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~

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Snark » Tue Dec 12, 2017 8:30 pm

dan25 wrote:
Snark wrote:
Arcturus Descending wrote:Would you put a band aid on it? You believe in a loving God because you believe. Does that make it so?

To the only one for whom it really matters, yes, it makes it so.

If he (I presume your male, Snark) believes in a loving God then it is so that he believes. But what we believe has no effect on what actually exists in reality.

That may or may not be the case. At present, we know so little about consciousness and QM that to claim that what we believe has no effect on what actually exists in reality is premature.
Snark
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:20 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Snark » Tue Dec 12, 2017 8:37 pm

James S Saint wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:Note Richard Dawkins as scientist and not a philosopher is in such a situation.

Richard Dawkins is an idiot. And not because of his beliefs, but because he constantly embarrasses himself and all atheists. Krauss, not an idiot, had to distance himself from the idiot.

Krauss' idiocy came to full light when I saw him interviewed on Closer to Truth regarding why is there something rather than nothing. His frustration was apparent when, in effect, he said causation was turtles all the way down.
Snark
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:20 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Silhouette » Tue Dec 12, 2017 11:08 pm

Snark wrote:Yes, but there is nothing overt about it. it is, in fact, very subtle, very personal. It's in the little things, like something greater than myself guiding events in such a way that they naturally unfold in a way that got me to where I am today.

I want to emphasize the subtle of it. I'm sure you've seen videos of people falling into fountains or bumping into walls because they were distracted by their cell phones. Primitive man had brains very much like our own but didn't have all the distractions we have today. Accordingly, it seems quite natural that people today are generally unaware of the subtleties that lead to the belief in God.

I see, so only the most aware are able to develop a belief in God - presumably it follows that those who do not believe in God are suffering from a deficit in attention to subtleties.

Would you say that an awareness of the subtleties goes hand in hand with the ability to explain the nature of these subtleties - and how they necessarily amount to what is something of an overt claim that one has (or at least you have) no right to not believe in a specifically loving God, as opposed to something else? There must be something that definitely leads to your claim and not others in order for you to transform subtleties into something so overtly certain.

I think both theists and atheists alike are aware that something(s) other than themselves is/are affecting events beyond what is normally understood to be an individual locus of control. And naturally these forces will necessarily cause events to unfold in the way that they do, such that they bring you to where you are today - they hardly get you to where you aren't today after all? So obviously you must be referring to subtleties in and around this necessary outcome that point to specifically loving God belief that you don't have a right not to have - (again) as opposed to something else.

Though you say your belief is personal and does not require any correlation, so perhaps the ability to explain these subtleties is intrinsically lacking in such a style of belief? After all, correlation somewhat helps with explanation, and ease of explanation must surely fall in proportion with subtlety of the elements of such an explanation.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3381
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby dan25 » Tue Dec 12, 2017 11:36 pm

If he (I presume your male, Snark) believes in a loving God then it is so that he believes. But what we believe has no effect on what actually exists in reality.[/quote]
That may or may not be the case. At present, we know so little about consciousness and QM that to claim that what we believe has no effect on what actually exists in reality is premature.[/quote]

If I believe that when i perform the double slit experiment i will see an interferance pattern, does this belief, the belief itself, dictate wether or not i will actually see an interferance pattern? No, of course not- it depends (apparently) on whether or not i have "which path informstion".
Just because i believe in God that doesn't make God exist.
dan25
 
Posts: 254
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 8:34 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Snark » Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:02 am

dan25 wrote:
Just because i believe in God that doesn't make God exist.

Of course not, but why close the mind to possibilities? Don't you think it's a bit self-serving when scientists argue that anything that can happen happens while implicitly meaning with the sole exception of God?

The belief is just the conceptual interpretation an experience. I'm not about to say that it's factually true.
Snark
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:20 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Silhouette » Wed Dec 13, 2017 8:27 pm

Snark wrote:

So am I to take that as confirmation that your belief intrinsically lacks explanatory ease or possibility? There's not so much going on anymore and you've skipped me again...

