Certainly it is. We must not confuse faith in God with faith in his priests.

https://www.researchgate.net/project/A-Universe-Inside-Me/update/5d148df4cfe4a7968daf2bbf

There exists no mediator between men and G-d, but 'only' good teachers.

Revelations (real or virtual) serve to compensate for the weakness of human nature. The study of sacred literatures is essential; the ethics is already in our hands and souls, concerning human action. Formation of study circle or community makes sense, to avoid egotistic bias. Main problems arise with certain practical needs, e.g. funeral, and 'best practice decisions'.

Oneness and creativity are important: Creatures.Creation.Creator.

The existential difference and understanding of the the numbers 1 and 0 is the key.

I think it is not necessary to adhere to a given religion in order to believe in God. But it is harder to draw your own path than to use one that already exists.

Regarding ethics, it seems to me that the variant of the categorical imperative proposed by Kant deserves to be taken into account: humanity must always be for us as an aim, and never as only a means (I paraphrase).

We may follow a religion or not, but GOD do exist.

Well following a particular religion is a more streamlined path to talk to God. Though the almighty only requires a pure soul and mind to be one with him.

Humans need to justify their own existence by valuation.

This can be done:

* as result of a higher entity ( nature, extraterrestrial or an... AI), where God is assimilated to a super-entity through creation)

* as necessity for exchange ( urge, need , desire)

* as mediation of environment ( evolution, combination, emergence)

Religion is just one social technology offering a ready-made format of beliefs, emotions ( in form of fears mostly) and thoughts ( by precepts).

Ethics, on the other side , refers to a set of systemic values compared with personal morality. The perception resulted= own estimation/ expectation/ pretension from target - target's outcomes/ by-products/ scrap. So, ethics is just a form of impact rapport to our own [ideal] values. Nothing more.

I wonder whether the question and the responses thus far omit addressing (a) prior question(s): How do we know that there is a God in whom we might believe? (and with Whom we might possibly have a relationship?)

Hi Krzysztof

I do not think so. The existence or not of God has no answer.

Exceeds our reasoning ability. Indeed, I am agnostic.

It is possible by Scepsis and Philosophy abstractdly and theoritically; nevertheless, if God is revealed by himself to us, by various manners, in order to communicate with us and to help us, as to judge us and to warn us it needs attention to not reject Him, for we cannot, as God, escape from Him.

Additionally, the God's existense did not exceed the Plato's, Aristotle's, Sextus' Empiricus and others' reasoning ability

A short add-on to the main question:

How to call someone who believes in God but is not a follower of any religion? Can you be a theist but not, for example, a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or a follower of another religion?

Thank you for all the voices thus far!

And I'm waiting for more thought-provoking opinions.

With best wishes,

K

Ho Krzysztof:

You can have your own God. In fact, God and religion are concepts that are not necessarily related. The religion is a set of practices that are based on myths.

Mike

Not just on "myths," Miquel Ricart . Religious practices are also based on human experience - and on narratives about those experiences.

They are mythological in the sense that particular meanings are attributed to the experiences.

H John C. Carr

Sorry, but I can't understand how "human experience" can support religion. What kind of experience?

All religions arise from the fear of humans to the unknown and inexplicable. I do not believe that anyone can base religion on logical or on ideas "beyond reasoning."

And thanks for your comment.

Miquel Ricart - I don't think that you can substantiate the statement: " All religions arise from the fear of humans to the unknown and inexplicable."

And please note that I did not use the word "support." I wrote "based on ... ."

Religious practices (some, at least, in the Abrahamic religions) develop as a result of experiences that are understood (by a prophetic individual or by a community) to have some kind of deeply spiritual meaning. For example, the escape of the Jews from Egypt (celebrated as Passover) or the experience that the disciples had as they shared in a simple meal with Jesus (celebrated as the Eucharist, Communion, or the Lord's Supper). Such events are ree-enacted and celebrated by the community and gradually become ritualized.

Ritualized practices can take on "non-rational" meaning. Some Christians (RC, Orthodox, etc.) believe that, in the Eucharist, the bread and wine become the Body of Christ. Christians of the Reformed tradition believe that the ritual is symbolic and that, through the enactment, Jesus is really present in the midst of the community in a metaphorical sense.

