What is Faith?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I caught my error in reasoning after I read your entire sentence.

No, I caught it. It's the first logical error you have ever acknowledged making in my memory, and of course you phrased in term of your critical thinking skills. You missed a chance to say explicitly some version of, "You were right, I was wrong."

I suggest you read my edited post.

You want me to find your edited post, find your unedited post above my reply to it, look at them side by side word by word, and try to suss out what you changed? How about you do that if you want me to consider your changes.

There's software that will compare two documents and identify all of the additions, deletions and changes. I think attorneys use it to confirm that a signed document like a will or contract wasn't changed in any way not known to all involved parties before signing: How to compare two Word documents to see any differences between them

Do you have doubts about your critical thinking abilities?

I have at least philosophical doubt about everything including that there is a world outside of my conscious experience, so yes. And I no doubt make mistakes. Please feel free to identify any you might encounter as I do for you.

It is logical to have faith in what there is good evidence for, especially when there is no proof.

It was wrong the last time you posted it for reasons given, and it's still wrong now for the same reasons. Also, you don't have good evidence for your religious beliefs. You have about the worst evidence there is.

Correction: Your reason tells me not to believe what believe. I am not going to apply your reason since I think it is faulty.

There is no your reasoning and my reasoning, just valid reasoning.

Are you going to say that 'being doubtful and skeptical about the existence of God is both healthy and reasonable' is true because millions of people agree with that statement? If that is what you are claiming it is ad populum.

That millions of atheists agree with you is a fact, but it is also a fact that many, many more millions of believers agree with me. So what does that prove?

I ever say all opinions are equal?

You wrote, "Your reason tells me not to believe what believe. I am not going to apply your reason since I think it is faulty." You think that your reasoning is as valid as fallacy-free reasoning. That's what, "That's just your opinion" means, why you say it, and how you hope it is understood.

Too bad that you have boxed yourself in and can't be reached any more.

This mirroring is an odd habit of yours. You're the faith-based thinker, and I'm the critical thinker and empiricist. The moderator in the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye on whether creationism is a viable scientific pursuit asked, “What would change your minds?” Scientist Bill Nye answered, “Evidence.” Young Earth Creationist Ken Ham answered, “Nothing. I'm a Christian.” Elsewhere, Ham stated, “By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."

You play the part of Ham to my Nye. Ham is locked in. There is no way for him to discover where he is wrong. That's what I meant by boxed in - no way out of that box. Nye just needs to see the evidence.

Strong critical thinkers demonstrate the following characteristics:​

• inquisitiveness with regard to a wide range of issues
• concern to become and remain well-informed
• attentive to opportunities to use critical thinking
• self-confidence in one’s own abilities to reason
• open-mindedness regarding divergent world views
• flexibility in considering alternatives and opinions
• alertness to likely future events in order to anticipate their consequences
• understanding of the opinions of other people
• fair-mindedness in appraising reasoning
• honesty in facing one’s own biases, prejudices, stereotypes, or egocentric tendencies
• prudence in suspending, making or altering judgments
• willingness to reconsider and revise views where honest reflection suggests that change is warranted

I doubt that you know what open-mindedness is (hint: look at the Nye and Ham stuff again). You equate rejection of your errors as inflexibility or lack of fair-mindedness, and when have you ever provided anything that warrants a change of opinion. That follows rebuttal. You don't do that. You just dissent and follow it with words that don't rebut. Do you know what that word means? I don't think you do.

And not surprisingly, your list leaves out the chief qualities of critical thought - what it can do and what distinguishes it from "just your opinion."

 

[Trailblazer]

No, I caught it. It's the first logical error you have ever acknowledged making in my memory, and of course you phrased in term of your critical thinking skills. You missed a chance to say explicitly some version of, "You were right, I was wrong."

No, you did not catch it for me, because I had edited my post before I read your post.
I had made an error but when I looked at the your post in context, I immediately realized it and corrected my post.

