Prove that humans aren't blind to God's existence

[Autodidact]

OK, not everyone posts about themselves. This thread is about skeptic bias. Aligning skepticism with atheism is bias. I ALREADY SAID that a true skeptic would be skeptical of God's existence, but he would be skeptical of his non-existence WITH EQUAL MEASURE. Is that really so hard to understand?

Edit: Like I said, I'M not a skeptic. This was a post about skepticism. If I was a skeptic, would I be a Christian? Probably not. I'm a believer.

And that would apply equally to the tooth fairy?

The problem, toms, is that there are too many possible theoretical unevidenced entities, and one must use a rule such as Occam's Razor or the concept that the burden of proof is on the person asserting the existence of something, or one could not get out of bed in the morning.

Further, although I consider myself a skeptic, I am a Strong Atheist. That means that I don't just not believe there is a God, I believe there is not God. I believe that the very definition of God is that of a non-existent entity. Therefore, unless I see some persuasive evidence to the contrary, I think I am justified in proceeding on the basis that there is no God.

 

[tomspug]

And that would apply equally to the tooth fairy?

The problem, toms, is that there are too many possible theoretical unevidenced entities, and one must use a rule such as Occam's Razor or the concept that the burden of proof is on the person asserting the existence of something, or one could not get out of bed in the morning.

Further, although I consider myself a skeptic, I am a Strong Atheist. That means that I don't just not believe there is a God, I believe there is not God. I believe that the very definition of God is that of a non-existent entity. Therefore, unless I see some persuasive evidence to the contrary, I think I am justified in proceeding on the basis that there is no God.

I complete skeptic is entirely theoretical. To believe things is to not be a skeptic in that area. You have beliefs, therefore you are not a skeptic. Maybe skepticism of one belief led you towards another, but to be assured of something is to not be a skeptic. You are therefore not a religious skeptic.

 

[Willamena]

To believe things is to not be a skeptic in that area.

This is where understanding falls apart. Belief is not to be assured of something.

 

[Imagist]

I complete skeptic is entirely theoretical. To believe things is to not be a skeptic in that area. You have beliefs, therefore you are not a skeptic. Maybe skepticism of one belief led you towards another, but to be assured of something is to not be a skeptic. You are therefore not a religious skeptic.

A complete believer is entirely theoretical. To believe things is to not believe the opposite in that area. You have things that you do not believe, therefore you are not a believer. Maybe belief of one skepticism led you towards another, but to be skeptical of something is to not be a believer. You are therefore not a religious believer.

 

[PureX]

OK, not everyone posts about themselves. This thread is about skeptic bias. Aligning skepticism with atheism is bias. I ALREADY SAID that a true skeptic would be skeptical of God's existence, but he would be skeptical of his non-existence WITH EQUAL MEASURE. Is that really so hard to understand?

Edit: Like I said, I'M not a skeptic. This was a post about skepticism. If I was a skeptic, would I be a Christian? Probably not. I'm a believer.

I am as you describe. I am skeptical both of the idea of God and of my own skepticism. I am also an agnostic who chooses to believe that a 'God of love' exists.

My point, and perhaps yours as well, is that we are not one-dimensional beings. We are capable of both doubt and faith simultaneously.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I complete skeptic is entirely theoretical. To believe things is to not be a skeptic in that area. You have beliefs, therefore you are not a skeptic. Maybe skepticism of one belief led you towards another, but to be assured of something is to not be a skeptic. You are therefore not a religious skeptic.

I disagree. Skepticism isn't absence of belief; it's allowing for the possibility that those beliefs might be wrong.

Skepticism is bringing your umbrella even though you expect sunshine. It doesn't mean you can't have any beliefs at all about what the weather will be.

 

[Autodidact]

I complete skeptic is entirely theoretical. To believe things is to not be a skeptic in that area. You have beliefs, therefore you are not a skeptic. Maybe skepticism of one belief led you towards another, but to be assured of something is to not be a skeptic. You are therefore not a religious skeptic.

It is not the case that being a skeptic means not believing things. For me, being a skeptic means not believing things without evidence. No one can function without beliefs. The difference lies in the basis on which beliefs are formed. Mine are formed primarily on the basis of evidence; which is what makes me a skeptic. Not having evidence sufficient to persuade me of the existence of any particular God, or of Gods in general, I continue to disbelieve in their existence.