(Answer)

04-08-2019

Dear Mr C Carr

You say:

1. Prophetic individual.

A prophecy is an opinion, it is a “warning” of what will come in the future (Dic.etimologico, from Chile)

2. You say: "understand." But they don't show their opinion. It is pure subjectivism.

3. The events you cite are made historical, probably. Each person can give them a different meaning.

4. You speak again of beliefs (conversions of bread and wine ...) Again subjective ideas not demonstrated.

5. Religion, as I think Alfred Yesterday said, is not a subject for Philosophy, but for History. There, on the plane of the facts, there is a great field of work. Or in the art world: see Romanesque and Gothic cathedrals, for example

But Philosophy seeks - in my view - a sincere struggle for truth through understanding from reason.

The important thing is to respect - if possible - help others. No rites or myths are necessary for this, only good will.

And thanks again for your comments on Christianity, a religion of Hebrew origin that we don't all share.

Best wishes. Mike

You realize, I hope Mike, that what you wrote is mostly "opinion" - not objective fact.

And you have still not addressed my challenge of your statement that "All religions arise from fear ..." Do you have objective knowledge that that is so of "all religions?" Or is that just your opinion - perhaps shared by others? It certainly does not reflect my experience as a child, youth, and adult - nor that of many people growing up in my religious tradition (although I do know some Christian religious traditions that are maintained by "fear").

Hi John

There is a legal aphorism that says whoever claims must prove. I never affirm what I do not know, nor what are not even hypotheses.

Man - say the existentialists - is a being whose fundamental feeling is fear. Afraid of what? To die, to get sick, to suffer, to not have how to survive, to be attacked by a possible enemy, to betrayal, to old age, to death ...

Of course, I, like you, have opinions. And arguments. And beliefs. And I try to "realize" what I write.

I say the fear because religions have always made sacrifices to "placate the wrath of the gods", which often (in Sumer, in Israel) caused floods against men.

And it is that, in addition, what many religions claim (peace, help between human beings, a good social climate, respect for the lives of others ... is now included in the Criminal Codes and in the International Human Rights Treaties and Cooperation, but they are not always fulfilled, no doubt.

Talking about individual experiences ... is a bit of a fallacy. It does not have much significance. I do not know if you know the alliance in Spain of the State with the Church in the twentieth century. That is a general case of alliance with de facto power. ”

I fear that you and I are in different fields, and that we reach the point that I have reached in many discussions by defenders of religion: the solution is not rational, we must have "faith." What we have to do is reason. Man as an irrational being (sic) is destroying planet Earth; no other animal (absurdly called - as a group - "irrational", does such a thing. In the twentieth century alone there were more than 50,000,000 deaths in wars and genocides. I want to remind you that the vast majority of scientists (many of them geniuses) lack "religion."

And what religion comes etymologically from Latin religio, from re-ligare (tie, tie up).

There is no need to "know yourself." What is needed is the will to "accept oneself as one is" and to survive in an adverse world.

And it is possible that our ideals are not very different, based on the objectives indicated above. The difference between us is in the foundations or arguments of the statements. ”

It is the generalizations - basically unprovable - to which I am drawing attention, Mike and there are many of those (generalizations or assumptions based partly on experience and partly on the ideas of our "intellectual heroes") in religion and in philosophy.

My original academic background was in Philosophy (particularly epistemology) and in Ancient Near Eastern Studies - morphing into study of the First (Old) Testament - morphing into Pastoral Theology. And I suspect that, if we were in the same university we would probably be friends who enjoy occasional cups of coffee (or whatever is your preferred beverage) and intense discussion.

Best regards.

Dear John

It would be nice to eat together one day, but I live in Europe.

Religion, like politics, provides great fields of debate, certainly.

There are more opinions of mine in my book "Before the manifestation of existence" (Part 2. Essay), URL: https://ub.academia.edu/MiquelRicartPalau

Best whises. Mike

Thanks. I used to be functional in Spanish - but I am severely out of practice now. Looks interesting from what I was able to glean given the current state of my ability to understand the language.

