• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

You say that there is a god...

F1fan

Veteran Member
You don't start out convinced. You start out by questioning the possibility.
The dilemma is that how well educated and skilled at thinking are we when we start asking questions? Do we even understand social influence and peer pressure to believe norms like belief in God? How are we supposed to think we can assess possibilities of iodeas that have no actual facts?
Then you hear from others what they have experienced and question if that is possible too. If you can open yourself up to these possibilities you might have experiences of your own which begin to support these possibilities. You may end up finding yourself convince by your own experiences.
Here is an example, you hear others talk about what they claim to experience and you don't want to be left out. How does a self that wants to fit in and have the same experience as others know if they are having them or not? You're around people who are claiming to have a close, personal relationshi with Jesus, and you don't want to be a fraud. Maybe something's wrong with you because Jesus ain't talking back. Can you consider the possibility (since we are discussing possibilities) that people are mimicking experiences, and in essence creating their own profound experiences, and then convincing themselves theya re authentic? Is it possible? If so, what is the test in reality, and why would anyone risk being disappointed?
It takes a little faith for you do whatever is required as part of the belief and that you will have experiences which support it. If you don't have these experiences for yourself then there will be nothing that convinces you.
We have to be very careful about what we experience. It's not just that we experience something, it is what we impose on experiencing something, and how we interpret it. Here's an example from my own life.

When I was 10 or 11 I was playing outside way after sundown a fall evening. It must have been a Saturday because it was late and we were all outside, maybe 4-6 of us kids. It was clear but no moon, it was really dark. And this was years ago before light pollution was a problem. Anyway someone mentioned they were hearing a hum. Then we all noticed it. We were looking at the sky and couldn't see anything. Then someone noticed that the stars were being blocked out by a large black mass. There was one small light on the bottom. We had all been hearing about UFOs being sighted. We all ran inside and got our parents and most of them came out. More neighbors came outside and we were al standing in the street looking at this mass hover over us. Our parents didn't know what to make of it. We kids were getting a bit upset and excited. It was unbelievable, these things are real. Weve read stories and here is one right over our houses. Someone said we should call the police. This thing was barely moving and radiating this hum. It was pitch black. And then they turned on the GOODYEAR sign.

A god damned blimp. We'd never seen one before. Apparently it was in town for the Chiefs football game the next day.

My point here is that had they not turned on the sign and the UFO just drifted to the horizon I would be certain that I experienced a genuine UFO. This is how we make sense of mundane experiences in ways that create meaning for ourselves. We take scraps of info and we can impose them onto what we observe and experience in a way that distorts the truth. I suggest many religious believers do this. And since so many do this it is mimicked by others, and this infectious mindset spreads as a method. Notice that @Moon said "look around" as if just looking informs us some fact about a supernatural being. It doesn't. Many believers overlay what they assume and want onto observations and experiences so their beliefs are reinforced and justified. I have stopped to look at a sunset and understand the awe that inspires some sort of deep connection. But I reel in the temptation of thinking "God" and enjoy the moment without manufacturing significance to it.
 
Last edited:

dybmh

ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
No better place to start than the beginning of creation. ;0]

All that info on what one's God did to kickstart humanity and the universe, but no actual foundation or basis on how that particular information came to be known and supported.

It's all typically told in third person as an invented mythological tale or yarn and as one knows, creation stories vary extensively in variety and content as to how everything began in many unlimited and unique ways with detail and clarity that just cannot ever escape that realm of one's imagination and fantasy.

You're asking where Genesis 1 came from? Or are you asking how God knew what do to create everything? Or are you asking how God did it?
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
Doesn't mean you werent making Jello with Fruit cocktail eiether. I dont care. Until you can demonstrate something that is positive and definitive and relevant, you are wasting my time.


I think you're wasting your own time tbh. You are convinced that no one can convince you God is real; and you're right. No one can convince you, though God could if you'd let him.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
You say that there is a god, but irrespective of whether or not there actually is, why should I be convinced that you know or are even capable of knowing such a thing?
Just ask yourself: how could functional information arise by itself, let alone create arrangement where interactive purpose is observed?

