Hello. Thank you for having this forum here. I recently stopped being a "believer" -- and by that I mean *very* recently -- so I sought this community to reach out to.
For most of as long as I can remember - my position about God has been as follows --- identifying as what I called "philosophically agnostic - personally theistic". What that meant was that I believed that the existence of God could neither be proven nor disproven (hence "philosophically agnostic") yet personally, I believed in God (hence "personally theistic").
So in short --- I believed that one could neither prove that God exists or that God doesn't exist - but I maintained *personally* to *myself* *believe* that God *does* exist. This begs the next question --- what exactly does *that* mean? And this second question is one that for years I avoided examining -- but very recently when I finally decided I *should* examine it - that was what led to my de-conversion.
It was then that I realized that I can not logically justify continuing to believe in God --- that though one can not *prove* God exists, and therefore God's existence is not entirely *impossible*, it is so *improbable* that it may as *well* be impossible.
You see --- I personally believed God existed --- but also believed God's existence to be unprovable. Furthermore --- if I were to meet someone else who like me believed that God's existence could neither be proven nor disproven ---- but unlike me-at-the-time believed God did *not* exist ---- I would believe that though both of us couldn't possibly be right on the *second* point, the other person could just-as-well be the right one as myself -- and I could just as well be wrong.
So what does it mean to "believe" something if I believe that someone who's opinion is incompatible with mine can just as well be right as me?
At first -- I examined this question focusing on what I meant by "believe" --- but eventually. I came up with all kinds of explanations hinging on what I refer to as "vague probabilistic logic". But though what I call "vague probabilistic logic" can at times be used to explain disagreement between two rational beings on various matters, I do not think it was an adequate explanation of how I could "believe" in something while also believing that someone who disagrees could just as likely be right as I am.
So the scrutiny fell on whether or not I was using the term "God" consistently.
I realized that for a *very* long time, there was only one category of things that I had had any Faith in God ever being willing to do for me --- that being to open and unleash reserved potentials within myself that otherwise are dormant. However, do you need an omniscient or omnipotent being to do this? No --- your subconscious mind can do this for you just fine.
In short, I *wasn't* using the term "God" consistently --- but the God which I believed in, I had no evidence that this "God" was one-and-the-same with the more *common* concept of "God" who's existence I could neither prove nor disprove.
The only "God" I had any basis for believing in was just a personal spiritual source --- and I had no evidence that this "God" was any more than a part of my subconscious brain.
Of course --- I came to this realizaton before I was entirely *ready* to know this --- so I have some issues with that --- and hope that on this forum, I can *also* find resources to learn to *cope* with the loss of a close imaginary-friend.
For most of as long as I can remember - my position about God has been as follows --- identifying as what I called "philosophically agnostic - personally theistic". What that meant was that I believed that the existence of God could neither be proven nor disproven (hence "philosophically agnostic") yet personally, I believed in God (hence "personally theistic").
So in short --- I believed that one could neither prove that God exists or that God doesn't exist - but I maintained *personally* to *myself* *believe* that God *does* exist. This begs the next question --- what exactly does *that* mean? And this second question is one that for years I avoided examining -- but very recently when I finally decided I *should* examine it - that was what led to my de-conversion.
It was then that I realized that I can not logically justify continuing to believe in God --- that though one can not *prove* God exists, and therefore God's existence is not entirely *impossible*, it is so *improbable* that it may as *well* be impossible.
You see --- I personally believed God existed --- but also believed God's existence to be unprovable. Furthermore --- if I were to meet someone else who like me believed that God's existence could neither be proven nor disproven ---- but unlike me-at-the-time believed God did *not* exist ---- I would believe that though both of us couldn't possibly be right on the *second* point, the other person could just-as-well be the right one as myself -- and I could just as well be wrong.
So what does it mean to "believe" something if I believe that someone who's opinion is incompatible with mine can just as well be right as me?
At first -- I examined this question focusing on what I meant by "believe" --- but eventually. I came up with all kinds of explanations hinging on what I refer to as "vague probabilistic logic". But though what I call "vague probabilistic logic" can at times be used to explain disagreement between two rational beings on various matters, I do not think it was an adequate explanation of how I could "believe" in something while also believing that someone who disagrees could just as likely be right as I am.
So the scrutiny fell on whether or not I was using the term "God" consistently.
I realized that for a *very* long time, there was only one category of things that I had had any Faith in God ever being willing to do for me --- that being to open and unleash reserved potentials within myself that otherwise are dormant. However, do you need an omniscient or omnipotent being to do this? No --- your subconscious mind can do this for you just fine.
In short, I *wasn't* using the term "God" consistently --- but the God which I believed in, I had no evidence that this "God" was one-and-the-same with the more *common* concept of "God" who's existence I could neither prove nor disprove.
The only "God" I had any basis for believing in was just a personal spiritual source --- and I had no evidence that this "God" was any more than a part of my subconscious brain.
Of course --- I came to this realizaton before I was entirely *ready* to know this --- so I have some issues with that --- and hope that on this forum, I can *also* find resources to learn to *cope* with the loss of a close imaginary-friend.
