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

[Thief]

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



Okay!

ok?.....nonbelievers to keep you in line?....good luck with that!

 

[LuisDantas]

We don't need nonbelievers to point the way.

How would you know? How would anyone truly know?

For all anyone can truly tell, maybe God does exist but human nature is so imperfect that he had to ensure that disbelievers would be ready at hand to point out when believers got too out of hand for their own good.

Surely you realize that according to at least the words of many believers being a part of God's Army is not at all a matter of proving worthy of the privilege. So there is no a priori reason why it can't be composed in part or even entirely by actual disbelievers.

 

[Desert Snake]

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.

Sometimes what people feel as 'God/goddess/deity/, is very 'naturalistic, I've noticed this, and it is often expressed in some form of pantheistic ideas.

 

[Thief]

How would you know? How would anyone truly know?

For all anyone can truly tell, maybe God does exist but human nature is so imperfect that he had to ensure that disbelievers would be ready at hand to point out when believers got too out of hand for their own good.

Surely you realize that according to at least the words of many believers being a part of God's Army is not at all a matter of proving worthy of the privilege. So there is no a priori reason why it can't be composed in part or even entirely by actual disbelievers.

If you can't be trusted with the least of things...how then anything greater?

Faith no more than a grain of seed.......so I've read.

 

[Desert Snake]

ok?.....nonbelievers to keep you in line?....good luck with that!

Lol no didn't mean okay like that.


Really?! You thought I would be ok with that idea? lol

 

[Erebus]

It does sound like you're taking certain things as given that I don't.

I don't doubt that I take certain things as given that you don't (and likely vice versa) especially if I happen to be right about people's predispositions.

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?

I think I see where you're coming from. In order to consider the universe to be God you need to make a value call on it. Is the universe worthy of reverence? Is it divine? I'm not aware of any way of making this call based on evidence any more than preferring orange over green is based on evidence.
It's this value call that I consider to ultimately be the most important factor for both Atheists and Theists. I also suspect that people's predisposition will have a strong influence on which way they lean on that call.

When talking about Pantheism, the evidence available is enough to conclude that the material world exists (unless you're into solipsism I guess). After this we split into groups based on a value call. Group A claims that their sense of wonder and reverence for the universe can best be described in terms of the universe's divinity. Group B doesn't feel the same way.
Group B has all the available evidence for group A's god, but they make a different value call. If all that mattered to group B was that there was evidence for the god then the material universe would have to suffice and be enough to convince them. Clearly this isn't the case, which is why I argue that evidence plays second fiddle to predisposition and sense of value.

Does that make sense? It can be tricky to put across eloquently.

 

[LuisDantas]

If you can't be trusted with the least of things...how then anything greater?

I don't know, but then I am not a Christian. I am not the one claiming that I do not deserve God's Grace.

But if I did, I don't know that I could rationally also hold the claim that God's ways necessarily involve either believers or worthies (which, I must point out, are quite unrelated classifications in any case).

Faith no more than a grain of seed.......so I've read.

I don't know the reference.

 

[LuisDantas]

Lol no didn't mean okay like that.


Really?! You thought I would be ok with that idea? lol

Why would anyone not be? It is so arbitrary and unexplainable not to.

 

[Thief]

I don't know, but then I am not a Christian.
I don't know the reference.

That's likely the jest of your perspective and discussion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't doubt that I take certain things as given that you don't (and likely vice versa) especially if I happen to be right about people's predispositions.



I think I see where you're coming from. In order to consider the universe to be God you need to make a value call on it. Is the universe worthy of reverence? Is it divine? I'm not aware of any way of making this call based on evidence any more than preferring orange over green is based on evidence.
It's this value call that I consider to ultimately be the most important factor for both Atheists and Theists. I also suspect that people's predisposition will have a strong influence on which way they lean on that call.

When talking about Pantheism, the evidence available is enough to conclude that the material world exists (unless you're into solipsism I guess). After this we split into groups based on a value call. Group A claims that their sense of wonder and reverence for the universe can best be described in terms of the universe's divinity. Group B doesn't feel the same way.
Group B has all the available evidence for group A's god, but they make a different value call. If all that mattered to group B was that there was evidence for the god then the material universe would have to suffice and be enough to convince them. Clearly this isn't the case, which is why I argue that evidence plays second fiddle to predisposition and sense of value.

Does that make sense? It can be tricky to put across eloquently.

