My fatalistic(sp?) reason for believing in God.
 

Seeing as how R.D. Silverman loves to disparage people for believing in God(actually I think he loves to disparage people over just about everything, lol) I'd like to post my reasons for believing in God.

After being an atheist for a long time(a conceited one), at 16 I moved with my parents to Arkansas. After living in Arkansas for about a year, I began having visions, hallucinating, believed someone was trying to kill my little brother, etc.. I was in and out of hospitals for awhile, and finally was placed in long-term treatment at a place in Texas.

During this whole time, I was forced to deal with a lot of hard questions I'd been refusing to deal with before. What is the purpose of life? Does existence have a meaning? That sort of thing.

Being a bit of a fatalist(I still am, btw), I naturally approached it from that angle. Put in it's simplest terms, I was dealing with two things:

(1) Is there a God?(assuming he's benevolent if he exists)

(2) Do I believe in God.

These are yes/no questions, and, as such, there are 4 possible combinations of answers. Let's look at each combination, separately.

No, No There is no God and I don't believe in him. In this instance, you believe something that's true, but does this do you any good? I don't think so, since sooner or later, you are going to die(cease to exist).

No, Yes Here's a rather pitiful person(me, possibly?) He insists on believing in God, but to no avail. He runs after something which will never benefit him. In the end he loses, just like the person who didn't believe.

Yes, No Here's where I let the influence of my peers affect me. Assuming Christianity(or Islam, say) has the proper God, then disbelieving has dire consequences. A Buddhist God(for example), on the other hand would just mean that things are stretched out a little longer. Consequences are indistinct if each possibility is considered equally probable.

Yes, Yes There is a God, and I believe in him(or her). Here is where I'd like to stand. Since I only consider life to have value if God exists and is at least similar to the Christian God. This is where I truly want to stand.

Unfortunately, I'm a fatalist. Just because I want to believe something, doesn't mean I do. I believe a Universe without a God is a worthless Universe, but that doesn't mean I haven't seriously considered the possibility.

So there is my conundrum, I want to believe my life has value, but desire doesn't equal truth.

Comments?

Um, I may have made an error in the subject line, I thought "fatalistic" had an assumed negative connotation. (Because of the word "fatal.")

Sorry about that.:sad:

Many people believe it's necessary to worship a higher power so you aren't full of yourself and are therefore a better person.

I think bringing R.D. Silverman into the picture was inappropriate. He may get the sense that he was the reason for this post. But even I don'tunderstand why he goes over the top for "not my cup of tea" but he calls people appointed by President Bush SPOSs. What's more, he says everything's "double standard" and "hypocritical". :razz:

[QUOTE]A Buddhist God(for example)[/QUOTE]

Buddhism itself has no gods. In any particular region, however, Buddhism might be practiced with a mix of local traditions, which might have gods. However, there's nothing in Buddhism itself which has dieties.

[QUOTE=ColdFury]Buddhism itself has no gods. In any particular region, however, Buddhism might be practiced with a mix of local traditions, which might have gods. However, there's nothing in Buddhism itself which has dieties.[/QUOTE]
While I accept there are no deities in Buddhism(which I didn't know), I'd like to suggest the following as a possible definition of God.

That which holds the most importance in one's life, whether it be money, Jesus, Allah, one's mother, or whatever...

[QUOTE=clowns789]Many people believe it's necessary to worship a higher power so you aren't full of yourself and are therefore a better person.

I think bringing R.D. Silverman into the picture was inappropriate. He may get the sense that he was the reason for this post. But even I don'tunderstand why he goes over the top for "not my cup of tea" but he calls people appointed by President Bush SPOSs. What's more, he says everything's "double standard" and "hypocritical". :razz:[/QUOTE]
I agree that bringing Mr. Silverman into it was inappropriate. Unfortunately, by the time I regretted it, the editing time had expired.

