Philosophy Discussion Forums

Thomyum2 wrote: ↑August 20th, 2023, 5:06 pm … since you’ve expressed that you’d like “people of all faiths and religions to share their points of view”, as a person of Catholic Christian faith, I’ll offer some of my own thoughts, but for now just stick to your opening question “What makes you believe that the God of your religion exists?”

I think that it’s worth starting by examining the question itself as there are some interesting ideas here. My first thought is that nothing ‘makes’ me believe. Rather, I choose to believe, or perhaps more accurately I choose to have faith, which is I think is really more akin to an act of trusting that God exists rather than a decision to believe or think that God exists.

In some cases, belief can be influenced by personal choice, especially when it comes to matters that are not easily verifiable or are based on subjective opinions. People choose to believe in all sorts of ideas, ideologies, or philosophies which they derive from their values, upbringing, cultural background, and personal preferences.

However, perception plays a significant role in shaping beliefs, which arise from our experiences, observations, and interactions with the world. It has certainly been a major part of my development. Our sensory experiences, cognitive processes, and emotional responses shape how we perceive information, which in my case amended my previous choices. This development was also influenced by the information I was exposed to through various sources like education, media, and social interactions, and a rising awareness of confirmation bias, which in religious communities leads us to seek out information that supports our existing beliefs and ignore information that contradicts them.

Thomyum2 wrote: ↑August 20th, 2023, 5:06 pm The second thing I observe here is the phrase ‘the God of your religion’. This is a problematic way of looking at things for a person of monotheistic faith because, of course, there is only one God, there aren’t different gods for different religions. Rather, there are different human conceptions of what God is, or different ways that humans will express their experience of God, any of which will naturally have its limitations or shortcomings since humans are finite and limited beings. (The parable of the three blind men and the elephant comes to mind here.)

Here you are treating God as a thing, the limitations of which you claim to know (there is only one), but what is a “God” or “god”? The theistic traditions of the world, whether polytheistic or monotheistic, could be interpreted as seeing gods as principles which become anthropomorphized in mythology. Taking this anthropomorphized mythology literally leads us into all sorts of dead-ends and leaves us clambering to get out. The portrayals in the Bible of meeting up with God are far more translucent and ambivalent, even funny from a certain perspective.

Thomyum2 wrote: ↑August 20th, 2023, 5:06 pm But there is and can be only one God, and the purpose of faith is to come to know the one God, not to find the best or most correct conception about what God is. It hasn’t always been so, but I think that in this day and age, all the major faiths (or at least the ones that I take seriously) recognize that it is the one and same and only God that is revealed to all and is not an exclusive right belonging to any single faith tradition. Different religions may differ greatly in the way they relate to God and how they understand and describe that relationship, but they aren’t actually worshipping different gods.

Again, judging from how the various religions have combatted each other, even literarily, this suggests that when the attributes of the God of one tradition contradicts the attributes of another, we are talking about a completely differently conceived entity. If, on the other hand, God is one and the same, the conceptions must be wrong. I believe the latter, but the reality is that there are varying concepts floating about, and if I worship Kali, a fierce and powerful deity associated with destruction, transformation, and liberation, I can’t be mistaking her for the fatherly God of Jesus.

Thomyum2 wrote: ↑August 20th, 2023, 5:06 pm The third point I’d make is that I agree with Pattern-chaser when he says that it’s not possible to prove, through logic or reason, that God exists. This is because God, as understood by all of the major faiths, is not a ‘contingent being’. God’s existence cannot be dependent upon any other things existing or occurring first, or otherwise God would not really be God but rather would just be another human idea. In more philosophical terminology, one could say that God’s existence is a premise, a foundational axiom, and not a conclusion that can be derived from other truths. There’s a quote, attributed to various people including Saints Thomas Aquinas and Ignatius Loyola, that often comes to mind when I see this topic brought up: “For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who disbelieve, no amount of proof is sufficient.” And of course, how could it be otherwise if the most basic premise is not shared?

I agree that “no proof is necessary” and yet I am vastly interested in the fact that with Metaphysical or Analytical Idealism, more and more fascinating scientific discoveries are making the non-dual perspective even more viable. Of course, these are hypotheses and not proof, but all the same, it is an interesting perspective from which to look at our existenz.

Thomyum2 wrote: ↑August 20th, 2023, 5:06 pm So taking these ideas together, I think it's important to understand that entering a faith isn’t a matter of being convinced that a particular conception of God is correct and being therefore persuaded to hold the thought in mind that this god ‘exists’. Rather, it consits in making the personal choice to accept that God exists, in taking that ‘leap of faith’ to commit trust in and to live by the tenet that God exists even in spite of one's doubts or objections.

If proof is not necessary, I have no doubts or objections. I trust in the fact that God is inexplicably present, which to a certain degree is forced on me by experience.

Stoppelmann wrote: ↑August 21st, 2023, 4:43 am

Thomyum2 wrote: ↑August 20th, 2023, 5:06 pm … since you’ve expressed that you’d like “people of all faiths and religions to share their points of view”, as a person of Catholic Christian faith, I’ll offer some of my own thoughts, but for now just stick to your opening question “What makes you believe that the God of your religion exists?”

I think that it’s worth starting by examining the question itself as there are some interesting ideas here. My first thought is that nothing ‘makes’ me believe. Rather, I choose to believe, or perhaps more accurately I choose to have faith, which is I think is really more akin to an act of trusting that God exists rather than a decision to believe or think that God exists.

In some cases, belief can be influenced by personal choice, especially when it comes to matters that are not easily verifiable or are based on subjective opinions. People choose to believe in all sorts of ideas, ideologies, or philosophies which they derive from their values, upbringing, cultural background, and personal preferences.

However, perception plays a significant role in shaping beliefs, which arise from our experiences, observations, and interactions with the world. It has certainly been a major part of my development. Our sensory experiences, cognitive processes, and emotional responses shape how we perceive information, which in my case amended my previous choices. This development was also influenced by the information I was exposed to through various sources like education, media, and social interactions, and a rising awareness of confirmation bias, which in religious communities leads us to seek out information that supports our existing beliefs and ignore information that contradicts them.

Hello Stoppelmann, thanks for your comments on my post. I'm in agreement with much of what you say here. Certainly, experiences and perception, do play a role in the process of forming beliefs - to these that you've mentioned, I would also add that our social and cultural environment also has very strong influence on belief. Perhaps a topic for another time, but I might suggest that all of these 'lead' us toward or away from certain beliefs, but I think that ultimately the formation of a belief is something we do choose as an individual - I think it's human nature to settle on a belief when we feel that it is right or true, which is why it's often a matter of the heart as much as the mind.

Stoppelmann wrote: ↑August 21st, 2023, 4:43 am

Thomyum2 wrote: ↑August 20th, 2023, 5:06 pm The second thing I observe here is the phrase ‘the God of your religion’. This is a problematic way of looking at things for a person of monotheistic faith because, of course, there is only one God, there aren’t different gods for different religions. Rather, there are different human conceptions of what God is, or different ways that humans will express their experience of God, any of which will naturally have its limitations or shortcomings since humans are finite and limited beings. (The parable of the three blind men and the elephant comes to mind here.)

Here you are treating God as a thing, the limitations of which you claim to know (there is only one), but what is a “God” or “god”? The theistic traditions of the world, whether polytheistic or monotheistic, could be interpreted as seeing gods as principles which become anthropomorphized in mythology. Taking this anthropomorphized mythology literally leads us into all sorts of dead-ends and leaves us clambering to get out. The portrayals in the Bible of meeting up with God are far more translucent and ambivalent, even funny from a certain perspective.

