if you believe in God...then please post why?

Post Reply New Topic

Comes close to the reality.

Ah yes, sweet lucifer.

If the universe could only have been created by him, how did he come about.
Was god alway around. If that is the case, so must the universe or another universe.

The book Calculating God touched on this somewhat (it's sci-fi, but very good). Basically, it did seem to accept that the universe itself could just exist, but that there had been a limited number of previous big bangs and crunches. The problem, however, was that the natural forces that exist in the universe require a delicate balance for life. However, intelligence can emerge (according to the book) without life, and God could be an intelligence capable of surviving a big crunch, and thus able to manipulate the subsequent universe.

Still, though, that explanation does dodge the question of "why did all this start?"

That's a good question, as God is eternal, he existed forever before the creation, the universe before another universe sounds appealing, then if there is only this universe, then what did he do before creating it? it would have been boring if anything existed but him, without nothing to do for eternity until one day deciding to create something. Although some say it is beyond our comprehension, and yeah, a lot of things in nature are beyond our comprehension, the universe, the origin of all, life, death, why, etc. in which because of these humans have created philosphies and religions, etc.

I believe in God because for me, there's no reason not to. It's very simple, but I'm afraid I'm unable to explain it in words.

Yes the universe is vast beyond comprehension, what possible explanation could there be for it other than a man with a screwdriver put it together in 7 days - it's exactly like Ikea !

I don't believe in God.

Why?

I know God exists.

Therefore, I do not believe.

You're saying that in the absolute sense. How can one absolutely know anything? And where does your knowledge come from?

Science has an explanation for the complexity of the universe, and of life. It's called evolution. The consequence is highly adapted and complex systems which appear to have purpose. The driver behind all of it: the propagation of DNA. Science now has a well developed understanding for how and why complex life exists and it involves Darwinian evolution, not an intelligent creator.

If you wanted to learn about it, I would recommend reading Richard Dawkins's Climbing Mount Improbable.

Dear frankwah:

Thank you for your response.

I am sorry, but where my knowledge of God comes from wasn't the question posted, so I did not answer it. If it had been the question posted, I would not have posted a response to begin with, as I never discuss the personal experience wherefrom this knowldge comes.

And, it seems to me that I can know, absolutely know, what I have experienced. If I cannot, who else can?

If you have never had such an experience, you have not had such an experience.

I have.

Furthermore, I have no intention of refuting anyone or impuning anyone's character or belittling anyone's intelligence or questioning anyone's sanity who states that they have not had such an experience.

Nor do I have a book or set of books I recommend to someone who states they have no experience of God.

While words are enormously helpful, reality cannot be completely depicted by words alone, otherwise, for example, there would be no need for art or music. And for some things at least, there is simply no substitue for experience.

For example, I have never known a work of art or piece of music or the the feeling of love solely by reading about, no matter how well written, but only from personally seeing the art and personally hearing the music and personally feeling love.

So, I am sorry, but this is the best I can do in response to you.

I hope my words give you some better insight into what I meant in my first post on this subject.

My best wishes to you.


Alan

Fair enough. I was just wondering. I'm usually skeptical of people who say they know anything in an absolute sense.

It's one thing to know that you have experienced a situation, and another to take that experience as absolute truth. For example, a few nights ago, I had some really weird dream where I lost my wallet and for some reason it was really important, and as a result I was stressing about it in the dream. It seemed that I was absolutely experiencing having lost my wallet and it seemed I wasabsolutely experiencing the feelings of anxiety of having lost my wallet. The experience was real to me, but it wasn't. When I awoke, I realized that I had my wallet and I was relieved; there was nothing to be anxious about because I still had my wallet. The dream happened, the apparent experience happened, the hallucination (that's what it was) happened. But it never happened in reality. It's one thing to take an experience that you have as absolutely true as a perceived experience, but it's another to take it as absolute truth or knowledge about something that really exists. There's probably no special reason to think that your "experiences" could not have been hallucinations, as in dreams. Sure, they were experiences you've had. Dreams are experiences people regularly have. But dreams and hallucinations aren't real, the things you experience and learn in them don't count as real knowledge about the real world that we live in. Maybe you experienced god in one of them; it doesn't mean there's a god in the real world. It doesn't even mean there's a god in your imaginary world. Maybe you were imagining God in your imaginary world.

I'm not saying there can't be a god, but subjective experiences of god aren't sufficient grounds for scientific evidence for a god.

I find Science's current explanation lacking. And much of it improbable. And all of it just as un-provable from a scientific standpoint (i.e. by repeatable experimentation) as intelligent design. Meaning it takes just as much faith to believe one as the other.

(I won't say what I think of Dawkins... it's against my Christian principles. )

I do believe that evolution occurs - to a point. But I don't believe life can come from non-life. And evolution can't explain where the universe came from in the first place, where intelligent design does that quite well.

I don't really think the OP wanted this to break down into yet another Dawkins-inspired God-bashing session, as umpteen threads before have degenerated into. I believe he wanted to hear from sincere believers in God, what they believed and why. He said he'd open another thread for the opposite point of view. I propose we keep things that way and respect the OP's wishes.

