How well defined must our idea of a god or a gods be before we can claim to believe (or disbelieve)

[Thief]

What if there is an afterlife, & everyone is welcomed without question.
Even I would gain admission.
Won't you have egg on your face then!

probably haggis

you drunken Scott

see you there

 

[LuisDantas]

you either declare there is a god....
or you declare there is not

you have no fence to sit on

And that is just about as unimportant a fact as they come, because the concept of god has no consequence in and of itself.

 

[Sunstone]

Isn't this a personal matter? I find framing this about "claims" to be rather awkward. The implication is that such claims can (or should) be disputed by others. If one is expressing one's sincerely held beliefs, that's not a claim, that's an articulation. Some god-concepts or theologies are abstract. That is, they are supposed to be vague and fuzzy, or ineffable. Why would I second guess someone describing their god to me just because it's ineffable or abstract?

I didn't make it obvious that I was talking about claims -- as when one asserts a belief in the sense or understanding that someone else should adopt it. Sorry about that.

 

[Nakosis]

How well defined must our idea of a god or a gods be before we can claim to believe (or disbelieve) in a god or gods?

Can we have a very vague and fuzzy notion of a god or gods and still claim to believe (or disbelieve) in a god or gods?


Consider this: Is the use to which we might put our belief of key or crucial importance here? To illustrate, imagine a map. On the map is a star. You know the star stands for a house. If all you need to use the map for is to get to the house, then won't the star do?

But suppose you need to use the map to measure the dimensions of the house? Or it's actual shape? In that case, would you not need something better defined than a star?

So, by the same token, should we answer the question, "How well defined must our idea of a god or gods be....", according to what use we are going to put our idea?

I see all things as possible. I see god as having infinite possibilities, even the possibility of not existing.

As a atheist, I just saying I have no knowledge of any gods. That's not to say gods don't exist, just I've no knowledge that would support belief in any. However I often entertain the possibilities of many different types of God. I can create a definition for a god. Doesn't mean I believe that god exists. I suppose that makes god a fantasy for me. Something to fantasize about, not to believe in.

 

[David1967]

SO!......as you stand before God and heaven
( I believe we all do )

Someone will ask................What do you believe?
your response is critical

If and when that time comes, that question would be irrelevant wouldn't it? I mean if you were literally standing before God, His existence would no longer be in question, right? Do you mean to say ,"Someone will ask..........What 'did' you believe?"

 

[Unveiled Artist]

How well defined must our idea of a god or a gods be before we can claim to believe (or disbelieve) in a god or gods?

Can we have a very vague and fuzzy notion of a god or gods and still claim to believe (or disbelieve) in a god or gods?


Consider this: Is the use to which we might put our belief of key or crucial importance here? To illustrate, imagine a map. On the map is a star. You know the star stands for a house. If all you need to use the map for is to get to the house, then won't the star do?

But suppose you need to use the map to measure the dimensions of the house? Or it's actual shape? In that case, would you not need something better defined than a star?

So, by the same token, should we answer the question, "How well defined must our idea of a god or gods be....", according to what use we are going to put our idea?

To the person, gods can take on any definition it wants. If drawing a map, using a pirates map, or going to 711 (gas station) to get a physical map or GPS is up to the discretion of the person. The definition is still the same.

The problem is presenting ones map or evidence to find god (right?) in a manner not well understood by the parties involved. We can't read their minds and hearts. We need something we can all agree on. A star is good but then some know how to use it others do not. The star does nothing on its own (it doesn't have its own will) it's humans using it or any map to find their destination in life.

But we don't all speak the same "language". So, yes, gods have to have a concrete definition to foster communication that one doesn't need to learn X language to understand what the heck the person is talking about. It helps for debates and just conversations in general.

If a Pagan can't define his or her gods in order to talk about them outside their peers and immediate environment, we don't get a sense of what other people believe outside the regular abrahamic view. Hindus likewise. If conversation of understanding about gods need to be present, there must be some definitions to which both parties can refer when talking about gods.

