Evidence for Believing

[Inqwizitor]

It's fine to have a belief, a tentative provisional viewpoint on matters like this, but let's not confuse a strong conviction about our beliefs with knowledge, and let's not even have such a strong conviction.

I agree with you that faith is not knowledge. I disagree that there isn't value, sometimes tremendous value, in strong convictions about what we cannot definitively prove, though. There is danger there too, but I'd rather not throw the baby out with the bathwater (and I do believe in a divine baby, after all).

I don't think that the concept of God in itself is necessarily an object of faith. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit is (and I guess so is the FSM if there is an ounce of sincerity in it) but not the metaphysical concept of actus purus; but igtheism makes a good point that the word "God" in itself, at least semantically, might be meaningless.

[GrandizerII]

It's fine to have a belief, a tentative provisional viewpoint on matters like this, but let's not confuse a strong conviction about our beliefs with knowledge, and let's not even have such a strong conviction.

I disagree that there isn't value, sometimes tremendous value, in strong convictions about what we cannot definitively prove, though.

Ok, that's fine except ... when it comes to grand entities, I personally don't think it's a good idea to have such strong convictions. As I said before, the gap in our knowledge regarding the metaphysical aspects of nature is too large for that.

I don't think that the concept of God in itself is necessarily an object of faith. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit is (and I guess so is the FSM if there is an ounce of sincerity in it) but not the metaphysical concept of actus purus; but igtheism makes a good point that the word "God" in itself, at least semantically, might be meaningless.

It may be rational, but it's not conclusively the case that there is this actus purus that somehow transcends nature. It's a belief, a metaphysical stance, but not one that is necessarily warranted.

[Succubus]

If in your opinion it's a strawman god then you are now obliged to define the real god.
AFAICS nowhere have you have made an attempt at defining the god you actually believe in, so this is an ideal opportunity. What is the real god?*


*Points will be deducted for any mention of philosophers/theologians, dead or otherwise.

If I could define it comprehensively, it wouldn't be God.

Dodge noted.

[Gwaithmir]

I have heard that identical claim from Muslims, Wiccans, Native Americans, Buddhists, pagans and many others. So, who is right? You can't all be right but you can all be wrong. If their personal experiences aren't right, how can yours be?

They can all reveal God.

But which one? We're talking about mutually exclusive concepts of god(s) here. You can't all be right but you can all be wrong. If their personal experiences aren't right, how can yours be? Be more specific.

[Fake Messiah]

Yeah, Jews literally feel that Jesus is not God - can they all be wrong for so long time?

[Simon Moon]

You do understand that the video was not meant to be an exact depiction of the Biblical god, but a sardonic depiction meant to show how ridiculous some of the stories, and the god depicted is, right?

For example; a god that wants all of humanity to believe and worship him, yet only appears to a very small geographical area, and a barbaric and illiterate tribe.

So you don't believe in the bible ergo God does not exist? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to say that the bible is one nation's story about their faith? It would be ridiculous if God only cared about the Jews, I agree with that. And I'm not anti-semitic at all. The bible is not a comprehensive vision of God, it's a collection of books about a particular human narrative, that may or may not have happened.

My disbelief in gods has nothing to do with the Bible being a book of mythology, that, in any important ways, does not reflect reality.

I never claimed, with absolute certainty, that a god do not exist. My position is, that the case for the existence of a god has never met its burden of proof, therefore I have no warrant of justification to believe a god exists. My atheism is a product of correctly applied skepticism and critical thinking, and is a provisional position, not a dogmatic one.

I will stop being an atheist, as soon as the case for the existence of a god has met its burden of proof, with demonstrable, verifiable and falsifiable evidence, and reasoned argument.

natural, no, because nature is limited to space, time, matter and energy. Neither a being nor a process, but whatever it is that causes anything to be. Personally I like Aristotle's idea of God as the pure act of being. I also don't think acknowledging this requires any faith in the bible. The bible describes a possible revelation to one species in this little corner of a group of a spiral arm of a speck of dust in the natural universe, that I happen to believe in. That doesn't make its claims more palatable to someone who believes in the uniformity of nature (that miracles never happen) but its faith in something particular, in a particular place, at a particular time, and not a philosophical treatise on all that God is and does.

