Do you believe in God?

[blü 2]

A belief in God is not absolutely due to a particular religion. It could also be based on reason and logic and it has been discussed for a long long time. Yet, it seems to be ignored and a lot of times the cart is shoved before the horse for whatever anti religious argumentation deemed needed.

I'm happy to be persuaded by reason, logic and evidence.

But it all keeps falling at the first hurdle ─ what real entity is intended to be denoted by the word "god"? No one ─ at least so far ─ has a satisfactory answer.

Instead, God is described in imaginary terms, such as omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, eternal, infinite blah blah, but not as having evolved in some or other demonstrably real spacetime, having six limbs, green bark-like skin, and the following breeding habits [fill in the blank for yourself].

In fact, the only way God is known to exist is as a concept, notion, thing imagined in an individual brain, just like a character from fiction.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Yes, this is correct. I am from a mostly Muslim country. I find some Muslims or Muslims from the other Tawaf. I highly doubt they are Muslims because they practice pagan rituals and do strange things that are not found in the Quran or anything related to it. There are also some Christians in this situation, and in the two cases you mentioned, my friend, they do not do what their religion dictates to them. Rather, they do what their beliefs dictate to them, which sometimes contradicts religion, but they claim that it is from the origin of religion, and this exists in many cases, so people are confused as to which of them is right, such as suicide, for example. , For example. In suicide operations, for example, it is forbidden to kill oneself in this or any other way. According to the Qur’an. Even if he killed himself in defense of himself or his country. Whoever kills himself, God will punish him as if he killed someone else. But what the Qur’an does not forbid is death in battle only at the hands of aggressing enemies or those who have committed high treason. Or a person. He wants to kill you or rob you, or he wants to attack your family or someone else. If he is killed in this case, he is a martyr, but he must defend himself, and it is not permissible for him to kill himself for fear of falling into their hands or blowing himself up among them, for example. This is not permissible as stated in the Qur’an, and if they kill him, this is his fate, and he does not have to kill himself. But there are Muslims who do not prohibit killing oneself, even though it is forbidden in Islam. You also find some people exploiting religion just to get money or fame.

All I will say is that most of the monotheistic religions seem to have split into various factions over the years such that it is difficult to see any reason to choose one of these as being more truthful than another, and hence why we still have conflict between and within religions.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Whatever your reason for believing a god exists, you've chosen to believe in the god of Abraham over the alternatives for a reason..

Exactly .. I didn't say 'eenie, meanie, minie, mo'

For most people, it would be a combination of being acculturated into such beliefs as well as a desire to avoid extinction with death and be protected and get wishes granted while still alive..

You claim to be telepathic now?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Maybe, It makes sense to me that if a god interacts with our universe it would be possible to develop a scientific test to detect that god.

No .. it makes no sense whatsoever.
The very fact that we exist, and consciously experience are signs of G-d..

G-d is responsible for all that we see .. what do you expect to 'detect', exactly?

 

[RestlessSoul]

I'm happy to be persuaded by reason, logic and evidence.

But it all keeps falling at the first hurdle ─ what real entity is intended to be denoted by the word "god"? No one ─ at least so far ─ has a satisfactory answer.

Instead, God is described in imaginary terms, such as omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, eternal, infinite blah blah, but not as having evolved in some or other demonstrably real spacetime, having six limbs, green bark-like skin, and the following breeding habits [fill in the blank for yourself].

In fact, the only way God is known to exist is as a concept, notion, thing imagined in an individual brain, just like a character from fiction.

This strikes me as very dishonest. You say you are happy to be persuaded by reason, yet you have clearly decided no argument for God can ever clear the convoluted hurdles you have so carefully constructed against all possible runners and riders.

 

[endlessvoid2018]

My answer is... complicated. When someone asks me if I believe in god, I would have to respond with which god? But usually, at least in my part of the world, I would assume they are referring to the god of the Bible, or "Jesus," to which my answer is no. I personally believe that all gods of religions are man-made concepts. So, I'm an atheist. I don't necessarily claim or believe that Jesus didn't exist as a human being, but that he simply wasn't divine or the son of god.

But beyond that, I really believe that it isn't possible to know for certain or not whether any god, higher power or ultimately anything supernatural exists, or if there is an afterlife at all. So, I'm agnostic. This would technically leave the possibility that a god may exist in some capacity, but for me, isn't knowable.

So I'm an agnostic atheist, but I tend to identify more as an agnostic, as I feel it better suits my "belief," system, and I don't really particularly like being associated as someone who is "evil, immoral or worships the devil," or any of the negative baggage that comes along with being an atheist. I also don't really like being labeled as something that expresses my disbelief in something. I'd rather be associated with something I actually believe in. This is why I prefer to identify as a Humanist/and or agnostic.

