Why I'm not an Atheist and believe in what I believe.

[Norfolk And Chance]

In different threads, I'm always asked, to why I believe what I believe. I think it comes down to an intuition I have about God that I feel is genuine knowledge. This is what it really comes down to.

Now if God exists, to me, it makes sense that he would give us intuitive knowledge of himself rather then make it into some philosophical argument most of humanity is unaware of.

Now I believe I have this intuitive knowledge and that I am holding on to it, because I chose to. It's much like people chose to hold on to belief in morality even when they are aware there is some people whom believe it's a delusion.

So while it is a choice, I don't believe it's a baseless one. The best argument to falsify it, is the problem of evil/suffering. However, I've explained in a theodicy thread, why I don't think this disproves a benevolent Creator.

I also feel aside from this, there is other arguments that either strengthen that their is a powerful creator or prove ultimate greatness exist. There is also other intuitions that strengthen belief in a Creator.

But I would say none of those are reasons, and I feel at the end, the strength of faith in God is really to rely on that properly basis knowledge of God and to be patient with it.

Your belief is baseless and nothing more than wishful thinking.

[Simon Moon]

I'm a little late to the party, but I'll respond.

In different threads, I'm always asked, to why I believe what I believe. I think it comes down to an intuition I have about God that I feel is genuine knowledge. This is what it really comes down to.

Intuition is horrible justification to believe something. People have intuitions constantly, they almost always fail to model reality.

Think of all the ridiculous claims that people believe based on intuition instead of demonstrable evidence, reasoned argument and valid logic. Their intuition is just as strong as yours.

Now if God exists, to me, it makes sense that he would give us intuitive knowledge of himself rather then make it into some philosophical argument most of humanity is unaware of.

Major logic fail. You're assuming the conclusion in your premise.

Now I believe I have this intuitive knowledge and that I am holding on to it, because I chose to.

Well, at least you admit that you believe because it makes you feel good. I guess that some form of honesty. It's certainly not intellectual honesty.

Some of care too much whether our beliefs are true, or at least likely to be true. The best way to assure that, is by basing them on demonstrable evidence, reasoned argument & valid logic.

So while it is a choice, I don't believe it's a baseless one.

Sure it's baseless. Your basing your belief on a feeling, not evidence.

The best argument to falsify it, is the problem of evil/suffering. However, I've explained in a theodicy thread, why I don't think this disproves a benevolent Creator.

No, the best argument to falsify it is that there is no evidence and reasoned argument to support your intuition based belief.

I also feel aside from this, there is other arguments that either strengthen that their is a powerful creator or prove ultimate greatness exist. There is also other intuitions that strengthen belief in a Creator.[quote]

if you're referring to Kalam's Cosmological arguemtn, T.A.G. or the ontological argument, they all fail. They all contain at least one logical fallacy that invalidate them.

[quote]But I would say none of those are reasons, and I feel at the end, the strength of faith in God is really to rely on that properly basis knowledge of God and to be patient with it.

You haven't provided any knowledge of 'God'. All you've done is told us you have a 'feeling'. Your claim that you have intuitive knowledge that 'God' exists is meaningless.

[brock3394]

i belive in god,but not as religion describes,i take it jst as an ideology.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

i belive in god,but not as religion describes,i take it jst as an ideology.

I have no idea what you mean by that. Could expand,and if you feel like it, or perhaps give a rough outline of your reasoning. Some proof would be just dandy.

[genkaus]

There is exceptions to most moral imperatives if you state them. But the spirit behind morality, which is metaphysical, is universal in all moral imperatives. And that spirit is divine.

Also morals with the spirit of just acting to what is our own advantage is not the morality we know of.

Just out of curiosity, can you actually justify that there is a spirit behind morality and that it is divine?

[Ace Otana]

The teleological argument coupled with first cause argument if both valid just prove a Creator is extremely likely but tell us nothing of his qualities except his ability to create.

Actually, not everything may need a cause. Virtual particles pop in and out of existence seemingly without a cause. The fact that the universe was once smaller than a virtual particle suggests that it could of popped into existence without a cause. What's interesting is that it doesn't violate the known laws of nature, meaning it's very much possible. The fact that there was no before the big bang and so no time to create the universe in. Which rules out a need for a god.

So to me, it seems rather hard atheism (denial of God) or belief in God (gnostic type) is the best options.

