How do/don't you rationalize God

[Eventhorizon]

What even is god?

This is an excellent question. Would you believe in many years of searching not a single person I have ever asked has been able to answer that question in a rational way? If you look at the dictionaries definition almost always the term god is associated with chirstian or Catholic versions. So I changed my question to "what is a god in general. "

 

[Skarekrow]

I think many people believe in the unbelievable because they feel as if there is no other explanation that can explain existence and consciousness which also still allows them to feel special and unique.

I disagree with this idea.
If it were true for one person it would also be true for all and then no one be special or unique.
It isn’t about either of those things though.
You’ve heard my stories about what I have experienced...and it wasn’t “because I wanted to feel special”...in fact a good portion of my childhood was impacted by certain experiences...enough so that I was sent to the “dream lab” at UCLA....god I wish my Mom kept the report...ugh, still to this day I get upset about that haha.
Of course the experiences I have had also don’t prove or imply that God exists, but it does make it possible for things like Psi to exist, which could also imply a “soul” or “spirit” of some kind could also exist - in other words, so could God...it’s just unprovable.
I think it’s the folks who take the Bible and such literally...or insist that there is tons of proof Jesus even existed (there isn’t), that make the argument into a circular “jerk” of sorts.
Hahaha.

 

[Eventhorizon]

I disagree with this idea.
If it were true for one person it would also be true for all and then no one be special or unique.
It isn’t about either of those things though.
You’ve heard my stories about what I have experienced...and it wasn’t “because I wanted to feel special”...in fact a good portion of my childhood was impacted by certain experiences...enough so that I was sent to the “dream lab” at UCLA....god I wish my Mom kept the report...ugh, still to this day I get upset about that haha.
Of course the experiences I have had also don’t prove or imply that God exists, but it does make it possible for things like Psi to exist, which could also imply a “soul” or “spirit” of some kind could also exist - in other words, so could God...it’s just unprovable.
I think it’s the folks who take the Bible and such literally...or insist that there is tons of proof Jesus even existed (there isn’t), that make the argument into a circular “jerk” of sorts.
Hahaha.

A lot of misunderstanding comes from the lack of definition of what the god is or a god is. For me its simple I absolutely know I am correct in not believing in a Christian, Catholic, muslim etc god. However what is a god? If we say a or the creator of the human race, then I believe its possible something created the human race with intent. Its a long discussion though its a fairly short one with religious people though.
My cousin who is highly intelligent, well off and a paid Jungian analyst believes that Jesus visited him earlier in his life. He believes this so strongly he made major life changes in association with that experience. I love him, respect him and consider him a friend. But I also do not think he is completely here. So...if you knew that someone's life was better believing a lie as opposed to knowing the truth, would you rather them know the truth or allow them to believe the lie?

 

[Hoodie]

See, the other problem with these topics is that people don't stick to the original question, which is, "How do/don't you rationalize god". Some people state what makes it real or not for them, but more often than not it's just people going onto the other people's beliefs/opinions and trying to disprove them. Mostly, I'm sick in general of people not respecting other people's opinions, views, beliefs, whatever, and always claiming without a doubt that they're right. Why does it matter? The world is going to keep spinning in the same direction whether it was created by a higher being or not.

Anyway, I think I'm going to leave this discussion now, because I don't get much enjoyment out of it. Have fun!

 

[SpecialEdition]

I was looking over the Ten Commandments and there's something that always bothered me about them. The first 4 deal with what to/not do when worshiping God. When you read them, however, they're very... human in the emotions being displayed.

Those Commandments coupled with other references in the Bible of a "vengeful" God, etc. all negate the argument for God in my opinion. If God is truly God, why would he display such human weaknesses such as greed, jealousy and anger? Or is God as imperfect as humans? Which then begs the question - Why worship him?

Anyone ever see Star Trek V (or am I the only one... ever?) when they meet "God" but he needs their ship and then they immediately question a God who wold need a starship? Bingo! Same thing.

