That's a big thread. Can you direct me to the post with the definition?
It was too big for me to go back through as well. Let me just try again here. Note, this is basically a Christian theology with perhaps my own spin on some things. So fee free to preface all of my statements with "I believe" or "It is the Christian belief that":
God is the name given to a conscious being that created everything physical in our universe. Currently that understanding applies to all of space and time. If through scientific discovery we find more to our universe, then God is the creator of that as well. God fundamentally "exists" (whatever that may mean to Him) OUTSIDE our universe, including time. This means that for God, our universe is a static thing. It is analogous to a painter creating a painting. Everything that occurs does so according to "His Will" because it was all created by him (according to his will). Much like any given painting carries signature aspects that we can use to trace an unsigned painting to its creator, so too are there markers in the way the universe works that applies to God. It is through these markers - sometimes physical, sometimes psychological, etc. - that we better "know" God. Because these are all manifested within his creation, they are indistinguishable for us from everything we understand scientifically. IOW, he created the science, so his character is "stamped" on everything.
Of course, all of this has no specific religious connotations, and different religions have different ideas of what characteristics in particular apply to God. Insomuch as religions get hijacked by people, there are no doubt countless characteristics that are false. I would be extremely hesitant to ever say "God says ..." because I'm not him. I call myself a Christian because I believe Jesus was the closest person yet to identifying and understanding these characteristics - the closest to "knowing God". I believe this is what he was saying when he made comments like "I am the way".
Given the nature of the relationship between God and his creation, I don't see how anything could ever "prove" his existence - in fact, the proof is irrelevant. At the end of the day, we only have scientific inquiry to better understand the physical world. Characteristics, particularly as the apply to human nature, that seem to have a pattern but no physical explanation (yet) are the hallmarks of "divine inspiration". When man realizes truths without realizing WHY they are truth he calls them God. These truths are just as real and part of the universe whether there really is that external consciousness or not. An excellent example is an article I just read yesterday in Scientific American Mind. It touches on the efficacy of superstitions in improving people's performance. Basically, superstitions provide a subconscious optimism that drives us to do better. This may be precisely how prayer works. By believing it will help us, it will indeed help us (through faith and faith alone - the article even says that once people realize the mechanics behind the function of the superstition, the benefit goes away). The fact that this so closely mirrors what religions say about prayer gives the religious tenets strength in my mind. IOW, whether you believe in the divine consciousness or not, there is ancient wisdom in religion that far predates our scientific understanding of the way certain things in creation work. To dismiss them out of hand because one cannot prove the existence of the external consciousness is foolish because the presence of the external consciousness is irrelevant to the function of the universe, and as is exhibited in the recent article, sometimes it is the faith itself that provides a benefit to people.
I want you to clearly understand what you just said... which is you would prefer to have an answer that isn't true than to say "I don't know" and wait for a true answer. That means you value the psychological satiation of having an answer more than truth (i.e. you value how you feel more than truth). This fully supports my statement that belief puts "truth" in the back seat.
No, that is not what I am saying. Continuing the line of thought from above, what I am saying is that belief is recognizing the truth in things, and accepting them as true, without having any deeper understanding. I am content to hold on to my beliefs until or unless some deeper understanding reveals more about it. Of course, given my belief regarding the nature of the interaction between "God" and the rest of the universe, it is impossible for deeper understandings of things to ever diminish my faith and convictions, but by the same token there is still just as much room for improved understanding as there is in the mind of any atheist - perhaps more, since I can accept some things without proof and move on, continuing to learn more without getting hung up on the things that cannot be proven.
No it isn't. Theists have faulty logic. It's been demonstrated time over. It's a fair comment. Simply, they go beyond faith, without proof. That's not logical. It's also been proven that generally belief decreases as IQ increases. Proven. Got that? It's also been shown that generally atheists have a better knowledge of religious texts than theists. Got that?
Read my above comment. At this point, there is scientific evidence that sometimes going on faith, without logic, is the most effective. So one could easily argue that requiring full understanding (from a physical aspect) at least sometimes actually hinders your ability and progress. Which then is illogical?