I certainly didn't intend to sound like I am 'treating God as a thing'. Nor am I trying to make a knowledge claim here. Poor wording on my part, perhaps. I guess I take it as understood that when we speak of 'God' (upper case 'G'), it's implied in the term that there is only one - a single power and source of all, and that there cannot be others as that would be contradictory to the meaning itself. More than one god (lower case) implies multiple entities, multiple competing powers at work. This isn't a 'claim to know' here as much as a 'confession of faith' - an extension, or perhaps and additional article thereof. As the Nicene Creed begins Credo in unum Deum - 'I believe in one God' - the one precedes even the mention of God - and as I've argued here, this is simply a foundational principle.

You're correct about the problems with anthropomorphic representations of God, though I think that if they are taken along with an understanding of the cultural milieu out of which they came, that these 'mythologies' can still be powerfully revealing about our nature and the history of our ever-evolving relationship to God, or the Divine, or however one chooses to name that.

Stoppelmann wrote: ↑August 21st, 2023, 4:43 am

Thomyum2 wrote: ↑August 20th, 2023, 5:06 pm But there is and can be only one God, and the purpose of faith is to come to know the one God, not to find the best or most correct conception about what God is. It hasn’t always been so, but I think that in this day and age, all the major faiths (or at least the ones that I take seriously) recognize that it is the one and same and only God that is revealed to all and is not an exclusive right belonging to any single faith tradition. Different religions may differ greatly in the way they relate to God and how they understand and describe that relationship, but they aren’t actually worshipping different gods.

Again, judging from how the various religions have combatted each other, even literarily, this suggests that when the attributes of the God of one tradition contradicts the attributes of another, we are talking about a completely differently conceived entity. If, on the other hand, God is one and the same, the conceptions must be wrong. I believe the latter, but the reality is that there are varying concepts floating about, and if I worship Kali, a fierce and powerful deity associated with destruction, transformation, and liberation, I can’t be mistaking her for the fatherly God of Jesus.

Yes, that's a good point. I think the parable of the three blind men and the elephant I mentioned earlier is a good metaphor here, though. There may be cases where persons of different faiths describe their experiences in greatly different manners which can prove challenging to reconcile. And it can sometimes be hard to discern between a concept that is actually 'wrong', versus one that is simply a widely differing perspective on the same thing. I think that's very much the argument we run into so often in philosophy about moral relativism and subjectivity. I tend to take the position that since we cannot step outside and get a 'God's eye view', i.e. see the elephant as a whole, we must look to our conscience to guide us and tells us where we stand. Certainly, one of the other blind men could be mistaken or even maliciously lying about what they experienced. On the other hand, they may be telling the truth and it's just beyond our current capacity to understand how the elephant could be like that.

Stoppelmann wrote: ↑August 21st, 2023, 4:43 am

Thomyum2 wrote: ↑August 20th, 2023, 5:06 pm The third point I’d make is that I agree with Pattern-chaser when he says that it’s not possible to prove, through logic or reason, that God exists. This is because God, as understood by all of the major faiths, is not a ‘contingent being’. God’s existence cannot be dependent upon any other things existing or occurring first, or otherwise God would not really be God but rather would just be another human idea. In more philosophical terminology, one could say that God’s existence is a premise, a foundational axiom, and not a conclusion that can be derived from other truths. There’s a quote, attributed to various people including Saints Thomas Aquinas and Ignatius Loyola, that often comes to mind when I see this topic brought up: “For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who disbelieve, no amount of proof is sufficient.” And of course, how could it be otherwise if the most basic premise is not shared?

I agree that “no proof is necessary” and yet I am vastly interested in the fact that with Metaphysical or Analytical Idealism, more and more fascinating scientific discoveries are making the non-dual perspective even more viable. Of course, these are hypotheses and not proof, but all the same, it is an interesting perspective from which to look at our existenz.

Thomyum2 wrote: ↑August 20th, 2023, 5:06 pm So taking these ideas together, I think it's important to understand that entering a faith isn’t a matter of being convinced that a particular conception of God is correct and being therefore persuaded to hold the thought in mind that this god ‘exists’. Rather, it consits in making the personal choice to accept that God exists, in taking that ‘leap of faith’ to commit trust in and to live by the tenet that God exists even in spite of one's doubts or objections.

If proof is not necessary, I have no doubts or objections. I trust in the fact that God is inexplicably present, which to a certain degree is forced on me by experience.

Well said - I think you articulate your ideas about this topic better than I'm able to. Thanks again for your input.

What makes you believe that the God of your religion exists?

Nothing "makes" me believe. I believe because, to me, my conception of God makes sense; it feels right. As for "existence"? That's more difficult. If by that we mean God exists in the spacetime universe so ably described by science, I think I might have to admit that there is no evidence whatever that God exists. But there is more to existence than that, in the human mind, that is, if nowhere else.

I would say that an idea exists, and in a meaningful way too. And yet it does not exist in the world described by science, even though science and scientific enquiry positively bristle with ideas. So perhaps God can exist just as meaningfully, and just as usefully, as an idea can? I don't know.

What I do know is that I am in the happy position that if my conception of God was shown to be completely false/incorrect/wrong, it wouldn't really affect me. For my belief has value (to me) because of the views, aspirations, aims, and directions it bestows upon me. As I said before, it feels right.

Just for the record, I am a Gaian Daoist, with more than a hint of Stoicism thrown in. More philosophical than religious, you might say, and you are entitled to your opinion; it's fine. The "Gaian" bit is the 'Gaia hypothesis' — that the world is essentially a single conscious-seeming entity — but extended to include not just Earth, but the whole Universe, in all its glory and splendour.

Namaste, as the Hindus, and Wiccans, say.

Thomyum2 wrote: ↑August 20th, 2023, 5:06 pm
The second thing I observe here is the phrase ‘the God of your religion’. This is a problematic way of looking at things for a person of monotheistic faith because, of course, there is only one God, there aren’t different gods for different religions. Rather, there are different human conceptions of what God is, or different ways that humans will express their experience of God, any of which will naturally have its limitations or shortcomings since humans are finite and limited beings. (The parable of the three blind men and the elephant comes to mind here.) But there is and can be only one God, and the purpose of faith is to come to know the one God, not to find the best or most correct conception about what God is. It hasn’t always been so, but I think that in this day and age, all the major faiths (or at least the ones that I take seriously) recognize that it is the one and same and only God that is revealed to all and is not an exclusive right belonging to any single faith tradition. Different religions may differ greatly in the way they relate to God and how they understand and describe that relationship, but they aren’t actually worshipping different gods.

The third point I’d make is that I agree with Pattern-chaser when he says that it’s not possible to prove, through logic or reason, that God exists. This is because God, as understood by all of the major faiths, is not a ‘contingent being’. God’s existence cannot be dependent upon any other things existing or occurring first, or otherwise God would not really be God but rather would just be another human idea. In more philosophical terminology, one could say that God’s existence is a premise, a foundational axiom, and not a conclusion that can be derived from other truths. There’s a quote, attributed to various people including Saints Thomas Aquinas and Ignatius Loyola, that often comes to mind when I see this topic brought up: “For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who disbelieve, no amount of proof is sufficient.” And of course, how could it be otherwise if the most basic premise is not shared?

That is a simplistic trap since we currently live in an era where monotheism is more trendy than polytheism, but historically is essentially meangless.

The problem with your third point isn't that gods can or cannot be proven to exist, it is that you're speaking of gods objectively, not inter-subjectively. It is trivial to prove that gods exist within their realm (inter-subjectively), while it is a fool's errand to attempt to prove whether the metaphysical is physical (that gods exist objectively).

