Proof of the existence of God

[Jan Ardena]

Seattle,

Jan, you've mentioned that God is similar to love however most everyone does accept the concept of love and everyone doesn't accept the concept of God.

So it's not the same.

The similarity lies within the nature of the subject matters.

Your implication is also that God is just something that is innate in human beings rather than learned. It's not however. Before your parents (or society) exposed you to this idea you had no innate concept of God.

It is natural for a human to gain knowledge from it's parents and society.
So there is no before parents or society. Unless you're Tarzan.

Additionally, when most (or many) people speak of once believing in God and no longer doing so it's not that they once "saw" God and now are just less certain.

They then have to work out what was going on while they believed.
What did they actually believe in, to the point of testimony?
They may have thought they believed in God, while they believed, but now they know/accept that God doesn't exist. So they actually never believed in God.
To conclude that everyone believes as they do, but do not come to the conclusion they have, is deluded (which is the case), is simply arrogance.

In most or many cases it's just that they grew up. I grew up in a religious household. I don't consider that I've ever been religious (or believed in God). However as a child I had to go to Sunday school and at a certain young age I read all the Bible stories just like anyone else.

It shows that ''religion'' and ''belief in God'' are two separate activities.

I "believed" them at a certain young age just like I "believed" everything from Aladdin and his magic carpet to the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus.

Obviously nothing was explained to you, to a point where you could comprehend the difference.

You wouldn't now argue that there must have been something to those beliefs just because I once held them.

If you believed in something, there is obviously something to that belief. You need to find out what it was you actually believed in. But it certainly wasn't God, based on what you have said.

My brain wasn't fully developed and anything an adult told me was seen to be true just because I wasn't old enough to be discerning.

You brain wasn't fully developed to comprehend love. You probably didn't even see yourself as loving your parents or anyone, or you didn't understand how you were loved by parent or anyone that loved you. Especially when they told you off, or you didn't get something you wanted.

Regarding early man, you seem to be trying to distinguish between ignorance and the belief in spirits that later turned to gods.

The idea of ''spirits'', is akin to God. Whether it is known or not. There is no evolution of belief in God, unless you can provide the evidence. As far as anyone can comprehend, God is the ultimate spiritual being, because everything emanates from Him, this knowledge did not evolve from worshiping something like little spirits, to God. It is because of God why these are known about and worshiped.

And please before you start with the, ''there is no evidence of this'', and it is ''my concept'' of God. Please note that there is evidence of this knowledge/information, and it is not ''my concept'' of God.

That's all due to ignorance.

It's not at all ignorant to gain information from scriptures, to comprehend who and what God is. It is ignorant, however, to claim that scriptures don't matter, and should not be taken seriously, acting upon it, and having the gall to say God is like dancing teapots, and as such cannot be shown to exist. That is not only ignorant, but it teaches how to be ignorant.

I would say the biggest problem with your particular argument is that God isn't as universal as you are arguing since you are having to argue...meaning, if it was truly a universal, innate concept there would be no one available to argue with you.

Your ignorance (as above) does not allow you to accept who and what God is, via the scriptures, meaning you don't really know what God is (even as a fictional character).
Your education about God was well below standard, (according to you), because you thought God was no different to Santa Clause. Clearly if you study scriptures, you will realize that is not the case.

God is at least universal as love is. You simply have to try to comprehend what they are. You accept love as a concept, but you cannot it exists, but it doesn't stop you knowingly loving or being loved.

jan.

 

[danshawen]

So both philosophers and inspired writers of sacred scripture are idolaters. Moses ascended Mount Sinai and descended with what was essentially an idol (the stone tablet bearing the Ten Commandments in G-d's own engraving). The symbol or the idol is no proof of anything other than the fact that an infinite mind cannot communicate with those possessing a finite mind except by means of the finite symbols they use as a crutch to cognate or understand the divine?

Math only deals with infinity by using the convention that it will not deal with it. What if one of those commandments was to always divide answers by zero or multiply them by infinity? Symbols are unworthy of worship. Any absolute truth is not to be found in them.

Truly pitiful. Like being able to read and to write or count is something miraculous. Now do you get the joke? It's on anyone gullible enough. It is a finite mind that uses symbols to communicate anything.

By all means, carry on and ignore this. I never wrote it. G-d did.

The answer you are looking for is 42, but these aren't the droids you are looking for. Move along, and may the military force be with you and make you victorious where others more worthy have failed.

 

[Jan Ardena]

James R,

Sounds like you're saying that if you read about God and then manage to connect the stories with something that feels familiar to you or gives you a warm fuzzy feeling inside, then that's a good enough reason to believe in God. I don't think it is.

I don't recall saying ''warm fuzzy feelings inside'', but I understand your ''dancing teapots'' need to denigrate theism.
Connection is all important in order to understand something. We can understand something without connection, but it is an inferior form of knowledge. We connect with books, films, talks, and other form of communication, because we are able to suspend our beliefs for it's purpose. The same should be with scriptures.

Sure. We have the three Abrahamic religions, for a start. If you read the bible and the Qur'an, you'll find three rather different conceptions of God - and these particular religions all claim to be talking about the same God!

I could just as easily cite the opposite. So you need to be more specific in what makes these concepts of God, different.

Moving outside those, why not compare Hinduism, with its many gods?

Hinduism understand that there is a supreme being that generates these ''many gods''.
And this supreme being has all the characteristics, and attributes of God. That is how some unsuspecting person would comprehend it, given the scriptures. Or they can simply ask a Hindu person.

In what sense is Shiva the same as Yahweh, for example?

Who say's they are the same?
It is Vishnu who creates, maintains, and destroy the worlds. Brahma is the incarnation who maintains it, and Shiva is the incarnation who destroys it. That's putting it in very basic terms.
Yahweh claims to be the creator. Is there a connection between Yahweh and Vishnu, yes. Because Vishnu is the creator.

