What makes religious people convienced that god(s) exist?

[waitasec]

there has been much give and take here regarding the existence or non-extistence of God or a deity of some sort. There has been no mention of the hereafter or an afterlife. Is it reasonable to assume that a belief in God goes hand-in-hand with a belief in an afterlife? Is it reasonable to assume that a non-belief in God goes hand-in-hand with a non-belief in any sort of afterlife? The problem with God is, trying to prove his non-existence (A negative hypothesis) is not possible. The case for God is a little better but not much. The best evidence we have is the creation which lends impetus to the idea of a creator. The problem, though, is that no experiment can be done by science to prove the existence of a creator. Not so the question of an afterlife. 150 plus years of research and experimentation by leading scientists in varied fieldds such as quantum physics , neuroscience and medicine has yielded a mountain of evidence which points toward the fact that death is not the end of us. So the onus then falls on the non-believing materialists to debunk the evidence and explain why it is invalid.

for those who think we are important....in the scheme of things

 

[savagewind]

ok now i see where you are going with this...

why i said what i did was mostly in reaction to the understanding that god can only fulfill because of his love...and the idea of love comes from the idea of jesus as the way the truth and the life...
but i am afraid this will derail the thread...

Whose understanding?

I am of the opinion that curiosity plays a large part in the drama of Heaven vs. World.

When the writer wrote "God is love" we can not assume that God is ONLY love. Right? I don't.

 

[waitasec]

Whose understanding?

those that understand god is love.

I am of the opinion that curiosity plays a large part in the drama of Heaven vs. World.

When the writer wrote "God is love" we can not assume that God is ONLY love. Right? I don't.

i agree...if we label god we ultimately limit god

however, from your original post, i got the opposite impression...

 

[Willamena]

i was thinking the same thing...

It's relevant because whether or not you're the only person in the universe, there is still objectivity and subjectivity, and they still work the same way they always did even when there were other around... and subjectivity doesn't invalidate truth... and they never really equate to each other... and the love you feel is still objective, and you can still be subjective about it all you like... and the issue of experiencing love isn't meant to imply an issue of experiencing god's love...

And it's relevant because the experience of love can still be a valid analogy for an alleged experience of god.

 

[savagewind]

those that understand god is love.


i agree...if we label god we ultimately limit god

however, from your original post, i got the opposite impression...

My relationship (real or imagined) with God is about love. The Jehovah's Witnesses from where I came, their relationship with God is about loyalty. Some people's relationship with God is about power. I believe Jesus' relationship with God is about truth. Israel's relationship with God is about wisdom. Not exclusively, but primarily. It's possible I'm full of *****. Who knows? LOL

 

[waitasec]

It's relevant because whether or not you're the only person in the universe, there is still objectivity and subjectivity,

as the only person objectivity is subjectivity and vice versa

and they still work the same way they always did even when there were other around... and subjectivity doesn't invalidate truth...

only if you are the only person in the universe

and they never really equate to each other... and the love you feel is still objective, and you can still be subjective about it all you like... and the issue of experiencing love isn't meant to imply an issue of experiencing god's love...

And it's relevant because the experience of love can still be a valid analogy for an alleged experience of god.

who says god is love...god?

 

[waitasec]

My relationship (real or imagined) with God is about love. The Jehovah's Witnesses from where I came, their relationship with God is about loyalty. Some people's relationship with God is about power. I believe Jesus' relationship with God is about truth. Israel's relationship with God is about wisdom. Not exclusively, but primarily. It's possible I'm full of *****. Who knows? LOL

:spit:
it's possible we are all full of ****....actually very probable


as long as we can recognize that it's all good

 

[Willamena]

I have never smelled a thing in my life and will never fully understand what smelling something is like, but that I think I understand the general idea of what smelling is.

Why is perfect understanding needed? (and I don't man about smelling, but about religious experiences )

It's not a matter of "perfect understanding." Your understanding isn't imperfect. It's just that it's an understanding of people's descriptions of smelling, and not an understanding of "the experience of smelling."

 

[Willamena]

who says god is love...

:slap: No one on this thread.

 

[waitasec]

:slap: No one on this thread.

ouch...
but you brought it up...

 

[waitasec]

ok ok ok
i see what you mean Willamena...
please spare me another slap

 

[Orias]

As I tried to explain earlier (http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3024746-post20.html) he will probably not fully understand, but maybe he will get the general picture.

And yes to som extend we are able to 'experiencing' without experincing.
Imagine someone telling you about being chased by a tiger.
Now, personally I have never been chased by a tiger so I have no idea what it is really like to be chased by a tiger. But if the person telling the story tells the story well I might understand some of what it was like. Understand how scared he was and how relieved he felt when he managed to get to safety.
I will have shares in his experience without actually having had the experience he did.

I agree, somewhat.

But experience speaks for itself, not necessarily the stories told. A general understanding comes with a relative experience.

You and I may not know what its like to be chased by a tiger, but we may know what its like to break our leg. So from the experience of having our broken leg, which is painful, its also sensible to assume that if the tiger caught us it would be painful as well.

But there is saying that goes, "In order to understand Satanism, you have to be a Satanist". Theres always more too it, and it a partial understanding of something isn't really an understanding, its an assumption, a half of an experience.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree, somewhat.

