Why do christians believe in god?

[kilese]

I want to know how, in this modern world, people still worship a god. I don't know about anyone else, but I can't even try to believe it. I see no logic in it at all, to believe in a magical being that lives in the clouds. You can't possibly truly believe in it all. If you do, then humans are more clueless than i thought. Why worship someone who lets children starve everyday? If he has the power to stop it, and doesn't, then he is malevolent. But if he doesn't have the power, he is not a god. And if god created freewill and is omnipotent, then he would already know about all the horrible things in the world that would happen, and could have stopped it. And if he's omnipotent, whats the point of praying? Your prayers would have already been heard. And no one's prayers have been answered, so he is not worth worshiping, and therefore, is not a god. I'm not try to attack anyone, i just can't understand how anyone can believe all this.

[Goat]

(...)rather than falling into superstition (unreasonable/exaggerated belief in supernatural)(...)

Notions maintained despite evidence to the contrary constitute "superstition". Any "supernatural" belief you may hold is, to me, "unreasonable" and "exaggerated".

Well there is no evidence that I know of to outrule the supernatural completely. I've only found evidence that outrules certain claims of the supernatural so I can't draw the conclusion that supernatural equals superstition. From that, I also would only say some claims of the supernatural are just exaggerated but some are supported with evidence (although not scientific verifiable evidence).

In my view, what is more important, is that there is no objective evidence to support the supernatural. You said the evidence is 'not scientific verifiable evidence', and that is significant. That implies that the evidence is very likely to be confirmation bias, imagination, or a misunderstanding.

[JoeyKnothead]

In my view, what is more important, is that there is no objective evidence to support the supernatural. You said the evidence is 'not scientific verifiable evidence', and that is significant. That implies that the evidence is very likely to be confirmation bias, imagination, or a misunderstanding.

Ditto. Explaining events with the supernatural is pretty much by definition beyond confirmation.

If the 'supernatural' is merely a placeholder, that's one thing. The problem seems to me to be when that placeholder suddenly takes on further properties we have no means of testing.

[Flail]

Angel wrote:

There is a lack of "scientifically verifiable" evidence. I don't know how you can completely rule out something when you have no proof...

I don't know how you can completely 'rule in' something when you have no proof.

[Flail]

Skyangel wrote:

Reality makes Truthful claims factual. The Spirit of Truth is evidenced in the Truth. The Spirit of deception is evidenced in deception.

What distinguishes the god of the bible from gods of mythology?
Skyangel wrote:

Reality.

Upon what verifable evidence do you claim the truth of this observation? [/quote]
Skyangel wrote:

Reality.

Upon what basis do you separate 'fact from fiction'?[/quote]
Skyangel wrote:

Reality.

Again, how do you discern reality?...do you use evidence or religious promotional material?

[kayky]

I think there are a lot of preconceptions about what a person means when he or she claims a belief in God. A lot of these preconceptions are derived from half-remembered Sunday school lessons. But I think people continue to believe in God because they continue to encounter the "God experience."

[Skyangel]

An agreed upon usage of what a word represents is imperative to a full comprehension of a shared communication.

What then do you perceive as the generally "agreed upon usage" of the word "God" ? Is there even such an "agreed upon usage" of the word in this world?

Personally, I recognise "Truth" as What Is. Regardless of what description is applied to What Is, it remains What Is.

So for any "writings of men", fiction can as easily represent "Truth" by describing What Is within a fictional setting. For instance ...

"A process cannot be understood by stopping it. Understanding must move with the flow of the process, must join it and flow with it.
-First Law of Mentat"

Dune, Frank Herbert.

... which is a description of "Truth" applied within the fictional setting of the novel.

When people "go with the flow" of a fictional truth and get carried away with it, they end up drowning in the current and being unable to tell the difference between real truth and fiction.

If feelings (sensory perception) alone were a recognition of being "in a body", then a paraplegic would not be recognised as being "in a body".

The fact that you have control of a physical body and can recognise the interactions that it has with the environment that surrounds it, in no way determines that you are "inside a body". All it shows is that the sensory perceptions of the physical body are working to give you data about your surrounding environment.

Any paraplegic is still aware of being in a body even if the body has no sensory perceptions. Their self awareness tells them they are inside the body. Any conscious self aware person understands they are in a body.

The breathing of the physical body simply shows that it is functioning in a manner to continue experiencing life. In no way does the physical body's functioning count as verifiable evidence that the essence that you are is "in" your "body".

