How do you think of God? What is God? Clearly, God is not supposed to be made of matter or energy. That would seem only to leave some kind of disembodied "spirit" as an option. Is that how you think of God?
As I have been emphasizing over and over again: I think it comes down to one's intentions - ie. why one chooses to work with one definition of "God" as opposed to with some other one.
One's intentions are available to one for one's inspection and judgment.
I've already listed what I think are some of the
perks of working with inferior definitions of God.
Considering this, I don't concern myself with who or what God may truly be or not (as that concern is rendered undecidable by my focus on my intentions), but I focus my concerns on why I choose or would choose to work with one particular definition of "God" over another. So my question for me is: Is my intention for my choice of definition of "God" skillful or not?
Some definitions of "God" are such that they fuel pride, others are such that they fuel hate, some fuel indecision -- all such are unskillful. It's generally not wise to pursue that which is unskillful.
How can you hope to know anything about God's terms?
Again, why are you inquring about this?
If I were to ask "How can you hope to know anything about God's terms?", I can tell you that it would be out of pride, insecurity, bad faith, jealousy toward theists. Noneof which are skillful intentions.
Why should we have faith in God? If there's no evidence of God, I can't see any rational reason in having faith in him/her/it. Can you?
Several things here:
One, as already said, there is the issue of your intentions.
Two, "rational" is one of the most hotly debated terms in Western philosophy.
Three, "to have faith in someone or something" extends far beyond merely believing said thing or person exists. It also means 'to trust, to be loyal to, to value highly, to look up to.'
I'm sure that in the 20 years that he was a minister, Barker would have come across many things that challenged his faith.
It depends on how he answered those challenges.
But he had very little exposure to rational thinking about God, and his religious tradition and environment actively discouraged such questioning. This is a common feature of most conservative religious environments.
What is your point? That the above is proof that he really believed or that he was really religious?
I'm not sure you're an atheist at all.
Why do you not believe in God?
What do you mean by "believe in God"?
To believe that God exists, the way, say, the Statue of Liberty in New York exists?
Again, it comes down to the definition of "God" one works with.
There are proposed defintions of "God" for which the question "Do you believe in God?" applies in the same way as the question "Do you believe that the Statue of Liberty exists?" applies. Mainstream Christianity, for example, seems to work with such definitions.
And then there are other definitions, like the omnimax one, with which such a question does not apply.
Thinking isn't a sense. Senses are ways you connect to the world. Thinking is something that happens inside your brain. It doesn't give you access to the world; it makes sense of what you already know.
That is so according to your particular philosophy of mind.
To what limited extent do you think that the existence of God is accessible to empirical investigation?
Here working from the omnimax definition:
The existence of God is accessible to empirical investigation to the impersonal extent.
Ie. such investigation is incomplete.
By empirical investigation, one can know God to some extent - but not know
God as God, but only as His material aspect.
Much like by investigating, say, the muscles of Peter, you know something about the material, physical aspect of Peter; but the muscles aren't Peter, and simply from knowing Peter's muscles, you don't know Peter.
