A Question for Theists...

[Sunstone]

You cant prove with scientific evidence like proving some chemical transformation works that God exists or doesn't exist. So I don't know how would one know without any faith that either God does or does not exist. All one could do is show that there is no evidence to the existence of God but that's not gonna make a difference.

Theists journey toward Atheism comes from losing faith.

You might both broaden and deepen your understanding by studying mysticism.

 

[Sunstone]

What ever householder likes to believe.

I'm only pointing out the obvious -- you do not write with clarity, most likely because your ideas are muddled.

 

[Samana Johann]

I'm only pointing out the obvious -- you do not write with clarity, most likely because your ideas are muddled.

An my person told, what ever householder likes to be-li(e)ve.

 

[Sunstone]

My god, brahman, is satyam-jnanam-anantam’ (existence/truth-knowledge-infinity). The self and universe are known because of it. Not the other way around.

...
Bonus point:
To me the question is wrong, as if the ego self is the progenitor and master controller of its cognition process. As if ego self is supposed to know of everything. And as if that which ego self does not cognise does not exist. That we are not aware of our own existence in sleep indicates that the presumption that what ego self does not cognise does not exist is wrong.

Note: I did not come up with the idea of bonus myself.

Atanu, the question is employed by epistemologists to help themselves and others clarify the nature, scope, and limits of whatever kind of evidence is advanced in support of the existence of deity. It is thus a bit mistaken to criticize the question as if it were restricting the evidence to empirical evidence.

 

[Sunstone]

I think your problem is, applying some fantasy sliding scale to belief

Are you sure you understand what you are saying? If so, perhaps you can be more explicit? If not, then perhaps you do not understand what you are saying.

 

[Sunstone]

Theism is not based on what anyone knows, or can know about the nature or existence of "God". It is based on the positive result that comes of placing faith in something that we don't know to be so. And that positive result is the "evidence" that the faith, works (not that the God, exists).

Your question is misdirected.

On what grounds are you limiting theism to being grounded in faith? What is your reasoning for that bold assertion? Or do you have any reasoning at all?

 

[atanu]

Atanu, the question is employed by epistemologists to help themselves and others clarify the nature, scope, and limits of whatever kind of evidence is advanced in support of the existence of deity. It is thus a bit mistaken to criticize the question as if it were restricting the evidence to empirical evidence.

My comments are directed not to all epistemologists. My comments are pointed towards the notion that only that exists which mind-senses can know.

Mathematician Godel proved such a notion to be wrong.

 

[Sunstone]

I wouldn't know. I wouldn't anything, because "I" wouldn't exist.

Hebrews 3:4

Strictly speaking, that might be true. That is, you might be right. I'll grant that. But to assert that you would not know merely starts an infinite epistemic regression. "How do you know you would not know?", etc., etc. etc. There is a key distinction between the possibility that x is true and knowledge that x is true.

 

[Sunstone]

My comments are directed not to all epistemologists. My comments are pointed towards the notion that only that exists which mind-senses can know.

Mathematician Godel proved such a notion to be wrong.

I see. Well, I think you should have pointed out then that the OP makes no such claim that only that exists which mind-senses can know, rather than risk giving the impression you were falsely asserting the OP makes such a claim.

By the way, in all seriousness, Atanu, I hope things are going well with you.

 

[Sunstone]

The question makes absolutely no sense. How can God, who created all things, be anything but the beginning of all, thus making God eternal: or that is to say without a beginning.

You seem to be confusing the circular argument you are advancing for insight and/or wisdom.

 

[Sunstone]

but that is true for any inductive knowledge claim...you can only either refute it or increase the level of confidence about its truth..but never achieve deductive certainty. So I am OK with that.

Brilliant point in the context of the OP! Thank you for sharing that. You made my morning.

 

[atanu]

I see. Well, I think you should have pointed out then that the OP makes no such claim that only that exists which mind-senses can know, rather than risk giving the impression you were falsely asserting the OP makes such a claim.

By the way, in all seriousness, Atanu, I hope things are going well with you.

Ha ha. Well. I marked it ‘bonus’. Did not I?

Actual answer was a the first short para. You should comment on that also, imo.

I am well, taking care of a very close person who is ill.

