Why do/don't you believe in a higher power? (Any HP)

[The New California Republic]

Many postulate disbelief in God merely because of a lack of empirical evidence for God's existence. "If we do not perceive his existence, and are unable in understanding such, he does not exist". This fosters a dangerous mentality that we should question all but our own ability to understand reality.

We humans have taken without question our own empirical supremacy, without empirical evidence for its supremacy. We do not question whether or not our mental departments may or may not be sufficient in describing reality, simply because we see our already established sciences as a testament to its supremacy. I find this very concerning and find it to be the most hypocritical maxim in being an atheist: they fail to realize that our empirical observations of the world are absolutely limited to the perception of the world our mental departments allow, and our understanding of the world would be limited to our already limited perception of the world.

Rendering God's existence as null and void simply because of our mental limitations does not render God to not exist.

I have yet to see an atheist coherently argue against that. Bravo!

Then you clearly haven't been involved in many discussions of this kind, as the discussion of "God of the gaps", of which this is an example, has been running for a very long time between theists and atheists, and is often used on NSForums.

[The South Falls]

Many postulate disbelief in God merely because of a lack of empirical evidence for God's existence. "If we do not perceive his existence, and are unable in understanding such, he does not exist". This fosters a dangerous mentality that we should question all but our own ability to understand reality.

We humans have taken without question our own empirical supremacy, without empirical evidence for its supremacy. We do not question whether or not our mental departments may or may not be sufficient in describing reality, simply because we see our already established sciences as a testament to its supremacy. I find this very concerning and find it to be the most hypocritical maxim in being an atheist: they fail to realize that our empirical observations of the world are absolutely limited to the perception of the world our mental departments allow, and our understanding of the world would be limited to our already limited perception of the world.

Rendering God's existence as null and void simply because of our mental limitations does not render God to not exist.

I have yet to see an atheist coherently argue against that. Bravo!

I mean, I'm Christian, but denigrating atheists is wrong.

[Lucifersguardian]

There might be A God, but I do not believe in modern monotheisms view of such a God.

The biggest one is if He is omnipresent and omnipotent how can He allow His creation to destroy itself. I am talking about even assuming the free will part, He sits back and lets us kill each other over territory, over our values, the color of our skin etc. It isn't logical. No singular entity would let its creation die for such petty means.

The second being if He asks us not to idol worship. Why does every religion look at its Prophets as people in higher regards than the masses. (Think Abraham(sp). Jesus. Mohammed (sp). Etc.) Again, if we are His creatures and all are equal, how can there be a hierarchy to this Entity?

The other reasons are petty in that they are more based on Mans interpretation of Religion. Not in what would make more sense.

Example. Modern Monotheism thinks creationism is not compatible with evolution. In my opinion, niether answers all the questions on when we got here, how we got here etc. But it is surprising how close both are to what the beginning of "time" is. What came next etc. Just wording.

Another is: none of it was written in real time, with the exception of maybe modern Islam. Example. The stories of the Torah were written down almost 1000 years (if not more) after the major players had long past. The Stories of Jesus were written 400 plus years later. Think about how many generations heard the stories relayed them. How much can potentially be misunderstood (so gets changed) etc.

Basically at the end of the day Man is not infallible. There is no way to think (with even basic worldly observations) that there is an Entity that is infallible controlling the (un)known Universe. Nothing is of perfect design or image etc.

We exist. That is all we can confirm. Until otherwise, we all will carry our views the way we see fit.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

I believe in God because my church teaches the truth, and because the Bible says God is real. The Bible has always been true.

As for the actual reason that I believe in God, I've seen him heal people when doctors said they couldn't be healed. My existence is the result of God's miracles. Nothing could convince me that God isn't real after what he's done.

How do you know the Bible is true? How do you know miraculous medical feats are due to divine intervention?

[The Galactic Supremacy]

I have yet to see an atheist coherently argue against that. Bravo!

Then you clearly haven't been involved in many discussions of this kind, as the discussion of "God of the gaps", of which this is an example, has been running for a very long time between theists and atheists, and is often used on NSForums.

The discussion regarding "God of the gaps" seems to be quite arbitrary. It does nothing to credit nor discredit the dominion of God nor science's ability to explain the physical world. It isn't what I put forward. I never once suggested simply because there was a gap in understanding of some aspect of the world meant that it was evidence of the supernatural.

[United Massachusetts]

Then you clearly haven't been involved in many discussions of this kind, as the discussion of "God of the gaps", of which this is an example, has been running for a very long time between theists and atheists, and is often used on NSForums.

The discussion regarding "God of the gaps" seems to be quite arbitrary. It does nothing to credit nor discredit the dominion of God nor science's ability to explain the physical world. It isn't what I put forward. I never once suggested simply because there was a gap in understanding of some aspect of the world meant that it was evidence of the supernatural.

