No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Prismatic567 » Sun Dec 10, 2017 9:05 am

Wiki wrote:
In monotheistic thought, God is conceived of as the Supreme Being and the principal object of faith.[3]
The concept of God, as described by theologians, commonly includes the attributes of omniscience (all-knowing), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), divine simplicity, and as having an eternal and necessary existence.
Many theologians also describe God as being omnibenevolent (perfectly good) and all loving.


Since the idea of God emerged >10,000 years ago till now there are no convincing proofs for the existence of a God. Many theists concede their belief in a God is based on faith.
I have demonstrated here 'God is an Impossibility.'

Despite the above, why do theists continue to believe in a God even to the extent of defending their theism with all sorts of contorted arguments and to the extreme of killing non-theists when they perceive threats against theism? Abraham was willing to kill his own son upon hearing a command from God. Many theists are willing to commit all sorts
of abominable acts in the name of their God on the belief they are carrying out their divine duty to please God. Why?

Since there are no strong evidence to prove God exists as real within an empirical-rational reality, I believe the reason why the majority of humans believe in a God is due to a very forceful existential psychological impulse that is compelling [subliminally] them to believe in a God.

Views?
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby surreptitious75 » Sun Dec 10, 2017 10:39 am

To the theist evidence is less important than faith or faith alone is all that is needed as evidence while to
the atheist evidence is more important than faith and this is primarily why the two sides can never agree
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
 
Posts: 466
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby James S Saint » Sun Dec 10, 2017 12:23 pm

You might want to note (or want to avoid noting) that Wiki's definitions are a bit corrupt, as usual.

  • "Omnipotent" does not mean "unlimited power". It means "All-power" or "Every-power" (just as with the other omni's).
    "Unlimited" is not the same as "all"
  • "Omnibenevolent" doesn't mean "perfectly good". It means "All-good" or "Good in every way".
    "Perfect" is not the same as "all".

There are good reasons for those distinctions.

People who write Wiki articles quite often have little idea of what they are writing.

Prismatic567 wrote:I have demonstrated here 'God is an Impossibility.'

And now you lie. You didn't demonstrate anything other than the fact that you will stubbornly preach your sermon regardless of all of the proof that you have no idea what you are talking about (aka "troll"). No one agreed with you on that thread, not even the atheists.

You didn't prove anything concerning God at all. You only proved that you have no understanding of proofs/logic or language or the entire God topic.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sun Dec 10, 2017 1:30 pm

James S Saint wrote:You might want to note (or want to avoid noting) that Wiki's definitions are a bit corrupt, as usual.

  • "Omnipotent" does not mean "unlimited power". It means "All-power" or "Every-power" (just as with the other omni's).
    "Unlimited" is not the same as "all"
  • "Omnibenevolent" doesn't mean "perfectly good". It means "All-good" or "Good in every way".
    "Perfect" is not the same as "all".

There are good reasons for those distinctions.

People who write Wiki articles quite often have little idea of what they are writing.


I think that you're being a pedant. As usual.

Perfect = without a fault
Good in every way = without a fault
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3711
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Arminius » Sun Dec 10, 2017 1:32 pm

James S Saint wrote:You might want to note (or want to avoid noting) that Wiki's definitions are a bit corrupt, as usual.

  • "Omnipotent" does not mean "unlimited power". It means "All-power" or "Every-power" (just as with the other omni's).
    "Unlimited" is not the same as "all"
  • "Omnibenevolent" doesn't mean "perfectly good". It means "All-good" or "Good in every way".
    "Perfect" is not the same as "all".

There are good reasons for those distinctions.

People who write Wiki articles quite often have little idea of what they are writing.

Prismatic567 wrote:I have demonstrated here 'God is an Impossibility.'

And now you lie. You didn't demonstrate anything other than the fact that you will stubbornly preach your sermon regardless of all of the proof that you have no idea what you are talking about (aka "troll"). No one agreed with you on that thread, not even the atheists.

You didn't prove anything concerning God at all. You only proved that you have no understanding of proofs/logic or language or the entire God topic.

Absolutely right.

surreptitious75 wrote:To the theist evidence is less important than faith or faith alone is all that is needed as evidence while to
the atheist evidence is more important than faith and this is primarily why the two sides can never agree

Prismatic's main problem is logic.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby James S Saint » Sun Dec 10, 2017 1:44 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:Perfect = without a fault
Good in every way = without a fault

Wrong.

When you bother to look into what constitutes a "fault", you will find it to be a subjective issue. The same is true with the concept of "perfect". There is no absolute or universal form of "perfect" any more than there is for "long". Perfectly matching What standard or ideal?

