Do you believe in God?

[Duke]

I don't know why this cannot point to, "a common Creater" as not to.

It can... but there is utterly zero reason to suspect that it does point to a common creator. Again, it is never possible to prove that a Creator does not exist. But that in itself is not enough to suppose a Creator does exist. If there is no logical reason to look outside the natural realm for an explanation, then why would you?

Once again, when you make that step, you then have no way to determine if it was God or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or some entirely other being(s) that did the creating. And if the phenomenon of life can be explained without making that step, why make it?

 

[Touring Mars]

I also do not know why the subject at hand would be based entirely on one category of investigation.

That was just one example of my own 'investigation', but a pretty relevant one I thought. My point was that I personally would have been quite willing to accept that God existed if his fingerprints were clearly visible throughout the natural world, and that evidence of 'design' was clear and unambiguous, but they aren't. Not only are they not clear or unambiguous, but evidence of design in the natural world is infact non-existent. And I cannot think of a single other thing that, after rational consideration, appears to me to be more "supernatural" than natural. As a non-believer, I am far from being persuaded that God exists, despite being prepared to entertain the possibility, and despite my own efforts of investigation.

 

[Duke]

Let me please note here that if we are going further into the specifics of Creation vs. evolution, we should do so in the existing thread on that subject.

 

[Danoff]

Or when you find whatever makes you the most comfortable in your own life. Which is exactly what religious belief is. Comfort in your own peace of mind.

Luckily, I'm not willing to let myself believe whatever will give me piece of mind. If I did, I would assume that tomorrow I will win the lottery, that I will never gain weight, that I will never die, that my loved ones will never die, that I will never get into a car accident, that the bear standing in front of me is my friend, that he is just coming over here to say hello, that he's raising his paw in a gesture of peace, that the roar he just let out is his way of talking, that ARGHGH AAAAAAAA!!!! No Mr. Friendly bear what are you doing? That's not nice! I choose to believe that this isnt' happening!!!

Not the one(s) we read about exactly, but saying nothing created everything makes a little less sense to me than saying a God created it, so until otherwise proven, I think something's running the show, yeah.

Why must you have a default position on something that you don't understand? What's wrong with saying "I don't know"?

 

[SuperCobraJet]

No, I'm not afraid to cross it. I've also been at pains to point out that I'm always open to the idea of understanding more than what I currently know.

I just do not think that it is constructive or informative to move into a realm where all possible knowledge and value judgment is rendered irrelevant. Because in the non-logical or supernatural realm all things are equally plausible and can only be taken at face value, so must be chosen arbitrarily. I see little point in arbitrarily choosing to believe A and deny B while ignoring Җ completely.

Again thats your assumptive reasoning.

In my case, which is the only one I can attest to, during my investigation,I saw where the GOD of the Bible made all these claims and statements of whos who and whats what and mixed with a little honesty on my part,( I'm not perfect and I have obvious limitations) I decided that if what he said was true, then I wanted it. (That overode my adherence to carnal understanding since it was not sufficient anyway) As Admiral Farragut said "Damn the torpedoes,(of doubt) full speed ahead". (He propably looked like a Fool too) So I confessed with my mouth and believed in my being, with with all the belief I could muster, that Jesus was my Savior and for him to come into me(my heart) and save me. And he did his part.

That was the beginning of the learning process that still continues today, of knowing him and this higher way that he has established. There is a realm and reality of understanding beyond human or carnal understanting. Also GOD and the Lord Jesus Christ are as real if not more real than you or I. You can know them as well as any person if not better. But again it is a ongoing personal pursuance of spiritual things and like everything else "a learning curve" of developement and practice.

 

[Duke]

But I don't need to be "saved". I'm not perfect and have obvious limitations too, but that doesn't leave me incapable of functioning logically in the natural world.

What do I need to be saved from? Why does there have to be something "higher" (your word, not mine) than this life I'm already living in this physical universe?

[edit]

And there are at least two interpretations to the alleged fact that only people who want to be saved are saved.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

It can... but there is utterly zero reason to suspect that it does point to a common creator. Again, it is never possible to prove that a Creator does not exist. But that in itself is not enough to suppose a Creator does exist. If there is no logical reason to look outside the natural realm for an explanation, then why would you?

Once again, when you make that step, you then have no way to determine if it was God or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or some entirely other being(s) that did the creating. And if the phenomenon of life can be explained without making that step, why make it?

I don't know, maybe so far you just don't have enough dissatisfaction with your current state of disbelief.