Theists who make "God of the gaps" arguments are failing to understand the classical theistic model. Atheists who describe theism as a God of the gaps fallacy are also failing to understand the classical theistic model.

This problem would be solved if people would take the time to read Aquinas.

[VoVoDoCo]

So many reasons. So many reasons. The most basic of which is there's no fuckin proof of one.

[Kavagrad]

What’s more important that whether there is a god is which of the hundreds of deities that have existed throughout human history is/are the true god/s.

Until someone/something can prove to me that their god is, without question, the only god that could ever exist, there are simply too many possibilities, including those imperceptible to the human mind, to attempt to worship a deity/deities with any conviction.

[The New California Republic]

Then you clearly haven't been involved in many discussions of this kind, as the discussion of "God of the gaps", of which this is an example, has been running for a very long time between theists and atheists, and is often used on NSForums.

The discussion regarding "God of the gaps" seems to be quite arbitrary. It does nothing to credit nor discredit the dominion of God nor science's ability to explain the physical world. It isn't what I put forward. I never once suggested simply because there was a gap in understanding of some aspect of the world meant that it was evidence of the supernatural.

What you put forward was God of the gaps in everything but name.

[United Massachusetts]

What’s more important that whether there is a god is which of the hundreds of deities that have existed throughout human history is/are the true god/s.

Until someone/something can prove to me that their god is, without question, the only god that could ever exist, there are simply too many possibilities, including those imperceptible to the human mind, to attempt to worship a deity/deities with any conviction.

I think it can be generally established that the Abrahamic God is. I'll make a more detailed post later, but I have to go watch Trump's address.

[Godular]

Many postulate disbelief in God merely because of a lack of empirical evidence for God's existence. "If we do not perceive his existence, and are unable in understanding such, he does not exist". This fosters a dangerous mentality that we should question all but our own ability to understand reality.

We humans have taken without question our own empirical supremacy, without empirical evidence for its supremacy. We do not question whether or not our mental departments may or may not be sufficient in describing reality, simply because we see our already established sciences as a testament to its supremacy. I find this very concerning and find it to be the most hypocritical maxim in being an atheist: they fail to realize that our empirical observations of the world are absolutely limited to the perception of the world our mental departments allow, and our understanding of the world would be limited to our already limited perception of the world.

Rendering God's existence as null and void simply because of our mental limitations does not render God to not exist.

Doesn't prove God does exist either, or that it is YOUR god. While an absence of evidence does not necessarily mean evidence of absence, neither can one take the incapacity to negate a statement as proof of the positive claim.

Without evidence to support the presence of any deity whatsoever, such claims have equivalent basis to any other imaginary friend that people are entirely too invested in. If there is no evidence, one must logically default to the negation of the positive claim, here being 'A God exists'. You need to give me reason to accept otherwise, and not just with flowery language wherein you try to question the nature of perception. If we can't trust perception, we can't trust you either.

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

So many reasons. So many reasons. The most basic of which is there's no fuckin proof of one.

There’s no proof there isn’t one.

[Godular]

So many reasons. So many reasons. The most basic of which is there's no fuckin proof of one.

There’s no proof there isn’t one.

Which still doesn't prove there is one.

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

There’s no proof there isn’t one.

Which still doesn't prove there is one.

Yes, but that shows that either opinion is equally illogical.

[Godular]

Which still doesn't prove there is one.

Yes, but that shows that either opinion is equally illogical.

No it doesn't. Without evidence to support a positive claim, in this case being 'there is a god', there is no reason to accept such a claim as anything more than an attempt to push one's imaginary friend upon others. In the absence of evidence of a positive claim, it is necessary to default to the negation of that statement.

[Kowani]

Which still doesn't prove there is one.

Yes, but that shows that either opinion is equally illogical.

Is there proof of Unicorns? No. Therefore, those wwho claim unicorns exist must show that they do. In the meantime, default to the negative.

[Dogmeat]

Because you can't believe in something... you don't.

[Forestavia]

What if we approached this issue a little differently? This is a tower of babel situation. Everyone has a different conception of the divine. So... What if we got rid of the concepts? What if instead of asking whether God exists or not or whether one believes or disbelieves, we instead get rid of beliefs? Let's set the question of existence on the shelf for a bit.

Is anyone willing to do this? I've been going through a lot of soul searching - a spiritual transformation - for a number of weeks and it's too much to get into here. I'm not going to bore you with my story but I recently arrived at the conclusion that that thing we call "God" is completely beyond words.

When Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life..." There was actually something that he was trying to communicate. He wasn't talking about himself but there is something here. There is something behind those words for those who have ears to hear. The Buddha was very evasive about the issue of God and this was for good reason. The reason is that we have the power to believe whatever we want!