If that was the case, I don't think you would really have the right to claim you have no right not to believe in a loving God. In general, not being able to explain something is a good sign that you don't understand it, which certainly wouldn't constitute a sufficient ground on which to support such claims as you've made - or maybe you're just busy/not interested.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3381
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Snark » Wed Dec 13, 2017 9:25 pm

You're going to believe what you want to anyway, so not interested in debate. My "claims" are analogies, incomplete descriptors and conditioned interpretations, not truth-statements. Accept what I say as true (for me) or don't -- I don't care.

P.S. I have a life outside this forum, so when I say there's a lot going on, I don't mean in the forum.
Snark
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:20 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby James S Saint » Wed Dec 13, 2017 9:39 pm

dan25 wrote:At present, we know so little about consciousness and QM that to claim that what we believe has no effect on what actually exists in reality is premature.

Only for some.
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 » Wed Dec 13, 2017 10:06 pm

Snark wrote:You're going to believe what you want to anyway, so not interested in debate. My "claims" are analogies, incomplete descriptors and conditioned interpretations, not truth-statements. Accept what I say as true (for me) or don't -- I don't care.

P.S. I have a life outside this forum, so when I say there's a lot going on, I don't mean in the forum.

This is an interesting reply, since I am currently only trying to explore what you believe.
I don't think I've even addressed what I believe yet in my conversation with you...

Maybe "you're going to believe what you want to anyway" was more reflective of yourself? I am not going to assume.

I will accept what you say as true for you or I won't... I am aware of my options, but I would be disappointed if you didn't care enough to give me grounds to make up my mind in the first place - you've barely scratched the surface in your explanation to me of your beliefs I am sure. Believe it or not, I am actually interested in your beliefs, whether or not they are analogies/incomplete descriptors/conditioned interpretations or truth statements. It's all interesting to me.

I think you have much in common with everyone here, having a life outside this forum - some more than others for sure. But over 4 posts per day so far suggests you still manage to make plenty of time for this place all the same - I will try to be more patient though - I understand if that cannot continue at that rate. God belief can be very mysterious and I would very much like it if somebody who is so certain of their beliefs could demystify it for me.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3381
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby James S Saint » Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:04 pm

Everyone has their own evidence. It is kind of silly to say "there is no evidence". Of course he means that Science has provided no evidence to the public, nor the horde of loud mouthed idiots. Objective evidence requires the ability to reason, which is beyond the average person (another good reason for faith based religions).
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 » Thu Dec 14, 2017 6:05 am

James S Saint wrote:Everyone has their own evidence. It is kind of silly to say "there is no evidence". Of course he means that Science has provided no evidence to the public, nor the horde of loud mouthed idiots. Objective evidence requires the ability to reason, which is beyond the average person (another good reason for faith based religions).

Objective evidence also requires boundaries, but being infinite, God does not have boundaries by definition.

Silhouette:

"You're going to believe what you want to anyway" applies to everyone, no exceptions. Perhaps you should pay more attention to what you believe. I wonder how many times and in how ways it has to be said that it's about felt relationships expressed in terms of as if and not about beliefs at all?

“Humans consider themselves unique, so they've rooted their whole theory of existence on their uniqueness. 'One' is their unit of measure. But it's not. All social systems we've put into place are a mere sketch. 'One plus one equals two.' That's all we've learned. But one plus one has never equaled two. There are, in fact, no numbers and no letters. We've codified our existence to bring it down to human size, to make it comprehensible. We've created a scale so we can forget its unfathomable scale.” — Lucy
Snark
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:20 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Silhouette » Thu Dec 14, 2017 8:41 pm

Snark wrote:"You're going to believe what you want to anyway" applies to everyone, no exceptions.

Some atheists, for example, don't want to believe there is no God etc. but they are overwhelmingly compelled to due to evidence and reason - though arguably they want to be authentic and honest with themselves and others more than they wish that a God existed, so as a "net want" they "believe what they want to anyway". So I'll grant you your generalisation and agree with you. I think what statements such as yours are usually meant to imply though, is that "you aren't going to change your mind anyway" - which is very wrong for some people. There are probably more who will stick to their guns and even bury their head in the sand (enough mixing metaphors though) before they change their mind - cognitive dissonance gets the better of most. In certain cases, the scientifically minded such as myself actively try and find evidence and reason to change their mind. That's not to say I won't challenge my quarter first - I most certainly will - but only in the honest attempt to evolve or even abandon my beliefs.

