For me, it’s getting increasingly hard to believe in God because of all the new information I keep learning. It’s really hard to see a connection between science and God… I’ve heard that the Bible is metaphorical, but then again, I see people who actually have a strong belief in the stories of the Bible.
Another thing: If there really is a God, why do we refer to Him as a male? Can’t there be a Goddess?
I usually keep my opinon to myself because there so many people out there who might curse me to damnation (nothing against them) so bottom line: As of right now, I don’t believe in God, but there may come a time when I do. I’m too young to make a very final decision.
I don’t “believe” in God. I have experienced God firsthand in my own life. I fully acknowledge that deity is metaphor for the self, however, and that my truths are subjective (in other words, it will be completely different for everyone else).
I believe the same way. I think that God is made up in everything and everyone, and that the only hell that their could possibly be would be a total annihalation of a person’s being. In my mind, and my way of thinking, I don’t know how it would be possible to seperate God from what he has created. I suppose a truly omnipotent being could do that, but it doesn’t make sense in my mind (hence me not being an omnipotent being-despite what I may claim later).
I don’t know exactly what keeps me to my beliefs, or what started them-as my family isn’t overtly religious. I will say that I to have had experiences that lead me to believe in God. There have been times when I was down on my luck and a prayer changed things around. Their have been times when I was lost in though about things, and the truth of God became resoundingly clear-only to be befuddled later. To be sure, their are other reasons, and I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything.
I suppose it boils down to a belief. I can’t describe why I feel so strongly about it, and I know I won’t waver. Even if presented evidence, my belief wouldn’t change. In my life, to believe is better and more logical than not to (but hey, that’s just my way of thinking).
No, Topo. Your moral journey is your own. Each of us has a closed and inviolate frame of reference while God’s frame of reference is absolute. This allows us each to be He and all of us to be one.
I’ve changed my mind.
I believe God exists and does not exist, simultaneously.
Actually, no I don’t.
I know it.
Just a friendly reminder that you need to explain why. From Burner:
**What information, exactly?
**Why would you assume that there is such a connection?; if there is none, then it would be hard to see…
To me it comes down to the idea that you don’t really need a God for the universe to exist. There is nothing that has happened which I can observe that would lead me to believe there is a God, after all why can’t the universe either always have existed or brought itself into existence in much the same way that the god who created it would have? I’m open to the possibility, but until there is some reason to believe in a logically unnecessary being then why bother other than because you want to believe?
Bongmaster wrote:
If you had taken that to a conclusion that there is no God, it would have been a classic denial of the antecedent fallacy. Fortunately, you left open the possibility:
…only to plunge headlong into a substantive denial of a postive ontological proposition. If God is defined as the Supreme Being, then His existence is necessary by definition.
Well, as a non-christian, animist based religious person I believe in many “gods.” It isn’t really anything supernatural though. Everything has a soul/spirit (which is similar to saying that everything even manmade objects have some type of divine purpose) and is thus divine and worthy of spiritual respect.
I believe in these because I see them around me at all times. In fact, there is nothing at all that most people (non-animists anyway) would consider supernatural about them but nevertheless they still have the ability to fill me with awe and wonder. Hell, all my beliefs can be explained through science and others would believe in them. I take them one step further and find that they are a small part of a grand scheme. That to me is worthy of divinity.
For example, pick a tree near your house. It is wonderful. It has a purpose. It grows, it converts chemicals to something usable for others. See that rock near it? It is wonderful too. It gets broken down by wind, rain, etc (which are also wonderful) and the base minerals go to feed other plants. I believe in these in a similar fashion to how other people believe in gods. Sometimes I even go so far as to assign archetypes for these effects (the archetype of a tree, rain, rocks, etc) but that is just to simplify the process in an effort to explain it to others who don’t hold a similar belief in divinity.
As for supreme beings, I find the concept silly. I don’t see how any one aspect of animate life or inanimate un-life can originate completely from a single source.
I choose not to believe in God, as, unlike many of the posters here, I have not experienced any situation which I would attribute to interaction with a being that I would define as all-powerful.
But seeing and reading of others experiences, the actual definition of who / what God is actually seems open for individual interpretation too. Is ‘he’ a part of all of us, a gestalt entity formed and given shape by consciousness, an actual separate, individual being outside of our comprehension, a ‘mother nature’ ideal encompassing all living things etc…
The search for a definition would probably end up as a hi-jack to your thread, so I 'll refrain from attempting.
