Rational Reasons for the existence of God

Here's one more take on it that's very similar to my reasoning for a god belief.

Quote :

Why do pantheists believe in pantheism?

There are several compelling reasons.

1. Most traditional religions have elements which are hard to believe or to reconcile with common sense, evidence or modern science. Most pantheists are reared in another religion, and as they mature come to question what they have been taught. This leads many people to atheism or humanism.

2. Atheism and humanism don't suffer from the logical or empirical problems of traditional religions - but many people find them too cold and dry. They don't provide a sense of positive belonging to nature and the universe.

3. Nearly everyone feels religious feelings when looking at nature or the night sky. Most people explain those feelings in terms of the religion they were taught as children.

Pantheism believes that those feelings are older and more basic than any traditional religion: they are a natural part of our existence as natural material beings. They are a recognition of our participation and belonging as members of nature and the universe.

Pantheism takes those feelings as its basic foundation.

What's the evidence for pantheism? How do you know the universe is divine?

We define the word "divine" by reference to our feelings. If something is "divine," it means that humans regard it with awe, reverence, love, feelings of belonging and a recognition of tremendous power, beauty and mystery.

Almost everyone regards the universe or nature in that way. We need no faith, no ancient books, to reveal these feelings and experiences to us. The visions are right in front of our eyes, the feelings are in our hearts. We only need to recognize them frankly to accept the universe as divine.

The evidence for this approach is infinitely stronger than for belief in a personal creator God.

Schizophretard wrote:

Paul Anthony,

I don't exactly believe there was a before. I believe there was a beginning and probably will be an end to the universe but from God's perspective it's eternal and he is the eternal first cause. There was no building materials because we are thoughts in his mind. The universe isn't God anymore than the imaginary creatures in my mind are me. My mind does the thinking and the things thought about are within my mind but those thoughts are just a part of me. I'm the self aware observer and first cause of my thoughts.

I don't think we are disagreeing here, but just getting lost in the semantics. Language is too limited to explain existence. And yet, you said "My mind does the thinking and the things thought about are within my mind but those thoughts are just a part of me.

Try this: substitute "God" for "my" and "me" everywhere in that sentence.

Then, in the famous theist expression, "God created Man in His own image", substitute "imagination" for "image".

Paul Anthony,

It's true that the expression,"God created Man in His own image and likeness", is from Theism but that doesn't mean that it's a Theistic idea. The only thing that makes it Theistic is that it is believed to be the word of God instead of the word of a man. The original writer of Genesis didn't obtain this idea from divine revelation but from his own reasoning. So, it is a Deistic expression and not a Theistic expression.

I agree with the idea but don't agree with it in the literal sense because I don't believe that God has a physical body and that Man is the most important creature in the universe. I believe that thinking beings are in God's mental/spiritual likeness. So, I would update the expression as," God creatively imagined minds in it's spiritual likeness."

The original writer of Genesis didn't come up with that story using reason, they plagiarized from the Sumerians.

Or maybe they were Sumerian, in that case they just reworked the Sumerian creation myth, and retold other parts of the epic of Gilgamesh, combined the four gods to one and viola! A brand new religion.

The main difference comes in the reason and manner of creation. In Genesis mankind is special, and we were the reason for all creation. In that sense, it isn't a deduction of reason, but an assertion of cultural superiority.

Uriah,

Ok, so they plagiarized from the Sumerians. That would make the Sumerians the original writers and what I said applies to them.

Well, I came up with it from a deduction of reason. The existence of life and especially intelligent life is one of the reasons I believe in God. If there was no life in the universe it would be as pointless as an empty fish tank and a pointless object doesn't seem like something a god would create.

I believe the whole basic story of Genesis was made from reason. They didn't understand science as well as us but I think by what they knew they did an ok job. They described the creation in steps. God creates the world, the seas, the air, the stars, plants, animal life, and at the end he creates Man. It's like God is preparing a fish tank. You get the tank, put all the rocks in, put the pumps in, put in maybe a pirate chest, put in fake plants, add water, and then put in the fish. They could of described it as God creating everything all at once without steps but instead they described it in steps to show that God has an end result in mind. This is a very reasonable theory. If you believe that God must be very intelligent and you can see that we are the most intelligent creatures known then it isn't unreasonable to believe that God prepared the universe for us.

