, almost everybody has to be wrong.

Or you're wrong in the way you ask the question itself.

 

[Breathe]

If a belief in a god is something that is just out there in the ether for people to feel, then why is there so much disagreement? With so many different religions out there, even if there is a supernatural power, almost everybody has to be wrong.

Not necessarily; exclusivism is only one possibility.

Many people take the religions as different expressions of the same thing, and as different manifestations of the same divine Source, because humans are a varied species and it is ultimately part of God's that we can be given a choice of ways, and/or because humans attempt to relate to the Divine in ways they know, using language, folklore, myths, history, and more from their own places of origin. (I'm the latter.)

Personally, I'm at home in a gurdwārā, mandir, mosque, church, (I'd imagine a synagogue, but there isn't one in my city so I've yet the pleasure of visiting one -- here's to hoping!) or in nature; I see them as from the same author.

 

[fallingblood]

Not necessarily; exclusivism is only one possibility.

Many people take the religions as different expressions of the same thing, and as different manifestations of the same divine Source, because humans are a varied species and it is ultimately part of God's that we can be given a choice of ways, and/or because humans attempt to relate to the Divine in ways they know, using language, folklore, myths, history, and more from their own places of origin. (I'm the latter.)

Personally, I'm at home in a gurdwārā, mandir, mosque, church, (I'd imagine a synagogue, but there isn't one in my city so I've yet the pleasure of visiting one -- here's to hoping!) or in nature; I see them as from the same author.

I fully agree with this. Couldn't have said it better.

 

[Draka]

So, basically, the impression I'm getting is that you believe what you believe because you believe it. If a belief in a god is something that is just out there in the ether for people to feel, then why is there so much disagreement? With so many different religions out there, even if there is a supernatural power, almost everybody has to be wrong.

Did you read my previous post?

It's not that we believe because we believe. People believe because they've been given cause to believe. Some experience/s in their lives have driven towards something they cannot deny. When shown evidence of something time and time again does it not make it hard for you to deny that that something exists?

As for disagreement as to the specifics of what that something entails, I mentioned that as well, though perhaps I must go more into detail. It's not that "almost everybody has to be wrong", not really, but everyone can most certainly have at least a glimpse of truth. How much truth they have largely varies and may be dependent on many things. Since people are different, see the world through different lens, different cultures, different societies, different values, even our different personalities and intellects affect how we perceive and interpret what we see and experience, it is no wonder then that spiritual experiences not only vary, but the interpretations of those experiences vary widely as well. This is why we have such a wide variety of religious and spiritual paths in the world.

People from certain cultures are more likely to interpret things a certain way or see things in a certain light with certain biases. Doesn't make them wrong, just means our human limitations are what they are when trying to understand the realms that overlay our physical existence. We do our best. We may not be exact in what we believe we know, but we can have the best ideas we can and try to live accordingly to what we believe is right.