The Argument for God(Or Against God) Is Never a Logical One.

[sandandfoam]

i'm not going to explain something you already know.

With respect, I do not know what tested and proven means to you.

 

[jonman122]

With respect, I do not know what tested and proven means to you.

Evidence

–noun 1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.

3. Law . data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.


–verb (used with object) 4. to make evident or clear; show clearly; manifest: He evidenced his approval by promising his full support.

5. to support by evidence: He evidenced his accusation with incriminating letters.


—Idiom 6. in evidence, plainly visible; conspicuous: The first signs of spring are in evidence

 

[Jeremiah]

With respect, I do not know what tested and proven means to you.

You might want to try a dictionary, then. He is using plain and simple English.

 

[Kathryn]

Wow, I'm won over by the strength of that argument.

 

[sandandfoam]

Jonman122

What tested and proven mean to you is pertinent to the discussion because these terms can mean different things to different people. Especially regarding psychological investigation - and I would consider a psychological approach to religion to be a suitable one. But I don't know if you do.
Within psychology many eschew a natural science approach and to them tested and proven might mean something different than it would to a mathematician.
Evidence and tested also pertain to the theme of situated knowledge - do you acknowledge that knowledge is situated or do you believe things 'proven' to be 'true'? do you acknowledge demand characteristics in studies involving people? or do you accept that methods are highly influential on knowledges produced?
In something as subjective as 'god' I think what tested and proven mean to someone are central.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You don't get hypothermia or frostbite right away - it takes awhile to set in.

On a cold day here, if you were outside without proper winter clothes, "awhile" would be a few minutes.

You don't get evicted and your house repossessed right away - you can live in that house for literally years without paying your mortgage, as the legal process works toward your eventual eviction. Meanwhile, you can be living what seems to be a perfectly normal life as you deny the reality of your impending homelessness.

My point is that sometimes the consequences of our denial of reality take awhile to catch up with us.

So... you think they're far-off consequences. Still, what are they? How does a person who "denies the reality of" God still experience the real effects of God?

Please don't tell me that you're going down the "you'll know God when you're confronted with His fiery judgement after you're dead" road.

 

[jonman122]

Jonman122

What tested and proven mean to you is pertinent to the discussion because these terms can mean different things to different people. Especially regarding psychological investigation - and I would consider a psychological approach to religion to be a suitable one. But I don't know if you do.
Within psychology many eschew a natural science approach and to them tested and proven might mean something different than it would to a mathematician.
Evidence and tested also pertain to the theme of situated knowledge - do you acknowledge that knowledge is situated or do you believe things 'proven' to be 'true'? do you acknowledge demand characteristics in studies involving people? or do you accept that methods are highly influential on knowledges produced?
In something as subjective as 'god' I think what tested and proven mean to someone are central.

What i think, is that with absolutely no prior physical evidence, and in fact no current physicial evidence, there is no reason to assume there is a god. Literally no reason whatsoever. People used to worship animals, and once they understood that they worshipped the Sun or Lightning, and once they understood that they worshipped a being that could not possibly be disproven because it is claimed to be beyond the need for physical evidence. It's just an obvious pattern, and it came out to an obvious conclusion, so i see no reason that evidence against a god is needed when there is in fact no evidence FOR a god.

 

[TEXASBULL]

What i think, is that with absolutely no prior physical evidence, and in fact no current physicial evidence, there is no reason to assume there is a god. Literally no reason whatsoever. People used to worship animals, and once they understood that they worshipped the Sun or Lightning, and once they understood that they worshipped a being that could not possibly be disproven because it is claimed to be beyond the need for physical evidence. It's just an obvious pattern, and it came out to an obvious conclusion, so i see no reason that evidence against a god is needed when there is in fact no evidence FOR a god.

God has always been and always will be an internal feeling and or emotion by the believer. That is why he must be real. It makes them " feel " things like, love, hope, purpose, happiness, passion. The story of god loving you makes you feel good inside and the magical place called heaven with streets of gold and mansions helps ease the fear of death.

There has never been any physical evidence or scientific miracles produced today. You have to go back to a book to tell you of all the hundreds of great miracles that was done in the past. The mental and "spiritual" euphoria that is produced by praying, singing, and hearing a preacher speak, stirs up the senses and once your in deep ( I was for 15 years ) that pattern is very difficult to break.

But it is possible!:run:

 

[Kathryn]

So... you think they're far-off consequences. Still, what are they? How does a person who "denies the reality of" God still experience the real effects of God?

Please don't tell me that you're going down the "you'll know God when you're confronted with His fiery judgement after you're dead" road.

I think the consequences differ widely based on the individual's application of their belief or disbelief in God.

 

[sandandfoam]

I do not see God as a thing.
If I could imagine God then I would be greater than God.
God to my mind is Being, Life. All of it. The wonder and infinity in which I find myself.
Christianity, to my mind, isn't about any potential afterlife, it's about this life. Now. It's about reconciling my being with my situation. Fear and comfort may play a part in it - who can say? If faith assuages them then all the better.
We have a finger pointing at the moon, stories are just stories. I believe they point the way but the onus is on me to make of them what I can. Truth need not be objective to fulfill my longings. Truth need only be true for me.
I read in a book about Buddhism the importance of not getting too attached to religious books because they are a means to an end, not an end in themself.
There's a lot in that. Christianity offers me a path to get to where I feel I need to. It's not about future rewards or flying spaghetti monsters. It's about life and it's about now.
It's real to me and that's as real as anything can be.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think the consequences differ widely based on the individual's application of their belief or disbelief in God.

