Is God based on “Facts” or “Trust/Faith”???

Were God based on 100% fact, everyone would believe. That it is not so demonstrates that it can not be that way.

 

I didn't answer the post question as I intended to initially. It is quite clear God is based on "Trust/Faith" as there are no true facts that supports the God theory. If you think about it there have been an enormous amounts of Gods worshipped and revered in ancient writings. The Greeks, Egyptians, Romans, Scandinavians, Norse, Hebrews, Canaanites, many Asian cultures, and even Native American cultures all have worshipped some form of a spiritual being. Many of these cultures still believe and teach that such Gods exist. No proof other that books or writings, statues or monuments, lore, and many other man made articles that have zero research and proof backing them up. Even the Hebrew/Christian/Islamic writings argue the way their God exists. (Same God but the Jesus factor contradicts it all)

So I ask why is it the Hebrew/Christian/Islamic God is widely thought of as the real God? There is no proof this God is as real as say, Odin or Zeus. Minerva or Osiris. Or any other cultures God. Therefore the existence of God, in any form, is trust and faith based only.
.

 

God is often considered synonymous with the truth, while the evidence in quantum mechanics, in particular, suggests the truth is stranger than fiction. The argument that there is no evidence for the existence of God, conveniently ignores the physical evidence.

 

What physical evidence are you referring to?

 

Yeah, curious about this too

 

Quantum systems can be up to 125% efficient, while the earth's orbit, axial tilt, sun, moon, composition, and orbit in the galaxy are "just right". A quantum simulation of the big bang concluded the same, it was "just right" or "just wrong" depending on who you ask. That's merely one example, while my book covers countless other examples, and documents how academia has been censoring half of reality for thousands of years, for fun and for profit. Of course, my book, which is composed entirely of salty quotes and facts, has already been censored.

Sadly, militant atheists could not teach a child how to use a dictionary if their lives depended on it, and their stunted sense of humor and gullibility, have made them targets for even the Tea Party to use to their advantage.

If you consider the truth itself synonymous with God, quantum mechanics are proof, the truth itself is beyond the kin of mortal men.

 

How? Who "censored" it? Was it banned someplace? Or do you mean somebody just criticized it?

You've made this charge before. What does it even mean? I bet a militant atheist would be able to teach a child to use a dictionary. It's not that hard. But so what?

Quantum mechanics are proof of what? As quantum physicist Richard Feynman famously said: "Nobody understands quantum mechanics". Richard Feynman, the Physicist Who Didn’t Understand his Own Theories | OpenMind Your statement that God is ineffable seems to be shared by theologians, but I doubt they'd say God is only another name for Truth. It's not quite that simple. Truth is an attribute of God; so is Love. What's More Important: Truth or Love? The Whole is greater than the sum of Its parts.

We shouldn't confuse "evidence" with proof. I don't think God can be proved or disproved, but I think there's enough evidence for reasonable people to believe there's something that fits a conception of God that they can bet their lives on. (That doesn't necessarily mean they're right.) Einstein's God was a force that gives order to the universe. “I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.”That would make him either a pantheist or a deist. Dawkins dismisses the former as "sexed up atheism" and the latter as "watered-down theism". As a Christian, I tend to be a panendeist, which I guess would make me a sexed-up, watered-down Jesus freak.

 

Believe it or not, I'm not here to answer the endless rhetorical questions of contentious fools.

 

Whoever created religion was a genius.
He, or she has created an acceptance that if God or Gods exist somewhere up there, neither them or us are native to this planet.

Whatever your beliefs, they slot into this theory.
So does this theory tell us all or nothing.?

 

It was thought up in order to control the masses. At least the existence of God was. Long before Hebrew. Aramaic, or Greek writings portrayed the existence of God other societies established the same. Egyptian Pharaohs we considered Gods over their people and were worshipped along with other Gods the people believed in. Centuries old claims were that the Japanese emperor was a descendant of the sun goddess Amaterasu. Many ancient societies looked to their leadership, as we do today, for guidance which resulted in a religious pattern being brought forth. The threat of punishment by a spiritual being is so strong people will believe and conform to stay alive.

 

The simple truth is, almost nobody even knows how to use a fucking dictionary. If you actually went out and surveyed everyone, you'd find they're all living in their own Private Idaho, and having faith in God is about all they're allowed to have. Thanks to academia's brilliant minds, nobody can even use a fucking dictionary, and a quarter of their students still claim the sun revolves around the earth, making religion all that much more attractive.

