How often do theists believe they have evidence for God's existence?

[LuisDantas]

I have sometimes seem people (most recently, it seems to have happened fairly often among Muslims) suggesting that us atheists would have a choice to believe in God if we made an attempt, or sought evidence, something like that.

I'm not really very sure what they mean.

How often do theists believe or assume that atheism is a choice, I wonder?

Is it at all usual for theists to believe that atheism is changeable?

What do theists usually believe to cause atheism?

Anyone willing to say or guess? Let's try to avoid too much passion here. "Just the facts" (and respectful guesses), please.

 

[StarryNightshade]

Personally, I don't care if anyone is an atheist. Just like I hope people ultimately don't care that I'm a theist.

As far as evidence goes, I would like to think I have evidence, but what is sufficient evidence for me is not going to be sufficient evidence for others. That's just how things are.

 

[George-ananda]

How often do theists believe or assume that atheism is a choice, I wonder?

It is an opinion on God's existence.

Is it at all usual for theists to believe that atheism is changeable?

As it's an opinion it can change.

What do theists usually believe to cause atheism?

For some it's anger at religion. For some it's lack of evidence. For some it's problems with the God concepts they've been presented with.

 

[LuisDantas]

It is an opinion on God's existence.





As it's an opinion it can change.

Given sufficient reason, probably.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I don't understand how people can look at how the universe, at least in our little part of it, and not find a pattern to suggest a working mind higher than our own. I don't even need to look outside of my window to notice this, it is just the fact that beingness encirculates us all and at some point down without a reason.

People just don't see this pattern, quite a bit of people don't actually. I am convinced that there is evidence of God spread out in the fabric of existence itself, from a philosophical perspective at least, not necessarily scientific.

But because I can't understand the perspective of atheism, and in contrast they cannot understand the perspective of theism, there will be no argument that'll work as evidence until we have words to put it in.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't understand how people can look at how the universe, at least in our little part of it, and not find a pattern to suggest a working mind higher than our own. I don't even need to look outside of my window to notice this, it is just the fact that beingness encirculates us all and at some point down without a reason.

Maybe it helps to be acquaintanced with science from an early age. Nature does have a tendency to organize itself into patterns spontaneuosly, in ways that to many people suggest a lack of a purpose or will "behind it all".

Of course, some people might see that as evidence for some sort of creator God, perhaps for deism or panentheism. It ends up being quite an arbitrary call, though.

On a more practical level, patterns do not make for much of evidence for a deity, at least if we take deities to have moral or religious meaning.

People just don't see this pattern, quite a bit of people don't actually. I am convinced that there is evidence of God spread out in the fabric of existence itself, from a philosophical perspective at least, not necessarily scientific.

Many people clearly do. I often feel that it is a matter of esthetical inclination.

But because I can't understand the perspective of atheism, and in contrast they cannot understand the perspective of theism, there will be no argument that'll work as evidence until we have words to put it in.

I'm not quite that certain there is so much of a challenge of mutual understanding. But I will agree that it is probably not possible to argue one's way into convincing the other, at least not often.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Maybe it helps to be acquaintanced with science from an early age. Nature does have a tendency to organize itself into patterns spontaneuosly, in ways that to many people suggest a lack of a purpose or will "behind it all".

The thing with that is, if there was absolutely no purpose, existence itself would be chaos. If existence doesn't have a reason for existing, it was just the flip of the coin. Knowing that a property of things that exist is that it isn't chaotic, it would be strange if existence is chaotic itself.

But then you realize, at some level it IS chaotic. If there is a purpose to existence, there needs to be a purpose to that purpose, all of the way down. So instead of the 'turtles all the way down' joke, you could apply it to existential philosophy and say 'purposes all the way down'. But at some point there must be a meaningless, chaotic purpose. No matter how deep that point is, it makes existence chaotic on all levels. One might say all of these purposes are not formed consciously, but why not look as the actual information in the universe (the actual abstract, informational existence of everything) as a mind itself? It is very similar to a computer drive, and a human mind itself. It is the storage of information, the only difference is that a human mind has a select view of limited amounts of information, while the universe would exist as an objective view of all information.