Okay, then don't try to address the full spectrum of possibilities; just give an example or two. Hypothetical Mr. X or Ms. Y, with whatever other qualities you feel like assigning to them, don't believe in God. How would the reality of God's existence impact their lives?

 

[Kathryn]

I'm not evading your question, 9-10s - I just feel it's too broad a question, and too hypothetical. Not knowing Mr X or Ms Y, and not knowing how they apply their basic disbelief in God to their individual moral code, their actions, attitudes, and mindset, I can't predict the eventual consequences of their actions.

In other words, to put it simply - a person's belief or disbelief in God is their own private issue, with a wide variety of consequences, and only becomes someone else's issue if their actions bleed over into the rights of others.

As a libertarian Christian, and one who does not work in the judicial or legal system, I don't think it's my right or responsibility to judge the actions or beliefs of other adults or people that I am not responsible for or to impose my beliefs on others.

I'll leave such pursuits to others. In the end, every man is an island.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm not evading your question, 9-10s - I just feel it's too broad a question, and too hypothetical. Not knowing Mr X or Ms Y, and not knowing how they apply their basic disbelief in God to their individual moral code, their actions, attitudes, and mindset, I can't predict the eventual consequences of their actions.

Of course you can. We're talking about a hypothetical, illustrative example. You're making them up; you can let them have any moral code, actions, attitudes and mindset you like.

In other words, to put it simply - a person's belief or disbelief in God is their own private issue, with a wide variety of consequences, and only becomes someone else's issue if their actions bleed over into the rights of others.

But so far, you haven't even given a single possible consequence. To this point, you've given no reason to think that disbelief in God has the sort of consequences we'd expect if disbelief really was "denying reality".

As a libertarian Christian, and one who does not work in the judicial or legal system, I don't think it's my right or responsibility to judge the actions or beliefs of other adults or people that I am not responsible for or to impose my beliefs on others.

I think the ship's sailed on that one. Aren't you already judging the actions or beliefs of others by arguing that non-belief in God is "denying reality"?

And it's hardly "judging" to point out the logical consequences of an action. I'm not asking you to pass moral judgement; I'm just asking for your opinion about likely actual physical outcomes.

 

[sandandfoam]

Hi 9-10ths,

I can only speak for myself but since I've got a clear direction figured out for myself and my relationship with God I feel an awful lot more comfortable in my skin. So for me, a consequence of my belief is an experience of peace.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hi 9-10ths,

I can only speak for myself but since I've got a clear direction figured out for myself and my relationship with God I feel an awful lot more comfortable in my skin. So for me, a consequence of my belief is an experience of peace.

Okay - I recognize that this is a real consequence, but as you point out, it's a consequence of your belief in God, not a consequence of God directly. It would only be a consequence of God if your belief in God is itself a result of the reality of God. Is it? How would we know?

 

[sandandfoam]

Okay - I recognize that this is a real consequence, but as you point out, it's a consequence of your belief in God, not a consequence of God directly. It would only be a consequence of God if your belief in God is itself a result of the reality of God. Is it? How would we know?

I'm not trying to convince you of my position but I'll lay it out so that you might see it.
I believe objective reality is unknowable to me.
I believe in God so from my perspective there is no difference between the reality of God and my belief in God.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I believe in God so from my perspective there is no difference between the reality of God and my belief in God.

I disagree with this statement. I think there's a difference between presuming that our beliefs are true and presuming that we believe them because they're true.

 

[sandandfoam]

I disagree with this statement. I think there's a difference between presuming that our beliefs are true and presuming that we believe them because they're true.

I believe what I do to be subjectively true because it 'feels' right. Looked at analytically I imagine it flows from my unconscious. I have this feeling and then my conscious mind rationalises it/ reconciles with it.
The standard of truth I'm operating to is not one of reason or logic. I'm going with my gut.
Again I'm not trying to convince you - I'm just trying to explain myself.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I believe what I do to be subjectively true because it 'feels' right.

Why would you think that "feeling right" necessarily correlates with being true?

Looked at analytically I imagine it flows from my unconscious. I have this feeling and then my conscious mind rationalises it/ reconciles with it.
The standard of truth I'm operating to is not one of reason or logic. I'm going with my gut.

Then I'd argue that it's not a standard of truth at all. If you say that it's your standard for the acceptance of a belief, fine - it may very well be. But it's conflating things a bit to then imply (apparently) that simply because you've accepted it, it must be true in some sense.

Again I'm not trying to convince you - I'm just trying to explain myself.

Fair enough.

 

[sandandfoam]

Why would you think that "feeling right" necessarily correlates with being true?

I am convinced that objective reality is unknowable. If, for arguments sake, you accept that on my behalf, is not 'feeling right' as good a standard as any.
I believe that there is enormous power in the unconscious mind and I consider 'feeling right' taps into this.

Then I'd argue that it's not a standard of truth at all. If you say that it's your standard for the acceptance of a belief, fine - it may very well be. But it's conflating things a bit to then imply (apparently) that simply because you've accepted it, it must be true in some sense.

For me, the only truth is that there is no knowable objective truth. Other truths don't especially matter to me - living well and doing no harm does.