In regards to atheism.

[Jan Ardena]

Good

So all is non believers need to do is organise a 7 + billion people flash mob an convince everyone present to be atheist and bingo god gone

I'm concerned he might not take the hint and come back

Any ideas how to prevent that?

I have no idea what you're talking about mate.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Nobody is trying to get your fired from your job, or trashing your kid's education, or persecuting your friends and family, because of their belief in unicorns.

If they were, such beliefs might be more of a concern to you - no?

You should watch 'No Intelligence Allowed'.

jan.

 

[DaveC426913]

What is an act of faith?
Let's go into it properly.
How is believing in God an act of faith?

My take on faith (I won't presume to propose a one-size fits all definition) is that it a decision to believe, despite objective evidence.

I have faith my friends will catch me if I fall in a trust test. I don't know they will, but I choose to believe they will, and I act accordingly. I'm probably right. But that doesn't change the fact that I can't know it to be true.

Believing in God is an act of faith because you cannot know that God exists outside your subjective experience. You're certain it's external, but like a dream or an hallucination, or virtually any other qualia, you can't stand next to me and say 'do you see that? That's God's creation' - and have me agree that we are seeing the same thing.

 

[DaveC426913]

no solid framework of reasoning necessary

For once, I agree with Jan.

 

[Randwolf]

You should watch 'No Intelligence Allowed'.

jan.

No need - I get enough every time I read one of your posts.

 

[Randwolf]

I have no idea what you're talking about mate.

Wow - that certainly summarizes things in a concise manner...

 

[Michael 345]

When someone is without God, at the moment God not exist.

Good

So all is non believers need to do is organise a 7 + billion people flash mob an convince everyone present to be atheist and bingo god gone

I'm concerned he might not take the hint and come back

Any ideas how to prevent that?

I have no idea what you're talking about mate.

What will it take re unicorns

Because they don't exist as far as I'm concerned. I'm being honest.

for you to change your position re unicorns

But if they do exist, I will change my position.

Something like a unicorn doing something like

Through His manifestations, and through basic human intelligence.

Can you list or detail any god

manifestations

 

[Sarkus]

My take on faith (I won't presume to propose a one-size fits all definition) is that it a decision to believe, despite objective evidence.

I have faith my friends will catch me if I fall in a trust test. I don't know they will, but I choose to believe they will, and I act accordingly. I'm probably right. But that doesn't change the fact that I can't know it to be true.

Hmmm - I would say that there is objective evidence upon which you have made that decision. You are right in that you can't know for sure that they will when the time arises, but the objective evidence thus far would suggest (balance of probability, or a threshhold of probability?) that they would.

"Faith" when used in casual parlance I would concur follows this notion.

Believing in God is an act of faith because you cannot know that God exists outside your subjective experience. You're certain it's external, but like a dream or an hallucination, or virtually any other qualia, you can't stand next to me and say 'do you see that? That's God's creation' - and have me agree that we are seeing the same thing.

This is where I think we differ, in that I consider "faith" in God to be not based on any objective evidence at all. If there was, we could all see it, but the fact that we can't would suggest that any evidence one thinks exists is subjective at best, or based on an a priori assumption that is not shared.

"Faith" when discussing God is, to me, belief in the absence of any objective evidence that rationally leads to the belief.

There is a difference, for example, between the faith one shows in one's friends to bail them out of trouble, and the faith we would need to place in a complete stranger who says he can invest 100,000 of our cash and get us a 100% return in a year.
The less we have to risk, the more likely we might take a punt on such matters, but then it starts to move away from faith and toward simple risk/reward analysis.

 

[Michael 345]

The less we have to risk, the more likely we might take a punt on such matters, but then it starts to move away from faith and toward simple risk/reward analysis.

Interesting take and I agree less risk - less faith required - more likely to take the risk

However religion appears to turn that around by asking ' are you willing to risk your immortal soul by committing sin? '

This to me really ups the stakes

You are required to believe
(have faith)
in a god which
(cannot be produced)
or risk hell
(which cannot be verified)
for your immortal soul
(which cannot be shown to exist)

Seems like a lot of smoke and mirrors but missing the product of combustion and any reflective surfaces

 

[DaveC426913]

This is where I think we differ, in that I consider "faith" in God to be not based on any objective evidence at all. If there was, we could all see it, but the fact that we can't would suggest that any evidence one thinks exists is subjective at best, or based on an a priori assumption that is not shared.