Since they believed in God they assumed Man to be important and since Atheists don't believe in God they assume that Man is not important. So, back in Bible days both believers and nonbelievers would of started with their assumptions to come up with their theories about the origin of Man. I don't know what Atheist arguments were back then but they probably believed that Man and everything else always existed. If a believer would of asked them," Well, If there is no God then how did we get here?" They probably would of answered," We've always been here." Today we know that those Atheists were wrong. The universe hasn't always been here and neither has Man. What really happened was that the universe began at the big bang in a simple state, evolved over billions of years into more complex states, evolved galaxies, evolved planets, evolved Earth, evolved simple life, evolved more complex life, and eventually evolved Us. This is more scientific than Genesis but the basic theory of Genesis has been verified. The universe did have a beginning, it did evolve in steps, and Man is the end result. They came up with the basic history of the universe starting with the assumptions that there is a god and we are special.

Schizophretard wrote:

...I believe the whole basic story of Genesis was made from reason...

I agree. The bible was written using magic and mythic reasoning rather than logical reasoning. Logical reasoning is more truthful than magic or mythic reasoning, but all of these types of reasoning have their usefulness from a pragmatic point of view.

Aaron,

I think you misunderstood me. I said the "basic" story of Genesis was made from reason. I wasn't referring to anything mythical or magical in Genesis like making Eve from a rib or anything like that. What is magical or mythical about the universe did have a beginning, it did evolve in steps, and Man is the end result? I'm not trying to argue that the Bible is the word of God and that it wasn't all made up. My whole point is that some things written in it are reasonable. Are you trying too say that everyone from back then were so stupid that they were incapable of any logical reasoning and that every word of the Bible was written by using mythical or magical reasoning?

Schizophretard wrote:

Aaron,

I think you misunderstood me. I said the "basic" story of Genesis was made from reason. I wasn't referring to anything mythical or magical in Genesis like making Eve from a rib or anything like that. What is magical or mythical about the universe did have a beginning, it did evolve in steps, and Man is the end result? I'm not trying to argue that the Bible is the word of God and that it wasn't all made up. My whole point is that some things written in it are reasonable. Are you trying too say that everyone from back then were so stupid that they were incapable of any logical reasoning and that every word of the Bible was written by using mythical or magical reasoning?

No. This is where language can get tricky. Magical and mythical reasoning are a type of logic in and of themselves. They're just not the type of "3rd person" logic that we normally associate with the term. They're more associated with 1st and 2nd person logical viewpoints on the world. Hence you get Animism as a result of "1st person" magical reasoning and Anthropomorphism as a result of "2nd person" mythic reasoning.

This level of reasoning ability isn't due to "stupidity" any more than my one year olds reasoning ability is due to stupidity. It's about the evolutionary development of consciousness in relation to an environment that is constantly changing, co-evolving and growing in complexity. 2000 years from now our human ancestors my be scratching their heads at our simple mindedness and "stupidity".

Aaron wrote:

No. This is where language can get tricky. Magical and mythical reasoning are a type of logic in and of themselves. They're just not the type of "3rd person" logic that we normally associate with the term. They're more associated with 1st and 2nd person logical viewpoints on the world. Hence you get Animism as a result of "1st person" magical reasoning and Anthropomorphism as a result of "2nd person" mythic reasoning.

This level of reasoning ability isn't due to "stupidity" any more than my one year olds reasoning ability is due to stupidity. It's about the evolutionary development of consciousness in relation to an environment that is constantly changing, co-evolving and growing in complexity. 2000 years from now our human ancestors my be scratching their heads at our simple mindedness and "stupidity".

This is a point that I often try to make with anti-theists who disparage all religious traditions as "idiocy". Thanks for the neat 123 breakdown of human reasoning.

