Direct personal experience is the only good reason to believe anything. Direct personal experience is the basis of all knowledge (it is how science works).
I have direct personal experience of God, so I know God exists.
Should it be accepted by others as evidence during discussions...depends upon the discussion.
If someone says there is no evidence or proof of God so how could anyone believe - it is just brainwashing from childhood and/or blind belief, and my answer is there is experiential proof (ie you can experience God...I have and so have others), then obviously there is some kind of proof possible and blind belief is not the only option.
If someone says 'why should I believe' and I say because I had an experience of God...then obviously this would be wrong.
It should be accepted as evidence as to why the 'believer' is sure there is a God and has religous/spiritual beliefs.
It should not be accepted as evidence for others - that would be blind belief in what is said (direct personal experience is what is really needed).
~ Eric Putkonen
2007-07-06 03:12:28
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
Faith is a cop-out. It is intellectual bankruptcy. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits.
— Dan Barker
Religion is another matter. Religion -- or at least Christianity -- insists that certain things be considered facts, based purely on faith. In other words, you are supposed to believe, just because the religious view says to. The faithful will tell you, for example, that God exists in fact, in spite of the total lack of empirical evidence for God's existence. If pressed for evidence, they will come up with a series of irrational statements like, "Well, the world couldn't possibly exist unless God made it," or "There has to be a reason for all this to exist." According to the religious world-view, too, all of creation exists for the benefit of man.
— Morris Sullivan
The beast faith lives on its own dung.
— A. C. Swinburne
2007-07-09 19:43:30
·
answer #2
·
answered by HawaiianBrian 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think it has its place, but it's definitely not valid evidence if you're trying to prove the existence of God to someone else. It's a completely personal and subjective reason, but a reason nonetheless.
2007-07-06 11:11:18
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Have you ever heard of the word "faith"?
Can you prove that there is no reason to believe in God?
What is your evidence? How can you perform a test to prove that there is no God? Do you have one available? Did you use one in order to reach your conclusion? I'd love to see it.
Why do you even care? You want to be respected for your beliefs. You want your beliefs to be accepted without question.
How about giving us the same courtesy?
2007-07-06 09:55:47
·
answer #4
·
answered by batgirl2good 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
Yes that is my reason for my belief and no, I do not use it in a discussion. I am really not interested in a debate.
2007-07-06 09:54:34
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
I think all religious philosophies, including atheism, ultimately boil down to our experiences and perceptions of said experiences.
2007-07-06 12:02:15
·
answer #6
·
answered by GreenEyedLilo 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
well its not a good argument its not evidence think about it, if it was evidence it would be testable and we would all have felt it equally for god to want to love us
2007-07-06 09:52:40
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
It doesn't fit in at all. Far too subjective, and has far to many possible alternative explanations.
There is no reliability, no objectivism, no hypothesis, no falsifiability.
2007-07-06 09:52:31
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
Some people have become elated by bringing harm to others. That doesn't justify it.
2007-07-06 09:54:32
·
answer #9
·
answered by Deke 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
YOU DONT HAVE CHOICE
WHY ELSE??
2007-07-06 09:52:30
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