What's Your Reason for Believing God Exists?

[Magical Wand]

I’ll be glad to discuss this tomorrow, when I get the time.

Great!

 

[ratiocinator]

I experience the cosmos, ergo, something created it.

I can see no reason why that follows. It also looks rather like the start of an infinite regress.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

So, my question is why do you think non-believers in Shiva would reject the evidence?

Because atheists, the ones who debate at least, have often made up their mind already to consider the supernatural an outrageous claim, and as a result, set the barrier required for proof and evidence so high for it, that no current proof of the divine is quite enough to properly satisfy it to the extent they'd say "Hey that's a valid belief" and not challenge you.

 

[Magical Wand]

Reason? I had no reason at least at the start.

God came into my life in the same way that a warm breeze rustles leaves. I went from being uninterested in anything spiritual to having a sense that there was more to life than the material. That led to the search for some frame of reference I could accept.

I wonder what you mean by this last sentence, "search for some frame of reference I could accept." Does that mean you started researching about what both sides (anti-spiritualists and believers) had to say on the topic? Or does that mean you simply started looking for a spiritualist view that was in accordance with your feeling? Would you mind explaining?

 

[Magical Wand]

Because atheists, the ones who debate at least, have often made up their mind already to consider the supernatural an outrageous claim, and as a result, set the barrier required for proof and evidence so high for it, that no current proof of the divine is quite enough to properly satisfy it to the extent they'd say "Hey that's a valid belief" and not challenge you.

What about the ones that do not debate? Would your reasons convince them? Do you think they're not biased enough to use their reason instead of their emotions?

 

[Magical Wand]

From a spiritual seeking p.o.v i can not understand how our universe would suddenly just appear from nothing. So a creator is to me natural part of my belief.
And the spiritual teachings that can awaken people comes from this creator.

I wonder what you think about the alternative to coming from nothing (and being created by a non-material being), namely, the idea that the universe has always existed in the past. What do you think about this possibility?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

What about the ones that do not debate? Would your reasons convince them? Do you think they're not biased enough to use their reason instead of their emotions?

To be perfectly honest, some of our long-time members are seasoned critical thinkers. So I have my doubts I could convince the frequent posters of much, that isn't about easier to prove subjects.

For the people who are just reading, I may change a few hearts, or soften them. But I'm not even sure convincing people completely of things is my goal, here. My goal is more to be understood, not convince others.

 

[Magical Wand]

It’s not my reason that tells me God exists, it’s my Spirit that knows it.

Reason is a great tool but I doubt it ever lead anybody to God. God is perceived not with the mind but with the spirit (though mind, body and spirit are one).

So if we want to know God we need to develop the Spirit. Prayer and meditation enable us to do this, if we approach them with genuine humility, willingness and open mindedness.

The greatest barrier, for those who would know God, is pride. The belief that we are in control of our lives, that we are masters of our own little world; the Ego will do anything to enforce this illusion. I consider it a lifetime’s struggle to embrace humility, abandon pride, and place God’s will before my own.

Well, reason can lead to many true things about reality. For example, it was reason that lead to the conclusion that space curves and that we're made of star dust.

You may reply reason doesn't apply to God, but many theologians use reason to discuss the topic. For example, some atheists argue God can't exist because extreme evil (observed in the world) is incompatible with the existence of a good God. But theologians have rational arguments to defeat this claim (based on God's nature). Ergo, we can apply reason to God.

So, if reason reveals true things about reality, and reason does apply to God, doesn't that mean that reason can also lead to God if He is part of reality?

 

[Magical Wand]

I just believe. I was brought up as a Catholic and left that by not the belief in God and Jesus.

Thanks for your honesty.

I think non-theists would reply that the same applies to the Muslim, Hindu or whatever religion you can think of. So, how can your epistemology be reliable if it is based on pure chance? Isn't it like throwing a random die to make decisions about what to believe?

 

[Magical Wand]

To be perfectly honest, some of our long-time members are seasoned critical thinkers. So I have my doubts I could convince the frequent posters of much, that isn't about easier to prove subjects.

