What's Your Reason for Believing God Exists?

[Magical Wand]

but love is needed to see God since it's what perceives beauty and honor of God.

Well, I do have love. But what kind of love are you talking about? Can love for the family be considered here? Why is it that I don't perceive God (even though I do believe in Him)?

 

[Link]

Well, I do have love. But what kind of love are you talking about? Can love for the family be considered here? Why is it that I don't perceive God (even though I do believe in Him)?

Love is a spiritual vision, either you see with the true eyes of the leader of our time or you see with dark eyes of devils from Jinn or a combination between the two, but none of it is just "emotion", it's a lot more than that, and analyze it and you will see there is nothing love doesn't know since it can analyze everything and give it a value. Including, what I just wrote in terms of meaning, intention, eloquence, etc.

But in a sense, if you don't see God, it maybe your actions are for other then him and so by his mercy is concealing himself lest you rebel and disbelieve.

 

[Magical Wand]

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.

That's surprising. The arguments are not convincing to you, even though you do believe in the existence of God.

And I wonder why rational arguments are convincing regarding any other stuff (whenever they do exist in reality) and are not convincing on the case of God. I guess some atheists could argue this is actually evidence against the existence of God, since apologists had more than 2 thousand years to provide convincing proofs and failed, according to you. But the same isn't the case regarding other stuff, such as that space curves or that atoms exist. What do you think about that?

 

[Link]

Well, that's surprising. The arguments are not convincing to you, even though you do believe in the existence of God.

And I wonder why rational arguments are convincing regarding any other stuff (whenever they do exist in reality) and are not convincing on the case of God. I guess some atheists could argue this is actually evidence against the existence of God, since apologists had more than 2 thousand years to provide convincing proofs and failed, according to you. But the same isn't the case regarding other stuff, such as that space curves or that atoms exist. What do you think about that?

To counter this, I see Ahlulbayt (a) position in Quran is clear, but see that majority don't see. So this tells me there are things proven but majority might not accept or know due to other reasons.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

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

Conjecture... and conjecture alone. Not to mention the "infinite regress" that others have brought to bear for ideas like these. If something complex or of some working order must necessarily have a mind brought into the equation for its formation, then at what point do you get to "stop" and not go back any further? Isn't the decision on where to put that stop entirely arbitrary given the amount of EVIDENCE you can actually bring to the table for ANY of these ideas (i.e. zero)? In other words... doesn't "God" or "the universal consciousness" also need its own mind-driven forbear? And if not, then why not? Can't I posit such is necessary just as easily as anyone might posit this other idea of "God" or "universal consciousness" having somehow spawned our universe of origin?

 

[Magical Wand]

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

I think there is a clear difference between being its own creator (which implies there was a creation event), and being eternal (never being created).

Anyway, perhaps I'm being nit-picky.

 

[Magical Wand]

Conjecture... and conjecture alone. Not to mention the "infinite regress" that others have brought to bear for ideas like these. If something complex or of some working order must necessarily have a mind brought into the equation for its formation, then at what point do you get to "stop" and not go back any further? Isn't the decision on where to put that stop entirely arbitrary given the amount of EVIDENCE you can actually bring to the table for ANY of these ideas (i.e. zero)? In other words... doesn't "God" or "the universal consciousness" also need its own mind-driven forbear? And if not, then why not? Can't I posit such is necessary just as easily as anyone might posit this other idea of "God" or "universal consciousness" having somehow spawned our universe of origin?

Yeah, I think you presented some very good points.

 

[Vinayaka]

I think there is a clear difference between being its own creator (which implies there was a creation event), and being eternal (never being created).

Anyway, perhaps I'm being nit-picky.

It's not important enough to me to put a great deal of thought into. I have better things to do that ponder that.

 

[Magical Wand]

It's not important enough to me to put a great deal of thought into. I have better things to do that ponder that.

Fair enough.

 

[SalixIncendium]

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.

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

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.

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

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?

Sorry you felt like I was somehow “re-training” you when I was merely sharing ideas. I thought I might actually have a civil exchange with you.

