Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 102 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
159 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
if u believe in god, how did you rationalize the concept and existence of this higher power that created everything out of nothing?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,077 Posts
My answer...

I'm not religious though this is interpreting the term as someone that clings to institutions and rules to determine how things should go. This may or may not have been what you meant.

In terms of spirituality, I do believe in God of the Christian faith based on the Bible. I'm not sure how rational of a choice it is though I do like the idea of there being a good higher power which is what I see God as being. There is a balance to this in terms of there being demons and other evil forces but I do like the idea of this duality within existence. I can also understand a view of Mother Nature or Lady Luck as being interpretations of God, though I'm not sure if that is blasphemous or not. While I like structure and order, I don't think that overrides my faith. Another take on my view is that I, "trust in the invisible to live the impossible." If this doesn't answer the question, I'm tempted to think the question may be founded upon faulty logic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,652 Posts
I am not religious in the sense of abiding by the rules of a particular faith-based organization nor do I adhere to a particular dogma.

I do believe in the existence of something larger than myself that I cannot quantify. I have yet to decide the nature of this something, its involvement in the world around me, or it's level of sentience. Perhaps it is nothing more than a feeble attempt to comfort myself when faced with circumstances and coincidences I don't immediately understand.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,329 Posts
I was so tempted to post, "I was intrigued by the oxymoron in the title :laughing:," until I started reading the comments. Now, I'm intrigued by something else entirely.

I'd really like jbking to extrapolate more. (Sorry if that sounded offensive.:unsure: Really, I'm genuinely interested!)

Personally, I don't believe in a higher power or entity. I do have principles and perhaps even religious tendencies out of some sort of Buddhist/Wiccan hybridization in the sense that I do believe in karma and some sort of balance to what goes on in the world, as well as more significance to life than what a biology text book can define it as. I still devour religious texts looking for answers, just as much as Hawking and Einstein's work alluding to the same...

Sorry if that's confusing... :confused:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
305 Posts
if u believe in god, how did you rationalize the concept and existence of this higher power that created everything out of nothing?
It's one of the simplest and probably most profound ideas, that I think should be obvious to any INTJ:

"God exists, therefore he is thought."

Originally stated by Anselm of Cantebury, and recognised by Jung for it's intuitive truthfulness.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
305 Posts
I don't like talking religion but to answer your question, there is no rationale.

God either is or isn't. There is no proof he exists but there is no proof that he doesn't.

You just make a choice and hopefully when you die, you're right.
You'd do well to listen to Blaise Pascal when he says,
Belief is a wise wager. Granted that faith cannot be proved, what harm will come to you if you gamble on its truth and it proves false? If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation, that He exists.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,210 Posts
You'd do well to listen to Blaise Pascal when he says,
Pascal's Wager is ridiculous.
1. It assumes that one can "choose" to believe something.
2. It pretends like there is only one god you could believe in, when there are hundreds of thousands.
3. It suggests that whatever god he refers to is either petty for preferring hypocritical sycophancy over intellectual honesty or ignorant of his/her peoples' motivations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,105 Posts
Pascal's Wager is ridiculous.
1. It assumes that one can "choose" to believe something.
2. It pretends like there is only one god you could believe in, when there are hundreds of thousands.
3. It suggests that whatever god he refers to is either petty for preferring hypocritical sycophancy over intellectual honesty or ignorant of his/her peoples' motivations.
To be honest, I used the word "choose" in my first post for lack of a better word though I just might not be articulate enough to know one.

There's something almost whispy but definitely irrational that goes on in someone once that person finds it in his heart to believe in whatever he believes.

I guess I should come out of the closet and say that I do like to believe in God, not just any God but probably one that's a lot like the Judao-Christian one. He probably is the same God come to think of it except He's gravely misunderstood... just like me :)

I suppose people have their impressions of me that are most likely the furthest thing away from accurate but that doesn't really change who I am. It just changes who they think I am. If one person has that much difficulty contemplating what goes on in the mind of another person, imagine the magnitude of contemplating on something that lies outstide the realm of space-time. Darwin's words about a dog contemplating on the mind of Newton was a massive understatement.