For the people who are just reading, I may change a few hearts, or soften them. But I'm not even sure convincing people completely of things is my goal, here. My goal is more to be understood, not convince others.

Okay. But I think my point isn't that you have to convince others, but whether you should believe your own reasons given that you're a critical thinker. In other words, if you can't convince others (who are critical thinkers and may even be impartial), should you be convinced of that? Or do they lack some information or personal experience that only you have?

 

[Magical Wand]

I don't "believe God exists". I simply choose to trust in that idea for the benefits that I can gain from doing so. It's called 'faith', not belief.

So, it is a Pascal's Wager kind of thing? What kind of benefits you're referring to?

 

[Magical Wand]

My reasons are from personal mystical experiences, and apply only to me. Others who have similar reasons for themselves might relate. It's non-intellectual, and isn't of a 'creator' God in the way you say, as the version of God I understand is both the creator, and His own creation, simultaneously.

Does that mean God created Himself?

 

[SalixIncendium]

I can see no reason why that follows.

Probably because you're overcomplicating it. What have you experienced in your life that hasn't been created by something?

It also looks rather like the start of an infinite regress.

How so?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Okay. But I think my point isn't that you have to convince others, but whether you should believe your own reasons given that you're a critical thinker. In other words, if you can't convince others (who are critical thinkers and may even be impartial), should you be convinced of that? Or do they lack some information or personal experience that only you have?

Not only do they lack some of my personal experiences, but my standard of proof is different than a lot of non-theists.

 

[Magical Wand]

Not only do they lack some of my personal experiences, but my standard of proof is different than a lot of non-theists.

Does your standard of proof stand up to scrutiny, though? Can we apply it to ordinary situations and reach reasonable results?

Can you give an example where your standard of proof would differ from other critical thinkers' who you think ask for unreasonably high/strong proofs?

 

[ratiocinator]

Probably because you're overcomplicating it. What have you experienced in your life that hasn't been created by something?

What makes you think we can apply our own experience of things within 'the cosmos' to the cosmos as a whole? We know, for example, that time is part of the universe, so we can't generalise temporal concepts to the existence of time itself.

How so?

Because if everything needs to be created, then whatever created the cosmos also needs something to create it, and so on.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Does your standard of proof stand up to scrutiny, though? Can we apply it to ordinary situations and reach reasonable results?

Can you give an example where your standard of proof would differ from other critical thinkers' who you think ask for unreasonably high/strong proofs?

The main difference between my standard of proof and others, is that I don't too much take the stance that greater claims require significantly more proof. I use the same standard of proof whether someone tells me they left a spoon on the table, or they tell me a unicorn flew into the kitchen. I guess I've seen so many weird things in my life, including a tree that looked like Jesus in my hometown that I got to pay a visit to, that I'm not a skeptic under ordinary circumstances.

 

[SalixIncendium]

What makes you think we can apply our own experience of things within 'the cosmos' to the cosmos as a whole? We know, for example, that time is part of the universe, so we can't generalise temporal concepts to the existence of time itself.

You think too little of yourself. What makes you think we can't?

Because if everything needs to be created, then whatever created the cosmos also needs something to create it, and so on.

Correct.

 

[Magical Wand]

The main difference between my standard of proof and others, is that I don't too much take the stance that greater claims require significantly more proof. I use the same standard of proof whether someone tells me they left a spoon on the table, or they tell me a unicorn flew into the kitchen.

Really?! That's incredible. Suppose, then, the life of someone you love is in danger, and the only way to save his/her life is to choose the right (true) option. Option 1 Picture A records a real spoon on a table, and Option 2: Picture B reveals a unicorn sleeping on your bed.

The pictures are evidence of both alleged facts, according to your view. So, are you sincerely telling me you would just throw a die instead of choosing the picture A as real?

 

[Vinayaka]

Does that mean God created Himself?

Sort of, I suppose, but more accurately it means God is eternal. There never was a time when Shiva didn't exist.