God is "dead"

[dumbest man on earth]

No, it isn't.

We differ in that opinion. Also your original question asked :

What exactly does religion offer with regard to the demand for respect that atheism does not?

Demanding respect is somewhat different than Earning respect or even Commanding such. In my view at least.

You should reflect upon your first sentence. Does a thing demand anything?
Does respect demand respect? Further, and to clarify... should respect be accorded respect simply for itself? Would you respect Anders Breivik only because he respected you?

As I stated previously :

...all people have my utmost respect - unless/until they command/earn anything less.

I have no personal relationship with Anders Breivik, and most likely, never will. Any level of respect or lack thereof, decided upon prior to the actual inception of said relationship would be - in the least, only conjecture, and at the other extreme, biased - at this point.

It does not matter in what esteem an individual holds themselves. What matters for the individual is the esteem in which an individual is held within the community he respects.

My view is that if a man has no respect for himself - and delusions of superiority show both lack of true self-respect and true self-esteem - then any esteem proffered by "the community" would only seem to be falsely enjoyed or appreciated by said individual. Again, in my view.

Of course they are, or do. The greater the respect for an opinion, the more prevalent that opinion becomes. That's social evolution.
Are you aware, by way of example, that the only reason gay marriage was still frowned upon until recently is because most people frown upon it?
What causes change?
A lack of respect for that viewpoint.
Those who say "I respect your opinion, but..." are only paying lip service.

Adopting the opinions of others instead of forming ones own, after careful consideration, in my view, would only be, as you succinctly state, "only paying lip service" to ones true self.

As far as the example you use, and your views expressed in that example - there is rarely, if ever, only one single mitigating factor or one single impediment to any widespread cultural or societal change.

The Marquis, it is also not my perception, nor my opinion, that "all" who state "I respect your opinion, but...", indeed, "are only paying lip service".

This is the kind of statement one might find on a Hallmark greeting card, a desktop calendar, or a collection of "wise quotations".
It sounds good. It caters to the individual who desires respect but does not have it.
But is it true? No. There is absolutely nothing which redeems that statement for me, other than a nod toward the "squeaky wheel" theory.

Apply your sentence to, say, race relations. Most minorities run around demanding all sorts of things. Are you saying they don't deserve them?

In my sentence, I used the word "demands", I did not use the words "commands" or "earns" - my sentence was referring to the subject of respect.
I see no respectful reason for you to apply it in any other context, nor any need for myself to do so.

I can not and will not posit any answer to your inane query, and instead refer you to the following :

The Marquis, all people have my utmost respect - unless/until they command/earn anything less.

To which you replied :

This is a fine philosophy.
It's like a game of tournament poker. All begin with the same starting stack of chips.
Over the course of the game, some lose, and some win. All one need do is conceive of that starting stack of chips as initial respect.
In this place, your words are the hands you choose to play. Odd thing being that it is both those who play conservatively and those who play aggressively who can win the game.
Often, it dpeends entirely upon how those cards fall.

Whether or not you, The Marquis, or anyone else deems it "a fine philosophy", is not of any consideration to me. It is the only option that my discipline allows me to utilize.

As far as the rest of your ^^above^^...analogy?...metaphor?...well...is it not the cards that we are dealt, but how we choose to play those cards, that ultimately determines the outcome of the game?

i agree. Its probably unfortunate that this real man probably doesn't exist. One can only try.

If one only makes an effort to try, instead of an earnest effort to succeed - then failure is an optional goal prior to the effort.
If no man was ever willing to apply said earnest effort, then the existence of any real man might, indeed, be in doubt.

Fortunately and personally, I suffer no doubts as to the existence of said real man(men).

Why, thank you. You and your funky bunch as well. Let neither of us ever learn the reality.

Why thank you also. Nice to see you that you took my popular culture(?) reference in the lightheartedness way in which it was intended.

Finally, to paraphrase Robin Williams : "Reality...what a concept!" and "Reality is for people who can't handle drugs!"

Again, Happy Holidays!

 

[origin]

I don't think god is dead, he is just under the weather a bit.

 

[The Marquis]

We differ in that opinion. Also your original question asked....

Oh dear.
If you hadn't responded to that last post of mine, I'd seriously have considered deleting it.
All that effort you put in, responding to a pile of trash I'm laughing at the next morning. Terribly sorry.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

Oh dear.
If you hadn't responded to that last post of mine, I'd seriously have considered deleting it.
All that effort you put in, responding to a pile of trash I'm laughing at the next morning. Terribly sorry.

Not a problem.
If I had thought it "a pile of trash", I would not have responded to it.

As far as effort on my part - I am not as slow and feckless as my appearance or moniker might suggest - the thoughts are fast, still...alas the "Hunt and Peck" typing is all that is not effortless. But, honestly how much effort does that truly entail!?

At any rate, The Marquis, no need to be sorry - much less, terribly!

Later.

 

[wynn]

Exactly the opposite, a third party can most of the times, influence negatively, in this specific case. And no, i'm not trying to follow that reasoning.

You are - at least in one direction, where you posit that your dismissal of another's claim is valid, while another's dismissal of your claim in invalid.

What i am trying to imply (sorry if hermetically), is that if you do not bring a tangible proof of an occurrence, be it transcendent or empirical, we can not deem it factual.

And the same goes for you then:
If you do not bring a tangible proof of an occurrence, be it transcendent or empirical, we can not deem it factual.

Unless your basic position is that the standard you hold others to, others should not hold you to.

