Why Believe in a God when It is Impossible to Prove?

[Belindi]

The point of view expressed in your statement, leaves little doubt that you are only thinking of God in terms that are derived from western thought and not including or exploring eastern thought on the subject. A few years ago I read a very interesting book by Keiji Nishitani a philosopher from the Kyoto school of thought, the book is called "Religion and Nothingness". In summary it is a study of what Nishitani feels is an "irreversible trend of Western civilization to nihilism", he singles out the conquest of nihilism as the task for contemporary philosophy.

Personally though, I find the entire concept of religion to be archaic in general, as the need to have a priest or minister of some sort tell you what is the correct way to think or act is at odds in toto, with the idea of faith and belief. I do believe that one needs a philosophy to live by and that philosophy can come from another person or belief as long as one does not stray into it becoming a belief to which others must adhere. I have used the philosophy of Taoism and Native American belief to create my personal philosophy of life and find it comforting; I suppose one could call this "the Tao of Stonebear".

I agree that "a priest or minister of some sort tell you what is the correct way to think or act" is what is wrong with religions, and this is not the way people learn from each other but is dictatorial, undemocratic, and obviously aimed at social control through a class system.

[Joshua10]

In response to the original question…..

Why not believe in God when it is impossible to prove God doesn’t exist?

Why do atheist seem to think they it all covered with such a question? They haven’t.

In addition,their comfort blanket scientific theories are being proved to be utter nonsense as well.

[Joshua10]

If atheistic science was correct then the 4 magnetic interactions of NN….NS….SN….SS would be the same and they are not and they can’t explain why not.This completely undoes their present scientific model whether they like it or not.Who cares whether they like it.

How much more definitive proof do you need to definitively confirm you just can’t trust atheists claims about God not existing.

[Sy Borg]

Interesting. First we get the already-discredited Pascal's wager and then identical nonsense claims about magnetism to Jacob's.

Why believe in God when it's impossible to prove? Because it's impossible to garner belief when one does not believe. For instance, none of us are able to believe in Santa Claus, even if we wanted to. Santa is obvious fantasy, as is the usual theist's notion of a universe-sized male simian spirit whose main focus is the subjugation of women and gays.

[Joshua10]

Sorry password issues now Jacob10 now Joshua10.

As all things would come from God it is impossible to garner belief or unbelief yourself, I do agree with that.

You only hope that you have discredited Pascal’s wager and the sensible claims about magnetism because you can’t definitively prove otherwise.

When will you realise that all you have ….all any one has is a hope in something.

Do you not know sound philosophy?

[EricPH]

[quote=Belindi post_id=415615
I agree that "a priest or minister of some sort tell you what is the correct way to think or act" is what is wrong with religions, and this is not the way people learn from each other but is dictatorial, undemocratic, and obviously aimed at social control through a class system.
[/quote]

This is not what I witness in my church and my town. The churches have opened up food banks, homes for the homeless, debt help, good neighbours, support groups for addicts and more.

These initiatives cost huge amounts of time and money from volunteers. Faith in a loving God is the inspiration.

[Belindi]

[quote=Belindi post_id=415615
I agree that "a priest or minister of some sort tell you what is the correct way to think or act" is what is wrong with religions, and this is not the way people learn from each other but is dictatorial, undemocratic, and obviously aimed at social control through a class system.

This is not what I witness in my church and my town. The churches have opened up food banks, homes for the homeless, debt help, good neighbours, support groups for addicts and more.

These initiatives cost huge amounts of time and money from volunteers. Faith in a loving God is the inspiration.
[/quote]


Congregations can be inspired, and organised for good works, by competent priests. More people would go to church if orders of service were not hymn sandwiches but allowed for people to express their own thoughts, prayers, and ideas.

[Stonebear]

[quote=Belindi post_id=415615
I agree that "a priest or minister of some sort tell you what is the correct way to think or act" is what is wrong with religions, and this is not the way people learn from each other but is dictatorial, undemocratic, and obviously aimed at social control through a class system.

This is not what I witness in my church and my town. The churches have opened up food banks, homes for the homeless, debt help, good neighbours, support groups for addicts and more.

These initiatives cost huge amounts of time and money from volunteers. Faith in a loving God is the inspiration.

Congregations can be inspired, and organised for good works, by competent priests. More people would go to church if orders of service were not hymn sandwiches but allowed for people to express their own thoughts, prayers, and ideas.
[/quote]

I agree with what you have said and as such the question becomes, what then is the need for religion?

[Belindi]

[quote=Belindi post_id=415615
I agree that "a priest or minister of some sort tell you what is the correct way to think or act" is what is wrong with religions, and this is not the way people learn from each other but is dictatorial, undemocratic, and obviously aimed at social control through a class system.

This is not what I witness in my church and my town. The churches have opened up food banks, homes for the homeless, debt help, good neighbours, support groups for addicts and more.

These initiatives cost huge amounts of time and money from volunteers. Faith in a loving God is the inspiration.