Of course, some people might see that as evidence for some sort of creator God, perhaps for deism or panentheism. It ends up being quite an arbitrary call, though.

On a more practical level, patterns do not make for much of evidence for a deity, at least if we take deities to have moral or religious meaning.

Some patterns can't be described, only can be felt. For example, a person without ASMR would not be able to understand what ASMR feels like, even the description can make him comprehend it.

Many people clearly do. I often feel that it is a matter of esthetical inclination.

Does this mean you feel it's based on over-interpreting the beauty that appeals to some from nature?

If so, this isn't the pattern I'm talking about. It has nothing to do with how beautiful existence is. It has more to do with how strange existence is. It's very paradoxical, and many found that the deeper you look in at life, the less it makes sense.

I'm not quite that certain there is so much of a challenge of mutual understanding. But I will agree that it is probably not possible to argue one's way into convincing the other, at least not often.

So far, the only arguments I can imagine being said is; "It is just clear that God exists, look at the world" and "No, man, you're not looking at the world right. Look at the world again, it's obvious that God doesn't exist."

 

[LuisDantas]

The thing with that is, if there was absolutely no purpose, existence itself would be chaos. If existence doesn't have a reason for existing, it was just the flip of the coin. Knowing that a property of things that exist is that it isn't chaotic, it would be strange if existence is chaotic itself.

That just doesn't follow, I fear. I'm not sure why you think it would.

But then you realize, at some level it IS chaotic. If there is a purpose to existence, there needs to be a purpose to that purpose, all of the way down. So instead of the 'turtles all the way down' joke,

It is not much of a joke as I understand it. It is a deep religious teaching, almost a koan.

you could apply it to existential philosophy and say 'purposes all the way down'. But at some point there must be a meaningless, chaotic purpose.

You sure have a heightened sensibility to chaos and purposes!

No matter how deep that point is, it makes existence chaotic on all levels. One might say all of these purposes are not formed consciously, but why not look as the actual information in the universe (the actual abstract, informational existence of everything) as a mind itself?

Well, that amounts to deciding to see chaos and call it purpose... what would the point be?

It is very similar to a computer drive, and a human mind itself. It is the storage of information, the only difference is that a human mind has a select view of limited amounts of information, while the universe would exist as an objective view of all information.



Some patterns can't be described, only can be felt. For example, a person without ASMR would not be able to understand what ASMR feels like, even the description can make him comprehend it.

Perhaps. Again, not sure what that evidences.

Does this mean you feel it's based on over-interpreting the beauty that appeals to some from nature?

I hadn't thought of it as over-interpretation until now. But at the moment, no, I wouldn't say so. It is a vocation, not an exageration.

If so, this isn't the pattern I'm talking about. It has nothing to do with how beautiful existence is. It has more to do with how strange existence is. It's very paradoxical, and many found that the deeper you look in at life, the less it makes sense.

"Sense"?

You are very theistic indeed, otherwise you wouldn't expect existence to have inherent sense.

So far, the only arguments I can imagine being said is; "It is just clear that God exists, look at the world" and "No, man, you're not looking at the world right. Look at the world again, it's obvious that God doesn't exist."

So you agree with me that it is a vocation?

 

[Desert Snake]

"Evidence" for an existence of /any deity/
can take different forms.
Anecdotal
Personal /i.e. people say sometimes they 'experience' the oneness, the all. This is a 'god experience' for many.
Deduction, from say observing ones surroundings, i.e. 'who made all this' etc.
The 'best guess' i.e. everything didn't come from nothing, I see intelligent design'.
Though, there is not inherent proof for many, theists or ag theists such as myself make a decision to believe, as such, no "evidence" that would 'close the deal for us.
As for atheists, I always assume it's a choice, as, we can believe in things without evidence.

