On faith

[DaveC426913]

But we have none. You can't have proof when there isn't any.

The fact that we haven't had any proof doesn't mean it's not there waiting to present itself.

If I were a betting men, I'd say it probably, most likely - means it's not there. But if he showed up tomorrow, it would certainly put my skepticism to rest.

How would I be sure? Well...

How would distinguish magic from a sufficiently advanced technology?

If that were true, then sculptor would indeed be correct - that nothing could sway a skeptic, no matter how compelling. And that would be a very dark day indeed for skepticism.

Just as theories must be falsifiable, so too, some concepts must be verifiable. There must be a litmus test it can pass, or we stand - not as skeptics - but as true, dyed-in-the-wool (non)believers.

No, there is certainly a threshold beyond which I would accept that it is God that is before me.
It would be a pretty high threshold, but so what? Any number of tricks such as turning the planet inside out and putting the sun in a bell jar at its center, all without harming anyone, would be trivial for God.

At that level of ability, God would quite conceivably be more plausible than spectacularly-advanced magic.

 

[DaveC426913]

imho
Churches are for community. The flock and their shepherd. From my experience, it ain't a bad place to start the journey. Meanwhile, good shepherds assure to the well being of their flock.

Agree. I attended a United church for quite a few years, and the community was great.
They didn't seem to mind that I regarded the sermons as allegories, rather than fact.

 

[DaveC426913]

There is no definition that translates as being with God, only, being without God, you don't need to believe me, it is in the labels we use.

Indeed, labels is that they are - Semantic, specious terms.

The words do not define the reality; the reality defines the words.

If you prefer the term 'God' to 'with God', that's fine, but you don't speak for others.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The fact that we haven't had any proof doesn't mean it's not there waiting to present itself.

If I were a betting men, I'd say it probably, most likely - means it's not there. But if he showed up tomorrow, it would certainly put my skepticism to rest.

How would I be sure? Well...

My point was that unless God shows up, there is no proof that can be had. The original statement referred to no proof for skeptics and proof for believers. Beyond that, there is no such a thing as proof. And there never can be.

If that were true, then sculptor would indeed be correct - that nothing could sway a skeptic, no matter how compelling. And that would be a very dark day indeed for skepticism.

Just as theories must be falsifiable, so too, some concepts must be verifiable. There must be a litmus test it can pass, or we stand - not as skeptics - but as true, dyed-in-the-wool (non)believers.

No, there is certainly a threshold beyond which I would accept that it is God that is before me.
It would be a pretty high threshold, but so what? Any number of tricks such as turning the planet inside out and putting the sun in a bell jar at its center, all without harming anyone, would be trivial for God.

At that level of ability, God would quite conceivably be more plausible than spectacularly-advanced magic.

Skepticism in all forms is the safe zone for cynics. It is only possible to falsify a claim. There is no such a thing as proof. So anyone demanding proof of any kind is at best, ignorant of logic, and at worst, using skepticism as a shield to protect their own beliefs; or as is often the case, knowingly playing a shell game

In my experience online, the shell game is a popular tactic for cynics masked as skeptics. I spent a lot of time fending off the shell game you know where... and no one ever admits they're wrong, or that they are using bad information or logic. They just go away. [and show up a month later making the same argument]

 

[Seattle]

You do realise there is a difference between God and ghosts. Right?

But yea, I would love to speak on ghosts with you someday, providing we agree on the definition.

jan.

In the logical play of words as you used them there was no difference.

In the historical context there is a difference as God has played a larger role than ghosts. In the sense of reality, as I observe it, there is no difference. This is like arguing what "is" is however. That was not my point. The point was that as you played with the words you could have just as easily used "ghosts" as "God".

The larger issue to me is why talk about a personal issue and make it sure a public one?

 

[DaveC426913]

Beyond that, there is no such a thing as proof. And there never can be.

Disagree. There is a such a thing as a preponderance of evidence, such that the thing is more likely real than not, to the point being being generally accepted, like SR, or the Germ Theory of disease.

It is de facto proof - inasmuch as we can proceed as if it is true for all practical purposes, like SR or tGToD.

I won't submit to the idea that such a thing as God is unproveable, because that exits the realm of mere skepticism and enters the realm of 'never, never not ever will I'.
He can always appear before all 7 billion of us and turn every last one of us into a newt. I'd convert.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Indeed, labels is that they are - Semantic, specious terms.

The words do not define the reality; the reality defines the words.

If you prefer the term 'God' to 'with God', that's fine, but you don't speak for others.

There you go, changing definitions.
Theos means God, not with God. Fact.

jan.

 

[wegs]

It's not an accusation, or a fault. It is what it is.

If I am without God, then my life is one where I don't give any real consideration to it.
I don't need to consider God, to have a life that I enjoy.
If I'm basically a decent person, with no bad intentions to my fellow man, I could quite easily be without God in my life.

I think the definitions are foundations. They basically state the two positions. God, and, without God.

jan.

If one is a person of faith though, one believes that no one's life is ''without God.'' An atheist's life is just without a belief in God.

Why do you believe in God, Jan? Just wondering. You may have stated it in the past, but I wasn't active on here for a while, so I've forgotten if you did tell me.

 

[DaveC426913]

There you go, changing definitions.
Theos means God, not with God. Fact.

I wasn't defining the term Theos. And neither were you.
The fact that a word of your choosing exists does not mean "There is no definition that translates as being with God, only"

So your 'fact' is non sequitur.

Or are you going to go on to tell us such things as we cannot use the term human being unless we are specifically referring to Native North Americans, since that's where the term originated? Or that atoms can only refer to the little indivisible particles that the Greeks first thought they were?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Disagree. There is a such a thing as a preponderance of evidence, such that the thing is more likely real than not, to the point being being generally accepted, like SR, or the Germ Theory of disease.