That is not to say my personal situation won’t change if I ever do find myself in a situation where I experience something which is unexplainable outside of any other frame of reference than that of my personal interpretation of what God may be. But until then, I see no reason to not continue holding my current view.
Adding my voice to the clamor.
While I don’t believe in God as the Judeo-Christian majority see him,I believe in a god…or rather a goddess.
To me,God always seemed either very distant and unreachable or just too damn war-like most of the time for me. And I really DIDN"T understand how a loving father (like He’s supposed to be) could let their onliest son die for something he didn’t even do. Hey…maybe that’s why they call it a sacrafice. He didn’t do anything wrong (at least as far as his chronicled life is portrayed) except hang out with all the people you weren’t supposed to hang out with and do good things. To me,that suggests a fate other than an ungodly and extremely painful death by nailing to a giant wooden cross.But that’s just me.
I also didn’t quite jive with the fact that according to the bible,we are supposed to honor our parents always. WTF?:dubious: What if we had crappy parents? Parents who,by all rights, should have never spawned a child? What if they don’t deserve our honor an d respect? Then what?We go to hell because we fail to honor those who bred us because they don’t deserve it?
Another point I had a problem with is the concept of original sin.We are all born sinful,according to the bible.At birth,we haven’t had enough life in this world to do ANYTHING to be sinful,except perhaps causing our mother’s pain while coming into the world. I do not understand how we can be held accountable for stuff we’ve never even done.To me that sounds like somebody holding the world’s oldest grudge.
Also…I don’t quite understand the concept of human beings being given ‘free will’ by God and then the bible says that if we don’t worship Him,we’ll go to hell. I don’t get it. Is God that narcissitic that he needs constant praise from the little folk? Really? I mean, to me it comes off as incredibly vain that He would create something just so that they would fall down and kiss his giant golden sandals.But again…that’s just me.
IDBB
The universe could exist quite well without duckbilled platypuses, too. Does this mean that I must discard them as mythical, since I see evidence of their (unnecessary) existence? What most atheists are missing in these discussions is that theists perceive God to be a reality because they perceive God – albeit in a subjective, disputable realm of inquiry. I accept the existence of duckbilled platypuses and God because I have empirical evidence for the existence of each, which I do not for pixies, Great Sky or otherwise.
I see deity as all-encompassing, which would of course include the self as well. In my worldview, the microcosm of the human mind and the macrocosm of the universe, and all points in between, are God. As such, deity for myself most certainaly exists, though it is conscious only through the human mind.
How beautifully put, Bryan.
IDBB
Thanks.
In my more playfully theological days, I toyed with the concept that God (or Something) is conscious through human-to-human interaction, much like we are only conscious through neuron-to-neuron interaction. Any philosopher handled that before? Is that some sort of Chardin thing? (Haven’t read him; told I should.)
I will attempt to generalize the concept of belief in a god or gods, at least as I see it.
To me the faith in a higher being, no matter what your religion, is a personal choice you make based on a combination of imperical evidence and “gut feeling”. By imperical evidence, I refer to scripture, accounts from others, and whatever other physical evidence that makes a case for a deity and/or religion. (In my last sentance, I use the word evidence loosely, since anyone can argue the credibility of said evidence). Gut feeling, simpy put, is just what feels right for you.
A problem we have here is the mixing of belief with faith. I believe that the chair is going to hold my weight and not collapse, however, I place no faith in my chair. To me, faith goes beyond simple belief, and goes beyond imperical evidence. It’s a leap that one has to make for themselves, and that is where the gut feeling comes in.
Meatros says “I think” in explaining his basis for his theology. One’s god is either based on something external, or it’s based on what you have reasoned out (God, if he exists, must be good, so hell can’t be real and he wants me to do good and (insert belief) is good, etc., etc.)
In this case, this person creates his own God.
It’s true of virtually all religions. (Atheists will argue all, but…)
This is why it’s valid to say “because it says so in the Bible.” Our faith then rests on something external to ourselves. Devout Christians and devout Jews will tell you their book is divinely inspired and that we can test it.
I have found that the Bible: is demonstrably historically accurate; that its principles for living, although very frequently counter intuitive or at least against what would seem our own immediate interest, have very good results in the lives of those that employ them; that it has a consistent message despite being written by scores of men on three continents over the course of a couple of millenia; and more if I take the time to think about it.
Further, I reason that (as alluded to above) either matter always existed and created us, or a sentient God always existed and created us. Life is far too complex to be an accident. Therefore, there must be a god.
Mithrilhawk, but you do understand that the truths you hold are for yourself only?