Why do we need to "believe" in God?

ShimmyMommy

Thoughts_Arrive wrote:

I believe in God, I worship him every day.
He comes out of my speakers and sings songs about homelessness, depression, gun violence.
I think his name is Eddie?

DING! DING! DING! You are correct!

Imagine my shocked when I found out this:





Just thought I would lighten the mood, before it all spins out of control.... :shifty:

brianlux

ShimmyMommy wrote:

Thoughts_Arrive wrote:

I believe in God, I worship him every day.
He comes out of my speakers and sings songs about homelessness, depression, gun violence.
I think his name is Eddie?

DING! DING! DING! You are correct!

Imagine my shocked when I found out this:





Just thought I would lighten the mood, before it all spins out of control.... :shifty:

And surely God has a sense of humor as well!

ShimmyMommy

brianlux wrote:

ShimmyMommy wrote:

Thoughts_Arrive wrote:

I believe in God, I worship him every day.
He comes out of my speakers and sings songs about homelessness, depression, gun violence.
I think his name is Eddie?

DING! DING! DING! You are correct!

Imagine my shocked when I found out this:





Just thought I would lighten the mood, before it all spins out of control.... :shifty:

And surely God has a sense of humor as well!

Well, he wouldn't give us one, if he didn't have one...we are created in his image, right?

markin ball

Shawshank wrote:

I don't feel I have a need, or that I'm compelled to believe in God. I just do. Kind of like I know there's oxygen in the air I breathe. I can't see it, but I know it gives me life. I have a deep faith in God, and have had it for as long as I can remember. The weird thing is, is neither of my parents, or really anyone in my family were ever really church goers. I seldom went to church, and was very seldom ever engaged in that part of society. But still I always believed in God without question. Even though now my wife and I go to church regularly, and I absolutely believe in God, and accept Jesus Christ, I find myself vehemently opposed to much of what organized religion tries to push on people. Religion, in my eyes, is the biggest bunch of BS ever. Religion is nothing but man's way of trying to make themselves feel important...to make themselves feel empowered...it's man's way to make themselves feel like they have all the answers...religion is man's bogus way of pushing themselves to be closer to God. Kind of like an annoying person that tries waaaayyy too hard to be your friend. It's also nothing more than man's way of acting on God's behalf in many cases, especially when it comes to being judgmental about things like homosexuality. That's obviously a big one. I just don't see where it's our place to judge.

I guess I just don't have a problem admitting I don't have all the answers, and I feel confident enough in my faith to be cool with that. I don't believe there's anything in Science that dispels God, and I believe that everything, the construction of our universe, the laws of physics, evolution, all of it just screams God to me. So I don't believe because I have some sort of need, I just believe because I can't help but do so.

Just for the record, as far as I'm concerened, you, or anyone else, can feel whatever you want to, but I think there is a logic flaw in the statement I bolded. I would say your "faith" in oxygen is based on the processes of science whereas your faith in god and Christ is not. Any thoughts?

fuck

markin ball wrote:

Just for the record, as far as I'm concerened, you, or anyone else, can feel whatever you want to, but I think there is a logic flaw in the statement I bolded. I would say your "faith" in oxygen is based on the processes of science whereas your faith in god and Christ is not. Any thoughts?

This is a bad assumption you are basing your entire argument off of. I can't speak for the previous poster, but you act as if science and God are mutually exclusive. here's an interesting article:


"What Hawking Based His Theory On

Einstein died in 1955, having left behind an unresolved mystery: quantum reality. What Stephen Hawking and the entire scientific community refer to as the Laws of Physics (like gravity and inertia), it turns out, do not apply in the quantum world (i.e. sub-atomic world). But how can the universe’s building bricks, the stuff that makes the entire universe, have different physical laws than the universe they make? Moreover, scientists discovered that in the quantum world, the same exact electron or proton can exist in more than one place at the same time. Such a phenomenon is not allowed to occur in a world governed by the laws of physics.