Believe me when I tell you I want you to try and change my mind.
I already have an excellent understanding of what I do believe, despite not going into it yet with you.
But enough of that for now.

Snark wrote:I wonder how many times and in how ways it has to be said that it's about felt relationships expressed in terms of as if and not about beliefs at all?

Are you saying that you believe in God because it is "as if" He must exist, given that things are the way they are? Or am I completely misinterpreting what you're saying here? I cannot stress enough that I am not trying to mock you when re-iterating your words in my own, I am absolutely withholding judgement until I have a clear picture (and even then I probably won't judge - just take anything that you might have offered and try to incorporate it into a greater understanding).

I actually happen to agree with the Lucy quote - my own philosophy even holds the point of the quote at its foundation. In my terms I call the "unfathomable scale" continuous experience and the "codified/sketch" with "units of measure" discrete experience. I regard the former as primary and the latter as constructed within and parallel to it - and the degree to which you tend towards one over the other depends on your values and intentions.

I still find no necessary reason that God must be included into the picture, especially such that I have no right not to believe in Him. But that's where people like you could potentially come in - I have yet to see. But so far I'm not feeling anything to convince me that subtle as-ifs necessarily amount to an overt lack of right to not believe in (a) God.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3381
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Fixed Cross » Thu Dec 14, 2017 10:11 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
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?

Rather, the notion of God was invented to compensate for the puzzling fact that things seem to come out of nowhere.
We may interpret "god" as "seed".
And indeed in ancient times there wasn't a difference between sexuality and divinity.
Before the Light - Tree of Life
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7847
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri Dec 15, 2017 6:41 am

Fixed Cross wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:
..
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?

Rather, the notion of God was invented to compensate for the puzzling fact that things seem to come out of nowhere.
We may interpret "god" as "seed".
And indeed in ancient times there wasn't a difference between sexuality and divinity.

In the beginning was the inherent existential crisis.
IF you review the history of mankind, the concept of theism 'progressed' from animism, deity worship to polytheism, then to monotheism.

As a child, it is natural the psychological security is covered by the parents but for adults who do they turned to?
It was this existential crisis that compelled the early humans [adults] to seek some higher power than their own to give them that psychological security. At this point, no one was thinking of 'things seem to come out of nowhere' so there must be a creator.
Therefore what is fundamental is that inherent unavoidable existential crisis that is embedded deep in the pscyhe of humans.

With that permanent inherent unavoidable existential crisis as the substance, the forms that humans came up with to deal with it vary with time and human consciousness and intellectual progress.

That thinking, 'something cannot come from nothing, therefore it must be God' is a very recent thought relative to human history. The fundamental of it is still the inherent unavoidable existential crisis on the psychological basis.

The fact is when the inherent unavoidable existential crisis [mother of all dukkha] is dealt accordingly based on its ultimate psychological roots, there is no need for theism. This is why Buddhism [& others of the like] are non-theistic and so do have the negative baggage of theism.
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 Snark » Fri Dec 15, 2017 6:42 am

Silhouette wrote:Believe me when I tell you I want you to try and change my mind.
Sorry, but no.
I already have an excellent understanding of what I do believe, despite not going into it yet with you.


I don't think so, especially since you're so convinced that you do.

I still find no necessary reason that God must be included into the picture....
You're still concretizing "God." This is not unusual. "God does not exist but is existence itself" is so simple to understand that that it eludes "intellectuals." Maybe it was for this reason Paul Tillich famously said it is as atheistic to affirm God's existence as to deny it.

...I have yet to see. But so far I'm not feeling anything to convince me that subtle as-ifs necessarily amount to an overt lack of right to not believe in (a) God.
Where are you looking? With what are you looking?
Snark
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:20 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Arcturus Descending » Fri Dec 15, 2017 3:31 pm

Snark wrote:
Arcturus Descending wrote:Would you put a band aid on it? You believe in a loving God because you believe. Does that make it so?