Philosophy_of_Guitar,

1. If God is really great, not even truly omnipotent and omniscient, but nigh-omnipotent and nigh-omniscient, then it's logical to think that he could communicate in such a way that the word of the Bible would be clear and precise, and leave no room for logical inconsistency and/or misinterpretation. A person could write a book that's is much more precise, less confusing and completely internally logical. So this means God doesn't exist, God doesn't want everyone to get the word of God, or God is not as knowledgeable, good and/or powerful as the scriptures suggest.

That is a reasonable conclusion. But if we consider the New Testament, it states in John 3:16 that it is through belief (or faith) in Jesus Christ that people find their way to God’s good graces (inherit eternal life). If the Bible were completely logically consistent and precise, there would be no requirement for either. In that case, the Bible would contradict its most prominent tenets – belief and faith. Indeed, there are many contradictions in the Bible, but the one constant throughout it is the necessity for both. In my view, it would not mean that because the Bible is not completely logically consistent and precise – that God is not as knowledgeable, good and/or powerful as the scriptures claim, but rather, it could mean that he chose to do things in the way that he has because he wants to elicit a different reaction from people than he would acquire from giving us certainty or complete knowledge. We all understand what people are referring to when they say things like, “they went with their head rather than their heart”. Religious faith is primarily concerned with the heart because it doesn’t rely on facts or knowledge, and the Bible states that God looks upon the heart.

I echo those that tell that nothing makes us believe.

Instead it is a choice. The idea of God is that of a superior that we do not doubt. As such, we choose to believe. The reasons for the choice might be fear or other emotional needs, but it is a choice still.

If and when a person leaves a religion, it is because they choose to no longer believe.

All religions(that I know about) have some hole or holes in them that defy logic.

As a side note, I have known people that do not believe but choose to fake it because the benefits for them of appearing to believe are worth it.

Sea Turtle wrote: ↑August 28th, 2023, 6:25 am I echo those that tell that nothing makes us believe.

I would summarize biased aspects of this question as:
1. Bias towards monotheism. (God)
2. Bias towards religion (in at least some places most people without any religion still believe in God)
3. Bias towards forced belief (such as by deterministic philosophy?). (belief in God often considered optional)

Hey there, sorry for taking a minute to answer. I had some commitments and trips for the end of the summer. I hope you had an excellent summer as well

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑August 18th, 2023, 6:50 am Your final sentiment, that we need to accept and live in apparent reality is common sense. In practice, we have no choice in the matter. But this is a philosophy forum, where we recognise practical necessities, and deeper, more involved, matters too.

It is indeed a philosophy forum. I believe that philosophy is the exercise of prudence in order to be in a perpetual state of eudaimonia. The practice part of philosophy is what ultimately matters.

I agree that we have no choice in the matter in a priori sense. However, the point I'm driving at is that our beliefs matter truly matter in a fundamental and very real way. And I'm not just talking about metaphysical or religious beliefs, it's even beliefs about day-to-day stuff. Beliefs appear to just be these intangible, abstract figments that only exist in our imagination but in truth, we always manifest our beliefs in real life whether or not we're aware of how we're manifesting them.

If one believes that "white" lies are inoffensive, they will get themselves into a mess; sometimes a very deep and dark web of lies.

If someone is amazing at math from k-12 and decides to do a math major, that's a good decision based on a rational (likely true) belief which is backed up by years of evidence. In this case, the belief that maps onto the real world provides opportunity and harmony.

However, if in third and fourth grade that person had a horrible math teacher who persuaded the person they're terrible at math, this false belief at an impressionable age would likely completely change the course of the person's life. They would manifest this belief by doing a different degree which may not as sought after as a math degree.

Beliefs are a big deal. It's vital to keep beliefs which are logically-consistent and track well with outside reality.

When you say "practical necessities," it's not quite rational to me that we should have apply different standards of logical scrutiny for day-to-day activities compared to the "faith" stuff. I believe all decisions require prudence and all actions matter. Life is a flow and every action should be deliberate. You could say I seek to emulate Jesus Christ in every action. But ironically, a big reason I'm so aware of every action and every experience is because I have made peace with the possibility that this life is the only life I have.

It depends what you mean by "common sense." If you mean logic, I agree. But if you mean intuition, I'm personally careful with those and I question them. Our intuition tells us that the sun and the universe revolves around us. All our intuitions completely break when trying to understand as an object approaches the event horizon of a black holes. Time appears to come to almost a full stop the closer the object gets to the black hole.

Through logic, we can intellectualize these concepts that completely fail any intuition we have. I personally make a conscious efforts to observe my intuitions logically and ask myself why I hold each intuitive belief and whether each tracks with reality.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑August 18th, 2023, 6:50 amThere is more than "some" truth in my "claim", which is entirely "rational". Strictly speaking, the only knowledge any human can knowingly possess is that Objective Reality exists, and they are all or part of it. All else is supposition, philosophically speaking. This is not an "extreme" Ivory Tower theory, this is the actual truth.

At the most a priori, fundamental level, I'd say person can only truly know that he/she thinks and exists right now and that's all. "Right now" is important to add. It's impossible to know with 100% certainty there is an objective reality because when we cease to exist, we cannot observe if reality still exists.

It's true that we cannot know with 100% certainty that we will exist in an hour or in a second or that we existed a minute ago. All this is true and holds some philosophical value. It's a good thing to discover about oneself and about one's epistemology. But beyond self-awareness and realizing the importance of exercising healthy skepticism, epistemological skepticism is a useless position. According to epistemological skepticism, we cannot be having this conversation and we cannot know whether we are having this conversation; it quickly becomes circular.

Unless we're having a conversation going all the way down to first principles, it's not a productive stance.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑August 18th, 2023, 6:50 amFor most practical purposes, in Real Life, this knowledge is not especially useful, but that doesn't mean it's incorrect. And I wonder why you characterise this view as "fatalistic"? Is this some kind of insult intended to demean or undermine my argument? Yes, of course it's "unpragmatic", but (again) that doesn't make it wrong. Finally, I'm not taking an "extreme" position, but only a strictly-correct one.

When I say wrong, I don't mean that it's impossible. What I mean is that, as mentioned above, the moment we present absolutely epistemological skepticism, there's no conversation to be had if nothing can be known be known.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑August 18th, 2023, 6:50 amPerhaps we should recognise the value of foundational truths and real-world practicality? They do not contradict one another. They are simply different ways of looking at, and dealing with, life, the universe, and everything.

Hmmm... There are different ways to see the world, sure, but the views have to be logically-consistent with one another, or else that creates cognitive dissonance. And cognitive dissonance = random actions + misery.

Please don't take anything I say as demeaning. It's not my intention at all. It's a waste of time to be mean or trying to grandstand. We are however indeed having a fairly heated conversation in a civil way. If I'm strawmaning you, please point it out. Rest assured, I'm speaking in good faith.

One thing I noticed is that for you philosophy appears to be largely theoretical concepts that don't necessarily need a practical purpose. The way I approach philosophy is that my epistemology has to be logically-consistent all the way from first principles through to the moment my finger presses the key on my keyboard. Philosophy guides my every action so to speak.

Cheers.

Stoppelmann wrote: ↑August 17th, 2023, 12:11 pm Hello!

I decided to start with the last question of your post, which is in line with the OP, and explains the rest. My proof of the existence of God is our own sentient or conscious being, the underlying unity in nature, reciprocity down to cell level, and the mystery of existence.

Hey! Sorry for taking a hot minute to respond. I had commitments and trips scheduled. I hope you had an awesome summer!

Great idea to start with the last bit of my post! It is the crux of our conversation.