It’s crucial to note here that scientists are not happy about their quantum findings (unlike philosophers, scientists want things to make sense and to be based on the observed the world). Ever since quantum theory became a fact, scientists (including Einstein who unintentionally set the basis for it) have relentlessly been trying to at least tweak it to match common sense. In one of the greatest scientific debates in history (Copenhagen, 1940), Einstein and Danish scientist, Niels Bohr, reached a dead end: will there ever come a scientist to trump the impeccable findings of quantum theory? Einstein, till his death, believed it was inevitable, while Bohr said it will never happen because the problem is in the act of measuring itself (it alters quantum reality). Every scientist who attempted to disprove quantum theory, with empirical evidence nevertheless, only ended up providing even more empirical evidence to quantum theory. Contrary to scientists’ desires, quantum theory remains a fact until today.

Hawking did not utilize quantum theory to justify his most recent conclusion, rather he bypassed it. He said that “because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.” What quantum theory proved is not that matter can appear and disappear (i.e. created from nothing), but that our measuring devices were unable to explain whether matter exists at all. If quantum theory is correct (and so far it is), it means that the universe we live in does not really exist.

“The world isn’t made of things. It’s not made of objects… The notion that big things are made of little things, quantum theory doesn’t describe the world that way. Big things aren’t made of little things. They are made of entities whose attributes aren’t there when you don’t look, but become there when you do look. The world exists when we don’t look at it in some strange state that is indescribable, and then when we look at it, it becomes absolutely ordinary, as though someone were trying to pull something over our eyes. The world is an illusion.” ~ Nick Herbert, Ph.D.

One of several popular explanations (among scientists) as to why quantum theory shows us what Einstein referred to as “voodoo” is that the universe we experience is but a hologram of the actual universe. Another suggests, through string theory, that there is not one universe, but a multi-verse where reality could be mirrors that appear and disappear randomly, which would explain why an electron can exist in two different places at the same time.

It must be understood that the difference between physics (science in general) and philosophy is that the former is based on empirical evidence. In other words, when a physicist like Nick Herbert says the universe is an illusion, this must be proven in a lab! What Bohr was trying to say was that the reason we end up with such an obnoxious lab result has to do with the act of measuring itself, that human beings are simply incapable of proving that the world is real. Einstein, on the other hand, rejected the notion and believed that one day, the appropriate lab device would be invented to show that quantum theory results are nonsense. So far, all attempts and all measuring devices invented, have only further confirmed Bohr’s position.

“Science makes God unnecessary” ~ Stephen Hawking.

When Hawking says that the existence of God is no longer necessary to explain how the universe was created, he is not saying that God does not exist, nor is he saying that we finally figured out how the universe was created. All what he said was that now we have a new reasonable theory of how the universe was created which does not require a First Mover (First Cause). He mixed the findings of the probabilistic quantum theory (world is fuzzy and laws of physics don’t apply) with the big bang theory (the universe began as a singularity, an existence with no dimensions, governed by the laws of physics), to say that the singularity belongs to the quantum world, where cause and effect no longer holds, which means that singularity could very well come from nothing, and that time (the fourth dimension) does not exist when there is no existence, so there was no such thing as “time” before the creation of that singularity, which means there was nothing before existence in order to create anything.

However, the problem is not only about the “time” dimension, but the other three dimensions that represent the void (nothingness). Does nothingness have dimensions? If we say yes, then we can no longer say it is nothing. If you can visualize nothingness, then it is no longer nothingness. And I’m not talking about the void in outer space. Physicists have already accounted for the vast nothingness in between celestial bodies, referring to it as dark matter and dark energy, together comprising 96% of the universe (leaving only 4% of the universe we can perceive). I’m talking about what comprises 99.99999999% of every atom! What “stuff” is between an electron and a proton? And if the universe is made of atoms and dark (negative) atoms, then what we are actually perceiving is only the fan blades (0.00000001%), while the remaining is unaccounted for as anything. This is what reinforces the hologram theory of the universe aforementioned: perhaps the singularity that spun this universe did not really bang, but instead emitted itself into the void, like a laser show, and painted the void with energy (i.e. matter), including the minds of human beings who are contemplating all of this.