Personally, I feel if God is the perfect being people like to believe him to be, it shouldn't matter what you believe or how you choose to live your life as long as you're a "good" person (friendly, helpful, compassionate, etc.) God granted us all free will, so if he has any human emotions, he should feel happy when he sees us use this to evolve and move on. After all, what parent still wants to see their kid living in their house with them into their 50's?

If part of his perfection is having no emotions, then I fail to see why he would care if we did or didn't believe in him.

And as a Buddhist, I wouldn't say that I don't believe in God. I would say that God is irrelevant. I he is real, he's either A) happy to see me practice the free will he granted me with or B) indifferent to anything I do or say. And since Buddhism also teaches about the pain and suffering anger causes and the goal is to gravitate away from that, then the idea of a jealous, angry, vengeful God negates the entire concept behind God.

I don't mind what other people believe. I personally feel the perception of God is a little bit bizarre. Everything we know about God is what we have heard interpreted by other people based on what they've read, heard and experienced and what we personally have read/heard/experienced. Since I feel this is the case, every interpretation of God is correct because it is subjective, therefore there cannot be one single Truth about God that we can all universally understand because our perception of it can only be made based on the context of our own reality.

I think that if people in Biblical times (or in the times of the inception of any religion) really had an experience of God their interpretation can only be made through their own bias. My assumption is that a human being can only offer a translation of information about God that is limited by their own ability to understand... For example I might see a math equation and I know what all of the characters are but that doesn't mean that I can explain to you what the equation asks for or how it is solved, just as someone who may experience some divine information could only give you some bare bones about what was communicated but not really be able to fully flesh out the concept so that it may be universally understood.

I can see why people believe in God. I personally do not believe in the idea of God presented in any religious text because it doesn't make sense to me. I cannot imagine humanizing God outside of perhaps believing God is within me and I am a single aspect of what God is. Or source. Or whatever. I can not rationalize some God being outside of myself dictating my fate or who I am as a person or that would both claim to love me and also condemn me if I don't follow one interpretation of the rules.

I can not rationalize a human like God and still call it God.

 

[charlatan]

[MENTION=8603]Eventhorizon[/MENTION]: I am inclined to agree with you, and in some sense my purpose is to explain why that seems to be, because there are a LOT of people who seem to want to argue for rational faith. My observation has always been that, even if I don't think the arguments for a God are somehow foolproof or perfectly sound, they retain a grain of reasonableness (from a philosophical, not scientific standpoint!) *until* one posits a definite connection with concrete reality, at which point you're essentially mixing non-scientific philosophy with what I think science is vastly more capable of explaining. That is, even claims of existence can be made with a grain of reasonableness (I don't prefer to endorse such claims myself, personally, but still) if one is charitable, but claims of concrete identification of the will of God or of what it means for a being existing in the universe to have faith in a being outside of it (beyond intellectual assent to an existence claim!) always descend into what seems to me to be woolly.

Mostly the issue seems to be that existence claims of God deal with the issue of looking at the universe from "outside it", whereas issues of what to do *within* the universe deal with what I consider a physically closed system that best be described scientifically. So for example, how the Bible or other scriptural texts come to exist in the universe we live in is best explained using the laws operating within the universe, even if we "require" a God (which we really don't, IMHO, given I think explaining such a thing is descending into woolly territory, but still for sake of argument) to explain claims of "why there is something rather than nothing"...i.e. from "outside" the universe.
Basically a so-called "transcendent cause."

 

[charlatan]

Some people state what makes it real or not for them, but more often than not it's just people going onto the other people's beliefs/opinions and trying to disprove them.

Well here's the thing: there are 2 ways to support peace; one is to fight off those who disturb it (some would say that's defying peace as an ideal), and another is to be a total pacifist. I am like the former. I prefer an environment of humility, but I don't foster that by essentially not noticing when people are not being humble about their knowledge. If I see people admit what they do and don't know, can and can't know, the degree of certainty with which they know it, in a reasonable fashion, I don't mind being respectful of the differences in lifestyle and choice resulting.

My experience has not been this way with many religious crowds, albeit some are this way, so if I speak out, it's against the subset I think isn't terribly reasonable.

