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

[Fromper]

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.

I'll disagree with the bolded statement. The difference isn't in how we evaluate the evidence. The bigger difference is in whether we believe there's any evidence to evaluate.

What exactly do you have in the way of "evidence" that any gods exist? Because 95% of what I've seen of theistic evidence is just people saying "I can feel his presence in me". The atheist who can't feel such a presence has no way to experience that evidence, because feelings only exist in the brain of the person feeling them. Which is why atheists tend to assume that these people are just feeling what they hope for, or were taught to expect, rather than anything real. Note that I don't deny that these believers actually feel something - I just understand that the origin of those feelings is far more likely to be psychological than divine.

As for the other 5% of "evidence" I've seen, it's mostly "logical" arguments that amount to a string of logical fallacies that just don't stand up to scrutiny.

So I'll ask again: What evidence do you have for the existence of your God? If you have something worthy of even being called evidence, I'm sure many of us would be willing to take a look at it. And is there a particular reason why you haven't even told us which god you're talking about? I think we're all assuming you're Christian, because that's the safe guess, but I'm sure we'd all like confirmation of that.

[BlackSwordsman]

I know I am new here but allow me to place my two cents in.

Would I accept him/her?

Depends, I guess on whether he/she comes forth now after all this time as being god and loving, or is this an always been there always been known.

For example if I was born into this world knowing there was a loving god, and the world was not so corrupt I guess I would accept him.

But if this "loving" god came forth today, after almost 30 years no I would not.

[abtaylor]

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

I suppose I would have to accept him because i'd want to go to a better place But right now i dont see the evidence to believe in a God

[nogodchick]

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

If you mean would I find it easier to believe in God if he was a genuinely loving God and not the monstrous, voyeuristic sociopath of biblical description, then no. Not as long as people are starving and kicking the shit out of each other.

[ns1452]

Many of the comments from my last post have rejected the idea that there are limitations to empirical analysis of the God or said it does not matter. Some of you have pointed out that if there was a God, should there not by empirical evidence? My response is twofold:

1) Empirical studies fall short of being able to understand all of reality? How can you account for the existence of beauty and courage on only an empirical epistemology. It makes no sense why a fearful man will stand up in the field of battle and charge the enemy. This concept belongs to a realm beyond empirical science. Since some of you have doubted whether such a realm exists I would like to ask the following question.

2) What makes empirical rationalism the sole and first criteria for understanding the world?

I believe this question along with the limitations of empiricism present a serious challenge to what basis an atheist has for his view. It gets to the heart of what I believe are a series of assumptions that are made before the atheist even looks at the evidence. This question begins to touch what in a very technical sense is knows as a metaphysical dream. This dream explains why a theist comes to a different conclusion than an atheist.

Please let me know what you think. I am very interested in understand how atheist evaluate their primary basis for determining reality, empiricism. I look forward to hearing from everyone.

Nathan

[truthBtold]

Many of the comments from my last post have rejected the idea that there are limitations to empirical analysis of the God or said it does not matter. Some of you have pointed out that if there was a God, should there not by empirical evidence? My response is twofold:

1) Empirical studies fall short of being able to understand all of reality? How can you account for the existence of beauty and courage on only an empirical epistemology. It makes no sense why a fearful man will stand up in the field of battle and charge the enemy. This concept belongs to a realm beyond empirical science. Since some of you have doubted whether such a realm exists I would like to ask the following question.

2) What makes empirical rationalism the sole and first criteria for understanding the world?

I believe this question along with the limitations of empiricism present a serious challenge to what basis an atheist has for his view. It gets to the heart of what I believe are a series of assumptions that are made before the atheist even looks at the evidence. This question begins to touch what in a very technical sense is knows as a metaphysical dream. This dream explains why a theist comes to a different conclusion than an atheist.

Please let me know what you think. I am very interested in understand how atheist evaluate their primary basis for determining reality, empiricism. I look forward to hearing from everyone.

Nathan

Once again.. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god/s.. where r u pulling all this other shit from... determining reality?? Different answers for different people...

[Tonus]

1) Empirical studies fall short of being able to understand all of reality?

If we cannot verify it, then the "reality outside of reality" can be whatever you imagine it to be. How do you trust that your metaphysical dream is more than just a dream? How would you determine that it refers to a place that is real?

[SteelCurtain]

---

Many of the comments from my last post have rejected the idea that there are limitations to empirical analysis of the God or said it does not matter. Some of you have pointed out that if there was a God, should there not by empirical evidence? My response is twofold:

1) Empirical studies fall short of being able to understand all of reality? How can you account for the existence of beauty and courage on only an empirical epistemology. It makes no sense why a fearful man will stand up in the field of battle and charge the enemy. This concept belongs to a realm beyond empirical science. Since some of you have doubted whether such a realm exists I would like to ask the following question.

2) What makes empirical rationalism the sole and first criteria for understanding the world?

I believe this question along with the limitations of empiricism present a serious challenge to what basis an atheist has for his view. It gets to the heart of what I believe are a series of assumptions that are made before the atheist even looks at the evidence. This question begins to touch what in a very technical sense is knows as a metaphysical dream. This dream explains why a theist comes to a different conclusion than an atheist.

Please let me know what you think. I am very interested in understand how atheist evaluate their primary basis for determining reality, empiricism. I look forward to hearing from everyone.

Nathan

---

1) What makes you think that beauty and courage are constructs outside of the human mind? All indications are that they are human reactions to outside stimuli, and therefore are absolutely understandable by emprical observations. Neurologists are making progress every day in understanding the brain, which is one of the most complicated systems (if not the most complicated) on earth. If the architecture of the human brain can be understood, it stands to reason that brain response can be understood, even if not soon. But this quasi-god of the gaps argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

2) It happens to be the best known, most productive, and most successful method in making progress in knowledge. If you'd like to provide a substitute, then please, publish your paper and receive your Nobel. (Note: goddidit has failed in progressing the human spectrum of knowledge.)

You seem to spend quite a bit of time knocking down empiricism for what it currently cannot measure. I wonder if it were 50 years ago, would you be knocking the empirical method for not being able to model DNA and the human genome? Or 100 years ago, would you be knocking empiricism for not being able to measure the size or weight of an electron? The argument is that just because something is not currently measurable is not an excuse to say: "Thus God."

[Confused Ape]

I believe this question along with the limitations of empiricism present a serious challenge to what basis an atheist has for his view. It gets to the heart of what I believe are a series of assumptions that are made before the atheist even looks at the evidence.

I once had a dream about Apollo. He radiated an awesome power and I knew I was in the presence of a god.

If I said I now worship Apollo because this dream proved he exists, would you think I was deluded?

[Fromper]

I notice Nathan hasn't actually answered any of the specific questions people have asked of him. I'm inclined to treat his questions with the same level of response.