Same with abrahamic. Christians need to at least have one solid definition of God in order to explain what god is in light of their scriptures.

That's how you can prove or talk about gods. Unfortunately, people are stubborn since abrahamic have so much influence I don't even see many Muslims and less Jews discuss their beliefs.

In person, I'm around christians. RF is the only place I can meet others of various faith.

 

[QuestioningMind]

How well defined must our idea of a god or a gods be before we can claim to believe (or disbelieve) in a god or gods?

Can we have a very vague and fuzzy notion of a god or gods and still claim to believe (or disbelieve) in a god or gods?


Consider this: Is the use to which we might put our belief of key or crucial importance here? To illustrate, imagine a map. On the map is a star. You know the star stands for a house. If all you need to use the map for is to get to the house, then won't the star do?

But suppose you need to use the map to measure the dimensions of the house? Or it's actual shape? In that case, would you not need something better defined than a star?

So, by the same token, should we answer the question, "How well defined must our idea of a god or gods be....", according to what use we are going to put our idea?

As an atheist I am not making any god claims, I am only responding to the god claims that others make with a lack of belief. Thus the definition of god is coming from whomever is making the claim. If someone presents a vague and fuzzy notion of what god is, that makes it all the easier for me to have a lack of belief in it. But even for those who have very specific definitions for what god is, I have still yet to find sufficient reason to have belief in them.

 

[stvdv]

25 jun 2018 stvdv 012 89

How well defined must our idea of a god or a gods be before we can claim to believe (or disbelieve) in a god or gods?

Can we have a very vague and fuzzy notion of a god or gods and still claim to believe (or disbelieve) in a god or gods?


Consider this: Is the use to which we might put our belief of key or crucial importance here? To illustrate, imagine a map. On the map is a star. You know the star stands for a house. If all you need to use the map for is to get to the house, then won't the star do?

But suppose you need to use the map to measure the dimensions of the house? Or it's actual shape? In that case, would you not need something better defined than a star?

So, by the same token, should we answer the question, "How well defined must our idea of a god or gods be....", according to what use we are going to put our idea?

Being scientific I rather have a good definition before I believe it. But I can imagine others don't need a definition, especially when talking about God. I believe in the sun, that it warms the earth today, and never worry about tomorrow having no sun. Probably this believes comes from "experiencing the sun daily". If someone experiences God then maybe a definition is less of an importance. But having no definition, how much sense it makes to say "I experience God"

Maybe best to say nothing. But on the other hand talking about it, can give you some clues. But seems to not give us real answers sofar.

And then a definition of God can be "well defined and very simple". Someone on this forum has it like "That what is the cause for everything". In 1 way it is not well defined, I mean it is still quite abstract. In another way it is well defined "by almost undefined", a little bit like "sun warms us".

Bottomline: If you ask about (dis)believe God and defining then it's totally personally, so anything is possible. Freedom of belief says enough.

For myself I figured out "God definition is scientific/physical impossible".
So I like Hindu idea "bigger than the biggest, smaller than the smallest and all in between"
Totally not defined in the way that we can grasp it, but defined as unlimited or so.

I have accepted defeat. My intellect/mind can't possibly solve this one. So I take a pass.

 

[Willamena]

How well defined must our idea of a god or a gods be before we can claim to believe (or disbelieve) in a god or gods?

Can we have a very vague and fuzzy notion of a god or gods and still claim to believe (or disbelieve) in a god or gods?


Consider this: Is the use to which we might put our belief of key or crucial importance here? To illustrate, imagine a map. On the map is a star. You know the star stands for a house. If all you need to use the map for is to get to the house, then won't the star do?

But suppose you need to use the map to measure the dimensions of the house? Or it's actual shape? In that case, would you not need something better defined than a star?

So, by the same token, should we answer the question, "How well defined must our idea of a god or gods be....", according to what use we are going to put our idea?

Substitute the word "danger" for "god or gods." The use to which we would put a belief in danger (e.g. run away and hide, run towards and fight) is a separate question from whether we believe that the danger exists. The latter is assumed for the former to occur.