We are, on this specific case, dealing with a "preternatural occurrence" (read as god's existence). Wether or not, it is deemed by most as a preternatural occurrence of any sort, related to christianism or to UFO sightings, unless brought attainable proof, can not be deemed factual, and, between the ones who deem factual the "preternatural occurrence", bringing proof is not exactly a rule of thumb, as most of things deemed "preternatural" rely on superstition and/or faith. Still on the subject, any proof bought on these terms will suffice to convince and be accepted by the subjects who have said superstition/faith but, will, most of the times, fail to do outside this scope due to subjectivity, as it would render skepticism non applicable. Even if you believe in such "occurrence" or not.

Says you. If others hold you to the same standard you hold them to, they can dismiss your claims just as you dismiss theirs.

 

[wynn]

There is no reasonable basis to take any notion of divinity seriously. That most in my society and those of the rest of the world do continue to take it seriously is a continued impediment to a better understanding the human condition and reality in general. The time, energy and resources devoted to this addiction to divine obscurity would be better applied to more tangible pursuits. I realize that human devotion to divine delusion was an evolutionary necessity, but for the sake intellectual advancement I can only hope that its abandonment is imminent.

And you dodge and hide some more ...

This avoidance is probably causing you - and others - more harm than all the zealots combined.

 

[wynn]

Errrr .... no .....not unless we are forced to accept the opinion of perpetual cave dwellers on this subject

Awww, what an illuminating reference!

 

[Syne]

Balerion, I am answering both these posts of yours together so as to avoid more of this nonsense:

Uh, I asked you a question.

You responded to both my reply to the OP and to Magical Realist, and then apparently forgot that we had two discussions going at once, leading to your above confusion (when I had answered you in my response to that specific post). In the future, try consolidating your own responses to multiple posts if you cannot keep them straight otherwise.

While a very wide definition of a personal god could be one that is simply attributed human characteristics, we already have a word for that...anthropomorphism. Humans anthropomorphize all kinds of things, including pets, cars, ships, etc.. That does not make them personalities.

Anthropomorphism is the practice of attributing human characteristics to (especially) gods, so it certainly doesn't stand in contrast to the term "personal god." In fact, "anthropomorphic god" is a synonym of "personal god." You even referred to it as "him!"

I have already corrected you, with definitions. Here they are one more time:

A personal god is a deity who can be related to as a person - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_god

Christian theologian Alister McGrath writes that there are good reasons to suggest that a "personal god" is integral to the Christian outlook, but that one has to understand it is an analogy. "To say that God is like a person is to affirm the divine ability and willingness to relate to others. This does not imply that God is human, or located at a specific point in the universe." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_god#Christianity

Anthropomorphism, or personification, is attribution of human form or other characteristics to anything other than a human being. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism​

Anything can be attributed human characteristic, i.e. anthropomorphized/humanized. Anthropomorphism does not imply nor necessitate any of said characteristics actually being integral to the thing so attributed. And this is where it differs from a personal god. A personal god is one that is claimed to actually possess the characteristics attributed to it, to the extent of that god actively seeking to relate to man. I expect you to cite references if you wish to argue these terms are synonymous.

But I think I see where your confusion lies.

Here is an analogy. Take a person that anthropomorphizes their pet. They talk to it and attribute all manor of human motivations, thoughts, understanding, and reaction to it. For most pet owners, it ends there. But for some, their pets are "children" and believed to actually possess these characteristics. So the distinction is one of belief, which is probably why it eludes an atheist.

Now no doubt you will wish to make a direct comparison of this analogy to belief in a god. The problem there is that we can objectively demonstrate the lack of such human characteristics in animals but we cannot do so of a god. Although like I have said, I have not claimed a personal (as opposed to merely anthropomorphized) nor active god, both of which are necessary for your claim of "hiding" to be valid.

And you are the one insisting that some sort of active intent to "hide" exists, which is ridiculous coming from an atheist. How can you seriously insist on characteristics of a god you do not espouse?

I'm not insisting on anything. I'm simply describing the image based on the outline you provided.

Quote this supposed "outline".

If you were not so busy trying to promote your belief of a god, you would realize that this is the definition I am using, as I specifically said not personal or active.

You specifically say many things you later contradict, to which anyone who has interacted with you can attest, so I'm not really all that concerned with your preamble. What I'm "promoting" is what God must be given your description.

Poisoning the well without any attempt to support your vague claims, and with a supposed appeal to consensus (also not shown). You have repeatedly claimed some intentional hiding that I have consistently and explicitly told you I have not. I can only describe this behavior as either obtuse or trolling.

The preference for free will could just as likely have been factored into the laws that govern our universe, the clockwork of the natural world being "wound-up" and left to unfold on its own. Neither currently active nor personal.

Again, an anthropomorphic god is a personal God. Your insistence that you only mean "personal" in the narrowest sense does not mean that your description of god must therefore equate to "impersonal." That's not how the language works, homie. What you describe is a personal god, just in a broader sense than the convenient parameters you set for yourself.

You have not shown the two terms to be synonymous. You have only proclaimed them so, like any unfounded belief.

People anthropomorphize things all the time without that act of attributing human characteristics changing the thing itself in any way

That's a weak strawman. We're not talking about objective characteristics of god, we're talking about your description of it.

I stated a simple fact about anthropomorphism. How can that be a strawman? Whoever said we were discussing objective characteristics?

They just draw different conclusions from the same quandaries even science has no answers for.

Such as?

An ultimate cause for our universe, for one.

Uh, I asked you a question. Am I to assume you do not wish to support the accusation of fallacy?

What, exactly, was unclear about my assertion? Are you looking for a specific name for the logical fallacy? I can't help you with that.

