does god exist

[Storm]

Well, I've asked a few, and they say things like "a feeling of peace." I don't doubt that they experience a feeling of peace, but God is not a feeling of peace, is He? See how this is different from pain? It may be someone smacked me on the knee, or maybe I'm having something purely internal, but the pain cannot be doubted. The pain is similar to the feeling of peace, and the hammer or arthritis would correlate to God.

I'm not the one who used pain to "prove" God. That was lame, and I said so.

I just took issue with your statement that no one feels God.

 

[Autodidact]

Fair enough. However, with God, there's no way to check and see what's in the bushes. That's why we call it faith.

If there were evidence that God does not exist, whether in the form of scientific discovery or philosophical reasoning, there would be reason for the believer to question their perceptions. If there were similar evidence that God does exist, there would be reason for the irreligious to accept believer's perceptions as reality. But as it is, all any of us have to go on is our own perception.

Am I making any sense at all, or was that gibberish?


I'm not arguing that perception is accurate, though. You're adding that. We can't know whether perceptions of God are accurate. I grok that.

My point is, there's no compelling reason for believers to doubt their perceptions.


No, I accept that doubt. I could go on, but you're using "perception" in a different way than I am, and I'd like to see your reaction to my clarification first.

Sounds like you're an agnostic.

 

[Storm]

The physical perception exists and indeed cannot be doubted. To go from there to anything more, even a material object, we normally require some kind of agreement from other people.

If you're going to appeal to numbers, most people agree that God exists.

Here's what I mean. A guy says he sees a 6' tall white rabbit. O.K., I believe him. The perception of the rabbit exists. But for us to call the rabbit "real," we require that we all be able to see it. Otherwise we suggest upping the dose on his medication.

Invalid comparison.

So someone might have a feeling of peace or whatever, but for us to call it God and real, we would all need to be able to share that experience.

I'm not trying to argue that you should accept my experiences as proof of God, only that you accept that I do.

 

[Storm]

Sounds like you're an agnostic.

Unless you know what agnosticism means....

 

[Autodidact]

If you're going to appeal to numbers, most people agree that God exists.

An opinion is nothing like perception.

Invalid comparison.

To what?

I'm not trying to argue that you should accept my experiences as proof of God, only that you accept that I do.

You do? I got the impression you were saying that

We can't know whether perceptions of God are accurate.

 

[Autodidact]

Unless you know what agnosticism means....

I got the impression that you were saying that while people have perceptions that they interpret as being caused by God, there is no way to know if they are right.

 

[Storm]

Auto, I'm cranky today, and I'm trying not to take it out on you, but it REALLY seems like you're being deliberately obtuse. My position in this thread has always been that there's no proof EITHER way. That doesn't make me an agnostic, and you know better.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Psychological resonance is not the same thing as factual truth.

Didn't say it was. In fact, this observation goes hand in hand with what I said in other threads: fact and truth are not the same. Facts deal with things, truth with resonance, or if you prefer, relationship and values. The former is a closed system; the latter is open. You can "put all your eggs" in one basket or the other as you choose, but surely you know what happens in a "closed system."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Fair enough. However, with God, there's no way to check and see what's in the bushes. That's why we call it faith.

If there were evidence that God does not exist, whether in the form of scientific discovery or philosophical reasoning, there would be reason for the believer to question their perceptions. If there were similar evidence that God does exist, there would be reason for the irreligious to accept believer's perceptions as reality. But as it is, all any of us have to go on is our own perception.

Am I making any sense at all, or was that gibberish?

You're making sense, but I disagree.

There is evidence both for and against the existence of God. I think that belief or disbelief in God comes down to a balance between them. Certainly, I recognize that individual perceptions would likely be very compelling pieces of evidence that could very well tip the balance one way or the other all by themselves for many people, but there's more to belief than just them.

But maybe I should back up: if you're simply arguing that all knowledge is filtered through our own senses, then I agree with you. If you're arguing that a personal experience of God is the only evidence for or against God that should count, then I disagree.

I'm not arguing that perception is accurate, though. You're adding that. We can't know whether perceptions of God are accurate. I grok that.

Okay. I took your previous statement to be implying that.