I have to preface my response by saying that I will have to disagree with quite a bit of what you laid out and point out fallacies and logical inconsistencies. Please don't take these to be personal attacks, they're critiques of the philosophical arguments. But on the other hand, I'm also going to give my personal opinion which tends to align fairly closely to your principles.

So my responses will be two-tiered, keep that in mind as you go through them

Stoppelmann wrote: ↑August 17th, 2023, 12:11 pm When I say God, I am referring to the grounding principles or gods of the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Tao Te Ching, the Qurʾān as much as the Bible, as well as the writings of innumerable thinkers and mystics.

According to the Bible and Quran, you're a heretic and by venerating "false idols" (all the Eastern gods and mystic takes on God), you're committing the gravest sin.

Now personally I don't believe you are. I think it's quite the opposite: you have a very balanced take on Spirituality. And I would bet you have your arguments to reconcile all these different sources so that your belief as a whole is internally logically-sound.

However, in terms of consistency with "God's word," you're going against the word of the Abrahamic God (Yahweh/Christ/Allah) very defiantly. So it's a logical contradiction since following the Abrahamic God necessarily excludes all other gods.

Stoppelmann wrote: ↑August 17th, 2023, 12:11 pmFor me, God is within and without, explicit and implicit, the places in-between, and I find God in the silence and the struggles of everyday life.

To make these claims, you would have to prove that God exists and afterwards prove that God has each of these qualifiers.

Nevertheless, if you genuinely experience God in this manner, that's very cool.

Stoppelmann wrote: ↑August 17th, 2023, 12:11 pmGod is the Other, the Thou, but in centring religious experience, God is discovered in oneself. The way to God leads through images and symbols to forms of mystical participation and God meets us as the principle of ultimate unity, as our deepest Self. Centring Prayer, when practiced daily over time, can lead to a deeper sense of intimacy with God, inner peace, and transformation of one's consciousness.

Again, each of these claims need to be proven one by one because these are not self-evident or a priori.

I like the idea of "God is discovered in oneself." This is in fact the principle that I ultimately want to lay out and argue in a different post later on. I believe that in order to be content and at peace, one needs to act in accordance with a strong virtuous (moral) character. From moment to moment, the most virtuous action needs to be taken even the virtuous action causes us suffering. By living this way, no matter the outside circumstance, one feels a sense of deep self-love and respect which cannot be attained any other way.

Stoppelmann wrote: ↑August 17th, 2023, 12:11 pmIs God tangible? Well, he’s not touchable, physical, material, or visible except between moments, between the lines, and we catch a glimpse in a moment just passed, as though just going out of sight.

An immaterial, personal god. There isn't a single known thing in the universe which we know to have these properties. So it's a special pleading fallacy.

Stoppelmann wrote: ↑August 17th, 2023, 12:11 pmMy metaphorical proposition is that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of reality, not reducible to physical processes, and there exists an ultimate source or ground of all being that underlies everything. “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or, ‘There it is!’ For behold, the kingdom of God is within you.” (Luke 17:21-22) Metaphysical propositions are often highly abstract and philosophical in nature, and they may not always have clear empirical evidence to support or refute them.

With our current understanding of the brain and neuroscience, it does appear more likely than not that consciousness emerges from the brain. A simple example of this is that someone receiving brain damage from an accident can radically change their behaviour, personality and disposition. Did they change or modify consciousnesses during the accident?

Consider also that when they used to practice lobotomy, the connection between the right and left hemispheres would be physically severed. Some people developed a personality in each hemisphere. The two personalities had completely different experiences and "memories." They were distinctive to such an extent that each personality had a different religion! What is your theory in those cases? Did the lobotomy cause a new consciousness to "integrate" the "vacant" hemisphere? Or did the person always have two consciousnesses? While we don't know for a fact, Occam's razor suggests that the new consciousness emerged from the brain.

Scientifically, consciousness appears to be a spectrum. Such that a fly or a spider has a consciousness but not nearly as pronounced as a cow and the cow would not be nearly as conscious as an octopus. How then does the consciousness of a worm (probably super low on the spectrum) compare to human consciousness? Are they equivalent in importance?

Now to be fair, we don't know whether consciousness emerges from the brain with objective scientific-certainty standards. But the current consensus among experts is that it does. Since we don't know, I'll take an agnostic position as to the emergence of consciousness.

I will highlight something that I'm sure you agree with: there's definitely a difference between mind and brain.

That's interesting! There's actually a physicist called Donald Hoffman who posits that everything we perceive through our senses is a completely distorted version of the actual thing and as such our ideas and perceptions of objective reality are objectively completely wrong. He's doing active research on it. He believes that fundamentally the only things that truly exist are individual and collective consciousnesses. He believes that a theory unifying General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics could be a breakthrough into the "supernatural" world so to speak. He fascinates me! I would recommend watching a video of Donald Hoffman where he dives into why he believes what he believes and why consciousnesses could be fundamental units from a mathematical and scientific standpoint.

Stoppelmann wrote: ↑August 17th, 2023, 12:11 pmWith regard to knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope, and the distinction between justified belief and opinion, I think we must distinguish between knowledge and knowing. We are fooling ourselves if we believe that accumulated knowledge is equivalent to knowing, but the difference between knowledge and knowing is profound and often subtle. While the two terms are related, they refer to distinct aspects of understanding and awareness.

Sure. But what I call knowledge is the most accurate approximation of the objective truth at any given time. For example, the acceleration due to Earth's gravity is 9.81 ms^-2. That's "undeniable."

An informed belief would be something like believing that consciousness does not emerge from the brain, after one has gathered evidence. We don't know, so there will be varying beliefs until it becomes knowledge.

So in this sense, I guess what you call knowledge, I call "informed belief" and what you call "knowing," I call "knowledge." But we're referring to the same thing.

Now in the most fundamental sense, all a person can really know is that they think, they exist right now. And that's it. That's all a person can know for sure. However, taking this stance of extreme epistemological skepticism, there's no more discussion to be had or anything to do. Discussing at that level is unproductive. I'd rather go straight into embodying the assumption that the outside universe is real, and our sense-perception and logic are accurate as long as they track well with the outside world, the least not being other people around (we wanna know we're not having psychosis).

Stoppelmann wrote: ↑August 17th, 2023, 12:11 pm In the attempt to describe quantum reality, ordinary language simply breaks down. As Bohr put it: ‘We must be clear that, when it comes to atoms, language can be used only as in poetry. The poet, too, is not nearly so concerned with describing facts as with creating images and establishing mental connections.’ Another twentieth-century physicist (and, incidentally, a logical positivist), Philipp Frank, was of the opinion that ‘even the statements of Newtonian physics cannot really be formulated in common-sense language, but in the relativity and quantum theories the impossibility becomes obvious.’
If reality is such that our knowledge is intrinsically, not accidentally, incomplete; if it is intrinsically, not accidentally, uncertain; if it is intrinsically inexpressible in everyday language, requiring exceptional, non-denotative, highly metaphoric, ‘poetic’ use of language to get beyond the limits of language; if we must deal not with facts but with connexions; if entities are never wholly separable from other entities; if the process of a knower coming to know is interactive or reverberative, each changing the other – not distanced, inert and owing nothing to the presence, and possibly the nature, of the one who comes to know; and if any attempt to model it reduces what is continuous and moving, to what is static and discrete – if all of this is true, it is clear which hemisphere will be better suited to discerning it. Once more the right hemisphere’s take seems more veridical.
McGilchrist, Iain . The Matter With Things: Our Brains, Our Delusions and the Unmaking of the World (pp. 1560-1561). Perspectiva Press. Kindle Edition.

