Why do we believe in God

[Stoppelmann]

I wasn't even talking about you, but you are taking it as a personal insult. However, on a personal level, I can't follow your reasoning well enough to understand what you are talking about. All I get is a sense that I have offended you.

I said:

"What if we were submerged in the reality of God? What if we are part of the reality of God? What if, our brains were not just limited, but inhibitors, protecting our physical being from imploding when we see reality as it is? We hear of people taking psychoactive drugs, thereby preventing the inhibitory function, who are literally shocked at the world they see, but are incapable of living in that condition and would die if it lasted."

And you replied:

All of these "what if's" are not just theoretical thought experiments. It is a function of the ego to shelter itself from things that put ourselves in the light of reality, where we have to deal with odious task of admitting we don't see things that make us uncomfortable.

This is the root cause of hypocrisy, where we believe we are models of integrity and ethics, while we lie, satisfy our greed, and fornicate with our neighbor's partner.

Psychotherapy deals with this very issue of uncovering flawed thinking that causes personal turmoil. It's what logic and science does as it attempts to explain rationally how things are, even if we would rather it be otherwise.

But you weren't talking about me? May I suggest a more careful reply in the future? The implication is there for all to see, which is what I said.

 

[Stoppelmann]

There are many theories about consciousness and what it might be, and they don't all relate to a God. It can be fun to speculate. The problem as it relates to a God is - why do you need a God in such a hypothesis? At least, the God of the Bible.

The word God is a placeholder for the sacred, the holy, the ground of being, or whatever terminology we choose to use. I might have said Allah, Alaha, or Manitou but these have other connotations, and the word God is not restricted to the Bible. In fact, in the Arabian Bible, God is referred to as Allah or Alaha. So, for the supreme consciousness in whom "we live and move and have our being" (Epimenides), I choose to use the word God.

I did have some difficulties relating what I said:

Yes, and if consciousness is what we are, albeit limited in a physical body and inhibited by our cerebral functions, rather than consciousness as a product of material processes, we might indeed find that our bodies are suited best to hunting and gathering, which may be the best physical way to live. But because we are consciousness in a physical form, that consciousness is curious and seeks to know things. We see it in children before they are conditioned, and wisdom traditions have strived to retain that childlike curiosity, albeit tempered by experience. I think that we are limited by what we think we know rather than what we do not know.

With your answer ...

We do evolve, and I'd love to know what people are like in say, 1000 years. Just about everything will be different. Humans are very good at adapting, and a lot of technology is essentially simply new (better) ways of doing familiar things. I mean, the car was a great invention, but we already had the means to move about, just not as efficiently.

The big difference is AI. AI is going to enable natural human to technology communication. We already speak to plastic boxes (Alexa), stare transfixed to screens, and even get surgery by robot. What else will we give up? Look at how people are living their lives through Smartphone screens. They use the device to meet others, seek out help and advice, etc. We're gradually giving up self-automony. Just last evening I was walking my dog and two people rushed passed my on electric scooters. It immediately struck me, because back in my day, you'd walk everywhere as a kid. Today? Not so much.

AI is going to blur the line between us and machine. It may erase it. The likes of Alexa is ushering in the acceptance of robots to do our bidding. Is moving from Alexa to a more capable robot of some kind really a stretch? We have automatic vacuum cleaners, robot cops, cars being built without human hands. It's amazing. Especially since robots have no Gods.

However, it may just be that you are proving my point that "I think that we are limited by what we think we know rather than what we do not know." Because the fact that we talk to plastic boxes, have cars, and now AI is a distraction from the real task of knowing ourselves, which is probably the most important and ignored task there is. The childlike curiosity is also called "beginner's mind" in Buddhism, which attempts prevent us falling into the assumption we know things without checking that we do. Too many people utter, "I know," but don't.

 

[rbtvgo]

I am utterly amazed by the responses. No! not just amazed but staggered by the variety of views and beliefs. I sit here and try to comphenend what I am reading.
All I can say is this.
You were created by God, therefore you are a creation, not a god. You know no more then God intends you to know. Therefore your knowledge is limited by what God has revealed to you. He does not give you more than you can handle because quit frankly you couldn't handle it all.
I can't
Who is God?
He is beyond your understanding!
He is your creator however so you have a connection. Not as an equal but as a child. Therefore you are at a disadvantage in trying to find your way.
Like I said at the beginning I am astonished at the response and emotion shown. Yet it seems to me that those who continue to post either want to prove everyone else wrong or are really looking for answers.
Otherwise leave the post!
Believe what you believe and move on.
I am not trying to evangelize anyone. Believe, don't believe. Your choice.
I believe strongly in my beliefs. Find comfort and only wish to offer that to others.
But I will not back down from voicing my opinion when others do not.

