Why Mikel believes in God
73I believe we are SPIRITUAL BEINGS, having a human experience
My Belief in God:
"Logic takes me to where the proof ends, Faith takes me home"
I believe in God because there is no Proof that God doesn't exist.
The belief that God exists gives me comfort.
The feelings and personal experiences I have had, the bread crumbs that I followed on my path, though not scientific proof, are proof to me that God exists.
My Logic...
1) Proving there is no proof, of the existence of God, does not disprove the existence of God.
2) If there are more than one forms of life and they are not identical, then one must be the lesser.
3) If there is a lowest form of life, then there has to be a highest form of life. Humanity has come to call that form of life God.
4) The only way it is possible for there to NOT be a Supreme Being, is for there to not be ANY beings. Therefore if WE exist, so does the Supreme Being.
Concrete physical proof does not yet exist but this logical reasoning is rational and it points me in the direction of belief...
Law Enforcement uses circumstantial evidence and profiling to determine the truth in cases where there is no concrete evidence. They use witness statements and the testimony of experts from related fields. They assemble bread crumbs that on their own are not enough to prove their case, but point them in the right direction.
I too use the systems of deduction, circumstantial evidence, intuition, and the trail of bread crumbs... they have led me to the place where a belief in God makes sense, though it is I must admit, a belief beyond the limits of mere logic.
The real logical debate is can something exist that cannot be proven to exist.
The absolutely overwhelming answer is yes it can. Proof does not bring something into existence. Many things exist that we cannot prove exist. DNA existed millions of years ago, long before humanity could prove it.
Proving or disproving an unprovable entity exists, is not possible... yet. The only fallacy involved in believing in an unprovable concept is requiring proof in order to believe. If proof is required in order to believe, show me the proof that God doesn't exist.
Believing that God exists is not the same thing as believing that Christianity, or the Jews and Muslims for that matter, are correct about God and what God is.
I cite Evolution as proof/evidence that a Creator (God) used Intelligent Design(DNA) to create life, life and life forms that get better over time.
I have scientifically proven the existence of the supreme being, and that proof is valid so long as we exist. The link to that proof is here: http://mikelgroberts.hubpages.com/hub/I-Can-Prove-God-Exists
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 | Amazon Price: $0.01 List Price: $24.99 |
 | Amazon Price: $0.01 List Price: $166.99 |
 | Amazon Price: $11.95 List Price: $24.00 |
Is Believing in God and Magic...Delusional?
Many that doubt the existence of God, and of magic, want to portray those that believe to be mentally unstable, or at least delusional.
For something to be delusional it has to be proven impossible. There is no proof that God the magical and omnipotent entity does not exist. Therefore a belief in this God is not delusional, it is merely unproven.
There is no proof that magic can/does-not exist somewhere, nor that it won't be possible for humans to control and use magic eventually. The facts for now say we don't have the ability, that does not mean that one day we won't, nor does that mean that right now some other entity doesn't have the ability.
My Feelings...My Faith
The gentle peace that comes over me when I know God is near. The miracles I see, and the absence of fear.
The memories of places these old eyes have seen. Of the feel of the people and the taste of Ice cream.
The knowledge God gives me that is kept in my heart. Of the love that God bears for me and did from the start.
I know that God never has been far from my side. God smiles at me kindly with a strange kind of pride.
One I know I don't merit, 'cause I've only been just me. But that's what God intended, that I should be.
Logic has lead me to this place, and now I find. It is a place of great thinking, and a part of my mind.
God loves you as greatly as I'm sure you're aware, There is only one God, but hey, I can share.
Existing, Living, without God...
What is the best life one can attain, if there is no God, and nothing after this human life? To work really hard and try to get lots of shiny stuff? To be able to make people do what we want and what we say, even if they dislike the things we tell them to do? To...what have the power to make lots of people have sex with us...even or maybe especially if they don't want to? Then to die and cease to exist? Is life really just about getting that shiny new sports car, and having men and/or women jealous of all that we have? With out God and without the belief of an Immortal soul, what is the best we could hope to become? To me, an existence without God becomes an existence of a creature looking for shiny-stuff... OOooo Shiny...
The greatest things I have experienced in my life, have all come from God. My life would be hollow, empty, joyless with out the companion I have come to know and love. The greatest thing without any doubt is the comfort that comes with the knowledge, that there is more to existence than just the shiny stuff. Truly I have NO doubt, God is here and God loves us, God knows us. My feelings tell me God exists, and I believe, because I Love...
I also believe because people smarter than me...believe
-My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit which reveals itself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.
-Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe -a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.
-The scientists’ religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.
~Albert Einstein~
CommentsLoading...
These are beautiful words expressed from your heart! Truly God exists and His presence is felt by those who love Him. And you love Him, don't you? May I ask...do you know His Son? Be blessed!
A literally fantastic hub of beauty and Truth. Thanks for your heartfelt sharing of it all!
Hi again Mikel...