You should really refrain from making accusations you do not understand. No wonder you did not answer...you did not know how to.

So saying someone has an irrational belief is a strawman?

Irrational belief? That is a non sequitur, as we are discussing your strawman that a god is purposefully hiding.

Uh, I asked you a question. Am I to assume you do not wish to support the claim that one cannot make assertions about beliefs they do not themselves hold?

What does an irrational belief have to do with making claims about what someone else believes? Are you saying that since you consider it irrational that that gives you some sort of right to make up what it claims?

as·ser·tion
1. a confident and forceful statement of fact or belief.​

By definition, you cannot make "assertions" about things you do not confidently or forcefully believe. And do not continue to snip definitions out of the posts you quote so you can pretend you do not know them.

Talk about strawmen. No one is making any claims about God except you, who made the claim that God left its existence impossible to prove so as to preserve free will. Not only does your argument that such a thing is necessary to maintain free will, but you haven't even addressed where you got such an idea.

So you have not claimed that a god must be intentionally hiding?

A God that purposefully hides its existence for the sake of maintaining deniability and thus free will for its creation is a personal god by definition.

Perhaps it just does not occur to you that this is a false dilemma. A god may not be intentionally hiding and doubt in its existence could still occur.

And I have already given the analogy of a sane man being unable to deny the existence of a chair.

You have insisted on a "hiding" god and then insisted that I defend that claim as if it were my own.

It is your claim:

A god could not show himself without removing the free will to choose.

So you think the lack of action (showing) must equate to the active opposite action (hiding)? So if you are in a crowd, the fact that you do not take action to make sure you are seen in that crowd means you are actively hiding? Man, you must be trying to hide all the time. How do you ever get anything else done?

Interesting. I didn't say a choice based on insufficient evidence was irrational, yet you submit the above as if I had. There's a word for that, I think...

I said we make irrational choices all the time. That is, choices that do not make sense in light of the available information.

But in this case, where available information is scant, at best, the only criteria for "not mak[ing] sense" is wholly subjective.

What do you mean "in this case?" We were discussing the ability of a person to disbelieve in the existence of God if God were to make a public showing of himself, since your claim that he can never do such a thing without removing free will hinges on it. It was you who argued that in such a case the information available would be so overwhelming that insanity would be required to reach a different conclusion.

Oh, so you are also equating "irrational" to "insane" even though there is a significant difference of degree. Typically, the former is defined as transient while the latter is defined as chronic. Or to put it in terms you may better understand, irrationality is merely the lack of applying reason, whereas insanity is actively abnormal.

Someone can be irrational and still have no choice but to accept a chair for what it is, where the insane display abnormal perception and thinking.

So either this is a trivially non sequitur argument, or you did intend to relate insufficient evidence to irrational choices in some concrete way. I will just assume the former, which warrants no further address.

This is apparently one of those cases where you forgot to take your Centrum Silver, and forgot what the hell you were talking about.

Insults when, at the top of this post, it has been demonstrated that you have trouble keeping things straight. And it seems this was not clear because you conflated "irrational" with "insane". So on both counts this is only projection.

Hence not "unmistakable". Do you seriously not see the ridiculous contradiction of claiming the unmistakable can be mistaken?! Did you misplace your helmet?

You realize that nothing is actually unmistakable, right?

If you want to play semantics beyond the definitions, you are welcome to, but your arguments will be moot. And I suppose you have some significant doubt as to the existence of the chair you sit on? Maybe even your own existence?

You must not know what the Dunning-Kruger effect is. The physics of both are very much subject to individual understanding, unless you simply appeal to authority.

Of course, but that doesn't explain intelligent people who know the physics and yet still believe the myth.

Your response below is a start.

No, according to simple definition. The "unmistakable" cannot be mistaken. If you cannot be mistaken, how can you have any doubt?

Because "unmistakable" isn't really unmistakable.

If unmistakable really is not then why do you question the reasoning of conspiracy theorists? If nothing is unmistakable then they are justified in their questioning and suppositions. Otherwise there is such a thing as unmistakable.

But again, if you wish to make simple words meaningless then your arguments are moot. There is just no guarantee that you are using the same language, as standardized by dictionaries everywhere. Are you going to question the meaning of the word "is" next?

Uh, I asked you a question.

As shown at the top of this post, you were just confused.

As an atheist, you have no more grounds to define theist beliefs than a string theorist has to define LQG.

I guess it depends on what you mean by belief. I'm not trying to say that there is only one kind of "true" Christian, I'm simply pointing out what I saw as themes within the Christian texts.

And your opinion is colored by your atheism. Why not debate what is actually claimed here instead of your opinion? Unless you would like to provide references you would like to discuss (in a new thread). I never implied anything about a '"true" Christian', so I have no idea where that came from.

If the string theorist could define LQG then LQG would not be a field of research, as string theorists do not think it is valid, and would define it as such.

Irrelevant. And incorrect. I can define anything I like. It's up to others to decide whether or not they agree.

No, you cannot make assertions of something you do not espouse, and you cannot arbitrarily make up your own definitions.

Most Nazis defined their movement as righteous. Am I not able to define Nazism because I do not practice it?

No, you can only opine on an ideology, you cannot define it, especially in ways contrary to how they did. You seem to have a serious deficiency in understanding belief.

be·lief
1. an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.​

A belief/ideology/worldview is defined by what it considers true. So any attempt of yours to redefine it means you are not actually addressing the belief. So it appears much of your posts in this subforum are largely off-topic.

It is because you lack belief that your claims are without merit. It would be the same as me claiming that atheism was only a dislike of god. You would cry foul, and for good reason, just as I am about your claims of a belief you do not espouse. If you really cannot understand that then very little is likely to make it through your attentional bias.