 

[Stoppelmann]

You don't need to know your neighbors. You need to know God then you will know your neighbors.

Aha, now this is a case of getting it completely the wrong way around. In the words of your saviour:

"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?' "The King will reply, 'Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.'" (Matth. 25: 37-40)

 

[Stoppelmann]

I am utterly amazed by the responses. No! not just amazed but staggered by the variety of views and beliefs. I sit here and try to comphenend what I am reading.

Well, that may be because you assumed that only you have "true faith" rather than recognising that millions of people are on their way to the same destinations from different starting points, with different experiences and cultural developments, and have different stories to the one you are telling. Sit back and enjoy.

 

[JustDave]

I said:

And you replied:

But you weren't talking about me?

Actually, I was talking about that group of people, but include yourself in the group if you want.

 

[Stoppelmann]

Actually, I was talking about that group of people, but include yourself in the group if you want

I think you know what you were doing but don't want to own up to it. Like I said, implying is also including.

 

[spectratg]

s The Universe Simply The Human Brain Enlarged?

Are the similarities between the universe and the human brain deeper than we thought?

 

[JustDave]

I think you know what you were doing but don't want to own up to it. Like I said, implying is also including.

I think you are just looking for things to take offense over you so you can take umbrage. But what can I say? Consider it a favor.

 

[JustDave]

s The Universe Simply The Human Brain Enlarged?

Are the similarities between the universe and the human brain deeper than we thought?

I doubt it, but I can see a good premise for a science fiction film.

 

[Mitch86]

I worship Jesus who was a Jewish MAN. He is the ONE who taught us how to live and how to accept all things including pain, impairment and death. He taught us how to die by going to the Cross and NOT telling His followers to exact revenge on His crucifiers. However, I do NOT think that Jesus was a "god." He was a MAN who taught us how to live and how to die. He taught us how to accept abuse and NOT seek revenge.

 

[Radrook]

I doubt it, but I can see a good premise for a science fiction film.

There was a science fiction film based on that concept which had the human exploration of spaced unintentionally driving the universal brain insane from the effect of the spaceship drives that were being employed.

 

[Radrook]

Going back in time, I expect that humans questioned their existence and the world they saw around them. Without the knowledge or tools to find rational explanations, they assumed that a more powerful, but unseen, force ie. God was responsible. Today, we have a lot more knowledge and understanding of how things work and less reliance on a God to explain the unknown.

However, we're human and maybe take comfort in the belief that if we're good boys and girls we'll go to Heaven when we die and the bad guys will get what's coming to them. In the meantime we'll thank God - if you still believe one exists - for the good times and make excuses for the bad ones.

Your premise is flawed.
Tools aren't necessary to reach rational explanations about things that are observed.
Do you need tools to reach a conclusion that the faces on Mount Rushmore were carved into the mountainside and designed?
Reasoning ability alone is sufficient.
Neither is it impossible to propose IRRATIONAl explanations after using tools.
Atheists do it all the time.

 

[Radrook]

I worship Jesus who was a Jewish MAN. He is the ONE who taught us how to live and how to accept all things including pain, impairment and death. He taught us how to die by going to the Cross and NOT telling His followers to exact revenge on His crucifiers. However, I do NOT think that Jesus was a "god." He was a MAN who taught us how to live and how to die. He taught us how to accept abuse and NOT seek revenge.

He describes himself as the Son of Man. Which means that he was fully human.

Matthew 8:20
Verse Concepts
Jesus *said to him, “The foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head.”

Matthew 9:6
Verse Concepts
But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—then He *said to the paralytic, “Get up, pick up your bed and go home.”

But he also described himself as the Son of God.

Matthew 16:13-17.

"When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, He questioned His disciples: “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” 14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 “But what about you?” Jesus asked. “Who do you say I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by My Father in heaven.""