Believing something on the basis of 'no proof to the contrary' is hardly a rational argument as you yourself acknowledge. If it were then it would be rational to believe in fairies, goblins and all manner of whacky claims.
You asked me to read this hub which you claim has just as much "rational and logical thinking as an atheist may use".... yet I can find no such reasoning. You admit that for you "god is beyond logic"...? All you have offered is personal testimony [which is not evidence to anyone but you] and a conviction that God must exist because you seem to want/need him to.
Fine, I've got no problem with you personally believing in god...that's your business, but you did try to claim that the position of the atheist was based on the same sort of faith-based reasoning a theist may use and I do take issue with THAT!
Believing in God because you conclude life will be more meaningful does not make it true.. . Wishful thinking is not rational argument. Nor is believing something because "someone smarter than you believes it".
"Believing something on the basis of 'no proof to the contrary' is hardly a rational argument as you yourself acknowledge..."
Then please, provide me with your proof that God does not exist. Your concrete evidence, irrefutable and soo obviously true that no one could ever doubt it. Or admit that what I believe is entirely possible.
My lack of evidence is easily proved incorrect by your evidence... and I will believe what you believe as soon as you can present it...do you have any?
Mikel...I have no concrete evidence that God doesn't exist, just as I have no concrete evidence that unicorns don't exist, however I think you'd have to agree that not being able to prove that they don't exist does not lend weight to the idea that they do. The same logic works for the God hypothesis.
Speaking for myself,I do allow for the possibility of God's existence... after all I am not privy to the secrets of the universe...but I call myself an atheist because I'm unable to believe in something that I have no knowledge or conception of and for which there is no discernible evidence.
You claim you have NO doubt God exists...yet how do you know he does? "My feelings tell me" is your answer. Well and good...as I said, that's up to you, but it is NOT a rational argument for the existence of God. It is an emotional one.
Not believing in the existence of God because there is no evidence to support the claim is a rational position to take and to claim this position is somehow "faith-based" or religious in nature is simply not accurate.
Jane,
Not believing in the NON-existence of God because there is no evidence to support the claim is a rational position to take and to claim this position is somehow "faith-based", religious, or soley-emotional in nature is simply not accurate.
As I have said, show me your proof, and I will believe you.
Speaking for myself, I do allow for the possibility of God's NON-existence... after all I am not privy to the secrets of the universe...but I call myself a BELIEVER because I'm unable to believe that a mere lack of evidence is evidence. Your stance I cannot believe in since your stance requires the belief that a lack of evidence proves something does not exist. What about DNA 1500 years ago, we could not prove it existed, yet it did and does. No discernible evidence, proves nothing it merely means we have no proof.
Your lack of evidence, by your own standard of belief proves that the NON-existence of God is not possible which is not rational thinking it is emotional reasoning, exactly what you're saying I do.
Without empirical evidence, either decision is based in faith, and emotional proof... and as such, either stance MAY be the correct one.
Jane, you say you cannot believe without proof, neither can I...
Got Proof?
Okay....but I don't see how you can claim my "standard of belief proves the non-existence of God is not possible".. eh...? Because we don't know whether god exists or not [despite what some people claim] I am allowing for the possibility that he does exist but then rationality demands that I must also allow for the possibility that he doesn't.In the absence of evidence my default position is skepticism.
I have never said that a lack of evidence proves something does not exist...in fact I clearly said I have no proof of God's non-existence. What I did say is that I'm not required to provide proof of non-existence in order to present a rational argument for a disbelief in something.... it is of course, impossible to prove the non-existence of something.Is not believing in Santa Claus an emotional decision...?
It's true that 1500 years ago I would not have believed in in DNA..or even conceived of it...if I'd been born back then I probably would have believed I was created out of Adam's rib in the garden of Eden I think this rather proves my case than yours...ie;believing in things without evidence leads to false assumptions.
Now there is evidence for iDNA and I do believe it.
Have you personally proved that DNA exists? Or did you decide that people that are smarter than you that have proven DNA exists are trust worthy people and therefore what they say is true is true? I mean after all they have been published in scientific books and stuff... all those smart scientists wouldn't say it is true unless it was...
they said the world was flat once upon a time too.
...I rest my case.
Mikel..a scientific theory is always subject to refutation .That's how science works...it's a process of self-correction; so while a scientific theory may be disproved or superceded science itself is always moving forward.
No I haven't personally proved that DNA exists..sheesh.. If you are implying that I take this information on faith then yes I do ...but it's not BLIND faith. Its based on the knowledge that a scientific theory only gains acceptance after extensive testing, experiment and observation and after a scientific consensus has been reached by experts working in the field.
The information is out there and if I were willing to expend the time and effort I could examine the research myself...but I don't have to . I already know the scientific process works. It's the reason we're typing on these computers and not sending smoke signals...
Mikel...just wanted to add that I've been thinking about this and I will say that no human decision is perfectly rational...if it were we would be machines. All human thinking is intertwined with emotion so I will admit that my decision to be an atheist is partly formed by emotion.