No, you were not right and I was wrong, since I did not even have to read what you said in your post, since I had already corrected my post.

 

[Trailblazer]

You want me to find your edited post, find your unedited post above my reply to it, look at them side by side word by word, and try to suss out what you changed? How about you do that if you want me to consider your changes.

I don't want you do do anything, I only suggested you look at the edited post.
You don't need to compare my edited post with what I wrote before I edited my post.

The point is that I caught my error before you pointed it out.

Evidence is everything, and in this case I have verifiable evidence.
Now, you tell me how I could have read your post and used what you said in your post to correct my post before you posted your post.

Trailblazer
#530
Last edited: Today at 11:24 AM

It Aint Necessarily So
#533
Today at 11:31 AM

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

No, you did not catch it for me, because I had edited my post before I read your post. I had made an error but when I looked at the your post in context, I immediately realized it and corrected my post.

Are you claiming that you recognized your error before you read my comment, corrected the error (I presume that's what you mean by editing as opposed to correcting a spelling or punctuation error), then looked at my post and realized your error and corrected your post?

And yes, I was right and you wrong, which is why you called it your error. Why is admitting that such an obstacle to you? Have I made it impossible for you to admit error now? If so, ask yourself what that says about your pride and ego.

tell me how I could have read your post and used what you said in your post to correct my post before you posted your post.

Trailblazer
#530
Last edited: Today at 11:24 AM

It Aint Necessarily So
#533
Today at 11:31 AM

Post #530: Last edited: Today at 1:24 PM

How do you explain that?

Plus, you removed the content without indicated so with your edit:

What fallacy is contradicting yourself? Self-contradiction or self-contradictory can refer to: Auto-antonym, a word with multiple meanings of which one is the reverse of another. Formal fallacy, a pattern of reasoning rendered invalid by a flaw in its logical structure.

Self-contradiction - Wikipedia​

​

 

[Trailblazer]

It was wrong the last time you posted it for reasons given, and it's still wrong now for the same reasons. Also, you don't have good evidence for your religious beliefs. You have about the worst evidence there is.

Whether or not I have good evidence or not is only a personal opinion yet you assert it as if it was a fact. What falllacy is that?

What is "bald assertion?" Well the name says it all, doesn't it? It's stating something without backing it up.
Logical Fallacy Lesson 4: Bald Assertion | Rational Response Squad

I learned that fallacy years ago from an atheist who kep t making bald assertions. The ateits have taught me most of what I know about fallacies, since they commit so many of them.

There is no your reasoning and my reasoning, just valid reasoning.

That's right. That is why I am not going to apply your reasoning, because it is not valid.

You wrote, "Your reason tells me not to believe what believe. I am not going to apply your reason since I think it is faulty." You think that your reasoning is as valid as fallacy-free reasoning.

You have no fallacy-free reasoning.

This mirroring is an odd habit of yours. You're the faith-based thinker, and I'm the critical thinker and empiricist.

The mirroring happens because you continually project what you are doing onto me.
I am not a faith-based thinker, I am a believer who uses critical thinking.

I doubt that you know what open-mindedness is (hint: look at the Nye and Ham stuff again). You equate rejection of your errors as inflexibility or lack of fair-mindedness, and when have you ever provided anything that warrants a change of opinion. That follows rebuttal. You don't do that. You just dissent and follow it with words that don't rebut. Do you know what that word means? I don't think you do.

You just did it again, you projected what you do onto me and accused me of doing it. I doubt that you know what open-mindedness is. Your mind is shut as tight as a steel trap.

Psychology is my field, one I studied a lot longer than religion.

Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.[1] For example, a person who is habitually rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude. It incorporates blame shifting.

Psychological projection - Wikipedia

You equate rejection of your errors as inflexibility or lack of fair-mindedness, and when have you ever provided anything that warrants a change of opinion. That follows rebuttal. You don't do that. You just dissent and follow it with words that don't rebut. Do you know what that word means? I don't think you do.