Matthew 17:5
While he was still speaking, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and behold, a voice out of the cloud said, “This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased; listen to Him!

”

 

[VaughanJB]

Well, since your response is to totally ignore counter arguments by declaring a total inability to see or to perceive the relevance of what I say, or else ignore the counterarguments altogether, and using straw man, via a constant misrepresentation of what I say, erroneous assumptions of what I believe, assumptions of ignorance about things that are common knowledge, as well as being inconsistent in your application of criteria, then there is really no logical point in continuing this discussion since that would constitute an exercise in futility. So lets just say that we disagree and leave it at that.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I don't think the problem is on my side. I do not believe in a God due to lack of evidence. Your method of persuasion? Quotes from the Bible. That is a terribly flawed method to justify your own views. We could discuss the Bible itself, if you like, outside of this discussion, but do you seriously think that quoting the Bible is an argument? It's not. I don't believe in a God, which ought to infer to you that I don't believe the Bible is the word of God. In other words, you're not making counter arguments, you're simply repeating religious texts.

I'd also note, has you seen the length of my responses? It's not like I didn't spend a lot of time laying out my feelings/thoughts. Yet even with the length of my responses (which likely annoy many here as it is) you think I'm ignoring part of your posts. So strange.

Conversation usually goes like this: If someone misunderstands you, you clarify. If someone makes an assumption that is incorrect, you point it out and explain your point of view. I've no idea what "assumptions of ignorance about things common knowledge" refers too, sorry. I'll be honest - I think you grossly misuse the term "logic", and I have pointed it out. Still, if you don't care for the discussion, then it's all good. Rather that than have angst on the forum. And rather that than having a falling out.

Examples of your creating straw men:

I never claimed to believe in a creator because a book says so.

I don't believe in a creator based on scientific gaps.

My belief in a creator isn't base on blind faith.

So you are definitely not describing me.

​

I don't recall saying you only believed in a God because a book said so. When you believe in a God who has always been, and came from (apparently) nowhere, and created everything from..... goodness knows what, you're in God of the Gaps territory. Sorry, that's true.

Do you believe in the story of Adam and Eve? Talking bushes? Parting of the Red Sea? They only way to explain such things is to employ bland faith. They're examples of magic (that you might call miracles). But can these things be demonstrated scientifically?

I have stated in this thread, more than once, that I am not attacking anyone, or anyone's faith. This is simply an exchange of views. You believe differently, and we should both accept it. But if you thought your approach of quoting Bible verses was going to change anything, you were sorely mistaken. I can't claim to have read all of the Bible, but I've read chunks of it. I was introduced to it aged 5. Back in those days, all school days started with saying the Lords Prayer. Religious Education was part of my curriculum up to aged 16. I've researched the topic since then, of course. I like the music. And so on.

However, it's true that you and I don't see eye-to-eye on almost anything on this topic. I've sadly, learned little from it. I really don't require a preacher telling me Bible verses, that even Christians accept were words written by men (albeit, Christians believes they were effectively inspired by God). The Bible as we know it today was written by 40 authors over 1500 years. It's a good book, but it's not evidence of a God within itself. You might claim it is, but how do I differentiate great fiction from the inspired word of God?

 

[VaughanJB]

The word God is a placeholder for the sacred, the holy, the ground of being, or whatever terminology we choose to use. I might have said Allah, Alaha, or Manitou but these have other connotations, and the word God is not restricted to the Bible. In fact, in the Arabian Bible, God is referred to as Allah or Alaha. So, for the supreme consciousness in whom "we live and move and have our being" (Epimenides), I choose to use the word God.

Thanks for this. I guess the issue is, once you get down to a specific religion, then you've got to get off the fence and pick one.

I did have some difficulties relating what I said:

Sorry about that, it was extrapolation, stretching your comment out into the technological future. Your comment inspired those thoughts in my head. Our physical profiles have changed since the birth of man, and they'll continue doing that. Our consciousness will, I think, change too. But that's for Philosophers to ponder.

AI is a distraction from the real task of knowing ourselves, which is probably the most important and ignored task there is.

