No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

I have never presumed God is an object of empirical knowledge.
My point is, to prove God is real within an empirical-rational reality, then God must be proven on that basis.

My argument is the idea of God is an illusion and impossibility and thus is moot and a non-starter. Therefore the idea of God cannot even be considered at all within the perspective of an empirical-rational reality.

Note the truth and comments on Dr. Joseph Dispenza:
Dr. Joseph Dispenza is not a neuroscientist!!

Note this in counter to your reliance on Maslow;

Thus both your supporting references do not lend credibility to your claims.

Your above use of reference is “irrational”.

What you are doing in this case is merely preaching based on some dogma of yours.

I invite you to give more credible supporting arguments.

But I am very confident the basis of the idea of God arise from psychological factors and no matter how you argue you will never be able to produce any convincing proofs God exists are real within the most reliable basis of reality i.e. the empirical rational reality.

The only realistic way a theist can justify for a belief in God is via the psychological basis.

Btw, I am not arguing here to convince you to be a non-theist at all.
I would not recommend any theist to convert to be a non-theists AT PRESENT* unless s/he has an effective alternative replacement to deal with that inherent unavoidable existential crisis.

  • not future within next 50, 100 or > years.

If you are a panentheist, it is not advisable to do it alone. It is recommended for one to adopt some establish spiritual Framework and System that provide practices for one to reinforce the necessary related neural circuits.
Advaita Vedanta [besides others] is one good Framework and System.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta

Can’t have it both ways, preacher. If God is not an object of empirical knowledge, your objection is a nonsequitur.

I stand corrected about the man, but he did his research. The numbers stand so your objection irrelevant.

I know. So what? The fact that anyone can have such experiences supports what I said about the absence of the sense of the divine being the aberration.

I see. So as far as you’re concerned, even an atheist psychologist who seems to imply that your ranting is based on paranoid-like suspicion is not credible. I guess I can understand that.

BTW, how is Spectrum’s thread on the same subject coming along? You should learn from Dark Matter: “If you want to learn, beware of learning THE TRUTH.”

Even if Dispenza is a quack, his statement seems to be essentially correct: “Therefore, it follows that how we perceive reality on the conscious level and how we relate to the world depends on how we focus our attention. With so much information and technology to distract them from the things that really matter, little wonder why modern-day skeptics find themselves in an irreligious mindset that is, even by their own accounting, contrary to human nature.”

Not that the distraction is a modern problem. It’s as ancient as philosophy and religion. The modern spin is a reliance on science and technology.

That’s not actually a counter to what Snark is saying. Your reply does not address his points nor do you discredit his claims.

You have simply defined “belief in a god” as a sign of desperation. Therefore you say that all theists are desperate.

Here you define a “spectrum of desperation” where at the lower end there is no desperation in any reasonable sense.

It makes no sense to call the lower end “desperation” if there is no indication of desperation.

It’s a useless definition.

Well at least here you have something observable at the 1% level. However, calling petty crimes “evil”, trivializes the word. Heck, even opening an egg on the “wrong” end can be called “evil” at some very small level. It all becomes very silly and fundamentally meaningless.

I prefer words to have clear meanings.

Given your definition of psychological desperation, you think that all theists are psychologically desperate.

I don’t think that “belief in god” alone is enough to say that someone is psychologically desperate … there has to be more to it than that.

If those theists don’t show any signs of desperation, then they are not desperate. And they serve as a counterexample to your theory that theists are psychologically desperate.

A questionable example. That’s one story in a book. It may or may not have happened. Most theists would probably not act as Abraham.

The question is “loaded” with the idea that “there is no evidence”.

There are at least two answers :

Yours : Evidence is not required.

Mine : There is evidence. Therefore the question is not relevant.

Right on both counts. :slight_smile:

You don’t seem to understand the concept of continuum and its use and relevance in certain specific perspective.

For example in class or grade there are a distribution of score marks among students with a percentile scoring above 80% and a percentile scoring less than 20% and the rest are in between.
One can call those above 80% smart and intelligence and one can call those <20% stupid.
This type of branding is not progressive.
Rather we should identify the range of student score in terms of a continuum of ‘learning abilities’. In the case those with >80% has higher learning abilities and those <20% has lower learning abilities relative along the same continuum.
From the same perspective and continuum we can make comparison on the same scale and take corrective actions.

It is the same with psychological desperation within theism.
Putting them in the same continuum mean we recognize a common problem.
The mechanics and process of the desperate psychology of theism the same for all but the difference is only in the degree of activation which can change anytime.
What we do is to focus on the more problematic, in this case the higher degrees >80%. However we also must take note of those not so critical at the lower potential of psychological desperation but within the same continuum they have the potential to become malignant.
Note the many reports of shock of parents, relatives and friends when they discovered their goody-two-shoe sons or daughters were caught as a jihadist terrorists.

It is like cancer cells, if there are insignificant numbers it does not mean you should ignore them. We have to consider them within the bigger picture and potential.

I understand that desperation is not a general behavior … it’s already a negative behavior. The full range goes from “Not at all desperate” to “extremely desperate”.

The same goes for “evil”. It’s one end of the range : “good” - “bad” - “evil”.

You’re redefining these very basic words.