The reason for this is that right brain hemisphere is the hemisphere that is more in touch with reality, even in its ambiguity, but when the left hemisphere cannot grasp something, its reaction is to deny its existence. You know things that you cannot prove, or perhaps cannot describe, because language is limited, and if it hasn’t been written, it isn’t accepted in academia as knowledge. This is why mystics and lovers have continually turned to poetry, but when you analyse or dissect a poem for its content, it fails to live, only as a whole is it a living entity.

I disagree with this. Math, music, scientific notation: each of these are basically their own language. It's true that if I meet another musician who understands music theory, I can go straight into lingo and effectively communicate ideas quickly. With that said, even a non-musician can learn enough of music theory language that they're able to communicate with you. It can be done. Furthermore, while it's true that communicating concepts from math, physics or music theory just by using plain English will take longer than if both people know the lingo, it's still absolutely doable as long as both parties are interested to communicate.

These statements would have been probably very accurate even just 30 years ago. But with instant access to information via the internet today? My sister is a theology MA and she never liked STEM or cared for it. But there's no shot that I'm going to explain General Relativity to her in English and that she won't understand it. Sure, it will take a few hours but she'll get it.

Stoppelmann wrote: ↑August 17th, 2023, 12:11 pm For survival we need epistemology, ontology and ethics, for perceiving the interconnectedness of all life, we need love. That is the knowing of affinity in its different forms. Saint-Exupéry wrote, “It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eyes.”

Heart is very charged word. I can't help but think of romantic love when we say heart. That's a very, very powerful state and at its best, it feels transcendental... However, we know that despite this, love can also be a fickle emotion. Romantic can turn into a catastrophe. We love our family and friends and then it's a nightmare when something bad happens to them.

But heart can also mean both kindness and courage. That sounds good and reasonable IF one has good epistemology.

My position is that if someone has an epistemology which is logically-solid as a slab of steel and it tracks great with the outside universe, then I think that things will fall in place. I believe that the best epistemology will place a strong virtuous character and prudence as paramount values. This person will experience Eudaimonia and will be content no matter what life throws at them. I need to test this and prove this. I plan to make a topic about this in the future and get the community's input.

Stoppelmann wrote: ↑August 17th, 2023, 12:11 pm The Humanities help us value awareness, knowing, understanding, confidence, connecting with other human beings, harmony, presence - being there for someone, affinity, and the magic that happens when others fully connect with you. Religion helps you connect with the universe.

I'm Unitarian Universalist. That's a religion that's non-creedal. It means there are people from different faiths but the Sunday services and rules are all secular. I go to church every Sunday, sometimes I attend other services and events during other days. I meet with my congregation and my minister. Fairly regularly, I play guitar and sing, what we call "gift of music", fairly regularly during Sunday service. Despite being secular, services are no less a Spiritual experience and we have a strong sense of community. We have Christmas service. I'd say that the Unitarian church almost exactly like all Christian churches I've ever attended, just that it's secular.

My point being you can have a church community without needing the supernatural aspect.

But regardless of religion, I think attending church is a positive experience which more people should consider.

Philosophy_of_Guitar wrote: ↑August 16th, 2023, 9:59 pm What I refer to by "exist" is the existence of a God who exerts his will upon human beings such as answering prayers or deciding a person's fate as to a great or horrible afterlife based on a set of parameters, such as virtue and sin.

If a God does not exert his will upon human beings because he's incapable of doing so or does not ever care about exerting his will on humans no matter what, then it doesn't really matter all that much to know whether or not he exists because by this definition, he has no influence whatsoever in our lives or afterlives.

Stoppelmann wrote: ↑August 17th, 2023, 12:11 pm So, for my wife to know I love her, I must exert my will on her? I’m afraid you seem to have a limited idea of agape, but then again, most of us mix up love with desire, affinity with craving, and fail to understand love as a verb rather than a noun. This is a concept that Erich Fromm discussed in his book titled "The Art of Loving," which was published in 1956. Fromm explores the idea that love is not simply a passive feeling or emotion (a noun), but an active and dynamic process that involves actions, behaviours, and a continuous effort to nurture and care for the well-being of another person (a verb). He emphasizes that genuine love requires ongoing commitment, understanding, and active engagement in the relationship. It is antithetical to having, and an expression of being, which was discussed in his book “To Have or To Be.”

When I talk about God exerting his will, I'm not making an argument about a specific and personal connection such as the love or lack thereof that God may have for us. I'm making a broad inquiry about whether or not God interacts with humans in any way, shape or form, and whether there's a way for us to know this.

With regards to your wife, hopefully you don't unduly exert, as in impose, your will upon her and she doesn't do that either. As far as this being an analogy for God's love, there is a degree of will and expectations which you bestow upon your wife. At the basic level, you expect respect, love and trust from her and if she starts neglecting these expectations, you'll raise it up with her. This in fact also serves to remind her that you love her and care about your marriage. Where is God to remind us of his expectations to show his love?

Stoppelmann wrote: ↑August 17th, 2023, 12:11 pmNurturing of course involves not only providing care, support, and affection but also guiding and helping someone grow and develop in a positive and healthy way. This can sometimes involve corrective measures aimed at teaching and guiding individuals toward making better choices and understanding the consequences of their actions. The corrective aspect of upbringing, when done with love and understanding, aims to help individuals learn from their mistakes, develop a sense of responsibility, and make positive changes, and is an essential part of nurturing and supporting someone's growth and development.

I absolutely agree that you need to show this level of commitment, investment, love and care if you want your marriage to work and to be an asset in your life.

Stoppelmann wrote: ↑August 17th, 2023, 12:11 pmIf I knew and could tell you, you wouldn’t understand until it happened. That is what I believe, based on the fact that there are already things that I didn’t understand as a child, but do now. The same applies to practising meditation, with which I associated so much garbage before I took the course and adopted a habit. That is the way it is.

The question was more of an emphasis to lead into why ultimate truth would in fact be endlessly amazing to have.

You know what? Despite having experienced "transcendence" and bliss in the form of Samadhi (expanded consciousness) during meditation and the infinite usefulness of living mindfully, when I reconfigured my values shortly before I joined the forum, I questioned whether meditation is just woo woo from snake oil salesmen... Then I remembered the burning monk in Vietnam. I encourage you to watch the video on Youtube (Search "Burning monk Vietnam". That's your proof right there that mastery of meditation gives you mastery over your mind and psychology.

Even then I thought "yeah but maybe he has a neurological condition which takes away his sense of touch (and pain)"... Then I read he's not the only one to have done these demonstrations.

Now it's almost definitely true that you and I will not get to this level of mastery in this lifetime, but meditation/mindfulness is a skill. It's not an on/off switch. The more you practice, the better you can. And each little increment of improvement serves your life so well.

Philosophy_of_Guitar wrote: ↑August 16th, 2023, 9:59 pm A life which is lived to its fullest is a life where you set out to take on the whole weight of the world on your shoulders, sacrifice yourself in body, mind and soul, and you do it because it's the right thing to do and for no other reason or for no gain: that's the story of Jesus Christ.

Stoppelmann wrote: ↑August 17th, 2023, 12:11 pmI see it differently, the burden he bore was the knowledge of oneness with God, which others, even his disciples struggled with. This gave him a completely different perspective which confounded friends and foes alike. I sometimes have a sense of what that burden was like when I watch how mixed-up humanity is and speak in loving kindness for friends and foes.

That is all I have for today ...

Nothing with your interpretation. I agree with yours as well.

I think we came to a head here with the main theme of God. Great detailed conversation! That was a fun and intellectually-invigorating exchange.

Cheers.