Good, in this case is referring to beneficial. Beneficial and perfect are different concepts. Something can be perfectly beneficial, meaning that the benefits could not be better matched. "Omnibeneficial" does not mean "perfectly beneficial". It means "all-beneficial" or more appropriately, "beneficial in every way". The concept "perfect" is not involved.

The concept in theology is that attending to God is of benefit above all else (because God is Reality itself).

And I have to get into pedantics because the misuse of the words is being used to bedevil and favor someone's particular religious sermon. "The devil is in the details".
Last edited by James S Saint on Sun Dec 10, 2017 1:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sun Dec 10, 2017 1:46 pm

JSS wrote:You didn't demonstrate anything other than the fact that you will stubbornly preach your sermon regardless of all of the proof that you have no idea what you are talking about (aka "troll").


That's not what the word "troll" means.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3711
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby James S Saint » Sun Dec 10, 2017 1:47 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:
JSS wrote:You didn't demonstrate anything other than the fact that you will stubbornly preach your sermon regardless of all of the proof that you have no idea what you are talking about (aka "troll").


That's not what the word "troll" means.

What do you think the word "troll" means?
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sun Dec 10, 2017 2:21 pm

JSS wrote:When you bother to look into what constitutes a "fault", you will find it to be a subjective issue.


Yes, good and bad are value judgments. Good = that which benefits me. Bad = that which harms me.

The same is true with the concept of "perfect".


Yes, the word "perfect" means nothing other than "every element within some set of elements is judged as good". This is the same as "not a single element within some set of elements is judged as bad" or in plain terms "without a fault".

The word "all" on the other hand simply means "every single element within some set of elements". This is different from the word "perfect". However, "good in all ways" means "every single element within some set of elements is judged as good" which is the same as the definition of the word "perfect".

There is no absolute or universal form of "perfect" any more than there is for "long". Perfectly matching What standard or ideal?


The word "universal" simply means "relating to or done by all people or things in the world or in a particular group; applicable to all cases." That's how Google defines it. So if everyone shares the same standard or ideal, then whatever they judge as good or bad is universally good or bad. The word "universal" does not mean "independent from human judgment".

And I have to get into pedantics because the misuse of the words is being used to bedevil and favor someone's particular religious sermon. "The devil is in the details".


There are relevant and irrelevant details. Pedants are people who focus on irrelevant details. So when I say you're a pedant I don't simply mean that you're focusing on details. What I mean is that you are focusing on irrelevant details.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3711
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Ierrellus » Sun Dec 10, 2017 2:49 pm

It cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that God does not exist. Psychologically, a belief in God's existence has comforted many. This may not be the God of the three Os, but a more personal, intimate acceptance of what makes the universe keep going. Physically, there is no real need in an organism that exists without the possibility of an external source of being met. If Man had no need of God, God would be irrelevant to the human condition, The existence of God is based on the strong belief that meaning and purpose are exemplified in how we see the universe. The subjective belief becomes an intersubjective belief when we discuss it with like-'minded people. This is probably the only source of objectivity that we can have, barring some miracle in which a sense of reality is imposed on us from outside us as some claim to have happened to them.
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12533
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby James S Saint » Sun Dec 10, 2017 5:14 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:However, "good in all ways" means "every single element within some set of elements is judged as good" which is the same as the definition of the word "perfect".

No. "Perfect" means "an exact match to a standard or ideal". "Perfectly good" would mean that something was exactly matching whichever "good" was being referenced; "perfectly good for this", "perfectly good for that".
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Snark » Sun Dec 10, 2017 7:23 pm

Apart from the fact that Prismatic567 hasn’t demonstrated squat in spite of his arrogant claim to the contrary, experience has demonstrated to my satisfaction that I do not have the right to NOT believe in a loving God.
Snark
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:20 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby surreptitious75 » Sun Dec 10, 2017 10:01 pm

Experience has got nothing to do with your right to think or believe whatever you
want to because every one has that right regardless of what they think or believe
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
 
Posts: 466
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Snark » Sun Dec 10, 2017 10:55 pm

surreptitious75 wrote:Experience has got nothing to do with your right to think or believe whatever you
want to because every one has that right regardless of what they think or believe

It has everything to do with it. The OP is very presumptuous; it’s not just an intellectual decision.
Snark
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:20 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Silhouette » Sun Dec 10, 2017 11:28 pm

Snark wrote:Apart from the fact that Prismatic567 hasn’t demonstrated squat in spite of his arrogant claim to the contrary, experience has demonstrated to my satisfaction that I do not have the right to NOT believe in a loving God.