What about the ancient Greek gods? Is Zeus the same as Yahweh? Athena? Poseidon? Hermes? What about the Aztec gods? Is Yahweh the same as Quetzalcoatl?

Why are you asking me?
Why don't you look it up for yourself?

And here, I have only scraped the surface of the various conceptions of gods. I haven't talked about the teachings of the different "faiths" at all.

In your mind you think you have. Probably this was you state of mind when you thought you believed in God. But in reality all you have done is assert that you have mentioned the various conceptions of God, when in fact you haven't even given a conception of God.
If you don't know what you're talking about, why should any conclusions you make be taken seriously?

All the things I talked about have been claimed as evidences of God's existence.

Nevertheless it doesn't determine whether or not God exists. We know love exists, and we know that people claim all kinds of things in the name love, that isn't necessarily accepted by others with varying concepts of love, as love. But love itself is not in question, it is universally accepted, because we can see some elements of love (what we can relate to) within others.

Love is a description of something that people do.

What is it that people do, that defines love?

To know whether love exists, we look at people.

I disagree. We already know it exists because we experience it.

To know whether God exists, what do we do?

If you get to the point of knowing that God exists, then it works the same way as love.

Bear in mind that I am not interested in the concept, but in the reality. Even if love had no observable consequences in the world, it could still exist as a concept. In that sense, God obviously exists as a concept in people's minds. For some, God is a centrally important concept. I accept that. I do not accept that God exists in reality, apart from the conception.

Then that's where you're at. You accept love, but you don't accept God.
There's nothing more to say.

Are you saying that God has no independent existence apart from the personal? That is, there's no way to know that God exists unless one personally experiences him/her/it in some way?

God is both personal, and impersonal. Love is both personal and impersonal. We can understand what love is through the actions of people. The manifestation of which we understand to be based upon love (of course it can be argued that it wasn't based on love, but that's left for us to decide).

Ultimately we are personal beings. We view everything from our own perception, and we internalize the data in order to come to a conclusion of knowledge. We can know about God through reason and science, but it is not a complete understanding. Experience is the only way to truly know something, which is why understanding love, is the same as understanding God.

I'm certainly implying that God isn't true. I'm not saying that all believers lack critical thinking skills. However, I do think that there are many who have not applied their critical faculties to their beliefs. And there may also be strong psychological motivators for some people to accept cognitive dissonance.

You said you used to believe in God, but due to proper evaluation and critical thinking, you have now come to your senses, and don't believe anymore. How have you concluded that God isn't true? Do you mean that your concept of God wasn't true? Or do you mean that God does not, or is not shown to exist, at all?

I don't. I am quite sure that many people genuinely and honestly believe in God. That doesn't mean they believe in something that exists in reality.

I could say that it does mean they believe in something that exists in reality.
But why don't you think God doesn't exist in reality, and yet you believe love does exist in reality (I assume).

God didn't do anything. That's the problem. I can't see that God does anything in an objective sense.

Then we can conclude that for you A) God only exists as your concept dictated, and you are correct, or B) You didn't believe in God in the first place. One cannot believe in something without knowledge of that thing, and you have always displayed a lack of comprehension of God.

Sure, God might give a person a warm fuzzy feeling, or some sense that there's a meaning to life, or whatever, but that's a subjective experience, not an objective one.

Outside the dancing teapots type of belittlements, I've no idea why you want to describe connection to God as a warm fuzzy feeling. Is this your way of not having to take it seriously?

Is love a warm fuzzy feeling?

The problem is that human beings are notoriously susceptible to self delusion and sloppy thinking.

Evidence?

It's simply not good enough to trust your gut on things that, if they are true, should be a central part of your life.

Who said it was a gut feeling?

You owe it to yourself to do better than that, or you risk wasting (a portion of) your life.

You should follow your own advice.

I think you left out a word in there somewhere.

...

I think they do themselves a disservice by showing that they don't want to find out whether or not God is there. They simply [knock] everything whether they understand it or not. It's totally blatant.

Do you imagine that atheists haven't spent time trying to find out whether or not God is there? If I had to guess, I'd say that the majority of atheists who started off religious spent a lot more time on this than many people whose beliefs never changed since they were kids.

I don't have to imagine anything. Modern atheists aren't interested in the God that theists believe in. They deny Him/It. They spend their time searching for justifications for their position. Anthony Flew is a perfect example.

Of course. Just as you have convinced yourself that there is a good reason to believe.

I don't have to convince myself, there exits knowledge, information, and commentary about God. You have to spend much of your time in denial just to escape the obvious.

It seems to me that you're saying that because the scriptures "click" with something inside you, you're happy to just accept them at face value.

Because it suits you.

No need to investigate how they were produced or by whom or when or for what reasons. The warm fuzzy feeling is as far as you want to go.

Now you're a mind reader?

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

but I understand your ''dancing teapots'' need to denigrate theism

Facepalm.

Russell's Teapot isn't an attempt to slander theism, it's a philosophical mind experiment, like Schrodinger's Cat.

 

[Seattle]

The bottom line is that some believe and some don't. We just (all of us) have to deal with that.

 

[HarryT]

I believe the first question should be: what is God? Only after answering that can we ask: does God exist or not?
Fact is that all cultures have a religion and most children born in such cultures that are religious grow up to believe in its religion and God. So the God we believe in is random. Fact is that God never showed him or her self. Fact is that all cultures have a need for a religion and all religious artifacts are man made. Fact is that all Gods work is done by people. Conclusion is obvious: We humans are, or can be, God our selves. Just as much as we are, or can be, the Devil. So I can truthfully say: I am God and I am the Devil at tbe same time and I only try to let the God part of me win as much as possible. Only when everybody understands this to be the true nature of God will there be true peace and happiness for all.

