God is an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality.
Anyone can believe all they want regardless of whether it is possible or impossible.
At present, given the current psychological state of the majority of humanity, there are no more-efficient and optimal ideology than theism in dealing with the inherent unavoidable existential crisis within the human psyche. So at present theism is a net-pro [positive] for humanity, else there will be terrible mental angst within the majority. Thus theists need to continue to believe in a God and adopt theistic religion and spiritualities to avoid psychological torments.
But the empirical evidence of current facts [terrible terror, evils and violence] from theism [especially Islam] is trending towards a net-con [negative] for humanity.
Note, this evil for example, i.e. statistics of deadly attacks
[there are other types of evils from this theistic religion and other theistic religions].
The main purpose of theism is to deal with a psychological existential crisis.
From the above, the trend is the cons of theism-in-general is outweighing its pros and thus humanity must take steps to find fool proof alternatives to replace theism to deal with that inherent unavoidable existential crisis.
So the ‘bottom’ is not why anybody would have no right not to believe in a loving God.
The ‘bottom’ is, due to the potential threats, it is optimal for humanity to replace theism with fool proof alternatives in the FUTURE not now.
I understand such a topic is very disturbing and uncomfortable to many theists at present.
But we need to discuss and take this issue now to develop effective strategies for the future.
This is like a squared-circle is impossible within an empirical-rational reality.
Do you want me to demonstrate that impossibility empirically?
The proposition ‘God is a possibility’ in purely by thoughts alone i.e. emerged from primal pure reason driven by psychological factors within the human pscyhe.
Thus the most effective approach as done here is to use higher cortical reasoning to kill lower [theistic] reasoning.
Since God is purely non-empirical, i.e. purely thought-based and I have proven God is an impossibility, God is an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality.
One cannot conflate the non-empirical with the empirical at all.
There are tons of materials on this issue.
Have you ever try to do a literature review and exhaust this topic?
This is how I know you are very empty inside from the posts you have posted so far.
What do you mean confirmation bias? I am sure this is on you
“And your certainty is unwarranted. You have a severe case of confirmation bias.”
because you are merely making an opinion without knowing my actual position.
It is not an opinion nor a guess, I have done the actual research and read loads [tons] of materials in reference to that topic.
Pantheists see God as nature so to them he is empirical reality just by a different name. That is not to be confused with the theist view of nature as evidence of Gods existence which is something entirely different. So it all depends on how one is actually defining God. If I think God is the Universe then he obviously exists. The devil
is therefore in the detail although most interpretations reference some meta physical or non physical capabilities which for me automatically invalidates his existence
As long as you keep your ‘God’ within the empirical then there is an empirical possibility it can exists.
Then it is a question of what is the probability which in such a case is almost negligible.
Note Richard Dawkins as scientist and not a philosopher is in such a situation.
As a scientist, Science do not allow him to claim certainty in an empirical setting.
Thus at best he can only be an agnostic and has to make provision that there is a 1/7 possibility [his god belief scale] that God could exists. But somewhere in his mind, he think it is actually 0% possibility like Zeus or a Santa Claus but not being a philosopher he has no basis to express it.
This is why an empirical-rational basis [with philosophy] is the most effective to deliberate on the issue of God.
When you claim your pantheistic God is empirically based, there is a possibility for such a god to exist, but the possibility of an actual proof is very slim.
The real problem with a empirical-based pantheistic God is it has limitations.
An empirical God not being certain and absolute cannot be absolutely 100% in terms of any quality attributable to that God, thus is always below 100%. So in what % can one assign to one’s pantheistic God, 99%, 90% , 80%??. Because there is a gap, this leave room for another to claim a greater God that one’s claim, i.e. an inferior. The point is a typical God cannot inferior to another.
This is why even with a pantheist God like Brahman within Hinduism-Vedanta, such a God is claimed to be absolute or The Absolute [capital A] so that Brahman cannot be inferior to another God.
Thus if you want to claim your pantheistic god to be an empirical God, then you have to accept it has empirical limits, which is not typical of any ‘God.’
Generally there is no serious issue with a pantheistic or a panentheistic God which is not assigned any agency power in comparison to the Abrahamic monotheistic God with agency power.
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.
So, you look on your life as being either a glass half full or perhaps all full.
Perhaps you are also grateful for the life you have experienced.
I may be wrong here but it almost seems to me that though you have experienced a loving God ~you may not have experienced a God who has given you free will to think otherwise based on how the other side lives, based on less than a tunnel vision and more on a panoramic vision of the reality of the world and life.
There are many who, based on the emptiness of that glass, are incapable of seeing a loving God. How do you explain a loving God to someone who has never experienced love, joy, happiness, a sense of security but only misery, fear and degradation?
How do you explain away a loving God in view of it all? Are some more special to this God and some much less…
Would you put a band aid on it? You believe in a loving God because you believe. Does that make 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