What I see is inflexibility or lack of fair-mindedness, and it has nothing to do with your pointing out my errors.

More projection. When have you ever provided anything that warrants a change of opinion? That follows rebuttal. You don't do that. You just dissent and follow it with words that don't rebut.

And not surprisingly, your list leaves out the chief qualities of critical thought - what it can do and what distinguishes it from "just your opinion."

It is not my list. Feel free to add to it if you want to.

It is just your opinion that I have no good evidence for God and it is just my opinion that I do have good evidence for God.
The reason these are just opinions is because they cannot be proven as facts.

Fact
something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information:
fact

Fact: a thing that is known or proved to be true.
what is a fact - Google Search

The reason neither one of our opinions can be proven as facts is because it can never be proven or disproven that God exists and sends Messengers.

-- If God does not exist and send Messengers, then your opinion is correct.
-- If God does exist and sends Messengers, then my opinion is correct.

But since this can never be proven or disproven that God exists and sends Messengers, asserting that either opinion is true would be an argument from ignorance. That is why I never assert that God exists and sends Messengers, I only say I believe that, because it would be a logical error to assert it.

Argument from ignorance asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

1. true
2. false
3. unknown between true or false
4. being unknowable (among the first three).[1]

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

 

[Trailblazer]

Are you claiming that you recognized your error before you read my comment, corrected the error (I presume that's what you mean by editing as opposed to correcting a spelling or punctuation error), then looked at my post and realized your error and corrected your post?

No, I am claiming that I recognized my error before I read your comment, and I had corrected my error before I read your post.
Then looked at your post noticed that you had quoted my post as it looked before I corrected it.
All humans make errors, and I explained why I made that one, since I grabbed what you said and read it out of context.

And yes, I was right and you wrong, which is why you called it your error. Why is admitting that such an obstacle to you? Have I made it impossible for you to admit error now? If so, ask yourself what that says about your pride and ego.

I was wrong initially, but I was right after I corrected my error, which was before you pointed it out in your post.

Post #530: Last edited: Today at 1:24 PM

How do you explain that?

What is Faith?

Last edited: Today at 11:24 AM

How do you explain that?

And yes, I was right and you were wrong because my post was not edited at 1:24 PM., it was edited at 11:24 AM, before I read your post.
Why is admitting that such an obstacle to you? Have I made it impossible for you to admit error now? If so, ask yourself what that says about your pride and ego.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I just explained what happened to @muhammad_isa in this post: #548

 

[muhammad_isa]

What is Faith?

Last edited: Today at 11:24 AM

How do you explain that?

I get "Last edited: Today at 7:24 PM"
..but then I'm in BST [ British Summer Time, GMT+1 ]

 

[Trailblazer]

I get "Last edited: Today at 7:24 PM"
..but then I'm in BST [ British Summer Time, GMT+1 ]

Your time is 8 hours ahead of my time.
I edited that post at 11:24 AM PST (the time zone where I live), and that is why it says 11:24 AM on my computer.

@It Aint Necessarily So posted his post at 11:31 AM PST, and that is what it says on my computer right now.

What is Faith?

You don't get when you do that as doing philosophy. And it has nothing to do with real as such. It applies to a lot of words like evidence, truth, proof, rational, and so on. Let me remind you. I start with three assumptions. They're assumptions because in each case I can't demonstrate their...

www.religiousforums.com

Since the time zone where @It Aint Necessarily So lives is different from my time zone, that is probably why he saw a different time on his computer. The point is that I know that I edited my post before I read his post and do not lie, but I am as much as being called a liar just so he can save face. However, the evidence is all there for anyone who cares to look at it.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Since the time zone where @It Aint Necessarily So lives is different from my time zone, that is probably why he saw a different time on his computer. The point is that I know that I edited my post before I read his post and do not lie, but I am as much as being called a liar just so he can save face. However, the evidence is all there for anyone who cares to look at it.