I am allowing for the interpretation of evidence.

Jan, for example, may look at a germinating seed (or an example of his choice) and see it as objective evidence. We both see the same thing, but we interpret it differently.

 

[Yazata]

My take on faith (I won't presume to propose a one-size fits all definition) is that it a decision to believe, despite objective evidence.

I think that I would define 'faith' as something very close to 'trust' or 'confidence'. It needn't be (and usually isn't) trust or confidence in the total absence of objective evidence. But as I conceive of it, it is trust or confidence in the face of evidence that isn't entirely conclusive.

Everyone has faith in that sense, even atheistic scientists. Humans couldn't live their lives without it.

I have faith my friends will catch me if I fall in a trust test. I don't know they will, but I choose to believe they will, and I act accordingly. I'm probably right. But that doesn't change the fact that I can't know it to be true.

Yes, that's the way I conceive of it too.

Physicists believing in the existence of universally applicable laws of physics is another example. Or having confidence in logic and mathematics. We show our confidence in these things every time we board an airplane, even though nobody can really know with 100% certainty that they always hold true. That belief is the product of our trust and confidence in the uniformity of nature.

Believing in God is an act of faith because you cannot know that God exists outside your subjective experience.

Unless one believes that the divine has manifested in history somehow, or believes in the objective reality of miraculous events. Or unless one is persuaded by the arguments of natural theology, the so-called 'cosmological arguments'. Of course none of these kind of evidences are 100% conclusive. (Most of them are rather doubtful in my opinion.) So that's where the 'faith' aspect in the sense of 'trust' and 'confidence' come into play. One chooses, consciously or unconsciously, to trust and have confidence in these kind of rather questionable evidences.

I'm not convinced that the evidences for religious belief are entirely subjective. I will agree that in my opinion religious experience is probably the strongest justification for religious belief, and it is very subjective. But there are more objective arguments as well.

You're certain it's external, but like a dream or an hallucination, or virtually any other qualia, you can't stand next to me and say 'do you see that? That's God's creation' - and have me agree that we are seeing the same thing.

In normal life we are inclined to say that a yellow flower's being yellow is an objective property of the flower. But if we accept philosophy's currently-trendy 'qualia' metaphysics, we would have to say that the flower's yellowness is a subjective quale and not a property of the flower at all. If we move in that direction, I worry that the objectivity of the external world begins to fall apart.

 

[Sarkus]

I am allowing for the interpretation of evidence.

Jan, for example, may look at a germinating seed (or an example of his choice) and see it as objective evidence. We both see the same thing, but we interpret it differently.

Sure, I get that, but then I would say that anything that can be used as evidence for more than one competing theory isn't really objective evidence for either one. A seed would no more be evidence for the existence of God than it is for the non-existence of God.
So while Jan could interpret something as being evidence for God, one could equally put it forward for evidence toward the non-God theory.
If we can explain how the seed in your example has come to be from its parent flower then we can seemingly remove God from the equation from that point - although we are then surely into a regressive position until we can ultimately go no further and say "I don't know".

Or we conclude that "it's turtles all the way down!"

And any interpretation as being evidence for one and not the other would seem to rest on the holding of an a priori assumption. If one identifies this and tries to remove that assumption, one can only conclude that the evidence is not evidence at all... for either theory.

But yeah, I hear what you're saying.

 

[Jan Ardena]

My take on faith (I won't presume to propose a one-size fits all definition) is that it a decision to believe

Okay.

I have faith my friends will catch me if I fall in a trust test. I don't know they will, but I choose to believe they will, and I act accordingly. I'm probably right. But that doesn't change the fact that I can't know it to be true.