Perhaps you can use Google's Translator. It is not accurate but sufficient, in my view.

Best wiskes Mike

The author of my physics textbook does not appear in any of the formulas, but I may claim that this book is evidence that he, the author, exists. Likewise if we can find evidence of a 'source code' underpinning the laws of physics, the ‘simulation hypothesis’, then we have evidence of a Programmer. In the following I demonstrate how mathematical forms (for the physical constants) can be constructed that are indistinguishable from corresponding physical structures, yet the sum universe units = 1

https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Electron_(mathematical)

http://platoscode.com/

According to philosopher Blaise Pascal is more rational in God than not believing, because if you believe in God and you are right, you have infinite gain; if you believe in God and you are wrong, you have a finite loss; if you do not believe in God and you are right, you have a finite gain; If you do not believe in God and you are wrong, you have an infinite loss.

But believing in some deity is very subjective, each person is free to believe whatever they want. In psychology I learned that there is no absolute truth, what exists is the truth of the subject. Regarding ethics, each can be used with common sense that can have much greater ethical conduct than someone who claims to believe in a God.

Is it necessary to accept the idea of God established by a given religion to believe in the existence of God? It is difficult to see how a religion could develop if this were true.

Does belief in the existence of God inevitably involve the adoption of an ethical system characteristic of a religion? I am not sure that 'an' ethical system 'characteristic of a religion' exists.

If not, what ethics should you apply to know what God considers good and what bad? I thik most if not all religions claim that God told them what whas ethical. Perhaps if your God has failed to do this for you, you might question your belief in his/her existence.

Can one who believes in his/her God create his/her ethical system? Does your second his/her refer to 'one' or to the 'God'?

What would be the sources of such ethics? Either the God's communications to you, or yourself.

Are your questions rhetorical or have you had some sort of 'flash of inspiration' that has raised the questions in your mind.? If the latter you might consider studying zen buddhism as a possible path to answers, without invoking the idea of a God.

Many thanks for all the new voices and viewpoints. Some of them started quite new threads in the discussion of the original question.

It's really interesting to see how different attitudes are represented in this exchange of opinions.

I'd like to reiterate my addition to the main question:

How to call someone who believes in God but is not a follower of any religion? Can you be a theist but not, for example, a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or a follower of another religion?

Cordially,

K

It seems to me, Krzysztof Trzcinski , that there definitely are people who believe in "God" but who do not identify with any of the deistic religions. Either they come to a belief in "God" as a consequence of logical reasoning (a la Pascal) or they simply "buy into" a prevailing culture's belief in "God" without buying into the religion itself and the attendant religious practices.

"Theists" is as good as any other word might be to describe such persons.

But what would be these other words/terms?

Most of the other language that I have noticed would describe who such persons in terms of whey they are not (e.g. "non-Christians") rather than who they are - and that is not terribly useful. Do you have any suggestions, Krzysztof Trzcinski?

Once again in addition, one can believe in the existence, properly, of Trinitarian God in theory and with reasoning ability by logical cogitations based on the God's (Father's) omnipotence. Strong example is the so be silent acceptance by ancient Greek Philosophers of the existence of many deities.

If I knew another term than 'theist', I wouldn't have asked about it, John.

I wonder about the precise meaning of the term.

For me, this term is quite OK, but I'm not sure if someone can be a theist but not, for example, a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or a follower of another religion at the same time?

Of course, but...

When you believe in God you exclude many beliefs and many religions, and include others as part of your beliefs.

Buddhism is not theistic.

Krzysztof Trzcinski - thanks for clarifying what you were looking for.

Geoffrey Stephenson raises an interesting point. However, I know that there are theistic Buddhists (obviously not mainstream Buddhists - but they would claim to be Buddhists).

Nice discussion.

If religions are based on God, then God must have existed before religion.

What if God was a hamburger? The churches would be restaurants, and religions would be the franchises. Inevitably one could choose to grill or cook their burgers privately at home, and publicly claim to be a vegetarian. God is marketed to consumers via religions.

And your point is, Taner Starks?????

Religion is the byproduct John Carr. Therefore belief in God can be achieved in the absence of religions.

Thanks, Taner Starks. That's clearer.