I still hold to what I mentioned before: the logicality of taking an "experience of God" as the basis for belief in that God depends on the quality and accuracy of that experience, which would be a matter of personal judgement.

My point is, there's no compelling reason for believers to doubt their perceptions.

I strongly disagree. I think there are many compelling reasons for all people to doubt all knowledge and belief. In a general sense, human beings aren't perfect. We do get things wrong from time to time.

More specifically with regard to religious experiences of believers, I think one can look at the vast spectrum of religious experiences, note that many of them are mutually exclusive (and therefore cannot be simultaneously true) and recognize that therefore, at least some of them must be caused by something other than God.

After arriving at that realization, a believer could ask himself or herself, "in what way am I materially different from those "believers" who I know to be incorrect but devoutly held regardless? In what way can my beliefs be more justified than the beliefs I know to be incorrect? How am I different from them?" ... and if the answer is "I don't know", then I don't think there's any logical alternative but to doubt.

 

[Runewolf1973]

The mind that "thinks of that", the body that houses it, and the imagination that constructs it are all part of the same social construct as "I am".

What lies beyond all of them is (deep voice) the unknown.


While I agree with your first sentence, in the second bit you seem to have just replaced "God" with "energy and all its forms". Is there a significant difference between saying "God made it" or "animating force made it"? My own direction when facing this question was to replace the unknown with (deep voice) ...unknown.


I enjoyed your thread that replaced "God" with trees. But still, seems you're just replacing "God" with something else.

On the other hand, if we just let the idea of a "God" drop away, I can see much to agree with in your ideas of "stillness of mind". As I indicated earlier, in another thread, it approaches Zen Buddhism.

All the world is One Bright Pearl, turning and turning, ever showing us its changing face; and we, in watching it, are One Bright Pearl.

Thank you for being open minded enough to at least try to understand my point of view. I make mistakes and unknowingly manipulate my own sense of knowledge. But that is just human I guess.

 

[Storm]

You're making sense, but I disagree.

There is evidence both for and against the existence of God.

I've never encountered anything compelling for either side, except personal experience.

I think that belief or disbelief in God comes down to a balance between them. Certainly, I recognize that individual perceptions would likely be very compelling pieces of evidence that could very well tip the balance one way or the other all by themselves for many people, but there's more to belief than just them.

Aside from cultural indoctrination?

But maybe I should back up: if you're simply arguing that all knowledge is filtered through our own senses, then I agree with you. If you're arguing that a personal experience of God is the only evidence for or against God that should count, then I disagree.

Eh, somewhere in the middle. It's the only evidence I find compelling. If you've had such an experience, I think it's perfectly logical to believe. Likewise, if you haven't, it's perfectly logical to disbelieve.

Okay. I took your previous statement to be implying that.

Glad we cleared that up, then.

I still hold to what I mentioned before: the logicality of taking an "experience of God" as the basis for belief in that God depends on the quality and accuracy of that experience, which would be a matter of personal judgement.

I don't disagree.

I strongly disagree. I think there are many compelling reasons for all people to doubt all knowledge and belief. In a general sense, human beings aren't perfect. We do get things wrong from time to time.

OK, but you're not singling God out? Assuming I'm right, that's fair enough.

However, my stance is that at some point, you just have to pick a reality and go with it.

More specifically with regard to religious experiences of believers, I think one can look at the vast spectrum of religious experiences, note that many of them are mutually exclusive (and therefore cannot be simultaneously true) and recognize that therefore, at least some of them must be caused by something other than God.

After arriving at that realization, a believer could ask himself or herself, "in what way am I materially different from those "believers" who I know to be incorrect but devoutly held regardless? In what way can my beliefs be more justified than the beliefs I know to be incorrect? How am I different from them?" ... and if the answer is "I don't know", then I don't think there's any logical alternative but to doubt.

Actually, according to my studies (which span many years), the experiences don't actually differ all that much. The explanations do, but one thing most everyone agrees on is that the explanations are inadequate. God is ineffable.

 

[Runewolf1973]

I think for some, belief in "God" is just a way of focusing their own energy towards a higher purpose. There is no wrong in doing that. Whatever helps them achieve their own sense of peace or "enlightenment" is a good thing regardless of what they think IT is or how they perceive IT.