But I don't need to be "saved". I'm not perfect and have obvious limitations too, but that doesn't leave me incapable of functioning logically in the natural world.

GOD says you do, if you want a relationship with him and a cooler eternal abode. You can take that up with him.

Functioning logically has it's limitations too.

What do I need to be saved from?

Yourself and your limited logic?

Why does there have to be something "higher" (your word, not mine) than this life I'm already living in this physical universe?

I'm not sure thats the right question.
IMO the real question is: If there is, why not engage and embrace it. Especially if there is eternal and temporal benefits involved.

And there are at least two interpretations to the alleged fact that only people who want to be saved are saved.

I don't know that only people who want to get saved, get saved.
Thats somewhat of an oxymoron.

 

[Sureboss]

I don't know if you've intended it, but that 3rd comment sounds really condescending.

 

[Famine]

GOD says you do, if you want a relationship with him and a cooler eternal abode. You can take that up with him.

Yeah. Oddly Jehovah, Allah, Vishnu and L. Ron Hubbard say something similar. What if you've picked the wrong one?

Functioning logically has it's limitations too.

Yourself and your limited logic?

Functioning illogically has even more severe limitations.

I'm not sure thats the right question.
IMO the real question is: If there is, why not engage and embrace it. Especially if there is eternal and temporal benefits involved.

And if there isn't - and we have no plausible, verifiable evidence to suggest so - what's the point?

Also, your comment seems to suggest you're doing it for the benefits and not because you, err, "believe" in it?

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Yeah. Oddly Jehovah, Allah, Vishnu and L. Ron Hubbard say something similar. What if you've picked the wrong one?

Good question. I guess you might be duped.
Although I know nothing of those, only the one of which I speak.

Functioning illogically has even more severe limitations.

Good point . It certainly can have them.

And if there isn't - and we have no plausible, verifiable evidence to suggest so - what's the point?

The point is, not if there isn't, but if despite the absence of plausible, verifiable evidence, you consider to suggest so, there is anyway. Unless I'm mistaken, you admit that it is possible, do you not?

Also, your comment seems to suggest you're doing it for the benefits and not because you, err, "believe" in it?

Benefit is inherent to everything.
However, GOD does not want you to serve him, just because of the benefits
(and you will be tested on this) but neither does he allow one to serve without them. Blessing is part of the Covenant.

I don't know if you've intended it, but that 3rd comment sounds really condescending.

It wasn't intended to be.

 

[Famine]

Good question. I guess you might be duped.
Although I know nothing of those, only the one of which I speak.

Do you not owe it to yourself to find out as much as you can about all works claimed to be the word of god (or gods) before you decide upon one?

The point is, not if there isn't, but if despite the absence of plausible, verifiable evidence, you consider to suggest so, there is anyway. Unless I'm mistaken, you admit that it is possible, do you not?

As discussed earlier, the default position is to not believe in that which cannot be proven (as opposed to disbelieving it, which is different).

It's not sane to accept all things that are possible with equal weight, especially when the thing in question has no proof of its existence.

Benefit is inherent to everything.

The truth sometimes stinks. I won't accept something simply because it would be beneficial for me to accept it. I will accept something if it is true, even if it is to my detriment.

 

[IsmokeGT]

Darwin believed in God, until he understood what was going on around him. Religion is for those that need something to keep them in line (fear of Hell) I personally do the right thing because of my parents teachings, not because of fear.

Another note- only 16% of Americans dont believe in a higher being... so is this about right for the rest of the world?

 

[Famine]

Another note- only 16% of Americans dont believe in a higher being... so is this about right for the rest of the world?

Worldwide, the major religions have about 4.5 billion followers from about 6.5 billion people and you can reasonably add another half-billion for all the additional and more esoteric religions. So you could say that about 25% have no registered belief in a higher being - but that doesn't constitute a comprehensive poll, and doesn't necessarily cover people who have no particular belief but still have a belief in something.

In the UK though, if you ask a hundred people what their religion is you'll get at least 2 saying "Jedi" (it's now the UK's 4th most popular religion).

 

[TheCracker]

Another note- only 16% of Americans dont believe in a higher being... so is this about right for the rest of the world?

But what percentage of those that do believe in 'gods' are agnostic ie those that can't be arsed to drag themselves to church on a Sunday morning, but don't want to say they don't believe in God just in case they get struck down by lightning or quite like the idea of a after life?

 

[Duke]

I don't know, maybe so far you just don't have enough dissatisfaction with your current state of disbelief.