 

[LuisDantas]

Here's a question to help theists clarify what sort of evidence, if any, they have for their belief in deity.

"If your god did not exist, how would you be able to know your god did not exist?"

I propose that theists answer the question to their own satisfaction privately, rather than publicly -- and thus open their answer to debate. However, I am putting this thread in debates just in case someone does indeed want to debate their answer.

Hope you're having a good day.


If you are curious, I did not come up with the question myself. It's a standard question that epistemologists working in the field of religion ask themselves and others.

I wonder how many theists address their own belief as a matter of personal style and aesthetical taste as opposed to epistemology (theory of truth)?

For a while now I find myself concluding that of the myriad qualities that a deity might conceivably have or lack, existence (literal existence, as opposed to as a concept for cultural exchange and religious practice) is about as irrelevant as any might be.

Besides, it is often understood that deities are supposed to be transcendent... would not there be a measure of contradiction in claiming them to be real, even?

 

[Fool]

Here's a question to help theists clarify what sort of evidence, if any, they have for their belief in deity.

"If your god did not exist, how would you be able to know your god did not exist?"

I propose that theists answer the question to their own satisfaction privately, rather than publicly -- and thus open their answer to debate. However, I am putting this thread in debates just in case someone does indeed want to debate their answer.

Hope you're having a good day.


If you are curious, I did not come up with the question myself. It's a standard question that epistemologists working in the field of religion ask themselves and others.

i could simply prove that god doesn't exist in the same way, i prove nothing else exists. i don't bother looking for it. so i prove by my actions whether something exists, or doesn't exist by seeking/testing for it, or not seeking/testing for it.


plenty people prove to themselves something doesn't have to exist by the action of self-denial.

 

[David J]

Here's a question to help theists clarify what sort of evidence, if any, they have for their belief in deity.

"If your god did not exist, how would you be able to know your god did not exist?"

They wouldn't.

It's like debating a passionate theist of direct viewpoint.

 

[firedragon]

You might both broaden and deepen your understanding by studying mysticism.

I shall surely do. Thanks.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Here's a question to help theists clarify what sort of evidence, if any, they have for their belief in deity.

"If your god did not exist, how would you be able to know your god did not exist?"

I propose that theists answer the question to their own satisfaction privately, rather than publicly -- and thus open their answer to debate. However, I am putting this thread in debates just in case someone does indeed want to debate their answer.

Hope you're having a good day.


If you are curious, I did not come up with the question myself. It's a standard question that epistemologists working in the field of religion ask themselves and others.

That IS a helpful question. Here are other formats:

"If your god exists, how would you be able to know your god exists?"

"If your god did not exist, how would you be able to know your god exists?"

"If your god exists, how would you be able to know your god did not exist?"

 

[PureX]

On what grounds are you limiting theism to being grounded in faith? What is your reasoning for that bold assertion? Or do you have any reasoning at all?

Well, there is no objective evidence, and never has been, to verify any common conception of "God" and existence. And if the idea was based on anything more or other than faith, it would almost certainly be objective evidence. Also, the characteristics of the God idea are such that it would not be possible for a human to verify 'objective' evidence even if it were being handed to us, by God, Itself. For example, if God were to appear before you right this moment, in whatever manifestation It chose, and tell you It is God, how could you possibly verify this claim? The fact that you could not explain whatever miraculous phenomena was being presented to you along with the claim would not be sufficient, logically, to verify it, as ignorance is not proof of anything but ignorance.

 

[Left Coast]

My comments are directed not to all epistemologists. My comments are pointed towards the notion that only that exists which mind-senses can know.

Mathematician Godel proved such a notion to be wrong.

Atanu my friend - you are correct that something may exist that our mind-senses cannot perceive. But if our mind-senses can't perceive it, we have no rational reason to believe such a thing actually does exist even if intellectually we acknowledge it could.

 

[Valjean]

The only evidence I have is internal. I could describe it in metaphor or simile but that's it. Words are inadequate.

"Internal evidence" is not evidence in the commonly accepted sense.
Internal evidence is fine -- for you -- but you can't use it as objective evidence to persuade others.
Internal evidence is often delusion, and varies widely.

The question makes absolutely no sense. How can God, who created all things, be anything but the beginning of all, thus making God eternal: or that is to say without a beginning.

Huh?