The reasons for your beliefs in God?

[TrueBoi]

Hello everyone.

I a year 9 pupil currently involved in a RS project. I just want to ask any theists: Could you explain the reasons for your belief in God?

It would be fabulous if the points were explained

[Cross_+_Flame]

Hello TrueBoi,

I can only speak in my tradition of Christianity. I'm not too sure I can answer in 9th grade English, but here goes (And remember not to plagiarize...write it out in your own words. This post is prolierated enough that any teacher worth her salt can find it via a Google search).

[/mothering] :P

There are two kinds of worldviews: religious and non-religious (If one can be so arrogant to label them that way).

The Religious Worldview states that in addition to the visible world of experience and as examined by science, there is a "more" (a term coined by William James) or a non-material layer or level of reality that cannot be empirically examined.

The non-Religious Worldview states that there is no "More". There is only "this": the world existing in space-time that consists of matter, energy, and whatever natural forces are behind or beyond it.

Most sharply in the past 3 centuries post-enlightenment, these two worldviews have collided so much that the central issue of religion and society is the reality of the "More" - called God, Allah, Tao, etc. For those of the non-religious worldview, then there is no place for a "More": thus, accepting anything outside of "this" is problematic, and ultimately, rejecting any reality of any force outside of "this".

For those of the religious worldview, it requires one to seriously consider how to change one's perception of the "More" to fit in with the advance of knowledge. This is the central problem, as I see it, of interfaith and ecumenical dialogue: how do you assert a "More" when all one can experience is "this"?

One answer (to me) is this: history and human experience gives inklings (not scientifically proven, of course) that there is a "More" that one CAN experience in "this". To me, there are three kinds of data that suggest, not prove (since that is impossible), that there is a "More".

• The World's Religions provide a collective witness and history to the existance of something outside of their concept of reality. Yes, most of them are re-modern and thus their concepts of the world are incomplete. However, they were making their assertations based on what they DID know, not what they didn't know, and their collective and dominant assertations point to a "More".
• The uncorrelated Religious Experiences of those in the dramatic forms of mystical, shamanic, and visionary experiences. Religious Experience is confounding to me because it could so easily be ascribed to psychology and social influences. But the sheer number and persistance of unrelated experiences is highly suggestive to me that there is something "More" to the human experience of "this" than we can collectively experience and understand.
• Finally, postmodern science (especially physics) I am told points to forces outside space and time that are fundamental to the way the universe works. For reference, see Huston Smith's Why Religion Matters. If the fundamental forces of the world are outside of space/time, then there is something "More" to "this".

In short, I believe there is a "More" to "this" world that will never be empirically proven, never be critically examined, and the boundaries of "this" can never be stretched to include it.

And I call this "More": God.

Hope that helps

source: M.J.Borg The Heart of Christianity, pp.62-65

[TrueBoi]

Thank you very much for your reasons
I also like to ask do you you support any of the following arguments for the existence of God?

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT-Argument based on cause and effect.

TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT-Argument based on design

MORAL ARGUMENT- Argument based upon the empirical observation of humans themselves.

ARGUMENT FROM EXPERIENCE- religious experiecnces.

If you support argument please feel free to add them in.

Also, would you mind if i chose you as my interviewee?
It be great if i got your name as well but you dnt have to

[I, Brian]

Personal experience as another factor. The list above is of rationalisations of belief, rather than an explanation of the reason for the belief in the first place.

The simple truth is that many of us go through experiences that can seem extreme in a spiritual sense. Divine communion, visions of Holy things, extreme synchronity, revelation and insight...all of it different and personal, and all of it leading people towards different paths.

[TrueBoi]

Thanks I, Brian.

could you explain this part from the previous post. '...they were making their assertations based on what they DID know, not what they didn't know, and their collective and dominant assertations point to a "More".

What did they know? Was it the fact God existed?

[Charles DaCosta]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Personal experience as another factor. The list above is of rationalisations of belief, rather than an explanation of the reason for the belief in the first place.

The simple truth is that many of us go through experiences that can seem extreme in a spiritual sense. Divine communion, visions of Holy things, extreme synchronity, revelation and insight...all of it different and personal, and all of it leading people towards different paths.

I would add, different views too. E.g., give a rose to your mother, girl friend, male friend, father, and a stranger. Ask them what does it mean -- you giving them a rose.

[TrueBoi]

could ANYONE explain this part from the previous previous.... post. '...they were making their assertations based on what they DID know, not what they didn't know, and their collective and dominant assertations point to a "More".


was it the fact God existed?????????????

[dauer]

Tb,

I think he was talking about older religions, if you look at what they wrote immediately before that, and how those religions recognized there was a "More" based on their experiences of the world but the language they used to convey this is sometimes contrary to science because their understanding of the physical world was not as developed as ours, but that this does not deny their experiences of a "More"

I could be wrong about what C+F intended to say.

Dauer

[Cross_+_Flame]

Sorry to be absent a few days; been quite a week with finals.

My three points can be classified as such:

1. Argument from Experience
2. Argument from Experience
3. Cosmological Argument *OR* Teleological Argument (whichever is closer to cosmology)

they were making their assertations based on what they DID know, not what they didn't know, and their collective and dominant assertations point to a "More"

Essentially what Dauer said; the religious tradition sometimes explained a phenomena as "More" when we today would call it "this" (ie. 'persons possessed with demons' would now be called possibly 'schizophrenic'). However, the sheer reason that they ascribed it to something outside themselves, and some things are still unverifiable, either point to an innate human tendency to externalize unbelieveable things...or to the existance of a "More." I tend to balance the two.

[Charles DaCosta]

Originally Posted by TrueBoi

Thanks I, Brian.

could you explain this part from the previous post. '...they were making their assertations based on what they DID know, not what they didn't know, and their collective and dominant assertations point to a "More".

What did they know? Was it the fact God existed?

They believed God existed because their collective and dominant assertations point to a "More" (there had to be something else, something like us -- creater, perserver, and destroyer -- but greater, that we can not see, hear, ... etc.).

I am guessing that this is what the other meant.

[TrueBoi]

Thanks a lot everybody

lets hope i get a good mark