A Question for Theists...

[Valjean]

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).

Theism as the opiate of the masses? as a club? as a status community?
OK, I can see that. Most theists couldn't intelligently discuss their own religion. Most theists don't belong to a particular sect because they've critically analyzed any objective evidence. Most churches are more social groups than philosophical societies.

 

[PureX]

Theism as the opiate of the masses? as a club? as a status community?
OK, I can see that. Most theists couldn't intelligently discuss their own religion.

Most humans can't intelligently discuss much of anything.

 

[loverofhumanity]

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.

The only condition that would lead me to not knowing or believing in a God would be if no Prophets or Messengers ever appeared on earth for it is through Them alone do we know of God and without Them we would have no knowledge of God.

 

[Windwalker]

All behavior is caused by a belief? Are you quite sure of that? I asked because I was breathing long before I ever had a believe I ought to breath. In fact, most of what I do on a day to day basis has nothing to do with any beliefs I harbor. I think Joe is pulling your leg.

I think when people are talking about someone's behaviors, they're referring to willful actions, not autonomic systems like breathing. The belief being referred to is conscious beliefs.

In which case, yes, beliefs are behind all willful actions, or programmed responses as in the following.

"Your beliefs become your thoughts,
Your thoughts become your words,
Your words become your actions,
Your actions become your habits,
Your habits become your values,
Your values become your destiny."

~Mahatma Gandhi

 

[sun rise]

"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.

That's true.

I don't believe there is any objective evidence that there is Divinity. Attempts to do so reduce to people using subjective criteria to highlight something which moves them so much that they conclude Divinity exists.

The flip is also true. There is no objective evidence that Divinity does not exist. Attempts to do so reduce to "my internal idea of the divine is not reflected in life." The obvious counter-argument to that is that God is not constrained by human assumptions of the nature of divinity.

 

[Windwalker]

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?"
....

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.

Then as a question of epistemology, here is how I am going to try to answer.

What I believe about God is not the reality of God itself. Therefore, what I believe does not truly exist as I believe it. That God already does not exist as I believe it. I would know this because all thought is a mediated process and symbolic in nature. Everything is a metaphor. The metaphors are not actualities.

 

[Valjean]

The only condition that would lead me to not knowing or believing in a God would be if no Prophets or Messengers ever appeared on earth for it is through Them alone do we know of God and without Them we would have no knowledge of God.

But aren't mental institutions full of prophets and messengers? Don't these prophets and messengers often contradict each other?

Religiosity and a messiah complex don't strike me as very convincing evidence for a God.

 

[Quintessence]

For me, it's kind of easy because of how I answer the question "what is real/existing."

In order for my gods to not exist, they could not be known in any way (by humanity). I couldn't have even written that sentence, because conceptual existence is still a form of existence. The gods that truly do not exist for humanity are not spoken of, uttered about, or comprehensible in any fashion. They cannot enter into our minds, and we have exactly and absolutely zero awareness of them. But even that represents limitations of humans rather than a true statement about the ultimate nature of reality.

Regardless, it's the wrong question to ask IMHO anyway. The right question to ask is "what are the gods?" or "what does it mean for me or other cultures to consider something a god?"

 

[Valjean]

That's true.

I don't believe there is any objective evidence that there is Divinity. Attempts to do so reduce to people using subjective criteria to highlight something which moves them so much that they conclude Divinity exists.

The flip is also true. There is no objective evidence that Divinity does not exist. Attempts to do so reduce to "my internal idea of the divine is not reflected in life." The obvious counter-argument to that is that God is not constrained by human assumptions of the nature of divinity.

Quite so, but disbelief is the default. You begin with no belief, then add beliefs as evidence for stuff accumulates.

You can either begin with a belief in everything, then cull the unevidenced, or you can begin as a blank slate, and build a reality as evidence emerges. One is impossibly complicated, the other is manageable.

 

[Vee]

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?"

Ha, the word "if"... we could spend many, many hours writing about what ifs.

The believe in God comes from having faith, which by definition is the assured expectation of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities that are not seen.(Hebrews 1:1). If we didn't have faith we wouldn't believe in God.
Does our faith prove that God exists? No. Does it prove God doesn't exist? No.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

This only further entrenches your concept/hypothesis of God within unfalsifiable territory. Which means you have no actual way of scrutinizing your hypothesis - to put it through a process of testing for its accuracy in modeling an aspect of our reality.

“An aspect” of reality?

It’s not that hard to grasp: everything we see (unless one is on drugs), is reality. Even if it’s built on lies, it is still what we observe.
And we make judgements based on our observations, using reason which many times involves the process of elimination.