To the only one for whom it really matters, yes, it makes it so.


That, Snark, is the nature of belief.

It is possible that even Jean-Luc Picard, when he uttered the phrase, "Make it so!" while standing on the Bridge of the Enterprise, realized at some level sometimes those words, that mandate, would not come to fruition.

But I do feel that faith is important when it is a reasonable and intelligent faith and not paradoxical.

How do you explain the other side of the coin?
“How can a bird that is born for joy
Sit in a cage and sing?”
― William Blake


“Little Fly
Thy summers play,
My thoughtless hand
Has brush'd away.

Am not I
A fly like thee?
Or art not thou
A man like me?

For I dance
And drink & sing:
Till some blind hand
Shall brush my wing.

If thought is life
And strength & breath:
And the want
Of thought is death;

Then am I
A happy fly,
If I live,
Or if I die”
― William Blake, Songs of Innocence and of Experience


“No bird soars too high if he soars with his own wings.”
― William Blake
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 15278
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Silhouette » Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:14 pm

Snark wrote:
Silhouette wrote:Believe me when I tell you I want you to try and change my mind.

Sorry, but no.

Ah, a theist of little faith :wink: You've never come across it before, so I'll grant you your belief. "You're going to believe what you want to anyway", right?

Snark wrote:
Silhouette wrote:I already have an excellent understanding of what I do believe, despite not going into it yet with you.

I don't think so, especially since you're so convinced that you do.

Is the sign of someone who has an excellent understanding of what they believe that they do not believe they have an excellent understanding of what they believe? Knowing that you know nothing, right?
It is of course often the case that people who don't have an excellent understanding of what they believe think they do because they don't understand why they don't have an excellent understanding of what they believe. But having an excellent understanding of what one believes doesn't necessarily mean you don't also have an excellent understanding of what it is like to be confronted with new evidence or reason to change your beliefs, and to proceed to do so accordingly. But it sounds like you lack the faith to believe that can happen.

Snark wrote:
Silhouette wrote:I still find no necessary reason that God must be included into the picture....
You're still concretizing "God." This is not unusual. "God does not exist but is existence itself" is so simple to understand that that it eludes "intellectuals." Maybe it was for this reason Paul Tillich famously said it is as atheistic to affirm God's existence as to deny it.

Ok, so I am to understand that concretising God is a common mistake. This makes me think that you conceive of God abstractly - and this fits in with your equation of God with existence.

I ask the question though: if God is the same as existence, and the neutral word "existence" says neither too much nor too little about what it signifies, and even a God believer equates the two, why have two words for the same thing when the other word "God" carries with it so much baggage and association with religious texts that "existence" doesn't need in order to do the job that even a God believer finds it sufficiently does?

In equating God with existence *without* that extra baggage and association with religious text, then you are just a Deist who holds onto the idea of God without actually needing it. But if you are a theist, I would expect that instead that you are saying that "God is existence" but "plus x". In this case we just need to find the language to explain "x", no?

Snark wrote:Where are you looking? With what are you looking?

An excellent pair of questions.

I believe I have the same "looking" faculties as anyone else, atheist and theist alike. So unless there is sensory experience that you have no right not to believe is God that atheists simply haven't seen and theists have, it must be a matter of interpretation of the same sensory experience that's open to anyone that makes the difference. I have no reason to believe that I'm not experiencing what theists do, so I expect the difference is in "making sense" of the same sensations. So to answer your questions, I'm looking at what I assume to be the same sensations as anyone else and I'm looking at them with the same tools as anyone else.

How am I interpreting them? With logic. Is there anything to "this experience" that requires more or less in order to be what it is? If there's more than necessary to any experience, I remove what is not necessary and check if what I'm left with is still sufficient for that experience to be that experience. If there is not enough, I keep looking. Each case requires constant revision, and so far I've not found anything needs God, but I will continue to look and consider that it might do. You say it's subtle, so maybe I am being too coarse and I'm missing something. I assume, however, that someone who isn't being as blunt as I am ought to be able to explain to me what it is that I am missing. I can see you're trying and hope you continue to do so.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3381
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Snark » Sat Dec 16, 2017 12:57 am

#-o

I wonder how many times and in how many ways it must be said that it's not about beliefs, concrete or abstract? Why must everything be reducible to ideas with you guys? Just as Buddhism isn't what you think, theism isn't always what people think.