Wherever we have found information conveying purpose & complexity, a mind has always been accepted to be the source.

It’s logic.

Ex nihilo, nihil fit.
 

ppp

Well-Known Member
I think you're wasting your own time tbh.
I think that I am the only one with the authority to make that decision about my own time. TBH.
You are convinced that no one can convince you God is real
Am I? Maybe. Not particularly important.
No one can convince you, though God could if you'd let him.
I've heard this before. Hell, I have said this before when I was a Christian. But it is a patter that Christians learn as a rote reply. A reply that doesn't really bear up under scruitiny. If implies that one cannot prove one's own existence by just walking up and saying, Hello. I do it all the time. A squirrel proved his existence when I was out examining my tomato plants this afternoon.

And before you start into the free-will riff; did the squirrel violate my free will by sitting there where I could see him?
 

ppp

Well-Known Member
Just ask yourself: how could functional information arise by itself, let alone create arrangement where interactive purpose is observed?
Asking a question is not an argument for your position. If I say, I don't know, you still have all the work left to do.
It’s logic.
For you to say "its logic" is about as useful and meaningful as defending one's doctoral dissertaion by merely saying the words, "doctoral dissertaion". Which is to say, not useful a all.

You have done no work to build syllogisms starting from premises on which we both agree to evidence that you know or are ca

Ex nihilo, nihil fit.
Ego sum totaliter amazeballs.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
You say that there is a god, but irrespective of whether or not there actually is, why should I be convinced that you know or are even capable of knowing such a thing?

Why should I be convinced that you have solved the problem of knowledge, when I have never come across a solution to the problem of knowledge as justified, true belief?

In effect your posts rests on that you claim that you have knowledge as per the Western philosophical tradition of what knowledge is.
But that is simple to show that it is not needed:

Person 1: I know the universe is Y and not Z.
Person 2: I know the universe is Z and not Y.
Me as religious - Apparently one of them don't know, so I gave up on knowledge as above and just have faith that seems to work.
 

Hermit Philosopher

Selflessly here for you
You say that there is a god, but irrespective of whether or not there actually is, why should I be convinced that you know or are even capable of knowing such a thing?
The way I read this, your question is not about god(s); it’s about a) what one can know in general and b) why one should believe what others claim themselves to “know”.

You have an epistemological question (a) and another one about reliability + authority (b). Both are valid questions, I’d say.

I’m assuming that your epistemological stance is materialist. Thus, one cannot know about gods because, if they exist, they’d be immaterial and not within what can be experienced?

Not all consider god(s) immaterial and above would not be an argument against them. They’d simply ask you why you think that god(s) must be immaterial and disagree with any reason you may provide.

Others may believe that gods are immaterial, but reject your materialist epistemological stance. They’d say that you are mistaken in that our experiences are limited to the material and ask why you believe this to be so. If they consider themself to experience beyond what is material, they’d be unlikely to accept any response you give, as it would go against what they consider themselves to experience.

Then, there is your question regarding authority [about what is and is not].

Again, I’m assuming that you are a person of our times and that as such, your main source of authority is science, with its current understanding of things? Hopefully, you are not one of those who accepts any random statement claiming to be scientific, without first looking further into what research a claim is truly based on, etc. because otherwise, you’d simply be using random “science” as some use their Bible - at face value, without any whatsoever critical reflection - in which case, you’d be what I’d consider a person of blind faith in what you are told is scientific.

Which brings us to your question about why we believe/don’t believe in what others say that they “know”. The answer is silly but nonetheless so: because we want/ don’t want to.

No one has the time and/or resources to personally experience everything in life at first hand and we’d be forever “reinventing the wheel” if we felt unable to rely on the witness of others.

Scientific research itself, too, relies on previous, reviewed studies and we trust that the ones that we choose to base our own research on, thereby indeed are valid and reliable; that they have been carried out in accordance with academic standards, reviewed and not tampered with. All knowledge production includes trust and faith.

Humbly,
Hermit
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Just ask yourself: how could functional information arise by itself, let alone create arrangement where interactive purpose is observed?

Wherever we have found information conveying purpose & complexity, a mind has always been accepted to be the source.