Correct .. 7 minutes later.

 

[Trailblazer]

Correct .. 7 minutes later.

As the old saying goes, he has bought the farm.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Your time is 8 hours ahead of my time.
I edited that post at 11:24 AM PST (the time zone where I live), and that is why it says 11:24 AM on my computer.

I'm in Central Standard Time, and I see the time shown under "Today at" as follows:

#530 - Today at 12:33 PM

#533 - Today at 1:31 PM

 

[osgart]

But as I said in my OP, no amount of evidence, no matter how strong, is going to serve as proof of God unless it is verifiable evidence.
The only way everyone could know God exists with 100% certainty is if God showed up on earth, which is impossible for reasons I gave. Some people believe in God with 100% certainty because they claim to have experienced God, but that experience is only useful for them.

The upshot is that there is no way to believe in God without faith since we can never have proof that God exists.

To me the maddening thing is that everyone has different meanings for the word faith.

Another thing is if God, why would God need our dependency upon God. I would hope God would desire independency. I can't see a being such as God desiring lots of people to cling to God's self.

So I wonder if faith is dependency, or conforming to agreement with God? If it's dependency then we are still in the crib like babies.

What about God would make me freer and more independent? What should we recognize about God that we can thankfully appreciate such a being in fullness?

Faith first is a blind jump. Faith after knowing God would be a true relationship.

What causes faith but knowledge and understanding.

No one ever takes a blind jump. Convincement is the crux of it.

On the flip side there are people who don't see spiritual realities with eyes of understanding, they only see with eyes of tangible evidence. Such people can be very honest and upright and simply not spiritual about it. So within that box they see a ton of knowledge about all they think there is.

Now if they truly live in a box, and advance spiritually, I see that they can very well do that.
If there is a God there's nothing to condemn about that.

i do have a God standard. And my standard is that there are reasons for everything, and to each according to their ability, and that there must be spiritually evident things before I commit to faith.

my roadblock to God is things like WW2, and the matters of atrocities, and less than ideal nature suitable for life.

i don't see any God worthy of worship if God condemns those who have roadblocks and standards preventing them from relationship with God. Now I know your religion has no such condemnation, but I grew up in two religions professing a literal hell and heaven for those who are not convinced. So I developed standards of fairness against such Gods.

 

[blü 2]

I'll let you know sometime soon since I am going to try to contact my late husband. Years ago, we agreed that the surviving spouse would try to contact the other one and we agreed on what the secret question would be. Neither one of us has ever told anyone what that is so there is no way the psychic medium could know that. Unfortunately, I am not sure if he remembers now since that was years ago, but there are other ways of knowing. The key is not to give any information to the psychic medium, but rather just wait for the communication to come through from the other side. There are unique things about everyone's situation that nobody else would ever know about.

Good hunting!

 

[blü 2]

Yeah, but I am the world as a part of the world.

You're not complaining, are you?

So how does causality work in a world external to you in regards to you.

In accordance with the rules of physics, it appears. While they're always a work in progress, they're not doing a bad job in advancing our knowledge, our technology, our medical abilities, our insights into biology and so on.

How do what is out there get into you in thoughts, if it is a world external to you.

Through my assumptions ─ that world external to me exists, that my senses are capable of informing me of that world and that I can usefully reason about it.

So what world are you in?

As far as you're concerned, I'm part of the world external to you. As far as I'm concerned, you're part of the world external to me. Thus the totality consists of a physical reality with all these individual biological observers in it, each part of it but each having a self that contains the individual awareness and does the observing.

So no, reason is not a valid tool, because you can't even understand that you are in the world as a part of it.

You may freely speak for yourself on that, but you're not speaking for me. See above.

 

[Trailblazer]

I find it hard to believe that the people that call themselves Baha'is, that is, people who stand for peace and unity, can be so divisive. They don't build bridges.

