List of reasons to believe God exists?

[Mystic]

@Wallym

I would say I appreciate your honest stance, but my honest view is, I don't believe you are honest about it. I believe honesty to oneself leads to God and sees his light evidently manifest and connected.

What the light and mystic link is ofcourse is a real living being, a human, and precisely the leader of time, and this age, who is the 12th Successor of Mohammad.

He is with you calling you to God no matter how much you put him on ignore.

I can't force you to believe in morality or sacred language of love, but, it won't make God's proof go away neither the mystic link, all I can do is remind you and tell you not to lie to yourself about this issue which is by definition the most essential issue a human can face.

To deny who you are just to deny God, that is one next level of dishonesty.

---

We don't just want there to be morality, accountability and intrinsic value, we know these things exist.  If you come to the table denying all these things because they are not physical, well first prove five senses measures reality, I am 100% sure you cannot. Because even if material things exist without spiritual nature, it would not be defined by five senses and the way they exist would be beyond it. It's not touching that defines essence, neither vision, etc, something else defines it.

But we see ourselves exist, and that is our best bet of what reality is, and it's spiritual. We also have a perpetual identity and it's not simply our want of that to be the case, but is the case that it is something we perceive to be.

I understand where you're coming from here (maybe), that our senses only provide a limited... at best... window on the true nature of reality, and that they do not speak at all to the nature of what it is to actually be... to experience consciousness and qualia. That may well be true; that science can never address the 'hard questions' of consciousness... the nature of qualia and experience itself... but what it can and does address, is the correlation between the physical world and the mental world; it cannot explain why or how we see colours as we do for instance, but it (neuroscience... ie from the perspective of this, scientific study of the external world, as it relates to the brain, through our senses and expanded through the instruments of science) does undeniably show a correlation between what is 'out there' (external, physical world as perceived by the senses)' and what is 'in here' (experience/perception itself); the nature of experience itself can be reliably and predictably influenced by neuroscientific intervention on the brain itself; either through brain surgery or drugs... such as painkillers... that effect the physical brain.

So from my perspective, any theory of mind, religious or otherwise, that sees the mind as completely separate from the physical... or call it 'external'... world (ie that which is perceived as 'out there', whether it comes from the perspective of materialism or idealism, has to explain this ever-increasing correlation between physical brain (external... out there) and mental experience (in here), as studied by the scientific field of neuroscience.

If you let Cx stand for 'conscious experience x' and Px stand for corresponding physical brain state x, then neuroscience is in the business of studying C1 = P1, C2 = P2, C3 = P3, Cn = Pn to ever-increasing levels of detail, mapping the mind. It can never address the actual experiential character of any given C... that will forever be a question for philosophy and speculation... but it nonetheless maps the mind and its mechanisms from the outside as it were, correlated with internal experiences, in ever-increasing levels of detail and with greater and greater predictive accuracy. So though it never touches on the whys and hows of how conscious qualia itself is actually produced/generated, it doesn't need to in order to be a productive and useful science about the nature and mechanisms of the mind, as it evidently is.

So for me in order for a religious theory to have any weight with me, it has to address and/or account for the findings of psychology and neuroscience, rather than ignore them.

One way to look at is, is to say "humans throughout times are justified to believe they have intrinsic value"

So this would be before neuroscience and psychology. 

It is possible in purely naturalism perspective, that free-will is an illusion, intrinsic value is an illusion, perpetual identity is an illusion, praise is an illusion.

The next premise, if we are justified through out time we are, then we must know the cause of morality. That is if we don't know the cause and source, and don't know what is, and don't what makes the essence of value and rights and all love appreciates and praises, then, we aren't justified in belief in it.

So that means we know what is, the question is, whether we are honest about it or not.