The intent of this thread is NOT to debate, though I don't like to censor anyone. I won't be doing any debating.

I'm genuinely interested in your reasons for believing in your god. Is it by means of a logical proof like the cosmological argument or kalam? Or is it because of personal experience?

Please don't be shy. This is not a trap.

What's Kalam?

In brief:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe must have a cause.

Then the theist asserts that the cause is their god. It's basically the cosmological argument without the infinite regress problem.

I wish to ask you to logically support the assertion that the universe "began to exist.". When, exactly did it begin?

Just curious.

HH. =)

Well, obviously I would never make such an assertion. The fact that nobody can prove the universe "began to exist" is why it's so easy to dismiss the kalam argument in the first place. The premises are flawed.

I was just answering happyfish's question of what the kalam argument is...

Wait. God created gravity.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

So prove it.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12/14/2011 04:52PM by steve benson.

or so it sounds...the Universe just ...well here from Discovery Channel:
Essentially on "Is There A Creator?," Hawking notes that on the sub-atomic scale, particles are seen in experiments to appear from nowhere. And since the Big Bang started out smaller than an atom, similarly the universe likely "popped into existence without violating the known laws of Nature," he says. Nothing created the universe, so in his view there was no need for a creator. That is his explanation for "why there is something rather than nothing."

wild...magic ...where something seemingly pops into existence...wrap your brain around that one! Stephen Hawking is the man...what a mind he has...
just sayin!

Just this morning I was finally able to determine where I now stand in terms of "theism".

I am a Theist because the beauty and wonder I see in and around me has convinced me that there must be a god / prime mover.

I, however, cannot accept Jesus, Budda, Mohammed or any other teacher as presenting the final word on any point of doctrine. In fact I reject doctrine entirely. There are a set of rules that strike me as being intuitively valid (no still small voice or any of that.) Many years ago when I was first separated from mo-dum, I asked myself what my belief system ought to be. The result of a lot of pondering caused me to formulate a philosophy I intended to live: On my walk by faith, I will do as much good and as little harm as possible.

I still see it as a walk by faith, but my faith is now in the essential good of the universe.


I pleases me that after all the years (40+) I have arrived back at the same place. In the interim I was in two more mo-dums and even served in leadership. I've been unable to accept Jesus as anything more that a man who achieved enlightenment and shared his path with others. Budda did the same. I feel there are others in the history of humankind who have done the same.

It is probably time for me to return to the Rosecrucians or some such hermetic school. Perhaps with my christian / mormon prejudices eliminated I could make some progress and perhaps reach enlightenment for myself.

Interestingly most of what I believe is contained in Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land".

So, would you consider yourself a deist? Or do you you believe in a more "hands-on" deity? If the latter, how do you resolve the "beauty and wonder" with things like small pox, mass starvation, and other evils?

Personal experience. In my search for greater understanding, I deconstructed myself as a being, stopping animal movement, the body, the senses, the mind, the breath, the heart, the dance of forms. And yet, after deconstructing my being as far as seemingly possible, there was still being, or existence. There was still pure consciousness.

This non-dual, pure consciousness appears to naturally emanate all realities.

This being I will call god, while recognizing that what I call it, or think or feel about it, is irrelevant.

http://godpart.com/



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/14/2011 03:53PM by steve benson.

haven't read the book, but it begs the question once he begins to argue God is derived from the "mechanics of the brain."

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/14/2011 04:13PM by steve benson.

For those who subscribe to the idea that God breathed life into the first living form, the notion the believing in God is the result of the mechanics of the brain could, for some, beg the question. Something along the lines that the force the lead to the creation of the brain could produce a brain (the mechanics of which) would believe in God.

But, if there is no God that satisfies any definition, I can't figure out (on the fly) any other explanation than the mechanics of our brain allows us to hold the belief that God exists.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/14/2011 04:29PM by thingsithink.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/14/2011 04:39PM by steve benson.

I agree with you Steve. I think it begs the question as you described also.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/14/2011 04:44PM by thingsithink.

My argument that my God exists?

I listen to it, see it, read it and so on every day. But as Steve Benson pointed out, my God is basically the equivalent of saying God is Tapioca Pudding (he's right), so I don't really count.

You're right. I'm being obstinate. Don't know why because I essentially agree with you and the atheists. I use the word god loosely - maybe just to denote what I consider higher awareness. I'll elaborate later. For me it's Charlie Parker, Melville, Whitman, the right canyon in American Fork . . . That's enough for me. I'll read the book.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/14/2011 05:41PM by thingsithink.

Steve, I have no problem with the ideas regarding the brain-based "god-part". I think there are parts of the brain that can be consciously accessed, to experience "god". Yes. As a kriya yogi, I consciously use the body and the brain to access alternate states of consciousness.

However, the teks I operate transcend what most scientists accept as the limits of functional biology. I haven't read Alper's book, so I don't know if he discusses any of the teks researchers are pursuing in their quest to better understand the neurobiological bases of the god concept (such as meditation, sleep deprivation, lucid dreaming and OOBE, isolation tank, Persinger helmet, MRI etc.). I note he does discuss drugs.

I operate only within my own being, without external stimuli. I have stopped my breath and heartbeat. According to modern science, I should therefore be dead.

And yet, I continue to survive in the flesh body. Is life force greater than the limited mechanisms of the biological entity? I wonder, what would Alper say to that?

