Is belief in God wishful thinking?

[aiki]

Why do you believe then? I don't mind if you don't think I would find them convincing. I am open to being convinced.

Well, there are philosophical arguments which powerfully support a belief in God. There are also reasons from the nature of the physical world around me that persuade me to a faith in God. As well, there is personal experience - my own and the experiences of others - that has borne out the reality of God. Together these evidences give me an excellent basis for belief in the Creator.

What has prevented you from being convinced thus far that God exists?

Selah. (Which means "Stop and consider.")

 

[elman]

=DataPacRat;57040737]So, is it your contention that the only way to evaluate whether someone's beliefs are in accordance with the actual truth is... to experience those beliefs, presumably by believing them?

I said our experiences are what supports our reason to believe in the existence of a loving Creator. I don't know where you got the idea above.

If your experiences have some connection to objective reality, then there are certain techniques which have a very good correlation to tell whether those experiences actually /correspond/ to objective reality.

I would think all of our experiences have some connection to objective reality, which none of us can discern. If our experiences has no connection then we have no connection.

If your experiences /don't/ have some connection to objective reality... then you are, of course, free to enjoy your subjective universe all you like, and I am free to enjoy my subjective universe, including by subjectively claiming that my subjective experiences are more objective than your subjective experiences.

You have no basis for making any judgments about my subjective experiences---none.

 

[elman]

=darknova;57041485]When I used to believe I was certain there was a loving God made known to me through my life. But I doubt my experiences and reasonings back then. Do you think there probability is in favour of God then? I don't need certainty because few things are certain, but probability of God existing being above 60% would be nice.

I agree certainty is not available. In my opinion a loving Creator is a much more reasonable assumption than random accident to explain our existence and that we exist for a reason and for a purpose is more reasonable to me than that we exist for no reason and no purpose.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I once thought I had experienced this, but it could be just my psychology making up these experiences couldn't it?

Anything is possible.

Do you mean responses to prayer here or things like the resurrection? I used to think reasoned arguments like the Kalam cosmological argument and fine-tuning were good arguments. The problem is that reasoned arguments like this rely on perfect reasoning abilities.

I would say things like the Bible. Koran, Vedas etc. are eyewitness testimony but there are other testimonies as well from other quarters. Reasoned arguments can lead one to belief but can also lead one to non belief. Everything depends on one's initial assumptions. People's initial assumptions differ so reasoning is not an effective way to change people's beliefs as you end up arguing facts that you perceive from different angles and through different lenses.

I wouldn't say they consciously believe for these reasons.

I would hesitate to ascribe sub conscious reasons to anyone.

But a future medical breakthrough doesn't assure you of eternal life, whereas God does.

I don't think that the existence of God necessarily assures eternal life for anyone other than God.

If there were a God I doubt that morality is moral because God wills it, rather that God wills it because it is moral

How did God find out it was moral? If God is the first cause and creator, which is the way we seem to be defining Him in this thread, then how could morality not be a creation of God and entirely subjective by Him? You must assume another agency is at work if God is constrained from deciding what He will call moral but must acquiesce in calling something moral because it is that by nature and not by any design of His.

From some of your comments I think you might only be interested in discussing the God of the Christianity ( which of course is why you would post in this forum) but I have laid out some arguments that would apply to the idea of any Creator God. If you are trying to understand the beliefs of Christians only just ignore those arguments as they would not apply.

 

[DataPacRat]

I said our experiences are what supports our reason to believe in the existence of a loving Creator. I don't know where you got the idea above.

'Our' experiences and 'our' reason may have led /you/ to believe in that, but /my/ experiences and /my/ reason have led to the opposite conclusion.

I would think all of our experiences have some connection to objective reality, which none of us can discern.

I'd prefer you didn't include me in that 'none of us'; whether or not you are able to 'discern' anything about objective reality, doesn't mean nobody can.

If our experiences has no connection then we have no connection.

Now there's a sentence I find nothing to disagree in.