[QUOTE=jasong]I agree that bringing Mr. Silverman into it was inappropriate. Unfortunately, by the time I regretted it, the editing time had expired.[/QUOTE]

I hold in reverence PEOPLE who are accomplished. They are real.
Their accomplishments are real. Evidence of their existence and
their accomplishents can be shown to others. (and please, let's
not start an argument over solipsism)

I hold in disdain people who do not make an effort to be accomplished.

I try (but clearly don't always succeed) to be rational. Belief in something
for which there is no evidence is irrational and stupid. Claims by
people that they have "received the word of God" is not evidence because
it can't be duplicated by others.

Atheism is every bit as stupid as belief in God, because there is no
evidence that God does NOT exist. I am not an atheist.

What distinguishes us from other animals is our ability to think and to be
rational. Blind belief in God throws that away. It is *irrational*.

An intelligent person is agnostic and admits "I don't know". They do
not take a stance one way or the other until they are shown reproducible
EVIDENCE.

Okay, I can't help but take the bait. I guess I'm just one of those dumb fish.

[QUOTE]I hold in disdain people who do not make an effort to be accomplished.[/QUOTE]Why does this matter to you? From my understanding of your worldview, you believe that we all will (probably) cease to exist when we die. The universe is (basically) described by physical rules. And so (in my understanding of your view), from the evidence we have, it is unlikely that any recognizable record of your existence will exist, say, in a million years. (Or, if you'd like, we could say a trillion years, or whatever number you think is most likely, and any evidence of our planet's existence will likely be gone.) So what lasting value does someone being accomplished hold in your view? It is a temporary thing. There is no intrinsic value in accomplishment, as far as I can see, in such a worldview. Further, what you might see as accomplished, those in the near future might see as criminal/illogical/silly/or whatever. In fact, those future people might hold those "who didn't make an effort to be accomplished" as the accomplished ones. Historians are known for changing their (collective) minds (and getting things wrong).

[QUOTE]Claims by people that they have "received the word of God" is not evidence because it can't be duplicated by others.[/QUOTE]I agree that it isn't evidence for other people. But, consider the following thought experiment. Aliens come visit you. They talk to you, take you to their ships, and eventually return you to your home. You now believe that there are aliens (and, possibly, that you were deluded, insane, drugged, tricked, etc... but the experience leads you to believe that the most likely scenario is that there are aliens). And your memory is evidence for you. But not for others.

It might be illogical for you to believe that others should merely take your word for it that there are aliens, when you can't give them evidence (or a way to verify your claim), but it isn't illogical for you to continue to believe in aliens.

So, I guess my point is that duplication of evidence is only important if you are trying to convince someone else. Non-duplication of evidence does not make a personal belief invalid/stupid/irrational.

[QUOTE]An intelligent person is agnostic and admits "I don't know".[/QUOTE]I agree, with the following caveat:

Only if such a person has no personal evidence that there is a God.

[QUOTE]They do not take a stance one way or the other until they are shown reproducible EVIDENCE.[/QUOTE]Here I completely disagree. For example, suppose when you were fifteen your mother gave you a birthday card that really meant something to you. Should I expect you to stop believing in that experience if you cannot show me reproducible evidence of such a birthday card (especially if you've lost it)? No, of course not. Your memory, as prone to human error as it is, is sufficient evidence (which is currently non-reproducible) to make your belief in past experiences not illogical or stupid.

If we only believed in those past experiences which we could reproduce, we'd believe in very little about our past selves.

And by the way, just to clarify, I do believe that a logical belief in God should be born of hope AND evidence. But reproducibility, in my mind, is only important when trying to help others get the same evidences we have and come to the same beliefs.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman]Claims by people that they have "received the word of God" is not evidence because it can't be duplicated by others.[/QUOTE]
While not discussing particular individuals, as a general basis, why not apply the test for a sci. theory against 'scriptures'? Do they make predictions? Do the predictions come to pass?

Sumbitted for your consideration:
In the book of Daniel several predictions are made concerning politcal events. Notably in chapter 8 in predicts that the Persian empire would come to an end at the hands the ruler of Greece that would be notable and that after that ruler there would be a division of the kingdom into 4 parts. This was written prior to 535 BC. Alexander of Macedon was born in 356.