That’s an aspect of reality.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

“An aspect” of reality?

It’s not that hard to grasp: everything we see (unless one is on drugs), is reality. Even if it’s built on lies, it is still what we observe.
And we make judgements based on our observations, using reason which many times involves the process of elimination.

That’s an aspect of reality.

When I said "reality" what I meant was inter-subjectively verifiable reality. Reality that is intrinsically shared by observers. For example, when I hand someone an object and they can relay details of that object to me that I concur are the attributes I also observe. Or, even if we differ (for example, the person is color-blind), we can assess inter-subjectively verifiable reasons for the differences. Or, we can both witness the change on our planet from day to night, make observations about why this occurs, and ultimately come to a conclusion that satisfies all of the things we witness.

That's what I am talking about. Something inter-subjectively verifiable that you (or anyone with the wherewithal) can use falsification against to determine whether or not it stands up to all criteria by which you might prove it wrong.

Your spiritual or philosophical "everything we experience/imagine is all a hop, skip and jump away from reality" idea is decidedly not what I meant. And that is, unfortunately, the territory within which I believe your God resides most comfortably.

 

[stvdv]

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

This is easy. I never believed in Ganesha and all the Hindu Gods. I thought it was stupid, childish etc.
I was more into Advaita and quite a bit arrogant also, thinking Advaita was the higher path.

"Ganesha" experience in below quote taught me a very important lesson, to not judge too quickly again.

1 day I was really sick ... I walked around Ganesha, doing 108 gayatris
Same day I get an interview with my Master (I was selected out of ca. 20.000)

Okay, that could have been a coincidence.

1 year later, I got sick again ... I walked around Ganesha doing again 108 Gayatri mantras
Same day I get an interview with my Master (I was selected out of ca. 20.000)

Okay, that could have been a coincidence.

1 year later, I got sick again ... I walked around Ganesha doing again 108 Gayatri mantras

An Aussie who was there in the Ashram also like me for about 3 years, walking around Ganesha daily
Walked up to me, very angry, telling me "You only walk around Ganesha to get interview ... don't you?"
No, I said ... I only walked around Ganesha, because I was very sick, luckily only once a year
Same day I get an interview with my Master (I was selected out of ca. 20.000)

You do the math ... coincidence or might there be some truth in Hindu Gods ... or?

Personally I believe this was my Master doing, teaching me a big lesson not to mock Hindu Gods anymore. And to drop the arrogance of thinking the path of Jnana was higher, and that Advaita was so much more special than Bhakthi or Karma Yoga. And never to belittle the faith of others

 

[Sunstone]

I shall surely do. Thanks.

Just to clarify, Firedragon, the word "mysticism" is used by different people to mean many different things. I am using it here as it is used by the scholars who study the subject. That is, a mystic is a person who has had a direct and immediate experience of "the oneness of all things". That oneness is thought to be god by about 80% of all mystics. So, those mystics who believe in god base their beliefs in god not on faith, but on their conviction that they have actually encountered god. Firedragon, they are quite an interesting group to study.

 

[Sunstone]

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.

Great point, Left Coast.

Which, of course, raises the question of whether we can have a "justified true belief" (i.e. knowledge) that is irrational? That is, can a true belief be justified by non-rational means? For to have a true belief that is unjustified clearly is not knowledge. So, I might say that I know god exists via non-rational means, but unless I can show those means provide justification for my true belief, I really cannot say I KNOW god exists via those means.

Example:

I know god exists because I have "directly apprehended" god.
But the definition of knowledge is "justified true belief".
So, does the direct apprehension of god justify my true belief in god?
(i.e. even if I grant that my belief is true, only if my belief is also justified can I be said to have knowledge. To hold a true belief but not a justified true belief is not called "knowing" -- it is called, "guessing and getting it right".)

 

[robocop (actually)]

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 don't think in terms of reasoning my way to God or not. I plow the field and reap the food.

 

[Sunstone]

I don't think in terms of reasoning my way to God or not. I plow the field and reap the food.

Is knowledge always arrived at by reasoning? Does the OP imply that it is?

 

[robocop (actually)]

Is knowledge always arrived at by reasoning? Does the OP imply that it is?

Spiritual knowledge requires exercising your spiritual muscles, just as physical knowledge requires exercising your reasoning.

 

[Thief]

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

let's say the proof is pending

for everyone

the moment you let go your last breath
God and heaven will be there to see what stands from the dust

if no One in Charge is there....no god
you stand into chaos

or you stand not at all....and you follow your body into the ground
eternal darkness is physically real

 

[74x12]

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

Nothing I would have experienced from God so far would have happened.