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

You seem quite angry that I don't believe in your God. Is that because you have failed to convince me of something you think is quite obvious?

It is no doubt easy for you to assume that I've "missed" something vital about your God, or that I'm in denial about what is for you "common sense", or that I'm actively ignoring or denying a God that I really secretly know is there.

Instead of seeking to convince me that your God is real, instead you spend most of your time trying to belittle me for my supposed ignorance. Why don't you make an effort to introduce me to your God? Why don't you tell me your personal story and why you are so devoted to God? What convinced you that God is real?

It seems that you want to hide why you believe in God, and at the same time put yourself in a superior position to those who don't believe as you do. You pretend you have special insight into what God is and how to access him, but you won't stoop to sharing that knowledge with others.

Perhaps you think that I'm a lost cause and that you won't be able to talk me round no matter what. It's probably because my mind is so closed and stupid, I guess. And so you're content to merely point out how lost and stupid I must be not to believe as you do.

I wonder why you post here. Is it because it makes you feel superior to us poor atheists? And yet, for all your probing questioning of others, you seldom open up about what belief in God is to you. Are you worried that your reasons for belief will seem shallow and unconvincing to me (and others like me)? Is that it?

I don't recall saying ''warm fuzzy feelings inside'', but I understand your ''dancing teapots'' need to denigrate theism.

I'm sorry. A lot of religious people do claim that God makes them feel good about themselves and the world. A lot of people say that they get an immense feeling of universal love from God. Clearly, you are not one of those people. Perhaps if you explained what God is for you, then I wouldn't have to make the assumption that you are like many other religious people.

I mean, there are plenty of bumber stickers saying "God is love." You seem to make a big deal of the reality of love. Yet when I refer to warm fuzzy feelings, you refute that and say I'm denigrating your religion. I'm confused.

Connection is all important in order to understand something. We can understand something without connection, but it is an inferior form of knowledge. We connect with books, films, talks, and other form of communication, because we are able to suspend our beliefs for it's purpose. The same should be with scriptures.

So, when I read scripture, I'm supposed to switch off my critical faculties and kind of let it all wash over me, am I? I'm supposed to suspend my skepticism? I suppose I should just be open to the reality of elephant-headed gods and ancestor spirits, so that I can allow them into my atheist heart.

I could just as easily cite the opposite. So you need to be more specific in what makes these concepts of God, different.

I have neither the time nor inclination to attempt to walk you through Religion 101. I have the impression that you consider yourself somewhat of an expert on world religions. And yet, here you are apparently unable to spot the differences in different concepts of god(s), as presented in different religious traditions.

Hinduism understand that there is a supreme being that generates these ''many gods''.

Only vaguely. The focus of Hinduism is on the many gods.

Who say's they are the same?

My point was that clearly Vishnu, Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, Yahweh and Allah are all quite different gods.

Yahweh claims to be the creator. Is there a connection between Yahweh and Vishnu, yes. Because Vishnu is the creator.

Pointing out one facet of two gods doesn't establish identity between them. Every god is a creator. They are all magical beings. Can't you see that your link between Yahweh and Vishnu is gossamer thin?

Why are you asking me?
Why don't you look it up for yourself?

I already have, of course. I was wondering whether you realised. And it seems you haven't. Hence your Religion 101 questions to me. You need to read more widely.

In your mind you think you have. Probably this was you state of mind when you thought you believed in God. But in reality all you have done is assert that you have mentioned the various conceptions of God, when in fact you haven't even given a conception of God.
If you don't know what you're talking about, why should any conclusions you make be taken seriously?

You keep moving the goal posts. If you think I'm lacking a proper conception of God, then you ought to suggest the appropriate conception yourself rather than berating me for lacking it. Help me to understand the "correct" conception, and forgive me for my obvious stupidity.

Nevertheless it doesn't determine whether or not God exists. We know love exists, and we know that people claim all kinds of things in the name love, that isn't necessarily accepted by others with varying concepts of love, as love. But love itself is not in question, it is universally accepted, because we can see some elements of love (what we can relate to) within others.
....
What is it that people do, that defines love?

You don't know what people do that demonstrates love? Really?

Love is strong devoting and affection. There are different "types" of love - c.f. the love of a parent for a child with romantic love or a love of books, for example. All of these things define love.

 

[James R]

(continued...)

I disagree. We already know it exists because we experience it.

No. We don't experience love as a reified thing. Love isn't out there waiting to be found. Love is a description of a bunch of things that people do.

This is a common category mistake that people make - one of those cognitive biases I referred to earlier. As human beings we have a tendency to reify things - to imagine a concreteness in abstract concepts. Another example would energy. The vast majority of people have a concept of energy as a kind of magical substance, but it's really just an abstract accounting system. There's no "energy" in the world waiting for us to find it, just as there's no "love" separate from people. And, it seems, there's also no God separate from people' conceptions of it.

If you get to the point of knowing that God exists, then it works the same way as love.

I probably agree with you, but not for the reasons you suppose.

If you start to say to yourself things like "the reason that rock is there is because God put it there" and "why I feel happy today is because God loves me" then after a while everything seems to come from God. But there's nothing external happening there that has to do with God. The God part came from within.

Then that's where you're at. You accept love, but you don't accept God.
There's nothing more to say.

I thought it was just getting interesting. I accept both love and God as something that people do.

God is both personal, and impersonal. Love is both personal and impersonal. We can understand what love is through the actions of people. The manifestation of which we understand to be based upon love (of course it can be argued that it wasn't based on love, but that's left for us to decide).

Ultimately we are personal beings. We view everything from our own perception, and we internalize the data in order to come to a conclusion of knowledge. We can know about God through reason and science, but it is not a complete understanding. Experience is the only way to truly know something, which is why understanding love, is the same as understanding God.