I agree. It was only when I stopped working that I took a long hard look at my own life - let along delving in to the (much deeper) world of consciousness. I think too few people truly go through the process is a full appraisal of their life. It's not as easy to do as I'd imagined, meaning there was a lot of pain there that I hadn't acknowledged. Some things I learned about myself weren't very nice. Of course, it's balanced by the good. But... I know I could have done better. Pass me the mushrooms.

 

[VaughanJB]

either want to prove everyone else wrong or are really looking for answers.

I can categorically state, it's the latter for me. I 100% don't want, or expect, to convert people to atheism. We're oldsters here, we've had a lifetime to ponder this stuff for ourselves. I respect your belief, even if I can't say I believe the same. I'll keep looking for answers, I guess until I'm no more.

 

[VaughanJB]

Your premise is flawed.
Tools aren't necessary to reach rational explanations about things that are observed.
Do you need tools to reach a conclusion that the faces on Mount Rushmore were carved into the mountainside and designed?
Reasoning ability alone is sufficient.
Neither is it impossible to propose IRRATIONAl explanations after using tools.
Atheists do it all the time.

The premise isn't flawed. How, without tools, did man discover Earth was an oblate spheroid? How without tools did we discover particles, atoms, the chemical make up of the air we breathe? Still, I see you take a snide swipe at Atheists there, which is disrespectful. I've seen no-one but yourself try to insult a group this way. I think we should strive to be respectful, even if we disagree.

Invisible Gods, feeding 5000 with 5 loaves and 2 fish, conversations with snakes..... THAT is irrational thinking to my mind. It's magic, and I don't believe in magic.

 

[VaughanJB]

I am utterly amazed by the responses.

When I moved to the US, I found the TV preachers. I'd never seen them before. The whole religious south was a huge shock too. I'd just never experienced anything like it. Sadly I can't get those preachers back in the UK, and some of them have been found out for egregious behavior anyway. But I can say, experiencing religion in the US was areal surprise.

 

[john19485]

The otherday, I was working on my travel trailer refrigerator, I forgot to turn off the gas , and the safty valve was out, I had a small fire fixing to turn into a big one, I heard a voice come into my head, blow it out, I tried once , it didn't do anything, tried again not much, the flame was geting higher, was thinking about the Fire Extinguisher, it came into my head to try one more time , I blew it and all the flame just went out, is there a god, I don't know but as many times , that my life has been spared, I feel something has to be there.

 

[rbtvgo]

Aha, now this is a case of getting it completely the wrong way around. In the words of your saviour:

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I don't think the problem is on my side. I do not believe in a God due to lack of evidence. Your method of persuasion? Quotes from the Bible. That is a terribly flawed method to justify your own views. We could discuss the Bible itself, if you like, outside of this discussion, but do you seriously think that quoting the Bible is an argument? It's not. I don't believe in a God, which ought to infer to you that I don't believe the Bible is the word of God. In other words, you're not making counter arguments, you're simply repeating religious texts.

I'd also note, has you seen the length of my responses? It's not like I didn't spend a lot of time laying out my feelings/thoughts. Yet even with the length of my responses (which likely annoy many here as it is) you think I'm ignoring part of your posts. So strange.

Conversation usually goes like this: If someone misunderstands you, you clarify. If someone makes an assumption that is incorrect, you point it out and explain your point of view. I've no idea what "assumptions of ignorance about things common knowledge" refers too, sorry. I'll be honest - I think you grossly misuse the term "logic", and I have pointed it out. Still, if you don't care for the discussion, then it's all good. Rather that than have angst on the forum. And rather that than having a falling out.



I don't recall saying you only believed in a God because a book said so. When you believe in a God who has always been, and came from (apparently) nowhere, and created everything from..... goodness knows what, you're in God of the Gaps territory. Sorry, that's true.

Do you believe in the story of Adam and Eve? Talking bushes? Parting of the Red Sea? They only way to explain such things is to employ bland faith. They're examples of magic (that you might call miracles). But can these things be demonstrated scientifically?

I have stated in this thread, more than once, that I am not attacking anyone, or anyone's faith. This is simply an exchange of views. You believe differently, and we should both accept it. But if you thought your approach of quoting Bible verses was going to change anything, you were sorely mistaken. I can't claim to have read all of the Bible, but I've read chunks of it. I was introduced to it aged 5. Back in those days, all school days started with saying the Lords Prayer. Religious Education was part of my curriculum up to aged 16. I've researched the topic since then, of course. I like the music. And so on.

