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

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

What evidence do you think supports pantheism?

 

[Erebus]

What evidence do you think supports pantheism?

Literally anything and everything you come across. If we are equating God with existence/the entirety of the universe then anything material can be considered a part of it. What you may disagree on is whether or not it's meaningful, valuable or useful to describe the sum total of everything as God.

 

[LuisDantas]

Literally anything and everything you come across. If we are equating God with existence/the entirety of the universe then anything material can be considered a part of it. What you may disagree on is whether or not it's meaningful, valuable or useful to describe the sum total of everything as God.

Reasonable, but it begs the question: why would one feel the drive to do that? Just because? Just out of a desire to feel or at least express that there is a purpose or a will "behind it all"?

 

[Erebus]

Reasonable, but it begs the question: why would one feel the drive to do that? Just because? Just out of a desire to feel or at least express that there is a purpose or a will "behind it all"?

Possibly. Like I say, I think we're roughly predisposed towards Theism or Atheism. Perhaps Naturalistic Pantheism is attractive to those who lean towards Theism but still value an empirical approach?
Alternatively it could be the best analogy people have to explain their sense of wonder at the universe.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Literally anything and everything you come across. If we are equating God with existence/the entirety of the universe then anything material can be considered a part of it. What you may disagree on is whether or not it's meaningful, valuable or useful to describe the sum total of everything as God.

It does sound like you're taking certain things as given that I don't. Is there some sort of evidence-based reason to "equate God with existence/the entirety of the universe", as you put it?

If this is just an aesthetic choice on your part, then I don't see why you'd say that atheists ought to be pantheists if they really cared about the evidence. Your earlier comment suggested (to me, at least) that there ought to be some sort of logical path from atheism to pantheism that doesn't rely on assumptions or preferences, but only on evidence. Is that what you were trying to suggest?

 

[LuisDantas]

Thanks, Penguin. I had much the same doubt but failed to articulate it.

 

[Thief]

At least tennis has a fence you can't sit on.

 

[Desert Snake]

Reasonable, but it begs the question: why would one feel the drive to do that? Just because? Just out of a desire to feel or at least express that there is a purpose or a will "behind it all"?

So, according to you, worshipping a rock is 'reasonable'?
I don't get your rationale here, how are you choosing whats ok to worship and whats not, seems arbitrary to me.

 

[LuisDantas]

At least tennis has a fence you can't sit on.

Hey, since you are back, mind telling me why you defaced my post when you quoted it in your own #55 by inserting an odd smiley at the bottom?

 

[Thief]

Hey, since you are back, mind telling me why you defaced my post when you quoted it in your own #55 by inserting an odd smiley at the bottom?

Well...what do you know?.....
I was not aware of the intrusion.
Typically I don't use the icons......not at all.

No explanation.

 

[LuisDantas]

So, according to you, worshipping a rock is 'reasonable'?

It may very well be, as long as the person who does so is not in denial about what he is doing and deals constructively with the results.

Worship is a very personal matter and should be acknowledged as such. In many ways it is much like sexual preferences really.

I don't get your rationale here, how are you choosing whats ok to worship and whats not, seems arbitrary to me.

Oh but it is. Very few things are less legitimately arbitrary than one's choice of what, if anything, to worship.

We should not expect some sort of general consensus on such matters.

 

[Desert Snake]

Thanks, Penguin. I had much the same doubt but failed to articulate it.

..^ hmm I see.
I can see pantheism as valid, but it's still theism, for sure.

 

[LuisDantas]

..^ hmm I see.
I can see pantheism as valid, but it's still theism, for sure.

Tell me more, please.

 

[Desert Snake]

Oh but it is. Very few things are less legitimately arbitrary than one's choice of what, if anything, to worship.

We should not expect some sort of general consensus on such matters.

However I have never detailed the type of theism I adhere to, yet you have discredited it, it seems , in various threads.

anyways, I'm outta this discussion, since I don't care what/who people worship

 

[LuisDantas]

Well...what do you know?.....
I was not aware of the intrusion.
Typically I don't use the icons......not at all.

No explanation.

Thanks for replying.

 

[Desert Snake]

Tell me more, please.

It's traditionally theism because the 'divine' nature is recognized in the singularity, if that's what you're asking.

I think sometimes people call themselves pantheists without realizing it is religious in nature.

 

[LuisDantas]

However I have never detailed the type of theism I adhere to, yet you have discredited it, it seems , in various threads.

anyways, I'm outta this discussion, since I don't care what/who people worship

I don't specifically remember that, but it is entirely possible. I find logical consistency an important consideration for belief, and I do enjoy questioning that of stated beliefs.

That is how I have concluded, for instance, that it is outright illogical for atheists to fear ending up in Hell because they disbelieve the existence of God. In fact, it is far more reasonable to assume that atheists are God's gift for believers in order to keep them on line.

 

[Thief]

We don't need nonbelievers to point the way.

 

[LuisDantas]

It's traditionally theism because the 'divine' nature is recognized in the singularity, if that's what you're asking.

I think sometimes people call themselves pantheists without realizing it is religious in nature.

I suspect much the same thing. When push comes to shove, belief in God means exactly as much or as little as the person wants it to. I expect some few people to actually have genuine yet wildly oscillating feelings on the matter. And you know what? That is quite OK in my book.

 

[Desert Snake]

I don't specifically remember that, but it is entirely possible. I find logical consistency an important consideration for belief, and I do enjoy questioning that of stated beliefs.

Not sure what this means. I've always had the same Deity concept.

That is how I have concluded, for instance, that it is outright illogical for atheists to fear ending up in Hell because they disbelieve the existence of God. In fact, it is far more reasonable to assume that atheists are God's gift for believers in order to keep them on line.

Okay!