But experience speaks for itself, not necessarily the stories told. A general understanding comes with a relative experience.

You and I may not know what its like to be chased by a tiger, but we may know what its like to break our leg. So from the experience of having our broken leg, which is painful, its also sensible to assume that if the tiger caught us it would be painful as well.

But you don't need any of this to evaluate whether the claim is true. If someone comes to you and says "I was just chased by a tiger", you don't need to know the fear of being chased by a tiger to go out and look for tiger tracks.

... and if you respond to the person by saying "I just checked where you said you were chased by the tiger. I saw your footprints through the mud, but no tiger tracks. I don't think you were actually chased by a tiger", it wouldn't be a valid objection for the person to say "you can't say that! You don't know what it feels like to be chased by a tiger!"

But there is saying that goes, "In order to understand Satanism, you have to be a Satanist". Theres always more too it, and it a partial understanding of something isn't really an understanding, its an assumption, a half of an experience.

You're putting the cart before the horse. Your feelings that you attribute to Satan don't speak to the truth of Satanism. We have to first establish that Satan (or God, or magic pixies, or whatever) actually exist before we can talk about these sorts of effects.

 

[Orias]

But you don't need any of this to evaluate whether the claim is true. If someone comes to you and says "I was just chased by a tiger", you don't need to know the fear of being chased by a tiger to go out and look for tiger tracks.

Sure you do, would you run the same direction if you did not fear the tiger?

What exactly is needed, to evaluate the claim of a truth?

... and if you respond to the person by saying "I just checked where you said you were chased by the tiger. I saw your footprints through the mud, but no tiger tracks. I don't think you were actually chased by a tiger", it wouldn't be a valid objection for the person to say "you can't say that! You don't know what it feels like to be chased by a tiger!"

Well I wouldn't say that. But I'll roll with your example anyways. If a person did go back and find no tracks maybe it rained, or maybe the person was so overcome with fear they had no sense of where they were actually going, or it never happened.

And "you don't know what it feels like to be chased by a tiger!" can be also be compared to someone who's not a fighter criticizing a fighter for not listening to his coach, which is why he lost the fight. From the fighters perspective, you can't always do what the coach says, and the coach may not always be aware of both fighters capability in the moment. If you haven't experienced it, how could you know what to do, and how would you describe it?

This isn't confusing is it? Especially if you take into perspective the extremely subjective interpretation of judgement and what the best decision is and how it applies to an orthodox evaluation of whatever truth is attempting to be described.

You're putting the cart before the horse. Your feelings that you attribute to Satan don't speak to the truth of Satanism.

Well the thing about Satanism is that the feelings do directly speak to the truth of Satanism, and the attitude behind it.

We have to first establish that Satan (or God, or magic pixies, or whatever) actually exist before we can talk about these sorts of effects.

Well Satanism isn't based off the existence of Satan, most Satanists are actually non theistic. And some people use the meaning of words to describe their belief, instead of believing in them as a separate and "theistical" entity. But basically, to sum up the only apparent worthy quotes in my first post, the most common sensible equation is 2+2=4 (or 1+1=2, what have you), so it must be obvious to some that before our fathers father, there their fathers father, and so.

Hope this helps.

 

[lunakilo]

nope.

i feel LOVE is Y...is a subjective statement
lets talk about Y?
love is blind
love is tough
love is mercy etc... all are subjective statements

so god is Y is a subjective statement
what convinces someone that their subjective statements are true is a matter of desire for it to be so.



i was thinking the same thing...

But with only one person in the universe the destinction between subjective and objective is silly.

 

[Orias]

Unless its realized that subjective is objectively viewed, and that objective is subjectively reliant.

 

[lunakilo]

I am of the opinion that curiosity plays a large part in the drama of Heaven vs. World.

Curiosity has gone to Mars

 

[lunakilo]

It's not a matter of "perfect understanding." Your understanding isn't imperfect. It's just that it's an understanding of people's descriptions of smelling, and not an understanding of "the experience of smelling."

Yes, but imperfect understanding is still better than no understanding at all as far as I see it.
When people describe "the experience of smelling" to me then I only partially understand what the experience is like, but my understanding of "the experience of smelling" is still a lot better than it would be if people just said "well, smelling is a personal thing, you have to try i to understand."

 

[lunakilo]

I agree, somewhat.

But experience speaks for itself, not necessarily the stories told. A general understanding comes with a relative experience.

You and I may not know what its like to be chased by a tiger, but we may know what its like to break our leg. So from the experience of having our broken leg, which is painful, its also sensible to assume that if the tiger caught us it would be painful as well.

But there is saying that goes, "In order to understand Satanism, you have to be a Satanist". Theres always more too it, and it a partial understanding of something isn't really an understanding, its an assumption, a half of an experience.

So are you arguing that if I know I will never know what smelling is like I should not even try to understand?
Or if I will never know what having an experince involving a god I should not even try to understand what made these experiences so conviencing to the people who (believe to have) had them?

 

[lunakilo]

You're putting the cart before the horse. Your feelings that you attribute to Satan don't speak to the truth of Satanism. We have to first establish that Satan (or God, or magic pixies, or whatever) actually exist before we can talk about these sorts of effects.

Not if we stick to the original question.
You don't need to establish that a deity exists to discuss the experiences which have convienced the people who believe that deity exists of its exisetence.