Again, in large part, I agree with you. But recall that we were talking about the reality of God: God as a thing in the real world. To get at that, we can't rely on the personal. People make stuff up. People make mistakes. People have fuzzy thinking. This is why science is so important if you want to get at the truth of a thing.

You said you used to believe in God, but due to proper evaluation and critical thinking, you have now come to your senses, and don't believe anymore. How have you concluded that God isn't true? Do you mean that your concept of God wasn't true? Or do you mean that God does not, or is not shown to exist, at all?

I was brought up in one religious tradition. Gradually, I came to realise that the scriptures of that tradition are unreliable as sources of historical fact. Moreover, those scriptures present a very narrow picture of the supposedly omnipotent God, bound to a particular time and place (where the scriptures were written). Reading more widely, I came to the view that it is not just Christian writings that are like this, but the major scriptures of every religion. The more one reads in and of other religions, the more one realises that every religion is a human construction particular to a time and place.

But what about God? God doesn't just rest on a bunch of writings, does he? No. Believers generally feel God's presence in their lives. God talks to them, in his own way. Believers feel that someone is watching out for them. I felt these things. But, gradually I realised that I was deluding myself. Those feelings of being connected to something bigger are not unique to believers in God. The desire to be looked after is a universal one, and a world with a God who will do the job no matter what is an attractive, comfortable one. But when one looks objectively at the world, it doesn't take too long to realise that there's no supernatural being caring for people. People suffer from natural and human-caused evils all the time. God doesn't lift a finger.

The supposed evidences of God, the more one looks at them, don't stand up to the critical scrutiny of people who go into the process with an open mind. Indeed, the kind of evidence most likely to convince a skeptic of the existence of God is also the kind that most often turns out to be fake, or mistaken, or a result of wishful thinking.

I could say that it does mean they believe in something that exists in reality.
But why don't you think God doesn't exist in reality, and yet you believe love does exist in reality (I assume).

Previously, I tried to distinguish between existence as a concept and existence as a real, solid thing. Probably, you need to think about that distinction more, rather than blurring the categories as you are currently doing.

Then we can conclude that for you A) God only exists as your concept dictated, and you are correct, or B) You didn't believe in God in the first place. One cannot believe in something without knowledge of that thing, and you have always displayed a lack of comprehension of God.

It is a cop out for you to claim that I never really believed in God in the first place, or that I wasn't honest in my belief, or that I didn't go about believing in the "correct" way, and that's why my belief didn't "stick". I might just as well claim that you have never taken a critical look at your own beliefs - not properly. You turn a blind eye to all arguments that tend to refute your belief. I might also clam that you have no proper concept of what the universe would look like without your God and that you've never properly tried to imagine such a thing.

Can you see how pointless that line of argument is?

You'd like to think that I had a cut-down and limited concept of God, and that was why I didn't connect with the real God like you did. But I'm a smart guy. Why is it that I failed, while millions of people around the world apparently succeed every day in connecting with your God? Do they just accidentally stumble upon the appropriate way to know God, while I, with my education and background and intelligence, somehow missed the point? Or, do you think that just maybe my education and intellect might have something to do with why I didn't stay on the One True Path? Maybe I got too smart for my own good. Either way, I'm sure you'll come up with a good rationalisation for why I'm at fault.

Outside the dancing teapots type of belittlements, I've no idea why you want to describe connection to God as a warm fuzzy feeling. Is this your way of not having to take it seriously?

Doesn't knowing that your God is there give you a warm fuzzy feeling?

Is love a warm fuzzy feeling?

In part, yeah, sure it is. You've felt love, right?

The problem is that human beings are notoriously susceptible to self delusion and sloppy thinking.

Evidence?

Once again, I don't have the time or inclination to walk you through Skepticism 101, Psychology 101, Neurology 101 or related fields like Fraud and Self-deception 101. You'll have to take my word for it. Or do some research yourself. Start with literature on critical thinking and biases in thinking.

Who said it was a gut feeling?

You did, more or less. You talked about "connection" and the like, which you describe as an inner process that happens inside you and makes you "know" that God is real.

 

[James R]

(continued...)

You should follow your own advice.

I did. I speak from experience.

I don't have to imagine anything. Modern atheists aren't interested in the God that theists believe in. They deny Him/It. They spend their time searching for justifications for their position. Anthony Flew is a perfect example.

You should be wary about putting "modern atheists" into one large, convenient bucket. That's what is known as stereotyping. I try to avoid doing that when I talk about religious believers. It is one thing to generalise. It's another thing to fail to appreciate nuance and variation.

As a modern atheist, I'd say that I have a more-than-average interest in the God(s) that theists believe in. If that wasn't true, I doubt I would be spending my time in lengthy conversation with you, for a start. Another example: I have bookcase full of books that talk about the gods that theists believe in, and about how and why they believe in them. There are a number of "scriptures" included on my bookshelf, too, in case you imagine I haven't read them. (Incidentally, most believers never fully read the "scriptures" of their religions, and yet I'm sure you'll still insist that their beliefs have a stronger base than mine do.)

You can't deny something that doesn't exist. You need to realise that atheists aren't turning their backs on a God they secretly know is real. They really, honestly, don't believe that your God is real (or any other god).

I know you like citing Anthony Flew as an example of an atheist who came to his senses. Previously, I have mentioned the controversy surrounding that "conversion", but it isn't that important. I doubt you're read anything that Flew wrote prior to his conversion. I also doubt that you really care what made him change his mind. It's sufficient for you that he swapped camps. I don't place much significance on this "conversion" of one person. And I don't think that it does anything to diminish the kinds of arguments that Flew himself made against God and religion prior to his change in belief, even if we are to accept that change at face value.

Probably, it is because conversion from atheism to religion is so rare that you use Flew so often as an example - especially as Flew was such a prominent atheist.