You can take my beliefs when you pry it from my COLD - DEAD - HANDS

Dear frankwah:

Thanks for your second response to me. I apologize for the delay in my response to you, but I have been sawing branches from a tree that fell down during my four hours of sleep, and happened to lay its main trunk precisely where I was standing some four hours before. Coincidences are interesting to observe, but I rarely draw conclusions from them. Although, while working on the branches a thought did occur to me: that that tree was out to get me, and was just stupid enough to time it wrong. Although I don't believe it, that thought did make me smile.

Sorry for that aside, or perhaps it is relevant.

I am fully aware that I sometimes draw wrong conclusions from what I perceive and what I experience. Sometimes, I simply do not perceive completely. A good example of this is my perception of people's faces as relates to the meaning of facial expressions, which I most frequently either can draw no conclusion from or draw the wrong conclusion about, and that goes for emoticons as well.

Furthermore, I am aware that things exist that I can not directly perceive, but can only indirectly perceive through some instrument. For example, seeing infrared photographs.

In addition, I know the difference between dreaming and waking, as well as the difference between non-lucid and lucid experience, at least for me. I learned this at a very early age when I had scarlet fever and watched my hand pounding the wall, seeking assistance, then falling off my arm and landing on the bed, dead. Later, after discovering that my hand was still indeed attached to my arm, I started observing the differences between my lucid and non-lucid experiences.

Also, I know the difference between fantasy, wishful thinking, desire, and reality. Again, it was a great disappointment for me to learn that no matter how much I wanted something to be true, my desires did not make it true. It's probably just as well though for the world and for me. Frankly, I would not want that responsibility.

Finally, I am aware that my experience is incomplete and my believes are often incorrect. Realizing this truth was a great disappointment for me, believe me, but I have since learned to accept it, as it does allow me the joys of learning, changing my mind about things, and even laughing at myself.

As I said, I never discuss my personal experience of God. However, I state again that my knowledge of God is based upon experience, and add that I do not mean dreams or hallucinations, nor books or words spoken to me.

Nor will I suggest that your lack of experience or knowledge of God is due to some error on your part.

I am well aware of the value of science, and regularly practice scientific method as best I can when and where appropriate.

However, I would ask you to consider the potential consequences of a world that was ruled by science alone. For example, what is love to science? How does one scientifically prove love is being experienced? What are standards of values or ethics to science?

Science does not have an answer to every question. And using scientific method is not the most useful approach to every situation. And if you do not "believe" that, you might try employing scientific method when in a romantic situation, then observe, record, quantify and analyze the results.

And finally, what practical difference is there between religion and science, if those who claim to be religious also claim to be the only source of the Truth, then burn at the stake (whether literally or figuratively) those who claim a different faith or a complete lack of religion; while those who claim to be scientific also claim to be the only source of the Truth, and then burn at the stake (whether literally or figuratively) those who claim to be religious?

It's not easy living without ever knowing everything. However I have had to get used to it.

In conclusion, I know what I have experienced of God. I add that I know this was lucid experience, not dreams, imaginations, hallucinations, wishful thinking, or anything else along those lines. I will not discuss the details of this private experience, and never have.

If one can never know anything based upon personal experience, but only know things based upon what is written in books by religious or scientific leaders, or in laws written by governments, then someone like me will simply have to be burnt at the stake.

Or, if you require consensual validation that God exists, then I believe that you will be able to find evidence of this, even if you, yourself, are not one of those doing the validation. But, that is a scientific approach used in survey research, as I recall.

Now, I cannot imagine taking this discussion further, but I have been known to be wrong, so please surprise me if you want.

However, for a while, I simply must get back to sawing wood.

And I promise that I will not be making a great pile of it to set aflame.

Instead I will be setting it out to decay slowly and naturally, so that many living things will benefit, even though I will never perceive or know all of them, and even though burning the pile or setting it out for collection would be far more convenient.

And so, in a spirit of inquiry, exchange and good humor, I give you my best wishes.


Alan
_______________
My apologies:

I have made this longer,
because I have not had the time
to make it shorter.

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)

I am very thankful to all that responded; it really is food for thought. Especially on the "knowing" God versus having a type of "dream" of what's not reality. Sometimes, I think true Rhetorical communication is missing from today's society; obviously, the above discussion disproves this (also, watching the English battle it out in their government is also a good form of rhetoric).

I know God is there because I feel His presence and peace via my daily prayer.
I believe, becuase I know and feel that there is a God. But, to take it further...I'm a christian...so I believe in God, the father, son and holy spirit. this brings an interesting part into the mix of beliefs becasue it takes it further from just "God" (which may be off topic - if so, my apologies)

A really good book to read is C.S Lewis's "Screw Tape" letters. C.S Lewis was a non-believer until his wife suffered from Cancer; and that experience changed his view, forever.

Again, I can't say it enough....I really appreciate your thoughts on this. Makes me think on other things rather than just me.