I myself am an atheist, but I'm always open to new ideas and make sure to listen to the opposing side. There are a lot of people who consider themselves religious, and I'm curious: what reasons to they have for believing in a deity? This isn't really a place for arguing, I just want to hear from different people and maybe perhaps even change my mind about God. It's hard for me to find someone in real life with whom I can talk about religion, but this website has a lot of smart people who are theists and I would love to hear from them.
Why do you believe in God?
Posts
Total:
393
-->
@TheAtheist
Personal experiences.also the solar system looks designed
-->
@TheAtheist
Well there's lots of answers to that question. Usually a Theist has multiple reasons or justifications for believing in a Creator rather than a single reason ranging from obvious to vague and I would say that cross referencing plays a huge role in strengthening a position or belief. Since spirituality is of a different nature (as opposed to physical sense perception) and transcends the physical/material experience cross examination is very important. All that really means is that one can support or cross reference what they think they observed with another source that is congruent with that nature. These sources can be found in a wide range of references including literature, religion, spirituality, NDE's, OBE's, soul travel and personal encounters AKA spiritual experiences.
This is actually the cool thing about Theism is that it's built over a period of time. Spirituality is a progression so it's a cultivation, that means at no time does a person have every reason to believe and also at no time is there just a single reason. It's a culmination of intuition, personal experience, cross referencing, application and observation. It starts with a persons natural observation of the world, their curiosity of what they see, the understanding of a deeper reality, the natural intuition that they are not just a physical body ect ect….then comes the interest and study of that nature, what things mean, how they work, what makes sense and what doesn't...what is all this about??
Believe it or not all these things can be answered and experienced, spirituality is an objective reality not a subjective one. All that really means is that a persons personal opinions and feelings are irrelevant to what actually exists. In this case there's an obvious objective reality beyond the physical sense perception.
It's hard for me to find someone in real life with whom I can talk about religion
Lets give it a try, let me know what you would like to discuss.
-->
@EtrnlVw
I am still unsure of what you mean by "application".
Believe it or not all these things can be answered
By just accepting your mortality. When you die there is no more anything. Game over.
-->
@disgusted
Prove it.
-->
@janesix
I have 3.5 billion years of evidence, what do you have other than fantasies.
-->
@disgusted
What evidence, specifically? You are being vague.
-->
@janesix
I am still unsure of what you mean by "application".
Application of principles, practices and discipline that produce results. I just call them spiritual principles, these range from simple to complex, just things for the individual to practice to help them transcend or connect with that reality.
-->
@EtrnlVw
Can you give me an example of a spiritual principle and it's application.
-->
@janesix
Can you give me an example of a spiritual principle and it's application.
Sure, I'll give you a real simple example. These can apply many ways, it can be physical, mental, emotional or spiritual...just things you would apply to yourself in either of those ways.
Most people are familiar with the Bible so here is a good example.
Matthew 6
33But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
Here's another one...
Romans 8
5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be [b]carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the [c]carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. 8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
-->
@janesix
Principle meaning this....
"is a proposition or value that is a guide for behavior or evaluation. In law, it is a rule that has to be or usually is to be followed, or can be desirably followed, or is an inevitable consequence of something, such as the laws observed in nature or the way that a system is constructed. The principles of such a system are understood by its users as the essential characteristics of the system, or reflecting system's designed purpose, and the effective operation or use of which would be impossible if any one of the principles was to be ignored."
-->
@EtrnlVw
Do you think the world would be a better place of societies followed the laws of nature?and what if parts of those laws were numerical?for instance, what if we created our buildings in accordance to natural numeric harmonic laws?
-->
@janesix
What evidence, specifically? You are being vague.
It's more of an overwhelming LACK of evidence.
All versions of an afterlife are INDISTINGUISHABLE from pure fantasy.
Guys, guys, what are you doing here? I made this topic for theists to explain to us why they believe in God. This isn't about whether theism is valid or whether there is evidence that God exists. Only post what is relevant to the topic: "why do you believe in God?"
-->
@janesix
@3RU7AL
@TheAtheist
@janesix:
What evidence, specifically? You are being vague.
He has that which he assumes/believes is "3.5 billion" years of "evidence."
@3RU7AL:
It's more of an overwhelming LACK of evidence.All versions of an afterlife are INDISTINGUISHABLE from pure fantasy.