It seems like this is based on the idea that anything and everything sacred is "God". I don't agree with this... and I would wager that the vast majority of theists don't, either.

IMO, a god is an intelligent agent with will who is capable of exercising that will in some real way.* If your evidence doesn't include some sort of evidence that the thing you're calling "God" can be described this way, then I'm not going to call it "God", regardless of how sacred I consider the thing.



*This isn't a complete definition - I don't think that everything that meets this criterion is a god. It's necessary but not sufficient for a god to meet this requirement.

 

[Erebus]

It seems like this is based on the idea that anything and everything sacred is "God". I don't agree with this... and I would wager that the vast majority of theists don't, either.

IMO, a god is an intelligent agent with will who is capable of exercising that will in some real way.* If your evidence doesn't include some sort of evidence that the thing you're calling "God" can be described this way, then I'm not going to call it "God", regardless of how sacred I consider the thing.



*This isn't a complete definition - I don't think that everything that meets this criterion is a god. It's necessary but not sufficient for a god to meet this requirement.

I see, well that's fair enough I suppose. Obviously I disagree with you on this, though I am aware I'm also going against the most common types of Theism too.

I'm not sure this is something we're going to see eye to eye on, but thanks for an interesting discussion

 

[Thief]

It seems like this is based on the idea that anything and everything sacred is "God". I don't agree with this... and I would wager that the vast majority of theists don't, either.

IMO, a god is an intelligent agent with will who is capable of exercising that will in some real way.* If your evidence doesn't include some sort of evidence that the thing you're calling "God" can be described this way, then I'm not going to call it "God", regardless of how sacred I consider the thing.



*This isn't a complete definition - I don't think that everything that meets this criterion is a god. It's necessary but not sufficient for a god to meet this requirement.

Did someone say...wager?......as in Pascal?

I'll bet......God's will DOES have some effect.
Cause and effect.
The universe is the effect ...God is the Cause.

unless you would like to completely disregard the relationship?

 

[LuisDantas]

That's likely the jest of your perspective and discussion.

Actually it is not. I am completely serious here. I have no idea of what the reference points to.

 

[Thief]

Actually it is not. I am completely serious here. I have no idea of what the reference points to.

Which explains the ongoing jest of your discussion.

(trying not to use the word ignorance)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I see, well that's fair enough I suppose. Obviously I disagree with you on this, though I am aware I'm also going against the most common types of Theism too.

I'm not sure this is something we're going to see eye to eye on, but thanks for an interesting discussion

I'm open to taking a different approach, but I've never seen a good reason to use the word "God" the way you're describing. It strikes me kind of like someone deciding to say that they support wildlife conservation because they have season tickets for the Detroit Tigers.

As you acknowledged, most people don't use the word "God" the way you do, so why do you use it that way? It seems inevitable that it would cause confusion. Is there some compelling reason I'm not seeing?

 

[LuisDantas]

Did someone say...wager?......as in Pascal?

I'll bet......God's will DOES have some effect.
Cause and effect.
The universe is the effect ...God is the Cause.

unless you would like to completely disregard the relationship?

I hope you are aware that Pascal's Wager (despite the unfortunate name) is quite unconvincing indeed?

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm open to taking a different approach, but I've never seen a good reason to use the word "God" the way you're describing. It strikes me kind of like someone deciding to say that they support wildlife conservation because they have season tickets for the Detroit Tigers.

As you acknowledged, most people don't use the word "God" the way you do, so why do you use it that way? It seems inevitable that it would cause confusion. Is there some compelling reason I'm not seeing?

I suspect that Shyanekh concluded, as did I, that it is fair game to call "God" anything one wishes to, as long as it fulfills a motivational role.

It is not necessary to be "logical" about that, because it is a strictly personal choice. It does not need to make sense for anyone else.

 

[Thief]

I hope you are aware that Pascal's Wager (despite the unfortunate name) is quite unconvincing indeed?

oh well.....good luck with that.

 

[LuisDantas]

Which explains the ongoing jest of your discussion.

What jest? I don't think I was using any.

(trying not to use the word ignorance)

Ignorance is a technical word, and it applies. I am still in ignorance of what you meant. Would you like to clarify?

 

[LuisDantas]

oh well.....good luck with that.

You missed all the threads? We have fairly trounced Pascal's Wager time and again, giving it the complete lack of respect it so richly deserves.

It is something of a cruel sport, really. Some of us (including me) believe it was never meant to be a serious argument. It certainly fails utterly in that role, and it is impressive in how many different ways it does.