Why do Humans believe in the Existence of God?

[Au Naturel]

The question can always be asked: are you sure you're not just imagining it? Or are you sure it isn't just wishful thinking?

More likely the result of suggestion.

 

[Rachie]

Everyone who believes in a faith has their own unique story. I'm not even going to try and give reasons for everyone. I studied religion at university (4 years instead of 3 for health) and read different religious texts. I have read around a lot of religions. When I left I wanted to serve my faith in broadcasting of some sort, but things took a different route.

My own story will be unique to me. I am a Christian. I was raised with prayers in the home at night and attended Catholic schools and was baptised and from pictures it seems I may have had a First Holy Communion as well. I had my faith, I liked studying religion at school but I seeked things out further for myself when I was after certain things at 16; that couldn't happen by itself.

What I was after I never got, but I had my eyes open to the presence of God in Church and the gift of the Holy Spirit within myself. I have walked with my faith ever since, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I have seen miracles with my own eyes in church. I have other conditions apart from Autism 1-2's, 2's where it matters for me. I have anorexia as well and other medical conditions and right in the here and now have been spending a bit more time at home again in my life. Being able to witness to the gift of the Holy Spirit at home is a major comfort for me as well being home alone a lot. I do try to at least attend my church once a week as well as serve other areas at home. I attend a different church than I did in my teens.

At times with my own personal thoughts I have been why me, do I need a sign etc and felt torn. It was not that it simply was just meant to be for me. I think we are all very uniquely made with purpose. However, I never spoke about it the gift I was given although my mum attended the church with me at times at 17. Some friends knew I had a passion for my faith obviously but I never told them what was happening with me with the gift of the Holy Spirit to about 30 years later when things were in dire straits in the world and it felt like my time.

My current church at times has helped me to manage my autism as well.

I did give testimony to a church 10 years ago after severe illness, but things were a lot more low key all round. I didn't mention about my gift on social media as well when writing about my faith. I went of to inpatient treatment for anorexia and now have the time again to focus more on my faith.

Best wishes to everyone

 

[The Pandector]

With that reasoning, nothing at all can be proven, as it may all be imaginary. And I wouldn't say we "know" about evolution. It's widely believed in the scientific community is the furthest we can get with that claim.

Last I heard from the scientific community, they were acknowledging that their theories are incompatible with the geologic timeframe. IOW, even with the totally theoretical billions of years available, there simply isn’t time for any current theory to have occurred. Interesting that this information isn’t common knowledge.

And I agree that the argument that something can’t be known because nothing can be known is known to be nonsense.

 

[The Pandector]

Some things have more prima facie plausibility than other things. If I'm standing in front of a tree and say "that's a tree" and other people are standing near and can see it too - it's a safe bet that I'm seeing a real tree. It can be questioned, philosophers say I could be a brain in a vat, or it could be some kind of collective hallucination.

So, it could be imaginary. But it probably isn't, there's strong evidence to say it isn't. Whereas with these personal experiences of god the whole thing is internal, subjective. No one else can verify it.

And how can the person himself be so sure his experience is indicative of god? He might be mentally ill. He might be hallucinating. It might be his mind playing tricks on him. Maybe he just wants to believe it so badly that he's having the experience.

So no one else can verify his experience. And he himself will struggle to verify it if he takes into account other explanations.

I think a lot of the belief in god these days comes down to people not wanting to accept death. Either that or having been brought up and conditioned in a religious family or community and holding that belief as part of their identity which they're loath to let go regardless of the evidence.

Though I recognise that there are sincere believers too. Eckhart Tolle, who I have a great deal of time for, uses the word god, though I think his meaning isn't the same as traditional Christians. And I mentioned Carl Jung, the great psychoanalyst, who said he knew there was a god, rather than just believing it. That would have been through some kind of inner experience most likely. Though again I'm not certain what he meant by the word.

