If there was a loving God, would you accept him?

[RobbyPants]

If there was a loving God, would you accept him? Please explain why or why not.

I need some answers to some questions before I can really answer that.

How do we know this god exists? Does he make obvious appearances as opposed to "hiding"?

By "accept", do you mean "believe" or "follow and worship"?

How does he demonstrate that he is loving? Do childhood diseases like Tay Sachs exist in this hypothetical world?



I could believe in anything, including a god, so long as there was evidence it existed.

As for following and worshiping, that depends on other things. If we otherwise exist in the world we live in and the god claims to have power over evil and suffering, yet continues to let it exist, I imagine we'd still get met with answers like "mysterious ways". I'd have trouble simply taking that on faith.

Just because a god exists doesn't mean that it's necessarily truthful. Actions speak louder than words. If he's saying he's good, yet acting in a different manner, then I would not like such a god.

That being said, if I knew it were real and that it could totally kill me and my kids, I might still totally genuflect, but it'd be out of fear, not love.

[Coffee Jesus]

They never said omnipotent loving god.

[Mister Agenda]

I would like to begin with thanking everyone for responding to my Post. I was surprised how quickly everyone responded and I appreciate your input.

Thanks for not being a one-post wonder.

Snip. If I may summarize, the vast majority rejected (with exceptions of course) the very premise of the question because of a lack of "demonstrable" (empirical) proof.

I like your use of qualifiers. It bodes well.

I would like to use this summation to discuss what the theist and atheist "metaphysical dream" may look like. Could those on this post please discuss what they think of the following proposal:

1) What is the difference between fact and truth?

No significant difference. If something is a fact, it's true. There's no guarantee one can't be wrong about either.

Many of you have pointed to the lack of evidence. But do facts mean truth? Are they synonymous?

If something is a fact, it's considered to be true. They are synonyms, without much difference in their definitions.

In my opinion, facts are simply points on our mental grid of what we interpret reality to be.

Scientific facts require a consensus of observation, mundane facts are the result of direct experience. Some filtering is unavoidable.

Atheism is simply an interpretation of how these facts (points) intersect with one another.

Atheism is the state of not believing in any God or gods. There are a variety of ways to find yourself in that state. Although skepticism is well represented here, never having been indoctrinated to believe in a God is also fairly common, for instance. There are several countries where atheism is very common and has more to do with having been indoctrinated in an atheistic ideology (communism). Do you actually want to talk about rational empiricism, which tends to lead to atheism?

Therefore, facts can point in many ways. An atheist will look at the facts and interpret them one way. The theist will look at the facts and interpret them to fit their mental grid. But neither of these is necessarily reality itself. Reality is in fact only the right interpretation of the facts.

Rational empiricism is basically an approach to reduce acceptance of false interpretation of facts. It's a garbage filter. However, there is always the chance that it will cause one to reject something that turns out to be true, which is usually viewed by its practitioners as a small price to pay to avoid having a head full of garbage.

So is the issue between a theist and an atheist simply about facts (evidence)?

It is simply about belief and nonbelief in the divine.

Snip.

[Lemonvariable72]

Before I answer I need you to define something
What is a god?

[truthBtold]

Accept god like a credit card?? Pick and choose which god like mastercard, visa or american express...

[Lemonvariable72]

Accept god like a credit card?? Pick and choose which god like mastercard, visa or american express...

A man Walks into a local store "A hi, you guys accept Allah here right?" Cashier says "Why yes of course" man walks off for a moment and scene continues. Man returns to the counter with a box of chicken " this chicken is halal right?" "Oh why yes of course, anything else sir?" " Um yes, could I get a copy of livestock monthly? The one with all the goats please, and do you have any ky jelly?

[Faith No More]

1) What is the difference between fact and truth?

Not much. Facts are statements that accurately reflect reality, and truth means the quality of accurately reflecting reality.

So is the issue between a theist and an atheist simply about facts (evidence)?

Yes and no. Sure, we need facts to discern reality, and theists don't generally have them on their side. But I think the real problem comes in when theists try to speculate beyond the facts and refuse to let the evidence simply speak for itself.

FYI, For those who critiqued that I have not responded. I first posted yesterday afternoon. I am a full time graduate student with a 2 and 3 year old. Therefore, I will respond as I am able to, but this will likely be only once a day. I hope you understand the demands on my schedule and I will be as active as my time allows.

Respond? How do you even have time to breathe?

[Confused Ape]

1) What is the difference between fact and truth?

Many of you have pointed to the lack of evidence. But do facts mean truth? Are they synonymous?

In my opinion, facts are simply points on our mental grid of what we interpret reality to be. Atheism is simply an interpretation of how these facts (points) intersect with one another. Therefore, facts can point in many ways. An atheist will look at the facts and interpret them one way. The theist will look at the facts and interpret them to fit their mental grid. But neither of these is necessarily reality itself. Reality is in fact only the right interpretation of the facts.

So is the issue between a theist and an atheist simply about facts (evidence)?

God exists as a subjective experience. Neuroscience is studying what happens in the brains of people who have religious/mystical experiences.

Andrew Newberg Research Questions

Is God only in our brain?

Our research indicates that our only way of comprehending God, asking questions about God, and experiencing God is through the brain. But whether or not God exists “out there” is something that neuroscience cannot answer. For example, if we take a brain image of a person when she is looking at a picture, we will see various parts of the brain being activated, such as the visual cortex. But the brain image cannot tell us whether or not there actually is a picture “out there” or whether the person is creating the picture in her own mind. To a certain degree, we all create our own sense of reality. Getting at what is really real is the tricky part.

The facts are that people have subjective experiences and something happens in their brains when they have these experiences. Individuals will interpret these facts in one of three ways - (1) God really does exist 'out there' (2) these experiences are just produced by the brain and there isn't a God 'out there' (3) not enough information to decide either way. The facts, however, aren't altered by however one chooses to interpret them.

[CapnAwesome]

Sure, basically for selfish reasons. To get into heaven and whatnot.

However there isn't, so the question comes off as quite silly. If there was a loving Godzilla, would you let him crush Tokyo?

[Fromper]

If there was a loving God, would you accept him? Please explain why or why not.

If I could provide proof that there is definitely not a loving god, would you become an atheist?

Of course, we both need to explain what we mean by "loving", "god", "accept", and "proof" before this can be a meaningful conversation.

But to me, the sheer quantity of diseases and acts of nature that kill or disable people every day is all the proof I need that if any type of "god" does exist, it isn't powerful enough and/or "loving" enough to be worthy of worship. That's my proof, and that's part of why I'm an atheist. (Lack of proof for the existence of any gods is the other, probably larger, part)