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

[LuisDantas]

I worship Cthulhu.

Apparently some people actually do. If I am not mistaken, there are Elvis worshippers as well.

None of that is particularly logical, but it does not follow that there is anything wrong with that either; as long as people remain functional and draw whatever inspiration they find worth seeking on that worship, I guess it is alright.

 

[Desert Snake]

Apparently some people actually do. If I am not mistaken, there are Elvis worshippers as well.

None of that is particularly logical, but it does not follow that there is anything wrong with that either; as long as people remain functional and draw whatever inspiration they find worth seeking on that worship, I guess it is alright.

I'm not opposed to Cthulhu worship, though I have not performed any ceremonies etc. I do 'admire' the mythos, though that's not quite worship.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Atheists have the same evidence for a Pantheistic god that Pantheists do, but the simple presence of the physical world isn't enough to convince them of its divinity. I hold that the reason that this is the case comes down to personal values and one's predisposition towards Theism or Atheism.

Therefore evidence is of lesser importance to both groups than their own values. Evidence isn't ALL that matters, which is what I argued (or at least, attempted to put across) in my original post. You've said as much yourself, you don't see the purpose in a god who isn't intelligent, doesn't possess will and doesn't intervene. If you did see purpose in such a God then the chances are you'd lean towards something akin to Pantheism.

It's not a matter of "not seeing purpose" in such a god; it's just a matter of having a meaning in mind for the word "god".

It's like that old joke: "how many legs does a dog have if you call its tail a leg?" Answering with "4" doesn't imply that you think a tail has no purpose. It doesn't even mean that you think a dog couldn't push itself around with its tail if it needed to. It only means that it isn't a leg.

 

[LuisDantas]

It's not a matter of "not seeing purpose" in such a god; it's just a matter of having a meaning in mind for the word "god".

It's like that old joke: "how many legs does a dog have if you call its tail a leg?" Answering with "4" doesn't imply that you think a tail has no purpose. It doesn't even mean that you think a dog couldn't push itself around with its tail if it needed to. It only means that it isn't a leg.

You are attempting to treat "god" as if it had an objective meaning. I don't think that is the case.

 

[Willamena]

Apparently some people actually do. If I am not mistaken, there are Elvis worshippers as well.

That's not called worship, it's called having too much time on your hands.

 

[LuisDantas]

That's not called worship, it's called having too much time on your hands.

There is an intersection between both sets.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You are attempting to treat "god" as if it had an objective meaning. I don't think that is the case.

I think it has a variety of meanings. I recognize that angels in Christianity would probably qualify as gods in some Pagan religions, but we don't call Christians polytheists because of it.

Still, though, there are a range of common elements. There's linguistic wiggle-room about whether a demon is a god; there isn't the same sort of wiggle-room about the question of whether a refrigerator is a god.

Even when sun-worshippers call the Sun "God", they aren't defining "God" as "Sun"; they're making a claim that the Sun's attributes qualify it as God in some way.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think it has a variety of meanings. I recognize that angels in Christianity would probably qualify as gods in some Pagan religions, but we don't call Christians polytheists because of it.

Still, though, there are a range of common elements. There's linguistic wiggle-room about whether a demon is a god; there isn't the same sort of wiggle-room about the question of whether a refrigerator is a god.

I beg to differ. The moment someone manages to worship that refrigerator (and there are comparable precedents in the Cargo Cults, at least) it does become a god.

Even when sun-worshippers call the Sun "God", they aren't defining "God" as "Sun"; they're making a claim that the Sun's attributes qualify it as God in some way.

To the best of my understanding, the decisive attributes here are the inspiration and symbolism associated to it.

 

[Erebus]

I beg to differ. The moment someone manages to worship that refrigerator (and there are comparable precedents in the Cargo Cults, at least) it does become a god.

To the best of my understanding, the decisive attributes here are the inspiration and symbolism associated to it.

I agree with this. While I can understand the desire to nail down "God" to something specific I don't believe that this is particularly well advised or even ultimately achievable. At least not without stepping on a hell of a lot of toes and simultaneously muddying the meaning of both "Atheist" and "Theist" (not that I think the labels are always useful in the first place, but there you go).

To use the refrigerator god as an example, I don't think it's wrong for somebody to disagree that a refrigerator is worthy of the title "god". However, neither do I think it's wrong for somebody to argue that it is. What's a god to me might not be to you and vice versa.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Well, Banyan (Ficus urostigma) is certainly a God with us. Krishna said:

"Asvatthah sarva-vrikshanam, devarshinam cha naradah;
gandharvanam chitrarathah, siddhanam kapilo munih." BG 10.26

Of all trees I am the banyan tree, and of the Godly sages I am Narada. Of the Gandharvas I am Chitraratha, and among perfected beings I am the sage Kapila.

Women praying for the welfare of their menfolk (Vata Savitri fast). The string must not break. Basically for married women, but also for those who wish a good match fast. And so many perambulations around the deity. Commemorates the pious woman, Savitri, bringing back her husband, Satyavan, from death.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

Atheists say "We can't see God, therefore he probably doesn't exist", and they've got a good point..

Theists say "Life and the universe is evidence of a God who probably created it, because surely it couldn't just decide to create itself", and they've got a good point too, so the argument is stalemated and tied at 50-50..