Do you even know what a deist is? Did I ever suggest something akin to God creating the universe and then abandoning it? You said, "I'm looking at what I assume to be the same sensations as anyone else and I'm looking at them with the same tools as anyone else," but are you? You ignore things like "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." So maybe your assumption is wrong. If a reasonable person who is in the habit of reducing everything to ideas heard a theist say, "By love He may be gotten and holden but by thought never," they would consider the possibility that they are missing something.

What are you missing? I can't answer that. Whatever it is, it's not an idea/belief.
Last edited by Snark on Sat Dec 16, 2017 1:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
Snark
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:20 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Snark » Sat Dec 16, 2017 1:15 am

Perhaps I was too hasty. There was a time not too long ago when I, too, thought TRUTH exists somewhere, has a definite form, a specific content, is unique, is Universal, can be intellectually grasped and, if only found, it would solve all our problems as everyone will recognize it to be THE TRUTH

Snark
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:20 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby James S Saint » Sat Dec 16, 2017 1:51 am

Snark wrote:Perhaps I was too hasty. There was a time not too long ago when I, too, thought TRUTH exists somewhere, has a definite form, a specific content, is unique, is Universal, can be intellectually grasped and, if only found, it would solve all our problems as everyone will recognize it to be THE TRUTH

Much like the Aether theory, it wasn't the theory that was wrong, merely the manner in which it was understood.
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 Prismatic567 » Sat Dec 16, 2017 4:21 am

Snark wrote:#-o
Do you even know what a deist is? Did I ever suggest something akin to God creating the universe and then abandoning it?
From what I gathered [here and elsewhere] Snark's belief is Panentheism, i.e.

Wiki wrote:Panentheism (from the Ancient Greek expression πᾶν ἐν θεῷ, pān en theṓ, literally "all in God"[1][2]) is the belief that the divine pervades and interpenetrates every part of the universe and also extends beyond time and space.
...
Beginning in the 1940s, Hartshorne examined numerous conceptions of God. He reviewed and discarded pantheism, deism, and pandeism in favor of panentheism, finding that such a "doctrine contains all of deism and pandeism except their arbitrary negations".
Hartshorne formulated God as a being who could become "more perfect": He has absolute perfection in categories for which absolute perfection is possible, and relative perfection (i. e., is superior to all others) in categories for which perfection cannot be precisely determined.


Note the point re 'absolute perfection' and 'relative perfection' which I had been using and was condemned [purely due to ignorance] by many here.
In my case, absolute perfection is an impossibility.


I wonder how many times and in how many ways it must be said that it's not about beliefs, concrete or abstract? Why must everything be reducible to ideas with you guys? Just as Buddhism isn't what you think, theism isn't always what people think.
The idea of God is based on beliefs and restricted to philosophical ideas, not concepts. Philosophical Ideas lack empirical elements, while concepts will include empirical elements.
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 Snark » Sat Dec 16, 2017 5:04 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
Snark wrote:#-o
Do you even know what a deist is? Did I ever suggest something akin to God creating the universe and then abandoning it?
From what I gathered [here and elsewhere] Snark's belief is Panentheism, i.e.

Wiki wrote:Panentheism (from the Ancient Greek expression πᾶν ἐν θεῷ, pān en theṓ, literally "all in God"[1][2]) is the belief that the divine pervades and interpenetrates every part of the universe and also extends beyond time and space.
...
Beginning in the 1940s, Hartshorne examined numerous conceptions of God. He reviewed and discarded pantheism, deism, and pandeism in favor of panentheism, finding that such a "doctrine contains all of deism and pandeism except their arbitrary negations".
Hartshorne formulated God as a being who could become "more perfect": He has absolute perfection in categories for which absolute perfection is possible, and relative perfection (i. e., is superior to all others) in categories for which perfection cannot be precisely determined.