So my answer to this question is that the very act of believing is itself the very thing that is keeping us from discovering what God really is. It takes an act of surrender. Until you surrender to God, God will not surrender to you. And the act of surrender is the crucifixion of pride and ego up to and including the pride that drives belief itself. This has completely changed the life I thought I had.

[Geneviev]

hearing voices isn't the same as actually hearing God.

How would it even be possible to distinguish them?

God's voice doesn't contradict the Bible at all.

That's because you don't believe in God. And hearing voices isn't the same as actually hearing God.

Explain

When someone is hearing voices they're not real, but God's voice, if it's really God, is real.

1.That's because you don't believe in God. 2. And hearing voices isn't the same as actually hearing God.

1.No it´s because I have common sense and a basic understanding on what it means to be hearing voices in your head.

2. Yes it is your brain is messed up and the voice that it has created claims to be god.

1. You don't understand how God speaks. He does speak with people and it doesn't make them crazy.
2. I hope you're not saying my brain is messed up. If you are then no, it's not.

[Bombadil]

Many postulate disbelief in God merely because of a lack of empirical evidence for God's existence. "If we do not perceive his existence, and are unable in understanding such, he does not exist". This fosters a dangerous mentality that we should question all but our own ability to understand reality.

We humans have taken without question our own empirical supremacy, without empirical evidence for its supremacy. We do not question whether or not our mental departments may or may not be sufficient in describing reality, simply because we see our already established sciences as a testament to its supremacy. I find this very concerning and find it to be the most hypocritical maxim in being an atheist: they fail to realize that our empirical observations of the world are absolutely limited to the perception of the world our mental departments allow, and our understanding of the world would be limited to our already limited perception of the world.

Rendering God's existence as null and void simply because of our mental limitations does not render God to not exist.

I have yet to see an atheist coherently argue against that. Bravo!

Really.. you could switch 'God' here with 'Unicorns' or Goblins'.. and then say it's dangerous to think unicorns or goblins don't exist just because we've zero evidence for their existence.

Tis a silly argument.

[Dogmeat]

How would it even be possible to distinguish them?

God's voice doesn't contradict the Bible at all.

I mean... Jesus directly contradicted the Old Testament when he said that eating food condemned by Jewish dietary laws doesn't make one unclean.

It seems to me that if you lived during Jesus' lifetime, you would be one of the ones who rejected him.

[Godular]

Explain

When someone is hearing voices they're not real, but God's voice, if it's really God, is real.

And how would one make the distinction?

1.No it´s because I have common sense and a basic understanding on what it means to be hearing voices in your head.

2. Yes it is your brain is messed up and the voice that it has created claims to be god.

1. You don't understand how God speaks. He does speak with people and it doesn't make them crazy.
2. I hope you're not saying my brain is messed up. If you are then no, it's not.

How would you know? If the real god told you to 'Kill the Whores', would you follow this divine command?

[Geneviev]

God's voice doesn't contradict the Bible at all.

I mean... Jesus directly contradicted the Old Testament when he said that eating food condemned by Jewish dietary laws doesn't make one unclean.

It seems to me that if you lived during Jesus' lifetime, you would be one of the ones who rejected him.

That may be true, but Jesus fulfilled the law in the Old Testament. I hope I wouldn't have rejected him.

When someone is hearing voices they're not real, but God's voice, if it's really God, is real.

And how would one make the distinction?

1. You don't understand how God speaks. He does speak with people and it doesn't make them crazy.
2. I hope you're not saying my brain is messed up. If you are then no, it's not.

How would you know? If the real god told you to 'Kill the Whores', would you follow this divine command?

1. If it contradicts the Bible, it's not God.
2. The Bible says not to murder, so it wouldn't be a divine command.

[Saxony-Brandenburg]

Because I don't need any particular book to tell me how to live a happy and meaningful life.

[Godular]

I mean... Jesus directly contradicted the Old Testament when he said that eating food condemned by Jewish dietary laws doesn't make one unclean.

It seems to me that if you lived during Jesus' lifetime, you would be one of the ones who rejected him.

That may be true, but Jesus fulfilled the law in the Old Testament. I hope I wouldn't have rejected him.

And how would one make the distinction?



How would you know? If the real god told you to 'Kill the Whores', would you follow this divine command?

1. If it contradicts the Bible, it's not God.
2. The Bible says not to murder, so it wouldn't be a divine command.

1. And yet the bible contains contradictions within itself. It would seem then that the bible is not God.
2. But it wouldn't be murder, for you have been given a divine commandment to cleanse the world of maidens of negotiable virtue! How can it be murder if it has god's sanction?