If evidence for god is in abundance, why is faith necessary?

[Unveiled Artist]

There would be no reason for me to prove the validity of the statement, for we all should understand what an "imaginary" friend is.

Same with Christians. There is no reason to prove to you there is a god because everyone should know what "god" means.

Both of you have to go deeper than that statement to get some results.

They may have been facts during a time of undeveloped critical thinking, but into adulthood it would be understood that those childhood notions were not facts at all.

However, just because they aren't facts today doesn't mean your experiences weren't facts. Your ability to rationalize "facts" as an adult shouldn't belittle the facts of your experiences as a child.

People who hear voices that are not there really do hear voices. Whether they exist or not is not what psychologist wants to know. They want to know whether hearing these voices cause the client disharmony with their life to the point of mental and/or physical care or treatment.

The key is to recognize that just because your friend was imaginary doesn't mean it didn't mean something to you nor does it mean your experiences were imaginary.

Likewise, if (I don't see god as imaginary but using your logic here) god is imaginary and believers have real experiences from this god, why ask them for proof of their source when they have told you many times their source is imaginary (believe by faith....you see the signs.... read this 2,000 year old testimony) and the only way you know is by your real experiences.

That's the only criteria. If people who believe in god say they used reason to find god, I would say if that's the case, all god-believers would have found the same god just as two and two will always be four no matter how you switched the numbers. That's not the case.

Though I would not invalidate their experiences by asking the question to prove a god that by their definition is cannot be defined.

edit It is literally like my asking you to prove your imaginary friend exists rather than focusing on your experiences which are not imaginary. (Treating the symptoms caused by hearing voices not trying to find the imaginary voices to treat the symptoms.)

 

[Mister Silver]

Same with Christians. There is no reason to prove to you there is a god because everyone should know what "god" means.

Both of you have to go deeper than that statement to get some results.

Forgive me, but I don't buy it. Rather, it seems to me you are merely creating a way to get out of actually proving god's existence, which most (not all) theists do with quite talent. It's easy to prove something doesn't exist, because there's no evidence for its existence; thus apologetic arguments (personal experience is an apologetic argument) are created for some theists to use in order to circumvent the debate in their illogical favor.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Forgive me, but I don't buy it. Rather, it seems to me you are merely creating a way to get out of actually proving god's existence, which most (not all) theists do with quite talent. It's easy to prove something doesn't exist, because there's no evidence for its existence; thus apologetic arguments (personal experience is an apologetic argument) are created for some theists to use in order to circumvent the debate in their illogical favor.

Both you and the theist are asking the same question ya'll just don't see it.

Christians feel that everyone "should know" what god means.
You feel everyone should know what imaginary means.

So, Christians try to prove what they think you should know by giving you testimonies.

You prove what you think they should know by handing them a dictionary.

Also, you can't prove something does not exist. If there is a planet in another galaxy, how can you prove it does not exist if our spaceships can only go out but so far in space?

Same thing on the other side. How can a theist prove that there is a planet when the spaceship only goes but so far.

Both of you are in the same boat.

I just find it ironic for this born, raised, and will die an atheist sees it and both of you (theist and nontheist) cannot.

 

[Mister Silver]

Both you and the theist are asking the same question ya'll just don't see it.

Christians feel that everyone "should know" what god means.
You feel everyone should know what imaginary means.

It's not the same at all. There first has to be a god in existence for the christian to be able to make the comment that "everyone 'should know' what god means". Otherwise, the christian is merely speaking on behalf of his own imagination disguised by faith.

Also, you can't prove something does not exist.

Actually, you can. I bet you don't believe in the existence of the one-eyed one-horned flying purple people eater. There's no evidence for its existence; therefore, it doesn't exist.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It's not the same at all. There first has to be a god in existence for the christian to be able to make the comment that "everyone 'should know' what god means". Otherwise, the christian is merely speaking on behalf of his own imagination disguised by faith.

Same thing with your side. That's like saying there first needs to be a friend before it can be proved it's imaginary when you look back at it as an adult. You should have known your friend was imaginary, type of thing.

If I went back to your childhood as an adult and said your imagination has misguided you to think this friend is real when he is not, would that be wise to tell you that you being a child and all?

Also... imagination; mystery; unknown all means god: greater power; unknown essence; can't be described, G-D, Ha Shem, and so forth.

Actually, you can. I bet you don't believe in the existence of the one-eyed one-horned flying purple people eater. There's no evidence for its existence; therefore, it doesn't exist.

If there is a planet (or one-eyed one horned flying purple people eater if you like) in another galaxy, how can you prove it does not exist if our spaceships can only go out but so far in space (for you to prove its not there)?

 

[Mister Silver]

Same thing with your side. That's like saying there first needs to be a friend before it can be proved it's imaginary when you look back at it as an adult. You should have known your friend was imaginary, type of thing.