Can you point out a place within the physical body in which the essence of who you are resides ?

Has verifiable evidence ever been presented that this is the physical receptacle for the essence of who you are ?

The fact that a body is functioning proves there is life in the body. Life is the essence of the Spirit of Life. It is what it is. I am what I am. I am in Life and Life is in me. The Spirit of Life is all through the body not in any one section of the body alone in the way you are suggesting.
My body is its own visible and verifiable evidence that it is indeed a body. If I, the Spirit of Life, was not in it the body would be dead.

Your choice to perceive 'God' as mankind is not in question. You are entitled to make this your belief if you so choose to.

For verifiable evidence that you are indeed made in the image of 'God', you would require to show that 'God' has a human physical body. Do you have such evidence ?

Is there a photo of 'God' that you or anyone else has taken that can be offered as evidence ?

Or is there video footage of this apparently human appearing 'God' ?

Since you do not question my perception of God, the verifiable evidence that God has a human physical body is in any photos you can take of the human race and if you don't accept the photo of the human race then try a video or try looking at them in reality as they walk and talk all around you. The human race ( God ) is a body of people. Open your eyes and you will see many of them all over the world.

Yet this in no way answers the question of how an apparent physical 'God' can be represented within two different forms. If 'God' is a male, then 'God' made man in his image. If 'God' is female, the 'God' made woman in her image.

God can be present in many forms not just two. God is the Spirit of Life and Life is present in animals and plants as well as in human beings. Do you define Life itself as male or female?
The idea of God being a male Spirit is nonsense in my opinion.

The word man in the bible refers to mankind plural which includes male and female . It does not refer to just one man. Read Genesis 1: 26-27 and notice the plural words, us, our, them.

If "God is a Spirit", then how could the physicality, whether male or female, be made in his image ?

God is the Spirit of Life which can exist in any body regardless of what body it chooses to manifest itself in. The physical body is merely a way for the Spirit of Life to manifest itself so people can see Life inside the bodies of people, inside the bodies of animals, inside the bodies of plants. God is in ALL.

Common sense and logic show the bible to be a work of fiction which contains many contradictions within the narrative of the plot,
..........................................
Hence, why I asked for verification that would make your claim truthful. So far you have yet to provide verification.

Truth needs no evidence to verify it is Truthful any more than you need evidence to verify you are what you are. Truth is its own evidence just as you are your own evidence. It is what it is regardless of whether people see it as Truth or truthful or not. Obviously many people cannot tell what is Truth even when the Truth is standing directly in front of them as in the case of Jesus standing in front of the people who called Him a liar. Very few can recognize or understand truth. It is what it is and people have a choice to believe it or not.

You had previously used the word "more" ...

"It is far more than just a fictional book like The Lord of the Rings.

... to which I was questioning you about it. Considering both were written by men, for the bible to "far more than just a fictional book like The Lord of the Rings", then the writers of the bible would by necessity have to be "more" in some manner.

As it is your assertion, then it is your requirement to provide your reasoning for your claim.

I am comparing metaphoric writings to fictional writings when I say the bible is more than a fictional book. I am not comparing authors. The authors are irrelevant.
I am saying that writings which have metaphoric meanings have far more depth than a mere fiction which people read just for the entertainment value of its outward appearances.
Metaphoric writings have more than one meaning and can be interpreted in many ways.
You can judge for yourself if metaphoric writings have more depth and more meaning than fiction or not. If they don't in your opinion then no one will ever convince you they do.

[Skyangel]

Again, how do you discern reality?...do you use evidence or religious promotional material?

I consider substance and evidence to be reality.

[Skyangel]

I think there are a lot of preconceptions about what a person means when he or she claims a belief in God. A lot of these preconceptions are derived from half-remembered Sunday school lessons. But I think people continue to believe in God because they continue to encounter the "God experience."

What is your perception of "God" or a " God experience" and why do you perceive it the way you do ?

[elieju]

I think there are a lot of preconceptions about what a person means when he or she claims a belief in God. A lot of these preconceptions are derived from half-remembered Sunday school lessons. But I think people continue to believe in God because they continue to encounter the "God experience."

What is your perception of "God" or a " God experience" and why do you perceive it the way you do ?

[Flail]

Again, how do you discern reality?...do you use evidence or religious promotional material?

Skyangel wrote:
I consider substance and evidence to be reality.

...and what do you consider as the 'reality' (substance and evidence) for your version of a god?