Let's say you were going to fall without your friends knowledge, and you hoped they would catch you, to avoid serious injury. That is having faith.
Your scenario is a lot safer, as preparations are previously made to ensure your safety. You may be worried about the possibility of something going wrong, but it is hardly likely if the results reparations are good.

Believing in God is an act of faith because you cannot know that God exists outside your subjective experience.

Why not?

You're certain it's external, but like a dream or an hallucination, or virtually any other qualia, you can't stand next to me and say 'do you see that? That's God's creation' - and have me agree that we are seeing the same thing

Quite right. That is because you cannot perceive God, because He doesn't exit as far as you're concerned

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I am allowing for the interpretation of evidence.

Jan, for example, may look at a germinating seed (or an example of his choice) and see it as objective evidence. We both see the same thing, but we interpret it differently.

I see my ability to perceive anything, to comprehend. and/or understand anything, as evidence of God.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Can you list or detail any god

There's no need to. If you're. really interested Ed, do your own research.

Jan.

 

[sculptor]

GODs feed of of the belief of the faithful
If that belief is gone, then will GOD fade away

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

That was an interesting response from you. You chopped up my posts, jumbled them up and then vaguely replied in an almost random order. Initially you tried to avoid addressing the whole "true for me" vs "true for you" problem. I imagine a kind of mental struggle with yourself there. But then you got over it and reverted to your usual evasions and dismissals.

It appears that we've reached the point in our discussions where you have, in effect, admitted that belief in God is irrational. It is a matter of the "heart" rather than the "mind". And the reason why people such as myself are atheists, according to you is that our "hearts" are wrong.

What it all boils down to, as far as I can tell, is that you'd advise anybody looking for God to just earnestly want to believe, for no rational reason. Rather, they should "open their heart" and God will flood in. Once you're accepted God, then you can rationalise all you want to make yourself believe that your acceptance of God can be justified in the mind as well as in the gut (heart). But it's that feeling in the heart that will get you over the line.

One thing one should never do, of course, is to critically examine with the mind that genuine fuzzy feeling in the heart that God just Is, with a capital "I". Therein lies great danger. Therein lies the dark temptation of evil atheism. If you're a smart theist, you don't ever want to go there.

How do you know that God isn't just a fantasy in your mind? Because you feel God in your heart. God Is there. Without God, you would be nothing, diminished, worthless, you feel. You wouldn't be able to rely on God to care for and protect you. There'd be no plan for the universe and for human beings. All would be chaos and disorder. Disaster to be avoided at all costs.

So, if any trumped-up philosopher or atheist tries to tell you that what you feel so deeply in your heart is unjustifiable on any rational grounds, show that philosopher your middle finger. You can magically "just know" that God is real, regardless of what he and his silly "logic" and "reasoning" might tell him. And even though you know you won't convince him that you can just know about things supernaturally, in your heart, you know that you can know things that way. And that's good enough for you. You don't need to convince anybody but yourself, and you did that long ago! You can leave it to the God who you know exists to deal with the silly atheist who won't open his heart.

But you don't want to make yourself look unreasonable when in discussion with these deluded philosopher types who are so hung up on reason that they refuse to think with their hearts. So, at all times try to hide your faith. Answer questions with questions. Never give away too much about what you believe or why you believe it, or your belief might end up looking empty from the outside. Appeal to deepities wherever possible. Don't ever be clear about God. Talk always in riddles. That will keep them busy, and distract attention - perhaps just long enough for God to get to their evil hearts.

Is this how it is with you, Jan?

---
I will reply to your posts in the order you posted them.

Why do you think God could be perverse?

God, you tell me, is the grand Creator of everything. We all are part of God, you tell me. And yet, this God chooses to hide himself away from some of us. He allows great evil in his world. He acts as if he just doesn't care, despite having gone to all the trouble to create the whole box and dice in the first place.

This is what makes me thing that God (if he exists) could be perverse. There's a simpler explanation that accounts for the problem of evil and the like, of course.

Why don't you see yourself as perverse?

Statistically speaking, I am perverse. Very much so. The majority of the people in this world of ours believe in some form of supernatural deity or other supernatural force or being. We atheists are a smallish (although rapidly growing) minority.