Quite the opposite, in fact. I've spent 35 years or so refining my current thinking, and though it is not perfect, I see no reason to disregard it.

GOD says you do, if you want a relationship with him and a cooler eternal abode. You can take that up with him.

Again - why? I don't believe in gods and have no reason to. I have absolutely no reason to assume there is an eternal life for some part of my consciousness.

Functioning logically has it's limitations too.

None that I have yet run across in 44 years. In fact I would like to be more logical at times, but there is plenty of room for joy and love and emotion in my life without needing a supernatural being to provide it. And as mentioned above, the pitfalls of functioning illogically are both much vaster and more immediately real.

Yourself and your limited logic?

I see the smiley and I do not take offense at this comment, but I view those things as my greatest achievements, not my gravest dangers.

I'm not sure thats the right question.
IMO the real question is: If there is, why not engage and embrace it. Especially if there is eternal and temporal benefits involved.

But you still haven't answered why? Why embrace something that has zero evidence of its existence? Why choose your one particular aspect of the limitless number of things that may exist even though there is no proof?

Your only answer so far has been "Why not?" for the first part, and silence for the second part. You have assumed that there is an eternal benefit because you have assumed there is an eternity. I'll take your word for it that deciding to believe in a god has cheered you up, so I won't argue about the temporal benefit - I will just say that don't make the mistake of assuming that is a universal result.

I mean, if I was going to embrace a deity, I prefer the Flying Spaghetti Monster, whose eternal afterlife includes a beer volcano.

I don't know that only people who want to get saved, get saved.
Thats somewhat of an oxymoron.

I don't see an oxymoron at all; quite the contrary. Nearly every testament I've ever heard has mentioned "you have to want to be saved, and until I wanted it, nothing happened".

If I deny God's existence and refuse Him, how am I going to be saved against my will?

Good question. I guess you might be duped.
Although I know nothing of those, only the one of which I speak.

How do you know you haven't been duped? And if you haven't even compared your god to other gods, how can you begin to imagine that you have successfully chosen the correct one?

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Do you not owe it to yourself to find out as much as you can about all works claimed to be the word of god (or gods) before you decide upon one?

I see now that I am in great error. Sorry my mistake. I'm not use to ID by that name.
Jehovah is one of ones of which I speak.
I know of no other that makes the claims he does.
So far he has backed up the ones he made to me.
Since I have already entered into Covenant with him I do not seek another.

As discussed earlier, the default position is to not believe in that which cannot be proven (as opposed to disbelieving it, which is different).

It's not sane to accept all things that are possible with equal weight, especially when the thing in question has no proof of its existence.

Your dismissal of "proof of its existence" has no bearing on "if it is true" and the ramifications for you if it is, other than it was woefully inadequate.

The truth sometimes stinks. I won't accept something simply because it would be beneficial for me to accept it. I will accept something if it is true, even if it is to my detriment.

You know I'm not sure about that. How about if it goes against your"Logic".

BTW you seemed willing to accept that "In GOD we trust" was unconstitutional to the benefit of your beliefs.

 

[Duke]

I see now that I am in great error. Sorry my mistake. I'm not use to ID by that name.
Jehovah is one of ones of which I speak.
I know of no other that makes the claims he does.
So far he has backed up the ones he made to me.
Since I have already entered into Covenant with him I do not seek another.

And AGAIN: How did you pick one God among the infinite possibilities with whom to make Covenant? What criteria did you use? How did you evaluate Jehovah against Allah, Yaweh, JVH-1, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Gilgamesh, or... everything else that could be true?

Your dismissal of "proof of its existence" has no bearing on "if it is true" and the ramifications for you if it is, other than it was woefully inadequate.

So... having no evidence is a "woefully inadequate" reason not to believe something, but having no evidence is a perfectly valid reason to believe something?

We've already stipulated that we will never prove gods do not exist. However, so far you have refused to answer how you chose your God among the infinite possibilities that could exist.

You know I'm not sure about that. How about if it goes against your"Logic".

If it is shown to be TRUE, we will adjust our theory; but the burden of proof is on the thing violating the logic, not vice versa. If actual hard evidence demonstrates that God MUST exist, then we'll reconsider the logic. So far I haven't seen evidence that God might exist, let alone MUST exist.

BTW you seemed willing to accept that "In GOD we trust" was unconstitutional to the benefit of your beliefs.

He's not going to reject something that is true just because it does agree with his beliefs... Or am I missing your point?

 

[Famine]

I see now that I am in great error. Sorry my mistake. I'm not use to ID by that name.
Jehovah is one of ones of which I speak.
I know of no other that makes the claims he does.