It’s logic.

Ex nihilo, nihil fit.
So you claim to have proof of God.
Droll.

Considering your demonstrated immunity
to fact and reason re geology, we have our doubts






O
 

PureX

Veteran Member
That is not true. I suspect you are using sloppy language. If you think that your god wants you to cut out my eyeballs, or to paint my house neon orange, then there is a reason for me to care.
That is not caring about what I think of God. That is caring about how I might behave toward you. We are all free to think whatever we want about anything we want. And no one can stop us even if they are foolish enough to think they have the right. Most people don't even know what they think about God, or anything else. Their minds just wander aimlessly relative to their circumstances. Thinking this today and that tomorrow. Mostly based on myth and ego and self-justification.
Not relevant.

I don't believe that any type of god is possible.
Then for you, the issue is closed. So why are you here? Your mind is made up, and you have no control over anyone else's. So what's your point?
Irrelavant.

That is false. Again, I suspect you are using sloppy language.

That is not true. Possibility must be demonstrated.

Irrelavent

Not true. And irrelevant

Wants are irrelevant.
So you're here just to assert your own imagined righteousness? That appears to be all you're doing.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
I've been blessed to meet a few of these folks in recovery. Christian's have been very good to me over the last few years. One 80 year old geezer uses language that would make a trucker blush but he is also a dear person who loves helping others. If anything, they have helped me to understand the importance of community and fellowship, something I had long forgotten,
Yes. It's easy to miss the reality of God when we focus so intently on the definitions, and the images, and the intellectual debates about God. AA is a good place to find the reality of God ... partly because they don't indulge those who obsess over the trappings. Either God shows up, or they die. :)
 
Last edited:

Muffled

Jesus in me
You say that there is a god, but irrespective of whether or not there actually is, why should I be convinced that you know or are even capable of knowing such a thing?
I believe you can believe me because I tell the truth. Of course you would have to see my history on here to know that.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
I say there are many gods.

You shouldn't be convinced unless you have your own experiential evidence of such a being.

That said, you shouldn't be quick to dismiss others' experiences of a god just because you haven't shared in such an experience.
About the only time God said to test Him was when He said to tithe.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
Because we all have personal opinions, based on personal life observations. I'm not sure if your question would apply to me, however, because I don't claim to know there is a God, I simply believe there is God.
I believe to know know know Him is to love love love Him and I do.
 

ppp

Well-Known Member
The way I read this, your question is not about god(s); it’s about a) what one can know in general and b) why one should believe what others claim themselves to “know”.

You have an epistemological question (a) and another one about reliability + authority (b). Both are valid questions, I’d say.
Correct. Though not so much about authority, as a demonstration of capability.
I’m assuming that your epistemological stance is materialist. Thus, one cannot know about gods because, if they exist, they’d be immaterial and not within what can be experienced?
No. Like you said, we are talking about epistemology. How does one know, and by corrolary, how does one reliably demonstrate (to ones self snd to others) that what one has is knowledge. That a question that transcends a particular stance; materialist or otherwise.

Not all consider god(s) immaterial and above would not be an argument against them. They’d simply ask you why you think that god(s) must be immaterial and disagree with any reason you may provide.
I am making no assertion about the "nature" of what a god must be. I could have replaced the word "god" with any other noun, material or not, and it would not have changed anything.

Then, there is your question regarding authority [about what is and is not].
i guess. But again, I am more focused on demonstraion of ability. Is 'authority' jargon for that?

Which brings us to your question about why we believe/don’t believe in what others say that they “know”. The answer is silly but nonetheless so: because we want/ don’t want to.
What? You seem to be saying that whether I accept or reject a proposition is a function of what I desire to be true. Am I reading this correctly?
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
You say that there is a god, but irrespective of whether or not there actually is, why should I be convinced that you know or are even capable of knowing such a thing?
Humans do not have the ability to accurately predict the future in precise detail. Nor are humans capable of knowing the unknown before it physically possible to be known.
Thus, that knowledge along with other convincing evidence, of lifeforms with greater intelligence and abilities is worth considering.
 
Top