Not through theoretical proofs. Via experiences. Via working with a tradition and finding that much of what I have been told is the case, and things not obvious, have turned out to at least seem to be true. Of course my belief goes up and down and there are times of doubt.1. How have you arrived at your belief that God exists? Was it after some theoretical or logical proofs on God 's existence or some personal religious experience? Or via some other routes? — Corvus
Me, I wouldn't.2. Why do you try to prove God in a theoretical / logical way, when already believing in God's existence? — Corvus
Via experiences — Bylaw
Via experiences. Via working with a tradition and finding that much of what I have been told is the case, and things not obvious, have turned out to at least seem to be true. — Bylaw
You gotta experience stuff. It takes time. — Bylaw
1. How have you arrived at your belief that God exists?
2. Why do you try to prove God in a theoretical / logical way, when already believing in God's existence? — Corvus
1. How have you arrived at your belief that God exists? Was it after some theoretical or logical proofs on God 's existence or some personal religious experience? Or via some other routes?
2. Why do you try to prove God in a theoretical / logical way, when already believing in God's existence? — Corvus
1. How have you arrived at your belief that God exists? Was it after some theoretical or logical proofs on God 's existence or some personal religious experience? Or via some other routes? — Corvus
I think a non-believer, were they to move to being a believer, would likely need to have experiences. — Bylaw
Why is it okay to believe in the theory of a higher-dimensional being but not God? Aren’t we describing the the same concept? — SteveMinjares
Here is a question I been dying to ask a non-believer...
Why is it okay to believe in the theory of a higher-dimensional being but not God? Aren’t we describing the the same concept? — SteveMinjares
Why do you try to prove God in a theoretical / logical way, when already believing in God's existence? — Corvus
There supposed to be what the Psychologists call "Religious Experiences" which happen to some people in their lives such as hearing God's voice, seeing apparitions of divine images and witnessing inexplicable phenomena and feeling holy energies around them etc. But private and subjective experiences like these are challenging to be proved and explained objectively in scientific ways. — Corvus
I think the word supernatural is nonsensical. Of course that can be due to my ontology. But if it is the case, it is not supernatural, it is natural. If it is not the case then it is not real.I take your word for it that you believe something. Axiomatic with me is that within some obvious and broad limits people should be free to believe what they like. You have also written, "...is the case," and "seems to be true." Being and truth are pretty serious words when applied to the supernatural. — tim wood
I think I agree. But we all are in that situation. If you focus on the word supernatural, ti can seem like those people over there operate with an epistemology I do not. If we black box that, then we can look at how we actually decide things are true. As far as I can tell everyone is eclectic epistemologically. They all have a diverse set of ways of deciding something is true AND (importantly) make decisions that affect themselve and other people based on conclusions arrived at via a variety of epistemologies. Assessments of other people, beliefs about the presence or lack of certain qualities (or the belief there are not differences) related to the sex of a person, ideas about how to be successful socially, political beliefs, beliefs about when to use intuition and when to use rational analysis (on what issues, how much in relation to each other and more), how to raise a child and a great deal more. I see theists and non-theists alike (and both are obviously very diverse groups) making real world decisions that affect people using intuition and others with more rational analysis (and a variety of mixtures of these) and also both following tradition in many cases about some or many of these issues. I think in philosophy forums it becomes very binary, as if non-theists use, for any important decision, some kind of empirical research and theists use gut feeling and habit. Then the theists pretend often, that actually they have reasoned their way to certain beliefs based on deduction. While implicitly the other team presents themselves as having one consistant epistemology. They conclude things only via X. But I think both groups are misrepresenting themselves (not all of each group, but many in each group).Which leaves the ancient question, do you believe because it's true? Or true (for you) because you believe? It's my bias that it ultimately has to be one or the other. — tim wood
As far as I can tell I have at least as much doubt about my conclusions as non-theists do about their intuitive conclusions about all sorts of things. Beliefs they have that lead to real world decisions, beliefs and actioins that affect other people.I respect your beliefs and opinions but how you can experience something that you never seen or heard or even touched before as "God"?