Stoppelmann wrote: ↑August 18th, 2023, 2:30 am Stepping back from our immediate participation and reflecting on what we do, and whether it is “good” or “bad,” is something that we don’t immediately see in other forms of life, especially not a semblance of ethics in relational behaviour, and obviously we ask, whether this is indicative of a special role in the world. It is so “otherworldly,” so out of place, that it was declared divine or godly, suggesting an intention that causes what we experience. The question then becomes, what is then good, and a dialogue ensues with our experience, and we learn. It is not a voice in the sky, nor is it a book that drops from heaven, but an exchange through experience. The revelation reveals itself over time.

We know “good” things (from our perspective) by recognising them against a backdrop of “bad” things, if everything was white, we couldn’t distinguish anything. For this reason, I have always struggled with omnipotency because it denies the processual nature of things, the interaction of opposites, and especially the paradox of atrocities and suffering if there is a loving God who is omnipotent. That is why a panentheist view is preferable in my mind to a theistic world view, the belief that the divine intersects every part of the universe and also extends beyond space and time, and the universe is nothing more than the manifestation of God. But in this, God is participatory, and experiencing physical existence, which includes suffering, through the universe. But like all religion, this is theoretical, and is designed to guide my behaviour and give me meaning.

Science can only describe this experience, the need for meaning and purpose, but not explain it.

I agree with 98% of what you said here. Where I disagree the most is your definition of (dogmatic) faith. Faith is accepting a belief as true based on bad evidence. I just don't think that's a good idea. With that said, I'm not saying that religious belief doesn't come with its perks. But that admission of a series of logical contradictions inside my subconscious and the resulting cognitive dissonance are too high a price to pay for me personally. That's me though, there are many who lead worthy lives as believers.

With that said, I was serious when I said that I would convert to any religion which can prove that its metaphysical claims are true. That door will always be open.

The other item I disagree with is the "transcendental" nature of morality. Moral intuition is perfectly explained by Evolution by Natural Selection. It makes perfect sense that morality is relative to the era and the geographic location under Evolution. Under a paradigm of objective morality created by God, moral relativism makes no sense.

Now you could say "well Evolution does not explain morality perfectly 1:1." That would be true but it doesn't have to. It's enough that it explains how we developed moral intuition. With our current cognitive faculties and self-awareness, we're perfectly capable of going against our evolutionary imperatives. Evolution is simply an explanation of how we developed moral intuition, it's not a replacement for a system of ethics.

I absolutely agree that ontologically, our experience of good and bad, pleasure and pain, love and hate, well-being and suffering are all experienced relative to each other. This is an important observation indeed. To quote my favourite band Dream Theater:

"To really feel the joy in life
You must suffer through the pain
When you surrender to the light
You can face the darkest days

Passion glows within your heart
Like a furnace burning bright
Until you struggle through the dark
You'll never know the joy in life"

Like I always say, even if someone is a gazillionaire at the top of the world, the worst pain this person ever felt is still the worst pain they ever felt regardless of the level of suffering of a Gullag prisoner. It's difficult to be a human being and everyone is just trying their best.

Yes, absolutely agreed about the irreconcilable paradox that a tri-omni God presents in the face of suffering and evil. I have also considered the God who is the sum of everything. That could be a valid hypothesis. The question then becomes whether or not this "everything" is conscious and has influence over us. But yes that was a position as to God for a while.

I absolutely agree with you that people often make the mistake of substituting religion with science. And it doesn't work that way. Science is the domain of quantifiable facts and religion is the domain of values and allegory. Philosophy is the way to go for those who lose faith because the nihilism felt is by far and large due to losing the ontology, epistemology, ethics and metaphysics which is pre-packaged with religious belief. Philosophy is what can bring back meaning, humility, happiness and purposefulness in your life; not hedonism, not over-consumption and not scientism.

Cheers again

Gertie wrote: ↑August 19th, 2023, 10:50 am
Hi, your post isn't directed at me as I'm an (agnostic) atheist, and I can't offer you an argument for god which I consider persuasive. But it made me curious, because I agree with a lot of what you say, but I'm inclined not to believe in god, where-as you're inclined to believe in something you'd be prepared to give the label ''God''.

Howdy! Thanks for your answer. The issue for me is not whether I'm inclined or not to believe in a god. The issue is the following.

Let's just say by some means you come to know with absolute certainty that Yahweh indeed exists along with heaven and hell. At that point, it becomes urgent that every second of your waking life should be dedicated to learning 1. How to not end up in hell, and 2. How to get into heaven (and teaching everyone once you've learned).

That's because suffering at the maximum possible level through torture and torment for all eternity is the worst of all imaginable scenarios; by definition, there is no other possible worse scenario than that (other than all conscious beings ending up in hell).

On the other hand, an eternity is heaven is by definition the best-possible scenario because you live eternally in maximal possible bliss and reunite with your loved ones. Compared to eternity, this life would be but a faint blip IF heaven and hell exist.

Now I'm not saying that I believe that Yahweh or heaven or hell exist (I don't because there's too much logical inconsistency). But IF they exist, you wanna know this information because everything else in this life other than God/heaven/hell becomes completely irrelevant at that point. The same would apply whether it's the Hindu gods that are real or Bhuddism or Greek gods.

So I really want to make sure I don't leave any stones unturned with regards to this matter because the consequences of misjudgment are potentially infinitely dire.

But on the other hand, if it's not possible to know whether or not God exists, then that's ok, I simply hold into my epistemology that it's currently unknowable. I think that a philosophical mistake that many people make is that they believe that they should have an opinion or position on absolutely everything, even unknowable matters. We don't need to know everything in order to live happy and meaningful lives. We just need good, logically-sound epistemology that maps well onto the outside world.

Gertie wrote: ↑August 19th, 2023, 10:50 am So two questions, if you're up for it -

What do you think a persuasive argument/evidence would look like?

Well on this forum I'm looking for good philosophical arguments rather than empirical evidence. However, I don't really know what argument would persuade me because if I knew the argument, then I would believe. It has definitely happened many times before that someone gave me an argument that completely changed my perspective on a matter because that argument had not previously occurred to me. So I'm looking for something like that.

But we'll say that when it comes to Abrahamic religions, if someone gives solid logical-arguments that successfully defeat the Problem of Evil, that would be a hell of a good start.

As far as empirical evidence, Divine Hiddenness is a huge problem. Where are all these gods of all these religions that allegedly used to appear and/or cause miracles all the time from 500 BCE - 500 CE? It shouldn't be an issue at all for a massively powerful (and infinitely good) god to appear to me and let me know.

Gertie wrote: ↑August 19th, 2023, 10:50 amAnd what would that God be? (What defines the term for you?)

What would God be? Any God that turns out be real and can have influence on our lives (and afterlives). Hopefully he's a good god, ideally omnibenevolent.

I understand this answer is circular but I can't say what properties a god would have in the real universe because I don't believe it's knowable.

I think that any being that is nigh-omnipotent and/or nigh-omniscient would be a god to us regardless of whether or not they created the universe or humanity. It's almost like how you're a god to your dog or cat in the sense that somewhere they must feel something akin to "wow this guy's amazing! He has everything I ever wish for which he seemingly pulls out of thin air." It would be something like this but times infinite.

I don't believe humans have the capacity (currently) to understand a nigh-omnipotent being to any significant extent. It's too alien a concept compared to everything we know. Consider that all our paradigms of epistemology and all our intuitions completely break down as an object approaches the event horizon of a black hole. The passage of time literally seems to completely stop for that object as far as we can empirically observe. Then how could we start to comprehend in any meaningful sense what a nigh-omnipotent or nigh-omniscient god is? It doesn't seem like we could. Maybe one day we will but we'll probably need to make some strides in technology and intelligence before we do.

