what would be an actually good reason to believe in a god.

[Cavebear]

Real is real whether proven or not.

You're still using the modern (bastardized) version of faith which is no different from man made belief. Unfortunately believers have made this their ignorance blanket.

Gotta go old school for usage., Ephesians 2:8 states we are saved by grace through faith, it is not of our own doing, it is a gift of God. Of, not from. A gift of gold is very different from a gift from gold.

The proof is a personal revelatory experience of God. That is the authoring of faith.
I see a three step evolution of mind, first there is believing, then comes knowing, then comes doing.

Revelation is not proof, faith is not evidence, and personal belief matters only to you.

[SoldierofFortune]

The best reason to believe in a God is the probable existence of a God.

[SGOS]

The best reason to believe in a God is the probable existence of a God.

On the other hand, the best reason not to believe in a god is because of his probable non existence.  Or are you doing the Pascal's Wager satire?

[SoldierofFortune]

Pascal's mentality is similar to a merchant.
He makes a a bargain with a proobable God :)
How a sly person he is...as if he will deceive the God.
By the way, i do not know if he really believes in God or not.

But i will guarantee myself by remaining as an agnostic ahahaha

[Baruch]

The best reason to believe in a God is the probable existence of a God.

Depends on what probability and existence mean to you ... very deep metaphysical concepts (with probability ... the difference between the frequency definition and the Baysian definition ... with existence ... see a hundred philosophers).

I have no problem with godlings/demigods ... and admittedly, pantheism could imply an impersonal "ground of being" rather than a personal theism.  But given my view of incarnation .. I am betting on personal theism, I would be very surprised if it works out differently.

If by probably existence, you mean empirical evidence for the monstrosity of Greco-Christian theology ... then I don't see that being probable at all.  Dancing angels on a pin are more likely.

[Baruch]

Pascal's mentality is similar to a merchant.
He makes a a bargain with a proobable God :)
How a sly person he is...as if he will deceive the God.
By the way, i do not know if he really believes in God or not.

But i will guarantee myself by remaining as an agnostic ahahaha

As a Jansenist, Pascal was like a French Quaker.  Quietists (general term) aren't orthodox Catholic nor Anglican.  Pascal was brilliant, but I don't think that theology was his main subject ... I don't think he could conceive of alternatives to minimalist-Catholicism ... like Descartes could (who created modern secular philosophy).  Modern pantheism was created by Spinoza ... who is one of the first modern men too.  I differ from Spinoza, in that I don't accept rationalism.  Spinoza was even more rational than Descartes.

Viking Christians hedged their bets ... their cross doubled as Thor's hammer.  Same with Pueblo Indians under Spanish domination ... the cross is also an image of their grasshopper god.  Egyptian Christians hedged their bets with the Isis cross.  I would suggest that atheists use the atom with swirling electrons symbol as a crypto-emblem  ... particularly effective if there are three electron elliptical orbits .. that can be explained away as the Holy Trinity, rather than Lithium.

[SGOS]

Pascal's mentality is similar to a merchant.
He makes a a bargain with a proobable God :)
How a sly person he is...as if he will deceive the God.
By the way, i do not know if he really believes in God or not.

But i will guarantee myself by remaining as an agnostic ahahaha

I recall a video I watched where addressing the Wager, when the speaker asked, "How would you like it, if after having provided so much in mathematics, other important insights, and contributions to practical mechanics, to be remembered only for the one hairbrained thing you thoughtlessly scribbled on a dinner napkin, probably after drinking too much wine."

[Baruch]

I recall a video I watched where addressing the Wager, when the speaker asked, "How would you like it, if after having provided so much in mathematics, other important insights, and contributions to practical mechanics, to be remembered only for the one hairbrained thing you thoughtlessly scribbled on a dinner napkin, probably after drinking too much wine."

Inventor of the mechanical calculator ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_calculator

[fencerider]

Revelation is not proof, faith is not evidence, and personal belief matters only to you.

revelation come from getting drunk, faith is voodoo science, and personal belief can be the result of a good brain-washing.

and if personal experience counts for something, hot dam!!! The silence is deafening. aint no god within hundreds of miles when I pray. aint nobody around keeping the empty promises in the Bible.

[Baruch]

revelation come from getting drunk, faith is voodoo science, and personal belief can be the result of a good brain-washing.

and if personal experience counts for something, hot dam!!! The silence is deafening. aint no god within hundreds of miles when I pray. aint nobody around keeping the empty promises in the Bible.

Correct, literal interpretation even of literal writings is ... uneducated.  And focusing on the concrete, rather than the abstract, is keeping it real.

[Cavebear]

The best reason to believe in a God is the probable existence of a God.

Possibly the purest example of circular reasoning I have ever seen!

[SoldierofFortune]

Star Trek? Yes. Many lessons about the world around us and it can be seen as a mythology of sorts. Star Wars though? Nah. not so much.

Doctor Who would also be something that can be seen as a religion of sorts

How much do you give possibility the humankind will create a galactic empire?
Do you think this is a modern times mytology or the reality that the science of today's and future's signs. Will it be possible?
The reason i ask this stems from my wonder that either the globalisation will be completed by somebodies or not. Imean the humankind will be one united at the future and then spread over the planets. We will settle there on planets and a new phase will begin in the history of humankind.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

How much do you give possibility the humankind will create a galactic empire?

We'll nuke ourselves to death before that happens. Either that or suffer a robot apocalypse.

[SGOS]

We'll nuke ourselves to death before that happens. Either that or suffer a robot apocalypse.

Either way, the future is right on track.

[SoldierofFortune]

We'll nuke ourselves to death before that happens. Either that or suffer a robot apocalypse.

I dont see the possibility that a nuclear bomb will ever be exploded.
This is a political game. The purpose is to make people be afraid of this.
And the brains that shape the global policy is making opportunities about how they threaten the world.

What do you mean by suffering a robot apocalypse?
Can you open this briefly?