You are just making up your own definition of proof. The only proofs that exist are in mathematics. And even those are subject to the limitations of Gödel.

It is de facto proof - inasmuch as we can proceed as if it is true for all practical purposes, like SR or tGToD.

I won't submit to the idea that such a thing as God is unproveable, because that exits the realm of mere skepticism and enters the realm of 'never, never not ever will I'.
He can always appear before all 7 billion of us and turn every last one of us into a newt. I'd convert.

That is more the threshold for legal or political systems, but not science. That is why any scientist demanding proof of anything is being disingenuous.

For example, as a judge once famously stated after considering the evidence, if the case for UFOs was a murder trial, there would have been a hanging long ago.

Your logical conclusion should be that you're hallucinating.

 

[wegs]

People who believe in God, they have proof. Their proof could be their Bible, Torah or Qur'an. Or they could feel a sense of peace wash over them during prayer or meditation. Or the vast universe with all of its splendor and beauty, could be considered ''proof'' to a spiritual person. Just because an atheist doesn't accept these things as proof of a God's existence, doesn't mean that these things couldn't stand as proof for someone who believes. Subjective as it may be, it's proof enough for some. To say there's ''no proof'' of God's existence, has anyone met God, here? How would we even be able to agree on who or what it might appear like, sound like, or act like, if we were to visibly see it or hear it?

For some, for many - there is proof. Just of a different kind, and of course, of a subjective kind. But, subjectivity isn't only relegated to spirituality and religion, we all live by objective and subjective truths, whether we freely admit that or not. If I were to say ''Cheesecake is the best cake on the planet.'' You could answer me by saying ''No, chocolate cake is the best.'' Who is wrong? Neither is wrong, we just have our own opinions (subjective views) on what is the very best cake on the planet.

That same subjectivity continues on to how we all view politics, the economy, racism, sexism, marriage, love, beauty, sex, etc. We all have subjective ideas about something.

 

[Jan Ardena]

In the logical play of words as you used them there was no difference.

I don't know of any ''logical play of words'', but the words mean different things. At least admit that.

In the historical context there is a difference as God has played a larger role than ghosts. In the sense of reality, as I observe it, there is no difference.

I can see why you would see no difference.
Could that be because you are without God?

I won't submit to the idea that such a thing as God is unproveable, because that exits the realm of mere skepticism and enters the realm of 'never, never not ever will I'.
He can always appear before all 7 billion of us and turn every last one of us into a newt. I'd convert.

Then we would comprehend as newts, and would be non the wiser.
But seriously though, how would you know it was God, and not an act purely of nature.
Being without God, means you don't not know God.

For you to know it was God, you'd have to have some previous notion of God.
Could that previous notion be Theos, as opposed to A theos?

jan.

 

[DaveC426913]

You are just making up your own definition of proof. The only proofs that exist are in mathematics. And even those are subject to the limitations of Gödel.

Pedantically, sure. But I think you're splitting hairs. We're talking real world, how-we-go-about-our-lives things here. If God presented himself and gave me the What-For, I would take it to-heart.

Would you argue that, in a practical world, there is no proof of the atomic theory of matter?

I'm a skeptic, but I don't wish to be an unreasonable skeptic.

 

[DaveC426913]

Then we would comprehend as newts, and would be non the wiser.

We got better! *

But seriously though, how would you know it was God, and not an act purely of nature.

Because the God explanation would conceivably be a better fit than the Act of Nature explanation for such an extraordinary event.

For you to know it was God, you'd have to have some previous notion of God.

And I do. I have read the abstract of the proponents of the alternate theory. If that theory now fits the observables better than my own theory, I would have to give due credit.


*thanks for the setup

 

[DaveC426913]

dupe

 

[DaveC426913]

People who believe in God, they have proof. Their proof could be their Bible, Torah or Qur'an.

I disagree.

I cannot speak for all believers, but it is my understanding that, for many*, faith is as opposed to proof. I know it's important to many that the faith part is there, specifically absent the proof. Kind of a test of .. well ... faith.

* I have spent quite a bit of time around quite a few of them, so I can speak for some.

 

[wegs]

I disagree.

I cannot speak for all believers, but it is my understanding that, for many, faith is as opposed to proof. I know it's important to many that the faith part is there, specifically absent the proof. Kind of a test of .. well ... faith.

I know what you mean, faith is not about evidence but about accepting that a God exists without ''proof.'' But, many view the Bible, for example, as ''proof'' of a god.

 

[DaveC426913]

But, many view the Bible, for example, as ''proof'' of a god.

That's certainly true. There are as many types of faithful as there are people.

No, scratch that.

There are as many types of faithful as there are faithful.

 

[Jan Ardena]

If one is a person of faith though, one believes that no one's life is ''without God.'' An atheist's life is just without a belief in God.

Not really because that could suggest that there is God, but you don't believe in Him. I doubt atheists would accept that.
Existence has to play a role in the definition of atheist, in order to argue against God. It is more plausible to argue against the existence of God. It levels the playing field, as the theist will never be able to prove that God exists in the way that atheists define existence. So existence plays a very important role for the atheist.

Why do you believe in God, Jan? Just wondering. You may have stated it in the past, but I wasn't active on here for a while, so I've forgotten if you did tell me.

It just seems natural to believe in God. I'm not a perfect human by any stretch of the imagination, and am flawed in so many ways. Probably more so than some or many of my atheist brothers and sisters, but it seems so natural to me.
Sorry for not giving more detail, but I don't think there is more that I can say that would give you a better sense of why I believe.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Because the God explanation would conceivably be a better fit than the Act of Nature explanation for such an extraordinary event.

So extraordinary events on grand scales means God exists?

jan.