Actually, your God has a variety of different names - Jehovah being one and probably the least accurate with regards to the original texts - but none are used exclusively.

I'll assume you haven't read the Qu'ran or Bhagavad Gita? The gods in those texts make very similar claims...

Your dismissal of "proof of its existence" has no bearing on "if it is true" and the ramifications for you if it is, other than it was woefully inadequate.

For something to be true it needs proof (though something isn't necessarily untrue if it doesn't have any yet). Without evidence that what you say is true I have to assume the default position that I do not believe that it is - regardless of what you say the ramifications are.

Out of interest, what are the ramifications for you if they are not true?

You know I'm not sure about that. How about if it goes against your"Logic".

If my logic is flawed, it's not logic. Logic is impassive and impartial.

BTW you seemed willing to accept that "In GOD we trust" was unconstitutional to the benefit of your beliefs.

Even if you ignore the fact that I don't have any beliefs - which you have done - how does the Constitution of a country in which I do not reside in any way benefit me (and how does defending your own Constitution do anything but benefit you)?

As I said, truth is not dependant on how it benefits you.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Again - why? I don't believe in gods and have no reason to. I have absolutely no reason to assume there is an eternal life for some part of my consciousness.?

Do you ever think about the cost if you are wrong.

Your only answer so far has been "Why not?" for the first part, and silence for the second part. You have assumed that there is an eternal benefit because you have assumed there is an eternity. I'll take your word for it that deciding to believe in a god has cheered you up, so I won't argue about the temporal benefit - I will just say that don't make the mistake of assuming that is a universal result.

Its so much more than that.

I don't see an oxymoron at all; quite the contrary. Nearly every testament I've ever heard has mentioned "you have to want to be saved, and until I wanted it, nothing happened".

What I mean is under the realization of the consequences, its hard to imagine one not wanting to be saved. Like someone in danger of life and limb not wanting to be rescued.

If I deny God's existence and refuse Him, how am I going to be saved against my will?

You probably won't unless someone is praying for you.

How do you know you haven't been duped? And if you haven't even compared your god to other gods, how can you begin to imagine that you have successfully chosen the correct one?

The reality of the relationship.

 

[Duke]

So I should believe you because I should believe you, just like you believe because you should believe. That's what it boils down to.

I don't believe it.

 

[Danoff]

Do you ever think about the cost if you are wrong.

No. And here's why.

I claim to you right now that if you do not reject Jesus and instead accept Lord Xethra of the planet Xellirium as the master of the universe, you will burn forever in a lake of fire and be tortured and blah blah blah everything that you can imagine that would be bad.

On board? I imagine that you still do not worship Lord Xethra. But have you considered the cost if you a wrong?

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Actually, your God has a variety of different names - Jehovah being one and probably the least accurate with regards to the original texts - but none are used exclusively.

Yes he does.

I'll assume you haven't read the Qu'ran or Bhagavad Gita? The gods in those texts make very similar claims...

Not extensively no.
Similar but not exactly the same.

For something to be true it needs proof (though something isn't necessarily untrue if it doesn't have any yet). Without evidence that what you say is true I have to assume the default position that I do not believe that it is - regardless of what you say the ramifications are.

I didn't say it GOD did.

Out of interest, what are the ramifications for you if they are not true?

None that I know of.

If my logic is flawed, it's not logic. Logic is impassive and impartial.

Logic might be impassive and impartial but it is not perfect.
Logic has failed as many times as it has triumphed over the course of history.
Logic can have many paths, some can be right and some wrong.

I think the possibility of faulty logic could be a risky endeavor to stake your eternity on, not to mention the quality of life you can experience now.
BTW my position on this is not Logic free as well.

No. And here's why.

I claim to you right now that if you do not reject Jesus and instead accept Lord Xethra of the planet Xellirium as the master of the universe, you will burn forever in a lake of fire and be tortured and blah blah blah everything that you can imagine that would be bad.

On board? I imagine that you still do not worship Lord Xethra. But have you considered the cost if you a wrong?

So your problem here is the source for the information then ?

 

[Famine]

Not extensively no.
Similar but not exactly the same.

You might want to read them a little more extensively.

I quite like the part of the Qu'ran where Allah says that while the Bible and Torah tell tales of similar events, they have been corrupted by man through editing and translation and that the Qu'ran is the sole true word of God. It's actually surprisingly accurate about at least the first part.

It's written in the first person too.

I didn't say it GOD did.

