What's Your Reason for Believing God Exists?

[ratiocinator]

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

Can't what? We obviously can't use temporal concepts to explain the existence of time because it doesn't make logical sense. More generally, intuitions based on our experience have frequently been shown to be fundamentally wrong even within the universe, so trying to extrapolate beyond it seems rather foolhardy or arrogant to me.

Correct.

Hence the infinite regress.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Really?! That's incredible.

Yes.

If anyone wants further proof, just drop me a PM and I'll link you the news articles from my local news.

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?

You got me there. I'll be needing some more time to think about it. But yes, I'd choose the most likely option.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

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

I have witnessed/experienced ongoing processes perhaps, that facilitate the change of one form/material into another. I have never, personally, seen anything "created." And I would easily take a guess that you haven't either.

 

[Link]

I know I have an objective value and my deeds count towards that be it negative or positive, and this can only be in God's perfect vision/judgment. That and I see God through his unseen signs.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I have witnessed/experienced ongoing processes perhaps, that facilitate the change of one form/material into another. I have never, personally, seen anything "created." And I would easily take a guess that you haven't either.

Very nice! I like they way you are took "created" and ran with it here.

You are absolutely correct. Anything a living being experiences is an appearance of something. Just as a ring, a necklace, and a bangle aren't "created." There are merely forms...appearances of gold.

Brilliant!

Now what is it that "creates" these forms?

 

[Link]

God is also a proof for himself and this would be true even if he was not the necessary being through his own light and life force but it's even more manifest when we see that it's the necessary being by sheer greatness, life amount, and perfection.

 

[Link]

Very nice! I like they way you are took "created" and ran with it here.

You are absolutely correct. Anything a living being experiences is an appearance of something. Just as a ring, a necklace, and a bangle aren't "created." There are merely forms...appearances of gold.

Brilliant!

Now what is it that "creates" these forms?

Everything is a parable form of God somehow, he creates through reality of what he is, but also of what he is not. Combined together, because he is ultimate form of each, he is everything, and because he transcends all things, nothing is like him and they are more non-existence then existence.

This type of vision, if someone understands it, and sees how God is the light of all light and all ideas/knowledge, is from him, they will never cease to see God like waves in an ocean, we don't pay attention to one wave, same with life and all it's objects, it's all God we should see (the ocean, not waves).

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Very nice! I like they way you are took "created" and ran with it here.

You are absolutely correct. Anything a living being experiences is an appearance of something. Just as a ring, a necklace, and a bangle aren't "created." There are merely forms...appearances of gold.

Brilliant!

Now what is it that "creates" these forms?

You mean what is it that crafts objects from pre-existing materials? Feels like you're trying to get me to say "Why... it's something with a MIND, of course!" Well tell me this... what crafts a crystal? What takes oxygen and hydrogen (two gases at room temperature) and crafts water (a liquid at the same temperature)? What crafts the hexagonal cloud that spins at the pole of Saturn? Is there a mind at work there? Please... enlighten me.

 

[Magical Wand]

I know I have an objective value and my deeds count towards that be it negative or positive, and this can only be in God's perfect vision/judgment. That and I see God through his unseen signs.

As I understand it, "objective" means independent of minds, and can be experienced in some way by means of the senses. For instance, the moon exists independently of what I think, and it can be experienced by the sense of sight.

It's funny because I don't know any such a thing. I know the difference between an objective fact (which I experience through my senses) and something that is the product of my mind (such as the feeling of sadness or happiness). And the fact is that "wrongness" and "rightness" are not experienced by my senses, and so they can't be objective in this sense I just described.

So, two questions. Do you disagree with my characterization of what it means for something to be objective? Also, if my definition is correct, how do you account for this difference (between our views)? Am I deluded?

 

[Link]

As I understand it, "objective" means independent of minds, and can be experienced in some way by means of the senses. For instance, the moon exists independently of what I think, and it can be experienced by the sense of sight.

It's funny because I don't know any such a thing. I know the difference between an objective fact (which I experience through my senses) and something that is the product of my mind (such as the feeling of sadness or happiness). And the fact is that "wrongness" and "rightness" are not experienced by my senses, and so they can't be objective in this sense I just described.

So, two questions. Do you disagree with my characterization of what it means for something to be objective? Also, if my definition is correct, how do you account for this difference (between our views)? Am I deluded?

Definitions are useful sometimes, in your case, it's not useful if you don't perceive you have an objective value in God's vision and hence know by that God exists.

 

[Magical Wand]

Definitions are useful sometimes, in your case, it's not useful if you don't perceive you have an objective value in God's vision and hence know by that God exists.

So, why is it I don't perceive (through my sense) I have an objective value? Shouldn't everybody have this sixth sense?

 

[Link]

So, why is it I don't perceive (through my sense) I have an objective value? Shouldn't everybody have this sixth sense?

If you don't, it's because you choose not to open your soul's eyes and are not truthful to what you know.