I recognise that you find it perverse that people like me don't buy into what you have to sell. On the other hand, I think you, personally, might have a greater chance of successfully converting somebody like me if you would be open and honest about your own beliefs. I know that in a place like sciforums you are understandably worried about opening yourself to personal attacks and criticism for your beliefs, so I understand why you are so closed.

You need to sort out you angst with God (maybe that is why you're atheist), and leave me out of it.

I have no angst with God. God probably doesn't exist. I did have some degree of angst in reaching that conclusion in the first place, but that was quite a long time ago. It was a matter I considered quite carefully over years. But I assure you that I'm very comfortable indeed with the position I hold now.

''The fool doth say in his heart, there is no God''. Maybe that will answer your questions.

I don't tend to think with my heart. I use my brain for that.

I know, I know. You're going to tell me that I should let my heart rule and just believe, like you do. But why? What would be the good of that?

What religious perspective?
If you don't want me to answer questions with questions, then stop talking about my religion. I've discussed it with no one here, and I'm not going to, as it is totally not necessary.

You presume to be a cipher. Rather than being open about what you believe and why you believe it, instead you present yourself here as a kind of mystical version of Socrates. Answering questions with questions is something you do to avoid ever having to commit to anything. I think this is because you know that if we were to penetrate the surface with you, we'd find there's not much there that's as profound as you'd like us to believe.

Nevertheless, from what you've written from time to time I have some idea about your religious beliefs. You're a "build your own" kind of guy. You've chosen a selection of your favorite "scriptures" and cobbled them together into something that makes sense for you. But you'd rather not test your ideas against anybody else's, atheist or theist, because you probably fear they might find fault in them. Your religion is a private religion, as far as I can tell; a religion of just one person.

But you're right. We needn't discuss it, and I doubt we ever will.

 

[James R]

(part 2)

No. I've already stated that gods, and God are not the same.

The "gods" are "manifestations" of "God", you say. Do you not?
And so are human beings.
And so is everything else.

It's a kind of pan-theism.

If you want to discuss religion, start a thread.

You don't want to have that discussion.

Through His manifestations, and through basic human intelligence.

What are God's manifestations? The world? The universe? I don't see those as revelations of God, and I think I have basic human intelligence.

You're back to "existence for me" vs "existence for you" again.

Yes.

Do you propose to address the topic of "existence for me" vs "existence for you" that was perhaps the major point I made in my previous series of posts?

Do you believe that each individual creates his own reality?

Do you exist only because I believe you exist? Would you cease to exist if I stopped believing in your existence? Note: not cease to exist for me, but cease to exist, period. Because that's the distinction I'm talking about here.

God either exists, or not, is all that is on the table. This ''probably'', and ''lack belief'' is waffle.

The "probably" has to do with what can and can't be known.

I agree with you that God either exists or does not exist.

We disagree that you (or I) can know that God exists, for certain. You think you know that. I think you don't, and probably can't.

I think that God probably doesn't exist, but I don't claim to know.

As far as you have stated, God does not exist, and I believe in God (existence a given).

I have stated that I do not believe that God exists. I lack your belief in God. I am quite happy to accept that my lack of belief does not mean that God does not exist. God might exist and I might be wrong.

You, on the other hand, have convinced yourself that God exists and you take it as a "given", even though it is something you cannot know. And you admit no possibility that you might be wrong.

That is the position as defined by ''atheist'' and ''theist''. By default, you have no way of knowing anything other than God does not exist (currently).

Then God, if he exists, is deficient in failing to provide me with any way of knowing. He should have done a better job if he wanted me to believe in him.

I would say it is what is in your heart that makes God appear nonexistent to you.

Like I said, I don't generally think with my heart.

I do wonder, though. Are you asserting some kind of moral deficiency in me that makes me incapable of appreciating the wonder of God's existence? It sounds like you're suggesting some kind of "bad faith" on my part, or lack of moral fortitude.

You're quite right. Just to add; You don't get to choose whether God exists or not. Wishing doesn't make it so.

Agreed.

So, there isn't existence for me vs existence for you. Right? Either God exists for both of us, or he doesn't. What we believe about that existence is secondary.