 

[Siimplicity]

every interpretation of God is correct because it is subjective, therefore there cannot be one single Truth

this.

 

[just me]

I disagree with this idea.
If it were true for one person it would also be true for all and then no one be special or unique.
It isn’t about either of those things though.
You’ve heard my stories about what I have experienced...and it wasn’t “because I wanted to feel special”...in fact a good portion of my childhood was impacted by certain experiences...enough so that I was sent to the “dream lab” at UCLA....god I wish my Mom kept the report...ugh, still to this day I get upset about that haha.
Of course the experiences I have had also don’t prove or imply that God exists, but it does make it possible for things like Psi to exist, which could also imply a “soul” or “spirit” of some kind could also exist - in other words, so could God...it’s just unprovable.
I think it’s the folks who take the Bible and such literally...or insist that there is tons of proof Jesus even existed (there isn’t), that make the argument into a circular “jerk” of sorts.
Hahaha.

More proof than Caesar had.

 

[Skarekrow]

A lot of misunderstanding comes from the lack of definition of what the god is or a god is. For me its simple I absolutely know I am correct in not believing in a Christian, Catholic, muslim etc god. However what is a god? If we say a or the creator of the human race, then I believe its possible something created the human race with intent. Its a long discussion though its a fairly short one with religious people though.
My cousin who is highly intelligent, well off and a paid Jungian analyst believes that Jesus visited him earlier in his life. He believes this so strongly he made major life changes in association with that experience. I love him, respect him and consider him a friend. But I also do not think he is completely here. So...if you knew that someone's life was better believing a lie as opposed to knowing the truth, would you rather them know the truth or allow them to believe the lie?

That’s just it...you can’t prove that he’s living a lie.
Maybe you are my friend?

 

[Eventhorizon]

That’s just it...you can’t prove that he’s living a lie.
Maybe you are my friend?

Not being able to prove something does not automatically make it true. In fact its the exact opposite.

Say I tell you that last night I met a talking goat who told me he created the universe. Then he proved it to me beyond a shadow of a doubt. He then said he was leaving and would never be back. Does it make the goat real and correct? Prove it one way or the other. You cant, so I guess it makes it real by your standards?

 

[ZcM4xzkjgzCjytBc]

I think it's important to separate the idea of God from the people who project their beliefs. Disliking how someone thinks shouldn't influence your own opinion.

I think it's better to simply disengage in any arguments against God. Otherwise it says to me that of all the ways you could understand the concept of God in other people, you explicitly chose a definition of God to reject. This isn't me expressing my beliefs nor that anyone should believe one way or another.

People will believe in whatever they want, and so will you. Maybe it helps. maybe it doesn't. Why do you even give a shit?

 

[charlatan]

Not being able to prove something does not automatically make it true. In fact its the exact opposite.

That’s just it...you can’t prove that he’s living a lie.
Maybe you are my friend?

Here's my way of looking at it: if someone cannot prove something to be true, I am not going to force them to stop associating with it *entirely*, in that I'm not completely cold and impersonal, and understand people have personal experiences that may be meaningful+hard to explain.

HOWEVER, the reason I ultimately condemn the way this *usually* turns out in practice within the context of religion specifically is doctrinal beliefs generally demand the assent of all, and there I believe we must have a reasonable standard for collective consensus.
IF we seek consensus, I don't see a way out of reason and proof being the arbiter.

Hence, I generally aim to separate abstract logical statements about God from statements about the concrete will of God should there exist such a thing. The latter generally tend to mysticism and woolliness, again, however profound mysticism may be (I will give that the possibility of being true for being open), demand of collective consensus from mystical origin is the recipe for disaster.

All this is specifically vital in ethics. Ethics is hugely based on the possibility (at least practical ethics) of consensus: we may not know every fact in the universe, but we aim for the most reasonable world with what we do know. Hence, we assume things not proven are not to be used as justification: maybe someone's personal intuition is right, but we don't use it to establish secure foundations for a functional society.

There are mathematicians who can divine things intuitively long before they can prove them: name me some cryptographer who will use such unfinished theory as the basis for encryption algorithms.....for actual, real, practical application that people's security depends upon.