As far as most Americans are concerned, science is only good for gadgets, and not for thinking. Of course, if the scientists want to argue, they can attend the next riot in DC.

 

Doubtful. I think religion is more complicated than that. It was "thought up" long before there were masses to control--sometime during the Paleolithic, when humans were hunter-gatherers living in caves and traveling in egalitarian bands. There are lots of theories about how it came about. Tylor, nineteenth century anthropologist, saw it as a pre-scientific effort to explain reality. He saw the experience of dreaming as a basis for belief in a spirit world that people visited and interacted with the dead and strange beings. They came to see the everyday natural objects and living things around them as animated by spirits, and believed in unseen forces that could be controlled. Enter the shaman. Rudolph Otto stressed the human sense of the numinous--the sense of awe, mystery and terror which humans experience when encountering natural wonders. Mircea Eliade elaborated this into his theory of hierophanies (manifestations of the sacred) and sociologist Emile Durkheim saw the distinction between sacred and profane, and accompanying rituals, as the glue holding societies together. Each of the major schools of psychology has its own theories to explain humans' disposition to believe in the supernatural: psychoanalytic theories stress unconscious needs, drives, and existential anxieties; behavioral theories stress social conditioning and learning; and cognitive psychologists emphasize patterns of human perception like the tendencies to see patterns (even when none are there) and to perceive agency in natural phenomena. Marx saw it as "the opiate of the masses", a way of distracting the oppressed from their miseries. The State doesn't get into it until centuries later, but took to it readily as a means of control and power for rulers and elites. Basically, there were two patterns: the divine kingships you mention in Egypt and Japan, and the king as a divinely appointed human, as in Mesopotamia. My point is that religion is multi-functional, serving psychological needs of individuals, social functions binding societies together, and needs for legitimacy and authority by rulers, clerics, and elites.

 

Dictionaries list words from A to Z in order. Pretty simple. I don't get the constant mention of a supposed difficulty in using them. Give it a fuckin' rest.

 

I take it that using the dictionary is some kind of metaphor. Most people I know can use dictionaries easily enough. Metaphors have their uses, but literal minds have trouble making sense of them. Using a dictionary is something most of us learn in elementary school and don't depend on college professors to teach us that. "Private Idaho" must be another of those metaphors. The movie was about a narcoleptic street hustler who was into escapist visions of a pleasant past. I agree that for lots of underprivileged folks who are stuck in otherwise bleak lives, religion offers a ray of hope. It's also true that one-quarter of 2,200 Americans surveyed by NSF in 2012 thought that the sun revolved around the earth. Let's hope they weren't all college educated! Yes, it's true that most folks are more into the fruits of applied science than are curious about scientific knowledge as important in itself. This is a function of the broader phenomenon economists and public opinion experts call rational ignorance--the deliberate decision of most people to remain ignorant about some fields of knowledge so that they can concentrate on more immediately rewarding activities: making money, sports, game shows, having fun, having sex, spending time with the wife and kids, etc. And they rely on trusted others and opinion leaders to sum up/dumb down what they need to know about the fields they've tuned out: FOX, the National Enquirer, tik tok, the local cleric, etc. That's the way it is, but I don't think we can blame academia for it.

 

I'm sorry, but this comes across as unnecessarily combative as it does evasive.

 

That's exactly why I'm here.

 

Nope, sorry, you're wrong, and most people assume they know how to use a dictionary, but a quarter of the population also insists the sun revolves around the earth.

When you actually survey people, as I've done, its obvious they're all making it up as they go along. I've actually had people threaten my life, for merely pointing out the dictionary only contains popular definitions, as the internet is a kindergarten playground.

 

What you say is absolutely true. The problems then started when different groups gave their Gods different earthly names, resulted in conflict.

Some years ago, I discussed this with my devout Muslim friend. When I asked him whether in his mind Mohammed and Allah were somewhere up in the heavens hurling space rocks all the other gods, while Jesus was trying to work out a miracle to calm things down and Mary was making them all a nice cup of tea, he burst out laughing.
The really funny part for me, was when he still kept laughing while he was kneeling on his prayer mat.

 

What dictionaries do you buy. Even a non medical dictionary will define "Tricuspid" as the valve between the left atrium and left ventricle of the heart.
You would need to travel back more than 60 years in time, to find me in the school playground to tell you that one.