I'm not following your ill logic.

If I went back to your childhood as an adult and said your imagination has misguided you to think this friend is real when he is not, would that be wise to tell you that you being a child and all?

Yes, it would be wise to inform me of the truth, that the friend is imaginary. The only difference being is that children are allowed their imaginary friends and outgrow them on their own; adults keep their imaginary god, not understanding the reality that he doesn't exist.

If there is a planet (or one-eyed one horned flying purple people eater if you like) in another galaxy, how can you prove it does not exist if our spaceships can only go out but so far in space (for you to prove its not there)?

We can sit here for eternity creating scenarios of "what ifs", but it will not lead anywhere logical or even resemble anything better than the godless reality we already have before us.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Yes, it would be wise to inform me of the truth, that the friend is imaginary. The only difference being is that children are allowed their imaginary friends and outgrow them on their own; adults keep their imaginary god, not understanding the reality that he doesn't exist.

"Allowed?" When between childhood and adulthood did it make it impermissible to have imaginary friends?

Also, if you know more about reality than a theist does, what benefits did you receive from this knowledge that some theist are missing out on?

Why knowledge over mystery? (I ask them, why mystery over knowledge)

We can sit here for eternity creating scenarios of "what ifs", but it will not lead anywhere logical or even resemble anything better than the godless reality we already have before us.

The one-eyed monster is totally outside our section of the galaxy to claim sides. So, what-ifs for one-eyed monsters and god is totally illogical. For both cases, if it benefits you to believe in the one-eyed monster, as an adult there should be less of a need to conform to other people's definition of reality but admit and accept the reality they experience for themselves. If that involves a one-eyed monster, so be.

I still don't understand how reality is more beneficial than something imaginary and why adults need to outgrow personifying emotions such as love and compassion to associate with them more and live a better life.

 

[Mister Silver]

"Allowed?" When between childhood and adulthood did it make it impermissible to have imaginary friends?

Something called growing up.

Also, if you know more about reality than a theist does, what benefits did you receive from this knowledge that some theist are missing out on?

I am not prone to belief in that which does not exist and has no evidence for its existence; thus faith is necessary as one's personal evidence because somehow it has become acceptable to deny reality merely for the benefit of the delusion of the majority fallacy in which is prevalent in god belief.

Why knowledge over mystery? (I ask them, why mystery over knowledge)

Mystery is fine, so long as one doesn't attempt to fill it in with a readily comfortable answer of "god". It's okay to not know something. In the absence of evidence, however, it's absolutely fine to state that it doesn't exist, because if evidence is ever provided, it is just as easy to believe in its existence.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I am not prone to belief in that which does not exist and has no evidence for its existence; thus faith is necessary as one's personal evidence

because somehow it has become acceptable to deny reality merely for the benefit of the delusion of the majority fallacy in which is prevalent in god belief.

I honestly do not understand this mindset (nor do I a theist one; but, it's logical, I'll give them that)

Deny reality? What is beneficial for reality that a disillusioned person must know?

I had a friend who could not live without the delusion. She has heart congenital disease, going blind, and dealing with family stuff. God and her family are all she has. To me personally, it would be ego for me to deprive her of that as if I know more about reality than she does. If anything, we are both thinking about that one-eyed monster. Just in my case, I like talking about it but I don't waste offline time thinking about it. I have my own religious beliefs.

-

I mean, take psychology (again). If the Christian is the client and I'm the psychologist, why would I ask my client to prove she is hearing voices? I know she hears them based on her experiences that are sound based on the DSM book etc. The issue isn't hearing voices. Just society thinks it's odd. The issue is how is she handling hearing these voices. Can she still take care of herself. Does it make her want to kill herself. Kill others. What are the symptoms.

That's what I would ask. I wouldn't ask "prove god exists?" That's silly. That's like asking you to prove your imaginary friend exists. I'd be more concerned with whatever they experience and hear from god, is it causing them to hurt others, themselves, etc. Can they take care of themselves. Is it making their environment unhealthy.

Thinks like that. I've seen both sides of the coin. How religion helps and how it doesn't.

Has nothing to do with god. If god is like an one-eyed monster, both you and the theist cannot provide proof it exists or does not. It's like the planet on the other side of galaxy. You guys are playing what-ifs/what-if nots.

Address what they are giving you as evidence. The concrete things like the books they offer, their testimonies, etc. That's their criteria. Once you discard their criteria, ya'll both be lookin' up in space thinking the monster is just going to fly into the atmosphere and both of you will "know the answer."

 

[Mister Silver]

Deny reality? What is beneficial for reality that a disillusioned person must know?

I had a friend who could not live without the delusion. She has heart congenital disease, going blind, and dealing with family stuff. God and her family are all she has. To me personally, it would be ego for me to deprive her of that as if I know more about reality than she does. If anything, we are both thinking about that one-eyed monster. Just in my case, I like talking about it but I don't waste offline time thinking about it. I have my own religious beliefs.