 

[little_monkey]

There are several definitions of skepticism. If you are unaware, the risk is that you will go in circle.


(1) The doctrine that absolute knowledge is impossible, either in a particular domain or in general.

(2) A methodology based on an assumption of doubt with the aim of acquiring approximate or relative certainty.

Note well: one is a doctrine; the other is a methodology.

 

[tomspug]

This is where understanding falls apart. Belief is not to be assured of something.

I disagree. Maybe your understanding of belief is different than mine. Perhaps you are mistaking belief for faith. Belief is something that you are assured of, otherwise, how could you call it a "belief"?

 

[tomspug]

It is not the case that being a skeptic means not believing things. For me, being a skeptic means not believing things without evidence. No one can function without beliefs. The difference lies in the basis on which beliefs are formed. Mine are formed primarily on the basis of evidence; which is what makes me a skeptic. Not having evidence sufficient to persuade me of the existence of any particular God, or of Gods in general, I continue to disbelieve in their existence.

I can understand that. I hope you can understand what I am saying then, that it is perhaps our own experience that is flawed. Is that not entirely possible? How can we really trust our senses any more than our mind?

 

[tomspug]

A complete believer is entirely theoretical. To believe things is to not believe the opposite in that area. You have things that you do not believe, therefore you are not a believer. Maybe belief of one skepticism led you towards another, but to be skeptical of something is to not be a believer. You are therefore not a religious believer.

I agree.

 

[Magic Man]

I disagree. Maybe your understanding of belief is different than mine. Perhaps you are mistaking belief for faith. Belief is something that you are assured of, otherwise, how could you call it a "belief"?

I have to disagree. Belief, I think, inherently implies uncertainty. Examples that show the difference:

I know my wife is not cheating on me.

I believe my wife is not cheating on me.

I think there's a huge difference in the meaning of those sentences.

 

[tomspug]

The assurance then, mball, is a different kind of assurance, but an assurance nonetheless. If I believe in a loving God, do I KNOW that there is a loving God? No. But I am assured that there MUST be, therefore I believe.

If you are convinced of something, that is called 'belief'. If you have evidenced something, it is called 'knowledge'. Is one more valuable than the other?

 

[Magic Man]

The assurance then, mball, is a different kind of assurance, but an assurance nonetheless. If I believe in a loving God, do I KNOW that there is a loving God? No. But I am assured that there MUST be, therefore I believe.

If you are convinced of something, that is called 'belief'. If you have evidenced something, it is called 'knowledge'. Is one more valuable than the other?

Willamena can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure when she said "to be assured of", she meant "to be certain of", or "to know". I think now you're just using a different idea of "assured". If you go with its synonym "certain", then her comment is quite true...I believe.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I can understand that. I hope you can understand what I am saying then, that it is perhaps our own experience that is flawed. Is that not entirely possible? How can we really trust our senses any more than our mind?

Is it your position that we are so flawed that God must exist?

If it is your mind that you would trust, you would not be able to embrace the concept of God. It is your heart that embraces the idea of God - not your mind.

 

[Autodidact]

I can understand that. I hope you can understand what I am saying then, that it is perhaps our own experience that is flawed. Is that not entirely possible? How can we really trust our senses any more than our mind?

How do you get out of bed in the morning?

 

[tomspug]

Is it your position that we are so flawed that God must exist?

If it is your mind that you would trust, you would not be able to embrace the concept of God. It is your heart that embraces the idea of God - not your mind.

Actually, that's pretty close to Christian theology. You've hit it on the head.

The idea is that we are the ones flawed, not God, and the light of humanity, the good, is the direct result of God's influence. Things like love and compassion as well as guilt and sorrow. These don't come from the mind, but from the heart.

 

[tomspug]

How do you get out of bed in the morning?

The same way as everybody else, but with help.

Willamena can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure when she said "to be assured of", she meant "to be certain of", or "to know". I think now you're just using a different idea of "assured". If you go with its synonym "certain", then her comment is quite true...I believe.

Alright then. Then yes. I guess that's all cleared up.

 

[Willamena]

Tom; is our idea that "we are flawed" also inherently flawed?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Tom; is our idea that "we are flawed" also inherently flawed?

Flawlessly.