I think it is possible that there could be some kind of intelligent designer, higher power or something that could be equated to a "God," just not in the sense of some kind of personal being, that looks like us, that governs the universe, answers prayer, intervenes in human affairs, and cares about what we do, or that is suggested by religion obviously. My personal favorite view of any kind of "god," would be that of Pantheism, or "Panentheism." I would not call myself a Pantheist, though.

 

[blü 2]

This strikes me as very dishonest. You say you are happy to be persuaded by reason, yet you have clearly decided no argument for God can ever clear the convoluted hurdles you have so carefully constructed against all possible runners and riders.

You misunderstand.

I don't know what real entity (as distinct from purely conceptual / imaginary entity) is intended to be denoted by the word "God". And although I've raised the question numerous times around here, no one has been able to tell me.

If you can enlighten me, then perhaps we can set out to determine whether this being is found in reality or not.

 

[muhammad_isa]

If you can enlighten me, then perhaps we can set out to determine whether this being is found in reality or not.

What reality?
What do you expect to find, if G-d exists?

 

[RestlessSoul]

You misunderstand.

I don't know what real entity (as distinct from purely conceptual / imaginary entity) is intended to be denoted by the word "God". And although I've raised the question numerous times around here, no one has been able to tell me.

If you can enlighten me, then perhaps we can set out to determine whether this being is found in reality or not.

Do you need to know what real phenomenon is denoted by the word 'Time', before looking at your watch?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

No. Science's axiom is methodological naturalism. So you are making a category error.

I disagree. If a god interacts with the universe then that god becomes part of the universe and is the natural cause of whatever the god does and that should be able to be detected by science. I am not saying we could ever devise an experiment where we can determine the cause was from a god, but I see no reason to rule it out either. But we could certainly detect the gods actions even if we cannot determine the cause.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

No .. it makes no sense whatsoever.
The very fact that we exist, and consciously experience are signs of G-d..

How so? Why attribute our existence to a god over natural processes?

G-d is responsible for all that we see .. what do you expect to 'detect', exactly?

If a god parts a sea, we can detect the sea was parted but we may never be able to determine the cause was from a god.

 

[blü 2]

What reality?

The world external to the self, which we know about via our senses.

What do you expect to find, if G-d exists?

A real being, of course. We can then endeavor to check out the omnipotence, the omniscience, the perfection and other things generally alleged to be qualities of this being.

But first we have to know what we're looking for ─ how, if we find a real suspect, we can determine whether [he]'s God or not.

It would also be helpful if you could define "godness" for me, the real quality that a real god would have and a real superscientist who could create universes, raise the dead &c, would lack.

 

[I Am Hugh]

The atheist's usual position is that there is not sufficient evidence for believing that God or gods exist apart from social or personal constructs of human mind and civilization.

Correct. That is the usual position of the atheists as I have observed it, and they are absolutely right. Money and countries are human social constructs. God and gods are anything or anyone attributed might and so venerated. There are supernatural gods, mortal men, inanimate objects made of wood, stone and metal. Gods representing male and female sex organs like the Christian Roman cross first used by the Sumerian king Dumuzi (Tammuz, aka Nimrod; Ezekiel 8). Eric Clapton is a god, the fictional character Frodo from Lord of the Rings, the invented Shinto goddess Amaterasu - in North Korea God is Kim Jong-un. So, a god doesn't have to exist, but it can. The Biblical God Almighty, Jehovah, wasn't a god until he had created creatures, spiritual and physical to venerate him. If all humans stopped worshipping Jehovah and there wasn't one left that did worship him, he would no longer be God. A god is in the eye of the beholder. Jehovah said that he would become the God of Israel. He said to have no other gods before (greater in their eyes) than him. Many of them failed in that capacity. You see, now, what gods mean? More gods literally exist than can be counted. Other gods exist only exist in myth, legend, history. Many of their names are found in the days and months of various calendars, everyday products we use from candy bars to cars, in science, the names of planets, holidays.

To say that gods don't exist is nonsensical. To say whether or not they exist in any society that is predicated by mythological presupposition is kind of myopic, to say a god has to exist is factually wrong and to say that others - supernatural - don't exist is unscientific. To say they don't affect nearly every aspect of your life defies logic and begs the question why would we be here discussing them. Militant atheism is a sociopolitical frustration with quasi-theocracy.

I do not see how your reply is relevant in such a case.
The Cambridge Companion to Atheism

I think it relevant, or at least interesting, as an indication of the ignorance of atheism which is only a mirror of the ignorance of theism.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Why attribute our existence to a god over natural processes?

