>>694850473
there is no distinct "god", there is a god but its not a human it is just there

>>694850473
All of them.

>>694850473
Talos

>>694850778
How confident are you this god exists?

>>694850473
>Which God have you chosen to believe in?
i pick and choose from all the religions.
no god in particular.
i consider universal energy / consciousness to be god.

>>694850473
Isn't it obvious that at one point in time, or before time, the rules of our universe didn't apply? At some point, matter and energy were created from nothing. Some people like to believe that some entity did that on purpose.
I see no harm in it as long as you don't force your ideas on someone else or hurt others because of your belief.

I believe in the force that moves live to go on. The chance that caused our cosmos to occur. The spark that starts the human heart.

Energy simply put, I suppose

>>694850778
Sure, if you want to have an infinitely lose definition of what that means. Dark matter or black holes are my gods.

>>694851735
what is energies source?

>>694850778
This is correct
>>694851556
Pretty convinced.

>>694851780
>infinitely lose definition

thats the beauty of "god"

>>694851802
Exactly. It's just a force that was created from nothing and continues on.

>>694851718
Agreed, we have no information to make strong claims one way or the other about an event so long ago. This doesn't involve faith however, which is where illegitimate moves on the certainty of unknowns gets made.

>>694851871
Why?

>>694851735
Does this energy interact with our current universe?

>>694851718
Whether it's harmful is irrelevant to the post, I think. Is any religious belief justified? I've debated hundreds and possibly thousands of theists. I've never heard a compelling reason for belief in their gods.

>>694850473
there is a god. spirituality is inherent for every human being.
throughout the years, humanity has attempted to understand god by personifying god, creating idols nad metaphors that could maybe help humanity understand god. while good intentions create religion, crooked people use religion to further their personal agendas and take advantage of the spiritually weak.

the truth is, god is forever beyond human comprehension. no amount of scientific advancements will ever discover the origins of everything. no human being will ever understand what god is.

>>694852282
Look up Anthony Magnabosco for enlightenment friend.

>>694851460
Im with this guy
>Skyrim's for the Nords!

>>694852348
If God is beyond comprehension, then how can you be sure he/she/it exists? How do you know that all religions were created with good intentions?

>>694852282
No there is really no merit in any organized religon. They all are based on books or stories passed down. They say they have faith in god but to believe them mean to have faith in man not faith in god. I don't believe people really were contacted by an outside entity to write down rules and shit.
I just wanted to explain the logic behind my own belief in some sort of sentient being existing outside of the restrictions of our existance

Athiests seem to be convinced that mankind and science have discovered everything that exists. It is very possible that there are many things that exist and we just can comprehend their existence. Imagine trying to explain infrared light to people in the 13th century. I can accept that there are many things we don't know. It's a scary concept for a lot of people to admit.

>>694850778
>>694851633
>>694851718
>>694852348

Pics or it didn't happen.

>>694852264
Yes, it causes progression and life

>>694852717

Correction: atheists believe only in that which can be proven. Water can be proven. Global warming can be proven. Your preference for one type of food over another can be proven. The existence of some supernatural entity, however, has yet to be proven. Until it is proven, then, it is not believed. Simple.

>>694852846
Why do you think it causes progression and life?

>>694852717
I'm an atheist and believe many things are unknown. You're confusing the atheist who admits he/she cannot know the truth about something, with the theist, who believes that because we do not know, they know it's god. Argument from ignorance fallacy.

>>694852717
Scientists embrace it and call it excitement. Those afraid turn to religion.

>>694853014
Exactly

>>694852131
Because the fact that we as humans can do many of the things that an omnipotent diety can do, such as create material at the molecular level, create life, annihilate the earth, is evidence enough to believe that some entity was able to do it before us.

>>694852682
>then how can you be sure he/she/it exists?
he she it, there you go personifying again.
i believe god exists simply because i am here. simply because the universe is here. i just think the universe obviously needs a source. and i will believe in god until science proves otherwise. which it never will.

