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

[Mystic]

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.

[Forsaken]

Agree with you, with the exception of those lines where you mention "prove". No arguments till now have provided any proof of a ultimate great power, however, some arguments do reinforce the possibility of a deistic god. There is a vast difference between "proof" and reinforcement of an argument.

[Faith No More]

The problem I see in this whole issue is that this 'intuitive knowledge,' as you call it, is indiscernable from what could just be a human desire to know that god exists or a psychological illusion. Intuition is not a very good basis for knowledge.

[Panglossian]

You claim to have intuitive knowledge, yet without the teachings of others you would be totally ignorant of the concept of a creator. No knowledge can originate within oneself.

[Mystic]

Agree with you, with the exception of those lines where you mention "prove". No arguments till now have provided any proof of a ultimate great power, however, some arguments do reinforce the possibility of a deistic god. There is a vast difference between "proof" and reinforcement of an argument.

Yeah actually they don't prove, they strengthen the possibility of God or a creator. Because at the end, these premises can be argued for and denied.

One of the intuitions (not arguments or proofs) is:

independent existence seems to need to be extremely powerful life force rather then a minimum existence like a quark or minuscule electron/wave.

This intuitive but not an absolute proof, it just feels like this is so.

Morality/Greatness/Beauty having eternal basis is perhaps a mystic intuition and with analysis relies on the intuition that we believe there is absoluteness to these things, but at the end, can be denied.

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.

[Forsaken]

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.

Again, its not a proof, just a possibility.

[Brian37]

I think it comes down to an intuition

Most humans do not have the understanding of their own psychology in that perceptions in human evolution are notoriously flawed. Feeling something is real doesn't count.

Newton for a long time had an "intuition" about Alchemy. While he got other things right he was dead wrong about his pet idea of alchemy.

[Mystic]

The problem I see in this whole issue is that this 'intuitive knowledge,' as you call it, is indiscernable from what could just be a human desire to know that god exists or a psychological illusion. Intuition is not a very good basis for knowledge.

I think this can be true of many things, but when it comes to belief in morality, at the end, it has to be intuitive knowledge as the basis.

---

You claim to have intuitive knowledge, yet without the teachings of others you would be totally ignorant of the concept of a creator. No knowledge can originate within oneself.

What about logic?

---

I think it comes down to an intuition

Most humans do not have the understanding of their own psychology in that perceptions in human evolution are notoriously flawed. Feeling something is real doesn't count.

Newton for a long time had an "intuition" about Alchemy. While he got other things right he was dead wrong about his pet idea of alchemy.

Yeah I thought about how can we just have intuitive knowledge of God when intuitive feeling is often wrong. But let's think about it. Assume a Creator exists.

Then he would be original reality. Originality reality would be what defined existence.

Existence after it not knowing nothing about reality and having no link to that reality, seems more illogical.

Also assume he is the eternal basis of morality and logic and greatness and beauty. If this is so, why wouldn't we have intuitive knowledge that he is the eternal basis of these things?

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

I don't see an agnostic weak atheism as really logical, because, we expect to have some knowledge of God if he exists.

---

Again, its not a proof, just a possibility.

Well, not a proof, but also just not a possibility, but "likelihood".

---

I also feel when people become disillusioned with religion, they have mixed their original intuitive knowledge of God, with that of the religion's portrayal of God. So when they lose one they lose the other.

It's because that God was distorted and when you become disillusioned with religion, you wonder what did you believe in and for what, and why did you believe in such horrible concept and took as absolute greatness?

But if you look at people with this horrible concept, they always emphasize on benevolent side.

Christians will never say "God is so great that he is going to punish all those whom don't believe in Jesus!". They say "God is so great he will save all those whom believe in Jesus!".

You see, no one ever believed in the ugly side to be great. Which is why they all together want to ignore it.

When I was Muslim, to me, I would always cling to names "The Compassionate, the Loving, the Merciful, the Kind, the Graceful...".

It's only after I realized that the Islamic God was in fact very much opposite to those names.

But people Worship in reality deep inside the Perfect God even while their religion distorts him.

This is what I realized about myself.

[Welsh cake]

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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07So_lJQyqw

That's not good enough. Intuitions can often be wrong. Rarely do they get upgraded to knowledge, most of the time, they're downgraded to misjudgements, but at the end of the day, they were always merely intuitions, not much different from assumptions, or personal opinion.

To the best of our knowledge, there's no such thing as a god. Its a non-answer to observable phenomena. It has no positive clear ontology. The label is altogether meaningless.

[Mystic]

That's not good enough. Intuitions can often be wrong.

What would be good enough in your view?

Suppose God did miracles in the sky like writing I exist. How would we know he is Good or Great or Benevolent? Just because he tells us, he could be lying.

Or would God not give us knowledge of himself but put in some philosophical proof?

Or would he make it in science so that only those of the generation of scientists discovering why there must be a creator can know of him?

Yes some intuitions can be wrong, but it doesn't mean we cannot know anything intuitively.

Even if this was a unique case, it doesn't disprove it, because knowledge of God can be a different kind than other intuitions we have.