But the amount of people who have had real inner spiritual experiences (leaving aside the question whether those experiences prove there is a god) will be very slim in comparison to the amount of people who just dogmatically assert there is a god because they've been brought up and conditioned to believe that.

I’m left to wonder about your data source for that last paragraph. I’m curious how many people you would grant certification as having had a real inner spiritual experience. Also, your figures on the percentage of people who assert there is a god, but do so dogmatically and because they’ve been conditioned to do so.

From over here, I see that more people are more influenced/conditioned by the prevailing ‘scientific’ propaganda that begins in grade school, than those that are being actively propagandized by religious institutions.

But, that’s just what it looks like from over here. Which is the amazing thing about propaganda and senility: you see it in others but not in yourself.

 

[Neri]

Some things have more prima facie plausibility than other things. If I'm standing in front of a tree and say "that's a tree" and other people are standing near and can see it too - it's a safe bet that I'm seeing a real tree. It can be questioned, philosophers say I could be a brain in a vat, or it could be some kind of collective hallucination.

So, it could be imaginary. But it probably isn't, there's strong evidence to say it isn't. Whereas with these personal experiences of god the whole thing is internal, subjective. No one else can verify it.

And how can the person himself be so sure his experience is indicative of god? He might be mentally ill. He might be hallucinating. It might be his mind playing tricks on him. Maybe he just wants to believe it so badly that he's having the experience.

So no one else can verify his experience. And he himself will struggle to verify it if he takes into account other explanations.

I think a lot of the belief in god these days comes down to people not wanting to accept death. Either that or having been brought up and conditioned in a religious family or community and holding that belief as part of their identity which they're loath to let go regardless of the evidence.

Though I recognise that there are sincere believers too. Eckhart Tolle, who I have a great deal of time for, uses the word god, though I think his meaning isn't the same as traditional Christians. And I mentioned Carl Jung, the great psychoanalyst, who said he knew there was a god, rather than just believing it. That would have been through some kind of inner experience most likely. Though again I'm not certain what he meant by the word.

But the amount of people who have had real inner spiritual experiences (leaving aside the question whether those experiences prove there is a god) will be very slim in comparison to the amount of people who just dogmatically assert there is a god because they've been brought up and conditioned to believe that.

You'd be surprised at how many people, in this day and age that have "real spiritual experiences". You only have to look at the personal testimonial accounts of NDE's on youtube, to see that it's a growing trend and phenomena, that is exponentially growing, and that's just one example of many.

This kind of "evidence based" spirituality is covered in my logic rationale thread and I list many more examples in there. I have neither the time nor energy to elucidate here, but yeah, personal experiences of "The Divine" are rather more common than not, these days, much more than throughout history, and history is also chocked full of these kinds of accounts. People like Einstein and many, many, more foundational scientific contributors were (mostly male) "men of faith" and people of "spiritual mindsets", so to dismiss people of faith as delusional, ungrounded and unintelligent, or to put it more bluntly "crazy" is atheistic hubris, in extreme and enormous amounts of arrogance and myopia (shortsightedness), not to mention ill informed.

Sorry to be so blunt, but there you have it, research is required to have opinions worth their salt and that's a fact.

 

[Chris12345]

You'd be surprised at how many people, in this day and age that have "real spiritual experiences". You only have to look at the personal testimonial accounts of NDE's on youtube, to see that it's a growing trend and phenomena, that is exponentially growing, and that's just one example of many.

This kind of "evidence based" spirituality is covered in my logic rationale thread and I list many more examples in there. I have neither the time nor energy to elucidate here, but yeah, personal experiences of "The Divine" are rather more common than not, these days, much more than throughout history, and history is also chocked full of these kinds of accounts. People like Einstein and many, many, more foundational scientific contributors were (mostly male) "men of faith" and people of "spiritual mindsets", so to dismiss people of faith as delusional, ungrounded and unintelligent, or to put it more bluntly "crazy" is atheistic hubris, in extreme and enormous amounts of arrogance and myopia (shortsightedness), not to mention ill informed.

