There is no evidence for God, so why do you believe?

[christos]

I’ve been reading through a couple of threads, and I see that it is said that there is no evidence for a god, it’s an unfalsifiable idea. We all agree on this? If you don’t, care to explain the evidence there is for god?
I’m in agreement. I used to believe my personal experiences to be subjective evidence for god, but I know now that’s not the case. I am not a theist anymore because I recognize I was a Christian thanks almost completely to my environment. That’s why I believed. I was brought up in it. Wasn’t because of any proof or anything,
So, theists, why do you believe? Is it mainly because of your environment and geographical location? There is no proof for god (right?), so what logically keeps you believing? Or is logic not supposed to be a factor when it comes to faith? Is it too jarring, the idea of leaving the comfort that religion and belief in a god brings?
I am curious about personal evaluations on why you believe. It can’t be because of logic, as there is no proof of god, right?

I believe in God because of;



error correcting codes in nature

Higher dimensional topology of the brain, it exists in higher than atleast 4 dimensions (higher dimensional sand castles)

NDEs, DMT and Mystical experience, which points to something external to us

Ghosts, spirits et cetera which points to something unknown

The First Cause argument

The universal constant argument

The UVA studies on NDEs and Reincarnation

The Black projects such as Robert Monroes Gateway Experience

Personal experiences with pre cognition, out of body experiences, talking to the dead and seeing what I describe as a “heavenly” realm

And there’s probably a whole load of other reasons for me personally, but I’m way too tired

 

[YoursTrue]

Come to think of it, what evidence would a person need to believe or know there is a God?

 

[YoursTrue]

No, to me it is unknown. I don't consider it true or false. I just believe differently.
You have to learn to consider true, false, unknown.

So if you don't know something, the statements about it could be true or false, right?

 

[Audie]

I believe in God because of;



error correcting codes in nature

Higher dimensional topology of the brain, it exists in higher than atleast 4 dimensions (higher dimensional sand castles)

NDEs, DMT and Mystical experience, which points to something external to us

Ghosts, spirits et cetera which points to something unknown

The First Cause argument

The universal constant argument

The UVA studies on NDEs and Reincarnation

The Black projects such as Robert Monroes Gateway Experience

Personal experiences with pre cognition, out of body experiences, talking to the dead and seeing what I describe as a “heavenly” realm

And there’s probably a whole load of other reasons for me personally, but I’m way too tired

Just say, " Because i feel like it".

Fewer words

 

[Audie]

Come to think of it, what evidence would a person need to believe or know there is a God?

If a god wanted to get noticed we presume its mart enough to figure out how.

No sense trying to do its work for it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The article about the scientist I read about (NY Times) was saying how he realized that there is a cap upon our years based on cells eventually stopping their reproduction or something like that. Interesting. Do I think God can reverse these things? (You guessed it...) But for now, that's what it is. Physically.

Cells only replicate so many times and then that is the end of it. They are not immortal.

To me it isn't a question of what God can do, but what others claim God did.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes -- if not killed in a building collapse or war. For example.

Not sure I follow completely, but a building collapse is often an unpredictable event, while casualties in war happen. We just can't say who it is going to happen to specifically. Sure, people that might live to be 100 can die before then for unexpected reasons. That doesn't change the fact of their winning the genetic lottery and if they reproduce prior to death, can still pass on those genes. But it would take a long time to know if a particular family has the genetics for longevity and when you confirm it, the individuals are usually passed the point of reproduction for the most part.

 

[an anarchist]

Thank you for your opinion -- NOT. What you consider many, many people for many, many years have considered it to be just the opposite. You may think that you have understanding, but I think just the opposite.

Umm, just because people in the past assumed something doesn't mean it is right.

George Washington died due to the ill informed medical practice of bloodletting. We now know that bloodletting is dumb, we don't point to the past and say "Well they believed this way so let's do the same.".

Anarchy = tragedy. Why do you boast about wanting to overthrow the government?