However, it's true that you and I don't see eye-to-eye on almost anything on this topic. I've sadly, learned little from it. I really don't require a preacher telling me Bible verses, that even Christians accept were words written by men (albeit, Christians believes they were effectively inspired by God). The Bible as we know it today was written by 40 authors over 1500 years. It's a good book, but it's not evidence of a God within itself. You might claim it is, but how do I differentiate great fiction from the inspired word of God?

Try reading the whole bible. Try to withhold your disbelief of certain events and then just keep reading. The bible is the living word of God. It doesn't answer your questions once and for all. It reveals new truths everyday. Even passages that you had all figured out. Read them again.

 

[rbtvgo]

He describes himself as the Son of Man. Which means that he was fully human.



But he also described himself as the Son of God.

Matthew 16:13-17.





”

and he was fully God

 

[rbtvgo]

Skip the Bible. Stop reading.
Get down, close your eyes and pray to him to reveal himself. Open your eyes, get up and go about your life. Nothing ventured nothing gained. Waste of time, no problem but if life suddenly looks different or something of concern suddenly changes then think about it and considered that you prayed to him. Go from there.

 

[Radrook]

and he was fully God

Either way, he is still my Lord and savior.

Mark 10:18
17As Jesus started on His way, a man ran up and knelt before Him. “Good Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 18“Why do you call Me good?” Jesus replied. “No one is good except God alone.

​

Revelation 3:12 ►

​

The one who is victorious I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will they leave it. I will write on them the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on them my new name.

John 20:17 ►

​

Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”

​

1 Corinthians 8:6 ►

​

yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

John 1:1 in English versions
Other variations of rendering, both in translation or paraphrase, John 1:1c also exist:
1808: "and the Word was a god" – Thomas Belsham The New Testament, in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome's New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London.
1822: "and the Word was a god" – The New Testament in Greek and English (A. Kneeland, 1822.)
1829: "and the Word was a god" – The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists (J. S. Thompson, 1829)
1863: "and the Word was a god" – A Literal Translation of the New Testament (Herman Heinfetter [Pseudonym of Frederick Parker], 1863)
1864: "and a god was the Word" – The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London (left hand column interlinear reading)
1867: "and the Son was of God" – The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible
1879: "and the Word was a god" – Das Evangelium nach Johannes (J. Becker, 1979)
1885: "and the Word was a god" – Concise Commentary on The Holy Bible (R. Young, 1885)
1911: "and [a] God was the word" – The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect, by George William Horner.[13]
1924: "the Logos was divine" – The Bible: James Moffatt Translation, by James Moffatt.[14]
1935: "and the Word was divine" – The Bible: An American Translation, by John M. P. Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed, Chicago.[15]
1955: "so the Word was divine" – The Authentic New Testament, by Hugh J. Schonfield, Aberdeen.[16]
1956: "And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity" – The Wuest Expanded Translation[17]
1958: "and the Word was a god" – The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed (J. L. Tomanec, 1958);
1966, 2001: "and he was the same as God" – The Good News Bible.
1970, 1989: "and what God was, the Word was" – The New English Bible and The Revised English Bible.
1975 "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word" – Das Evangelium nach Johnnes, by Siegfried Schulz, Göttingen, Germany
1975: "and the Word was a god" – Das Evangelium nach Johannes (S. Schulz, 1975);
1978: "and godlike sort was the Logos" – Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin
1985: "So the Word was divine" - The Original New Testament, by Hugh J. Schonfield.

 

[Stoppelmann]

Try reading the whole bible. Try to withhold your disbelief of certain events and then just keep reading. The bible is the living word of God. It doesn't answer your questions once and for all. It reveals new truths everyday. Even passages that you had all figured out. Read them again.

I was an elder in the church, a lay preacher and a church youth worker. I was a nurse in church institutions and held devotions. But I broke out of the fold and discovered the humility and spirituality of other traditions, which were sometimes older. I discovered the history of the "fertile crescent" and the mythologies of ancient peoples. My conclusion: We are all on a journey from different starting points, and all have one destination. We have different stories but at the core of them is the realisation that there is a Way that we should walk that involves learning to discern the truth, recognising that we are one in our diversity, and that compassion is the key to real knowledge.