 

[james blunt]

How well defined must our idea of a god or a gods be before we can claim to believe (or disbelieve) in a god or gods?

Can we have a very vague and fuzzy notion of a god or gods and still claim to believe (or disbelieve) in a god or gods?


Consider this: Is the use to which we might put our belief of key or crucial importance here? To illustrate, imagine a map. On the map is a star. You know the star stands for a house. If all you need to use the map for is to get to the house, then won't the star do?

But suppose you need to use the map to measure the dimensions of the house? Or it's actual shape? In that case, would you not need something better defined than a star?

So, by the same token, should we answer the question, "How well defined must our idea of a god or gods be....", according to what use we are going to put our idea?

I will not give an opinion so you know my answer.

 

[Quintessence]

I didn't make it obvious that I was talking about claims -- as when one asserts a belief in the sense or understanding that someone else should adopt it. Sorry about that.

Ah, that changes things a bit. Perhaps I should have intuited that, but my brain doesn't tend to go in those directions as a member of a tradition that embraces pluralism. At least know I know why it sounded weird to me... haha.

In that case, I think it's a good idea for an instructor to be well-educated about something before articulating it to others, especially where the intent is to convince someone else they're right. In addition to knowing their subject backwards and forwards (including common counter-argments), they should also know the basics of several other academic disciplines. They'll want some basics of theology, religion, and philosophy to have the knowledge base and analytical skills for approaching deep questions like "what are the gods and what is their role in reality." They'll want to have a decent grounding in psychology, especially heuristics and mental shorthands people use in their thought processes. A bit of anthropology to be aware of cultural diversity and targeting your message would be wise, too. And also a sociopathic personality that's inherently charismatic and doesn't care about manipulating people to get to some end goal. Learn how to be a con artist, basically.

Whoops, that got kind of cynical, didn't it?

 

[Segev Moran]

How well defined must our idea of a god or a gods be before we can claim to believe (or disbelieve) in a god or gods?

I don't think it is a question of definition

Can we have a very vague and fuzzy notion of a god or gods and still claim to believe (or disbelieve) in a god or gods?

Sure. we can have everything. the relevant question is should we?
I know some people who believe a whole idea just for the fraction of information about this idea.
Some people actually think space is fake!!! there is no limit to what humans can believe.

So, by the same token, should we answer the question, "How well defined must our idea of a god or gods be....", according to what use we are going to put our idea?

That's a great question
When it comes to god, i think the lack of definition is what makes you able to believe.

The more defined your search, the less information you will get

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How well defined must our idea of a god or a gods be before we can claim to believe (or disbelieve) in a god or gods?

Can we have a very vague and fuzzy notion of a god or gods and still claim to believe (or disbelieve) in a god or gods?

Only to an extent, IMO.

“Belief” is conceiving of a thing as true. If a thing can’t be conceived, it can’t be believed.

Consider this: Is the use to which we might put our belief of key or crucial importance here? To illustrate, imagine a map. On the map is a star. You know the star stands for a house. If all you need to use the map for is to get to the house, then won't the star do?

But suppose you need to use the map to measure the dimensions of the house? Or it's actual shape? In that case, would you not need something better defined than a star?

I think that’s something different. I wouldn’t say that someone who needs to know a house’s dimensions but doesn’t have them necessarily doesn’t believe in the house.

So, by the same token, should we answer the question, "How well defined must our idea of a god or gods be....", according to what use we are going to put our idea?

Yes, but an idea of a god can be well-defined enough to allow belief even if it isn’t well-defined enough for whatever use it’s being put to.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Isn't this a personal matter? I find framing this about "claims" to be rather awkward. The implication is that such claims can (or should) be disputed by others. If one is expressing one's sincerely held beliefs, that's not a claim, that's an articulation. Some god-concepts or theologies are abstract. That is, they are supposed to be vague and fuzzy, or ineffable. Why would I second guess someone describing their god to me just because it's ineffable or abstract?