Wait, you have no right to not believe in a loving God? Does that extend to others, or just you? Do you or does anyone else have the right to believe in an unloving God? A loving non-God/an unloving non-God?

Can you re-iterate or direct me to a particular post or two (not a whole thread) that explains why you have no right to not believe in a loving God?
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3376
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby James S Saint » Sun Dec 10, 2017 11:40 pm

He was just saying that given the evidence of experience at hand, he "rightfully" could not disbelieve in God.
"Rightfully" merely meaning "in good conscience", "justifiably", "rationally".
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Silhouette » Sun Dec 10, 2017 11:49 pm

Ah ok fair enough. "Evidence of experience" though... I guess it would have to be his own experience since plenty of people do not find any evidence in their experience - unless they're at fault in some way in identifying what constitutes evidence of experience. Either that or evidence is only provided to the experience of some and not others - like a kind of "chosen people".

So is this evidence repeatable and verifiable to others/open to peer review? Or is it not supposed to be?
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3376
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Innovice » Mon Dec 11, 2017 12:33 am

Prismatic567 wrote:No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?


Prismatic567 wrote:Since the idea of God emerged >10,000 years ago till now there are no convincing proofs for the existence of a God.


I think that some people have been given more evidence than others
Innovice
Thinker
 
Posts: 988
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 7:27 am

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby surreptitious75 » Mon Dec 11, 2017 12:50 am

Silhouette wrote:
So is this evidence repeatable and verifiable to others / open to peer review

The evidence is of the first person perspective type and so verification is not going to be easy
But as theists and atheists will never agree on what evidence is then it is somewhat academic
Though understanding the actual definition of the word in question would certainly help here
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
 
Posts: 466
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Snark » Mon Dec 11, 2017 1:42 am

James S Saint wrote:He was just saying that given the evidence of experience at hand, he "rightfully" could not disbelieve in God.
"Rightfully" merely meaning "in good conscience", "justifiably", "rationally".

Exactly. Thank you.
Snark
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:20 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Snark » Mon Dec 11, 2017 1:49 am

demoralized wrote:I think that some people have been given more evidence than others

Perhaps, or it could be that some people don't live in their heads so much and are therefore more aware of what's going on in their lives.
Snark
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:20 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Dec 11, 2017 2:56 am

James S Saint wrote:You might want to note (or want to avoid noting) that Wiki's definitions are a bit corrupt, as usual.

  • "Omnipotent" does not mean "unlimited power". It means "All-power" or "Every-power" (just as with the other omni's).
    "Unlimited" is not the same as "all"
  • "Omnibenevolent" doesn't mean "perfectly good". It means "All-good" or "Good in every way".
    "Perfect" is not the same as "all".

There are good reasons for those distinctions.

People who write Wiki articles quite often have little idea of what they are writing.
I understand the limitations of Wiki. I was just introducing a sample and common [as stated therein] definition of God.

As usual your thinking is limited, i.e. limited because you have to compromise your intellectual integrity [to the extent of making yourself a fool if you must] to defend your 'illusion' claimed as real [within empirical-rational reality].

Note the meanings of "ALL";
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/all

    1. the whole of (used in referring to quantity, extent, or duration):
    all the cake; all the way; all year.
    2. the whole number of (used in referring to individuals or particulars, taken collectively):
    all students.
    3. the greatest possible (used in referring to quality or degree):

Note I had argued strongly from the philosophical perspective, the ultimate definition of a God MUST be [imperative] an 'ontological God' i.e. the greatest possible than which no greater can exist.

Another most critical quality attributed to God is 'Absolute';
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/absolute?s=t

    1. free from imperfection; complete; perfect:

    2. not mixed or adulterated; pure:

    3. complete; outright:

    4. free from restriction or limitation; not limited in any way:

    5. unrestrained or unlimited by a constitution, counterbalancing group, etc., in the exercise of governmental power, especially when arbitrary or despotic:

    6. viewed independently; not comparative or relative; ultimate; intrinsic:

    7. positive; certain:

Note you quoted somewhere a definition of God as 'absolute.'
'Absolute' in reference to God as indicated above is "unlimited" unrestrained, and the likes e.g. totally unconditional, perfect.

Wiki wrote:In philosophy, the concept of the Absolute is closely related to that of God in monotheism, albeit not necessarily referring to a personal deity.


So your views, i.e.
    "Unlimited" is not the same as "all"
    "Perfect" is not the same as "all".

is WRONG!