Tell me how psychological desperation applies to the works of Tillich, Niebuhr. Schweitzer, Lewis, Buber, etc. If these twentieth century apologists were not psychological desperate how could their teachings be about despair? If the song is desperate, is the singer?

I’ve studied studiously but am unable to find evidence that Prismatic567 exists. The evidence is the same for God or Prismatic: words in a book (God) or on a computer screen (Prismatic) exhorting me to believe one set of tenets or the other. Not a hard decision; God has better, more poetic writers who make wonderful use of metaphor. Prism, you’re out. Sorry.

Why not?

As with almost everyone, I agree there is more to the conscious mind, more within the subsconcious mind. But how did Dispenza get to the conclusion this difference led skeptics to be irreligious. This is a ridiculous conclusion.

Snark [theist] is trying to link Maslow’s views [a non-theist] to theism.
But logically it cannot follow that Maslow’s [non-theistic grounds] will ever lead to a theistic conclusion.

I say my concept of continuum is very relevant to my point.
To make anything objective we need measurements.
For measurements to be effective we need a common denominator, e.g. 100% desperate to 1% desperate, 100% good to 1% good or 100% evilness to 1% evilness.

To use “good” - “bad” - “evil” for the purpose of objectivity and efficient in a philosophical issue is not efficient since we have to define what is “good” - “bad” “evil” and results in greater disagreements and needing to reconvert them for comparison.

Note one of my forte is Problem Solving Techniques and one of its good feature is to make it as simple as much as possible. If you are good in this you will note the use of “good” - “bad” “evil” to discuss the problem of evil will be very clumsy.

As I had stated there is a continuum of psychological desperation, from 100% to 1%.
People like Tillich, Niebuhr. Schweitzer, Lewis, Buber, and others who had not been known to display obvious explicit desperations may have say 1-20% desperation. Muslims jihadists who had commit terrible evils and violence would have >80% psychological desperations.

Note this ‘psychological desperation’ exists as a potential in ALL humans.
Such a potential is ‘desperate’ by default just like one cancer cell is potentially malignant by default.
Non-theists may have 0% of such theistic related ‘psychological desperation’ but circumstances can change overnight or in a short time to activate their ‘psychological desperation’ into active mode.

Note even the once world’s most notable headstrong atheist i.e. Anthony Flow turned to theism [deism] in the later part of his life.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew
I estimate Antony_Flew had his theistic ‘psychological desperation’ activated from 0% in his early days to 20% the finally up to 50%, thus he adopted deism.

Age [as with Anthony Flew] is a factor in increasing the theistic ‘psychological desperation’ as the inhibitors atrophized with age.

:laughing: You’re getting funnier and funnier, Prismatic. You must be getting desperate. I post a link, you apparently look up the author’s name, saw the word “atheist” and said to yourself, “Aha! Gotcha you stupid SOB.” Maybe you should have at least read a little bit. :laughing:

I’d guess you’re about fourteen on psychological years, Prismatic. I’d also suggest you discard the pseudo-psychology. I know you think it really makes you sound smart, but it doesn’t. It makes you look arrogant, condescending and really, really ignorant when it comes to psychology.

BTW, if you’re going to attack someone because he “turned” when he got old, you might as well attack Jean-Paul Sartra while you’re at it. But again, it makes you desperate and unsure of yourself.

So Psychology is about not being arrogant, condescending, or really really ignorant? I think you’re on about yourself there, mate… especially when all you can offer up in reply are ad Homs and baiting. Go you!

Did you not come into this thread to debate, or just to attack the person’s character?

Keep this up sunshine, and you’ll be getting attacked with warnings.

Sartre?

Measurement is not the point. Not that it’s even possible to measure these things beyond some sort of ranking.

I used “good” - “bad” - “evil” to show that “evil” is on one end of a larger scale of evaluation. Efficiency has nothing to do with my point.

We don’t call petty crimes, illegal parking and spitting in the street “evil” because they don’t warrant the “evil” label.

If somebody tried to change the definition of the word “hungry” to span the range “not hungry” to “very hungry” , it would not make any sense because “hungry” never means “not hungry”. “Desperate” never means “not desperate”. If someone shows no signs of being desperate then he/she is not desperate.

You’re not making it simple. You’re making it confusing. I’m responding to your posts with a certain understanding of the word “desperate”. If you tell me that a theist can be desperate without any signs of desperation, then as far as I’m concerned it’s nonsense. And as I said, just believing in a god is not a sign of desperation.

Petty crimes are not evil in any sense. The word “evil” carries a stigma and people do not want to be called evil. If you are going to use the word for practically every mildly negative act, then you will get resistance along with confusion.

Snark’s point is that evidence is not necessary :

The Dispenza quote says that information and technology distracts some people from looking in the right direction. The insistence on evidence for the existence of God, prevents those people from finding God.

The Maslow quote is similar in that the “downlevelling” is an obsession with the materialistic at the expense of the “higher”.

Both quotes are critical of a low level materialistic focus. Both support Snark’s posted idea.

Yes. It was a deathbed confession: “I do not feel that I am the product of chance, a speck of dust in the universe, but someone who was expected, prepared, prefigured. In short, a being whom only a Creator could put here: and this idea of a creating hand refers to God.” His Atheist mistress, Simone de Beauvior, wrote a scathing article calling him as a “senile traitor” after his death in 1980 – kinda like what Prismatic does with Flew and every other person who becomes more religious as they age.