No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

:angry-banghead:

:laughing: I know what mean.

The point is that by ignoring Maslow you revealed yourself to be a bigot.

Did you read this post above?
viewtopic.php?p=2690566#p2690566

Based on the above ‘it has nothing to do with God’ your reference on Maslow will not lead you to a God ultimately as a conclusion. What have you got to say on this?

I have provided justifications to every point you raised. Since I raised this OP, I know my points are in alignment with the topic.

The onus is on you to dig deeper and provide counter justifications.

All you did was to repeat the same arrogant claims that you have been making.

You either don’t understand what I’m writing or you don’t care about what I’m writing.

I have better things to do than to participate in that kind of discussion.

I read it. You see things through bigoted eyes so you read into it what you want to believe.

Maslow interpreted everyday psychology as laced with the trace of the supernatural, because for him “supernatural” just meant a deeper level of consciousness about ordinary things.

What I don’t understand is why I am apparently required by Prismatic to reject Maslow’s ideas just because he was a self-professed atheist. IMV, Maslow just doesn’t go far enough with his holistic ideas.

Your belief does not make it so.

I did not request you to reject Maslow’s ideas.

My point is, where you are relying on Maslow’s ideas to justify God exists as real, that is false and not possible because Maslow’s ideas are non-theistic.

So? Why can’t I appropriate his ideas into my own wherever they fit? Why must you pigeon hole everything?

It would be a lack of personal integrity to automatically believe. I am not Pascal.
Perhaps for an agnostic, a real deep proof of God is much more important than it is for a believer.

Also, we might need to ask ourselves:
Just What is this so-called God that cannot be proven to exist or not?

We sometimes argue over a god without having made a distinction of What God, a description (although a description is not the thing necessarily) but God has become like a million different species in the ocean of life for us.
Who can possibly know God based on THIS?

Note I presented re Maslow;

“They do not come from a supernatural God but from human nature.”

Re this, no matter how you ‘pigeon-hole’ Maslow’s ideas, they will not lead to your ‘God’.
As the statement indicate, the fundamental is human nature, i.e. psychological.

Here’s a suggestion: try reading what I actually write. Heck, you quoted me. What did the last sentence say?

Your integrity is based on evolution., genetic and memetic. Either you believe in the teleology of biological advances or you don’t. In our time it takes a brave soul to think God did it.

Why? Is “just because” any better of an explanation? “God” isn’t necessarily a man in the sky, you know.

Why can’t God be the cause of evolution? Our corporeal purpose is to evolve, to survive change, just as our mind form is to evolve, to survive change, beyond our corporeal form.

To be more precise;

Our corporeal purpose [empirically based] is to evolve, to survive change, just as our mind form is to evolve, to survive change, beyond our corporeal form.

Generally whatever is empirically based must be caused by something that is empirically- based.
The ultimate basis of the theists’ God is never empirical.
Logically one cannot conflate the two different basis.

Some theists claimed their God is empirical, e.g. the empirical bearded man in the sky.
If that is the case, then bring the evidence of an empirical bearded man in the sky to justify one’s claim.

Another counter argument is, according to Hume the grounds of ‘causation’ is psychological, i.e. customs, habits and constant conjunction. Try proving Hume wrong.
Therefore even if one can justify God as the ultimate cause, that is grounded on psychology.

The above are the reasons why God [the default] cannot be the absolute cause of evolution.

Let me remind you, Prismatic:

What did the last sentence say?

Wendy,
I do think God causes evolution.
As for Hume, he’s outdated by modern biology and cosmology. He didnot realize that the senses must reveal something real in order for us to survive. Yes the observer contributes to what is observed, but one would be amiss, solipsistic, to assume the observation is all there is. Hume flirted with solipsism. Communication among diverse minds has proved his claims to be spurious.

Note solipsism is a incoherent theory.
iep.utm.edu/solipsis/#H7

Hume did leave some gaps with his theory, nonetheless the psychological factors raised by Hume is still fact. It was Kant who closed the gap after his famous ‘Hume awoken me from my dogmatic slumber.’

Who and which minds? Any references to this point?

Ierrellus,

Perhaps it takes some brave souls in any time or era (do you really believe that THIS is the worst time in history?) to think that God did it; that is, if their thinking is based on investigation, examination, cognitive thinking and facts…not simply sentimentality and a need for some all-powerful entity or father figure to exist.

But what is so brave about automatically believing in a God?
What is so brave about letting go and “letting God” handle things?
Kind of foolish, don’t you think, capable of wreaking such havoc on the world?
What kind of evidence can we have for any type of God which we tend to believe in except for what our senses tell us or make us feel?

Think of all the tragedy, horror and destruction brought on by some of your same so-called brave souls because they seem to think and feel that God did it, or told them to do it, or they decided not to do something about it because they think and feel that a God would take care of it.

Do you believe in divine design because you believe in the kind of God which directly caused the universe and is omnipotent and omniscient? What if both directions are wrong?
What if it is something else which got it all moving?