Congregations can be inspired, and organised for good works, by competent priests. More people would go to church if orders of service were not hymn sandwiches but allowed for people to express their own thoughts, prayers, and ideas.

I agree with what you have said and as such the question becomes, what then is the need for religion?
[/quote]
Did you watch or even perhaps attend Glastonbury? If you did then you would see and perhaps experience the component of man's religious quest that is a constant part of human nature. I refer to the sense of togetherness and moral strength in togetherness. At Glastonbury the ethical direction was supplied by guests like Greta Thunberg and Jeremy Corbyn. Diana Ross and Paul MacCartney were super-skilled representatives of older generations and such traditions as are unchanged over time.

[Joshua10]

Sorry password issues now Jacob10 now Joshua10.

As all things would come from God it is impossible to garner belief or unbelief yourself, I do agree with that.

You only hope that you have discredited Pascal’s wager and the sensible claims about magnetism because you can’t definitively prove otherwise.

When will you realise that all you have ….all any one has is a hope in something.

Do you not know sound philosophy?

Nobody can prove that god exists or doesn’t exist.They can provide as much evidence as they want but that isn’t definitive proof.

Secular science and philosophy, in its mind, has cancelled out all reasonings for the existence of anything.

It hasn’t cancelled out the 4 magnetic force interactions though of NN NS SN SS.According to secular science and philosophy these interactions should be identical.They are not as we all know and so their science and philosophy has totally failed.

Electromagnetic systems are what make the universe and the brain work not gravity systems.We all know that surely.

Gravity is an illusionary force that secular science invented after it mistakenly thought it had cancelled out all reasonings for the existence of everything.Secular scientists still don’t know what gravity is and they invented it…..Ask them.

[Sy Borg]

You only hope that you have discredited Pascal’s wager

Pacal's wager is simply stupid, being based on the assumption that God is a complete moron, incapable of telling if its own creation truly believes or is pretending to do so to save their skin.

As such, there is nothing to discredit. Feigning belief out of fear is not belief - at least those who are sincere.

and the sensible claims about magnetism

I have not seen any from you because you don't know enough about EM to speak even slightly coherently about magnetism. It's boring that you keep repeating that silly NN SS NS SN line, which means nothing at all. There is no actual point being made by you, equivalent to saying "See? The sky is blue, you fools! That obviously proves God exists! And this is sound philosophy".

[Joshua10]

You only hope that you have discredited Pascal’s wager

Pacal's wager is simply stupid, being based on the assumption that God is a complete moron, incapable of telling if its own creation truly believes or is pretending to do so to save their skin.

As such, there is nothing to discredit. Feigning belief out of fear is not belief - at least those who are sincere.

and the sensible claims about magnetism

I have not seen any from you because you don't know enough about EM to speak even slightly coherently about magnetism. It's boring that you keep repeating that silly NN SS NS SN line, which means nothing at all. There is no actual point being made by you, equivalent to saying "See? The sky is blue, you fools! That obviously proves God exists! And this is sound philosophy".

In your opinion Pascal’s wager is stupid but then that is just your opinion isn’t it which would be fine if your opinion was the only opinion but it isn’t.

I keep repeating the line SS NS SN NN because it completely undoes the present scientific theory of gravity.There should be no difference in these interactions according to this theory.

The fact that there is a difference means that science needs to factor it in their equations and they don’t.Simple really.You can ignore this fact as much as you want but it isn’t going anywhere.

You can invent as many illusionary forces such as gravity as you want as well.It won’t change a thing.

[Sy Borg]

You only hope that you have discredited Pascal’s wager

Pacal's wager is simply stupid, being based on the assumption that God is a complete moron, incapable of telling if its own creation truly believes or is pretending to do so to save their skin.

As such, there is nothing to discredit. Feigning belief out of fear is not belief - at least those who are sincere.

and the sensible claims about magnetism

I have not seen any from you because you don't know enough about EM to speak even slightly coherently about magnetism. It's boring that you keep repeating that silly NN SS NS SN line, which means nothing at all. There is no actual point being made by you, equivalent to saying "See? The sky is blue, you fools! That obviously proves God exists! And this is sound philosophy".

In your opinion Pascal’s wager is stupid but then that is just your opinion isn’t it which would be fine if your opinion was the only opinion but it isn’t.

I keep repeating the line SS NS SN NN because it completely undoes the present scientific theory of gravity.There should be no difference in these interactions according to this theory.

The fact that there is a difference means that science needs to factor it in their equations and they don’t.Simple really.You can ignore this fact as much as you want but it isn’t going anywhere.

You can invent as many illusionary forces such as gravity as you want as well.It won’t change a thing.

There is no theory of SS NS SN NN. You are either making it up, picked up a crank idea or completely misconstrued actual science.

[Atla]

I keep repeating the line SS NS SN NN because it completely undoes the present scientific theory of gravity.There should be no difference in these interactions according to this theory.

Can you explain why there should be no difference?

[Joshua10]

There should be no difference because as there is a difference science needs to explain why there is a difference and they can’t.

This is fundamental stuff that science has completely ignored.