In the book of Isaiah (c. 740-700 B.C.) in chapters 44 and 45 it refers to Cyrus by name and stating that he would say 'of Jerusalem, Thou art built, And of the temple, Thou art founded.' Cyrus was not born until over 100 years later. In 535 he did give the command for the rebuilding. This is recorded on a notable cylinder that can be seen today in London.


Just to examples that are quick and easy to point out. The currently visible Jewish presence in the land was also predicted.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman]I try (but clearly don't always succeed) to be rational. Belief in something
for which there is no evidence is irrational and stupid. Claims by
people that they have "received the word of God" is not evidence because
it can't be duplicated by others.

Atheism is every bit as stupid as belief in God, because there is no
evidence that God does NOT exist. I am not an atheist.

An intelligent person is agnostic and admits "I don't know". They do
not take a stance one way or the other until they are shown reproducible
EVIDENCE.[/QUOTE]
Holy mackeral, we agree on something not math related.:surprised

One of the definitions of faith is "hope in the unseen." I chose Christianity because I felt it was the only religion that I would want to spend an eternity in. I don't consider a life that lasts less than 1,000 years to be worthwhile so I behave in a way that I feel Jesus, if he's real, would want me to.

I may have pointed this out already, but if there is no God, then EVERYBODY loses sooner or later.

It's better to have hope.

[QUOTE=jasong]Holy mackeral, we agree on something not math related.:surprised

One of the definitions of faith is "hope in the unseen." I chose Christianity because I felt it was the only religion that I would want to spend an eternity in. I don't consider a life that lasts less than 1,000 years to be worthwhile so I behave in a way that I feel Jesus, if he's real, would want me to.

I may have pointed this out already, but if there is no God, then EVERYBODY loses sooner or later.

It's better to have hope.[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes:
May Blessed Jesus bless you for taking a stand with 'doubting Thomas's.'
"Blessed are those who have seen and believed, Thrice Blessed are those who do not see and yet believe " N.T.
Mally :coffee:

[QUOTE=jasong]I don't consider a life that lasts less than 1,000 years to be worthwhile[/quote]That strikes me as very sad - that someone wouldn't find a normal human lifetime (the only one we know with absolute certainty we'll ever have) as "worthwhile". Or maybe you're just *really* slow paying your monthly rent, in which case I hope your landlord operates on similar generously long time scales.

[quote]I may have pointed this out already, but if there is no God, then EVERYBODY loses sooner or later.[/quote]That depends on your definition of "lose." If you consider a normal human life lived well and fully but then coming to its inevitable end as a losing proposition, then I really feel sorry for you. Even if there really is a God and a hereafter (and I don't claim to know either way - only that this life is the only one I have any actual evidence for), do you think God would want you to fail to appreciate your life on earth because you spent it obsessing about what may or may not come after?

[QUOTE]It's better to have hope.[/QUOTE]Hope for what, and based on what, exactly? How can you possibly hope to live this life to the fullest and to value real human kindness and justice in the here and now if you're completely focused on some abstract, unknown and unproven "hereafter?" That sounds like a recipe for either despair, anarchy or tyranny. By way of a contemporaneous example, it seems to me that much of the death cult known as "radical Islam" is a direct result of that kind of thinking. "Oh, I can blow up as many people as I like in the present, because if it turns out that - whoopsie! - there were some righteous folks among them, they'll get their reward in heaven, and I'll be forgiven because I was doing it for the greater good." (And Islam is certainly not the only religion that has engaged in that kind of sick stuff - any faith that causes its followers to believe themselves "better" than the non-believers and that denigrates the present in favor of some "life beyond" is prone to doing so.) What is this, the dark ages (that was mostly the Christians there, BTW), where people desperately needed to believe in something beyond the grave in order to help them cope with their day-to-day misery? I say that's some really twisted thinking there - why would you expect some kind of heavenly reward in the hereafter if you didn't strive for justice, self-betterment and to maybe leave the world (or at least your small corner of it) a little better place when you had the chance to do so in the here and now? To use the common Christian imagery, when you're standing outside the pearly gates and St. Peter asks you, "so, what did you do in your earthly life to make you worthy of admission here?", what are you going to tell him - that your earthly life was simply too short and impermanent to be worth bothering much about?