I really really really hope that there's an afterlife and we live forever in some form of heaven. That would be so amazing! However, just because I wish for an afterlife, that does not mean I will delude myself to believe things on faith (faith is believing propositions to be true based on bad evidence or lack of evidence). There is a potentially high cost to pay when one deludes oneself.

One thing I really don't believe thus far is that any of the gods of human religions are real (but I'm open to have my mind changed).

That's what I got for today.

rootseeker wrote: ↑August 19th, 2023, 5:21 pm One aspect of this question some people may not notice is that it only pertains to the 78% of people who believe in God as an aspect of a religion. Statistics are best available for the US, so I'm using that as my basis. According to Pew Research, 29% of people are not affiliated with any religion while 7% of people do not believe in God. So by extension, roughly 3 in 4 people who are not in a religion believe in God. Or put another way the question skips over the roughly 22% of people who believe in God but don't have a religion.

"About three in ten US Adults are Now Religiously Unaffiliated" Pew Research 2021
"Religious Landscape Study" Pew Research 2021

So if one were to overgeneralize, they'd say that people who have no religion believe in God, and be mostly right.

Sure! Let the religiously-unaffiliated believers of God present their arguments and evidence as well. I would welcome this. It could be a unique perspective

Now Buddhists are people who believe in a religion where there is no god... But Buddhism still has supernatural elements into its metaphysical propositions. So even if there is no God but Buddhism is the true reality, then that's fine: I'd join.

As for secular religions, well then it's a completely different deal because they don't offer metaphysical paradigms. I'm a Unitarian Universalist actually, so I'm part of a secular religion already. These religions focus much more on the current life and community aspects of religion, not the afterlife. Even then someone from a secular religion has something interesting to share, that'd probably be fun and informative.

I don't quite understand the aim of your post. If I'm completely honest, it appears pedantic with a needless focus on statistics. There's no philosophy or theology or even personal experience there. Please don't take this the wrong way but it's completely irrelevant to my OP or even the vicinity of the topic at hand. Please direct me to the point of interest if I'm missing something.

Thomyum2 wrote: ↑August 20th, 2023, 5:06 pm Hello and welcome to the forum! I appreciate your open-minded approach to a topic that's often controversial in philosophy.

Hey there! Thank you for welcoming me and thank you for your post I have to say that I disagree with some of your premises but I really like your post nonetheless! I like your open-mindedness towards other religions as well as respecting that people are not to be held by the morals of Christianity unless they're Christian. Nevertheless, you still express that you uphold (and live by?) the core tenets of the Bible such as the monotheistic God and the Ten Commandments. That's interesting!

Something which irks me with many believers is that they don't have a balanced idea of their faiths and they do things that go against the tenets of the religions, sometimes starkly so! I don't understand the idea of truly believing that the Biblical God exists and simultaneously regularly breaching the Ten Commandments. That's so irrational. You appear like you understand the importance of following the core tenets of the religion you believe in. That's great.

Thomyum2 wrote: ↑August 20th, 2023, 5:06 pm You’ve brought up a LOT of ideas here – the problems of evil and suffering, the role of sacred texts, free will, miracles, hell and the afterlife - any one of these would make for a very extensive discussion all by itself! So I won’t try to answer these as it’s just too much to try to tackle in a post.

I did bring up a lot! Lol. I did so in order to give a good sense of where I stand philosophically and what my contentions are. To be honest, my goal was also to encourage people who have really thought about the matter and educated themselves, as well as those with unique takes to respond if that makes sense.

I nevertheless agree that each of these points can take a long time to unpack and fully explore. I would love to engage the problems of evil and suffering in detail if that is something which you like to do.

We can also have a discussion about freewill. Neither the positive nor negative positions of freewill prove or disprove the existence of God. But that's still a fascinating topic!

Thomyum2 wrote: ↑August 20th, 2023, 5:06 pmPattern-chaser and Stoppelmann have both made some excellent and insightful posts here that I largely agree with. But since you’ve expressed that you’d like “people of all faiths and religions to share their points of view”, as a person of Catholic Christian faith, I’ll offer some of my own thoughts, but for now just stick to your opening question “What makes you believe that the God of your religion exists?”

Stoppelmann made some well-crafted and informative arguments from many different schools of philosophy and theology. Here's another guy who seems very well-balanced in his beliefs. However, like you said, according to the Bible, worshipping or even looking at other gods is a grave sin. So then that becomes a big logical inconsistency. Now I personally think he has a useful and educated set of beliefs... But because Yahweh would think otherwise according to the Bible, it becomes an irreconcilable logical rift to believe in both Christian and Hindu metaphysics.

Thomyum2 wrote: ↑August 20th, 2023, 5:06 pmI think that it’s worth starting by examining the question itself as there are some interesting ideas here. My first thought is that nothing ‘makes’ me believe. Rather, I choose to believe, or perhaps more accurately I choose to have faith, which is I think is really more akin to an act of trusting that God exists rather than a decision to believe or think that God exists.

My problem with the choosing to believe is that many other people are choosing to believe in other religions and gods that are mutually-exclusive with Christianity, which is every religion other than perhaps Judaism. Every believer is convinced that their particular god is the true God just as you are convinced that Jesus Christ is the true God. As someone who is agnostic as to who's the real God, this does not convince me that the Biblical God is the true God.

I have qualms with the concept of dogmatic faith. Faith is acceptance that a set of propositions is true based on bad evidence. I believe that one's epistemology is paramount to how their life will turn out. To the degree that we have any freewill, it is through a solid epistemology all the way from first principles in your mind down to action in the world and being logically-consistent through that whole chain of processes between belief and action. Because of this, I believe that accepting any kind of proposition based on bad evidence in one's subconscious can truly hurt someone.

Thomyum2 wrote: ↑August 20th, 2023, 5:06 pmThe second thing I observe here is the phrase ‘the God of your religion’. This is a problematic way of looking at things for a person of monotheistic faith because, of course, there is only one God, there aren’t different gods for different religions. Rather, there are different human conceptions of what God is, or different ways that humans will express their experience of God, any of which will naturally have its limitations or shortcomings since humans are finite and limited beings. (The parable of the three blind men and the elephant comes to mind here.) But there is and can be only one God, and the purpose of faith is to come to know the one God, not to find the best or most correct conception about what God is. It hasn’t always been so, but I think that in this day and age, all the major faiths (or at least the ones that I take seriously) recognize that it is the one and same and only God that is revealed to all and is not an exclusive right belonging to any single faith tradition. Different religions may differ greatly in the way they relate to God and how they understand and describe that relationship, but they aren’t actually worshipping different gods.

Yes believing only in the Biblical God is rational if you are Christian, I agree with this.

I disagree that Gods of different faiths are the same true God. You could make the argument that Allah is the Biblical God, however, while Islam considers Jesus to be a holy prophet, they deny that he's God. And that's a stark problem. Either the Quran is right or the Bible is right about Jesus. Hinduism is a fascinating philosophy, theology and corpus of stories, however, the Hindu Gods are not the same as the Biblical God. Both the characterization of the Gods and the metaphysical propositions are at odds.

Nevertheless, this is something I heard a lot of people from different religions say: whichever form of God you worship, at the end of the day it's the one and only God that everyone is praying to. Perhaps there is something there and some merit to this argument. It'd be interesting to explore this idea and expand on it.

