Belief in God Instinctive?

[seer]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith

2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

3. belief in god or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.

© source where applicable

I do not believe faith in God is based on logical proofs. This is an illusion of circular reasoning.

Shuny, you have have jumped into my threads these many months, you seem to counter theists at every turn.

First, you don't:

1. Believe that God is necessary for the creation of matter and energy.

2. That God is necessary for the creation of biological life.

3. That God is necessary for the creation of human consciousness.

4. That God is necessary for, or the grounding of, human ethics.

What exactly is God necessary for? Of what use is He/She?

Second, if God can't be discovered (or hinted at) by logical proofs, then by what means can we point to Him/Her? Illogical reasoning? Revelation? What?

BTW - here is the first definition of faith that you left out confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.That is biblical faith.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, you have have jumped into my threads these many months, you seem to counter theists at every turn.

Jump in?!?!? I participate in the debate and dialogue of these threads.

I counter traditional theists using bad outdated arguments.

First, you don't:

1. Believe that God is necessary for the creation of matter and energy.

2. That God is necessary for the creation of biological life.

3. That God is necessary for the creation of human consciousness.

4. That God is necessary for, or the grounding of, human ethics.

Never claimed this foolishness. I am not arguing my beliefs.

I counter bad logical arguments that attempt to prove these are 'necessary' from the human perspective..

What exactly is God necessary for? Of what use is He/She?

The 'Source' some call God(s) is the creator of all existence. He/She is a foolish notion from the human perspective, and we do not determine 'Of what use . . .' nor the 'necessity' of God.'

Second, if God can't be discovered (or hinted at) by logical proofs, . . .

Logical proofs are human constructs of philosophy, and well constructed proofs can be used to justify any world view. Logic and reasoning can possibly be used to 'hint' at the existence of God. See the following . . .

. . . then by what means can we point to Him/Her? Illogical reasoning? Revelation? What?

I believe first you must 'consider the universal in all things' as proposed by Aristotle in Physica, and not strongly bias one's arguments to prove one's own world view. Understanding the contemporary knowledge and philosophies from different perspectives is important to 'considering the universal in all things.' Traditional theists are often stuck in the ancient past arguing old stuff that does not reflect modern knowledge and understanding.

BTW - here is the first definition of faith that you left out confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.That is biblical faith.

OK, but I do not consider this Biblical faith alone, or religious faith from any other belief system. I consider it faith in persons and things on the mundane level. It neglects the faith of ones belief in the existence of God. You could include all three in a concept of 'faith in God' and understand that we have faith in the existence of God, and whatever scripture and Revelation we believe to be true..

[seer]

Jump in?!?!? I participate in the debate and dialogue of these threads.

I counter traditional theists using bad outdated arguments.



Never claimed this foolishness. I am not arguing my beliefs.

I counter bad logical arguments that attempt to prove these are 'necessary' from the human perspective..



The 'Source' some call God(s) is the creator of all existence. He/She is a foolish notion from the human perspective, and we do not determine 'Of what use . . .' nor the 'necessity' of God.'



Logical proofs are human constructs of philosophy, and well constructed proofs can be used to justify any world view. Logic and reasoning can possibly be used to 'hint' at the existence of God. See the following . . .




I believe first you must 'consider the universal in all things' as proposed by Aristotle in Physica, and not strongly bias one's arguments to prove one's own world view. Understanding the contemporary knowledge and philosophies from different perspectives is important to 'considering the universal in all things.' Traditional theists are often stuck in the ancient past arguing old stuff that does not reflect modern knowledge and understanding.

What? You say God is the "creator of all things" yet you argue that matter and energy may be eternal. So how is God creator - in what sense is He creator if matter and energy are eternal? In other words Shuny, give us a simple reason or two why you believe that God exists.

[seer]

I'm sure that you understand my position on this question by now, so why do you need to ask again? I have already given an explanation of my understanding of memes in a previous post. Meme is a term defining traits, behaviors, words, signs etc. etc. which are material things transfered via material means from one material brain to another.

This is just silly James, ideas, words, signs, etc.. are not material things, if they were we could point to them, see, touch, taste, or smell them. Second, if they are material, how are they implanted from one physical brain to another?

Again, we are not deceived, if anything we deceive ourselves, and we do so when we are ignorant of the facts. The way you are arguing this point it seems as though you believe that your brain is something different than you, and that when you are in error about one thing or another it is because your brain is deceiving you. But you are your brain and you/your brain have only a finite amount of knowledge, if you are in error it is not because your brain is deceiving you, it is because you/your brain don't know everything.

No James, the point remains the same, the evolutionary process gave us brain that have massively misinterpreted the world (it doesn't matter if my brain is something different than me or not).

[shunyadragon]

What? You say God is the "creator of all things" yet you argue that matter and energy may be eternal. So how is God creator - in what sense is He creator if matter and energy are eternal? In other words Shuny, give us a simple reason or two why you believe that God exists.