>How do you know that all religions were created with good intentions?
maybe not ALL religions are created with good intentions. but i think most religions are created to help people spiritually and existentially. even religions like islam have verses of peace. unfortunately, like i said before. idiots will use religion as a tool to controll masses of people.

>>694853014
>>694853082
I'll accept this. I'm thinking more of the militant athiests.

I guess I believe that mankind doesn't have the ability to prove everything. It's like a dog trying to understand an assembly line or some other terrible analogy. I can't even resolve the question in my own head so there's no chance that I can convince anyone else.

>>694851802
According to science, energy cannot be created or destroyed. It just is.

>>694853846
according to science.
some energy is constantly being created and destroyed and even be in two places at once.

science has come a long way since you where in school dude.

>>694852282
Compelling is in the eye of the beholder. If you've never felt your views challenged it is because you do not seek truth but only justification.

>>694853846
As it is in the universe, where the current laws of physics apply. That principle doesn't necessarily apply before space and time.

the god i have chosen to believe in is mescalito debate me

>>694850473
>Get ready to be destabilized, by simple questions alone
reddit atheist detected

>>694854110
Since I was a Christian for the first 21 years of my life, I'm obviously open to questioning my beliefs, and always will be. I constantly search for a challenge. I can't help it if I'm never offered one on this subject.

>>694850473
The triune God, Jesus the Father, and the Holy spirit.

>>694850473
the one that actually exists

>>694854399
Why did you change your mind?

>>694854110
Just because I have a standard of evidence doesn't mean I'm not willing to be compelled. That's like saying that anyone who doesn't believe everything he hears isn't open minded.

>>694854477
>>694854438
fuck you nail suckers mescalito is the true god

>>694854399
so sick of atheists who are like oh lol im no longer christian so there must be no god coz all gods are as dumb as christ

>>694854685
do 14 buttons of peyote

>>694850473
I worship the earth and the sun

You cannot disprove my gods

The holocaust never happened. Debate me.

>>694853755

Humans presently do not have that ability. Certainly, there is benefit in humility. I admire that trait, even though I recognize it as something from my theist teachings.

>>694853691

I would highly recommend you (and all other theists) read through deductive logic to get a better understanding of the atheists' dissatisfaction with your assertions of a god's existence. To sum up the idea of deductive logic: only the most basic ideas and facts are self-evident (these being things like "I exist", sensory perceptions, and so forth). Everything else must be DEDUCED from these base evidences.

Thus, when you claim, "god exists", you're making a claim that requires evidence. When you refuse to provide evidence, that just leaves us bewildered. Understand that we only believe that which can be proven. If it can't be proven, we don't believe it. For instance, it can't be proven that I'm actually a jellyfish. You can run any test imaginable, and I will not be proven to be a jellyfish. No matter how hard I insist that I'm a jellyfish, you will not believe me. Now, if I were to take that a step further and simply refuse to allow you to conduct any tests to determine if I was a jellyfish, in the first place, you should be even more skeptical. We have clear ways to determine whether I'm a jellyfish, yet I'm refusing to allow you to conduct this test so that you can see, too, that I'm a jellyfish.

In this way, by insisting to us that god is real without providing us any sort of test to verify for ourselves is much like insisting you're a jellyfish without providing us the means to prove one way or another that you are, in fact, a jellyfish.

>>694854552
That's a pretty long story. In short it wasn't voluntary. I started to question things that didn't make sense, and asked religious family members for answers which were insufficient, then searched the Internet for answers which were also insufficient, since all apologetics use logical fallacies. After months of questioning my beliefs and praying for answers and praying for the ability to continue believing, since the thought of losing my belief terrified me, with the possibility of hell, and facing my mortality. I eventually gave up on trying to make myself believe it and accepted that I was an atheist.

>>694854722
I didn't say there was no god. I said I've never been given compelling evidence of a god.

>>694855066
Nothing can be proven except tautology. Everything in science is only currently unfalsified. Now, there are varying levels of evidence for many things. The level of evidence you require to believe something in the absence of contrary evidence is a personal choice. Over 2/3rd of the world's humans believe a god is real. ThaT is -some- evidence of God (but obviously not proof). What is your counter evidence to dispute the current majority.