Note the point re 'absolute perfection' and 'relative perfection' which I had been using and was condemned [purely due to ignorance] by many here.
In my case, absolute perfection is an impossibility.


I wonder how many times and in how many ways it must be said that it's not about beliefs, concrete or abstract? Why must everything be reducible to ideas with you guys? Just as Buddhism isn't what you think, theism isn't always what people think.
The idea of God is based on beliefs and restricted to philosophical ideas, not concepts. Philosophical Ideas lack empirical elements, while concepts will include empirical elements.


News flash! Not every panentheist is a Hartshorne panentheist.

You're still irrational and irrelevant, Prismatic.
Snark
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:20 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat Dec 16, 2017 6:03 am

Snark wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:
Snark wrote:#-o
Do you even know what a deist is? Did I ever suggest something akin to God creating the universe and then abandoning it?
From what I gathered [here and elsewhere] Snark's belief is Panentheism, i.e.

Wiki wrote:Panentheism (from the Ancient Greek expression πᾶν ἐν θεῷ, pān en theṓ, literally "all in God"[1][2]) is the belief that the divine pervades and interpenetrates every part of the universe and also extends beyond time and space.
...
Beginning in the 1940s, Hartshorne examined numerous conceptions of God. He reviewed and discarded pantheism, deism, and pandeism in favor of panentheism, finding that such a "doctrine contains all of deism and pandeism except their arbitrary negations".
Hartshorne formulated God as a being who could become "more perfect": He has absolute perfection in categories for which absolute perfection is possible, and relative perfection (i. e., is superior to all others) in categories for which perfection cannot be precisely determined.


Note the point re 'absolute perfection' and 'relative perfection' which I had been using and was condemned [purely due to ignorance] by many here.
In my case, absolute perfection is an impossibility.


I wonder how many times and in how many ways it must be said that it's not about beliefs, concrete or abstract? Why must everything be reducible to ideas with you guys? Just as Buddhism isn't what you think, theism isn't always what people think.
The idea of God is based on beliefs and restricted to philosophical ideas, not concepts. Philosophical Ideas lack empirical elements, while concepts will include empirical elements.


News flash! Not every panentheist is a Hartshorne panentheist.

You're still irrational and irrelevant, Prismatic.
Where did I say every every panentheist is a Hartshorne panentheist. Obviously there are forms which differ but the substance of 'what is panentheism' is the same for all.
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 Silhouette » Sat Dec 16, 2017 9:14 pm

Snark wrote:I wonder how many times and in how many ways it must be said that it's not about beliefs, concrete or abstract? Why must everything be reducible to ideas with you guys? Just as Buddhism isn't what you think, theism isn't always what people think.

Very interesting.

So my challenge is at the level of an entire paradigm shift.
It's not about: beliefs, ideas, concretes, abstracts, thinking (belligerent atheists would love that one :wink:), correlation as verification, overtness, truth-statements
It is about: existence, love, spirituality, subtleties, being personal yet boundless, analogies, incomplete descriptors and conditioned interpretations

Snark wrote:Perhaps I was too hasty. There was a time not too long ago when I, too, thought TRUTH exists somewhere, has a definite form, a specific content, is unique, is Universal, can be intellectually grasped and, if only found, it would solve all our problems as everyone will recognize it to be THE TRUTH

I don't actually think like that, but yes please do be patient with me. I regard truth as an expression of perceived consistency of associated experiences in line with how the brain myelinates pathways that are stimulated most often. The term is imprecisely used, and I think that can be straightened out through philosophy, but it is necessarily relative. It can be understood as a concept, but it is far from going to solve all our problems because truth isn't the only valid value according to natural selection. I am merely interested in what it can and can't do, with no hopes or expectations.