Jane says; "No I haven't personally proved that DNA exists..sheesh.. If you are implying that I take this information on faith then yes I do ...but it's not BLIND faith."
Faithful assumptions are just that, whether you call it blind faith or not, it is still believing what someone else tells you...not something you have proof of. After reading all the hubs I have written on my beliefs are you still saying that my belief in God is based on BLIND faith?
Because it isn't. The same information that you are using to claim God does not exist, to me proves God does...and either of us could be correct.
The bottom line is we will just have to agree to disagree. Until someone finds proof.
You're very correct about the effect that emotions have, they are the most powerful influences we as human beings experience.
Proof is available...the scientific theory for DNA is testable.
Your belief in God is not, therefore you must accept it on blind faith.
And again, DNA existed BEFORE we could prove it...
God cannot be proven YET...
Did DNA exist before we could prove it?
Your belief in God's NON-existence cannot be proven, does that mean God DOES exist?
Mikel,
Hate to spoil the fun of this discussion with Jane. But if I may just jump in here, the difference between DNA and God is that one idea is testable and the other is not. There might or might not be a god, as you know, but the reason we can't know the answer is because the idea of god is not testable.
Now, I know you will say "in the middle ages, the idea of DNA was untestable, too." That's technically true.
But here's the thing: assuming we are talking about the level of technological advancement and not the intellectual capacity of people, then we can say that if Medieval people had had the intellectual capacity we have today (and therefore understood ideas like empirical evidence, objective truth, testable hypotheses and the scientific method), then they, in fact, would have been able to imagine a scenario where DNA would be testable--even though, technologically, they would have been incapable of testing it.
By contrast, it is the VERY DEFINITION OF GOD as a supernatural entity that renders it untestable no matter how much knowledge or technology humans can ever attain. God is defined as a creature not of this world. But humans can only know anything insofar as it exists in this world. This is an epistemological issue, not a technological one, as your medieval DNA example would be.
Technically true, and true are technically, the same thing...
The fact your glossing over is, just because something is NOW testable does not mean that it always was. DNA is a good example of this and is why I chose DNA as my example. Just because it isn't testable NOW does not make it untestable forever, DNA was not testable in the medieval time frame, it now is.
God, is not scientifically provable NOW, that does not mean one day we won't be able to scientifically prove the existence or NON-existence of God. Just like once upon a time we could not prove DNA, but NOW we can.
The very definition of God is something under debate and is not set in concrete by any means. As evidence I present the hundreds of variations of believers, from Hindu, Jews, and Muslims to the many forms of Christianity. The vast diversity shows just how much disagreance there is in the definition of God and what God stands for.
If Medieval people had been as advanced as we are now they would have known what we know now... Which changes nothing in this discussion. The facts are they knew what they knew, and we have progressed further than they. The point being; we now know something existed that could not be proven then, but has been proven now. God cannot be proven YET, but that does not DIS-prove God.
Epistemologically, knowing THAT God exists is what believers do. Atheists want to know HOW before they will commit to admitting THAT God exists. I believe that is the foundational difference between the mindsets. Most Atheists are willing to take it on Faith, so long as they respect the source. As proof I offer the mindset that so long as it is published in scientific journals, it must be true. Even when I present proof that things published in scientific journals and commonly accepted by the scientific community are sometimes incorrect, like the world being flat, or Newton's third law. Believers(Atheists) in the infalliability of science will say instantly that unless it is written in the 'Holy Books' it must be untrue, just like believers(non-Atheists) that quote the Bibles. "If it were true it would be in there."
Being untestable, does not make anything non-existent, it just makes it untestable.
“Technically true, and true are technically, the same thing...”
Haha, ok, in that case, it’s not true.
“The very definition of God is something under debate and is not set in concrete by any means.”
Ok, now we’re down to definitions. Just so I know what we’re discussing, do you believe that god is a creature of this world, or not of this world?
If god is a creature of this world, this disagrees with most definitions of “god” I can think of. If god is not a creature of this world, then my point remains about epistemology. Specifically: (1) god is not of this world, (2) science deals only with this world, (3) therefore science will never be able to prove/ disprove god, no matter how advanced science ever becomes. The nature of science, and the nature of god belie it.
“Being untestable, does not make anything non-existent, it just makes it untestable.”
Absolutely true. And the default position is not accepting the existence of anything that has not been proven. And the only way to prove something is through testing.
Nothing is true solely “because it is published in scientific journals.” Anyone who understands how science works knows that science is fallible. Anyone who believes science is infallible is a fool. Replace “science” with “holy book of your choice” and the same sentence applies (as I know you agree).
The difference? Science never claimed to be infallible, but EVERY single holy book does.
http://hubpages.com/hub/I-want-to-tell-you-what-I-
http://hubpages.com/hub/Benign-Neutrality-the-Reli
The default position is not the negative, it is the position best supported by the circumstantial and subjective evidence presented. The best guess.
To deny that DNA exists based soley on a lack of empirical evidence means that the search for the possible, dies before it begins.
treasuresyw 2 years ago
And it is according to your own faith. Peace