There are problems with the logic (i.e. your "Therefore ..." clause does not have universal validity) but that has been discussed thoroughly in previous comments.

Religion is the byproduct. The practices of a belief in God can be achieved in the absence of religions. -Point taken John Carr.

Trzcinski it is possible to know God apart from religion and the Bible. The Apostle Paul teaches in Romans that when non Jews, who do not have God's written law, instinctively follow what the law or Bible says, they show that in their hearts they know right from wrong. They demonstrate that God's Bible is written within them, for their own consciences either accuse them or tell them they are doing what is right. When the Roman Centurion had an encounter with an angel because God wanted to create a fellowship with him which all happened because the centurion prayed, gave to the poor and in his heart he had no evil thoughts. So God visited him with an angel who told him to send for the Apostle Peter to come and talk with him. The centurion had the right idea, fellowship without the law, but he needed to know Jesus because no one goes to heaven except Jesus mediates for them. Peter came and introduced him to Jesus and the centurion received the Holy Spirit which is what needed to change your body from a mortal to immortality so that you can live in heaven. Sooner or later you are going to have to meet Jesus and decide to call him Lord. I hope I helped.

Here is a relevant quote from Rabbi Rami Shapiro. “To me, religions are like languages: no language is true or false; all languages are of human origin; each language reflects and shapes the civilization that speaks it; there are things you can say in one language that you cannot say as well in another; and the more languages you learn, the more nuanced your understanding of life. Judaism is my mother tongue yet in matters of the spirit I strive to be multilingual. In the end, however, the deepest language of the soul is silence.”

Yes!

Dr Kamath Madhusudhana

في اعتقادي يمكن الايمان بالله دون اتباع أي دين؛ لأن الله تعالى سابق للأديان

وكما هو معلوم أن ابراهيم عليه السلام قد آمن بالله وبقدرته قبل أن يتعرف عليه

وهناك شواهد كثيرة حول هذه القضية

Hi everyone. In my understanding, the belief in the existence of God constitutes a religion. Believing in him will then request to the believer a way of living and thinking. That's religion.

Yes, to seek guidance by studying religious literature and understand the presence of GOD, it is important to follow a religion.

Ethics is based on one of the following: either the subjective vision of a person, a group of people or a society, or an objective vision that is based on a solid foundation of morality that is actually realized outside of our minds, and therefore true in itself, even if no one believes it. "The indicator fixed on the atheist who bases his moral norms on relative subjective normality is his lack of a definitive reference that can be consulted in the event of differences in values and ethical views......Ann Splash

God also speaks with those who do not profess any religion because He´s the supreme father.

In Varieties of Religious Experience, the psychologist and philosopher William James said "No," one doesn't have to believe in God to believe life is worth worshipping. Inspired, or at least guided by, James, the attorney and philosopher Ronald Dworkin wrote Religion Without God, in which he says there can be such a thing as a "religious atheist." Basically, you can have religion without God if you have faith that something exists beyond the fact of the universe. Whatever it is is sublime or transcendental, a reason to regard life as sacred. If it is sacred, then we should act in ways to show respect for life, to behave in ways that are life-enhancing, rather than life-threatening.

Hello Mr. Trzcinski,

Hope you're well. Let's break down your question in to multiple questions and answer them.

* Can one believe in the existence of God without following any religion?

- Yes/No -----> I would pick Yes, you may pick your option

* Is it necessary to accept the idea of God established by a given religion to believe in the existence of God?

- Yes/No -----> I would pick No, you may pick your option

* Does belief in the existence of God inevitably involve the adoption of an ethical system characteristic of a religion?

- Yes/No -----> I would pick No, you may pick your option (you probably picked No)

* If not, what ethics should you apply to know what God considers good and what bad?

- You look within yourself for the answer, the answer that you think God would suggest, IF you believe in Him

* Can one who believes in his/her God create his/her ethical system?

- Yes/No -----> I would pick No, you may pick your option (I assume you picked Yes)

* What would be the sources of such ethics?

- In my opinion, the sources are multiple and endless. What I need to do is keep myself aware and mindful of such sources and use them to the best of my ability.