I don't have to convince myself, there exits knowledge, information, and commentary about God. You have to spend much of your time in denial just to escape the obvious.

I am in no denial about any of your religious "information", "commentaries" or whatever. I've read your stuff. Have you read any of mine? How much time have you spent researching why atheists believe as they do? Perhaps you are in denial.

Because it suits you.

Because I see no evidence to the contrary.

But you can tell me your story, if you want to. Maybe I'll change my mind.

 

[Jan Ardena]

James R,

You seem quite angry that I don't believe in your God. Is that because you have failed to convince me of something you think is quite obvious?

Why would you think such things?

Instead of seeking to convince me that your God is real, instead you spend most of your time trying to belittle me for my supposed ignorance. Why don't you make an effort to introduce me to your God? Why don't you tell me your personal story and why you are so devoted to God? What convinced you that God is real?

I'm not trying to convince you of anything, neither do I belittle you despite your ignorance on this particular subject matter. I'm explaining God to you in a way that you can use your sense of reason. Anything else will be over your head, because you are reluctant to accept certain characteristics that make God, God.

It seems that you want to hide why you believe in God, and at the same time put yourself in a superior position to those who don't believe as you do.

Can you give examples of me putting myself in a ''superior position''?
Who cares if you don't believe as I do? Certainly not me. I like arguing in the style that atheists argue against some theists. Knowledge/information of God is natural for the reasons I mentioned. Debunk that if you can using science, or reason, or anything at your disposal.

You pretend you have special insight into what God is and how to access him, but you won't stoop to sharing that knowledge with others.

I pretend nothing of the sort. The ''special'' insight is the scriptures. I use nothing else but scriptures in concluding what God is. If you were honest you would do the same, instead of pretending God is whatever anybody wants him to be, hence there are loads of gods.
I'm prepared to share the knowledge/information of God with you or anybody. But I know what will happen, you'll come with ''there's no evidence that God exists'' nonsense. Then the merry go round starts again. It's a ploy/tactic with you guys. That way you never have to face up to the reality that it is more probable that God exists, than not.

Perhaps you think that I'm a lost cause and that you won't be able to talk me round no matter what.

I think you're in a state of denial.

It's probably because my mind is so closed and stupid, I guess.

I don't think you're stupid. But regarding God, I think your mind is closed.

And so you're content to merely point out how lost and stupid I must be not to believe as you do.

Just for the record (or for anyone reading this out context) I have NOT made any point about you being stupid. In fact my above post actually say's that. I think it is you who is angry.

I wonder why you post here.

Do you wonder why anyone posts here, or is it just me?

And yet, for all your probing questioning of others, you seldom open up about what belief in God is to you.

I've already spent a good part of this thread explaining how God is like love, and you say I seldom open up. I've spent lots and lots of time explaining what belief in God is to me.
I think you're frustrated because you do not know how to deal with my take on God, and need me to say something that corresponds to your responses.

Are you worried that your reasons for belief will seem shallow and unconvincing to me (and others like me)? Is that it?

I know that any belief in God seems shallow and unconvincing to you, because I've read your posts for years, and there's a pattern.
I think you're mistaking ''God'' for ''Religion''. I virtually never talk about religion, especially to atheists. There's no point.

I'm sorry. A lot of religious people do claim that God makes them feel good about themselves and the world. A lot of people say that they get an immense feeling of universal love from God. Clearly, you are not one of those people. Perhaps if you explained what God is for you, then I wouldn't have to make the assumption that you are like many other religious people.

I've explained what God is for me. I've spent years explaining it. Fortunately for me, God in the scriptures is what God is, for me. Now all you have to do is accept God, just like you accept any character. Then your mind will begin to open. And don't worry, it doesn't take over your brain. You will not be forced to believe.

I mean, there are plenty of bumber stickers saying "God is love." You seem to make a big deal of the reality of love. Yet when I refer to warm fuzzy feelings, you refute that and say I'm denigrating your religion. I'm confused.

You're denigrating theism, and you're not confused. You know exactly what you're doing.

So, when I read scripture, I'm supposed to switch off my critical faculties and kind of let it all wash over me, am I?

At least comprehend what it is your reading. I'm sure when you go the cinema or watch or movie, you don't critically analyse every aspect of it, even though it may contain elements of unreal activities. I'm quite sure you sink into into, and glean it's meaning. Don't be so uptight about it. At least you won't come up with silly things like ''fuzzy warm feeling''.

I'm supposed to suspend my skepticism?

Since when did you need skepticism, to comprehend something.
What are you afraid of ?

I suppose I should just be open to the reality of elephant-headed gods and ancestor spirits, so that I can allow them into my atheist heart.

You don't have ''an atheist heart'', you're just an atheist (someone who does not believe in God).

Why not be open to the reality of elephant headed gods (Ganesha), and ancestor spirits.
You don't know the length and breadth of this universe, you don't know how it operates. And you don't have to believe it. But you can know about it, it or not. Your life doesn't have to change, by being open to it.

I have neither the time nor inclination to attempt to walk you through Religion 101.

Typical modern atheist tactic.
You can't tell me anything, because you don't know anything. You're just saying it off the top of your head, and now you've been called out on it, you make up excuses...

I have the impression that you consider yourself somewhat of an expert on world religions. And yet, here you are apparently unable to spot the differences in different concepts of god(s), as presented in different religious traditions.

...and then try to shift it back on to me.
You made the claim, support it, or admit you don't know what you're talking about.

Only vaguely. The focus of Hinduism is on the many gods.

Again, you don't know what you're talking about.
Why do you make such silly statements.?

My point was that clearly Vishnu, Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, Yahweh and Allah are all quite different gods.

Can you explain why they are?
Or is this just another statement that pops out of you mind without having to support it with any explanation?

