Why does man believe more in himself than in God?

Could it be that God does not do what man wants?

If God won't serve him, man will serve himself. Is that it?

I think it has more to do with God interfering with mans selfish wants. God and his word are an inconvenience and places limits and boundaries.

Serving God or making deals with God can be beneficial if that God exists.

Now, most people want to enjoy life.

Its kind of a given that when you create humans with hormones which reward them for certain action, they are more likely to do that action.

God, if he exists, intentionally designed humans to be rewarded with happiness when they disobey him.

Why have more faith in yourself than God when you're going to disappoint your own self in life time and time again? When you're going to do things you regret and possibly hate yourself for. Do you follow?

When man says he's going to do something tomorrow and doesn't do it. Either because he made excuses, quit, chickened out or worse, didn't even wake up.

You don't have faith in God but have faith you're going to wake up the next morning. Besides that, to possibly not deliver on your own promises(prayers).

I guess this is why man loses faith in himself because he'll get in his own way (interfering with himself).

Material evolution aka the GOD principle, aka GOD.

Ergo man is GOD and GOD is man.

Belief and the GOD principle are simply established concepts, relative to how the human machine processes data.

So we are an essential factor of the ongoing universe and currently the primary agent of the GOD factor...This might or might not always be so.

Nonetheless, belief in our ability is seemingly pre-programmed and inevitable.

Free to choose...Nah, I don't think so.

Totally ignores woman { matriarchal } , That is patriarchal  veiw point

Finite, occupied space Universe is the non-creator God, and is the only perpetual motion machine{?], having structural and systemic parts of shorter and longer existence. Ex mesons are very short live and proton is very long lived.

*  i  * = bilateral ego identification that, changes, along with the bilogical changes, that, are affected by the environment.

/\ = closed triangle set is simplest icon for woman

Y  =  open triangle set is simplest icon for man

\Y/ = man inside the woman is a birds-eye-view of the minimal [ simplest } 2D { flat }  view of a 3D polyhedral { ergo volumetric } structure of Universe{ non-creator God }

\Y/ = subdivided 2D triangle, that, becomes a warped 2D area, one the central vertex moves to either side of the 2D flat areal plane of existence.  I see this as the simplest expression of  holography i.e. when 2D warped space is also a 3D space.

Warped...bent..curved....geodesic.......hyperbolic........

.....................space..........@..............space...........

.............space...............*   i   *..................space................

..........space..................(   )(   )............................space................

...space.....................(> * <)  i  (> * <).........................space...........

Meta-space ego i,  exists outside of the minimal, quantum toroidal space, that, is Gaussian positive negative curvature/geodesics/warping/bent and flat space.

See this URL LINK to understand positive, negative  curvature meet (  )(   ) at the  line of existence called Gaussian flat space., where neither positive or negative curvature exist.  Weird eh?

If we had the choice to believe in ourselves, would we not?

Man is alive, God is dead.

That doesn't even remotely coincide with what I said.

In this context "Man" refers the complete species, rather than just one half of the binary system.

Undoubtedly.

When all is said and done, we are individual data processing units.

Inextricably dependant upon the greater GOD principle though.

But not inextricably dependant upon 2000 year old analogical myths.

Which isn't to suggest that analogical myths were not/are not a necessary part of the process.

After all, such myths created societies that promoted material sciences.

And  clever floaty about folk might have visited, but there is no definitive proof.

Which isn't to suggest that certain inevitable human behaviour such as religious devotion and worship, were/are absolutely necessary.

But hey, that's just how things worked out...No going back as it were.

I would suggest, that we actually worked it all out for ourselves, and that we will continue to do so for now.

So yes, we should certainly have belief in ourselves.

But let's just hope that WW3 isn't our next big achievement.

Though if that's how things pan out, that's how things will pan out.

And then move on.

Are you saying "no, we would not believe in ourselves leaving us the choice to do so"?

Ok well let me ask the question.

Does man lose faith in himself because he gets in his own way?

At what time did man ever loose faith in himself? Man thinks he knows everything, its God that's stupid.

The most significant concept of a Meta-space 'God' Principle in Kerr-Newman Space-time is ..the conservation of angular momentum....

2} inside-out,

3} torque/twist/torsion,

4} spin,

5} precession,

6} orbit...however in this case, since Universe is the one and only finite sum-total whole of occupied space, there is no other for it to orbit around. That and one other thing sets Universe apart from its subcatgorical particles, in of thenseleves indidividually, and that Universe is the only eternal, perpetual motion machine/technonlogy.

There exist no creator God. There exists finite Universe, that some of us give the who use the synonym God with it...Universe/God.

Sorry.

Didn't understand that last question.

Please rephrase if possible.

Would we not believe in ourselves if we had the choice to do so?

Do you say yes or no to this?

I have lost faith in myself from a time or two .

Well, having belief in oneself could mean a variety of things.

For instance; do you mean belief in one's existence, or belief in one's ability to achieve something specific

I don't have to have faith in myself, I exist and I don't have to be convinced of that. Nor do I need to be convinced that my decisions are right or wrong. I will knowingly do things that will have negative consequences. I wont do the crime if I cant do the time so to speak. I also don't need the approval  or validation of others to justify my life and actions.

Well, God did create pediatric cancer.

So you don't ever believe you'll do something or won't do something?

Depends on the context. If I don't believe that I exist, I probably have psychosis.

If I believe I'll be breathing later to continue to converse, I'm most likely in a safe life maintaining place.

If I'm feuding with a gang member , I may not have faith in me being around much longer.

All in context.

Context.

Very true.

Thinking that one either does or does not exist, requires the same amount of mental effort, within the context of existence...Psychosis is how we have come to classify certain instances of mental processing, based upon the rationality of output relative to a collective expectation.

Believing that one will be able to continue breathing for a prolonged period, is more of a calculation based upon an assessment of real time events, within the context of existence.

A real time assessment of events wherein survival cannot be guaranteed, is not really a lack of faith, but simply a realistic assessment of a situation, within the context of existence.

Being prepared to ignore logic and accept without real proof that a creator GOD is a fact rather than an assumption, is an acquired trait.

Belief is a loosely definitive label that we can apply to such mental processes and associated conclusions.

I just look at everything in a binary sense of believing or knowing. You either have evidence or you don't. 

If you don't have evidence, nothing is an equivalent to it. Believing in God, believing in yourself, believing in world peace, believing in no God, believing your "race" is superior, believing in the big bang, believing in evolution, etc.

What is the common denominator? No evidence. It's all belief.

For sure.

Cogito ergo sum.

All evidence is relative to this, though ultimately we will never actually be able to qualify this statement.

So a belief indeed.

Though contextually we tend to apply this unqualification, as the standard basis of ongoing data management.

And on this basis we formulate a system of truth, falsehood and belief.

Oh I do shit all the time, the question is, is  what I do moral/right/wrong and is that based on a subjective or a objective standard. Faith is simply believing something exists that you cant prove exists in my opinion. Faith has nothing to do with weather I get up in the morning and go to work or what ever.  There are to ways to use the word faith, in the context it is being used in this thread. And then maybe this way for example: I have no "faith" in the US federal govt doing the right thing for the country and the people. I don't have to have faith that the US govt exists and I don't have to have faith that the US govt  could do the right thing. It either will or wont, which it wont.