This discussion is a good food for thought, thank you for asking something like this. I would also like to hear what you have to say.

Kind regards,

Manzar

Darwin the first time declared agnostic, he the second time declared theistes. I suppose, the third time at the end of his life, to had declared Christian. The ideas are changed.

Besides, by the law of the probabilities the God's existence does not be excluded, properly the Trinitarian's.

Does belief in the existence of God inevitably involve the adoption of an ethical system characteristic of a religion?

If not, what ethics should one apply to know what God considers good and what bad?

Can one who believes in their God create their ethical system?

What would be the sources of such ethics?

Apart from all other my answers, I consider firstly to follow the Descartes' philosophy and secondly to keep in mind the history as an assistant factor to have an answer. Finally, in my opinion there is not any reason to exclude the religion from the reasoning; it is an assistance and a touchstone.

One of the basic principles of religion is believe in the existence of God. So, it is impossible to be a believer without being a follower of a religion.

One of the basic principles of religion is believe in the existence of God. So, it is impossible to be a believer without being a follower of a religion.

There is a reach bibliography on the believing of God without following a religion.

It needs learn the opinions of some men, as Tales, Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, Sextus Empiricus, Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, Laplace, Planck, Heisenberg, W. v. Braun, Alb. Delaunay.

I think we need to draw a distinction between morality and belief in God. It is impossible to know what God expects of us. But we can understand justice on our own. Plato provided one definition of justice that essentially defines the basic requirement of morality. In Republic, he said that people with power are responsible for the welfare of others. He gave the examples of a ship's captain looking out for his men and a doctor looking out for his patient. In an article I wrote, I referred to the definition of justice exemplified by these examples as the Dependency Principle. I think of the Dependency Principle as a standard of judgment rather than conduct because before you can take care of someone who is helpless in a particular situation, you have to have the resources to help. In contrast, Kant considered his Categorical Imperative (referred to above by Daniela Sorea) as a standard of conduct. It is easy to know what is moral when we see someone overwhelmed by reality. But what is the right thing to do when people have different values with respect to ambiguous matters such as abortion or assisted suicide as a means of coping with a terminal illness? Well, for that we have what I call the Democracy Principle, which counsels that in matters of ambiguity, the individual may exercise independence of judgment. For example, the First Amendment protection of freedom of religion is an application of the Democracy Principle. I cannot upload the article in which I discuss the Dependency-Democracy Ethical Principles Framework because it is not an open source article. But academics can access it easily through their institution's library account. [Salinas, Oscar. "HIV Testing and Pregnancy: A Case of Moral Equivocation." Ethics and Behavior 24, No. 1 (2013): 16-33.] I am not saying that God is not the one who made it possible for us to understand morality. I am only saying that we cannot know what He expects. We have to live up to the demands of responsibility with or without God's help.

Firstly about ethics, in my opinion, it is not the belief in the existence of the God which involves the adoption of the ethical system but is the necessity of the existence of a constitution of laws to regulate the relations between the human beings. Ther aree many ethical systems religious and human. Any man and any state colects and accepts.

Secondly, continuing the rich bibliography about the acceptance and belief to God by reassoning, it is interesting the J. Charon's opinion, an engineer of the Ecole Superieure de Physique et de Chimie de Paris, in his work "Cosmology - theories of the universe" in which he mentions the phenomenon of diastole - dilation of the universe. Generally, in my opinion, the theory of the God's refusal by reasonig, has many negative points and does not bring proofs.

Hi Krzysztof Trzcinski and good fellows,

Is it necessary to accept the idea of God established by a given religion to believe in the existence of God?

R: You can create your own gods or God. Mankind is always creating gods. I proppose something experimental for you: Ask God to appear or manifest to you. Then, create a religion based in your own personal revelation.

I believe that, if there are God, Gods, Goddess, Goddesses, the clues about theis existence are written in nature itself; so lets read it. Sacred Books and prophets are just fingers pointing for the ultimate reality or ultimate non-sense. Do not trust them, but experience for yourself.

Also, some religions do not have god or goddess. Buddhism is an atheistic religion.

Does belief in the existence of God inevitably involve the adoption of an ethical system characteristic of a religion?