Thomyum2 wrote: ↑August 20th, 2023, 5:06 pmThe third point I’d make is that I agree with Pattern-chaser when he says that it’s not possible to prove, through logic or reason, that God exists. This is because God, as understood by all of the major faiths, is not a ‘contingent being’. God’s existence cannot be dependent upon any other things existing or occurring first, or otherwise God would not really be God but rather would just be another human idea. In more philosophical terminology, one could say that God’s existence is a premise, a foundational axiom, and not a conclusion that can be derived from other truths. There’s a quote, attributed to various people including Saints Thomas Aquinas and Ignatius Loyola, that often comes to mind when I see this topic brought up: “For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who disbelieve, no amount of proof is sufficient.” And of course, how could it be otherwise if the most basic premise is not shared?

Taking the existence of God as a fundamental axiom makes sense if you're a believer.

I don't agree with this quote because I think that believers get "proof" of God's existence through their own subjective experiences. And on the other hand, I'm not anti-theist or atheist and I in fact want the existence of a good God and an eternal life in heaven to exist; so if good evidence is produced, I'll be the first to jump on it. There is definitely a level of good evidence that would persuade me and I would welcome it even though I'm currently not convinced.

Thomyum2 wrote: ↑August 20th, 2023, 5:06 pmSo taking these ideas together, I think it's important to understand that entering a faith isn’t a matter of being convinced that a particular conception of God is correct and being therefore persuaded to hold the thought in mind that this god ‘exists’. Rather, it consits in making the personal choice to accept that God exists, in taking that ‘leap of faith’ to commit trust in and to live by the tenet that God exists even in spite of one's doubts or objections. This is the core belief, the first element of the ‘creed’ and first principle of all of the monotheistic religions, the starting point and first commandment – it’s where we stand in faith, and it isn't and can't be subjected to any higher requirements. That’s not to say that we should ‘require’ anyone to believe this. Everyone must follow their own heart and conscience in seeking the truth and not be compelled or threatened to do otherwise. But in asking that God's existence be 'proven' is to require that one turn to some other truth or good or power higher than and outside of God as justification for God's existence, and this is contradictory to faith itself.

Here's the problem: if God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, that means he wants everyone to go to heaven and he has the ultimate power to do so. He could so easily show up once just to guarantee that a maximal amount of people will follow the Bible and go to heaven. Just once for 5 minutes would be enough but he doesn't. It's illogical that an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God never shows up to everyone even just once for a gentle push in the right direction.

And in terms of faith, again I personally have a big issue with the concept for the reasons I explained above. But maybe I'm wrong, maybe faith is good. Care to expand on why you believe faith is good?

I would close by pointing out the common etymology of three terms I've just used - ‘core’ and ‘creed’ and ‘heart’ - which are all rooted in the Latin ‘cardia’, and Stoppelmann has touched on this in his or her posts as well. The creed is the heart of faith, but it is also with our heart that we ultimately enter faith, not just with our mind. Pascal said as much:

"The heart has its reasons, which reason does not know. We feel it in a thousand things. It is the heart which experiences God, and not the reason. This, then, is faith: God felt by the heart, not by the reason."

Our heart tells us what it ultimately true and right and good at the center of our being and not coincidentally, these things – e.g. Life, Truth, Love - are often offered as synonymous with God. And it’s been my experience that when someone is led by their heart – their core principles - to make that step (or ‘leap’) into taking God’s existence as granted, that this is the beginning of a kind of relationship, and it is within this relationship that we begin to know and understand God, and it’s from this point that many other things about religion also begin to make a lot more sense.

Pascal's Triangle: absolute genius. Pascal's Wager: kind of a dud lol.

When you talk about someone led by their heart (courage and kindness) and core principles and that this is the door to cultivating a relationship with God, this may be surprising but I believe in this very deeply. My version of this argument is just semantically different because it's secular (I would swap the words "God" with "the greatest good" and "religion" with "ontology" but it's essentially to the exact same effect. I think this principle is fundamentally true about the human condition. I call that Eudaimonia. It's interesting to reach the same conclusion and destination coming from fairly different starting assumptions

Thomyum2 wrote: ↑August 20th, 2023, 5:06 pmAs for the other questions and issues you’ve brought up here, they are all thoughtful points well worthy of further exploration. I do find it a little difficult to keep up in a public forum where it seems like discussions get taken in a lot of different directions at once, and I am also sometimes reluctant to share things that are of a more personal nature that accompany these topics. But I’d certainly enjoy continuing a conversation on the thread or you’re welcome to send me a private message if it’s of interest. Thanks for your posts.

I understand. Sure we can do PM. I am interested in getting your takes re: the problem of evil, freewill and arguments in favour of faith etc. I also would like to hear about your Spiritual experiences.

Talk to you later then.

Fanman wrote: ↑August 28th, 2023, 5:57 am Philosophy_of_Guitar,

1. If God is really great, not even truly omnipotent and omniscient, but nigh-omnipotent and nigh-omniscient, then it's logical to think that he could communicate in such a way that the word of the Bible would be clear and precise, and leave no room for logical inconsistency and/or misinterpretation. A person could write a book that's is much more precise, less confusing and completely internally logical. So this means God doesn't exist, God doesn't want everyone to get the word of God, or God is not as knowledgeable, good and/or powerful as the scriptures suggest.

That is a reasonable conclusion. But if we consider the New Testament, it states in John 3:16 that it is through belief (or faith) in Jesus Christ that people find their way to God’s good graces (inherit eternal life). If the Bible were completely logically consistent and precise, there would be no requirement for either. In that case, the Bible would contradict its most prominent tenets – belief and faith. Indeed, there are many contradictions in the Bible, but the one constant throughout it is the necessity for both. In my view, it would not mean that because the Bible is not completely logically consistent and precise – that God is not as knowledgeable, good and/or powerful as the scriptures claim, but rather, it could mean that he chose to do things in the way that he has because he wants to elicit a different reaction from people than he would acquire from giving us certainty or complete knowledge. We all understand what people are referring to when they say things like, “they went with their head rather than their heart”. Religious faith is primarily concerned with the heart because it doesn’t rely on facts or knowledge, and the Bible states that God looks upon the heart.

Thanks for your answer! Here's the overall problem: if God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, there is absolutely no point in him playing games about who's worthy of heaven and who's going to hell. His omnibenevolent nature would necessarily make him act in a manner that's conducive for the avoidance of human suffering (or any suffering) at all cost .

It's illogical that a tri-omni would test people because he already knows well before creating any single person exactly who's passing and who's failing, so there's no test by definition if the results are predetermined by the tester himself. The existence of hell itself is incongruent with the nature of an omnibenevolent God, let alone the fact these little games he plays with different people with the bad writing are verging on capriciousness and sadism. This is behaviour that is completely at odds with how a perfect God would act.

Sea Turtle wrote: ↑August 28th, 2023, 6:25 am I echo those that tell that nothing makes us believe.

Instead it is a choice. The idea of God is that of a superior that we do not doubt. As such, we choose to believe. The reasons for the choice might be fear or other emotional needs, but it is a choice still.

If and when a person leaves a religion, it is because they choose to no longer believe.

All religions(that I know about) have some hole or holes in them that defy logic.

As a side note, I have known people that do not believe but choose to fake it because the benefits for them of appearing to believe are worth it.

Sure but these are not some small holes. The existence of hell and God's omnibenevolence are mutually-exclusive propositions.

I might not (yet) be convinced by the supernatural claims of the Bible but I'd say 7 of the Ten Commandments are SOLID rules to live by whether you're a believer or not. I personally think that observing Sabbath every Sunday is a great practice (although it's unnecessary to do it to the level where you go without electricity). "Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness Against Thy Neighbour" is a vital rule to follow in life. It's one that has not become outdated over time and probably never will! So those people who are faking religious faith, which is sacred to the person they're sitting next to, and faking it in an embodied way for personal benefit, brace yourselves because the impact will inevitably come and it will hurt.