 

[Skarekrow]

Not being able to prove something does not automatically make it true. In fact its the exact opposite.

Say I tell you that last night I met a talking goat who told me he created the universe. Then he proved it to me beyond a shadow of a doubt. He then said he was leaving and would never be back. Does it make the goat real and correct? Prove it one way or the other. You cant, so I guess it makes it real by your standards?

How is it the opposite? It was unwitnessed therefore untrue?
The crap I took didn’t actually happen this morning?
It makes it very real to that person(s)...that’s all I’m saying...and just because no one else witnessed it doesn’t mean it isn’t true...it means no one witnessed it save one.
Yes, it generally is the person making the claim that must prove their side of things.
Where did you extrapolate from what I wrote that these are my standards...my standards are you cannot prove such things...as such things are beyond our understanding as science and even religion is involved.

Here's my way of looking at it: if someone cannot prove something to be true, I am not going to force them to stop associating with it *entirely*, in that I'm not completely cold and impersonal, and understand people have personal experiences that may be meaningful+hard to explain.

HOWEVER, the reason I ultimately condemn the way this *usually* turns out in practice within the context of religion specifically is doctrinal beliefs generally demand the assent of all, and there I believe we must have a reasonable standard for collective consensus.
IF we seek consensus, I don't see a way out of reason and proof being the arbiter.

Hence, I generally aim to separate abstract logical statements about God from statements about the concrete will of God should there exist such a thing. The latter generally tend to mysticism and woolliness, again, however profound mysticism may be (I will give that the possibility of being true for being open), demand of collective consensus from mystical origin is the recipe for disaster.

All this is specifically vital in ethics. Ethics is hugely based on the possibility (at least practical ethics) of consensus: we may not know every fact in the universe, but we aim for the most reasonable world with what we do know. Hence, we assume things not proven are not to be used as justification: maybe someone's personal intuition is right, but we don't use it to establish secure foundations for a functional society.

There are mathematicians who can divine things intuitively long before they can prove them: name me some cryptographer who will use such unfinished theory as the basis for encryption algorithms.....for actual, real, practical application that people's security depends upon.

No argument from me.

 

[Eventhorizon]

How is it the opposite? It was unwitnessed therefore untrue?
The crap I took didn’t actually happen this morning?
It makes it very real to that person(s)...that’s all I’m saying...and just because no one else witnessed it doesn’t mean it isn’t true...it means no one witnessed it save one.
Yes, it generally is the person making the claim that must prove their side of things.
Where did you extrapolate from what I wrote that these are my standards...my standards are you cannot prove such things...as such things are beyond our understanding as science and even religion is involved.




No argument from me.

I see what you mean. I was lumping you into a group that I probably should not have.

 

[freekundli]

I don't believe in God

Why you don't believe in god? Any reason?

 

[charlatan]

I just wanted to sort of revisit this topic:

But here's how I like to put it: "non-believer's" use a kind of logic, and thinking, that's more... concrete. They base their beliefs on what they can tangibly see, feel, etc. "Believer's" on the other hand, have a more abstract logic,

I think modern physics has gone WAY beyond what is amenable to sense experience, i.e. the concrete -- sure we do experiments, but scientists nowadays seem to scorn the idea of sticking to describing sense experience, and rather posit more ambitious mathematical models. The idea that every last thing in your mathematical models must refer to something you can see/touch is scorned. Rather, conceptual thinking seems to have a bigger place, although to ensure it isn't just idle speculation, it must involve significant predictions that are verified in experiment -- but the predictions are not all the theory has to offer.

So personally, I think the difference at this point is not concrete vs abstract, as may have been in the days of say Newton, but rather mathematical models vs metaphysical models. And the simple truth is mathematics can get as abstract as you want.