Sorry to be so blunt, but there you have it, research is required to have opinions worth their salt and that's a fact.

I said there are genuine believers and I mentioned two of them, who I said I respected greatly!

Most of these 'spiritual experiences' that are supposedly happening these days will be people who are slightly unbalanced, or lost in a world of mumbo-jumbo, full of talk of "consciousness", etc. that has no real meaning.

 

[Neri]

I said there are genuine believers and I mentioned two of them, who I said I respected greatly!

Most of these 'spiritual experiences' that are supposedly happening these days will be people who are slightly unbalanced, or lost in a world of mumbo-jumbo, full of talk of "consciousness", etc. that has no real meaning.

Yeah. I don't think so, I've done a huge amount of research into it and that doesn't pan out. That's the hubris I was talking about, it's an assumption and not a grounded one, from my perspective. Sure there is a lot of dogma within religious circles, which I can only assume your are referencing, but NDE's are not deemed that, for the most part. There are researchers who are doctors doing massive, many years long, research studies into it (Near Death experiences) and what you are saying is not verified by the actual science in the matter.

But, I'm glad you do respect some "genuine believers" it softens the other claims you make, that it seems (correct me if I'm wrong) to be, basically, saying "spiritual people are, pretty much, all unhinged".

I would say dogmatic, negative, hubristic, people are, indeed, not thinking well, for the most part, and there are a lot of people on all sides, and ontological reference frames, that fit that bill, but no, research shows that people that have faith in a "higher power" tend to be happier, calmer, more relaxed and contented people than those that don't. Statistically speaking, that is.

But don't take my word for it. And don't ask me to convince you or provide things to back up my claims, the research is out in the public arena, you can look into it, if not, that's ok too, no worries. I'm not at all invested in what you believe. I think ontology is a personal quest to make sense of reality and figure out what is true and what isn't and it behooves all humans to do that delving and answer finding for themselves.

 

[Neri]

I said there are genuine believers and I mentioned two of them, who I said I respected greatly!

Most of these 'spiritual experiences' that are supposedly happening these days will be people who are slightly unbalanced, or lost in a world of mumbo-jumbo, full of talk of "consciousness", etc. that has no real meaning.

Chris12345
Just because it was easy for me. This doctor's work came up in my youtube feed straight away, just because of the algorithms, I'm leaving you some evidence, to make it easy for you, if you are, at all, interested, and not set in your beliefs.

God and the Afterlife - Jeffrey Long

Based on the largest near-death experience study in history, involving 3,000 people from diverse backgrounds and religious traditions, including nonbelievers...

www.harperacademic.com

 

[Chris12345]

I have looked into NDEs a bit, including Anita Moorjani's book, which is quite amazing. I do believe she's authentic in what she's saying. But even so it's not enough for me to believe in god.

I agree with you that these are personal matters. I'm just giving my opinion based on what I've thought and observed. I'm aware that other people see it differently and that's fine.

 

[Neri]

I have looked into NDEs a bit, including Anita Moorjani's book, which is quite amazing. I do believe she's authentic in what she's saying. But even so it's not enough for me to believe in god.

I agree with you that these are personal matters. I'm just giving my opinion based on what I've thought and observed. I'm aware that other people see it differently and that's fine.

I probably don't believe in "god" as you see it either. Like I mentioned earlier, in this thread, I'm reading the Kybalion, I am a firm Hermetic thinker these days.

 

[Mr. Stevens]

This thread seems to have a lot of lashing out, for beliefs often associated with love. I don't think we can blame people for questioning faith when force, rather than fulfillment, is the motivation.

 

[Neri]

This thread seems to have a lot of lashing out, for beliefs often associated with love. I don't think we can blame people for questioning faith when force, rather than fulfillment, is the motivation.