>>694850473
you was there & don't threw any bomb to this sh¡t, what a faggit

>>694855066
>you're making a claim that requires evidence. When you refuse to provide evidence

how can you quantify something beyond human comprehension? most scientific "laws" are based off of unproven assertions too.

Let's say that god exist . we he would be er look human. There are millions of living objects in this world, and humans are the worts and the biggest problem. So why should go love you

>>694856072
what in the fuck are you saying dude?

>>694855648

Again: everything must be deduced from base evidences. Just because over 2/3 of the world's humans believe something doesn't mean there's actual evidence for it. One must discern between logic and wishful thinking. If 2/3 of the world's humans believe something solely because they WISH it were true, that is not evidence in the slightest.

But I'll humor you: explain what evidence you have for god's existence. Make believers out of me and the others.

>>694852348
You say there is a god, but you also say that a god would be beyond human comprehension. How do you then comprehend the existence of a god?

Also, how is spirituality inherent to every human being? How would the concept of spirituality apply to those with mental disabilities such as severe autism?

>>694856275
Lol, yeah he's not helping so much. Though, I get his point that a white human god, specifically in Christianity, is ridiculous considering the hundreds of billions of galaxies in the universe.

>>694851460
Skyrim belongs to the khajiit!

Actually if you look at the lore the beast races were the og niggas of tamriel

>>694855744

No, they're based off evidence. Where are you getting this nonsense? And if by "unproven" you mean "not 100% guaranteed", then yes, you're correct: nothing is ever 100% guaranteed until it is being directly observed as it's occurring. However, most people would tend to think that 99.99% is a pretty good second-choice.

>>694850473
KEK
PRAISE KEK
DELIVER UNTO ME DUBS

>>694854102
Please site source,because i can't seem to find anything to confirm this. >>694854144
Obviously. If you were to change the laws of physics, then anything would be possible.

>>694855648
I feel like your entire sentiment is self-defeating. What evidence could anyone possibly offer someone with such a mindset?

>>694856458
>How do you then comprehend the existence of a god?
i dont. i understand its greater than i am and i dont try to understand it. but i also dont depend on god, or pray to god to fix things in my life or give me certain things.

> How would the concept of spirituality apply to those with mental disabilities such as severe autism?
many mental illnesses are not fully understood yet. theres no way of knowing how these people experience reality. so i wont be speaking for them. but i do believe they have some form of spirituality. even if their existence is solely to reinforce or test their struggling caretakers spirituality.

>>694856701
for example comets.
those things are a complete mystery and the scientific consensus is that they come from the oort cloud, without any proof or evidence this is considered true.

why are spiritual experiences not good enough for "evidence" of a god?

>>694856701

I feel like you missed his point. He's asking you how to measure something that can't be measured. The answer is that you can't measure it. That's the entire nature of the problem.

Although the bit about laws being based off of unproven assertions is another story entirely...

>>694856881
Only quality of life which results from belief.the truth us that which makes us lead fulfilling lives and theism wins that by a longshot.

>>694850473
none, I am enlighten by my inteligences
perhaps god is beyond the realm of explaining or even fathom because we only see through our limited view of the universe. perhaps only our understanding of physics the laws of the universe only exist where we're at. things other places, (other universes) may work differently. works we can't think of, perhaps colors we can't envision because we never seen them. like telling a born blind person what color looks like. you can't. define what a god is, and it would not be correct, we cannot explain it with our limited perspective. it wouldn't be the full truth. much complex. like ants trying to learn calculus.

>>694856881
It's not necessarily self-defeating; rather, it's simply him (subtly) stating that he will believe anything, so long as he wishes to and there is even the tiniest shred of evidence that can be interpreted as supporting that belief.

>>694856892
Maybe I was being too literal with how I read your statement, then. Sorry.

>many mental illnesses are not fully understood...
Fair enough. What about someone like me then, who thinks the notion of spirituality is hogwash? Actually, perhaps I should hear your definition of what that means before I dismiss it.

>>694850473
how come no one has bombed that shithole?

