Chuck the god(s)

[Ponder This]

You take a hell of a lot of space to just use this as your answer to my post and as an option explain why or how you came to that conclusion. whatever else you add is irrelevant to the OP unless there is something constructive.

I'm sorry you think my posts were not constructive, but I am glad you finally understand the problem with your assertion.

 

[Sir Doom]

Does it make sense and can you find evidence for something that does not exist

I'm fond of saying that existence is a given. If you can think about it, it exists. Its only what it is that's ever really in question. The airplane was nothing but imagination at some point, for example. Now, instead of being only imagination it is now a super-amazing flying machine.

Consider the Golden Calf something like doing the same for a god. Once only imagination, then imagination and a clever statue...

How much effort it takes to make what you think into reality is obviously quite variable. Never quite impossible, though.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I'm fond of saying that existence is a given. If you can think about it, it exists. Its only what it is that's ever really in question. The airplane was nothing but imagination at some point, for example. Now, instead of being only imagination it is now a super-amazing flying machine.

Consider the Golden Calf something like doing the same for a god. Once only imagination, then imagination and a clever statue...

How much effort it takes to make what you think into reality is obviously quite variable. Never quite impossible, though.

God is made literally existant by figments of our imagination??

 

[shunyadragon]

Does it make sense and can you find evidence for something that does not exist?

A philosophical question. Short. As is. Has no christian objectives.

Edit.

Sorry. This just came to my attention. Background:

"To chuck something" is an English idiom that means to disregard something or an idea. Chuck it/disregard it/ dont bother with it.

I didnt want the question to be around god(s) because that is a different path of question and answer Im not looking for in my OP.

There is, of course, no objective verifiable evidence for the existence of god(s). This should be an honest beginning point for those who believe like I.

First, though there is no evidence for god(s), there is evidence of consciousness of other souls from the past and distant present. Some interpret this as evidence of reincarnation, but that is only one possibility. The existence of the soul without a specific reference in space and time. Some extrapolite the existence of other spiritual worlds, and the existence of God or gods.

 

[Sir Doom]

God is made literally existant by figments of our imagination??

People's imaginations of God (however accurate they may be) have had a profound and lasting effect on reality. I don't know any better way to judge what does or does not exist. After all, something like capitalism has never existed outside the imagination and yet we don't really think of it as nonexistent.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is, of course, no objective verifiable evidence for the existence of god(s). This should be an honest beginning point for those who believe like I.

Another way of phrasing that, if I understand you properly, is that there's no good reason to be a theist. Is that a fair rephrasing?

 

[shunyadragon]

Another way of phrasing that, if I understand you properly, is that there's no good reason to be a theist. Is that a fair rephrasing?

No, that is simply a beginning point. To chose philosophical naturalism, and reject theism is an option, but not the only one.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, that is simply a beginning point. To chose philosophical naturalism, and reject theism is an option, but not the only one.

If there's no objective verifiable evidence for the existence of God, how could anyone ever rationally come to belief in God?

 

[shunyadragon]

If there's no objective verifiable evidence for the existence of God, how could anyone ever rationally come to belief in God?

There is no objective verifiable evidence that God(s) do not exist.Beyond the objective verifiable evidence the conclusions range from theism to atheism. The choice at this point relies on the subjective perspective of the evidence available.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is no objective verifiable evidence that God(s) do not exist.

So you think that it's reasonable to believe anything if you don't have "objective verifiable evidence" that it's false?

For instance: we have no "objective verifiable evidence" that Meryl Streep is levitating right now. Would it be rational for us to conclude that Meryl Streep can levitate?

 

[shunyadragon]

So you think that it's reasonable to believe anything if you don't have "objective verifiable evidence" that it's false?

No. Objective verifiable evidence cannot be applied to either belief choice.

For instance: we have no "objective verifiable evidence" that Meryl Streep is levitating right now. Would it be rational for us to conclude that Meryl Streep can levitate?

Different ball park. The issue of Meryl Streep is not comparable to the question whether God exists or not. There is no objective nor subjective evidence that Meryl Streep can levitate

Add: IF we are only basing our believe on the objective verifiable evidence, than agnostic is the choice, and not either theism nor atheism