It is at the core of my belief, that when we look at nature, we see our "original" purpose. Do animals need to "believe" or "know" what "God" is or if one even exists in order to be a part of it? I don't think they really believe in anything. They only know that they are here and they must survive for some reason. Would not animals and nature be in a sense true atheists? A belief is something we constructed in our minds to hold back the fear of the unknown. If we are unable to find "stillness of mind" as the animals do, then it becomes beneficial for us to some have some kind of "belief". Think of it this way, do animals fear dying? Or do they just merely retain the instinct which tells them they need to stay alive?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I've never encountered anything compelling for either side, except personal experience.

Fair enough, though what you consider compelling is a matter of your own personal judgement, right?

Aside from cultural indoctrination?

I think so.

For example, the fact that some people have been cured or healed after being prayed for is evidence for the existence of one sort of God. I'd personally consider it to be very weak evidence that by no means proves God, but it is one more item (however small) to go in the "yes" pile.

OTOH, the fact that God never, ever heals amputees is a piece of evidence against the existence of that same sort of God. It certainly doesn't disprove God, but it is one more item in the "no" pile.

In a similar manner, your religious experiences would be evidence to me. The fact that, to me, they're hearsay likely makes them much less compelling than they are for you, but they are evidence.

In the end, based on my own personal judgement, I think that when everything's considered, the non-existence of God fits much better with what I know, see and experience than the existence of God would.

OK, but you're not singling God out? Assuming I'm right, that's fair enough.

However, my stance is that at some point, you just have to pick a reality and go with it.

I suppose, but don't you sometimes look for confirmation that you picked the right one?

 

[Storm]

Fair enough, though what you consider compelling is a matter of your own personal judgement, right?

LOL, touche.

I think so.[snip]

But in every example, you go on to explain why it's not compelling.

In the end, based on my own personal judgement, I think that when everything's considered, the non-existence of God fits much better with what I know, see and experience than the existence of God would.

OK. I don't see how that disagrees with anything I've said.

I suppose, but don't you sometimes look for confirmation that you picked the right one?

"That's a long wait for a train don't come." ~ Joss Whedon, Serenity

 

[Runewolf1973]

Try to think of things in this way. Does a child that has not been introduced to the concept of "God" have any need for "belief" in order for it to be happy and alive and exist for a higher purpose? It was not until someone mentioned to them what "God" was when they realized the need to question it. We are in a sense all born atheists. Weird.

I have too much time on my hands.

 

[Storm]

I'd say we're born agnostics.

 

[Willamena]

I'd say we're born nontheists.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But in every example, you go on to explain why it's not compelling.

Not by itself, but each bit of evidence is just one element of a larger "pile".

OK. I don't see how that disagrees with anything I've said.

I just meant that for me, there was no single compelling experience. My atheism isn't based on some sort of epiphany, but on the sum total of many things. I can't think of any one piece of evidence for or against God that was compelling just by itself.

"That's a long wait for a train don't come." ~ Joss Whedon, Serenity

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

 

[Storm]

Not by itself, but each bit of evidence is just one element of a larger "pile".


I just meant that for me, there was no single compelling experience. My atheism isn't based on some sort of epiphany, but on the sum total of many things. I can't think of any one piece of evidence for or against God that was compelling just by itself.

OK.

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

I'm referring to the fact that there's no way to know. There's no proof I'm not a brain in a vat being fed electronic stimuli Matrix-style. I have no proof you're a human being and not some ghost posting via magic. There's no proof for a lot of things. You've just got to go with it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm referring to the fact that there's no way to know. There's no proof I'm not a brain in a vat being fed electronic stimuli Matrix-style. I have no proof you're a human being and not some ghost posting via magic. There's no proof for a lot of things. You've just got to go with it.

I know that there's always questions like "what is real knowledge"... that doesn't mean that you can't try to reinforce what you believe.

If I come to an unmarked fork in the road, I'll try to decide which way looks like it's more likely to get to my destination and then take the one I choose... but even after that, I'll keep looking for landmarks based on what I expect to see: "if this is the road to Town X, then I'll pass Highway A soon."

That's kinda what I'm talking about. You say you arrived at your beliefs through convincing experience; that's great, but if those beliefs are based in truth, wouldn't they have implications that you could look to confirm or deny?