Why do some believe easily, others hardly at all?

[Heyo]

Nothing that God does is a miracle to God. Like God the Son becoming the person of Mary's baby at conception. God knows how its done.

So, as I suspected. You redefine magic as natural so you can claim to not believe in a magical god.

 

[Colt]

I'd say it's more likely the other way around. What people call gods is what the atheist calls nature. For millennia, they have watched nature and viewed it as a stage in which gods played. The sun passed through the sky because of Apollo's chariot dragging it, and thunder and lightning represented the wrath of angry gods. The march of science has stripped these gods of any job to do, but the concept, however unnecessary now, lingers on.

Me, neither. What does your god do? What question do you think the existence of a god answers? Shouldn't we have a reason to posit the existence of something - something that it is thought to be responsible for causing? For example, the idea of dark matter arose to account for some observations about the structure of spiral galaxies and the structure of the cosmic web. Before then, the idea would have no utility. That's how I see gods - posited entities without a job.

What mind of god? The laws of nature? They're working on it. And why call that a mind?

My God shares his life with others. God answers the question of the origin and destiny of personality, the meaning of life.

"THE UNIVERSAL FATHER is the God of all creation, the First Source and Center of all things and beings. First think of God as a creator, then as a controller, and lastly as an infinite upholder. The truth about the Universal Father had begun to dawn upon mankind when the prophet said: “You, God, are alone; there is none beside you. You have created the heaven and the heaven of heavens, with all their hosts; you preserve and control them. By the Sons of God were the universes made. The Creator covers himself with light as with a garment and stretches out the heavens as a curtain.” Only the concept of the Universal Father—one God in the place of many gods—enabled mortal man to comprehend the Father as divine creator and infinite controller.​

​

The myriads of planetary systems were all made to be eventually inhabited by many different types of intelligent creatures, beings who could know God, receive the divine affection, and love him in return. The universe of universes is the work of God and the dwelling place of his diverse creatures. “God created the heavens and formed the earth; he established the universe and created this world not in vain; he formed it to be inhabited.”​

​

The enlightened worlds all recognize and worship the Universal Father, the eternal maker and infinite upholder of all creation. The will creatures of universe upon universe have embarked upon the long, long Paradise journey, the fascinating struggle of the eternal adventure of attaining God the Father. The transcendent goal of the children of time is to find the eternal God, to comprehend the divine nature, to recognize the Universal Father. God-knowing creatures have only one supreme ambition, just one consuming desire, and that is to become, as they are in their spheres, like him as he is in his Paradise perfection of personality and in his universal sphere of righteous supremacy. From the Universal Father who inhabits eternity there has gone forth the supreme mandate, “Be you perfect, even as I am perfect.” In love and mercy the messengers of Paradise have carried this divine exhortation down through the ages and out through the universes, even to such lowly animal-origin creatures as the human races of Urantia." (earth) UB 1955​

 

[Colt]

So, as I suspected. You redefine magic as natural so you can claim to not believe in a magical god.

When God does things that religious people can't understand we call it a miracle. Men who think they know everything knowable call it magic when mocking religious people.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

My God shares his life with others.

That was in response to "What does your god do?" What you call sharing life with me is indistinguishable from this god's nonexistence.

God answers the question of the origin and destiny of personality, the meaning of life.

That was in response to, "What question do you think the existence of a god answers?"

Not for me. I don't consider unfalsifiable claims answers, since they have no truth value and cannot be used to predict outcomes in daily life. They're guesses, and "not even wrong" guesses. I have a better answer for origins than the religious one that includes intelligent designers as one of several logical possibilities, one derived from pure reason.

Also don't look outside of myself for the meaning or purpose of life.

 

[Colt]

That was in response to "What does your god do?" What you call sharing life with me is indistinguishable from this god's nonexistence.

That was in response to, "What question do you think the existence of a god answers?"

Not for me. I don't consider unfalsifiable claims answers, since they have no truth value and cannot be used to predict outcomes in daily life. They're guesses, and "not even wrong" guesses. I have a better answer for origins than the religious one that includes intelligent designers as one of several logical possibilities, one derived from pure reason.

Also don't look outside of myself for the meaning or purpose of life.

To claim that mind emerged from matter explains nothing. That’s a kind of faith.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

To claim that mind emerged from matter explains nothing. That’s a kind of faith.

The relationship of mind to matter is unknown, but thus far there has been no need to reject metaphysical materialism nor to assert metaphysical idealism. These represent the ideas that either matter or mind is fundamental and the other derivative. Two other logical possibilities exist - both are fundamental (cartesian dualism), and neither is fundamental (neutral monism, where both are derivative of something that combines both, like space and time relative to spacetime).

Picking any of these and declaring is correct is an act of faith. I lean toward neutral monism, but it's just an intuition derived from endless series of unifications in physics - electricity with magnetism and both with light, the electroweak and GUT theories, matter and energy (E=mc2), particle and wave, position and momentum uncertainty, etc.. so why not matter and mind, too? But I have n better argument than that one, which doesn't justify another unification just because my gut says it seems right.

When God does things that religious people can't understand we call it a miracle. Men who think they know everything knowable call it magic when mocking religious people.

Ignorance of a mechanism can appear to be magic, as with magic tricks ("How did you do that?"), but such tricks do not defy the laws of nature. An actual miracle would be magic.

 

[Augustus]

Why is it, do you think, that some people are willing to believe pretty much anything, while others hold out for evidence?

One things humans are prone to believe without much evidence is that they themselves are highly rational.