Well, what is a 'natural process' ?

You prefer to say "don't know", whilst I acknowledge that greater than mankind.
..and if you ask "where did G-d come from?", I know no more than you .. other than
G-d is Eternal, of course.

..and if you ask "why can't nature be eternal?" ..
.. I never said it couldn't .. but you have no explanation at all for it.
Evolution relies on something to evolve from .. so that is no explanation.

 

[I Am Hugh]

god (n.)​

also God; Old English god "supreme being, deity; the Christian God; image of a god; godlike person," from Proto-Germanic *guthan (source also of Old Saxon, Old Frisian, Dutch god, Old High German got, German Gott, Old Norse guð, Gothic guþ), which is of uncertain origin; perhaps from PIE *ghut- "that which is invoked" (source also of Old Church Slavonic zovo "to call," Sanskrit huta- "invoked," an epithet of Indra), from root *gheu(e)- "to call, invoke." The notion could be "divine entity summoned to a sacrifice."​

​

But some trace it to PIE *ghu-to- "poured," from root *gheu- "to pour, pour a libation" (source of Greek khein "to pour," also in the phrase khute gaia "poured earth," referring to a burial mound; see found (v.2)). "Given the Greek facts, the Germanic form may have referred in the first instance to the spirit immanent in a burial mound" [Watkins]. See also Zeus. In either case, not related to good.​

​

You do know this is the year 2024, right?

Is this . . . what year is this?

Okay. How does the year make any difference? How has the word god changed from 1513 BCE and 2024 CE? In other words, what difference does the year make?

 

[muhammad_isa]

The world external to the self, which we know about via our senses.

What about the reality of the self?
..or perhaps you don't think that is real.. I do.

A real being, of course.

What .. like one of the Hindu gods with form, you mean?
Personally, I don't believe in that sort of god.

We can then endeavor to check out the omnipotence, the omniscience, the perfection and other things generally alleged to be qualities of this being.

I've already 'checked it out' .. and it makes perfect sense to me.
You need to look deep down into your soul .. it has little to do with your external senses.

But first we have to know what we're looking for..

Are you looking for something or someone? Probably not .. but only you know that.
It is between ourselves and 'the cosmos' .. that which is responsible for all [ G-d ]

 

[firedragon]

I disagree.

Well then you disagree with the whole body of science and philosophy of science.

Nice to hear. Cheers.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Well, what is a 'natural process' ?

Things that naturally occur without the intervention of an outside force or cause. Things that happen due to the laws of nature etc.

You prefer to say "don't know", whilst I acknowledge that greater than mankind.
..and if you ask "where did G-d come from?", I know no more than you .. other than
G-d is Eternal, of course.

..and if you ask "why can't nature be eternal?" ..
.. I never said it couldn't .. but you have no explanation at all for it.
Evolution relies on something to evolve from .. so that is no explanation.

I have no idea why there is something rather than nothing. I have no idea how the universe started. Neither do you. I do know that evolution is the cause of biodiversity on this planet even though I have no idea how life started. Evolution does not explain origins it explains biodiversity.

An explanation is not the same thing as good evidence.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Well then you disagree with the whole body of science and philosophy of science.

Nice to hear. Cheers.

You forgot to quote my entire answer.

 

[firedragon]

The atheist's usual position is that there is not sufficient evidence for believing that God or gods exist apart from social or personal constructs of human mind and civilization.
I do not see how your reply is relevant in such a case.
The Cambridge Companion to Atheism

Atheist positions change through time. And it has.

Nevertheless, Atheist scholars try not to get into the scientism trap. I mean philosophically trained Atheists. But most of those who do are evangelical atheists who do not understand the philosophical underpinnings of what they are propagating. Sometimes it's unbelievable.

One atheist said that he doesn't agree that science has methodological naturalism as an axiom. Just "I don't agree". That's it. Some atheists say that one day a lab test will be developed to test if God exists. Now that's an unbelievably absurd statement. Many don't have the urgency to do some reading prior to making such irresponsible statements. But that's not the case with Atheist scholars predominantly. They remain atheists, but rarely make statements like this because these are in violation of simple axioms and epistemic stances.

This is the problem with many. Not understanding what atheism is. Hard atheism is slowly vanishing because it has become a hard position to hold since you get into either a burden of proof fallacy in argumentation all over the place or provide "evidence" to the stance when proclaimed. And then the tables get turned onto the hard atheist where his own epistemology will clash with science or empiricism which is an internal conflict. So there is no choice really.

Peace.