If you believe in a god or don't believe in a god.....

[Heyo]

That is a fair answer. It is a hard thing to discuss something when nobody knows what they are discussing.

I will paste a definition from Merriam-webster below. Not that is is necessarily what everyone would use as a definition, but it is a highly regarded source. If you do not like it, find one you would feel is a better description. Maybe we can come up with a definition we can agree on and use.

I'm happy with my ignorance. We may come to an agreement, I may simply accept your definition. But that doesn't bring us further as there are still myriads of other definitions out there.
I'll simply wait until there is only one religion in the world before I take a look at their definition.

 

[Misunderstood]

OK, just thought it would make a interesting discussion. But felt you had hit the nail on the head about arguing a subject with an undefined definition.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'll simply wait until there is only one religion in the world before I take a look at their definition.

The way things are going you are going to be waiting a long time, but meanwhile here is a definition I posted to @blü 2 who asked me on another thread.

God in the Baháʼí Faith

 

[Heyo]

OK, just thought it would make a interesting discussion. But felt you had hit the nail on the head about arguing a subject with an undefined definition.

It would make an interesting discussion without stakes. Even if I could convince you with undeniable logic that a god of your definition couldn't possibly exist (or you convince me that it does exist), the next believer will jump out of the bush and say that I didn't disprove "god" because his has a different definition (or that your logic isn't valid because his god is different).

How do I know that that would happen? Experience and historical precedent. Epicurus proved 300 B.C. that an omnipotent, benevolent god can't exist - but people still believe in gods to this day. (Some even believe in omnipotent, benevolent gods.)

 

[Misunderstood]

Even if I could convince you with undeniable logic that a god of your definition couldn't possibly exist (or you convince me that it does exist), the next believer will jump out of the bush and say that I didn't disprove "god" because his has a different definition (or that your logic isn't valid because his god is different).

That is correct. You and I could possibly come to some type of agreement, but like you say someone will come along and disagree. Even if we concluded the earth is round or flat, we would find people that would disagree (just for reference I believe it is generally spherical).

I'll simply wait until there is only one religion in the world before I take a look at their definition.

I don't think that will happen; one religion; and don't feel it would be a good idea. A single state sponsored religion has never worked out well in what world history we have.

But I would not try to prove one definition of God, just a general concept that God does exist, I think I could do that. (maybe I am a bit over confident, but I think I can show that a God does exit.) As far as proving a specific definition of God, all I could do is a compelling argument. Which you have heard most of already, I am sure.

I just feel God is important to many people, and that destroying a persons faith in God is a bad thing, even if someone could prove there was no God, I feel many people need God. Hopefully you don't take from that, that I am implying you are destroying peoples belief by replying to your post. I replied because your answer made scene, and I felt you seemed open minded enough to discuss the subject instead of arguing because your mind if already made up; and I would do the same by listening to yours views.

 

[Heyo]

I don't think that will happen; one religion; and don't feel it would be a good idea. A single state sponsored religion has never worked out well in what world history we have.

I'm not implying a state sponsored religion and I also don't think there will be only one religion in the near future. (On the day the second last believer dies or deconverts, there will be only one religion.)
The reason for that is that people don't want a single religion. In fact, they are working hard on having as many religions and denominations as possible. (Almost) No-one is trying to unite religions (or definitions of gods).
If there was an existing god and if people could know about it, I'd expect that such insight would spread over time. The opposite is the case. So gods either don't exist or can't be known.

But I would not try to prove one definition of God, just a general concept that God does exist, I think I could do that. (maybe I am a bit over confident, but I think I can show that a God does exit.) As far as proving a specific definition of God, all I could do is a compelling argument. Which you have heard most of already, I am sure.

Proving that a god exists is easy. I've done it some years ago:

P1: Clapton is god.
P2: Clapton exists:
C: God exists.

I just feel God is important to many people, and that destroying a persons faith in God is a bad thing, even if someone could prove there was no God, I feel many people need God. Hopefully you don't take from that, that I am implying you are destroying peoples belief by replying to your post. I replied because your answer made scene, and I felt you seemed open minded enough to discuss the subject instead of arguing because your mind if already made up; and I would do the same by listening to yours views.

I believe that everyone has the right to be wrong. Let people believe what they want. But people who insist that their believes are objective reality can get a bit annoying.

 

[1213]

If you believe in a god or don't believe in a god.....

What is your number one reason, the main reason, for doing either?(one or the other)

My first reason is the Bible. And I believe in the Bible, because I see it to be correct in many ways.

 

[Misunderstood]

Thanks for chatting with me. But I will end it here. I think I may be upsetting you and that is not my desire.

I will make a quick last statement here to sum up what I was trying to say. I will make it short, just hit on the main points.

Some people are very alone in their lives and need something to hold onto, and God in most cases is who they turn to, God is the only one who is always with them in their mind, and called on whenever needed, even when there is no one else. If not a real God, God is there in their thoughts, and beliefs and in some cases that is enough. My wife had bipolar disorder, and it got very severe after we had our first child. I had a very questioning belief in God before then, but because of her belief and the things that happened to her I became convinced there was a God. But that is a long story and I said I would be brief, I will try to be as brief as possible.