I'm not sure what and who you are referring to?
I'm a bit over taxed at present and blunt, but I don't think unloving.
I do call things out as I see them, you, of course, are free to interpret and react in whatever way you see fit. I'm an intense person, and I apologize if I come on too strong. Maybe it's my autism and the fact that I'm tired and a bit grumpy today? If so, please understand I mean well, I'm not trying to destroy anyone's world view, just asking for a bit of respect for "The believers" in the house, even if their beliefs and mine aren't the same beliefs, as I do not identify as a Christian or any other modern interpretation of a religion, but, I don't like modern secularists inferring they must all be crazy and/or delusional either. I'm a little fiercely protective of freedom of religion without gaslighting, or to put it another milder way, being dismissed as delusional, is all. It's a personal bugbare of mine, with many atheistic thinkers when they sound off publically.
Sorry again. I'm a bit of a full on person, but people who know me well, know I'm not mean, I can just be quite intense. "Spirituality" is my "special interest" from early childhood.

 

[Mr. Stevens]

I'm not sure what and who you are referring to?
I'm a bit over taxed at present and blunt, but I don't think unloving.
I do call things out as I see them, you, of course, are free to interpret and react in whatever way you see fit. I'm an intense person, and I apologize if I come on too strong. Maybe it's my autism and the fact that I'm tired and a bit grumpy today? If so, please understand I mean well, I'm not trying to destroy anyone's world view, just asking for a bit of respect for "The believers" in the house, even if their beliefs and mine aren't the same beliefs, as I do not identify as a Christian or any other modern interpretation of a religion, but, I don't like modern secularists inferring they must all be crazy and/or delusional either. I'm a little fiercely protective of freedom of religion without gaslighting, or to put it another milder way, being dismissed as delusional, is all. It's a personal bugbare of mine, with many atheistic thinkers when they sound off publically.
Sorry again. I'm a bit of a full on person, but people who know me well, know I'm not mean, I can just be quite intense. "Spirituality" is my "special interest" from early childhood.

I wasn't responding to you specifically. My post just happened to come after yours, that's all.

 

[Hypnalis]

Last I heard from the scientific community, they were acknowledging that their theories are incompatible with the geologic timeframe. IOW, even with the totally theoretical billions of years available, there simply isn’t time for any current theory to have occurred. Interesting that this information isn’t common knowledge.

And I agree that the argument that something can’t be known because nothing can be known is known to be nonsense.

There is no mismatch with the geological data. That claim isn't well known because it's not correct.

As we learn more, evolution continues to check out in different ways. For example the rate of changes due to mutations can be verified more accurately with the newer genetic technologies, and matches the less sophisticated techniques used in the past. You must have noticed how accurately the different strains of COVID-19 were tracked.

What does happen is that new information is gained from new fossils, and timelines are adjusted to and fro.
But this isn't strange at all. Only some parts of living creatures fossilize (not everything survives long enough to "turn to stone"), and of course there's no DNA in fossils. This limits the precision of the data about living creatures. And over evolutionary time, the earth has changed a lot, so dating based on geological strata is necessarily imperfect.

So new data leads to small adjustments. But it's not possible for fossils to disprove evolution,

BTW - the point where there were any reasonable grounds to question evolution is well in the past.

It's literally possible to observe the process in real time now (as evidenced by C-19).
Similarly small changes even in humans can be observed and verified (such as the relatively rapid adjustment to being able to digest the proteins in animal milk (this happened over something like the last 10K years IIRC).

Before the tech for "amplifying" very small amounts of DNA, this wasn't possible. I still remember a time when you could make a case of sorts questioning evolution. Not a very good one, but there are people eager to be told it's not 100% certain, despite all the data confirming it.

But that's over now. The tools are too good, and the data is too solid, to seriously question evolution.

 

[Neri]

I'm just watching this and it seems very interesting to me, so I thought I'd share it.

 

[Fino]

I don't think reason or logic is the primary tool in faith or lack of faith. It's logic applied to one's experiences. We experience something then use our reason to interpret it. The fact that my experiences cannot be verified by a third party doesn't disqualify those experiences as valid. My emotions and thoughts can't be validated by a third party.