Aaron,

I think I get what you're saying. It sounds like what I'm trying to say. Like what you said about your one year olds reasoning ability. I think of Genesis like that. Back when it was written it probably sounded scientific and was written for adults but now it sounds like a fairy tale you tell your children. It sounds like what a child would come up with after telling them about the big bang and evolution. I think it's basic story is reasonable because they did come up with the idea that the universe has a beginning, that it has evolved in steps, and that Man is the end result. It's just they were scientifically ignorant so they got all the specific details wrong. We are not scientifically ignorant so we can fill in all the specific details. So, now all the information that we have in science books about origins is our new Genesis. Ours is both scientific and reasonable but theirs was just reasonable. Understand?

Some of the other things I believe are reasonable are the flood story, the cursed serpent, and the Tower of Babel. The story of the flood proves they understood that there were mass extinctions and global catastrophes. I believe that since most fossils are of sea life that they came up with this story to explain them. They understood that snakes some how lost there legs and explained it with the story of the cursed serpent. They understood that all languages evolved from one language and explained it with the Tower of Babel. Their reasoning was correct but there scientific understanding was primitive. So, they came up with false explanations.

I once saw this Atheist on youtube give a verse by verse seminar on Genesis to prove it false. Maybe for fun sometime I'll do the same to prove what things I believe are reasonable and post it on here. Maybe make a Jefferson's Bible like version of Genesis?

If you haven't checked-in to the Freethought Forum discussion on Reasons for God lately, the thread is getting good now that the two primary "cons" are refuting the "pros" with some of their own reasoning on the topic. Most of the FFF members are not really interested in this topic. But two are enthusiastic evangelists for Atheism.

It's now clear that they cannot deal with concepts involving Infinity and Eternity. So they make accusations of Appeals to Authority, and other veiled Ad Hominems. GJ is the one that I gauge my progress by. She still doesn't "get" God, but she is sincerely open to the quest. The others are mainly interested in showing the "pros" how we are victims of self-deception---hoist by our own ego-driven petard. This has been a good exercise for me, as I attempt to express my complex concepts in some kind of intelligible language. I'm not there yet, but the thread goes on.

Yeah, I definitely think past efforts to understand the sacred need to be respected, especially where respect is due, in the same way that past efforts to understand science need to be respected. Absolutely!

I think Aaron's analogy also works.
Just like we might be amazed, say, at a 7-year-olds piano playing, which might be severly criticized if the person was 17 and in a piano competition.

Having said that, I do think Schitzo might be reading a bit too much into the Bible.

I mean the flood, I would think could be related mythically to the great melting of the ice pack, for sure.

Or I guess it could also be the cyclical flooding which apparently happened at the Nile.

So they would have had no idea of the five preceding mass extinctions (which even Darwin wouldn't have had a clue). In fact, I think that even Darwin thougth that evolutionary change was, in fact, slow and stead. And the mass extinction model is relatively new in Scientific terms.

So I would be very careful when you start connecting modern day theories with precursors in the Bible. Better to just recognize that it represents their best understanding of the world, and to leave it at that!

Gnomon wrote:

If you haven't checked-in to the Freethought Forum discussion on Reasons for God lately, the thread is getting good now that the two primary "cons" are refuting the "pros" with some of their own reasoning on the topic. Most of the FFF members are not really interested in this topic. But two are enthusiastic evangelists for Atheism.

It's now clear that they cannot deal with concepts involving Infinity and Eternity. So they make accusations of Appeals to Authority, and other veiled Ad Hominems. GJ is the one that I gauge my progress by. She still doesn't "get" God, but she is sincerely open to the quest. The others are mainly interested in showing the "pros" how we are victims of self-deception---hoist by our own ego-driven petard. This has been a good exercise for me, as I attempt to express my complex concepts in some kind of intelligible language. I'm not there yet, but the thread goes on.

For the most part I've grown tired of trying to defend my beliefs against atheists, theists, agnostics, non-theists and even some deists. If asked, I'll try the best I can to describe what my beliefs are and why I hold those beliefs. If there are others out there who share my opinion then great. If not, then I don't really care as long as I'm not being proselytized to or forced into some sort of action based on those beliefs.