I would cry foul because your definition would be incorrect, not because you're not an atheist. Certainly you're able to understand and state what atheism entails, even though you don't share its views. (or, view, rather).

Yes, and your definition is incorrect because you do not understand the belief. What you have been doing is analogous to a theist claiming atheists just hate god.

The details reported by men are necessarily subjective, just like any self-reported data. Scripture is largely a testament to the beliefs of men. But like I said, theists find evidence beyond the pages of scripture, and that scripture only relates the subjective understanding of this.

By this logic, the Bible is merely a[n inaccurate] history book. But this isn't what I hear from many Christians, who report the Bible to be the source and maintenance of their faith.

"Source and maintenance of their faith" is not equivalent to "literal" (although it does not preclude it either). Even in present-day churches, people find testimonies very uplifting, hence "a testament to the beliefs of men".

If you really want to discuss what "many Christians" believe then post some reference statistics and links to a new thread.

Again, what you believe of a belief system you do not espouse is irrelevant unless you are arguing someone who agrees with your claims.

By that logic, no argument is relevant unless the arguers end up agreeing. We know this isn't the case.

No, it just means you have to argue their actual claims instead of making up claims to argue (i.e. strawman).

Maybe you should just go find your usual easy target to ply your lazy arguments on. You know, make yourself feel smart.

I would suggest the same to you. Certainly GIA is around here somewhere, no?

That is what I have you for.

The Bible itself refers to God's action as a test. (NIV) And all versions suggest that God did not know the outcome:

"...Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.” -Genesis 22:12​

Again, written by men from the anthropomorphized perspective of men.

If free will were not ostensibly important to God then there would be no need for scripture to promote a choice. And free will is how we attribute moral accountability.

Scripture doesn't promote a choice. It explicitly forbids choice, threatening anyone who takes the wrong path with destruction.

Sure, a book largely dedicated to convincing someone to make a particular choice is not promoting choice. How can it encourage making a particular choice and not be promoting choice?

 

[Syne]

Again, your own claim of "unmistakable public appearance". The unmistakable cannot be mistaken. Do you and Balerion take turns with the helmet? A god operates beyond the same "limits of our knowledge and perception" as scientific speculation on that which science itself defines as beyond our knowledge and perception.

Again, "unmistakable" excludes any possibility for error.

Unmistakable in regards to validating a supreme being requires the exclusion of all contenders, and without the unattainable quality of omniscience, how would you expect such a determination to be made?

It requires no omniscience from you. If a god did want to unmistakably demonstrate its existence, it would be omniscient enough to know what would be unmistakable to each person and demonstrate that.

 

[Capracus]

And you dodge and hide some more ...

This avoidance is probably causing you - and others - more harm than all the zealots combined.

What is it you think I’m avoiding in regards to the original question you asked below?

But why should that be a problem?
Why is there a need to validate the existence of a supreme being - especially the existence of the most supreme being?
Can you explain?

I’ve given you four answers to this question that essentially state that there’s no need to validate the existence of a supreme being because it can’t be done, and to entertain the possibility that it can promotes further irrationality in the world we live. Other than its entertainment value, why would you expect such widespread irrationality to be personally appealing to me?

 

[Capracus]

It requires no omniscience from you. If a god did want to unmistakably demonstrate its existence, it would be omniscient enough to know what would be unmistakable to each person and demonstrate that.

But it wouldn’t take an omniscient being to pull that off, only one capable of meeting our limited expectations. Its knowledge would only have to surpass the collective knowledge of humanity. Ours on the other hand would have to be equal to the god’s to know it wasn’t a pretender.

 

[Syne]

All supremely irrelevant to the fact that the OP itself presupposed a personal God as do 99% of all the religious theists on the planet. To posit God as something else, as a force or a metaphysical principle is merely your attempt at trying to change the subject when trapped into a corner. Which in turn will lead to yet another a tedious string of further posts of you redefining and backpeddling on everything you say and generally being the obnoxious prick you always manage to become in every dialogue.

The OP assumes a nonexistent god, which cannot be personal.

God is dead, he is fictitious, fake!
No such thing called God that really exists

And cite your source on that supposed "99% of all the religious theists on the planet...presupposed a personal God". According to a Pew survey, only 60% believe in a personal god - http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report2religious-landscape-study-key-findings.pdf.

Like I have said, if you wish to discuss popular beliefs, instead of those actually asserted in this thread, start a new topic with with statistics to back up what is "popular".

[Warning: Blatant insults will no longer be tolerated in the Religion forum.]

Yes..the OP's question assumed this. Go back and reread it for clarification.

Again, the OP assumes a nonexistent god.

Good, we agree (bolded). People believe because there is also a lack of evidence/proof against a god existing.

God is never seen anywhere at anytime by anyone. Same as with leprechauns, unicorns, dragons, etc. Can you explain how this is a lack of evidence against god existing?

God is seen everywhere, all the time, according to most theists. Very few people assert the actual existence of "leprechauns, unicorns, dragons, etc.", so those are red-herrings. The scientific method, which is supposedly your criteria for "evidence", both cannot prove a negative and generally cannot offer proof at all.

So what? Again, why does freewill entail being able to not believe existing things exist? What freedom is being advanced here besides the freedom to be deluded?

I never said "freewill entail being able to not believe existing things exist". I specifically said that the unmistakable cannot be denied by the sane. Free will can only be expressed where choice exists.

Name some of these things that God looks like. What colors and textures and sounds were involved in God's appearance? If God appeared everywhere, why did so many of us miss it? And if God's size is astronomical, what are the approximate measurements of said being? Lightyears and parsecs will suffice here.