I argue that energy and matter may be eternal, because this is very much possible based on our knowledge of the Cosmos from the human perspective regardless of whether God exists or not. I do not make foolish arguments, because I believe it so. It is possible that Creation is eternal with the 'Source' some call God(s) something like the analogy that Creation is like a reflection of God in a mirror. Even in the Bible there was preexistence prior to the physical existence we call creation from our perspective. I do not try to define or limit God from the fallible perspective of human constraints, logic or doctrine of one belief or another. As far as I am concerned all belief systems are in pencil from the fallible human perspective including my own.

You, if you remember made similar arguments when defining 'faith' in terms of different world views when comparing theism, and materialism. I do not believe completely in this argument, but it is not far off from what I just described.

[JimL]

This is just silly James, ideas, words, signs, etc.. are not material things, if they were we could point to them, see, touch, taste, or smell them. Second, if they are material, how are they implanted from one physical brain to another?

Well, we could have the material/immaterial debate all over again if you want, but I don't think that is really relevant to the point. In the present context the point is that whether you believe them to be material or immaterial, you can't deny that such things exist, that they are imitable, and that they are passed on from mind to mind. How did you become a Christian? If you are like most, you were born into a Christian family that lives within a mostly Christian culture. It was passed on to you, and if you were born in Saudi Arabia you would most likely be a Sunni.

No James, the point remains the same, the evolutionary process gave us brain that have massively misinterpreted the world (it doesn't matter if my brain is something different than me or not).

No it didn't, it gave us brains, thats all, whether we interpret the world correctly or incorrectly has nothing to do with it.

[seer]

Well, we could have the material/immaterial debate all over again if you want, but I don't think that is really relevant to the point. In the present context the point is that whether you believe them to be material or immaterial, you can't deny that such things exist, that they are imitable, and that they are passed on from mind to mind. How did you become a Christian? If you are like most, you were born into a Christian family that lives within a mostly Christian culture. It was passed on to you, and if you were born in Saudi Arabia you would most likely be a Sunni.

No Jim, that simply does not follow. I know plenty of people who grew up in my ethnic catholic neighborhood who went to church every week who are now, in these later years, atheists. There are no such things as memes - there are ideas or concepts which are clearly immaterial and can be accepted are rejected by individual minds. Nothing is implanted in a physical sense.

No it didn't, it gave us brains, thats all, whether we interpret the world correctly or incorrectly has nothing to do with it.

James, our brains only function or interpret according to how they were created. You are acting like we have free will or that we can rise above or biology.

[seer]

I argue that energy and matter may be eternal, because this is very much possible based on our knowledge of the Cosmos from the human perspective regardless of whether God exists or not. I do not make foolish arguments, because I believe it so. It is possible that Creation is eternal with the 'Source' some call God(s) something like the analogy that Creation is like a reflection of God in a mirror. Even in the Bible there was preexistence prior to the physical existence we call creation from our perspective. I do not try to define or limit God from the fallible perspective of human constraints, logic or doctrine of one belief or another. As far as I am concerned all belief systems are in pencil from the fallible human perspective including my own.

You, if you remember made similar arguments when defining 'faith' in terms of different world views when comparing theism, and materialism. I do not believe completely in this argument, but it is not far off from what I just described.

But you do try to define and limit God. You do it when you suggest that the Old Testament view of God is primitive (you are defining and limiting). But you again avoided the question Shuny - why do you even think or believe that God exists? Based on what?

[shunyadragon]

But you do try to define and limit God. You do it when you suggest that the Old Testament view of God is primitive (you are defining and limiting).

Actually no, I am undefining and taking the limits off God expressed in any one ancient scripture. I believe the God described in ancient scripture is too narrow a view of God. I believe God exists without limits or definition by doctrine or description in any one human religion or belief system. I believe the true nature of God is unknowable from the human perspective. The evidence indicates as in the Bible, the beliefs in the nature of God(s) reflect the times the scripture was written and change over time.

But you again avoided the question Shuny - why do you even think or believe that God exists? Based on what?

I answered the question, but if you want I will amplify somewhat. I believe in the God. because the evidence presented in God's expression in human cultures universally is sufficient to believe. Progressive Revelation as described by the Baha'i Faith expressed universally and prophesy provides a sufficient basis to consider the religions and beliefs of the world since the Neolithic to be an expression of the human view of God, which varies from culture to culture and time to time as it does in the Bible. I do not believe that the individual religions, ie Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, are sufficient to justify belief in God, because they only represent one narrow view of Revelation and God set in one culture and time. The main response remains I have 'faith' that God exists, I do not know God exists.

You would need a separate thread to go into this in detail. I have actually done this before.

[JimL]

No Jim, that simply does not follow. I know plenty of people who grew up in my ethnic catholic neighborhood who went to church every week who are now, in these later years, atheists. There are no such things as memes - there are ideas or concepts which are clearly immaterial and can be accepted are rejected by individual minds. Nothing is implanted in a physical sense.

I didn't say that memes, the ideas that are impressed upon us, can not be overcome, but when we are young and naive without the reasoning capacity of a mature mind, we merely soak up the information presented to us. If you were raised as a Sunni then believe me the odds are that you would remain one at least until and unless you gain the capacity to objectively question your own subjective beliefs. Do you not believe that memories are implanted information, implanted information that exist in the physical brain, which when probed are re-experienced?