 

[Thruve]

because normally, people would otherwise call themselves agnostic.

 

[LuisDantas]

because normally, people would otherwise call themselves agnostic.

Uh? What do you mean? Who are you talking about? If it is atheists, why would they not call themselves atheists?

 

[LuisDantas]

As for atheists, I always assume it's a choice, as, we can believe in things without evidence.

Do you feel you have a choice to believe in the Easter Bunny?

 

[Erebus]

I have sometimes seem people (most recently, it seems to have happened fairly often among Muslims) suggesting that us atheists would have a choice to believe in God if we made an attempt, or sought evidence, something like that.

I'm not really very sure what they mean.

How often do theists believe or assume that atheism is a choice, I wonder?

Is it at all usual for theists to believe that atheism is changeable?

What do theists usually believe to cause atheism?

Anyone willing to say or guess? Let's try to avoid too much passion here. "Just the facts" (and respectful guesses), please.

To be honest I suspect that evidence is pretty far down the list of priorities for both Atheists and Theists alike. I imagine that the topic of evidence comes up so much because it gives both sides an illusion of having been established rationally. I would argue that it seems people are more or less predisposed towards Theism or Atheism and that relatively few people arrive at their position as a result of analyzing the evidence before them.

I've argued in the past that if evidence really was all that mattered then all Atheists would become Pantheists or otherwise adopt a form of Theism based on the observable material world. Similarly it seems that no amount of evidence to the contrary can shake some Theists from their particular perception of god/s.

 

[Desert Snake]

Do you feel you have a choice to believe in the Easter Bunny?

Silly /innacurate analogy.

 

[Thief]

The evidence is above your head and beneath your feet.
You have made a choice to shake your head ...nay.

Choosing to believe is continually pending.

Take your time......no hurry.

 

[LuisDantas]

Silly /innacurate analogy.

Actually, speaking as an atheist, I can tell you that it is a very proper analogy.

That is, if you are indeed claiming that we might somehow choose to believe in God.

 

[LuisDantas]

The evidence is above your head and beneath your feet.
You have made a choice to shake your head ...nay.

Choosing to believe is continually pending.

Take your time......no hurry.

So I take it that you, too, think that atheists may simply choose to believe in the existence of God?

 

[Thief]

So I take it that you, too, think that atheists may simply choose to believe in the existence of God?

Well.....I don't see the need to twist your arm.

 

[LuisDantas]

Well.....I don't see the need to twist your arm.

I have no idea of what you mean.

Edited to add: by which I mean that you did not answer my question.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't understand how people can look at how the universe, at least in our little part of it, and not find a pattern to suss, it is just the fact that beingness encirculates us all and at some point down without a reason.

People just don't see this pattern, quite a bit of people don't actually. I am convinced that there is evidence of God spread out in the fabric of existence itself, from a philosophical perspective at least, not necessarily scientific.

But because I can't understand the perspective of atheism, and in contrast they cannot understand the perspective of theism, there will be no argument that'll work as evidence until we have words to put it in.

Funny - your post suggests to me a couple of things that I've noticed in other conversations between theists and atheists:

- We tend to want to relate to people and things. Our attempts to understand the universe can easily morph into an attempt to relate to the universe. This assumes that the universe or the forces behind it are something we can relate to; I don't think this assumption gets examined critically very often.

- Once we have a mental model of the universe, when it does a good job of predicting the observable things we see around us, we take this as a sign that the parts of the model we can't test directly agree pretty well with reality, too. I think this is the process your post describes. However, there's a problem: if there are many possible unseen mechanisms that could produce the effects we observe, our observations aren't actually a reasonable justification to choose between models.

I recognize that most theists' mental models (the testable parts, anyway) have good predictive value... but so do most atheists' models. This means that until we can test our models better, the difference between them - i.e. God - is irrelevant.