>>694857201
Truth leads to fulfillment? I'm not certain I understand you.

If theism was intrinsically fulfilling, you wouldn't have atheists, I would think.

>>694857095

... there's hardly a "consensus" on where comets come from. Some guys have suggested ideas as to their origins, and those ideas simply haven't been disproven yet. Almost completely untested hypotheses that are nowhere close to being "scientifically understood".

As for spiritual experiences: what kind of experience are we talking here?

>>694857190

Nothing gets labeled by the scientific community as a "law" lightly. Though the sensationalist news has no problems with that...

And I didn't miss his point. The idea of something being "immeasurable" isn't so much a problem intrinsic to the nature of a thing as much as it is our lack of attention to it. For a long time, things like distance and weight have been incredibly important to human way of life. So we took steps to standardize the way we interact with those attributes. You can measure anything--emotions, thoughts, ideas--given the appropriate time and consideration into developing such a system. It's actually something I think we need to start taking more seriously, rather than regarding as a "soft science". Emotional responses vary greatly in intensity, and since we're at a point in our society where degree of feelings is becoming more and more relevant, I'd say a standardized unit for measuring them is long overdue.

>>694857565
my definition of spirituality?
i believe being spirituality has nothing to do with organized religion, although organized religion can lead some to be spiritual. religion is a great tool that is horribly misused. anyway, my definition i guess would be as follows

being in touch with yourself, your consciousness and where you come from. knowing your place in the grand scheme of things. respecting the planet we live on since we are nothing but extensions of the planets energy itself. knowing that we are nothing but creatures that inhabit this world no different than, birds, dogs, and even insects. knowing that everyone deserves patience and a chance at love.

>What about someone like me then, who thinks the notion of spirituality is hogwash?

i believe everyone on earth will have a spiritual experience at one point in there life. if not, then death will bring about that experience, but by that time it will be too late for confession / being saved.

>>694858621
the point is. many scientific understandings are based off of unproven facts and your demand for evidence is hypocritical.

>what kind of experience are we talking here?

the kind where people experience god. what do you mean?

>>694858621
You cannot measure anything simply by the (admittedly petty) virtue that you don't know what you don't know. But taking that triteness aside, in the context of metaphysics, you literally cannot measure something.

>>694850473
who say that there is only one god or that god have a personification its a nice bait bro

>>694858693
I think I agree with about half of this. I think it's important to be introspective and consider our part in the grand scheme of things, but I don't presume my species' origin or believe that the planet 'deserves' respect, or anything like that.

The closest thing I can imagine to having such a spiritual experience (as you explained) is when I take pause (often accidentally) and realize how small and amazing I am. I think the japanese call it yugen.

I just don't see where a metaphysical creator needs to or does come into play in any of that, I guess.

>>694851633
>I believe in universal energy
This is what my "psychic" 9th grade English teacher said once.

>I hope that rose quartz love talisman actually helps you get laid, because your future looks bleak.

>>694858817

>many science unproven facts
Such as?

>experience god
So: how do you, personally, experience god?

>>694859049

Of course you don't know what you don't know. That's why you learn. Do you think the first humans had any concept of what a mile was? A thousand kilos? No. Their understandings of distance and weight barely passed as rudimentary "heavy" and "near by". Similarly, our understandings of emotions and intensities are primitive "very sad" and "kinda happy".

We know emotions. We have rough understandings of the differences between emotional states that are similar in type, but differ in degree. All we need next is to create language--like we have with other aspects of reality--to be able to handle incremental measures thereof.

It's really quite simple. Now, where do metaphysics come into this? I'm afraid that came quite out of nowhere, from where I'm standing.

>>694850473
buddism and there is no god
there is no idol
just you lots want to feel special
be it a bieliber or not

>>694859631
>but I don't presume my species' origin or believe that the planet 'deserves' respect
you are a growth of this planet.
a side effect of all the randomness. you are physical manifestation of the planets and universes consciousness. if the planet dies, so you do. you probably think you wont live long enough to see the planet die, which may be true. but take a look at how fucking rare life is. it is precious. if you ever have children you will understand and appreciate life far more than you do now. care for the planet as future life will inhabit it. make the world a better place than you found it.