Anyway, I may or may not be able to prove there is a God to anyone. But I feel as human beings with a conscious mind and the ability to think we need a God. I feel that is why it is so prevalent though out all ages, and why I think there are more people who believe in a God than don't. We need Something that can tie our irrational thoughts together so we can make some kind of sense of it all when we do not have all the answers.

Also, during our most stressful times, it seems we are the most alone. Nobody wants to help, because that person seems so hopeless, and we as people don't know what to do to help. Or the person in need is isolated and there is no one to help. It could be during a psychotic event for a mentally ill person when nobody wants anything to do with them, a person who has crashed over the side of the road and they are dying alone quietly. A person on a battle field with bombs going off around them for days, or just a time when your life is falling apart and you have no answers. Having someone to talk to and believe they are there, is very comforting. Also having the hope and belief God can protect you, is helpful and having faith God will send help or what ever else, even if there is no God, their faith gives them hope.

I will end here. And hope that I was able to make a point, that whether God is real or imagined. There is a real need for many of us, it is part of or psyc, we need to have faith in something especially during times of stress.

 

[fantome profane]

Do you mean evidence as the same for all humans or evidence as you use it?

If someone else has seen convincing evidence they should act accordingly. But if I have not seen convincing evidence, and no one can show me convincing evidence, I will remain unconvinced.

And that applies equally to “God”, or “Bigfoot“ or interstellar teapots.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If someone else has seen convincing evidence they should act accordingly. But if I have not seen convincing evidence, and no one can show me convincing evidence, I will remain unconvinced.

And that applies equally to “God”, or “Bigfoot“ or interstellar teapots.

But here is how I understand it. Evidence can't be seen. Evidence is a norm in thinking. Now for that which can be check by assuming that the universe is real, yes you can use that version of evidence, for that which is connected to the ability to see.
But that is not all the universe is in practice. To me and that is my understanding of God, God is to some people a placeholder for how they cope with being a human.
So here is no evidence for God as per your version of evidence. But for coping there is another kind of evidence. Now it can't stand alone for how the universe works, but it works for me.
And no, I don't claim objective evidence for morality in any sense and that includes God.

And, God is a crutch to me, but as long as I don't hit you over the head with it, it is not any of your business, unless you can give some kind of evidence for that.

 

[Misunderstood]

You mean you do not believe in interstellar teapots?

We have two, meaning we have plurality of interstellar teapots, so teapots is the correct usage.

The Big Dipper and Little Dipper.

 

[fantome profane]

But here is how I understand it.

And I understand it differently.

I am not trying to take away your crutch, and I am not judging you for it. If this works for you, than may the “placeholder coping crutch“ bless you.

Not all evidence is necessary objective evidence. But objective evidence is the only kind of evidence we can talk about.

You could tell me that you have seen Bigfoot, but I haven’t. Or you could say that Bigfoot is a placeholder and it helps you cope with modern life. Great. But I still have not met the big guy.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Would something that impacts one's morals, ethics, and behavior be evidence of the existence of that something?

No. Aesop's fables for example are not evidence of real events.

 

[SalixIncendium]

No. Aesop's fables for example are not evidence of real events.

So Aesop's fables don't exist?

 

[Nakosis]

If you believe in a god or don't believe in a god.....

What is your number one reason, the main reason, for doing either?(one or the other)

Because I am unable to verify whether anything is true about God. Lots of people say this and that about God but I don't trust the idea that they know anything about God either. So basically lack of knowledge about anything to believe in.

People say you can't know that reality is not just an illusion but with reality we can validate it with in reason. We can test whether what we believe is true is reasonably true. With the idea of God, you can't verify what you believe about God anymore than the next guy. So you can believe whatever you want about God and nobody can prove you wrong. So for me it seems better to not have a belief about God as there in no way to know what you believe about God is right or wrong.

 

[Alien826]

Would something that impacts one's morals, ethics, and behavior be evidence of the existence of that something?

Yes.

That suggests to me that all of the following exist.

Some other people. Some religious writings. My own experience.

Did you have something else in mind?

 

[Nakosis]

Would something that impacts one's morals, ethics, and behavior be evidence of the existence of that something?

Nope.
Because you could imagine the existence of something which does not actually exist which could still affect your feelings about right and wrong.

Kind of cool I guess, that we can imagine something that doesn't exist and have it impact the way we behave.

 

[Alien826]

Nope.
Because you could imagine the existence of something which does not actually exist which could still affect your feelings about right and wrong.

Kind of cool I guess, that we can imagine something that doesn't exist and have it impact the way we behave.

I'd say it was your thinking about the "something" that impacted you, not the "something" itself. If you imagine that something you have stored on a high shelf might hurt you if it falls off, you might be careful walking under it. Or even move it! The object didn't do anything. The idea that it might fall didn't do anything. Your decision to change your behavior did. And that decision definitely existed.

 

[Heyo]

Thanks for chatting with me. But I will end it here. I think I may be upsetting you and that is not my desire.

That's OK and I won't take away your final words on the matter. Just wanted to inform you that I'm not upset.

 

[Nakosis]

I'd say it was your thinking about the "something" that impacted you, not the "something" itself. If you imagine that something you have stored on a high shelf might hurt you if it falls off, you might be careful walking under it. Or even move it! The object didn't do anything. The idea that it might fall didn't do anything. Your decision to change your behavior did. And that decision definitely existed.

Ok, I would say both. Without what you imagined to be true there'd be no reason for the decision.