You have no basis for making any judgments about my subjective experiences---none.

I have precisely as much basis as you do for judging mine.

 

[elman]

Originally Posted by elman
I said our experiences are what supports our reason to believe in the existence of a loving Creator. I don't know where you got the idea above.

'Our' experiences and 'our' reason may have led /you/ to believe in that, but /my/ experiences and /my/ reason have led to the opposite conclusion.

This is not new information you are giving me. What is the point?

I would think all of our experiences have some connection to objective reality, which none of us can discern.

I'd prefer you didn't include me in that 'none of us'; whether or not you are able to 'discern' anything about objective reality, doesn't mean nobody can.

It is reasonable to assume all of us have only a partal and flawed vew of reality. I doubt you are super human.

You have no basis for making any judgments about my subjective experiences---none.

I have precisely as much basis as you do for judging mine.

The only way I judged yours is to assume you like all humans are unable to perceive total reality in an unflawed manner. It would be unreasonable to the extreme to assume otherwise.

 

[DataPacRat]

It is reasonable to assume all of us have only a partal and flawed vew of reality. I doubt you are super human.

The only way I judged yours is to assume you like all humans are unable to perceive total reality in an unflawed manner. It would be unreasonable to the extreme to assume otherwise.

This seems, to me, to be a bit of goalpost-moving; I was arguing that there are at least /some/ things about objective reality that we can figure out, based on objective evidence, which you seemed to be saying was impossible, while now you seem to be saying that you were talking about 'unflawed' understanding.

I'm a Bayesian; of /course/ it's impossible to have a 100% certainty about anything. I know the math that tells you exactly how strongly you should believe something based on any given amount of evidence. However, even possessing a certain amount of uncertainty doesn't mean that the beliefs we assemble aren't /useful/... such as having a 99.9999999999+% confidence that gravity's going to keep working tomorrow according to the rules we figured out yesterday allowing us to build houses that won't fall on our heads.

 

[elman]

=DataPacRat;57048406]This seems, to me, to be a bit of goalpost-moving; I was arguing that there are at least /some/ things about objective reality that we can figure out, based on objective evidence, which you seemed to be saying was impossible, while now you seem to be saying that you were talking about 'unflawed' understanding.

It seems to me you are moving the goal post. Are you suggesting that originally you were talking about only some part of objective reality that we can figure out and if it is only partial, how does that differ from my reference to it being incomplete and if it is incomplete is it not flawed?

I'm a Bayesian; of /course/ it's impossible to have a 100% certainty about anything. I know the math that tells you exactly how strongly you should believe something based on any given amount of evidence. However, even possessing a certain amount of uncertainty doesn't mean that the beliefs we assemble aren't /useful/... such as having a 99.9999999999+% confidence that gravity's going to keep working tomorrow according to the rules we figured out yesterday allowing us to build houses that won't fall on our heads.

I guess you are speaking to my statment that my experiences are reasonably interpreted the way I interpret them and perhaps you are saying mathematically my experiences could not reasonably be interpreted that way. Again, you don't know my experiences so application of any sort of math to them is not reasonable.

 

[bling]

Hi,

Is God a hope rather than based on evidence or reason?

Is the believe that there is no God a hope or is it based on evidence and reason?

What is the evidence for something always existing or something coming from nothing

What is the reason for gravity?

Many of the reasons to believe in God all seem to lack to some extent. So is the real reason to believe in God out of hope. Hope that morality is objective, hope that there is meaning in our lives, hope that we will survive death and wotn be forgotten, hope that there is more to life this?

All the reasons to not believe in God seem to lack to some extent, so is the real reason to not believe in God to exalt man? Hoping that there is no God to worry about, no overriding morality and the hope that everything is relative?

It seems as if God is something you just have to assume is real for personal reasons rather than because there is strong evidence either way.

It seems as if the believe there is no god is out of personal reasons rather than any strong evidence either way.

There are some very logical reasons for the need for faith if man has the Christian’s objective.