Helium,

I don't think I'm reading to much into Genesis. I have hundreds of fossils and never dug one of them up. I found them all in rock beds at creeks, rivers, and lakes. All of them are ocean creatures and they aren't that rare. People back then didn't have plumbing. So, they would of been by the water all the time. They would of looked through the rocks for precious metals, out of curiosity, and just for fun. Chances are that most people seen fossils back then. They just didn't know what they are.

People have always known about floods and back then people thought the world was smaller and therefore easy to flood. They knew that everything would drown if such a thing happened. So, they understood that a global catastrophe could happen and that all the animals would have to be put on a boat. So, they understood global catastrophes and mass extinctions because if they didn't they couldn't write about it.

People probably passed down a story about a Hurricane Katrina event and it turned into a global catastrophe myth that could of caused mass extinction. If some kid would of found a fossil of a fish, clam, or coral in the dessert sand and ask his father how it got there then his father would of told him the flood story.

The flood story is some what correct. There have been many global catastrophes and mass extinctions. They just didn't have the science to give details to what they reasoned could happen.

Aaron wrote:

For the most part I've grown tired of trying to defend my beliefs against atheists, theists, agnostics, non-theists and even some deists. If asked, I'll try the best I can to describe what my beliefs are and why I hold those beliefs. If there are others out there who share my opinion then great. If not, then I don't really care as long as I'm not being proselytized to or forced into some sort of action based on those beliefs.

I feel your pain. However, the primary reason I am still up for the fight is that I am still developing what I call my Deist Thesis. Like any thesis, it needs to be challenged in order to weed-out the weak points. This thesis, based on Holism and Information Theory, is my little hobby. I don't find many people interested or capable of testing my reasoning.

The Panendeism forum has plenty of capable posters, but they are too agreeable. I find the Freethought Forum to be more challenging. So I post here for affirmation, and there for kicks in the behind.

Gnomon wrote:

Aaron wrote:

For the most part I've grown tired of trying to defend my beliefs against atheists, theists, agnostics, non-theists and even some deists. If asked, I'll try the best I can to describe what my beliefs are and why I hold those beliefs. If there are others out there who share my opinion then great. If not, then I don't really care as long as I'm not being proselytized to or forced into some sort of action based on those beliefs.

I feel your pain. However, the primary reason I am still up for the fight is that I am still developing what I call my Deist Thesis. Like any thesis, it needs to be challenged in order to weed-out the weak points. This thesis, based on Holism and Information Theory, is my little hobby. I don't find many people interested or capable of testing my reasoning.

The Panendeism forum has plenty of capable posters, but they are too agreeable. I find the Freethought Forum to be more challenging. So I post here for affirmation, and there for kicks in the behind.

I hear what you're saying. I've grown through the pain of debate and discussion on such forums. I just have little interest in it anymore, especially with people who seem close minded to other possible rational methodologies and ontological positions. I enjoy respectful disagreement based on healthy skepticism. I don't enjoy banging my head against a brick wall.

Aaron wrote:

Gnomon wrote:

Aaron wrote:

For the most part I've grown tired of trying to defend my beliefs against atheists, theists, agnostics, non-theists and even some deists. If asked, I'll try the best I can to describe what my beliefs are and why I hold those beliefs. If there are others out there who share my opinion then great. If not, then I don't really care as long as I'm not being proselytized to or forced into some sort of action based on those beliefs.

I feel your pain. However, the primary reason I am still up for the fight is that I am still developing what I call my Deist Thesis. Like any thesis, it needs to be challenged in order to weed-out the weak points. This thesis, based on Holism and Information Theory, is my little hobby. I don't find many people interested or capable of testing my reasoning.

The Panendeism forum has plenty of capable posters, but they are too agreeable. I find the Freethought Forum to be more challenging. So I post here for affirmation, and there for kicks in the behind.

I hear what you're saying. I've grown through the pain of debate and discussion on such forums. I just have little interest in it anymore, especially with people who seem close minded to other possible rational methodologies and ontological positions. I enjoy respectful disagreement based on healthy skepticism. I don't enjoy banging my head against a brick wall.

I just got kicked off that board because I pushed back. I did nothing that the other side wasn't doing and a lot less actually. It was only when I pointed out they were twisting my words around and they started losing the argument that the admin who was in on the debate PMed me and said I was banned. They are only "free thinkers" when it suits them I guess.

Oh well, live and learn I guess, right?

Here's an example of how that forum is "moderated". This was the reply to one of Gnomon's posts...

Zeston wrote:

Gnomon wrote:

Go back and look at the dot pattern picture in the Reasons for God thread. Can you infer the real world subject of the picture? A computer can't.

Will you give that "dog and tree" picture a rest, it doesn't prove anything.

It would've have been easier to figure out if you didn't purposely blow it up just to make yourself seem superior.

Now drop that crap.

And this was the reply from the administrator...

RareBear wrote:

Owned.

Now I realize that's not a reflection of all the members of that forum but that's pretty juvenile behavior from a forum administrator.

Sorry Gnomon.

It would've have been easier to figure out if you didn't purposely blow it up
It would've have been easier to figure out if
It would've have been easier
would've have

LOL

Aaron wrote:

Oh well, live and learn I guess, right?

LOL! Actually I think its kind of funny. They really ought to consider a name change though. Isn't calling themselves a free thought forum false advertising?

Oh well let's move on we don't need to bash them. That only brings us down too.

Aaron wrote:

Here's an example of how that forum is "moderated". This was the reply to one of Gnomon's posts...

Zeston wrote:

Gnomon wrote:

Go back and look at the dot pattern picture in the Reasons for God thread. Can you infer the real world subject of the picture? A computer can't.

Will you give that "dog and tree" picture a rest, it doesn't prove anything.

It would've have been easier to figure out if you didn't purposely blow it up just to make yourself seem superior.

Now drop that crap.

And this was the reply from the administrator...

RareBear wrote:

Owned.

Now I realize that's not a reflection of all the members of that forum but that's pretty juvenile behavior from a forum administrator.

Sorry Gnomon.

Here's a PM from another FFF administrator:

I am feeling pretty pleased with the reaction to my "moderating" yesterday!

All of you know how tired I was getting of the constant silly bickering and attacks by "certain members".

Well, when Zeston added the snarky response to Gnomon's clever attempt at wit, I thought about it, and all I did was quote Gnomon and added a grin!!!!!

It actually seems to have worked!!!!!!

And I didn't have to say even one word!

Kewl, huh? Grin

Situation defused, at least for now, with merely the inference to lighten up! Cool

GJ is a self-labeled Soft Atheist (I'd call her an Agnostic), but she is more broad-minded than some of the special-interest Atheists. This is as close to Affirmation as I get on FFF.

Quote :

The Tooth Fairy must exist because I always received some money for my lost teeth and because my Mom said so. Grin Unicorns most probably existed because they were so much like horses and because there is an animal that actually exists that has a horn growing out of it's head, the rhinoceros. Wow, I think I am on to something. Tongue I think I can rationally and logically demonstrate that unicorns existed. Roll Eyes


All joking aside, why do so many people feel the need to believe things that are unproven, unsubstantiated, mythical, or fictional?

I am starting this thread to examine why so many people need to "believe" in unproven theories, unsubstantiated claims, fictional characters, and myths.

Here are a few areas that I feel contribute to these beliefs that we can examine.

1. Egoism and egotism
2. Indoctrination and programming
3. Fear
4. Human psychology, nature, and animality
5. Mental delusion

Thoughts?

One of the "atheist inquisitors" on the FFF has another thread where he is developing his own thesis about the "real" reasons for believing in unbelievable things. I think we can agree with him that most of the items in his list do indeed contribute to erroneous beliefs in general. And I can understand why he thinks Christianity is egocentric. But I had thought of Deism as just the opposite: a whole-centric worldview. Is he justified to lump us in with Theists-in-General as the self-identified chosen-ones of God?

Quote :

Quote RB
Deism is a side trip to ego-centrism IMO. It could be true. It is probably a very self-flattering ego-centric musing.

reply by Gnomon:
Stretmediq

The accusation of "ego-centrism" is often leveled at Deists and Theists. Do you see yourself or humanity as the center of the universe, or the apple of God's eye, or the be-all-and-end-all of existence?

Stret was banned before he had a chance to answer. Any thoughts?

That post reminds me of the following.

Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Atheist...

10.) You've recently stuck a Darwin fish on your car in the hopes the people with the Jesus fish on theirs will be offended.

9.) You spend hours arguing that a-theism actually means "without a belief in God " and not just " belief that there is no god".

8.) You can make the existence of pink unicorns the center piece of a philosophical critique.

7.) You're a spoiled fifteen year old boy who lives in the suburbs and you go into a chat room to declare that, "I know there is no God because no loving God would allow anyone to suffer as much as I...hold on. My cell phone's ringing."

6.) You believe that if something cannot be touched, seen, heard, or measured in some way, then it must not exist, yet you fail to see the irony of your calling Christians "narrow-minded".

5.) Although you've memorized a half a dozen proofs that god doesn't exist, you still think you're god's gift to the ignorant masses.

4.) You insist that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", then claim that Jesus never existed.

3.) You get angry when Christians tell you you're going to a place that you don't think exists.

2.) You've ever called a Christian a "Paulian".

1.) You can quote from the bible better than most missionaries...

Here's another quote from the FFF. We've gone over this ground before, but the poster still chafes at the "faulty logic" of Deists/Theists. I have pointed out that even renowned scientists go beyond the bounds of Classical Logic and the methods of Empirical Science in their pursuit of truth. What keeps them honest is that scientists (and hopefully Deists) are justifiably skeptical of all theories (including the God hypothesis) without direct evidence, including their own. That's why I insist on subjecting my own God theories to skeptical review.

Quote :

Quote: My problem with these debates is in the consistent use of faulty logic and relying over-all on logic alone while continually denying the use of proof, evidence, observation and testing.

Logic itself is only a human concept and tool. The users of such a tool, human beings, are still fallible. wink


Here are few examples of faulty logic or logical fallacies to demonstrate the existence of god.

Quote
1. The Ontological Argument
a.k.a. The Transcendental Argument; If you can't touch "love" how can it be real?, semantic psychobabble, new age

The Ontological Argument is a bastardization of logic and reason. Theists/deists employ this technique to claim God exists by abandoning any evidence or references, in favor of using logic itself to prove the potential for God's existence. Theists/deists start by examining the idea of God and use this as a basis to prove that merely by recognizing the potential for God to exist, we have therefore proven he does exist.

Reply by Gnomon:
How can you prove the existence of an idea? I have never claimed to prove the existence of God (in an empirical sense), but only that the existence of God is a rational inference from the scientific evidence. Likewise, Darwin could not, and did not, claim to prove the “existence” of his hypothetical Evolutionary process, because he had never observed an actual case of speciation. All he claimed was that his Evolutionary theory was a reasonable explanation for the observations. There is still no conclusive scientific “proof” that a new, non-interbreeding species has emerged from the ancestral path of another species. If you can’t touch “evolution” how can it be real?

Darwin’s finches are good examples of divergent characteristics over time, but not of Darwinian evolution. The thick-billed and thin-billed finches are still finches, not parrots. The light and dark moths in England are examples of change over time due to natural selection. The different colors are variations within a species. Evolution is still a theory in search of direct scientific evidence. And yet I accept it as the best explanation I’ve seen for the change over time that we observe. In a similar manner, I tentatively accept the Deist hypothesis as the best explanation I’ve seen for the world we see around us.


PS---Does anybody know of a treatise on the difference between the disparate "logics" of Idealism and Realism---and perhaps on their reconciliation?

Gnomon wrote:

Does anybody know of a treatise on the difference between the disparate "logics" of Idealism and Realism

One other thing I forgot to mention. If Idealism is correct it is real. The term realism used in this context implies that anything that disagrees with it is unreal. A better term for that particular philosophy would be materialism or physicalism.

I accidentally deleted all the other stuff I wrote in this reply sorry I pmed Aaron to see if it could be restored but if it can't I'll try to rewrite it later if anybody wants it.