I could not help but think of you when @Truthseeker sent me this video. You always say that the Baha'is are not doing anything to build unity, and I was beginning to wonder about that myself, until he sent me this video. It was so touching that it made me cry.

 

[Trailblazer]

To me the maddening thing is that everyone has different meanings for the word faith.

That doesn't bother me because I just go with what faith means to me and sometimes that varies.

Another thing is if God, why would God need our dependency upon God. I would hope God would desire independency. I can't see a being such as God desiring lots of people to cling to God's self.

I think I have told you this before but it warrants reiteration since it is so important.
God does not need our faith since God has no needs at all because God is Self-Sufficient and independent of His creatures.
God needs nothing from humans, including our worship.

“This is the changeless Faith of God, eternal in the past, eternal in the future. Let him that seeketh, attain it; and as to him that hath refused to seek it—verily, God is Self-Sufficient, above any need of His creatures.” Gleanings, p. 136

“Regard thou the one true God as One Who is apart from, and immeasurably exalted above, all created things. The whole universe reflecteth His glory, while He is Himself independent of, and transcendeth His creatures.” Gleanings, p. 166

God does not demand our faith or our worship, God enjoins us to have faith and to worship Him, and that is only for our own benefit, not for God’s benefit. Everything we receive from God through the Messengers is for our benefit, not for God's benefit, since God needs nothing for Himself.

“Consider the mercy of God and His gifts. He enjoineth upon you that which shall profit you, though He Himself can well dispense with all creatures.” Gleanings, p. 140

“The one true God, exalted be His glory, hath wished nothing for Himself. The allegiance of mankind profiteth Him not, neither doth its perversity harm Him. The Bird of the Realm of Utterance voiceth continually this call: “All things have I willed for thee, and thee, too, for thine own sake.” Gleanings, p. 260

So I wonder if faith is dependency, or conforming to agreement with God? If it's dependency then we are still in the crib like babies.

What about God would make me freer and more independent? What should we recognize about God that we can thankfully appreciate such a being in fullness?

Faith does not have to be dependency. We might depend upon God but we also have to depend upon ourselves and other people, and God wants us to do that.

Nonbelievers think they are freer because they do not believe in God but the only way they might be freer is because they would feel no obligation to follow the laws of God. But is it good for their welfare to be free of God's laws, if those laws are for their own benefit?

Faith first is a blind jump. Faith after knowing God would be a true relationship.

We can only know God as much as God allows us to know Him and it is God who sets the parameters, not us.
All we can know about God comes through the Messengers of God, who are Manifestations of God.
The only way we can relate to God is through the Messengers, who manifest God's attributes in the flesh.

What causes faith but knowledge and understanding.

No one ever takes a blind jump. Convincement is the crux of it.

I don't think anyone should jump into faith blind. Faith should be evidence so we can understand where the faith is derived from.
Yes, you do have to be convinced and that is the crux of it.

On the flip side there are people who don't see spiritual realities with eyes of understanding, they only see with eyes of tangible evidence. Such people can be very honest and upright and simply not spiritual about it. So within that box they see a ton of knowledge about all they think there is.

That's true and I don't fault them for this. We all see things differently since we are unique individuals.

Now if they truly live in a box, and advance spiritually, I see that they can very well do that.
If there is a God there's nothing to condemn about that.

Since there is no way to prove there is a God we have to believe on the evidence or we do not believe at all.

i do have a God standard. And my standard is that there are reasons for everything, and to each according to their ability, and that there must be spiritually evident things before I commit to faith.

There is nothing wrong with that standard. Why would you believe it it was not spiritually evident to you?

my roadblock to God is things like WW2, and the matters of atrocities, and less than ideal nature suitable for life.

I used to have a similar roadblock but it did not completely block the road since I still believed in God. I just did not like the suffering I saw in the world so I did not believe God was loving. I still question that but it is not a complete roadblock, and it matters more to me that I am loving than believing that God is loving, since it is just a belief.

I do not blame the atrocities on God, I blame humans for those atrocities. What I hold God responsible for is creating a world in which humans and animals will suffer. However, I am slowing making peace with that as I come to further understandings. It is a lifetime journey to understanding.

i don't see any God worthy of worship if God condemns those who have roadblocks and standards preventing them from relationship with God. Now I know your religion has no such condemnation, but I grew up in two religions professing a literal hell and heaven for those who are not convinced. So I developed standards of fairness against such Gods.

I do not believe that God condemns anyone, I think that is a misconception of who God is. God is al-knowing so God knows why some people cannot believe and takes the reasons into consideration. All God requires is that we make a sincere effort and from what I know about you you have met that requirement.

I can understand why you feel as you do having been raised a Christian. I was fortunate because I never had that experience, so it was much easier for me to embrace my religion and view God objectively since I had no negative associations with God or religion.

 

[PureX]

I don't see any correlation. Why is it human to have doubts about everything?

Because we are not omniscient. We cannot know how what we do not know would change what we think we know, if we were to know it.

I have doubts about some things but not about everything.

We can ignore our doubt when it does not appear relevant in the moment. But we should always understand that we can always be wrong. Because we can always be wrong, no matter how fully we choose to ignore our foubt. It would be dishonest to think otherwise.

Aside from God's existence, there are other things I not not doubt. I never doubted my late husband.
I had evidence that my husband would remain faithful just as I have evidence that God exists.
Why should God be any different than anything else in life that we do not doubt?

What you chose not to doubt is not relevant to the point I am making. We can all be wrong about anything at any time. That is the truth of the human condition (because we are not omniscient). That we are not always wrong does not mean that we could not be wrong this time and about this thing.

I do not reject logic. It is logical to have faith in what there is evidence for and there is no logical reason to doubt it if the evidence is good.
Humans don't have to be omniscient to have faith. I have no idea what my fate will be, only God knows my fate.

Faith is not a lack of doubt. Faith is action predicated on hope in the face of our uncertainty. Faith does not ignore or deny doubt. It accepts doubt and chooses a reasonable course of action to get through it.

I fully agree, and that is in the Baha'i Writings.

“Consider that the worst of qualities and most odious of attributes, which is the foundation of all evil, is lying. No worse or more blameworthy quality than this can be imagined to exist; it is the destroyer of all human perfections, and the cause of innumerable vices. There is no worse characteristic than this; it is the foundation of all evils.” Bahá’í World Faith, p. 321

That is why I never lie. I'd be lying if I said I have doubt that God exists, since I have no doubt.

You should be skeptical of this, because you could be wrong. As a human being, you can always be wrong. Especially about things as nebulous as the idea of God. Skepticism is logical and appropriate. Doubt is acceptable. And faith is the way through it.

 

[osgart]

That doesn't bother me because I just go with what faith means to me and sometimes that varies.

I think I have told you this before but it warrants reiteration since it is so important.
God does not need our faith since God has no needs at all because God is Self-Sufficient and independent of His creatures.
God needs nothing from humans, including our worship.

“This is the changeless Faith of God, eternal in the past, eternal in the future. Let him that seeketh, attain it; and as to him that hath refused to seek it—verily, God is Self-Sufficient, above any need of His creatures.” Gleanings, p. 136

“Regard thou the one true God as One Who is apart from, and immeasurably exalted above, all created things. The whole universe reflecteth His glory, while He is Himself independent of, and transcendeth His creatures.” Gleanings, p. 166

God does not demand our faith or our worship, God enjoins us to have faith and to worship Him, and that is only for our own benefit, not for God’s benefit. Everything we receive from God through the Messengers is for our benefit, not for God's benefit, since God needs nothing for Himself.