No, just my opinion. I am not trying to be persuasive here.

Religion is not about ethics. Religion is about the transcendental, is beyond mind and the dual world (my opinion).

If not, what ethics should you apply to know what God considers good and what bad?

R: God could be amoral, imoral or moral; it is a possibility don't you think? Who knows after all? Morality is probably exclusive of humans. Maybe other primates have morality also, but i am not sure.

I think we all should learn philosophy and inquire what ethics we need apply to live in harmony with each other. Just to begin the thinking: tolerance, non-violence ...

Can one who believes in his/her God create his/her ethical system?

Yes! do you want to live in a world which everybody is a killer? probably not, so... dont kill. Do you want to live in a world which everybody is a thief? probably not, so... dont be a thief. Do you want to live in a world which everybody is a rapist? probably not, so... dont be a rapist. This is very simple, we can go deeper in each statement, but it is not my aim here. I am not a prophet.

What would be the sources of such ethics?

Science and philosophy. It is necesssary to think.

Acceptance of rules are not the Way(Tao). Be kind, do not take yourself seriously and remember everyday that we all gonna die.

A very big fairy hug for all,

Jacó

I firmly believe that God, Jew's God, are, not is, real existence. They, God, are supperior intelligent disvisible lifebodies and govern civillization of human beings on earth.

Added to these, there is the Saint Nectarious' of Pentapolis - Aegina book in English, named "Christology" (St. Nectarios Monastery, Roscoe, NY, ISBN 0-9725504-1-0) where is speaking about deismus. I think, it will help on this topic. To keep in mind, I say to deists, in my opinion always, that God has conscience as a rational being, and this conscience is displayed in Himself, in human kind and in whole the universe. Similarly, I say to atheists, in my opinion, there is not proof that there is not God.

Finally and unfortunally, in this discussion should be theologists, who are absent, in order to give their testimony.

Surely no

Best Regards Krzysztof Trzcinski

Hi Theodore John Drizis

Theodore: "There is a reach bibliography on the believing of God without following a religion."

Jacó: Very good "fingers pointing to something". Literature is like a map, the map/photo is not the place itsefl. Map/photo is just a representation of something. We need to travel to see.

Theodore: "Generally, in my opinion, the theory of the God's refusal by reasonig, has many negative points and does not bring proofs"

Jacó opinion: I agree. I think the direct experience is a good approach.

"The method of science, the aim of religion" (Aleister Crowley). I agree with Crowley in this aspect.

Theodore: "Finally and unfortunally, in this discussion should be theologists, who are absent, in order to give their testimony. "

Jacó opinion: We do not really need theologists for this discussion, we just need racional and curious people in general. Theologists have minds as ourselves, they are welcome as anyone. We need to avoid authority fallacy, in order to improve mankind.

Brazilian kisses,

Jacó

Many thanks to Jaco for his thought-provoking contribution!

Best regards,

Krzysztof

Concerning to accept the idea of God established by a given religion, to believe in the God's existence, is not necessary but is helpful.

Concerning to believe in the God's existence without following any religion is helpful also to study the history of men who established these religions on account of the manner of their life as their words and speeches and then collect, select, accept.

Can anyone follow any religion without believing in God?

Or Gods?

Hi Kaukab Abid Azhar ,

Buddhism (Zen, Vajrayana, Theravada...) is an atheistic religion. Probably, there are some others.

Best,

Jacó

Absolutely. I include myself as an example. Religion is an organization of people who can believe in one god or many and have an official or spiritual religious leader. And there are many people like me, who repudiate ALL religions because they are a cause of mental and civil retardation but DO NOT repudiate God. Speaking of what kind of ethics believers use in God but are not religious, it seems to me that the question does NOT make sense. Why is this rule so complicated? "Do not do to another what you do not want them to do to you" or "Love your neighbor as yourself" Here there is no religion, there is simply ethics and that is because Christianity is NOT religion, it is simply universal ethics:

Christianity is simply universal ethics? I am reminded of Bertrand Russel in ''Why I am not a Christian'. who pointed to one of Christ's actions ' There is the instance of the Gadarene swine where it certainly was not very kind to the pigs to put the devils into them and make them rush down the hill to the sea. You must remember that He was omnipotent, and He could have made the devils simply go away; but He chooses to send them into the pigs. ' and indeed deprived the swineherd of his property too.