That's logically fallacious reasoning. "Lack" of evidence is not proof regardless of how you disguise it in these semantic stunts.
@TheAtheist:
Why do I believe a deity, specifically God, exists? Because I can. Like most modern atheists, I presume you subscribe to a strict materialist description of reality. The irony is, the fundamental concepts of the physical sciences are based on abstracts, namely mathematics. I'll take an atheist's/materialist's reasoning seriously when one can prove that the number two exists in accordance to their standards, i.e. has observable evidence of its material composition. Or, in other words, the number two isn't a "pure fantasy."
-->
@TheAtheist
...whether there is evidence that God exists.
Spinoza wrote an indisputable proof of god in 1665. [LINK]
-->
@Athias
LACK of evidence is not proof of an afterlife.That's logically fallacious reasoning. "Lack" of evidence is not proof regardless of how you disguise it in these semantic stunts.
LACK of evidence is not proof of bigfoot.
LACK of evidence is not proof of space aliens.
LACK of evidence is not proof of a teapot in solar orbit between Earth and Mars.
In order to justifiably BELIEVE something, you must have Quantifiable positive evidence or a logically rigorous proof.
Otherwise your OPINIONS are INDISTINGUISHABLE from pure fantasy.
-->
@janesix
All evidence as I have told you. You provide anything that exists and it will prove my contention.
Go on nominate anything at all, nominate grass and grass dies, my contention proved.
Choose anything you like and it will be evidence of my contention, go on choose something that doesn't support my contention and I don't allow imagination.
-->
@disgusted
Bodies die. You are not "only" your body.
-->
@janesix
Prove it. hahahahaha
-->
@disgusted
DIS-Prove it. hahahahaha
-->
@3RU7AL
Dinosaurs.
-->
@3RU7AL
LACK of evidence is not proof of an afterlife.LACK of evidence is not proof of bigfoot.LACK of evidence is not proof of space aliens.LACK of evidence is not proof of a teapot in solar orbit between Earth and Mars.
Pure sophistry. Regurgitating converse arguments as if anyone here but you proposed that the "lack" of anything substantiated an argument is not just inept but also demonstrative of your "lack" of understanding of your own statement:
It's more of an overwhelming LACK of evidence.All versions of an afterlife are INDISTINGUISHABLE from pure fantasy.
In order to justifiably BELIEVE something, you must have Quantifiable positive evidence or a logically rigorous proof
That's fine for you. Whether you qualify it with "justifiable" makes no difference.
-->
@Athias
Pure sophistry. Regurgitating converse arguments as if anyone here but you proposed that the "lack" of anything substantiated an argument is not just inept but also demonstrative of your "lack" of understanding of your own statem
Can I have fries with that?
-->
@Athias
Pure sophistry. Regurgitating converse arguments as if anyone here but you proposed that the "lack" of anything substantiated an argument is not just inept but also demonstrative of your "lack" of understanding of your own statement:
Would it be fair to say you believe, "you can't disprove an afterlife, therefore it might be (or probably is) real"?
-->
@3RU7AL
Would it be fair to say you believe, "you can't disprove an afterlife, therefore it might be (or probably is) real"?
Don't project your fallacious logic in some non sequitur. Fallacious logic is fallacious logic even when the argument is inverted. But, I already know where you're headed with this, so if you seek to know that which is fair to state about my beliefs, I've already said it, "Why do I believe a deity, specifically God, exists? Because I can." That is my basis, rationale, and justification.
-->
@Athias
Would it be fair to say you believe, "you can't disprove an afterlife, therefore it might be (or probably is) real"?Don't project your fallacious logic in some non sequitur. Fallacious logic is fallacious logic even when the argument is inverted. But, I already know where you're headed with this, so if you seek to know that which is fair to state about my beliefs, I've already said it, "Why do I believe a deity, specifically God, exists? Because I can." That is my basis, rationale, and justification.
I see, you prefer naked assertion. Thanks for clearing that up.
-->
@3RU7AL
I see, you prefer naked assertion. Thanks for clearing that up.
It's not a "naked assertion." it requires no more proof than my mere statement.
-->
@Athias
I see, you prefer naked assertion. Thanks for clearing that up.It's not a "naked assertion." it requires no more proof than my mere statement.
"Mere Statement" = "Naked Assertion"