Pointing out one facet of two gods doesn't establish identity between them. Every god is a creator. They are all magical beings. Can't you see that your link between Yahweh and Vishnu is gossamer thin?

I've simply pointed something out that is in the scriptures. Yahweh creates the world, Vishnu creates the world. There is one world, meaning only one creator. Therefore Yahweh and Vishnu are the same. You're not forced to believe it as fact, but you cannot deny the logic of what I've just said. If there are 100 different names attributed to the one creator, of this universe/world, then those hundred names belong to the creator.

You don't know what people do that demonstrates love? Really?

Love is strong devoting and affection. There are different "types" of love - c.f. the love of a parent for a child with romantic love or a love of books, for example. All of these things define love.

If something ''demonstrates'' love, then love stand apart from the events that demonstrate it. Right? So what is ''love''? And how do you know that those events you mentioned define love?

jan.

 

[Sarkus]

I'm not trying to convince you of anything, neither do I belittle you despite your ignorance on this particular subject matter. I'm explaining God to you in a way that you can use your sense of reason. Anything else will be over your head...

Can you give examples of me putting myself in a ''superior position''?

No, Jan. Can't find any examples.

 

[spidergoat]

Knowledge/information of God is natural for the reasons I mentioned. Debunk that if you can using science, or reason, or anything at your disposal.

There's nothing to debunk! God is real because lots of people think so? That's not even an argument.

 

[Jan Ardena]

spidergoat,

There's nothing to debunk! God is real because lots of people think so? That's not even an argument.

It's not even the argument!

jan.

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

You only responded to one out of three of my posts. I hope you can get to the other two.

I'm explaining God to you in a way that you can use your sense of reason. Anything else will be over your head, because you are reluctant to accept certain characteristics that make God, God.

Which characteristics are you referring to?

Can you give examples of me putting myself in a ''superior position''?

I could. But do I really need to remind you of how often you reply to posters only to tell them - as indeed you have just told me - that they have an inferior conception of God, or that they are in denial about God, or that they haven't understood your favorite "scriptures"?

Who cares if you don't believe as I do? Certainly not me. I like arguing in the style that atheists argue against some theists.

What style would that be?

Knowledge/information of God is natural for the reasons I mentioned.

As far as I can tell, all knowledge of God (gods) is passed down from one human being to another, verbally or in writing. There's no "natural" knowledge of God. Nobody knows about God until she is told about him/her/it/them.

Debunk that if you can using science, or reason, or anything at your disposal.

Why don't you start by telling me how it is that a person can know God without being told about him/her/it/them?

Even "new" religions - religions are invented by people - draw on prior knowledge of what gods are supposed to be like.

The ''special'' insight is the scriptures. I use nothing else but scriptures in concluding what God is. If you were honest you would do the same, instead of pretending God is whatever anybody wants him to be, hence there are loads of gods.

There are loads of scriptures, which describe loads of gods. I've read enough of them to appeciate that the gods they describe are by no means the same.

I'm prepared to share the knowledge/information of God with you or anybody. But I know what will happen, you'll come with ''there's no evidence that God exists'' nonsense. Then the merry go round starts again. It's a ploy/tactic with you guys. That way you never have to face up to the reality that it is more probable that God exists, than not.

An argument based on probability sounds like a scientific argument to me. I would be interested in such an argument, were you to present one. I don't recall you presenting such an argument in the past.

I am aware that some atheists assert that there is no evidence that God exists. I am not among them. I would count as evidence the fact that many people believe in God, for example. That doesn't mean nothing, but it is very weak evidence. It's weak because there are so many examples of things that lots of people believe that nevertheless turn out to be false.

I might ask you what you consider to be the strongest evidence for God, but I think we've been down that path before. You'll tell me that I'm not open to the kind of evidence that you think is the strongest evidence, because I don't look at the question in the appropriate way. And, if pushed, you'll claim that evidence for God doesn't matter anyway because you just know that God exists because "knowledge of God is natural". That is a claim that I dispute, and I don't see us making much progress on that front.

I think you're in a state of denial.

Yeah, well I commented on that in one of the posts that you have yet to respond to.

I don't think you're stupid. But regarding God, I think your mind is closed.

What about when I used to be a believer? Was my mind open then, or was I just a "pretend" believer in God? Was it that I thought I believed in God but really I didn't and I didn't realise it? As I said above, I'm sure you can invent some kind of rationalisation.

Just for the record (or for anyone reading this out context) I have NOT made any point about you being stupid. In fact my above post actually say's that. I think it is you who is angry.

A little frustrated, Jan, but not angry. Mostly, when I engage with you I initially find the conversation interesting. Then, after a while I realise that we're not progressing and that you're mostly stonewalling my questions while continually claiming that it is me who is closed-minded. So, we have a break, then it's rinse and repeat at some later time.

Do you wonder why anyone posts here, or is it just me?

It's different for different people. In a lot of cases, motives are fairly transparent. They come across in what people post and how they express themselves. In other cases, people have mixed motives for posting here. In a few cases, I wonder what the underlying motive is - or indeed whether there is one apart from a bit of time out and diversion from everyday life.

 

[James R]

(continued...)

I've already spent a good part of this thread explaining how God is like love, and you say I seldom open up. I've spent lots and lots of time explaining what belief in God is to me. I think you're frustrated because you do not know how to deal with my take on God, and need me to say something that corresponds to your responses.

I'm actually being honest when I say that I don't really know what your take on God is. You say that your knowledge of God is based on texts that you've read. Is that all? I assume there is more to it than that. You say God is like love. How so? There are plenty of scriptures that paint God as vengeful, petty, remorseless, intolerant and so on - hardly the embodiment of love. And then, in contradiction, there are scriptures that paint God as a father figure who loves and cares for us all. How do you reconcile the two? Is God capricious? Is God two-faced? Is God really just like a human being, and are we really made in his image?

I know that any belief in God seems shallow and unconvincing to you, because I've read your posts for years, and there's a pattern. I think you're mistaking ''God'' for ''Religion''. I virtually never talk about religion, especially to atheists. There's no point.

God and Religion are intimately tied together, are they not? How can you rely on "scriptures" for your knowledge about God, and then separate them from the religions for which they are the foundational texts?

I've explained what God is for me. I've spent years explaining it. Fortunately for me, God in the scriptures is what God is, for me.

You must have to read your scriptures selectively.

Now all you have to do is accept God, just like you accept any character. Then your mind will begin to open. And don't worry, it doesn't take over your brain. You will not be forced to believe.

Which character of God should I accept? There are so many, and they are so different from one another.

At least comprehend what it is your reading. I'm sure when you go the cinema or watch or movie, you don't critically analyse every aspect of it, even though it may contain elements of unreal activities. I'm quite sure you sink into into, and glean it's meaning. Don't be so uptight about it. At least you won't come up with silly things like ''fuzzy warm feeling''.

Actually, when I go to the cinema I tend to appreciate films on several levels. It is one thing to suspend disbelief and to immerse oneself in the story. That's all well and good. But at the same time, one realises that it is a story, and one appreciates the process that went into creating the art.

Don't you think it's important to do the same thing when you read a scripture such as the bible?

Since when did you need skepticism, to comprehend something.
What are you afraid of ?

I think you misunderstand what skepticism is. It is an approach to evaluating claims - of anything. It's a frame of mind. It's not the same as cynicism, which is a common caricature. If you like, you can equate skepticism with critical thinking (and note that "critical" doesn't have the negative connotation that people so often give it these days).

Being skeptical is not a matter of being afraid to immerse oneself in something. It is about what I talked about before: not being fooled and wasting your time on something that has no real content or whose real content is not really what it is presented as.

Why not be open to the reality of elephant headed gods (Ganesha), and ancestor spirits.
You don't know the length and breadth of this universe, you don't know how it operates. And you don't have to believe it. But you can know about it, it or not. Your life doesn't have to change, by being open to it.

But I'd say I am open to those things. If only there was some evidence that they are real, then I'd be willing to pay more attention to them. But as things stand, they are interesting to me only as part of a study of societies and cultural practices. They are not to be taken seriously at face value.

Typical modern atheist tactic.
You can't tell me anything, because you don't know anything. You're just saying it off the top of your head, and now you've been called out on it, you make up excuses...

What do you want me to do? Link you to wikipedia articles on Quetzalcoatl and Yahweh, then write a few paragraphs comparing and contrasting them for you? Why don't you go off and read those articles on your own and then try to form your own conclusions about whether those two Gods are the same or different? Besides, if I were to do something like that, would it change your mind? I doubt it. You'd just point to the similarities between them and ignore all the differences, then tell me that they are both really aspects of the One God that you believe in.

I've simply pointed something out that is in the scriptures. Yahweh creates the world, Vishnu creates the world. There is one world, meaning only one creator. Therefore Yahweh and Vishnu are the same. You're not forced to believe it as fact, but you cannot deny the logic of what I've just said. If there are 100 different names attributed to the one creator, of this universe/world, then those hundred names belong to the creator.

So your thesis is that all of the world's religions are just different perceptions of one supreme being. That's what I'm getting from you. If so, then how do you account for the contradictions that are everywhere? Is God both loving and vengeful? Does God look like both a dragon and a man with the head of a jackal? Does God have a chosen people, and if so which people? How exactly did God create the world, and in what order? What does God say will really happen when we die; when the world ends etc.? Does God care about us and answer prayers, or not? Do we need to appease God with sacrifices or other offerings, or not? Does God care what we eat, or not?

If something ''demonstrates'' love, then love stand apart from the events that demonstrate it. Right? So what is ''love''? And how do you know that those events you mentioned define love?

I believe I addressed this point in one of the posts you didn't respond to. Love emerges from what people do. It isn't out there on its own. The same applies to God(s).

 

[tali89]

Love emerges from what people do

Can you provide us with a concise list of things people 'do' that demonstrate love?

 

[James R]

What? Can't you think of any, tali89?

 

[Jan Ardena]

James R,

2nd of the 1st three responses

No. We don't experience love as a reified thing. Love isn't out there waiting to be found. Love is a description of a bunch of things that people do.

What kind of stuff do people do, that makes you describe their actions as ''love''?

There's no "energy" in the world waiting for us to find it, just as there's no "love" separate from people. And, it seems, there's also no God separate from people' conceptions of it.

So at least you recognise something of a similarity in love and God, in terms of existence.
That's a good start.

If you start to say to yourself things like "the reason that rock is there is because God put it there" and "why I feel happy today is because God loves me" then after a while everything seems to come from God. But there's nothing external happening there that has to do with God. The God part came from within.

Technically, according to scriptures, everything comes from God, including the external happenings, and the source of the nature of the external happenings. Again you don't have to accept that, but it is a part of God's characteristics of His Person (creator).
You will find detailed descriptions in vedic literature. I don't have the time nor the inclination to walk you through literature, vedic, or otherwise. You'll just have to take my word for it.

But recall that we were talking about the reality of God: God as a thing in the real world. To get at that, we can't rely on the personal. People make stuff up. People make mistakes. People have fuzzy thinking. This is why science is so important if you want to get at the truth of a thing.

That's something you've got to try and comprehend. If have some comprehension of God's nature (as defined in detail), then you will be able to work out how God is related to the ''real world'' as you call it.
Once again, you don't have to accept it, but at least you won't need to keep asking these questions with no hope of being able to grasp the answer due to your world view.

Science can answer question, I agree, and through it we can arrive at some informational truths. But it cannot define God, as God is not material. Neither can it define love, because love is not material.

The more one reads in and of other religions, the more one realises that every religion is a human construction particular to a time and place.

But the object of that religion (at it's essence), God, is not man made.
Nothing that man creates, including concepts, remain in tact within a lifetime, let alone thousands of years (at least).

But what about God? God doesn't just rest on a bunch of writings, does he?

The writing give information about Him. In this day and age that is invaluable.

But, gradually I realised that I was deluding myself.

And because this was your experience, you apply this to everyone?

Those feelings of being connected to something bigger are not unique to believers in God. The desire to be looked after is a universal one, and a world with a God who will do the job no matter what is an attractive, comfortable one...

...But when one looks objectively at the world, it doesn't take too long to realise that there's no supernatural being caring for people. People suffer from natural and human-caused evils all the time. God doesn't lift a finger.

It seems you weren't really taught about God, or the nature of God. It seems you were just taught to have faith in Jesus, who sacrificed his life for you. This IMO is okay, but if you have no comprehension of who and what God is, and who and what Jesus is, just being taught to have faith can seem like a big fuzzy protector in the sky, who looks out for people. Healing them of cancer, stopping hurricanes, forcing people to do good, and banish evil etc... That's not what God is about, and no scriptures talk of Him in that way.

The supposed evidences of God, the more one looks at them, don't stand up to the critical scrutiny of people who go into the process with an open mind. Indeed, the kind of evidence most likely to convince a skeptic of the existence of God is also the kind that most often turns out to be fake, or mistaken, or a result of wishful thinking.

According to every scripture, ultimately everything is evidence of God (not my personal concept). So if you start from that perspective, science becomes a tool for understanding God's handy work (material). You have to accept that premise, to get a better understanding of how current evidences lead to God. If you don't accept that premise then things won't make sense to your current comprehension. You can see that right?

Previously, I tried to distinguish between existence as a concept and existence as a real, solid thing. Probably, you need to think about that distinction more, rather than blurring the categories as you are currently doing.

I'm explaining it in a way you can relate to. You should already know that God is not a material being. If you accept that, then we can progress this discussion. If you can't accept that, then we'll go round in circles. That way you won't get an answer to your questions.
At the moment you are treating this from your world view perspective, which is one of objective, material, naturalist kind of thinking. Because you cannot see (what you think of as) God, you assume He doesn't exist. You see the material nature working in such a way that it requires no mind or intelligence to maintain it. So for you God has to be understood in the way you understand material nature. But before you can, you must accept who and what God is, and that information can be found in scriptures. Then you'll know how it occurs. At that point you can decide what's real and what's not.

 

[Jan Ardena]

...2nd of the 1st continued

James R,

It is a cop out for you to claim that I never really believed in God in the first place, or that I wasn't honest in my belief, or that I didn't go about believing in the "correct" way, and that's why my belief didn't "stick".

If it's true, why is it a cop out?
Belief and acceptance are two different states of being. One can accept something straight away, and act as though they believe that thing. We even think we believe in something, only to find out at some point we don't, and we never did. We can be taken in, where a scheme, or partner for all intent and purpose appear to be everything we have been looking for. Only to find out it was a sham. As we become more experienced we learn how to discriminate between what is real and what's illusion.
Beliefs are based on what we have learned, as experience, and the offer that presents itself in which we have no way of knowing at that moment in time, but know we have a decision to make regardless.

Youngsters, don't generally develop beliefs, they just accept offers (without experience). You simply went along with something that was part of your family tradition. You associated God with Santa Clause because that it how the teachings came across to you.

I might just as well claim that you have never taken a critical look at your own beliefs - not properly.

What difference would that claim make?

You turn a blind eye to all arguments that tend to refute your belief.

There's been such arguments? Really?

I might also clam that you have no proper concept of what the universe would look like without your God and that you've never properly tried to imagine such a thing.

I don't imagine the universe with God, so you're most probably right about the imagination thing.
Obviously you think God has to be imagined in order to be believed in.

You'd like to think that I had a cut-down and limited concept of God, and that was why I didn't connect with the real God like you did.

Unless you're hiding something, I have no choice but to conclude that your concept of God is the result of not being taught who and what God is, who and what you are in relation to God. Without this information, it becomes difficult to sustain faith in God because.

But I'm a smart guy. Why is it that I failed, while millions of people around the world apparently succeed every day in connecting with your God?

Why do you have to say ''your God''?
Nothing I have said about God in this thread, is my personal concept. In this case we are discussing ''God'', His character and His attributes as defined in scripture for thousands of years.
This just makes me think you're not taking this thing seriously, and your not prepared to learn, or accept anything new. All my typing seems to be a waste of time, as nothing I say changes how you see, what for you is, the concept of God.
Am I wasting my time with you?

Do they just accidentally stumble upon the appropriate way to know God, while I, with my education and background and intelligence, somehow missed the point? Or, do you think that just maybe my education and intellect might have something to do with why I didn't stay on the One True Path? Maybe I got too smart for my own good. Either way, I'm sure you'll come up with a good rationalisation for why I'm at fault.

You don't need me to tell you about you.

Doesn't knowing that your God is there give you a warm fuzzy feeling?

What kind of question is this?

In part, yeah, sure it is. You've felt love, right?

So all fuzzy warm feelings, are somehow connected to love. Would that be a correct analysis of your logic?

You did, more or less. You talked about "connection" and the like, which you describe as an inner process that happens inside you and makes you "know" that God is real.

I didn't say it was a ''gut feeling''.
I suggest you stick to what I say, and do away with this ''more or less crap''.
Now I have to waste my time typing this.

Please Please Please, don't interpret what I say. Just respond to the words I use.

Thanks in advance
jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

What? Can't you think of any, tali89?

Why don't you attempt to provide a list?
You did make a claim, and now you've been called out on it.

jan.