By no means am I any authority on the subject but perhaps it's best just to live you life as best you can and if you are either lucky enough or crazy enough, you find that quiet place where you can hear God talking to you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,077 Posts
To extrpolate a bit more...

A little more background on me just to set the stage:

I had 10 years of Catholic school, so I did get baptized and have communion in a local church. However, my family never went to Sunday mass, though I did go on my own once just to see what it was like. Somewhere in grade 4, learning about confession I put the brakes on receiving the sacrament. Perhaps, it was in admitting mistakes that was where I didn't like trying to do confession and so being the spoiled child that I was, I was able to tell my Mom, "I don't want to do this," and it was dropped. My mother would mock various TV preachers and in a way I saw her point. I've also enjoyed George Carlin's bits about religion which are rather funny to my mind in a few ways.

Now, this past year has been where I think my faith has grown in various dimensions. Prior to this year, I would probably have said I was atheist or agnostic depending on when you asked. However, earlier this year I was having a bit of a crisis and got to talking with a friend. He is a former pastor and has a really strong faith that I can admire in a few ways. We talked about Jesus and after a couple of hours, we agreed on a few of the main points: Jesus died for our sins, Jesus is the Son of God, blah blah blah. That was back in January and by April I had pondered it enough that when an opportunity presented itself to get baptized, I jumped on it. It was Easter Sunday and someone else was already getting baptized so I wasn't the only one. There was an offer of borrowing someone's shorts for anyone that did want to be baptized and so I jumped at this opportunity. Now, I'm about 5'10" and weighed about 330 lbs or so back then. In a way this was a big leap of faith as there were a dozen people there to see me in my abundant nakedness. Since then I have had more than a few different odd adventures with my church group. There are a few central teachings that I find quite intriguing with the idea of the redemptive gifts being one that resonates well for me. The idea here being that in the book of Romans there are 7 different gifts mentioned: Prophet, servant, teacher, exhorter, giver, ruler and mercy. In a way this is kind of like an Christian Enneagram in that everyone has some of these gifts and they do kind of blend together in a sense. My top 2 gifts are teacher and mercy. Each gift can be thought of as having a blessing and curse to it. The teacher gift has the challenge of learning how to dispense knowledge wisely in a responsible manner. The dark side is that knowledge can be used as a weapon and that knowledge is power can be a misguided belief. In a way this resonates with various other typing systems I've seen for myself, such as the Enneagram and Strengths Finder 2.0. All three seem to revolve around the idea of continuous improvement in a sense.

There are a few other parts to this, like reading through Genesis and Exodus of the Bible and going, "Whoa, who knew there was such crazy stuff happening way back when," as well as wondering if I could tap into a power greater than myself what would I want to do with it? There was also a prophetic reading given to me that was an experience I doubt I'll ever forget anytime soon. That was a night where I was invited to go listen to a prophet at 5 o'clock but I had a meeting from 7 to 9 that night. Since I was one of the first ones there, I figured I would be done in time to get to my meeting with time to spare. Turns out that the timing was a little off. I was about 15 minutes late for my meeting, but this being probably the first time I'd ever been late in over a year of almost meeting every 2 weeks, it was rather educational. When I did discuss how I wasn't sure what I would be going back to find but that I was OK with it, it was an interesting twist for me. I did get back to find that the CD that was burned of my teaching had been taken by a friend that was there and wasn't sure when I left if I would be back or not. Thus I ended up waiting 6 days to get the CD but I figured if I was meant to get it back that it would work out.

A couple of other experiences that I've had recently that were kind of interesting: 1) A few weeks back, my church group prayed for someone in our group that was going through a hard time and this was the first time in my life where I openly prayed for someone else. The words just spewed out of me in a natural way and sounded rather good and apparently I blew some people's minds by doing this as it was a bit of a change from my old self. 2) There were a few times where I told stories of my past that were interesting for me to reveal parts of my past to the group and see how others would react. Would they freak out? Would they still love me anyway? This was what got tested and thankfully I am still welcomed and encouraged by this group which gives me a bit of a warm fuzzy feeling inside. *cue the romantic music to start* Yes I can be a romantic sap at times, and I'm cool with that.