An omnipresent god exists in everything, and it is in everything that theists may see god.

Freedom is the ability to make choices of action and thought based on accurate knowledge and experience. Freedom based on ignorance and lack of evidence isn't freedom. It's delusion.

free·dom
1. the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.​

Your additions of "accurate knowledge and experience" are arbitrary restraints. Nowhere does the definition of freedom include any qualification of knowledge. Seems you have conflated "freedom" with something like "informed consent".

Just as subjective as any other belief, and your claims are moot unless addressed to someone espousing them. Besides, you have yet to demonstrate anything but the most rudimentary notion of a god, so what you supposedly read does not seem to have made any significant impact (and I would expect such an "educated" atheist to make better arguments).

I understand God as he is taught and understood by 99% of the religious theists on this planet. Like I said, I have no interest in philosophical contrivances to generalize godhood into some abstract metaphysical principle that nobody can ever experience much less discuss. Just like all theists here you hope to obfuscate God into something beyond all definition effectively disabling all possible negative assertions about him/her/it. That's a game I'm not willing to play here.

You cannot even be bothered to check that 99% you keep pulling out of your ass. I have already shown that to be 60%, so your claim of understanding God is dubious right off the bat.

one-in-four – including about half of Jews and Hindus – see God as an impersonal force. - http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report2religious-landscape-study-key-findings.pdf​

Generalizing god is not obfuscation. It is simply accounting for more than just Abrahamic notions. If you wish to refute Christianity then you should say so, but no one else is necessarily obligated to restrict their arguments so (unless you start a new thread).

The nonsense is all yours, as that is a strawman of your own invention. I said that any sane person did not have any choice as to whether a chair exists, specifically because it is so obviously evident. The same cannot be said for the existence/nonexistence of a god.

Doubting real objects is not a viable choice. It is a delusion. No choice is therefore violated by a chair existing, or by a God existing. There is only the brute acknowledgement of the real. Which is neither choice nor lack of choice. It's just perception.

Your qualification of "viable" choice does not change the fact that any sane person does not have any choice as to whether a chair exists. Who said any choice was "violated"? Just because a specific choice does not exist does not mean free will is absent, only that it cannot be expressed/exercised in that case.

Knowledge of reality always opens us to more choices. Like I said, knowledge of the chair opens us to a range of choices about things we can do with the chair.

Evasive digression, as we are discussing existence, not utility.

Knowledge brings freedom. Delusion, as in denying the existence of what is presented, takes away choice. Which is why God showing himself to exist would be a liberating event to humans. It would free them from the delusion that he doesn't exist--a delusion fostered by a universe that behaves exactly like there is no God at all.

Knowledge brings utility. Utility only superficially serves freedom, but it is not the entirety of freedom.

A sane person has no choice but to accept the existence of a chair.

There never was a choice to deny the existence of the chair since the chair obviously exists. There is simply the sane perception that the chair exists. Choice is irrelevant in this experience.

Yeah, hence "no choice".

False dilemma, as free will (i.e. freedom of action and choice) does not necessitate having complete knowledge. You need to cite a credible reference if you wish to continue using this very odd notion of free will. You know, like you are always complaining about theist notions of god.

Like I said, there are more or less degrees of freedom of will, depending on more or less degrees of knowledge. So your claim that freewill doesn't necessitate complete knowledge is true, seeing we only approximate it in more or less degrees of knowledge.

Again, cite your definition of free will that supposedly relies on any degree of knowledge to be exercised.

Nothing you quoted contradicts the basic Christian doctrine that God is a person who must be served in some way by man either thru the act of faith or by good works or by both. Are you now denying this is a major pillar of all Christian faith? That the vast majority of religious theists really have no personal god in mind and view him in a state of deistic indifference to the needs of humanity? Then you are more ignorant than I thought.

Deuteronomy 10:12
And now, Israel, what does the Lord your God ask of you but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in obedience to him, to love him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul,

I never made any claim about "the vast majority". And now you seem to be hedging your bets by saying "the act of faith" alone is serving god (which is typically held in contrast to "works"). A cherry-picked verse that ignores doctrines is useless.

Religion is the one making the extraordinary claim that God exists. ...Do you have some science to back this claim up?

It is not a scientific claim.

 

[Yazata]

I think that Capracus was questioning whether an 'unmistakeable public appearance' by a god to humans is even possible.

Of course it is. Like already noted earlier, according to some definitions of the term "God," God is already making an unmistakeable public appearance 24/7.

Sure, a theist can define their word 'God' in such a way that any observation of anything whatsoever would supposedly be evidence of the existence of the God. But that isn't an example of learning that God exists through experience, a-posteriori, which is what this thread seems to be discussing. It's a slightly covert way of assuming God's existence a-priori, simply by definition.

We can still ask, how does a hypothetical metaphysical function (sustainer of being or whatever) turn into theism's ultimate object of religious devotion? What justifies making that crucial move? We don't worship space, time or causation, what's different in this case?

How do all the other descriptions of God, God's purposes and God's actions that we find in the various theistic traditions become attached to what in itself is merely an abstract and rather speculative metaphysical idea?

 

[Yazata]

It requires no omniscience from you. If a god did want to unmistakably demonstrate its existence, it would be omniscienct enough to know what would be unmistakable to each person and demonstrate that.

But it wouldn’t take an omniscient being to pull that off, only one capable of meeting our limited expectations. Its knowledge would only have to surpass the collective knowledge of humanity. Ours on the other hand would have to be equal to the god’s to know it wasn’t a pretender.