 

[LuisDantas]

Atheists say "We can't see God, therefore he probably doesn't exist", and they've got a good point..

Theists say "Life and the universe is evidence of a God who probably created it, because surely it couldn't just decide to create itself", and they've got a good point too, so the argument is stalemated and tied at 50-50..

The numbers, of course, will be entirely subjective. There is no a priori reason why anyone would want to treat evidence of existence and need for an answer for existence as equivalent demands, since they are so unlike in nature.

Nor are those two considerations particularly representative, either. I for one just don't understand why anyone would think of the aspect of Creator as important for a deity.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I beg to differ. The moment someone manages to worship that refrigerator (and there are comparable precedents in the Cargo Cults, at least) it does become a god.

I disagree. The fact that gods are worshipped does not imply that anything and everything that is worshipped is a god.

To the best of my understanding, the decisive attributes here are the inspiration and symbolism associated to it.

So whether or not something is a god is nothing more than aesthetic preference?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Theists say "Life and the universe is evidence of a God who probably created it, because surely it couldn't just decide to create itself", and they've got a good point too, so the argument is stalemated and tied at 50-50..

A logical fallacy (the argument from ignorance) is not a "good point".

 

[LuisDantas]

I disagree. The fact that gods are worshipped does not imply that anything and everything that is worshipped is a god.

How do you tell them apart then?

So whether or not something is a god is nothing more than aesthetic preference?

Yes, that is the best way I found to make sense of the various claims about deities.

 

[Thief]

Atheists say "We can't see God, therefore he probably doesn't exist", and they've got a good point..

Theists say "Life and the universe is evidence of a God who probably created it, because surely it couldn't just decide to create itself", and they've got a good point too, so the argument is stalemated and tied at 50-50..

and later we get to ask God who wins over that fifty/fifty.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How do you tell them apart then?

I gave a few basic criteria earlier (e.g. that a god is an intelligent agent who has a will and acts on the basis of that will), but in the end, I think this problem is for the theists to solve: it's the person claiming that God exists who needs to justify why what they're calling "God" would actually be God... and then, of course, it's up to them to show that the evidence supports their claim that this thing exists.

Yes, that is the best way I found to make sense of the various claims about deities.

So then every believer who believes that their god or gods are gods on the basis of some sort of objective criteria are necessarily wrong? It seems that this is the implication of what you're saying.

There are plenty of theists who believe that their god(s) exist on the basis of some sort of objective evidence (or at least what they consider to be evidence). My approach has generally been to dispute their claim on the basis of the evidence, but it seems like if I adopted your view, I could reject all these claims without really examining them on the grounds that since gods aren't justified on the basis of evidence, if they're trying to justify their god with evidence, then their justification is necessarily invalid.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

Topic title: How often do theists believe they have evidence for God's existence?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well just look at this beautifully designed and streamlined shape, I can't believe this divine creation simply randomly evolved on its own..

 

[LuisDantas]

I gave a few basic criteria earlier (e.g. that a god is an intelligent agent who has a will and acts on the basis of that will), but in the end, I think this problem is for the theists to solve: it's the person claiming that God exists who needs to justify why what they're calling "God" would actually be God... and then, of course, it's up to them to show that the evidence supports their claim that this thing exists.

I guess I am adopting the perspective that worship is the defining entity. "Gods" and "deities" are just too vague in and of themselves.

So then every believer who believes that their god or gods are gods on the basis of some sort of objective criteria are necessarily wrong? It seems that this is the implication of what you're saying.

No, actually I am claiming that they are right because they choose to be right in that specific way.

They become wrong when or if they attempt to apply the same criteria for others without their own agreement, though.

There are plenty of theists who believe that their god(s) exist on the basis of some sort of objective evidence (or at least what they consider to be evidence).

Indeed. Many are deluding themselves, either about how much sense it makes to talk about objective existence of deities or about how much importance it is for them to exist objectively at all.

It is not all that rare for them to be self-deluding to some extent or another. That is often not a problem, because self-delusion can be a legitimate and useful religious practice, to the extent that it brings direction and motivation.

The trouble exists when one gets too attached to the tool that such delusion is. But when correctly contextualized, self-delusion is fine. It certainly beats the rather puerile approach of simply assuming that what one believes in is Truth Itself and plan all of one's choices as a function of that. That approach forbids itself from finding better understandings and ends up in an unending, often paranoid spiral of even growing self-reference and avoidance of outer input.

My approach has generally been to dispute their claim on the basis of the evidence, but it seems like if I adopted your view, I could reject all these claims without really examining them

That you can. Everyone is entitled to reject any claims of existence of deity they feel like, even randomly and without attempting any justifications.

on the grounds that since gods aren't justified on the basis of evidence, if they're trying to justify their god with evidence, then their justification is necessarily invalid.

Not invalid. Irrelevant, or perhaps unapplicable is a better word.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

When we think of "spaceships", we think of a pressurised hull enclosing the people safely inside who have to be re-supplied every so often (like the orbiting space stations).
But the designer of "Spaceship Earth" threw the rulebook out the window and designed it completely open to space as a self-sustaining vessel that needs no re-supply, brilliant..
It's been going for billions of years now without a hitch so the design has certainly proven itself!

"God hangs the earth on nothing" (Job 26:7)