Concerning the Kaukab Abid Azhar's question, as I know, Russian people followed Christian Orthodox religion via Christian Orthodox rite and music, without believe previously to Christians' God - Saint Trinity.

Religions are paths towards the light in a forest covered in fog.

ممكن وبلا شك

Research MODELING TRINITY ANALOGOUS TO SCIENTIFIC PHILOSOPHY

I suggest you read my above article.

ISUN : Incomprehensible Sysytem of Universe and Nature

Anyone may define god in whatever way they choose, the same as they may define an person in whatever way they choose. Religions have arisen and become successful because a sufficient number of people accept the definition/description of god that is being advanced. I suspect that all major religions have, at their foundations, a common experience of god, with emphasis on different specific aspects.

As for developing a system of ethics without regards to god, again it can be done. Ethics are merely a means of assigning relative values so that when face with contradictory choices, one has a predetermined set of values to assist them in making a choice. Ethics may support a generally accepted morality, but need not do so.

In my opinion, the concept of God is innate to every human, whether religious or not. It is, therefore, not necessary to accept the idea of God established by a given religion to believe in the existence of God. Even if one is not religious, one's ethical codes cannot be altogether distinct (without overlap) from the ethics of the religious. Whether from a particular religion or from other source (eg self), ethics must not fight against nature and conscience. This is an indication that probably, as humans, we all came from the same source.

Yes, of course, you can experience God without subscribing to the dogmas of the evolutionary (i.e. manmade) religions, such as Christianity, Islam, Buddhism etc. True religion is first-hand and implies the brotherhood of all mankind (including christians, muslims, buddhists etc) predicated upon the fatherhood of God. In other words, when you experience God (i.e. realise you are a Son of God) then perforce you treat your fellow human beings as brothers and sisters, because, seeing that you are in fact a Son of God yourself, you cannot fail to see a [potential] Son of God in every fellow human being. This is what Jesus of Nazareth actually taught 2000 years ago, but the well-meaning apostles turned this simple teaching into a manmade religion of the "risen Christ" which subsequently became Christianity. But in this time of transition between one age and the next, I have come into the world to restore the light of truth and be a living example of how my predecessor (i.e. Jesus) would have lived, if he was here today.

And as for the second part of your question, concerning ethics: the inevitable consequence of the realisation of the brotherhood described above is the Golden Rule: do to others what you would want them to do to you. But as you become God-conscious and identify with God you begin to love your brothers and sisters with another, more sublime, kind of love --- a fatherly love. And thus the Golden Rule turns into an "Enhanced Golden Rule", namely: do to others what you know God would do to them. In practice, this distinction is not very important, but in the inner experience it gives you an extra level of joy and satisfaction of not only revealing in your life the Son of God, but also God the Father and, finally, your actual deeds are so permeated with the presence of the Spirit of God, that the Three become One.

Dear Krzysztof Trzcinski

Every human being has an ancestor, of course his descendants will follow each of the customs and cultures of his ancestors. This is in Indonesia, because it's very common. If someone does not have a religion, but he acknowledges the power of God then he has experienced something very great, finally believe in the existence of God in himself. Or someone who initially did not believe in God, could turn into a believer, because of the miracles he experienced in life. Thank you & Regards.

My own experience has led to an certainty that we are all, animal and human alike, pieces of something bigger. It seems as though we must the creation of something.

Do we have any hope of understanding what we are a part of? Sure, like a mosquito understanding algebra. Religion is a man made thing. I don't believe we are.

Studying the history of the founders of the religions, I think it is a rational, correct and fair method to perceive and to appreciate the God in his existence.

Dear Colleagues,

Many thanks for all your precious voices.

I'm looking forward to getting more food for thought!