I DO give people the right to some metaphysical speculation, but I never understood people who think such speculations are on the same ground of certainty as, say, mathematical equations that have been tested with incredible precision against experimentThe people who seem truly rational

a) realize physics does NOT have all the answers, especially to some of the big questions (yes there are annoying scientists who overstate what science has been able to do, and they're wrong) but
b) it is WAY past the stage of just describing the "concrete" -- and a lot of interesting metaphysics must use modern physics as the starting point...it is now arriving at a rich, highly non-obvious, conceptually thrilling picture of reality
c) the reason physics doesn't have the answer is not that we have some "better" way to understand those big questions, but simply because they're the biggest questions out there, and not things we really know how to tackle. Hence, those who take their beliefs too seriously on these huge questions that it seems nobody really has the answer to...seem to me to lack humility in the same way as the scientists who want to claim physics has the answers to everything

I also think most people are less irritated by people with some personal beliefs about God than they are by organized religion, which has done as far as I can see immense harm by demanding assent on insufficient evidence.
I guess personal beliefs don't demand the assent of others, but I guess I don't understand the concept of a personal belief much -- a personal preference can exist. But if you have a BELIEF about how reality is, that is not quite personal, it is an idea about reality as a whole!

 

[the]

I was looking over the Ten Commandments and there's something that always bothered me about them. The first 4 deal with what to/not do when worshiping God. When you read them, however, they're very... human in the emotions being displayed.

Those Commandments coupled with other references in the Bible of a "vengeful" God, etc. all negate the argument for God in my opinion. If God is truly God, why would he display such human weaknesses such as greed, jealousy and anger? Or is God as imperfect as humans? Which then begs the question - Why worship him?

Anyone ever see Star Trek V (or am I the only one... ever?) when they meet "God" but he needs their ship and then they immediately question a God who wold need a starship? Bingo! Same thing.

Personally, I feel if God is the perfect being people like to believe him to be, it shouldn't matter what you believe or how you choose to live your life as long as you're a "good" person (friendly, helpful, compassionate, etc.) God granted us all free will, so if he has any human emotions, he should feel happy when he sees us use this to evolve and move on. After all, what parent still wants to see their kid living in their house with them into their 50's?

If part of his perfection is having no emotions, then I fail to see why he would care if we did or didn't believe in him.

And as a Buddhist, I wouldn't say that I don't believe in God. I would say that God is irrelevant. I he is real, he's either A) happy to see me practice the free will he granted me with or B) indifferent to anything I do or say. And since Buddhism also teaches about the pain and suffering anger causes and the goal is to gravitate away from that, then the idea of a jealous, angry, vengeful God negates the entire concept behind God.

Two main thoughts:
1. I toss around a theory in my head that God has many human characteristics. Which makes sense since we are created in His image. But there is a lot going on in the background. Such as He is the biggest, strongest, smartest, etc. and we have to worship Him because He commands it simply because He would just obliterate us. But there is no easy way out, so supposedly we burn forever and ever which seems over the top. This is a part of my very cynical take on God.

2. Your post just seems like you are creating God to be how you want and create logic around that desire to legitimize your view point. One question I have is: why is having no emotions an attribute of perfection? I think emotions are great.

 

[Sandie33]

I was looking over the Ten Commandments

Just saying...Word has it there were 40 original 'Commandments' when Moses decended the mountain.

It's my understanding that the many versions of the Bible (which is Christian taught to be the Word of God) is in fact a story. This story has been filtered through human mind--in a multitude of "versions" Cesar and King James to give name to two--as like many of the books lining our library shelves written by hu-mans. All books, fiction or non, have a spirituality about them because of the writers passion to bring us the essence of their words.

If the Word is indeed Truth, then the mentioned Free Will Choice should be exemplified as such.

Each human should have a choice in their belief or non belief while in persuit of finding their purpose. Regardless of what each of us believe in the how & why of being here in Now.

Personally, it is my belief that we all come from the same place into which we all will return. It is what we chose to do while we walk the earth that should matter...I don't believe we should waste our sense of time splitting hairs over whether or not the big guy exists.

 

[the]

Do you understand what the fear of the Lord is?

If you believe fear of the Lord is something besides fear (an unpleasant emotion caused by the belief that someone or something is dangerous, likely to cause pain, or a threat.) of the Lord (God), then there is a need for a better expression of the idea you are proposing.