I define Divinity as the summation of existence without regard to time. I do not pretend to 'know' all of this summation but I do 'know' there is such a thing as existence and whatever its summation is, that is Divinity. I therefore 'know' Divinity exists but I can't tell anyone what its nature may be. I know its not male, because females and those of both or no gender are part of existence. I can't say its 'good' because in a singular summation of existence there is nothing outside of that summation for purposes of comparison. I like the Taoist expression that maintains of the Tao, "Those who know can't say and those who say don't know."

I'm an atheist, but..

This fall I went on a long bike ride in an absolutely beautiful beautiful canyon with the fall colors all around (American Fork canyon for those familiar with it.) Then I thought there really is no biological reason I can think of for these fall colors to be so beautiful and varied - these leaves are just dying. And there is no biological reason for me to think this are so beautiful. The peace and beauty were overwhelming.

That was the closest I've come to believing in a god for years.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/14/2011 04:03PM by ronas.

I have a deeply personal experience that persuades me to believe in "god" (I can not come up with an appropriate word to use here, sorry). I just can't put it anywhere else other than in the category of "there are things I don't see that apparently must in fact be there...".

I don't know everything, none of us do. I wish I did. But I know enough to know it is NOT an accident.

I know the arguements against this type of belief. Great arguements. Great logic. Got it, get it, understand it. But........why go there?, nevermind.

Peace.

. . . how the miracle stories involving God working his wonders, as narrated by the Bible, are actually demonstrably true.

Her response sounded like something from a Mormon testimony meeting:

"I've had miracles in my life," she replied. "I feel sorry for you."

Okeedokee.

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,366174



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 12/14/2011 05:42PM by steve benson.

I saw a pillar of light, exactly above my head...

Just kidding. Nothing like that.

But I do believe in God because of experience. My views about God are not mainstream. My TBM brother actually calls me an Atheist because of my insistence that I might be wrong about it all.

If I discover that all my experiences with God simply came from crazy coincidences, or from something deep inside my own biological mind, and have no external reality whatsoever, then I cannot be surprized by that. And I admit, that is one of the possibilities and perhaps it is even a probability. The experience of God, whatever it is, is amazing. Call it what you may.

"I am a Theist because the beauty and wonder I see in and around me has convinced me that there must be a ..."

I agree with this statement. I do not believe in any man as a god (and I don't know if god is even the right term as there is a lot of conceptions regarding that.)

There (to me) is a lot of pure abstract beauty in things like mathematics, how things fit together, etc. So, I don't believe that all of this just fits together randomly in such an orderly way.

I also believe in free agency - and death, disease, etc. is also part of this existence. A question I have had - could we really appreciate the wonderful stuff if there wasn't bad stuff too? I don't know. Where do we go from here? I don't know.

There was a Jewish physicist named Immanuel Vilikovsky who had several PhD's (math, physics, astronomy, and 2 or 3 others)

As a devout Jew, as well as a scientst, he took it upon himself to see if he could reconcile his faith with science.

Two of his books are: Ages in Chaos and Worlds in Collision.

He proves a lot to me. If you get a chance, check them out.

Recent space explorations have proved several of his theories to be true, that originally were laughed at.

His writing is a little redundant, but anyone who can wade thru the BoM can read him easily.

"He proves a lot to me. If you get a chance, check them out."

Would you mind sharing his best proof for a god? You don't have to share all of them, just the best one. That way I'll know if the book is worth picking up.

Thanks.

Whenever I see a child with cancer or a lion eating a lamb, or a tornado killing thousands, I know there must be a god.

The "beauty and wonder" evidence oddly seems to focus on the rainbows and butterflies and not the cold cruel realities of existence.

Do you hear the argument, "When I see how life needs to kill and consume other life to thrive and how biology is driven by reproduction, it confirms there is a god." No, you don't usually hear that because when you look at the ugly with the pretty things around us, it is explained by science.

Acknowledging the not so nice things are evidence for a god means god is not all that sweet or benevolent. I think for most theists, god is supposed to be a comfort so they focus on the rainbows as evidence and not the disease. The believers who want to please a god tend to recognize they should be afraid after seeing how cruel god's creation can be.

So, that's why I don't see "look at creation" as any kind of evidence for a god. It creates a lot of problems I don't need.

Playing devils advocate here since I agree with you, but yes I have heard the counter to your argument:

The ecology of life is so complex and works so well that it could not have happened by chance. A supreme being had to have set it all in motion.

I've heard that argument too, but the ones who use it hopefully don't proceed to talk about the "loving" god. This is not the kind of god that should be "comforting" if you know what I mean.

Instead they have set themselves up to explain what set their supreme being in motion. If something "so complex" required a creator, then surely their complicated god would require a creator. They are stuck because they don't want to apply their statement about complexity to their god.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/14/2011 05:33PM by dagny.

The argument from complexity or argument from design or cosmological argument (however you want to re-word it) is hardly ever used anymore because of infinite regress.

But i'm not debating.

You wrote:

"Whenever I see a child with cancer or a lion eating a lamb, or a tornado killing thousands, I know there must be a god."

Hell, mosquitos blow the deal for me. What kind of 'god' comes up with that s**t?

Timothy



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/14/2011 05:48PM by Timothy.

This is an oldie but a goodie. Most of these "proofs" have been advanced, often by philosophers. Get these under your belt, and you too can pretend to be a philosopher. It's a popular pastime around here. Get in on the fun. :)

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

...we have to assume God created all the things that cause pain, and not only the things that cause pleasure.

That's the problem with the mainstream God of Christianity.

They have all sorts of explanations for why evil exists, and they all involve God being less than their actual description of God.

I thought I'd bring it up before some mainstream christian responded.

Sin and satan are exactly the things I'm referring to in the above post. Excuses. You've created these excuses so you aren't forced to understand your God.