>I just don't see where a metaphysical creator needs to or does come into play in any of that,
the creator is inside you. god is present everywhere. you create your very own existence by the things you believe, choose not to believe. you hear all the time that "god" created everything. and that "god" gave you life. if you just stop and think again at how fucking crazy it is to exist. about incomprehensible it is to exist. and then also think that you have the power to actually manipulate and chance this fuckin existience you live it and your own free will however you like. its just incredible. humanity is so insignifcant, but with spirituality it makes one feel as powerful as a god.

at least it does for me. we have the power to change lives. and have the power to physically manipulate the "reality" we exist in. are these not god like powers? perhaps the human mind is too conditioned by society. perhaps technology has taken us away from spirituality and detached us for our natural being. our minds occupied by silly shit. most of humanity has forgotten what it means to be "human"

>>694860236
>Such as?
i already mentioned the origin of comets.
but heres another one. origin of the universe
>So: how do you, personally, experience god?
lots of acid and shrooms.
only takes one time.

>>694860236
Just because humans can gain knowledge of the unknown does not mean they will, or that such knowledge exists.

Perhaps I was mistaken in assuming that by 'something outside of human comprehension,' he was mentioning something metaphysical, but that was my interpretation.

>>694860693

>comets; universe

Again: the origin of comets isn't a "scientific understanding". It's literally a suggestion some people made, based on what we currently know about the universe. I don't know how much more clearly I can spell it out for you that it is NOT held on the same level as, say, the theory of gravity (which we have appropriate equipment to more rigorously test). The same thing goes for suggestions regarding the origin of the universe. We lack the equipment to provide a more definitive answer, but given what we know so far, that is the idea we're toying around with. It's like the difference between "murder suspect" and "guy caught on tape stabbing a woman to death": two TOTALLY separate things.

>shrooms, acid

How did you know you were experiencing god?

>>694853664
Bruh

>>694861053
I don't think anyone is making the claim that we will know everything. That has nothing to do with atheism.

>>694861471
sure one theory is more widely held than others.
such as the theory of gravity. but there are some theories out there that claim gravity doesnt even exist. i feel like you are missing the point, or maybe im not being clear enough. the very nature of science depends on previous "theories" or be proven or unproven. there is no "final theory" because its all based on new, or previous assertions. nothing will ever be 100% fact as there will always be new scientific advancements.

>>694860535
I would never in my life thought that I would be enlightened on /b/......damn

>>694862211
hey man im not trying to get you to believe in my beliefs. i was just responding to the thread to try and get people to understand why someone might believe in a god.

everyones got their own version of spirituality. its an extremely personal thing.

>>694857899
Sure you would. Not everyone comprehends what they read. Atheists are annoyed at others expressing a fulfillment they fail to understand.

File: 1468652965854s.jpg (6 KB, 250x141) Image search: [Google]

6 KB, 250x141

>>694850473
>>694850473
Noice trolling m8.

Faith means truly "believing with your heart" in the early Greek versions of Jewish literature.

I have faith in physics.
I have faith in the fact that my parents love me.
I have faith in that 'working' all the time is a big part of happiness.
I have faith in the fact that having a good clear conscience can make one have some deep happiness throughout life.

You can neither prove or disprove the existence of 'God' because we observe/ truly "know" our universe through observation, aka physics. People back in the day had cool logic though, and "knew" God through what they saw as miracles, because whatever created our universe doesn't have to obey its laws

>>694862211
Can't tell if this is serious or just dry sarcasm
>>694862830
Can't tell if you fell for the bait or are serious

Either way, everyone's got some spirituality one way or another.

>>694862211
>>694862830
also, i never thought a rational conversation could be had without shitty insults getting thrown around.especially about the topics we are discussing.

its kinda strange to be honest

>>694850473
You cannot argue or debate faith. Faith relies on belief beyond fact, and is therefore inapplicable to all logic. Asking a religious person to validate what they believe is like asking a heroin addict to legitimize their addiction.