Conclusion

Unfortunately, science has been in an existential lock-down ever since Einstein opened the gates of quantum theory decades ago, when all laws of physics fell apart in the quantum lab. But since “to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail,” a scientist can only resolve the paradoxes he encounters with, well, more science!

But Bohr was right in ways that unimaginative scientists (men with hammers who think everything is a nail) cannot understand: the problem with science is the measuring device. In other words, the scientific method is not equipped to enable us to understand what the universe is made of, let alone how it was created.

Hawking did say one thing that is absolutely true: the human mind is conditioned to think in terms of cause and effect (it is what truly separates mankind from all other living beings). And all human knowledge is based on this universal principle.

“There is only one constant,” said the Merovingian in The Matrix Reloaded, “one universality that is the only real truth: causality — action [and] reaction; cause and effect…. Our only hope, our only peace, is to understand it, to understand the “why.” “Why” is what separates us from them. “Why” is the only real source of power. Without it, you’re powerless.“

Hawking, however, showed how there is a way (a logic) to consider a universe without cause and effect. In fact, human beings (and only human beings) seem to be wired to see the world through causality. A cat, for instance, does not wonder where the ball that rolled down the living room came from. All human infants do.

Philosophers and metaphysicists have figured out centuries ago what physicists are now discovering with mathematics and labs. But the mysteries of the universe were never meant to be understood in labs. Physics (and math) are but tools, like a hammer, and they’re extremely effective in building cars, airplanes, and other wonderful gadgets and machines. But some things are not nails."

http://www.kabobfest.com/2011/08/stephe ... verse.html

Cosmo

My take is simple:
God and religion are not the same thing.
God does not subscribe to or endorse any religion.
Religion makes the connection to God... religion claims God as their possession.
Religion causes people to kill or die in God's Name.
Holy scriptures were written by Man, not God.
...
Nobody knows God.
People believe in God.
Belief is not the same as knowledge.
Neither knowledge nor belief are truth.
...
Follow your own path to God... or choose not to go.
Live your life knowing the only truth is... you are eventually going to die. Therefore, live today... let tomorrow bring whatever it may.
Don't listen to what I say... it is for me and I don't expect anyone to follow or agree with me. Find the path that suits you best.

pandora

Cosmo wrote:

My take is simple:
God and religion are not the same thing.
God does not subscribe to or endorse any religion.
Religion makes the connection to God... religion claims God as their possession.
Religion causes people to kill or die in God's Name.
Holy scriptures were written by Man, not God.
...
Nobody knows God.
People believe in God.
Belief is not the same as knowledge.
Neither knowledge nor belief are truth.
...
Follow your own path to God... or choose not to go.
Live your life knowing the only truth is... you are eventually going to die. Therefore, live today... let tomorrow bring whatever it may.
Don't listen to what I say... it is for me and I don't expect anyone to follow or agree with me. Find the path that suits you best.

Definition of KNOW

transitive verb
1
a (1) : to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2) : to have understanding of <importance of knowing oneself> (3) : to recognize the nature of : discern
b (1) : to recognize as being the same as something previously known (2) : to be acquainted or familiar with (3) : to have experience of
2
a : to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of
b : to have a practical understanding of <knows how to write>

as far as these definitions ... I know God.
I agree with your first paragraph and love your words

I wonder if people never knew love would they would still need it

Jeanwah

dimitrispearljam wrote:

i believe in God...

Finally, a God / religion thread I actually enjoy!

Jeanwah

Just be darling and I will be too
Faithful to you

catefrances

pandora wrote:

...I wonder if people never knew love would they would still need it

yes. they would crave it, not necessarily knowing what it was that was missing. it would feel as if a part of them was missing and when they found love, they would know what that was.