 

[James R]

(part 3)

There is no ''probably''. Either exists as you read this sentence, or He doesn't exist.
Does God exist as you read this?

I don't know. How could I know?

Wouldn't I have to just feel it in my heart, like you do? Or perhaps feel in my heart the opposite - that God does not exist?

How do you know that I do not know God exists?

I don't know.

But if you did know that God exists, presumably you'd be able to tell me how you know. And you've never made any attempt to do that, as far as I can tell.

It's a simple question, Jan: how do you know that God exists?

Can you answer it?

Bear in mind that telling me you feel God in your heart won't convince me that you know. Way too subjective.

I mean, the best answer you can manage in the post I'm responding to is this:

Because God Is. Can you comprehend that, or do you need to see God to be convinced?

"How do you know that God exists?"
"Because God Is."

Ho hum.

That doesn't tell me anything about how you know.

You're just tying yourself up in circles there: I know because I just know. Unsatisfactory, Jan.

Truth is simply truth.
Truth just Is.

And you think we can just know the Truth? By magic? By our hearts? By God telling us, perhaps?

What is so difficult about knowing for sure that God exists?

How do you know for sure that God exists, Jan? Tell me how you know. Not with deepities like "Because God Is." Tell me how you know.

Again, why do you think it is so difficult to know God?

Because God doesn't exist, perhaps? That would make things difficult.

I could, of course, read up on concepts of God from any number of your favorite scriptures, but that wouldn't be knowing God, would it?

Why don't you simply accept that you are without God, period?

I think I've accepted that at least twice in this thread alone, based on your proposed definition of "without God".

What's your problem?

This is your perspective.
I've given mine. If you think I'm mistaken, so be it.
If I think you're mistaken, so be it.
I can live with that.

I don't think you have given me your perspective. Not really.

You tend to just make repeated assertions about things that you can't or won't back up. You talk yourself in circles. You answer questions with questions in order to avoid committing yourself to a definite position.

I have gathered a few dribs and drabs about your perspective, and reached a few conclusions based on those. And I can live with those.

It is a pity that you don't have more to offer, however.

If someone said that, and I was particularly interested, I would have to suspend any doubts I had about Unicorns. Simples really.

No. I think that, if you were being honest with yourself and with me, you'd keep your doubts until you had more solid evidence.

Because they don't exist as far as I'm concerned. I'm being honest. But if they do exist, I will change my position. I won't stick doggedly to the notion that I'm right, and everyone who believes in Unicorns, are stupid, or deluded.
....

You are describing yourself.

Bingo!

See how, when it comes to whether unicorns exist, you're just like me. But when it comes to God, it's a whole different ball game. In that case, you won't change your position and you will stick doggedly to your position that you're right and everybody who doesn't believe in God is stupid or deluded.

Oh! I get it. You're trying to say this is what theism is (despite it's actual meaning).

I think we've done had the word games about the "actual meaning" of theism elsewhere, but you could perhaps remind me again about how you (re-)define that term. I mean, you've tried to define "atheism" in ways that atheists like myself do not. You're at least in the club with theism, so you might be better qualified to define that term.

As for "what theism is", theism is just like believing in unicorns, as in my example. It's not just that, but that's the start of it.

It seems you haven't read what I mean by that.
Oh well!

I commented on it at length over the course of three posts, above. You ignored most of my response on that. Oh well!

It is so rational, that it is sublime [to believe in God].

How so? It's something you do with your heart and not your head, you told me.

It has to be simple, (hence no solid framework of reasoning necessary) because every human being is essentially part and parcel of God, so every human being, from every walk of life, time, and circumstance, has the innate ability to accept to God.

God magically reveals himself in our hearts?

Not a lot of rationality there, Jan.

 

[James R]

I see my ability to perceive anything, to comprehend. and/or understand anything, as evidence of God.

If everything is evidence of God, then God is an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

You're not in any position to honestly examine whether God exists, because you assume that to be in such a position would be to verify the existence of God from the start.

No doubt the idea that everything is evidence for God gives you comfort.