I agree with Capracus.

It's easy to imagine a space alien that's far more advanced than ourselves performing acts and making appearances that would be totally amazing and totally incomprehensible to humans.

In other words, when our human limits are exceeded, we are left facing the unknown, confronting stuff that we don't understand.

We can hypothesize for the sake of argument that the unknown, the realm that consists of everything that humans don't understand, contains real gods, and maybe even monotheism's grand God.

So... how could human beings possibly distinguish between real deities and all the non-divine stuff that exceeds our knowing?

There seems to be be some kind of specifically-religious ingredient here, some quality that true deities must have that non-divine objects don't possess, however impressive and incomprehensible they might otherwise be. An ingredient that qualifies something as a proper object of religious faith and devotion.

Specifying what that hypothetical religious ingredient is, and how finite human beings like ourselves can possibly recognize it, presents real problems in my opinion.

 

[wellwisher]

Physics has postulated the existence of dark matter and energy, as the majority components of the universe. This is the invisible stuff that is driving the expansion of the universe and keeping galaxies from flying apart. It is inferred based on gaps in theory and observations, yet neither dark matter or dark energy has ever been seen in the lab.

These conditions are the same as with God, in that God is inferred from gaps in knowledge, in light of observations, like the order and the beauty of reality. But God, like dark matter, have never been seen or proven in the lab.

If we put two and two together; limited direct proof and inference derived similarities, could dark matter and energy be the divine realm? It does drive the universe. The ancients always separated the material realm, from the spiritual realm, with the matter realm what we live in as biological units. The other was not something you could see as matter.

Say dark energy and matter formed its own version of life, while matter was forming it version of life. We have not seen dark matter in the lab to define its limitations. Life evolving from dark energy and dark matter would be life based on the ethereal nature of dark matter and energy. It would permeate regular matter, but would not be easy to see or detect except by inference. This would be similar to how the soul and spirit is speculated to be ethereal but hard to prove with experiments.

[Mod note: This post is off-topic, as it does not address why a god does not reveal itself publicly.]

 

[wynn]

Sure, a theist can define their word 'God' in such a way that any observation of anything whatsoever would supposedly be evidence of the existence of the God.

This doesn't automatically mean that this is how definitions of "God" have come about.

But that isn't an example of learning that God exists through experience, a-posteriori, which is what this thread seems to be discussing.

I don't know of any major theistic tradition that suggests that learning of God's existence is to be done on one's own, independently of any theistic tradition.

Do you?

And if they don't suggest such a learning process, then why insist on it? Surely there is some unspoken desire here at work. I mean a desire on the part of the person who wishes to get to know God all on his or her own terms, independently of any theistic tradition.

It's a slightly covert way of assuming God's existence a-priori, simply by definition.

No. It's like going with the German dictionary when it says that "Tisch" means 'table' in German.

There is no issue of "learning that God exists through experience, a-posteriori". Just like one doesn't learn through experience, a-posteriori what an "apple" or a "table" etc. is. One simply has to take other people's word for it that a particular object is called "apple" and another one "table" etc.


Just like I wouldn't argue with a German dictionary about German words, so I wouldn't argue with a theistic dictionary about theistic terms.

We can still ask, how does a hypothetical metaphysical function (sustainer of being or whatever) turn into theism's ultimate object of religious devotion? What justifies making that crucial move? We don't worship space, time or causation, what's different in this case?

Of course we worship space, time, causation etc. We just don't build typical churches to them. Instead, we build them things like the LHC.

How do all the other descriptions of God, God's purposes and God's actions that we find in the various theistic traditions become attached to what in itself is merely an abstract and rather speculative metaphysical idea?

?

You appear to be working out of the premis(es) that God either doesn't exist, or that God doesn't reveal Himself, or that nobody so far knows God, or that it is altogether impossible to know God.

Those premises are impossible to validate! Thus, it is pointless to use them.

So... how could human beings possibly distinguish between real deities and all the non-divine stuff that exceeds our knowing?

I don't think that's the real problem at all.
See below -

There seems to be be some kind of specifically-religious ingredient here, some quality that true deities must have that non-divine objects don't possess, however impressive and incomprehensible they might otherwise be. An ingredient that qualifies something as a proper object of religious faith and devotion.

Yes, and that ingredient has to do with what people believe about said entity. Namely, that said entity is worthy of worship.

Specifying what that hypothetical religious ingredient is, and how finite human beings like ourselves can possibly recognize it, presents real problems in my opinion.

I don't think so, I don't think this is all that complicated. The usual definitions of God make God appear worshippable enough to most people. Earllier, I already posted two lists of names and titles of God, over hundred Hindu ones and a hundred Islamic ones.
Here the links again, with a 101 Zoroastrian ones:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/101_Names_of_God
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_Krishna
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Islam



I think the actual problem in what you bring up is that people are afraid or otherwise reluctant to worship God because they fear what would happen if it would later turn out that they have worshipped the wrong entity, or that the entity they have worshipped turns out to be false or fictitious.

So there are issues of pride, of maintaining a palatable self-image in other people's minds, of rigidity and attachment to particular views, issues of fearing to make a mistake.

 

[Syne]

I think that Capracus was questioning whether an 'unmistakeable public appearance' by a god to humans is even possible.

Of course it is. Like already noted earlier, according to some definitions of the term "God," God is already making an unmistakeable public appearance 24/7.

Sure, a theist can define their word 'God' in such a way that any observation of anything whatsoever would supposedly be evidence of the existence of the God. But that isn't an example of learning that God exists through experience, a-posteriori, which is what this thread seems to be discussing. It's a slightly covert way of assuming God's existence a-priori, simply by definition.