The problem is the evidence shows humans are only intermittently rational, cognition is domain dependent, and you can be highly rational in one area and highly credulous in another. We are great at spotting the failings of others, less so at seeing them in ourselves

We all come easily to believe that which is emotionally satisfying, get swayed by group dynamics and wanting to be good team members, fooled by confirmation bias and blinded by cognitive dissonance among other failings.

Some are worse than others of course, but we all display these failings more than we would like to acknowledge.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

To claim that mind emerged from matter explains nothing. That’s a kind of faith.

Yes, but your faith is not faith, it is the truth, right? Or rather your faith is the correct faith for us all to follow?

 

[Colt]

Yes, but your faith is not faith, it is the truth, right? Or rather your faith is the correct faith for us all to follow?

No, that’s not what I said but that’s what you imagine in every discussion everywhere you go.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, that’s not what I said but that’s what you imagine in every discussion everywhere you go.

I don't know the objective and subjective are connect in the end. Do you?

 

[Colt]

I don't know the objective and subjective are connect in the end. Do you?

Word salad!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Word salad!

Well, that is not the truth as it stands. It is free floating and you need to use more words, so I can understand that you actually think/feel.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

why is it I find it so difficult to believe claims without evidence

I'm old enough to have been exposed to all the strange stuff:

skeptics and critical thinkers in the Forum) who find it difficult to near-impossible to believe strange claims for which we see no real evidence ---- but there are others who seem predisposed, almost programmed, to believe almost anything at all, no matter how unlikely

Most scientific research is built upon [data, analysis, results and conclusions in] previous, scientific research and rarely contains only first-hand data.

As the basis for evidence in general, goes through the changes that it will; going forward, the value of the term itself shall have to carefully be reviewed.

With the types of AI that we all shall be exposed to soon, everyone (researchers and the public; including and especially skeptics who pride themselves on logic and research) should be questioning most of what is presented to us.

The interesting question is: as no one has ever or will ever possess access to all first-hand information, in an environment where nothing can be taken at face value; does evidence too become mainly a matter source trust?

Humbly,
Hermit

 

[Brian2]

Science has no need to rule gods out. Nobody does.

That's right because God does not leave any evidence that science can use.
Plenty of evidence but not what science can use.

Doing what?

Being. But I was not there so why ask me?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's right because God does not leave any evidence that science can use.
Plenty of evidence but not what science can use.
...

Yes, but even that evidence has a limit, just as evidence in science has a limit.

 

[Brian2]

Yes, but even that evidence has a limit, just as evidence in science has a limit.

Yes it's not evidence that we can say is proof, but is evidence that faith can see.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes it's not evidence that we can say is proof, but is evidence that faith can see.

Well, the problem is that my faith may not be yours and so in reverse.
So in effect you can get that my faith is my faith and not just my faith, but the Faith.

 

[Brian2]

Not at all. A god or some kind of higher being could have created the spark that led to what we have now, I feel. Where the problem comes in is that none of the god concepts I've been shown or researched (and I've done a lot of research) seem probable to me. They have too many flaws, are too vague, or don't reflect reality as we see it. They all make claims that seem baseless, imo

Until something comes along that has tangible value, I feel that the most intellectually honest thing for me to reserve putting my beliefs into something that doesn't hold water

Reflecting reality as we see it? As who see it?
That reality might not be all real.

True. Many prominant scientists are theists. I don't believe religious beliefs are incompatible with scientific endeavors

That seems to be saying that science is endeavoring to do things that go against religious beliefs.

That may be some atheist's positions, but that's not mine. My position is that I don't know, but instead of filling the void with a baseless claim that cannot be proven, I want to wait until better information comes along

So you want proof before committing to a religious belief or direction?

I don't care about having answers to questions, I care about getting as close to the truth as possible. The most consistent evidence that does that seems to be evidence that scientific endeavors produces

Science is good for finding stuff out about the material universe, and we all benefit from that. IMO when it comes to finding things out about any spiritual reality, science does not work and indeed, says it finds no evidence for a spiritual reality. It cannot study any evidence there is for a spiritual reality, and many skeptics of course say that if any spiritual reality were there, then science would find it.

True, but that speculation is grounded in good evidence. Just like forensic science, we can look back and figure out things that have happened in the past, and the more breakthroughs that have been made, the better we get at it

Personally I am amazed at what science has found about the past which agrees with what the Bible tells us.
But since science is not about faith, it keeps looking for natural answers where none may exist. It comes up with educated speculations imo.
But that is science and not human beings who can see and use other evidence and end up with a faith while science plods away at educated guesses, which many believe (a faith) even without proof.

I mean, so you say. Past events show differently, though

What I need from god is something tangible - it doesn't have to be scientific. Maybe an indestructable giant tablet with every written language that has ever existed, exists now, and will ever exist. Something. Anthing that can't be faked

Instead we have things that anyone can just make up, and while I don't think that's the basis for all religious claims, it sure does seem to be a common theme with many of them. Like I said, I need something with varifiable substance before I can put my belief in it

Yes it would be great for me to have archaeological evidence that the Bible history is true, and I get more of that every time I look for it.
It amazes me that the evidence exists and that many, even in archaeology, deny it shows that Bible history is correct. (IMO it's errors built on errors)
Then there is fulfilled prophecy but as it stands these days skeptics say things could be made up after the events and people believe that.

 

[Brian2]

Well, the problem is that my faith may not be yours and so in reverse.
So in effect you can get that my faith is my faith and not just my faith, but the Faith.

Yes we see our faith as "the faith", even if we see everything as the right way.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes we see our faith as "the faith", even if we see everything as the right way.

I can't see the right way. I think/feel that.