“Consider the mercy of God and His gifts. He enjoineth upon you that which shall profit you, though He Himself can well dispense with all creatures.” Gleanings, p. 140

“The one true God, exalted be His glory, hath wished nothing for Himself. The allegiance of mankind profiteth Him not, neither doth its perversity harm Him. The Bird of the Realm of Utterance voiceth continually this call: “All things have I willed for thee, and thee, too, for thine own sake.” Gleanings, p. 260

Faith does not have to be dependency. We might depend upon God but we also have to depend upon ourselves and other people, and God wants us to do that.

Nonbelievers think they are freer because they do not believe in God but the only way they might be freer is because they would feel no obligation to follow the laws of God. But is it good for their welfare to be free of God's laws, if those laws are for their own benefit?

We can only know God as much as God allows us to know Him and it is God who sets the parameters, not us.
All we can know about God comes through the Messengers of God, who are Manifestations of God.
The only way we can relate to God is through the Messengers, who manifest God's attributes in the flesh.

I don't think anyone should jump into faith blind. Faith should be evidence so we can understand where the faith is derived from.
Yes, you do have to be convinced and that is the crux of it.

That's true and I don't fault them for this. We all see things differently since we are unique individuals.

Since there is no way to prove there is a God we have to believe on the evidence or we do not believe at all.

There is nothing wrong with that standard. Why would you believe it it was not spiritually evident to you?

If one falsehood can be found in any holy book then the whole thing is nothing beyond human invention.

I look at qualities such as virtues, and I can attribute moral perfection to be blameless and faultless as well as inerrant in the application of virtues. God is the definition of being that fits perfectly with those ideas. However that's not enough to reveal God as fact.

I can also attribute intelligence to the creation of humanity and the other animals. Known by the abstract qualities that they possess. But that intelligence is limited, not without errors, and creates savage environments of hunter/prey. It's not worthy of a God with virtues.

So there's nothing out there that equates to an authoritatively moral being or entity. There's no source of inerrancy that I can look to to effect any change in my life other than the qualities of character called the virtues. No one is morally perfect, and each of us must use judgment the best we can when faced with ethical challenges where an absolutely right choice doesn't exist.

So I don't see anything that differentiates God from imagination. Unless of course God is not responsible for our existence, and has far more important things to do than govern lives on earth. That would make God far less powerful than omniscient.

So I'm quite at peace being atheist about gods. Yet logically I expect an mind reality that is the eternal source to the creation of life. As that follows for me with what I can observe.

I used to have a similar roadblock but it did not completely block the road since I still believed in God. I just did not like the suffering I saw in the world so I did not believe God was loving. I still question that but it is not a complete roadblock, and it matters more to me that I am loving than believing that God is loving, since it is just a belief.

I do not blame the atrocities on God, I blame humans for those atrocities. What I hold God responsible for is creating a world in which humans and animals will suffer. However, I am slowing making peace with that as I come to further understandings. It is a lifetime journey to understanding.

I do not believe that God condemns anyone, I think that is a misconception of who God is. God is al-knowing so God knows why some people cannot believe and takes the reasons into consideration. All God requires is that we make a sincere effort and from what I know about you you have met that requirement.

I can understand why you feel as you do having been raised a Christian. I was fortunate because I never had that experience, so it was much easier for me to embrace my religion and view God objectively since I had no negative associations with God or religion.

 

[muhammad_isa]

If one falsehood can be found in any holy book then the whole thing is nothing beyond human invention..

That is illogical.
i.e. one mistake on the writing of a human being = 'no god'

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That is illogical.
i.e. one mistake on the writing of a human being = 'no god'

No, it is a bit more difficult than that.

The Holy Book is from God.
God makes no mistakes.
Therefore there are no mistakes in the Holy Book.

The moment you admit that a Holy Book is actual written by humans and it means because of this it can have mistakes, you open up a can of worms of if that which is written is a mistake or not.