We can still ask, how does a hypothetical metaphysical function (sustainer of being or whatever) turn into theism's ultimate object of religious devotion? What justifies making that crucial move? We don't worship space, time or causation, what's different in this case?

How do all the other descriptions of God, God's purposes and God's actions that we find in the various theistic traditions become attached to what in itself is merely an abstract and rather speculative metaphysical idea?

First, omnipresence is a common trait attributed to a god, so there is nothing artificial about defining it thus. Second:

Religious belief from revelation or enlightenment (satori) can fall into either the first category, a posteriori knowledge, if rooted in deduction or personal revelation, or the second, a priori class of knowledge, if based on introspection. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God#Epistemology​

Since "revealed" religion seems to dominate, most theists would fall into the a posteriori category.

Descartes, who said that the existence of a benevolent God was logically necessary for the evidence of the senses to be meaningful; and Immanuel Kant, who argued that the existence of God can be deduced from the existence of good. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God​

Both a posteriori. So it seems you are wrong on both counts. You need to show that omnipresence is not a typical trait of a god and that it is applied only to justify an a priori assumption.


And your questions about the formation of religion are off-topic in this thread. Start a new one if you wish to discuss that.

It requires no omniscience from you. If a god did want to unmistakably demonstrate its existence, it would be omniscienct enough to know what would be unmistakable to each person and demonstrate that.

But it wouldn’t take an omniscient being to pull that off, only one capable of meeting our limited expectations. Its knowledge would only have to surpass the collective knowledge of humanity. Ours on the other hand would have to be equal to the god’s to know it wasn’t a pretender.

I agree with Capracus.

It's easy to imagine a space alien that's far more advanced than ourselves performing acts and making appearances that would be totally amazing and totally incomprehensible to humans.

In other words, when our human limits are exceeded, we are left facing the unknown, confronting stuff that we don't understand.

We can hypothesize for the sake of argument that the unknown, the realm that consists of everything that humans don't understand, contains real gods, and maybe even monotheism's grand God.

So... how could human beings possibly distinguish between real deities and all the non-divine stuff that exceeds our knowing?

There seems to be be some kind of specifically-religious ingredient here, some quality that true deities must have that non-divine objects don't possess, however impressive and incomprehensible they might otherwise be. An ingredient that qualifies something as a proper object of religious faith and devotion.

Specifying what that hypothetical religious ingredient is, and how finite human beings like ourselves can possibly recognize it, presents real problems in my opinion.

There is a significant difference between "performing acts and making appearances that would be totally amazing and totally incomprehensible to humans" and unmistakable to each individual. Just the fact that you mention it possibly being "incomprehensible" means it is not unmistakable. An omniscient god could easily make an unmistakable appearance, leaving no doubt within the limits of human understanding. And an omnipotent god could always imbue humans with any necessarily capacity for understanding.

So typical traits attributed to a god would suffice.

But here is a question for you. What makes us value human life (reverence for life) over other existences?

 

[wynn]

What is it you think I’m avoiding in regards to the original question you asked below?

I’ve given you four answers to this question that essentially state that there’s no need to validate the existence of a supreme being because it can’t be done, and to entertain the possibility that it can promotes further irrationality in the world we live. Other than its entertainment value, why would you expect such widespread irrationality to be personally appealing to me?

I don't expect it to be "appealing to you."


I've already clarified earlier -

I want you to talk about about your fears and concerns - as they are personally relevant to you. Don't hide behind "society." For example, the fear of the implications that follow if we are to take just any person's claim of divinity seriously; or the fear that God is in reality a vengeful monster and that everything you now consider good and real, is actually false and you will burn in hell for all eternity etc; or that there is no God, and life is nothing but suffering. Etc. etc.

Complete the following sentence:

"If people are free to believe in God and talk about God as if God would really exist,
this for me, Capracus, will have the consequence that _________________________________,
and I
a) don't think I can deal with that at all,
b) could probably deal with that only at an enormous cost to my sense of justice and morality,
c) _____________________________."

 

[Magical Realist]

The OP assumes a nonexistent god, which cannot be personal.

​

And cite your source on that supposed "99% of all the religious theists on the planet...presupposed a personal God". According to a Pew survey, only 60% believe in a personal god - http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report2religious-landscape-study-key-findings.pdf.

The word God or god by it's very definition and use in the English language defines a person. God is ALWAYS a who and not just a what. A person who is alive, has a male gender (as opposed to goddess), is moral, is conscious and sapient, intends and purposes, is capable of feelings like love, wrath,etc., is deserving of worship and service, and has supernatural powers. So anyone who uses the word God is axiomatically ascribing personhood to something, even if they insist God is just a force or metaphysical principle. Otherwise, why use the word God at all to describe it? A mere nonconscious force, much like dark energy or gravity, would best be called just that--a force. To ascribe to it properties and traits of godhood is to automatically invest it with personal qualities and consciousness and purposive agency. Hence when I say 99% of theists believe in God as a person, I mean just that: that they either believe in God as an objective and discrete person, or that they are intentionally personifying some impersonal agent, force, principle, energy, substance, etc. with the traits of God. Meanwhile, let's see what Wiki says about theism and theists in general:

"Theism generally holds that God exists realistically, objectively, and independently of human thought; that God created and sustains everything; that God is omnipotent and eternal; personal and interacting with the universe through for example religious experience and the prayers of humans. It holds that God is both transcendent and immanent; thus, God is simultaneously infinite and in some way present in the affairs of the world. Not all theists subscribe to all the above propositions, but usually a fair number of them, c.f., family resemblance. Catholic theology holds that God is infinitely simple and is not involuntarily subject to time. Most theists hold that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent, although this belief raises questions about God's responsibility for evil and suffering in the world. Some theists ascribe to God a self-conscious or purposeful limiting of omnipotence, omniscience, or benevolence. Open Theism, by contrast, asserts that, due to the nature of time, God's omniscience does not mean the deity can predict the future. "Theism" is sometimes used to refer in general to any belief in a god or gods, i.e., monotheism or polytheism."--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

God is seen everywhere, all the time, according to most theists. Very few people assert the actual existence of "leprechauns, unicorns, dragons, etc.", so those are red-herrings. The scientific method, which is supposedly your criteria for "evidence", both cannot prove a negative and generally cannot offer proof at all.