Completely irrelevant to the thread and topic. No need to try to derail the conversation.

You said there is plenty of evidence for God, and now you have referenced people from the past. Can you elaborate on the "evidence"?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The ones (here) that claim to have contact with dead people will say they are sure. That they know. So do you think they are lying about this? By the way, such ones do not claim to "believe" they are speaking with the dead -- they claim to "know" they are.

I don't think they are lying. I don't think they are telling the truth. I don't know.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So if you don't know something, the statements about it could be true or false, right?

Or as such unknown. There are 3 options, not just 2.
Before you start with it can be known, you can ask - can it be known?

 

[Madsaac]

Correct, there is no proof for God and no proof against God.

Depends on what your god can and cannot do?

If you say your god can make a person walk on water, then there is no proof of that and highly unlikely because 99.9% of people know this cannot be done and could not have been done.

So, what does it mean if your god cannot do that even though you have said he can?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Depends what your definition of god is.

If you say god can make a person walk on water, then there is no proof of that and highly unlikely because 99.9% of people know this cannot be done and could not have been done.

Well, yes. I used the unmoved mover from philosophy.

 

[Madsaac]

No, to me it is unknown. I don't consider it true or false. I just believe differently.
You have to learn to consider true, false, unknown.

How do you work out these points of consideration? True, false, unknown.

You said that its unknown if people talk to the dead?

Isn't it much much much more likely that it's false?

So your conclusion should be false but it's unknown? How?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How do you work out these points of consideration? True, false, unknown.

You said that its unknown if people talk to the dead?

Isn't it much much much more likely that it's false?

So your conclusion should be false but it's unknown? How?

Okay, to the base of knowing. In general it is consider that knowledge is a 1st experience that corresponds to what the experience is about (refers to). Hence in some cases independent of the mind.
So if you are looking at a screen and reading this text, then it is knowledge that the screen is there independent of you. I.e. epistemological realism in a sense.
So far so good? Or do you have another point of view?
PS There is more.

 

[Madsaac]

Okay, to the base of knowing. In general it is consider that knowledge is a 1st experience that corresponds to what the experience is about (refers to). Hence in some cases independent of the mind.
So if you are looking at a screen and reading this text, then it is knowledge that the screen is there independent of you. I.e. epistemological realism in a sense.
So far so good? Or do you have another point of view?
PS There is more.

Is this required when you have an opinion on something? Lets look at this example

Can people talk to the dead?

No matter what your level of intelligence is, when you put everything that you know together, it is highly unlikely that people can talk to the dead. Do you agree? Therefore, its a false assumption that people can talk to the dead.

Why do you say, it's an unknown assumption?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Is this required when you have an opinion on something? Lets look at this example

Can people talk to the dead?

No matter what your level of intelligence is, when you put everything that you know together, it is highly unlikely that people can talk to the dead. Do you agree? Therefore, its a false assumption that people can talk to the dead.

Why do you say, it's an unknown assumption?

So do you agree or disagree with the post I made? As far as I can tell you in effect have a different system of knowledge than me. So let us just leave it at that.

 

[Madsaac]

So do you agree or disagree with the post I made? As far as I can tell you in effect have a different system of knowledge than me. So let us just leave it at that.

Okay, but the system I used in the example, makes total sense.

Do you think everyone has the right to make up their own mind between what's correct or not? Purely subjective?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Okay, but the system I used in the example, makes total sense.

Do you think everyone has the right to make up their own mind between what's correct or not? Purely subjective?

No, but you and I have a different understanding of what objective reality in effect means. As for correct or not, that depends on it being objective, intersubjective or subjective. Correct as a methdo is not the same for those 3.

 

[Madsaac]

No, but you and I have a different understanding of what objective reality in effect means. As for correct or not, that depends on it being objective, intersubjective or subjective. Correct as a methdo is not the same for those 3.

Okay, cool, leave it there

 

[Andrew Stephen]

Peace to all,

Thanks for your writings,

Peace always,
Stephen Andrew