Hopefully this demystifies a bit more of my faith, the evolving entity that it is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
215 Posts
I choose to believe there is a God and act accordingly. Nothing bad is going to happen to me if I am wrong, as long as I picked right.:happy: I might miss out on a few fun things but I home so often anyhow I doubt I would have done them anyway. I am sure part of it is being raised religous, had I not I wonder if I would believe as I do now.

I like thinking there is an all powerful being out there watching us and that has a plan. I like feeling like I am part of that and I think it does fulfill some emotional need.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
131 Posts
It's one of the simplest and probably most profound ideas, that I think should be obvious to any INTJ:

"God exists, therefore he is thought."

Originally stated by Anselm of Cantebury, and recognised by Jung for it's intuitive truthfulness.
Unicorns/the Tooth Fairy/Santa Claus exist, therefore they are thought.

What kind of "logic" is that? That is a petitio principii fallacy.


You'd do well to listen to Blaise Pascal when he says,

Belief is a wise wager. Granted that faith cannot be proved, what harm will come to you if you gamble on its truth and it proves false? If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation, that He exists.
God as an insurance policy? Be scared into believing! Or else!...

How very convincing. I'll pass.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
305 Posts
Pascal's Wager is ridiculous.
1. It assumes that one can "choose" to believe something.
2. It pretends like there is only one god you could believe in, when there are hundreds of thousands.
3. It suggests that whatever god he refers to is either petty for preferring hypocritical sycophancy over intellectual honesty or ignorant of his/her peoples' motivations.
Your comments concerning Pascal's Wager are ridiculous.
1. You assume the qoute stands alone and is not backed by reasoned arguments.
2. You assume that Pascal does not consider existence a necessary predicate of god.
3. Just like a hypocritical sycophant, you assume that it suggests that whatever god he refers to gives a damn!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
305 Posts
Unicorns/the Tooth Fairy/Santa Claus exist, therefore they are thought.

What kind of "logic" is that? That is a petitio principii fallacy.
Common mistake.

You'll need to put you're intuition cap on for this one.
Once you are suitably attired, consider what is necessary for thought to occur.


God as an insurance policy? Be scared into believing! Or else!...

How very convincing. I'll pass.
Food as an insurance policy? Be scared into eating! Or else!... you will die!

It is quite convincing isn't it. If you don't eat, you can't pass. And if you don't pass, you'll die. I'd choose the pass option too. :tongue:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
131 Posts
Common mistake.

You'll need to put you're intuition cap on for this one.
Once you are suitably attired, consider what is necessary for thought to occur.
How is it a common mistake? How is concluding that X can be thought of : there X exists logical?
Or are you saying that X exists even if only because it does in someone's head?

Food as an insurance policy? Be scared into eating! Or else!... you will die!

It is quite convincing isn't it. If you don't eat, you can't pass. And if you don't pass, you'll die. I'd choose the pass option too. :tongue:
Apples and oranges. It's not even a weak analogy. Find me anyone who has doubts about the existence of food. Besides, food is tangible.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
305 Posts
How is it a common mistake? How is concluding that X can be thought of : there X exists logical?
Or are you saying that X exists even if only because it does in someone's head?
It's a common mistake in that lots of people make it.

As for logic? Is it necessary for a unicorn to exist in order to be able to have thought?
What is thought?
Is thought just a word, or does it correspond to something that necessarily exists?
What conditions are necessary for the existence of thought?
How do you know those conditions are necessary?


Apples and oranges. It's not even a weak analogy. Find me anyone who has doubts about the existence of food. Besides, food is tangible.
It was not intended as an analogy to belief. Stop thinking in straight lines and use your intuition.

If you wish to continue living, you must eat.
If you don't eat, you will die.

The argument is for “being scared of dying or of not living.”
The argument for doing something because you are scared of the consequences is valid and quite convincing.
 
1 - 20 of 102 Posts
Top