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

[Chad32]

If he can't guarantee that all of his followers will live long, fruitful lives, it doesn't speak well of his claimed omnipotence or love. I'm not even getting into caring for every person on earth. Just the minority of the species that actually worship him.

[ElDinero]

This may not have been clear enough in my reply - I said I would accept this God if there were sufficient evidence. It's worth stating that any God overseeing the world we live in currently definitely is not this God. So when I agreed to the hypothetical, it really was just that. The God would have to be proven to exist, and the love would need to be evident.

[max-greece]

Ladies and Gentleman,

I would like to propose the following question to those who are Atheist:

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

I realize that this may seem like an overly basic question. But I am trying to better understand the presuppositions (metaphysical dream) that is behind the Atheist belief system. For this to help me improve my understanding of the Atheist belief system, I need everyone to be truthful and forthcoming about the question.

I look forward to hearing everyone's comments.

Thanks,

Nathan

Just out of interest Nathan:


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

[Fromper]

Just out of interest Nathan:


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

You spelled "Goddess" wrong.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

This may not have been clear enough in my reply - I said I would accept this God if there were sufficient evidence. It's worth stating that any God overseeing the world we live in currently definitely is not this God. So when I agreed to the hypothetical, it really was just that. The God would have to be proven to exist, and the love would need to be evident.

The problem with hypotheticals is that if the assumption was true then you can's ask the question. For instance, if there was such a thing as a loving god who interacted with us to the point that we could consider him to be loving our whole mindset would be different. The question wouldn't be whether we could accept him for being loving but rather if we would accept him if he was hateful towards us.

Hypothecticals are like the latest X-Men movie that's coming out. The big wigs want to send some characters back into time to prevent the big wigs from being dummies and starting a war between them. We know such a plan could never work because if it did then there would be no reality in which they sent people back into the past.

[ns1452]

I appreciate those who responded to my second post. A number of you critiqued that I was using a ploy to lower the meaning of evidence. Actually, I would argue that I believe the opposite. I believe that much of what we call evidence is actually our interpretation of the evidence. Hence, the statement “the facts say” or “just give me the facts” confuse the meaning of facts and evidence. These statements actually speak about our interpretation of the facts. Therefore, my desire is to help us understand the difference between fact and the interpretation of the fact. The author, G. K. Chesterton, wrote an essay entitled “The Club of Queer Trades”. This essay does a good job at illustrating the difference between fact and interpretation of the facts. I encourage everyone to read the essay. It is available on google books.

My point is that the difference between us is not a matter of evidence, but our interpretations. Some of you acknowledged this point and I appreciate that. This is important because it is a major reason why a theistic belief system is plausible. If it was simply a matter of the evidence then there would be no disagreement. We all would be either theists or atheists. However, the theist points to the same evidence as the atheist, but we come away with opposite conclusions. Why is this and how do these interpretations formulate? Before I deal with this question I would like to make a second proposal.

Can empiricism truly evaluate the theistic argument?


I know the initial reaction in our culture is a definitive yes. However, I do not agree. I base this heavily on the fact that we truly believe in absolute realities. Ironically, I think that many of you would argue that the falsehood of God is an absolute fact. However, can empirical investigation truly evaluate the reason or origin of right, wrong, beauty, or courage? Does the intellect alone make us choose right over wrong, be courageous, or define beauty? How about the gut? Does the Gut make us decide right over wrong, be courageous, or define beauty? I would submit that empirical investigation cannot definitively tell us why there are some things that all of us define as wrong, or why the soldier stands up in the midst of battle, or what beauty is.

Ok, so I know that someone is going to say well aren’t those simply determined by chemical reaction? But these studies only describe what is going on. None of them deal with what causes them or why these causes are different from one culture to another. Further, do these studies explain why a soldier stricken with fear will work to overcome the fear? Where does this sentiment for honor come from? The studies show very little about how chemical reactions in the brain can account for one's full range of sentiments.

If empirical investigation cannot deal with these “intangibles”, than can empirical investigation determine God’s existence? The truth is that there are realities that go beyond empirical investigation. There is a limit to what can be determined and understand from empiricism. Therefore, what value does empiricism have in the debate over whether there is a God?

[KUSA]

Therefore, what value does empiricism have in the debate over whether there is a God?[/b]

Why do we have to prove that God exists? Just show me the motherfucker. Enough of the games.