Emotion has no place in a logical debate. I can understand your point of view, but it's not conducive to the conversation. If I am going to respond logically to your scenario above, I would have informed her of the truth regardless of what condition she was in at the time. I am well aware that most people would view me as a monster, but my rationality is not dependent on them.

-

I mean, take psychology (again). If the Christian is the client and I'm the psychologist, why would I ask my client to prove she is hearing voices? I know she hears them based on her experiences that are sound based on the DSM book etc. The issue isn't hearing voices. Just society thinks it's odd. The issue is how is she handling hearing these voices. Can she still take care of herself. Does it make her want to kill herself. Kill others. What are the symptoms.

I don't disagree; yet as a psychologist, it would still be my duty to get my patient to a point where s/he understood that the voices weren't real.

 

[Mister Silver]

h

Address what they are giving you as evidence. The concrete things like the books they offer, their testimonies, etc. That's their criteria. Once you discard their criteria, ya'll both be lookin' up in space thinking the monster is just going to fly into the atmosphere and both of you will "know the answer."

The bible is not evidence, never has been. It is why theological debates among actual theologians differ in their opinions on its historical accuracy.

Testimony is personal and thus subject to bias; no evidence there.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Emotion has no place in a logical debate. I can understand your point of view, but it's not conducive to the conversation. If I am going to respond logically to your scenario above, I would have informed her of the truth regardless of what condition she was in at the time. I am well aware that most people would view me as a monster, but my rationality is not dependent on them.

The thing is, I'm talking about what is best for the other person not for yourself. You can handle what you consider reality. Other people see reality different than you. The issue is not what you guys see or don't see. I honestly have no issue if one person sees a monster and the other does not. It's walking on each other's shoes to "tell the truth" (both sides) instead of letting people be. Nontheist don't need to rewrite history.

I don't disagree; yet as a psychologist, it would still be my duty to get my patient to a point where s/he understood that the voices weren't real.

That depends on if telling them will help their health and well-being not just tell them just because you think it's the truth. If a real person whispered in her ear to kill John and Jane heard the same thing from a non-existent person, the psychologist won't address whether the voice is real or not. It doesn't matter. What matters is what John or Jane will actually perform the action told of them.

The bible is not evidence, never has been. It is why theological debates among actual theologians differ in their opinions on its historical accuracy. Testimony is personal and thus subject to bias; no evidence there.

That is their criteria for evidence. If you can't disprove god by their criteria, you guys will be looking for monsters to prove or disprove all your lives.

You can't prove it's an delusion (the monster doesn't exist) unless you start from their evidence not wait for them to fit their round peg in your square hole.

 

[Mister Silver]

The thing is, I'm talking about what is best for the other person not for yourself.

So am I. How do you know that what is best for the other person is to foster the delusion? You're making the mistake of thinking that because the belief is present that it must be fostered; your way of thinking is why mentally ill people remain mentally ill.

That is their criteria for evidence. If you can't disprove god by their criteria, you guys will be looking for monsters to prove or disprove all your lives.

You can't prove it's an delusion (the monster doesn't exist) unless you start from their evidence not wait for them to fit their round peg in your square hole.

Evidence is evidence, that cannot be changed. Someone claiming something as evidence doesn't make it thus unless the criteria for it can be shown to exist.

 

[Profound Realization]

I have some experience with psychology, though by no means am I certified. I do understand enough about psychology, however, to know that people who personally experience that which has no evidence to support its existence are thought to be delusional; I personally find religious belief, faith, to be no different.

Has your ego ever completely dissolved, and your conscious and subconscious became one and whole as opposed to separated?

Experience itself, is not some thing that has physical evidence to support its existence, would you call anyone experiencing, delusional?
Same with thoughts, there is no physical evidence to support their existence, would you call anyone who thinks, delusional?

Are you aware of your own faith and delusions? We all have faith and delusions, are you aware of them within yourself? What do you perceive faith and delusion as? I perceive faith as not yet being aware of something and believing with time, that I would become aware of something. If I have faith in goodness, and gradually become faithful to goodness, I would become aware of goodness. But, goodness itself is a delusion not existing in physical evidence form with your perception.
Perception is also a delusion.... can go on and on .

If you perceive faith as belief in things not seen with the eyes, then rather than think of another as delusional, I personally tend to have no judgement or comment, since I have never experienced a day within their shoes nor can see with my eyes what is transpiring or being experienced within another. Just because it has not occurred within me, wouldn't make me assume that it doesn't or can't occur within another...that would make me delusional.

Can delusion even exist? That too, by your definition, has no physical evidence to support its existence.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

So am I. How do you know that what is best for the other person is to foster the delusion? You're making the mistake of thinking that because the belief is present that it must be fostered; your way of thinking is why mentally ill people remain mentally ill.