Cosmo

pandora wrote:

as far as these definitions ... I know God.

...
No. You don't know God. You believe to know, but belief of knowing is still belief.
Yours is a relative truth. In your heart of hearts... you truely believe it. It is your truth... relative to you. It is not the one and only absolute truth that applies to all.
If you knew God... then you would be able to answer the questions we all have of Him... 'Where did we come from?' 'Why do we exist?' 'What happens when we die?' Are you telling us, you know the answers to these questions?
...
Nothing wrong with that. Belief, faith, hope... all good and part of our humanity. But, your belief does not apply to all. It is yours... personally. There is nothing wrong with owning belief.

pandora

Cosmo wrote:

pandora wrote:

as far as these definitions ... I know God.

...
No. You don't know God. You believe to know, but belief of knowing is still belief.
Yours is a relative truth. In your heart of hearts... you truely believe it. It is your truth... relative to you. It is not the one and only absolute truth that applies to all.
If you knew God... then you would be able to answer the questions we all have of Him... 'Where did we come from?' 'Why do we exist?' 'What happens when we die?' Are you telling us, you know the answers to these questions?
...
Nothing wrong with that. Belief, faith, hope... all good and part of our humanity. But, your belief does not apply to all. It is yours... personally. There is nothing wrong with owning belief.

one of the definitions is ...

"to be convinced or certain of"

not to just believe...
I am certain of, convinced...
as much so
as I know anything else I know, as much as I know I am here

semantics perhaps

What would make you think I am interested in those questions though? That I would ask?
Those have not been my questions because when one knows God, none of those questions matter.

I did not imply my knowledge applies to anyone else ... although I am not alone.

catefrances

pandora wrote:

..What would make you think I am interested in those questions though? That I would ask?
...

arent you at least curious??

pandora

catefrances wrote:

pandora wrote:

..What would make you think I am interested in those questions though? That I would ask?
...

arent you at least curious??

ah... curious... all Pandora's are curious
I think I've learned my lesson and will keep hope close at hand

catefrances

pandora wrote:

catefrances wrote:

pandora wrote:

..What would make you think I am interested in those questions though? That I would ask?
...

arent you at least curious??

ah... curious... all Pandora's are curious
I think I've learned my lesson and will keep hope close at hand

and what lesson is that?

moby sang we are all made of stars and i believe him.

pandora

catefrances wrote:

pandora wrote:

catefrances wrote:

arent you at least curious??

ah... curious... all Pandora's are curious
I think I've learned my lesson and will keep hope close at hand

and what lesson is that?

moby sang we are all made of stars and i believe him.

the BOX lesson

catefrances

pandora wrote:

the BOX lesson

boxes have openings.

pandora

catefrances wrote:

pandora wrote:

the BOX lesson

boxes have openings.

yep.... got teased about said opening since I was old enough to 'get it'...
get it .... another pun

puns are about

Danimal

I like Peanut Butter and Jelly.
You don't?
Fuck off.

Cosmo

pandora wrote:

one of the definitions is ...
"to be convinced or certain of"
not to just believe...
I am certain of, convinced...
as much so
as I know anything else I know, as much as I know I am here
semantics perhaps
What would make you think I am interested in those questions though? That I would ask?
Those have not been my questions because when one knows God, none of those questions matter.
I did not imply my knowledge applies to anyone else ... although I am not alone.

...
My point is... to each, his own.
You are basically a religion of one. You are convinced that you know God due to some past experience. Great. That works for you and set you on your path... happy trails to you.
But, again... in the real world where the singular absolute truth does exists... you don't know. You may know in the world you live in... but, your relative known/truth only works within your frame of reference.
That is the point I am making. I am looking for the truth... the absolute truth because relative truths do not apply to me. The truth is... I know I will never find it.
The only thing I know for sure... is that I don't know. I don't have any answers.