But alas, my ideas are complete bunk. Carry on.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Well, I do have love. But what kind of love are you talking about? Can love for the family be considered here? Why is it that I don't perceive God (even though I do believe in Him)?

Divine bliss does not come through the normal ego mind process, but rather the soul center. They are both always present, it depends on which one is predominate as to where one's perception is coming from. To fully perceive God, one must fully cease perception via the ego mind, ie, thought processes. This is a most difficult ask when one's mind conditioning since birth has been to develop the ego mind to understand and survive in the physical world of sense perceptions. To be truly religious, one must give up being centered in the physical world and transition one's sense of identity from the body to the spiritual soul.

 

[RestlessSoul]

That's surprising. The arguments are not convincing to you, even though you do believe in the existence of God.

And I wonder why rational arguments are convincing regarding any other stuff (whenever they do exist in reality) and are not convincing on the case of God. I guess some atheists could argue this is actually evidence against the existence of God, since apologists had more than 2 thousand years to provide convincing proofs and failed, according to you. But the same isn't the case regarding other stuff, such as that space curves or that atoms exist. What do you think about that?

Just as reason cannot be used to prove God, neither can it be used to disprove Him (or Her).

When it comes to astronomy or particle physics, we are dealing with phenomena which can be observed, and measured. Though here too, there is much mystery, and reason does not always serve. God, on the other hand, cannot be observed or measured, or not directly anyway.

You could argue, I suppose, that there are various phenomena (such as dark matter) which we do not perceive directly, but which we know exists because of it’s influence on other phenomena, such as light. And that, similarly, we perceive God not directly, but in and through nature.

But those arguments always end up being circuitous and inconclusive. If an atheist asks me to prove God, I’ll generally decline the invitation. If someone expresses a genuine desire to have a spiritual experience, I might recommend that they develop a spiritual practice that suits them. As for my own faith, all I can say is that I have an absolute and unwavering conviction that there is a power which is infinite love and justice, and that this power is available to us if we want and need it enough.

 

[Magical Wand]

Just as reason cannot be used to prove God, neither can it be used to disprove Him (or Her).

But have atheists tried to disprove God for more than 2 thousand years? As far as I'm aware, atheist literature presenting serious arguments just began very recently, whereas apologetical literature is very old and can be traced back to ancient Islamic and Christian scholars (and others).

When it comes to astronomy or particle physics, we are dealing with phenomena which can be observed, and measured. Though here too, there is much mystery, and reason does not always serve. God, on the other hand, cannot be observed or measured, or not directly anyway.

You could argue, I suppose, that there are various phenomena (such as dark matter) which we do not perceive directly, but which we know exists because of it’s influence on other phenomena, such as light. And that, similarly, we perceive God not directly, but in and through nature.

Yeah, you answered your own objection. Just as one can measure the effects of dark matter, it seems possible (at least in principle) to observe the effects God would have in the physical world (for instance, since God is the creator of the world, we should expect to discover it had an absolute beginning so that it could be said to be created).

But those arguments always end up being circuitous and inconclusive. If an atheist asks me to prove God, I’ll generally decline the invitation. If someone expresses a genuine desire to have a spiritual experience, I might recommend that they develop a spiritual practice that suits them. As for my own faith, all I can say is that I have an absolute and unwavering conviction that there is a power which is infinite love and justice, and that this power is available to us if we want and need it enough.

There is an endless discussion in philosophy of religion about whether religious experience is enough justification for belief in whatever is experienced. One objection is that different religious groups have experiences of their deities (or even dead relatives) that seem equally unwavering to all of them. And yet, they can't be all true since they are contradictory. Therefore, it seems one is violating one's epistemic duties when one trusts a religious experience is revealing truths. It is a crippled epistemology.

Of course, there are various responses to this line of reasoning, but I believe I can deal with them, so feel free to present it.

 

[1213]

I invite you to give an explanation (not too extensive, btw) of why you believe God (viz., the non-material creator of the cosmos) exists. Let's have a discussion about the topic.

My reasons to believe is the Bible and this world. And reason why I believe the Bible is that things go as said in it and it has knowledge, wisdom, truth and love that I don’t think humans would have without God.