Atheism isn't the denial of the existence of god, it's a rejection of the claim that a god or gods exist.
I don't deny god's existence, I reject the claim. I really don't believe. Lack of belief, not denial.

[Simon Moon]

The teleological argument coupled with first cause argument if both valid just prove a Creator is extremely likely but tell us nothing of his qualities except his ability to create.

Neither is valid.So they don't even get close to proving a creator is likely. The both fail miserably.

The first cause argument has a big fat equivocation fallacy (I'm surprised more people don't notice) that destroys the modus tolens of the argument. The fallacy doesn't disprove the conclusion, it only discredits the first cause argument as being a valid argument for it.

The teleological argument fails on several levels. Hume and Voltaire handled refuted it many years ago. The teleological argument is an argument from ignorance.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

I can't believe this is even a thread here.

Pathetic.

"I believe because I want to believe, despite all evidence against and my own total lack of supporting evidence" is all it amounts to. Which is the sum of all any theist has to support their bullsshit claims, anyway.

Might as well say, "I believe because I am incapable of thinking for myself ".

---

The teleological argument… the first cause argument blah blah...

Has no one pointed out to this throwback that arguments are not evidence ...?

[Simon Moon]

Why should a person follow the golden rule?

Ok, why should you give in to empathy as opposed to not caring and being selfish?

Because empathy, and it's practical application, the golden rule, is a built in survival mechanism.

[Mystic]

Intuition is horrible justification to believe something. People have intuitions constantly, they almost always fail to model reality.

We already discussed about intuitions. Some intuitions can be wrong and we have little trust in them, some can be very strong and be reliable, and some can be definite, like logical rules which are intuitive and reliable.

Think of all the ridiculous claims that people believe based on intuition instead of demonstrable evidence, reasoned argument and valid logic.

I agree people believe wrong things, but to be honest, I really don't know of wrong things people believe on intuition alone. Not every false belief is based on feeling of intuitive knowledge and it seems to me, not many are.

Their intuition is just as strong as yours.

How do you know how strong my intuition is here and how do you know how strong their intuition is about false things?

Major logic fail. You're assuming the conclusion in your premise.

It wasn't to prove either God exists or that I have intuitive knowledge of God, just to show if God exists, then being given intuitive knowledge of him is not illogical.

So to say intuitive knowledge of God is illogical, you would have to show God existing and wanting to be known to be illogical.

Well, at least you admit that you believe because it makes you feel good.

Where did I state I believe because it makes me feel good? That could be a factor to why I chose to hold on to belief in God, but it's definitely not the reason in itself. My free-will and judgement of what I know here is really the reason while it can be influenced by other factors, like me wanting to believe.

I can say you have this knowledge of God but don't want to believe in him because of psychological reasons as well. It can go both ways.

Some of care too much whether our beliefs are true, or at least likely to be true. The best way to assure that, is by basing them on demonstrable evidence, reasoned argument & valid logic.

That maybe be true of many things, but not everything, like belief in morality or what some of the moral instances are.

Sure it's baseless. Your basing your belief on a feeling, not evidence.

What if this knowledge is as strong as or stronger then, our knowledge in logic? Those are intuitive, and although you can test them out, most of humanity relies on the logical rules without any formal training in logic.

People whom do formal training in logic also do fallacies just as people whom don't. And both are capable of recognizing those fallacies even if one doesn't have a formal name for them.

You haven't provided any knowledge of 'God'. All you've done is told us you have a 'feeling'. Your claim that you have intuitive knowledge that 'God' exists is meaningless.

It maybe meaningless to you, maybe others will feel they have this knowledge inside them as well, maybe others will reinvestigate if they should not belief in God because of lack of a formal proof or formal evidence.

Any ways, I didn't state it to convince anyone, or prove anything, it was just to answer why I believe what I believe as far it seems to me.

---

Just out of curiosity, can you actually justify that there is a spirit behind morality and that it is divine?

I can justify to myself for sure, I feel I can justify to others, but some people will deny what they know of morality to avoid what it points to (A divine eternal basis).

I've done this before in other threads. Perhaps I will re-try again.

---

Because empathy, and it's practical application, the golden rule, is a built in survival mechanism.

So basically your intention in being good should be to survive? This is again making morality devoid of it's noble spirit which we can all see, and that spirit is of course metaphysical and divine. When you deny metaphysical and divine spirit, when you deny a soul, you end up with "being good should be done in the spirit of surviving and serving self-interest".