If God can be seen at all, he should be able to be seen by and pointed out to everyone who can see. And if God is seen everywhere all the time, then he should be describable with qualities that are distinct and characteristic of his godhood. Do you see God everywhere? What does God look like? And how is his appearance everywhere distinguishable from the everywhere he is appearing in? And more to the point, how is his appearance not a violation of freewill as you claim it would be?

I never said "freewill entail being able to not believe existing things exist". I specifically said that the unmistakable cannot be denied by the sane. Free will can only be expressed where choice exists.

You said God unmistakeably appearing to all humans would violate their freewill. Freewill to choose what? What choice is violated by his appearing to us? The freewill to not believe he exists, just as I said.

An omnipresent god exists in everything, and it is in everything that theists may see god.

Oh so God is INSIDE everything, lurking beyond its surfaces like a genie inside a lamp? That actually would make him pretty hard to see. I wonder how theists distinguish everything from the God who is existing in it? Surely an existent being like a God has some sort of existence separate from each and every thing. What are the properties and traits that distinguish God from everything? And if God wasn't in something, would we be able to tell the difference?

Your additions of "accurate knowledge and experience" are arbitrary restraints. Nowhere does the definition of freedom include any qualification of knowledge. Seems you have conflated "freedom" with something like "informed consent".

Freedom implicitly entails sufficient knowledge to make a choice. Without that knowledge their is no free choice. That this has to even be spelt out to you doesn't really surprise me though..

You cannot even be bothered to check that 99% you keep pulling out of your ass. I have already shown that to be 60%, so your claim of understanding God is dubious right off the bat.

To deify anything is to personify it because God for the theist is by definition a person. There's simply no way around this fact.

one-in-four – including about half of Jews and Hindus – see God as an impersonal force. - http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report2religious-landscape-study-key-findings.pdf​

An impersonal force that is invested with the godlike qualities of intent, sapience, agency, choice, benevolence, etc.

Generalizing god is not obfuscation. It is simply accounting for more than just Abrahamic notions. If you wish to refute Christianity then you should say so, but no one else is necessarily obligated to restrict their arguments so (unless you start a new thread).

The OP assumed a personal God by asking why HE doesn't show himself to us. If you want to inject some new impersonal definition of God, then I suggest you start a new thread. That's not what this one is about.

Your qualification of "viable" choice does not change the fact that any sane person does not have any choice as to whether a chair exists. Who said any choice was "violated"? Just because a specific choice does not exist does not mean free will is absent, only that it cannot be expressed/exercised in that case.

You said God appearing to us would violate our free choice. Then you started talking about chairs. Why don't you try again and explain why God appearing to us violates free choice.

I never made any claim about "the vast majority". And now you seem to be hedging your bets by saying "the act of faith" alone is serving god (which is typically held in contrast to "works"). A cherry-picked verse that ignores doctrines is useless.

Then what ARE you claiming? Or is this just the typical backpeddling we see from you when backed into a corner?

 

[wellwisher]

[Warning: Further off-topic posts (without any clear response to a specific post or the OP) will be deleted.]

God is inferred via human consciousness, with human consciousness not easily defined by science. We know consciousness exists but we can't define it as a tangible thing. We have yet to even simulate this with computers. Yet God was defined by human consciousness without modern tools. The question is why?

There is no rule in science that requires that the main tool of science, which is human consciousness, be calibrated before doing science. We just assume it is zeroed. However, since we don't know what consciousness is, we have no way to know if it is properly calibrated. This brings us back to God, with the speculations of God being an attempt at calibration; perfect, ordered, justice, all knowing, etc. That would place it right on the center so it is not out of balance.

Let me give an example of calibration problems in science. The manmade global warming fad which is still very popular with liberals, made many predictions of doom and gloom over the past 20 years, very few of which ever panned out. When these predictions were made, the leaders had the lab coats on, and looked very scientific, with their super computers and satellites, but when the chicken came to roost, based on 20/20 hindsight of many years, it showed their consciousness was way out of calibration. One might say they were more motivated by money, prestige, fame, and sitting at the big table at the conference as they generated these doom and gloom fantasies. There is no accountability because they still can't center their consciousness.

An analogy of consciousness out of calibration, is like putting a fat person on a scale that you deliberately make 30 pounds lighter. The diet is working, even when it eats too much all the time. If you tell him this is not right, he will think the truth is an attempt at lying to him because he knows the scale is true. This is why the media is used as a propaganda machine; tweak the scale.

Religion helps to calibrate consciousness with a set of standards. Humans have will, choice and subjectivities that can be used to knock consciousness out of calibration so one can see what is not there. If you look at ObamaCare or the Affordable Act that costs more for health care, why did so many believe this con, right up to the revealing of the lies? Their consciousness was induced out of calibration. How was this done? It was based on a likable person working on the emotions.