Weird youtube vid btw. Honestly, I like the barren precipice. I love exploring the round room and contemplating corners - certain kinds of suffering are enjoyable. They are a necessary pre-cursor to satisfaction. The Buddhist notion of eliminating suffering only really applies to what the vid calls "unbearable" suffering. There are many bearable types that are even preferable. Discarding and abandoning comforts and suffering isn't the only path to appreciating the infinite present, I actually ended up with something pretty similar to Buddhism in some ways simply through rational thought.

The prospect of attempting an entirely new approach seems strange and difficult. Seeing the world in terms of what I listed above instead of what I also listed above that doesn't seem philosophical - would you recommend I re-evaluate my definition of philosophy? Or does God not fit in with philosophy?

Snark wrote:Do you even know what a deist is? Did I ever suggest something akin to God creating the universe and then abandoning it?

Yes, do you? You didn't have to mention God's subsequent indifference to his supposed creation, Deism is also the belief in God but without any of the supernatural stuff - which is what I was implying about your equation of Him with existence. Existence can be used to encapsulate all that is natural without any association with religious doctrine - and I was saying that *if* that was all you meant by God, then why have 2 words when one is sufficient and the other is associated with extra baggage. I was not saying you were a Deist, I even immediately followed that comment with the alternative that you were a Theist - with the belief that God is existence "plus x". But whether or not that is logically the case, I get the impression that this type of thought is not conducive to God-belief.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3381
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Fixed Cross » Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:03 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:
..
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?

Rather, the notion of God was invented to compensate for the puzzling fact that things seem to come out of nowhere.
We may interpret "god" as "seed".
And indeed in ancient times there wasn't a difference between sexuality and divinity.

In the beginning was the inherent existential crisis.

Haha, I like that phrase very much.

IF you review the history of mankind, the concept of theism 'progressed' from animism, deity worship to polytheism, then to monotheism.

Its not quite that simple, and I have done extensive reviewing for over 20 years.
What is certain is that Shamanism preceded all other forms. All religion is a derivative of Shamanism.

The first Shamans became, by reputation, Gods.

As a child, it is natural the psychological security is covered by the parents but for adults who do they turned to?

It works the other way around just as powerfully. The parents are like the Titans to whom the child must rebel, finding "freedom", i.e. psychological security. In such a case "faith in God" can represent the persons own matured conscience.
It kind of depends on the family.

In any case what is always real is faith. It is faith that drives people to work for God(s). Gods themselves don't tend to be direct influences, not in the writings about them anyway. Invariably, the person to whom God is supposed to be talking does exactly the opposite of what God commands. I think this points to the struggle for conscience that religion represents.

The struggle to become aware of ones power to choose, the struggle with the enormous implications of a free act.

It was this existential crisis that compelled the early humans [adults] to seek some higher power than their own to give them that psychological security. At this point, no one was thinking of 'things seem to come out of nowhere' so there must be a creator.

Im glad you went back with the DeLorean to verify that. I couldn't get the Fluxcapacitor to work.

Therefore what is fundamental is that inherent unavoidable existential crisis that is embedded deep in the pscyhe of humans.

I still like the phrase. But I don't see you have done the work to really make this claim and prove it.

With that permanent inherent unavoidable existential crisis as the substance, the forms that humans came up with to deal with it vary with time and human consciousness and intellectual progress.

That thinking, 'something cannot come from nothing, therefore it must be God' is a very recent thought relative to human history. The fundamental of it is still the inherent unavoidable existential crisis on the psychological basis.

I agree the Torah is relatively recent to human history, but these stories do date from several thousands of years back. I any at the very least since a few thousands of years, say 3 to 4 minimum, times, this notion has held sway.

But indeed Shamanism is at least 60.000 years old.

The fact is when the inherent unavoidable existential crisis [mother of all dukkha] is dealt accordingly based on its ultimate psychological roots, there is no need for theism. This is why Buddhism [& others of the like] are non-theistic and so do have the negative baggage of theism.

And indeed Buddhism in its valid forms is Shamanism.
Meaning among other things that to engage the Void, one must engage first oneself, and transmute all ones energies. There is no Buddhism without Chi Kung. Or rather, all Buddhism without Chi Kung is vanity in the senses both of laziness and fallacious self-admiration.
Before the Light - Tree of Life
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7847
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot]