Why do many Americans believe in God?

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

Supplementary questions:

I believe God is the Supreme Cause of all causes.

Do you believe in a personal God, by which I mean a God who cares about individual human beings and who intervenes in the lives of individual human beings?

Or is God just "whatever it is that explains why there is something rather than nothing"?

 

[Jan Ardena]

No, we do not.
We create knowledge as we learn how things work.

This is a knowledge claim. Did you create this knowledge?

So far, a large portion of rational people have not seen evidence that would warrant an entity.

Who are these rational people?

Yes, and exchemist hit it on the head. If you (or others) posit a supernatural being to explain things in the universe, the onus is on you to make the case.

I don't posit a supernatural being to explain things in the universe.

Otherwise, the null hypothesis remains the default.

Ooh! The null hypothesis!
I'd better build a fall-out shelter, or something.

If I posited Russell's Teapot floating out near Mars, it would not be a valid argument for me to assume that it's there, and then demand that you must
a] define it, and
b] prove it is not there.
That's not how discourse works.

I don't know what you're talking about with regard to God, within anything you say.
You need to define God. Not just any arbitrary thing that pops into your head.
Can you do that? Or will you turn to stone for actually discussing who and what God is.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

You just said it:
"But I'm not concerned with science in this regard."

I also said..Obviously one would have to show physical evidence in a science situation, right before the quote you cited.
I'm amazed you didn't see it.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Do you believe the notion of "Supreme Cause of all causes" is more than a human idea?
What do you have, other than the Cosmological Argument and all it's criticisms, to support that there even need be a "Supreme Cause of all causes", and that it is indeed personal?

Do you believe in a personal God, by which I mean a God who cares about individual human beings and who intervenes in the lives of individual human beings?

Or is God just "whatever it is that explains why there is something rather than nothing"?

The Supreme Cause of ALL CAUSES is what it is.
The cause of all causes, personal, impersonal, perception, intelligence, logic, theism, atheism, ideas, concepts, love, hate, sandy beaches, chocolate ice cream, intention, beauty, life, death, eternal life, hellish life, planets, cosmos, creation, annihilation, ambition, ability, humanity, and the list goes on and on.
The occupation (for want of a better expression) is in the definition.

jan.

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't know what you're talking about with regard to God, within anything you say.

Is your god made of atoms or photons, dark matter or dark energy? If no, it is beyond the natural world.

You need to define God.

I have defined the concept with sufficient detail to support my assertion. I don't need to define its eye colour to do so. See post 87. You would not require me to define the colour of a star to conclude that it is hot, would you?

Now you need to do the same. What do you surmise your god is made of? It is your assertion that it exists, it is up to you to posit a mechanism - if only a general one. Without it, you are simply stating a fantasy that exists only within you.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Is your god made of atoms or photons, dark matter or dark energy? If no, it is beyond the natural world.

If God is the cause of the natural world, then it stands to reason that He is transcendental to this world, meaning that He is not affected by the natural world. Not that He is outside of this world.

I have defined the concept with sufficient detail to support my assertion. I don't need to define its eye colour to do so. See post 87. You would not require me to define the colour of a star to conclude that it is hot, would you?

Your defining God as supernatural, is like you defining you parents as natural. The thing is, if you gave me that definition of them, I would be no closer to learning about them through that definition. In short, supernatural is simply a word we use for things we don't understand because they don't fit within the uniformity of nature (as far as we know).

Now you need to do the same. What do you surmise your god is made of?

God is pure spirit.

jan.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

God is made of pure spirit.

jan.

Is that like, the only thing you commit to: pure spirit/cause of all causes?

Everything else, like, cats going "meow" only a possibility?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Is that like, the only thing you commit to: pure spirit/cause of all causes?

Everything else, like, cats going "meow" only a possibility?

OK, Imma stop now.

Feels like some kinda' semantic spam session...

jan.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

OK, Imma stop now.

Feels like some kinda' semantic spam session...

jan.

Yes, I know I said that, but the crux of the matter is that it would have been fruitless to converse if you don't commit to anything. All you seem to do is ask questions. Why would you even ask questions if you're non committal to anything in the first place?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Yes, I know I said that, but the crux of the matter is that it would have been fruitless to converse if you don't commit to anything. All you seem to do is ask questions. Why would you even ask questions if you're non committal to anything in the first place?

Who said I don't commit to anything?

I have to ask questions so I can evaluate your response. Otherwise I can't comprehend fully what you mean when you make a statement.

jan.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Who said I don't commit to anything?

I have to ask questions so I can evaluate your response. Otherwise I can't comprehend fully what you mean when you make a statement.

jan.

So what exactly does "pure spirit" or "cause of all causes" mean?

Does a spirit possess me to dress myself in the morning?

 

[Yazata]

I like ISKON.
Why do you ask?

Because you obviously have views of your own, even though you try to avoid revealing precisely what they are. I think that it would be helpful to others, aiding them in understanding why you say the sometimes peculiar things you say, if they knew more about your intellectual context, about the traditions that have influenced you.

I think Krishna Conscious is developed, and can be developed by all conditioned souls.
Even the damnable atheists.
Why do you ask?

Because you said in your very first post in this thread (as you were hijacking Saint's thread) that the real question isn't the question that Saint asked, why many Americans believe in God, but rather why atheists don't. You have announced in other threads that all human beings possess some innate knowledge of God.

yazata - "Do you believe that the true essence in all religions and all scriptures flow from this innate spiritual knowledge?"

No.
Why do you ask?

You have written many times about what you call "scripture". When atheists ask where you think knowledge of God can be found, you say "in scripture". What's more, you insist that all scriptures ultimately teach the same thing when rightly understood, namely your favored conception of God.

So how do you define 'scripture'? How do you distinguish between religious writings that are scripture and those that aren't? Why are 'scriptures' supposed to be especially authoritative sources of knowledge concerning the topic of God? Assuming just for the sake of argument that all scriptures really do teach the same thing and have the same basic message, where did that message originate and how did it find its way into those particular writings?

I believe God is the Supreme Cause of all causes.
Why do you ask?

I didn't ask you for your definition of 'God', I asked whether you believe in the literal existence of God. In your opinion, does God have any existence or reality in 'his' own right, apart from human concepts of God?

But as long as you volunteered 'Supreme Cause of all causes', I'll ask this -

What does 'Supreme Cause' mean to you? Why did you write it in capital letters? 'Supreme' in what sense? On one reading, 'supreme cause of all causes' would seem to just mean 'the universe's first cause'. Wouldn't astrophysics' big bang qualify? Why should the big bang be conceived as a religious deity and worshipped with ceaseless bhakti?

Or does your understanding of 'Supreme' mean something more than that? Does it have some connotation like 'Most Holy' and 'Most Divine'?

 

[Jeeves]

Have any of the "many Americans" - the subjects of the opening question - had a chance to speak for themselves at all?
Or is it all about Jan Ardena?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Does a spirit possess me to dress myself in the morning?

Who is me, in relation to myself?

jan.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Who is me, in relation to myself?

jan.

Even though my spirit dresses me funny.

 

[Jan Ardena]

What is me?

jan.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

What is me?

jan.

You love me too?

This is me:

 

[Jan Ardena]

You love me too?

This is me:

You could have ironed your shirt.

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

I also said..Obviously one would have to show physical evidence in a science situation, right before the quote you cited.
I'm amazed you didn't see it.

jan.

Yet another example of special pleading. How is it not a "science situation"?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Yet another example of special pleading. How is it not a "science situation"?

How is what not a science situation?

jan.