 

[SalixIncendium]

You mean what is it that crafts objects from pre-existing materials? Feels like you're trying to get me to say "Why... it's something with a MIND, of course!" Well tell me this... what crafts a crystal? What takes oxygen and hydrogen (two gases at room temperature) and crafts water (a liquid at the same temperature)? What crafts the hexagonal cloud that spins at the pole of Saturn? Is there a mind at work there? Please... enlighten me.

I'm not trying to get you to say anything. You're on the right track, though. Keep working backward. Let's run with water? What "crafts" a water molecule? What "crafts" the hydrogen atoms and the oxygen atom? Keep going...

Now... Does this "crafting" take place if there is no being (mind) to observe it (think observer effect)?

 

[Magical Wand]

If you don't, it's because you choose not to open your soul's eyes and are not truthful to what you know.

But why is it that I didn't have to "choose" to begin seeing with my physical eyes or other senses? How do you account for this difference between our souls' spiritual eyes and physical eyes? Isn't that evidence that the spiritual eyes are not actually eyes at all? After all, it is true of all my senses that I don't have to "choose" to use them. They simply start working and receiving information.

On the other hand, I have to force (choose) myself to believe in concepts and ideas. So, isn't that evidence that value is just an idea or concept?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

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?

I've been thinking it over more. While I'd choose the option of the spoon, my relative could still die. It may not be quite a 50/50 chance. But that unicorn could turn out to be a stuffed animal in my bed, or some natural phenomena that does indeed look like a unicorn. If I tell you that I see a unicorn, and it's a horse with some rare medical condition, did I lie? Just genuinely asking.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I'm not trying to get you to say anything. You're on the right track, though. Keep working backward.

Do you even understand how ridiculously condescending wording things like this is? Believe me - you're not having your desired effect of re-training me or informing me with this crap. Your ideas are complete bunk. But seriously... you honestly do believe you know better, don't you? Amazing.

Let's run with water?

Oh yes... let's "run."

What "crafts" a water molecule? What "crafts" the hydrogen atoms and the oxygen atom?

Verifiably you mean? Forces of attraction and seemingly inherent tendencies toward stability. That's about as far as I believe we can claim to have gotten here. If I am wrong, let me know. It's going to take a lot more than these crappy questions of yours to convince me, just so you are aware.

Keep going...

More blatant and ridiculous condescension. You don't even deserve to even attempt to be condescending. Damn.

Now... Does this "crafting" take place if there is no being (mind) to observe it (think observer effect)?

As far as I can tell... YES. A huge, resounding YES from all sides. I cannot imagine how anyone can believe otherwise, honestly. In my opinion, it takes monumental amounts of hubris to believe that your ability to observe somehow drives the universe to act and react with itself. Where were YOU 13 billion years ago? I'm pretty sure I was nowhere to be found. Perhaps you have a different story?

 

[Magical Wand]

I've been thinking it over more. While I'd choose the option of the spoon, my relative could still die. It may not be quite a 50/50 chance.

Yeah, your relative could still die because it is not logically impossible for a unicorn to exist. But as you noted, it is not a 50/50 chance.

But that unicorn could turn out to be a stuffed animal in my bed, or some natural phenomena that does indeed look like a unicorn. If I tell you that I see a unicorn, and it's a horse with some rare medical condition, did I lie? Just genuinely asking.

It would be a lie if you don't believe in what you're saying. The question is whether would be in your epistemic rights and duties to say this thing in your bed is really a unicorn given the evidence (namely, the picture).

 

[Link]

But why is it that I didn't have to "choose" to begin seeing with my physical eyes or other senses? How do you account for this difference between our souls' spiritual eyes and physical eyes? Isn't that evidence that the spiritual eyes are not actually eyes at all? After all, it is true of all my senses that I don't have to "choose" to use them. They simply start working and receiving information.

On the other hand, I have to force (choose) myself to believe in concepts and ideas. So, isn't that evidence that value is just an idea or concept?

Love and value go together and are one thing. It's only love that can analyze value of human beings, by definition, it is the valued and what does the value giving as well. We value love in human beings above all else. This is why God doesn't force faith in him till day of judgment, when the objective reality will be seen by all, at the same time, due disbelievers not having love and can't see God due to their hate, they will be utterly blind to God while at the same time, never will God be so manifest to them.

So make of it what you will, by your definitions, but love is needed to see God since it's what perceives beauty and honor of God. "And whoever is blind in this (world) will be blind in the next..."-Quran, part of a verse in Surah Isra

 

[Magical Wand]

In my opinion, it takes monumental amounts of hubris to believe that your ability to observe somehow drives the universe to act and react with itself. Where were YOU 13 billion years ago? I'm pretty sure I was nowhere to be found. Perhaps you have a different story?

The spiritualist can reply there was something there observing the universe, namely, a universal consciousness or God.

 

[RestlessSoul]

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?

Well I suppose that, for the believer, all roads to lead to God. But I have read a few examples of individuals putting the rational, logical case for God, and they never really convinced me. And as exercises in futility go, trying to prove God using logic and reason, is pretty high on the list; especially against the well rehearsed arguments of the committed atheist.

In the end, I only have my experience to go on. And my experience of what I would call God Consciousness is difficult to enough communicate even to the most open minded non believer.