With best regards,

Krzysztof

Yes, it is possible. God is a concept. The reality of any concept can be logically established. Logically established concept is absolute and eternal just as 2+2=4. Within my indigenous conceptual scheme, God is a conceptual being. Religion is earthly and divine; theology is conceptual and divine. The divine is spiritual. God is distinctively conceptual and spiritual. What makes this idea of God distinct is that it is scientific, objective, interpersonal and deliberative. Human beings are free to disobey God in so far as they abide by the rules of harmonious interpersonal relationship between all persons they encounter in the physical world overtime. Ethics is in this sense independent of God and as well superior to both religion and theology.

Victor Nweke

Victor, it is certainly true that each person has his or her concept of God, but how could a person have a [personal] relationship with a "concept"? The most you can do to a concept is comprehend it, but you can hardly love it, as you can love another person. And God --- the real God of personal experience --- is just that, a real living person who loves and can be loved. And I posit that this experience is super-conceptual, i.e. it relates to the conceptual level in the same way in which conceptual thinking relates to merely perceptual life of higher animals (for more details see this pdf: http://www.bibles.org.uk/Prayer-and-Worship.pdf )

It seems to me that we get into trouble when we posit God as being anything other than what individuals and communities experience God to be.

Saying/writing that God IS this, that or the other thing involves the same logical fallacy as the Cartesian "Cogito ergo sum." That is, the argument is circular.

I write as someone who believes in God and who is part of a community (Christian denomination) that professes belief in God. However,, belief is not proof in the scientific sense. We always only "act as if" God is real; God loves us; God wants us to love one another; etc. From a faith perspective, these actions (as if) tend to confirm our belief - but they do not prove that God IS.

One cannot believe in the existence of God without following any religion. We must choose the religion that God has commanded us to follow through His messengers. This is the right choice.

One cannot believe in the existence of God without following any religion. We must choose the religion that God has commanded us to follow through His messengers. This is the right choice.

لا يمكن للمرء أن يؤمن بوجود الله دون اتباع أي دين. يجب أن نختار الدين الذي يعطينا المنهج الصحيح لإثبات وجود الله.

It is possible to conceptualize a God base on experience and logic of existence. However, one should be ready to be its first prophet or evangelist.

According to Kant, God is a regulative idea of reason. In this logic, you don't necessarily need a specific religion. With a concrete religion, however, one develops an idea of God according to human development.

Kant is not infalible.

It needs to reason the Kant for all of him.

Believing in the existence of God is one thing.

Being in relationship with God is quite another.

The former does not require a community - or religious/spiritual practices.

Community, religious/spiritual practices, etc. are essential for the latter.

I don't think one needs religion to get to or demonstrate one's belief in God. As far as I'm concerned, religion is just one of the ways man tried to understand God. But the truth is, in an attempt to understand God through religion, man created more problems (mainly from identity crises). God has no religion. All religions claim to worship the "true God" which for me attempts at their adherents for self-assurance. So, for me, one doesn't need religion to get to God. God is everywhere and nowhere at the same time.

In my opinion, the problem is the founders' acceptance of the religion and the free and voluntary coming up to their invitation, otherwise the simple admission of the idea and sense of God, theoritically, is without practical significance, perspective and profit.

Knowing God is based on religion. Each of us is born ignorant and knows nothing about his surroundings, so he begins to know the things that he can deal with and avoids the things that cannot be dealt with. Knowledge here must be done through someone who knows that. Thus, knowledge of God can only be through the Messenger and the message revealed to him.

One begins to believe in the existence of God and begins to be a follower of religion in the early days of life when one does not have enough knowledge of what is God and what is religion. When one matures, s/he does not go for reading religious affairs but continue to believe religion as in the early days. Those who study religious affairs study only the affairs related to the religion s/he is already a follower. Usually do not study the affairs related to other religions. Those who study the affairs related to other religions do so only to find out the bad elements of that religion, not study with similar beliefs as the follower of that religion have. A follower of religion at his/her middle/late age does not dare to go against his/her religious beliefs, even do not dare to say what is right or what is wrong but only to continue life as a believer/follower which s/he became at early days of life. I do believe one could be a believer in the existence of God without being a follower of any religion.

Jordan Peterson would say... well, it is not exactly clear what he would say.

Even so, those who want to critically engage with his thought should read Book MYTH, MEANING, AND ANTIFRAGILE INDIVIDUALISM: On the Ideas o...