As for your statistic regarding the relationship between faith and IQ, first of all it is just that - a statistic, and like all statistics must be interpreted. As such, it isn't "proof" of anything. The way you phrased it indicated a belief on your part that there is a direct relationship between faith and intelligence, as though it is impossible to "believe" if you are smart. There are SO MANY alternative propositions though that would fit that data. For example, one could argue that as IQ increases in family structures, the more likely an individual is to question the lessons of their parents, and since the majority of families over the last few generations have taught theism, these high IQ individuals are more likely to rebel against it, thus becoming atheists. After all, at one point in time (like during the dark ages), it was only the educated that were taught religion, and the higher the IQ the more likely one would be fully versed in faith, and the more likely they would be to believe.
Furthermore, your grouping of all theists into a stereotype that says "Theists have faulty logic. It's been demonstrated time over." would suggest that fault logic arises from theism (or perhaps vice versa) and ignores the simple possibility that some other characteristic equally contributes to both faith and - as you put it - faulty logic. To put it in other terms, think about something like the iPhone. It is popular, it is a touchscreen, it is made by Apple, it has a simple UI, it only comes in black and white, etc. To just take two of those characteristics and lump them together as though they are related is horribly inaccurate. I could for example say that black and white devices are the most popular - that BECAUSE something is black and/or white it will be popular. Clearly false. Or touch screen devices are made by Apple. (et. al.)
My point here is that just because you have seen a corrolation between faulty logic and theists doesn't mean there is a direction cause and effect relationship. To fairly make the statement you made above, you would have to show a clear connection between theism itself and a lack of logic - not between theists and logic (or the lack thereof).
Got that? (I actually take that back, it is demeaning and insulting. Perhaps you could show the same courtesy?)
Is there a 'famous' quote? One you couldn't even be bothered to Google?
No, I can't be - not for something that I would assume everyone on here would recognize. I'm also not going to cite a reference if I mention the sky is blue.
You also need to recognise that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." (Carl Sagan(I can be bothered to use and credit quotes to back up my posts, see?)). Theists claim there is a God. Not merely that they have faith in there being a God, but that there actually is. The latter requires proof. We ask for it. It is always flawed logic, fallacious argument, incomplete, or relies on faith, which demeans the premise. All atheists do, is remain unconvinced. Occasionally we might get a little annoyed with the same tired old debunked arguments being rehashed and brought back up again.
Can you not see the meaning in "faith"? Theists claim there is a God because that is what they believe. Such is the nature of the word "belief". I THINK you are TRYING to say that theists think they KNOW there is a God, and I would agree that such a thought represents a lack of logic and understanding. But what you ACTUALLY typed represents a lack of understanding on your part of the meaning of words like belief, so I'm really not sure what else to say. Technically, what you are describing as an atheist is actually an agnostic. Perhaps you could spend a little less time looking up quotes that people already know and a little more time looking up the definitions to words you clearly don't?
Now, if you want to defend the theist mindset, how about you try to construct a logical argument for God, and support it with some evidence.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything, and as I have already said on more than one occassion in this thread alone, the burden of proof is on the one trying to convince the other. Since I'm not trying to convince you of anything (I doubt you'd understand anyway), I'm not going to bother. Just don't fool yourself into thinking that has any impact on any argument. If you want to convince me that there is no God, let's here YOUR logical argument. If you want to say that you don't know, don't continue about with the attitude of an atheist, as though those who believe in God are somehow beneath you. I too don't know, but I do believe.
See, if that were true, if there were an interface between this world, and some other level of experience, we should be able to find the 'receptor' that exists in this world. If that truly is your argument, go find evidence for the receptor.
But here's the thing. We know simple chemicals can alter a personality, which rather scuppers the idea of that personality belonging to an independent soul. We know brain damage also changes personality. Know, you might argue the entire brain is merely a 'receptor', but then, you'd have to come up with some extraordinary proof to overturn all the current research and understanding, and propose a new mechanism for personality. Instead of hiding behind uncertainties, maybe it's time for theists to offer something of substance, or simply admit, it's all just about faith, and it's not necessary for it to be true.
See my comments above about God and how He interacts with the universe. Everything you describe here fits in perfectly with my definition of God. But as you say, theists most definitely need to admit that it's all about faith, and not necessarily true. I freely make that claim. And you're right, all theists should do the same - just as all atheists should. Agnosticism is the only truth when it comes to the question of God's existence. Anyone who claims otherwise is at the very least stubborn, and at the worst an idiot. (Or perhaps it is the other way around? Is it better to be an idiot - which perhaps you cannot change - or stubborn - which you can but don't?)