[Godlesspanther]

I appreciate those who responded to my second post. A number of you critiqued that I was using a ploy to lower the meaning of evidence. Actually, I would argue that I believe the opposite. I believe that much of what we call evidence is actually our interpretation of the evidence. Hence, the statement “the facts say” or “just give me the facts” confuse the meaning of facts and evidence. These statements actually speak about our interpretation of the facts. Therefore, my desire is to help us understand the difference between fact and the interpretation of the fact. The author, G. K. Chesterton, wrote an essay entitled “The Club of Queer Trades”. This essay does a good job at illustrating the difference between fact and interpretation of the facts. I encourage everyone to read the essay. It is available on google books.

My point is that the difference between us is not a matter of evidence, but our interpretations. Some of you acknowledged this point and I appreciate that. This is important because it is a major reason why a theistic belief system is plausible. If it was simply a matter of the evidence then there would be no disagreement. We all would be either theists or atheists. However, the theist points to the same evidence as the atheist, but we come away with opposite conclusions. Why is this and how do these interpretations formulate? Before I deal with this question I would like to make a second proposal.

Can empiricism truly evaluate the theistic argument?


I know the initial reaction in our culture is a definitive yes. However, I do not agree. I base this heavily on the fact that we truly believe in absolute realities. Ironically, I think that many of you would argue that the falsehood of God is an absolute fact. However, can empirical investigation truly evaluate the reason or origin of right, wrong, beauty, or courage? Does the intellect alone make us choose right over wrong, be courageous, or define beauty? How about the gut? Does the Gut make us decide right over wrong, be courageous, or define beauty? I would submit that empirical investigation cannot definitively tell us why there are some things that all of us define as wrong, or why the soldier stands up in the midst of battle, or what beauty is.

Ok, so I know that someone is going to say well aren’t those simply determined by chemical reaction? But these studies only describe what is going on. None of them deal with what causes them or why these causes are different from one culture to another. Further, do these studies explain why a soldier stricken with fear will work to overcome the fear? Where does this sentiment for honor come from? The studies show very little about how chemical reactions in the brain can account for one's full range of sentiments.

If empirical investigation cannot deal with these “intangibles”, than can empirical investigation determine God’s existence? The truth is that there are realities that go beyond empirical investigation. There is a limit to what can be determined and understand from empiricism. Therefore, what value does empiricism have in the debate over whether there is a God?

Empirical investigation combined with solid logic and testability is all we really have. What you are suggesting is that there is some kind of special method that we can use to investigate the realm of woo-woo. "I just feel it" or "I KNOW this to be true. This is not a special methodology -- all it is is raw dogmatism. There is no method by which we can check facts or evaluate what you "just know."

If you declare all methods of investigation to be invalid when it applies to your god, then your god is invalid and useless.

[paulpablo]

Ladies and Gentleman,

I would like to propose the following question to those who are Atheist:

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

I realize that this may seem like an overly basic question. But I am trying to better understand the presuppositions (metaphysical dream) that is behind the Atheist belief system. For this to help me improve my understanding of the Atheist belief system, I need everyone to be truthful and forthcoming about the question.

I look forward to hearing everyone's comments.

Thanks,

Nathan

Yeh I don't see why not.

There is no atheist belief system though.

But I would probably accept a loving god.

[Faith No More]

If empirical investigation cannot deal with these “intangibles”, than can empirical investigation determine God’s existence? The truth is that there are realities that go beyond empirical investigation. There is a limit to what can be determined and understand from empiricism. Therefore, what value does empiricism have in the debate over whether there is a God?

But those things you've mentioned are not beyond empirical observation. We're slowly mapping out the brain and how it functions, but even if we couldn't, we can study humans and their behavior. Along with viewing psychology from an evolutionary point of view, we can begin to observe and understand the motivations behind human actions and the emotions that drive them.

The brain is highly complex and we do have a long ways to go to fully understanding it, but that does not put abstract notions such as courage or beauty beyond empirical reasoning.We have a long ways to go before understanding human behavior becomes a hard science, so much of what we do know is based upon recognizing patterns in that behavior.

Besides, the problem with philosophical endeavors that rely on no empiricism is that the skeptics have completely demolished their validity. That's why empirical evidence is so important, because philosophy without empirical evidence is just wishful thinking.