“Believing in a thing” means holding a concept (the belief) that points to an object (the thing believed in).

If an object is ineffable, this implies that no concept can point to it. Saying that someone believes in an ineffable god is a contradiction in terms: it’s effectively saying that they hold a concept that points to an object that no concepts can point at.

They might as well be saying that they have a square circle... so I have no problem at all second-guessing them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I didn't make it obvious that I was talking about claims -- as when one asserts a belief in the sense or understanding that someone else should adopt it. Sorry about that.

Ah... in that case: if someone is asserting belief in a specific god as opposed to other gods, then they’d need to define their god at least enough to distinguish it from other gods.

 

[siti]

should we answer the question, "How well defined must our idea of a god or gods be....", according to what use we are going to put our idea?

Yes, I think that's right. We should have a fairly clear idea if we are intending our God to dictate our worldview and our moral choices - but if we are going to use our (god-given?) intelligence to think about the world and decide (and take responsibility for) our own actions, then I don't think we necessarily need a finely detailed description of the deity we choose to believe in (or not, as the case may be). The big problem with detailed ideas about God is that they are almost certainly wrong (at least) in the details - which is a bit of a problem if our worldview and moral choices are based on it. Maybe the best option is a vague and hazy idea of a deity that we can reject and then get on with more important things?

 

[Milton Platt]

How well defined must our idea of a god or a gods be before we can claim to believe (or disbelieve) in a god or gods?

Can we have a very vague and fuzzy notion of a god or gods and still claim to believe (or disbelieve) in a god or gods?


Consider this: Is the use to which we might put our belief of key or crucial importance here? To illustrate, imagine a map. On the map is a star. You know the star stands for a house. If all you need to use the map for is to get to the house, then won't the star do?

But suppose you need to use the map to measure the dimensions of the house? Or it's actual shape? In that case, would you not need something better defined than a star?

So, by the same token, should we answer the question, "How well defined must our idea of a god or gods be....", according to what use we are going to put our idea?

Not sure who is included in the collective "we". It would seem that depending upon the individual (or sometimes the particular group) there does not have to necessarily be any actual evidence. This sometimes stems from differing viewpoints on what constitutes quality evidence. Other times, it is more attributable to a desire to believe a certain thing. Hence faith becomes a stand in for evidence.

 

[CLee421]

How well defined must our idea of a god or a gods be before we can claim to believe (or disbelieve) in a god or gods?

Can we have a very vague and fuzzy notion of a god or gods and still claim to believe (or disbelieve) in a god or gods?


Consider this: Is the use to which we might put our belief of key or crucial importance here? To illustrate, imagine a map. On the map is a star. You know the star stands for a house. If all you need to use the map for is to get to the house, then won't the star do?

But suppose you need to use the map to measure the dimensions of the house? Or it's actual shape? In that case, would you not need something better defined than a star?

So, by the same token, should we answer the question, "How well defined must our idea of a god or gods be....", according to what use we are going to put our idea?

Very good analogy with the map.

I knew NOTHING about God when He changed me. Everyone is different - but this is my experience.

So... I very much relate to your map illustration. I was shown a star. Then God proceeded to draw the map for me. To show me how to get to the star / about the star. He's still drawing

 

[Trailblazer]

Disbelief doesn't demand much from us. But believers with a codified
religion do appear have much information to digest. I don't envy them.

Could that be one reason that atheists are atheists? They can do whatever they want to do and not worry about a God watching over them, and they don't have to do anything for that God... What a life!
Life sure would be a lot easier if I could drop God off at that bus depot, but He won't get out of my car...

 

[Trailblazer]

Not sure who is included in the collective "we". It would seem that depending upon the individual (or sometimes the particular group) there does not have to necessarily be any actual evidence. This sometimes stems from differing viewpoints on what constitutes quality evidence. Other times, it is more attributable to a desire to believe a certain thing. Hence faith becomes a stand in for evidence.

And sometimes we do not have a desire to believe in God but we cannot drop Him off at the bus depot because we SEE too much evidence that He exists...