One example of knowledge that I think humans would not have had is for example that Jews will be scattered and much later gathered back, as we can nowadays see.

 

[Clara Tea]

I invite you to give an explanation (not too extensive, btw) of why you believe God (viz., the non-material creator of the cosmos) exists. Let's have a discussion about the topic.

Writhe on the floor, jabber incoherently, and insist that you are talking in tongues to God (in God's own language, which no one understands, so they believe you).

Well, if that doesn't convince you, I don't know what will.

Now that we have firmly established that God exists, lets follow God's orders (take your land, kill non-believers, ruin God's environment because we will soon rapture to heaven so we won't need it anymore), sin (because God will forgive us).

Entering heaven, we can be cigar smoking, drinking, whoring, cussing, sinning, doping, angels (just like the folks around us). Heaven?

 

[Clara Tea]

But have atheists tried to disprove God for more than 2 thousand years? As far as I'm aware, atheist literature presenting serious arguments just began very recently, whereas apologetical literature is very old and can be traced back to ancient Islamic and Christian scholars (and others).



Yeah, you answered your own objection. Just as one can measure the effects of dark matter, it seems possible (at least in principle) to observe the effects God would have in the physical world (for instance, since God is the creator of the world, we should expect to discover it had an absolute beginning so that it could be said to be created).



There is an endless discussion in philosophy of religion about whether religious experience is enough justification for belief in whatever is experienced. One objection is that different religious groups have experiences of their deities (or even dead relatives) that seem equally unwavering to all of them. And yet, they can't be all true since they are contradictory. Therefore, it seems one is violating one's epistemic duties when one trusts a religious experience is revealing truths. It is a crippled epistemology.

Of course, there are various responses to this line of reasoning, but I believe I can deal with them, so feel free to present it.

Most atheists don't try to prove nonexistence of God. Rather, they choose not to believe in everything (leprechauns, tooth fairy, Fred Flintstone). So, they will only believe if there is proof.

For thousands of years, churches have horribly tortured and killed non-believers or those who embarrass the church using facts or logic. That increases membership in the church and asserts that the loving God demands worship or will burn you alive for eternity in the fires of hell (as a loving God would).

 

[Psalm23]

Yes.

View attachment 52994

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



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

Wow that picture of the tree is interesting. Neat.

 

[Marcion]

My reason is that I had mystical experiences during meditation and Ba'ba demonstrated it to me several times both in individual situations and in collective situations.

 

[Trailblazer]

I invite you to give an explanation (not too extensive, btw) of why you believe God (viz., the non-material creator of the cosmos) exists. Let's have a discussion about the topic.

I believe that God exists because of Baha'u'llah, who I believe was a Manifestation of God.
I never believed in God before I became a Baha'i in 1970.

 

[sun rise]

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?

First, let me distinguish spiritualist from spiritual. There was a spiritualist movement that among other things, conducted seances and so forth.

That can be contrasted with the spiritual which has no necessary theology or practices.

By contrast, spiritual but not religious means that there's no set of religious doctrine that people necessarily hold. The spiritual path can be "walked" by people who follow a conventional religion or no religion.

Now to try to answer your question:

I started with the conviction that there was something more than mere physical existence. This meant that there was meaning and purpose to life and that I should seek to align myself with that meaning and act in a way to further that purpose.

I did not have the words in the beginning, but now I say that involves the deepest conviction that the core of our being is divine and the purpose of life is to fully join divinity.

Along the way, I read on the life of St. Francis of Assisi, Ramakrishna Paramhamsa, Islamic Sufism, various Buddhist treatises, esoteric Judaism, Native American beliefs and those that followed no exoteric religion.

I listened to music that expressed various spiritual aspects without concerning myself what doctrine the musicians might hold.

I've not mentioned what I found to believe finally. But since I need to go to bed now and ignoring the chronology, what struck me powerfully was the scene in Brother Sun, Sister Moon when St. Francis meets the pope because it expressed the difference between the spiritual path St. Francis followed and the organized church

and the movie "They Might Be Giants" expressed something deep: