Do you believe in God?

[Peter]

Some further thoughts on the profound questions which Pythagorean raises. Take the question of why something exists rather than nothing. I have found over the years that if I ponder this and similar questions for any length of time I am overcome by feelings of awe which could well be described as a religious experience and which, if I were a more talented person, might result in the production of a poem or a symphony.

Given the limitations of human knowledge, however, are we really in a position to approach giving a factual answer to that question, as we can to questions like What causes eclipses? or What is lightning? Acknowledging the validity of our feelings is one thing, proposing a particular factual answer is another - let alone the dogmatism with which religious belief is typically asserted.

Of course there was a time in the history of the human race when questions relating to eclipses and lightning evoked similar feelings of awe and (because people have difficulty in restraining themselves) produced similar anthropomorphic answers to those we are tempted to conjure up in relation to the unfathonable questions which we face.

If we are being scrupulously honest, however, we should restrict ourselves to acknowledging and articulating our response of awe, to noting our limitations, and to hoping that at some future time a fuller answer may be forthcoming.

Peter

[Logos]

Which one?
........Logos

[Peter]

Do you mean which fuller answer, Logos? Of that at present we can only speculate (and perhaps speculation is the best we will ever manage). My point is that intellectual honesty compels us to be very clear about the dividing line between speculation and knowledge backed by evidence.

The intuitive or primitive response insists on completing our explanatory theory, supplying imaginative answers where evidence is lacking. Thus myths are born. A more sophisticated response recognises the importance of the question, may entertain a range of possible answers, but delays personal commitment to any one answer until evidence is forthcoming.

Peter

[l0ck]

Without the ability to see light, light does not manifest.
and vice versa
existence provides evidence of infinity
just one infinite aspect of existence is proof that the whole is infinite
finite thinking would look at the first statement I made this way:
"without light the ability to see light does not manifest"
and thats how our species tends to think
but everything happens for a reason
mass creates volume of space
there is no mass without space
there is no space without mass
what is the point of that?
this whole thing is here to help us find god by asking questions and feeling separated from it
reality is optimally manifested by us to support our transcendence
to realize we are not separated at all and transcend spiritually and realize we are absolute
and by realizing we create that reality at that same exact time
we are the creator-species and our environment serves us not the other way around

[Logos]

Peter and Members;

I meant by 'which one' as to which God in "Do you believe in God?"
..........Logos

[Peter]

Thanks Logos,

One of the difficulties with this subject which I mentioned in an earlier posting is that there are almost as many gods as there are believers. Because there is no reality check, no way of testing the hypothesis, the concept God acts like a blank screen on which any one can project his/her values, hopes and fears. As a result any coherent reasoning becomes difficult.

Peter

[Logos]

Peter and Members;

Thus if God is everything, and the question is 'Do you believe in God', I would say "Yes". I would affirm this because the definition here is equating God with all existence and of course I believe in existence. Now there is a lot of stuff below the catagory of 'everything', and if God fits in here somewhere I need a definition of what God is before I can hope to approach an answer.

.........Logos

[Peter]

Thanks for these thoughts, Logos. As I have said, it is difficult to have a consistent debate about a concept for which there as many definitions as there are adherents. Virtually everyone who has contributed to this thread from the theistic standpoint has provided a new definition of deity - which prompts the question: if theists cannot even agree on what they are talking about, how can they hope to establish the reality of any one of their definitions? It is rather like the situation during the Cold War when Western and Communist governments both proclaimed their commitment to democracy while differing radically on what that concept meant.

The idiosyncratic nature of definitions of deity is further confirmation that the word God does not refer to an entity existing in the real world, but to a focus of values and aspirations within the believer. It operates as a symbol or organising image the function of which is to hold together a system of values which would otherwise be vague and diffuse. Nothing wrong with having values and aspirations of course, but it can be misleading to express them in terms of imagery which can be mistaken for factual statements about the objective world.

Peter

[Logos]

Peter:
Amen.
..........Logos

[aussie mark]

Why do we need to believe in a god to exist in our daily lives, if there is a god he or she is a very shy god as this question has been asked since time began and none of us can say whether there is one or not. All we can do is give our view points on the subject, our minds are capable of creating anything we wish ,even a god. If a persons mind god makes their life that much better than that is good, i just wish some people would stop thinking that we all have to be like them. Live and let live i say. Thank you.