It must be fostered? Psychologist don't encourage clients to continue hearing voices. That's like saying that because I look in the mirror and think I'm too fat at 90lbs the psychologist should bring in a mirror to point out my real weight. When someone is in a delusion, by definition, that point of view is their reality. Anything outside of their five sense reality will not make sense to them.

Psychologists want to know

1. Are you hurting yourself?
2. Are you hurting others?
3. Can you take care of yourself? (or is someone taking care of you)

If these criteria are not met and the client feels he or she does not need therapy, what is the reason for telling her she is seeing something false?

And how do you know the truth or reality and she does not? That, I don't get.

Evidence is evidence, that cannot be changed. Someone claiming something as evidence doesn't make it thus unless the criteria for it can be shown to exist.

Again, though, we're not going by your view but the other person's. If you want to disprove their delusions, go by the source: the criteria they use to validate their claim. I think you're doing it backwards.

 

[Mister Silver]

It must be fostered? Psychologist don't encourage clients to continue hearing voices. That's like saying that because I look in the mirror and think I'm too fat at 90lbs the psychologist should bring in a mirror to point out my real weight. When someone is in a delusion, by definition, that point of view is their reality. Anything outside of their five sense reality will not make sense to them.

Then perhaps it is the job of the psychologist to get the individual to understand reality, not through enabling the delusion but rather through reorienting the mind to its natural processes.

Anyone can make any kind of argument for delusion, of which belief in god can be considered one of them, but that does not make the argument or the belief rational in any sort of realistic terms.

 

[sayak83]

Then perhaps it is the job of the psychologist to get the individual to understand reality, not through enabling the delusion but rather through reorienting the mind to its natural processes.

Anyone can make any kind of argument for delusion, of which belief in god can be considered one of them, but that does not make the argument or the belief rational in any sort of realistic terms.

What makes your reality reality and somebody else's reality a delusion?

 

[Mister Silver]

What makes your reality reality and somebody else's reality a delusion?

The fact that I can look at a rock on the ground and know that it exists there for me as it does for anyone else who would come along to witness the same rock.

The same cannot be stated for god.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Then perhaps it is the job of the psychologist to get the individual to understand reality, not through enabling the delusion but rather through reorienting the mind to its natural processes.

Anyone can make any kind of argument for delusion, of which belief in god can be considered one of them, but that does not make the argument or the belief rational in any sort of realistic terms.

I honestly don't understand why people who are delusioned need to know reality. It's one saying you know everything about reality and two assuming that reality does not involve anything supernatural because you can't test it.

A person who has (not suffer) delusions do not need to be treated or reoriented unless their delusions are causing them to hurt themselves, others, or it interrupts their life so much they can't care for themselves.

This reminds me of a Star Trek episode where Kirk and his crew went down to a planet where everything was perfect-no disease, no harm, everything perfect like people imagine the garden of eden. Then Kirk realizes the plants and other vegetation made it to where the community did not develop illnesses. The plants gave them the delusion of healthiness and by sci-fi terms let them live forever because of it.

Kirk, like yourself, decides they should face reality-age, sickness, and death-experience the wars, feel the illnesses, etc. His ego (it was a political pay on America's role in other countries) got the best of him. He found out how to break the spores effect by creating strong emotions in the community.

What bothered me is that the spores had no ill effect on the colony. Their delusions hurt no one. So, it was all on Kirk and his wanting for all people to fight just like he does. It's ego.

In this case, the psychologist would do more damage telling the client his delusions aren't real. It would literally cause him to disassociate himself further from reality trying to understand the reality of his actual and real experiences from the experiences society wants him to have. Instead of making a tug of war within the client, after addressing the symptoms of the delusions, if the delusions still come, they aren't dangerous. (Imaginary friends aren't dangerous).

What is the threat of having a delusion?

If I have the delusion god exist, what about my delusion makes me in danger to myself, others, or lack self-care and concerned for my mental and/or physical health and well-being?

People suffer from delusions because they are told that having them is not normal and not healthy. Probably twenty years down the line we'll confirm that it is not. Right now, it's treat the symptoms not the delusions. Though, there are still bias and stereotypes about delusions.

It's not something everyone has and it is not unhealthy.

 

[sayak83]

The fact that I can look at a rock on the ground and know that it exists there for me as it does for anyone else who would come along to witness the same rock.

The same cannot be stated for god.

How do you know it looks the same for the other person? Maybe you are seeing it as what you call black and round while the other person is seeing that same rock as what you know as orange and square but is simply calling this radically different cognitive experience under the same label "black" and "round" simply because of relational invariance. Just as the same mathematical operation can be expressed in decimal or binary Mathematics, what rules out the case that common world objects are being perceived in radically different ways in different persons?