Of whom I have no evidence of the existence and thus cannot either believe in the existence nor place any value on the words.

None that I know of.

So... you cannot think of anything you do which would be easier or better for you in the one life you would have were you not a believer in a further life beyond?

Logic might be impassive and impartial but it is not perfect.
Logic has failed as many times as it has triumphed over the course of history.
Logic can have many paths, some can be right and some wrong.

Logic only fails when people fail to apply it properly.

I think the possibility of faulty logic could be a risky endeavor to stake your eternity on, not to mention the quality of life you can experience now.

See danoff's post above. The easy way out doesn't validate anything.

 

[Duke]

Do you ever think about the cost if you are wrong.

There are an infinite variety of costs if I am wrong, ranging in a smooth continuum from:

1) I'll never know because I'm dead; through

2) I will be stuck in eternity bathing in strawberries and cream while interesting music plays lightly in the background; to

3) Every bad thing I ever feared will be done to me 1000x a day, every day, forever.

So which one is right? Well, based on my observations of what happened to me before I was conceived - which is my only valid frame of reference - I predict #1. If you predict something else on that continuum, how did you select that option? Based on what observations and data?

Its so much more than that.

To YOU.

What I mean is under the realization of the consequences, its hard to imagine one not wanting to be saved. Like someone in danger of life and limb not wanting to be rescued.

Danger to YOU, perceived by you based on... what? Observations? Logical deduction? Independently-verified, repeatable data? Or... a book of myths you inherited by accident of birth, in family and location?

I have no reason whatsoever to suspect that my immortal soul is in danger of eternal damnation, because A) there is no evidence that I have one, and B) I have no reason to believe eternal damnation exists.

The reality of the relationship.

To YOU. Are you sensing a pattern here yet? Is it getting through to you?

 

[SuperCobraJet]

You might want to read them a little more extensively.

I quite like the part of the Qu'ran where Allah says that while the Bible and Torah tell tales of similar events, they have been corrupted by man through editing and translation and that the Qu'ran is the sole true word of God. It's actually surprisingly accurate about at least the first part.

It's written in the first person too.

What does it teach in reference to man's condition and what to do about it.

Of whom I have no evidence of the existence and thus cannot either believe in the existence nor place any value on the words.

So you do not believe it is possible to discern that.

So... you cannot think of anything you do which would be easier or better for you in the one life you would have were you not a believer in a further life beyond?

Its now and beyond.
No. It was considerably more difficult prior, at least in many ways.

Logic only fails when people fail to apply it properly.

HHHmmm. Forgive me in advance but isn't that who's doing the posting here.
Or are you an Alien ?

 

[SuperCobraJet]

There are an infinite variety of costs if I am wrong, ranging in a smooth continuum from:

1) I'll never know because I'm dead; through

2) I will be stuck in eternity bathing in strawberries and cream while interesting music plays lightly in the background; to

3) Every bad thing I ever feared will be done to me 1000x a day, every day, forever.

So which one is right? Well, based on my observations of what happened to me before I was conceived - which is my only valid frame of reference - I predict #1. If you predict something else on that continuum, how did you select that option? Based on what observations and data?

To YOU.

What I mean is under the realization of the consequences, its hard to imagine one not wanting to be saved. Like someone in danger of life and limb not wanting to be rescued.

Danger to YOU, perceived by you based on... what? Observations? Logical deduction? Independently-verified, repeatable data? Or... a book of myths you inherited by accident of birth, in family and location?

I have no reason whatsoever to suspect that my immortal soul is in danger of eternal damnation, because A) there is no evidence that I have one, and B) I have no reason to believe eternal damnation exists.

It's based on a book, but my logic tells me its more than myths.
The reason I made the decision to proceed as described in my earlier post was based in part on the following logic:

The Bible explains the problems through out the history of our exsistence in the most comprehensive and correlatable way. Not just surface issues but root causes and provides a way to cure the disease, not just treat it.

You would agree that we've had and still have some problems. Mankind that is?

In fact I am curious to know your explanations for some of those problems.

To YOU. Are you sensing a pattern here yet? Is it getting through to you?

Oh definitely. But I knew that before we started.

You do not believe that what I'm saying is discernable or universally applicable for you.(even though it is)

 

[Danoff]

So your problem here is the source for the information then ?

Credibility, yes.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Credibility, yes.

Why do you conclude it is not credible.

 

[Danoff]

Why do you conclude it is not credible.

Due to a nearly complete lack of evidence.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Due to a nearly complete lack of evidence.

What exactly do you mean?