Maybe there isn't anything that caused things to be. Maybe it is a brute force fact, that existence has always existed. Even before our local presentation of the universe expanded.

Please describe the state of nothing, as in nothing being. How can absolute nothing even "be"?

[Lek]

Could you please define and describe the god you believe exists?

I.E., do any ancient texts/holy books accurately depict it? If so, which ones? Does it interact with the physical universe and/or the sentient beings within the universe in any detectable, verifiable and repeatable way? Or whatever other pertinent information you might think would add to your description.

You might have done it in the past, but I don't see it in any of your latest threads.

Thanks!

Since he is indescrible in human terms, I can only give attributes. I use "he" for lack of another pronoun. He always existed and will always exist. He was not created, but he is the creator of the physical universe - omnipotent, omniscient, loving, personal, without gender, no form, etc. He exists in and apart from the universe and sustains it every second. I'm not of the Sikh religion, but my image of God is pretty much the same. The holy book of Sikhism is the "Sri Guru Granth Sahib".

[Anomalocaris]

It's fine to have a belief, a tentative provisional viewpoint on matters like this, but let's not confuse a strong conviction about our beliefs with knowledge, and let's not even have such a strong conviction.

I agree with you that faith is not knowledge. I disagree that there isn't value, sometimes tremendous value, in strong convictions about what we cannot definitively prove, though. There is danger there too, but I'd rather not throw the baby out with the bathwater (and I do believe in a divine baby, after all).

I don't think that the concept of God in itself is necessarily an object of faith. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit is (and I guess so is the FSM if there is an ounce of sincerity in it) but not the metaphysical concept of actus purus; but igtheism makes a good point that the word "God" in itself, at least semantically, might be meaningless.

There can always be the appearance of tremendous value or tremendous harm in any wishful self-deception.   There can also be the similar potential for tremendous apparent value and harm in revelation of demonstrable facts.   The overall value of the contingent effects of both wishful self-deception and  demonstrable facts, may on a first approximation be said to be similar,  and both are a wash.


The difference is what remains when the up and down swings of contingent value that sums up to nothing is removed.   In the case of faith nothing remains.   In the case of facts there will always remain the actionable understanding of what really is there.

But faith by nature does not give way to facts, and instead seem to propagate and aggrandize itself at the expense of facts and truth.

So the "tremendous" value in faith of which you speak are at best a random fluctuation that may seem to tick up today, but could just as easily crash down tomorrow.    But embracing faith likely comes at the opportunity cost of sacrificing the lasting value derivable from understanding of demonstrable facts.

[Nay_Sayer]

Could you please define and describe the god you believe exists?

I.E., do any ancient texts/holy books accurately depict it? If so, which ones? Does it interact with the physical universe and/or the sentient beings within the universe in any detectable, verifiable and repeatable way? Or whatever other pertinent information you might think would add to your description.

You might have done it in the past, but I don't see it in any of your latest threads.

Thanks!

Since he is indescrible in human terms, I can only give attributes.  I use "he" for lack of another pronoun.  He always existed and will always exist.  He was not created, but he is the creator of the physical universe - omnipotent, omniscient, loving, personal, without gender, no form, etc.  He exists in and apart from the universe and sustains it every second.  I'm not of the Sikh religion, but my image of God is pretty much the same.  The holy book of Sikhism is the "Sri Guru Granth Sahib".

Your god seems pretty weak, vague an inseparable from nothingness. I, however, can describe my God (and let's be honest the real one) in full robust language and can even give you illustrations of Its glory from artists who've seen it around the world and through time.

RAmen.

[The Grand Nudger]

If only there were more than one pronoun, right Lek!