ewmayer,

[QUOTE]That strikes me as very sad - that someone wouldn't find a normal human lifetime (the only one we know with absolute certainty we'll ever have) as "worthwhile".[/QUOTE]Would you consider an existence of a mere week as worthwhile? If so, we will be at an impass. If not, you might explain the major difference you see in an existence of a week versus an existence for a century.

To me, it is merely a matter of one finite cardinal versus another.

In other words, what makes this existence worthwhile to you? Please explain. I'd sincerely like to know.

To a fruit-fly, a week might seem like an eternity.
On the human scale, a week is a very short "life"time.
If you "equate" all time periods, then you're doing exactly
what ewm, rightly and better than I could, says will
fail to make your life worthwhile -- ignoring your humanity
for the sake of some questionable concept of immortality.

[QUOTE=davar55]To a fruit-fly, a week might seem like an eternity.
On the human scale, a week is a very short "life"time.
If you "equate" all time periods, then you're doing exactly
what ewm, rightly and better than I could, says will
fail to make your life worthwhile -- ignoring your humanity
for the sake of some questionable concept of immortality.[/QUOTE]But some humans only live a week. Are their lives worthwhile, or aren't they? I'd like to know ewmayer's criteria for "worthwhileness" so I can begin to understand his arguments.

Also, I'm not equating all time periods. I'm pointing out that certain time periods (in this case, finite intervals) all possess a similarity (in this case, they are all finite). So, whatever ewmayer's criterion for "worthwhileness" is, I'm wondering if it is independent of whatever finite cardinal people have for their lifetime.

TTn,

You might want to rethink some of your logic (especially your application of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle). As another example, when you say "If all things are equal, the easiest answer tends to be the right one." you are making a counter-factual statement. All things are not equal. So what does this have to do with anything? Further, even if all things were equal (i.e. if your use of this phrase is meaningless), the easiest answer doesn't tend to be the right one. Further, what does "easiest" mean? "The sky is blue because a majority of people have blue eyes." I'd say that is an easy answer (but wrong).

Not to dissuade you from your belief in God. But if you are going to debate it, debate it well.

Cheers,
Zeta-Flux

I have a problem with objectivist beliefs.[QUOTE]One cannot change reality by simply wishing it were different.[/QUOTE]

I disagree, because of the quantam butterfly effect.
Brain waves created by wishing or especially intense prayers(for hours), "can" cause distruptions in weather patterns, and many other things in the historical timeline called reality.

In a small number of these cases, wishes become true, because of the intention of the wisher. There may be no pure advantage, because any number of negative/positive events may also occur, for all we know.

You could also use this "argumentation" for every undecidable problem and hence "solve" it.
But scientific reasoning doesn't work this way.

It seems to be practically impossible to prove the absence of a god - even more due to varying definitions of what a god is.
But it should be nearly impossible as well to prove the presence of "godly creatures", assuming he/she/they don't want to reveal his-/herself/themselves.

It seems to come down to personal beliefs (and beliefs imposed by society, of course).

Just to make sure my statement can be understand correctly:

Thinking that there is no god is some sort of belief as well. Personally, I would be really surprised if a god existed, but I wouldn't rule it out neither.

[quote]for perhaps some advanced stealthy reason.[/quote]

It doesn't have to be that advanced. What do you think would happen if a godly creature showed itself (assuming there is one)?

Here is the proof that God exists. You can chat with Him in here:

[url]http://www.titane.ca/concordia/dfar251/igod/main.html[/url]

Carlos

Locking this thread - if you feel you have something beyond a one-line snarky niggle to contribute, run it by me first.