James, our brains only function or interpret according to how they were created. You are acting like we have free will or that we can rise above or biology.

How brains function doesn't deny one an ability to choose in my opinion. This of course is still an unresolved question, but I wasn't aware that you were of the opinion that we didn't have free will. If that is what you believe then there is no use fretting over the matter since what you believe, right or wrong, is predetermined for you anyway.

[JimL]

I answered the question, but if you want I will amplify somewhat. I believe in the God. because the evidence presented in God's expression in human cultures universally is sufficient to believe.

But shunya, aren't you making the assumption that the human expression of Gods is an expression that comes to humans from God himself. Why would you assume this to be the case?

[shunyadragon]

But shunya, aren't you making the assumption that the human expression of Gods is an expression that comes to humans from God himself. Why would you assume this to be the case?

Actually no, I do not make this assumption. As I explained to seer, my explanation would take another thread. He was pushing of the thread topic with questions as to what and why I believe, and I would prefer to get back on topic. I have addressed this before over the eons of Tweb, and maybe it warrants another thread.

In brief, believing in a 'Source' some call God(s) is more based on many, many aspects of the 'considering the universal in all things.' Most of my belief support and evidence comes not from the traditional Judeo-Christian belief system. One point, I believe there is sufficient evidence of foreknowledge and an explanation of prophecy and history of the our present course in history and science expressed in the writings of the Baha'i Faith that goes beyond the mere anecdotal. I do not believe for a moment that there is anything conclusive in this, because everything is in pencil as far as faith and belief.

[JimL]

In brief, believing in a 'Source' some call God(s) is more based on many, many aspects of the 'considering the universal in all things.

I'm wondering why you call it a "source" "that some call God"? Is it not either a source or a God? If you say it is a "source that some call God" then I take it that you yourself do not call it God, or if you do believe it to be God then why don't you just call it God instead of calling it "a source that some call God"?

' Most of my belief support and evidence comes not from the traditional Judeo-Christian belief system. One point, I believe there is sufficient evidence of foreknowledge and an explanation of prophecy and history of the our present course in history and science expressed in the writings of the Baha'i Faith that goes beyond the mere anecdotal. I do not believe for a moment that there is anything conclusive in this, because everything is in pencil as far as faith and belief.

Okay then, correct me if I am misinterpreting you. Are you saying that you believe that the Baha'i scriptures are prophetic and therefore, like the Bible, the words therein are the words of God, though they be written or expressed by men?

[seer]

I didn't say that memes, the ideas that are impressed upon us, can not be overcome, but when we are young and naive without the reasoning capacity of a mature mind, we merely soak up the information presented to us. If you were raised as a Sunni then believe me the odds are that you would remain one at least until and unless you gain the capacity to objectively question your own subjective beliefs. Do you not believe that memories are implanted information, implanted information that exist in the physical brain, which when probed are re-experienced?

Jim, I believe in immaterial things like ideas, concepts and memories. Calling these things memes is just unnecessary. But you don't believe in immaterial things or that immaterial things can effect the physical world (according to our past discussions). Then there is the whole question of rationality within the theory of memes - you suggested that we can, as we mature, objectively question our beliefs - but how does that happen apart from other memes that have influenced us to think in a different way? And why should we find these new memes any more reliable than the earlier memes?

How brains function doesn't deny one an ability to choose in my opinion. This of course is still an unresolved question, but I wasn't aware that you were of the opinion that we didn't have free will. If that is what you believe then there is no use fretting over the matter since what you believe, right or wrong, is predetermined for you anyway.

I do believe in free will (at least to a significant degree) as we have discussed time and time again. But how can you? Do we have a choice in what memes are implanted? Do we have a choice about the memes that are implanted to change the earlier memetic information?

Besides memetic theory is just not scientific (Shuny should like this link):

http://www.commongroundgroup.net/201...ory-and-hadds/

[seer]

I answered the question, but if you want I will amplify somewhat. I believe in the God. because the evidence presented in God's expression in human cultures universally is sufficient to believe. Progressive Revelation as described by the Baha'i Faith expressed universally and prophesy provides a sufficient basis to consider the religions and beliefs of the world since the Neolithic to be an expression of the human view of God, which varies from culture to culture and time to time as it does in the Bible. I do not believe that the individual religions, ie Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, are sufficient to justify belief in God, because they only represent one narrow view of Revelation and God set in one culture and time. The main response remains I have 'faith' that God exists, I do not know God exists.

Hey, I'm the thread creator - I will allow this diversion ; ). Besides it really is on topic. So why do you seem to take exception with this thread about religious thinking, or belief, being instinctive? That seems to me that it fits exactly what you are saying above.

Actually no, I am undefining and taking the limits off God expressed in any one ancient scripture. I believe the God described in ancient scripture is too narrow a view of God.

This never made sense to me. For instance, the God of both the old and new testament is a moral being - He has moral preferences. Why would a amoral god, a god that had no moral preferences (like you have suggested in the past) be any higher or more acceptable than a Being with moral preferences?