 

[Dagan]

As I have opined before: Science is simply the study of how everything in creation is, how it works, etc. etc. If any population believes the source for creation is any kind of God, no problem, that still means that they believe in science, as well....because science is simply the study of all created things. Plain and simple.

A glaring and beyond obvious difference between a lot of people in this regard is that if science happens to be proven wrong or is revised to be more accurate, practically every science "only" follower is going to feel a bit dumb, feeling mislead but then accept it and roll with it and simply move forward without anger. Devout religious folks for the most part do not accept revisions or changes to their foundations / history at all. It doesn't matter how much factual sense said revision / correction is or how much proof there is backing it up. It won't be accepted. There will be no learning better or moving forward.

 

[The Pandector]

There is no mismatch with the geological data. That claim isn't well known because it's not correct.

As we learn more, evolution continues to check out in different ways. For example the rate of changes due to mutations can be verified more accurately with the newer genetic technologies, and matches the less sophisticated techniques used in the past. You must have noticed how accurately the different strains of COVID-19 were tracked.

What does happen is that new information is gained from new fossils, and timelines are adjusted to and fro.
But this isn't strange at all. Only some parts of living creatures fossilize (not everything survives long enough to "turn to stone"), and of course there's no DNA in fossils. This limits the precision of the data about living creatures. And over evolutionary time, the earth has changed a lot, so dating based on geological strata is necessarily imperfect.

So new data leads to small adjustments. But it's not possible for fossils to disprove evolution,

BTW - the point where there were any reasonable grounds to question evolution is well in the past.

It's literally possible to observe the process in real time now (as evidenced by C-19).
Similarly small changes even in humans can be observed and verified (such as the relatively rapid adjustment to being able to digest the proteins in animal milk (this happened over something like the last 10K years IIRC).

Before the tech for "amplifying" very small amounts of DNA, this wasn't possible. I still remember a time when you could make a case of sorts questioning evolution. Not a very good one, but there are people eager to be told it's not 100% certain, despite all the data confirming it.

But that's over now. The tools are too good, and the data is too solid, to seriously question evolution.

Game over. Only outmoded, outdated and obviously fact-deficient and truth-challenged individuals still question the validity of evolutionary theory.

I recently read a thoughtful commentary on the perpetual hubris on one side of the discussion. Which brings to mind some fool (me) who commented on how we can be eagle eyed about the propaganda those other delusional people have fallen for, while we ourselves are safely ensconced in popular belief. An education in history should remedy any illusion that the popularity and the veracity of any given viewpoint are equal.

IOW, few groups (militant extremists included) can match the close mindedness of the crowd currently flying the flag of science. One need only look at today’s hot topics to see in technicolor the balderdash being passed off as science. And recently the august Harvard and other miracles of modern education have totally soiled themselves publicly by showing militant rejection of ethical and scientific standards. Those incidents aren’t new; those institutions have been brainwashing their victims for decades.

And, let’s take a scientific guess at which groups are having the hardest time coming to grips with higher education’s loss of integrity? Mostly, the same people who want the taxpayer to pick up their student debt. As this demonstrates, clearheaded integrity is not currently the forte of the over educated class. But it’s easy to understand their pique as they publicly profess en masse that their educations are not nearly worth what they paid for them.

And you say religious people need to catch up. I’ll take that under advisement.

 

[Hypnalis]

@The Pandector

Provide an alternative explanation that explains the data better. Actually I'll give you some points for providing an alternative explanation that conforms with the scientific method at all.

"Creation" isn't an option of course. It doesn't conform with the scientific method, and there is literally no data to support it as an alternative explanation anyway. I don't object to people believing it - that's a personal choice. But belief unsupported by a theory and facts doesn't count as science.

A reminder - we've done this before. You can't tempt me to discuss irrelevant stuff like the possible relationship between US student debt and evolution

 

[Fino]

It seems like the two topics that people are most dogmatic about are religion and evolution.