Prismatic567 wrote:I have demonstrated here 'God is an Impossibility.'

And now you lie. You didn't demonstrate anything other than the fact that you will stubbornly preach your sermon regardless of all of the proof that you have no idea what you are talking about (aka "troll"). No one agreed with you on that thread, not even the atheists.

You didn't prove anything concerning God at all. You only proved that you have no understanding of proofs/logic or language or the entire God topic.
Again you used the term 'troll' here.
OTOH, your behavior of accusing me [inflammatory] of being a "troll," & lying [without proof] make you the real "troll."

wiki wrote:In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting quarrels or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion,[3] often for the troll's amusement.


Don't just make general wild cowardly accusations, give me the specifics.
Note your claim of my use of 'omni', 'perfect' is wrong but I have proven [above and elsewhere] you are the one who is wrong.
Your philosophical views are too shallow and narrow, suggest you read more widely and reflect more deeply.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Dec 11, 2017 2:59 am

Arminius wrote:
James S Saint wrote:...
You didn't prove anything concerning God at all. You only proved that you have no understanding of proofs/logic or language or the entire God topic.

Absolutely right.
..
Prismatic's main problem is logic.
You're are shamefully a lackey of JSS. Don't just make wildly cowardly accusations from behind JSS' back, give me the specific and support it with argument or evidence.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Dec 11, 2017 3:19 am

Ierrellus wrote:It cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that God does not exist.
I have proven beyond any doubt on a rational basis 'God is an Impossibility'.
I welcome your counter to my argument here;
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=193474

Psychologically, a belief in God's existence has comforted many.
This is my main point.
Theists need to more philosophical mature and understand the ultimate root cause of the emergence of the idea of God onto their consciousness is purely for psychological reason. On this point, they need to understand the mechanics of the why, how, what, when of theism.

Other critical points are;
1. While theism has psychological utilities, theism is a double-edged sword with its pros and cons.
2. As humanity progress into the future, the cons of theism are outweighing its pros as with the evident terrors, violence and all sort of evil acts committed by SOME [potential pool 300 million :o ] evil prone believers.

Thus to prevent, mitigate or eliminate the above threat, we need to scrutinize theism from the psychological perspective and understand God per se is never real [as claimed by most theists] within an empirical-rational reality.

It may not be the God of the three Os, but a more personal, intimate acceptance of what makes the universe keep going. Physically, there is no real need in an organism that exists without the possibility of an external source of being met. If Man had no need of God, God would be irrelevant to the human condition, The existence of God is based on the strong belief that meaning and purpose are exemplified in how we see the universe. The subjective belief becomes an intersubjective belief when we discuss it with like-'minded people. This is probably the only source of objectivity that we can have, barring some miracle in which a sense of reality is imposed on us from outside us as some claim to have happened to them.
There is no issue if a belief in 'God' is kept and practice on a personal & private basis, even within groups of like minded people as long as it is not institutionalized and politicized that infringe on the rights of others.

But the better and wiser approach is for theists to understand the psychological existential issues and the mechanics behind theism [that has negative baggage] and that there are more efficient methods and practices that are more effective [without negative baggage] in resolving the same psychological existential issues.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Dec 11, 2017 3:40 am

Snark wrote:Apart from the fact that Prismatic567 hasn’t demonstrated squat in spite of his arrogant claim to the contrary, experience has demonstrated to my satisfaction that I do not have the right to NOT believe in a loving God.
That is what a schizophrenic and other mental cases can claim based on their experience.
There are so many such cases where these people are called upon to kill, be violent and do evils based on their experience of and with God.
Theists in general are within the same continuum with the schizophrenic [if 90%] in obeying from the experience with illusions but in a smaller degree [say 20%]. Note in the extreme Abraham was willing to kill his own son based on his experience with God. Most theists will carry out whatever commands if they hear any command from God.

Instead of all sorts of contorted statement, why not be like Ierrellus and acknowledge the fact, the basis of God has something to do with psychological groundings. Therefore one should study and understand as much as possible what this psychological ground is all about.

When one understand the basis of theism is purely psychologically but cannot give up theism - keep it private and personal, then [rationally] one should not insist [without proofs] to others God is real within an empirical-rational reality.

The main problem with theism is when theists insist God is very real within an empirical-rational reality to the extent God listens and answers prayers, delivered a holy book [via prophets] that contain evil laden elements which inspired a % of evil prone theists to commit the most heinous evil acts as a divine duty in the name of God [Allahu Akbar].
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Next

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users