I guess this is why sometimes you can have these periods of doubt. — javi2541997
1. How have you arrived at your belief that God exists? Was it after some theoretical or logical proofs on God 's existence or some personal religious experience? Or via some other routes? — Corvus
2. Why do you try to prove God in a theoretical / logical way, when already believing in God's existence? — Corvus
Why is it okay to believe in the theory of a higher-dimensional being but not God? Aren’t we describing the the same concept? — SteveMinjares
Not all believers try to prove God. Some scorn those who do. But there are many believers who want to help convince as many others that their belief is true. Proselytizing has a long tradition in some religions. These guys need arguments, without them being an apologist would not be possible. — Tom Storm
I'm no expert on Catholicism (bit one one on one part of Hinduism though I am not an adherant) but both those traditions include a great deal of rituals and practices. I am not sure the goal of the theological arguments is to, on its own, demonstrate the existence of God, say. But perhaps to serve as some kind of support to belief. In many parts of Hinduism the idea is to come closer to God, generally one specific god: Shiva, Vishnu, etc., via practices. You go to an ashram to become a better Hindu, you are working on experiences and skills. You are learning how to medidate, how to chant, how to serve with focus on the deity. You are training yourself, with expert advice, on how to experience God more and end your suffering etc. And beliefs form after experience, at the very least, also.To be fair, in the Catholic Church at least, intellectual arguments for the existence of God have been pursued formally for at least 800 years. Hindus have been doing it much longer. For them, I think it was about their search for truth. I find the intellectual approach unconvincing, but then, I am not a theist. I don't think many Christians take an intellectual approach to their understanding of God. — T Clark
1. How have you arrived at your belief that God exists? — Corvus
2. Why do you try to prove God in a theoretical / logical way, when already believing in God's existence? — Corvus
You go to an ashram to become a better Hindu, you are working on experiences and skills. You are learning how to medidate, how to chant, how to serve with focus on the deity. You are training yourself, with expert advice, on how to experience God more and end your suffering etc. — Bylaw
Religious truth is, therefore, a species of practical knowledge. Like swimming, we cannot learn it in the abstract; we have to plunge into the pool and acquire the knack by dedicated practice. Religious doctrines are a product of ritual and ethical observance, and make no sense unless they are accompanied by such spiritual exercises as yoga, prayer, liturgy and a consistently compassionate lifestyle. Skilled practice in these disciplines can lead to intimations of the transcendence we call God, Nirvana, Brahman or Dao. Without such dedicated practice, these concepts remain incoherent, incredible and even absurd. — Karen Armstrong
Yes.Religious truth is, therefore, a species of practical knowledge. Like swimming, we cannot learn it in the abstract; we have to plunge into the pool and acquire the knack by dedicated practice. Religious doctrines are a product of ritual and ethical observance, and make no sense unless they are accompanied by such spiritual exercises as yoga, prayer, liturgy and a consistently compassionate lifestyle. Skilled practice in these disciplines can lead to intimations of the transcendence we call God, Nirvana, Brahman or Dao. Without such dedicated practice, these concepts remain incoherent, incredible and even absurd. — Karen Armstrong
29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed [are] they that have not seen, and [yet] have believed. — Wikipedia
Both atheists and fundamentalists take God to be an essentially human sort of figure, a giant Father in the sky who watches over us, punishes the guilty, intervenes directly in our affairs and is entirely comprehensible to our minds. "We regularly ask God to bless our nation, save our queen, cure our sickness or give us a fine day for a picnic." Fundamentalists commit, in Armstrong's view, the grave error of presuming to know God's mind and also of enlisting God on their side against their enemies. Unsurprisingly, militant atheists observe this reductive vision of God and in turn slam religion as a child-like description of the world that cannot compare with the subtlety and practical powers of science.
Armstrong's new book is shaped as a response to these two distortions. She wishes to remind us of the mystery of God. Her sympathy is with the great Jewish, Christian and Muslim theologians who have denied that any human attempt to put the divine into words will be accurate. We are simply too limited to be able to know God; our apprehension must hence be suffused with an awareness of our provisional and potentially faulty natures. She writes: "He is not good, divine, powerful or intelligent in any way that we can understand. We could not even say that God 'exists', because our concept of existence is too limited. — Alain de Bouton, Review of Case for God
A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." ~Freddy Zarathustra
↪TheMadFool I think "faith" only suggests that "the faithful" are gullible, placebo-junkies — 180 Proof
Nothing about "faith" entails moral character or quality. Remember Kierkegaard's "teleological suspension of the ethical"? — 180 Proof
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.