What is Proof of Gods existence to you?

[LegionOnomaMoi]

For Agnostics: How do you define God?

Most generally in as an entity that could be described by the Greek daimon, deism, and/or theology, and more specifically in terms of a cosmic mind or designer.

Do you feel that agnosticism is because atheists or theists have made inadequate arguements?

No, I feel that most agnostics simply don't care.

Or are you agnostic for reasons other than arguments for theism and atheism?

I believe there is some evidence for design and other god-like concepts, but don't find it convincing enough to believe in the face of counter-evidence as well as the lack of evidence where I think there should be some were "god" real.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Let me start again.


God is:
- something humans are not in a position to judge
- something for which a test could not be devised
- something for which a test, even if it was devised, could not be understood
- a being, but not "lesser deities"

So I was just wondering, from that, what "god" is to you.

Okay: God, with the capital G and the J-C meaning, or probably, any other universal deity (Brahman, for example), is unknowable; even if it were to offer "proofs" and direct communication, we would have no way of judging whether it was truly universal or just much much more powerful than us but limited. So God in that sense is unknowable. Sure, we can speculate about it, because we can come up with concepts, but we can never be certain even if evidence were presented.

Other entities may also be "gods," and for at least the smaller ones, we might be able to comprehend their power, motives, etc., at least in general. But any such entity that has power over millions or billions of light-years is going to be essentially untestable and unknowable.

Personally, I no longer believe in the J-C God or other universals. Even if they exist, they are beyond my perception and comprehension, and in order to make themselves known to me, they will have to do so at a level I can detect and understand, which is not the universal level. I also don't do the for lack of a better term lesser gods right now, because I have been simplifying my beliefs and practices to match what I actually experience. I can speculate ad infinitum about the various sorts of deities, but that is not what I experience. What I do experience is spirit--other-than-human persons that exist in the world. Some of them are pretty big and powerful, but I don't call them gods. They are kin, relatives.

Is that clearer for you?

 

[Marisa]

What would convince you theists were right?

There IS a fundamental miscommunication. And it seems to center around the word "evidence". Believers think they have it, but it's not testable, falsifiable and seems that it cannot be shown to others in any qualitative way. I cannot choose to believe something without evidence, until I have evidence I remain skeptical.

 

[Quintessence]

Why go through such gymnastics?

I don't see how defaulting to a culturally neutral definition of god(s) instead of assuming what a person means by that term is "gymnastics."

Why not just ask which God is being discussed?

Er... I frequently do? Even better is for people to specify what god-concept they're discussing. For the most part, though, if someone says "God" with proper case and a capital letter like that, I presume they mean the one-god of the classical monotheists. That's perhaps being generous, though, because many people fail to follow the rules of proper grammar and they don't realize that by putting god, capitalized, singular like that specifically designates the one-god.

Atheism refers to an absence of belief in God, not 'whatever a person worships'.

Okay? Have a cookie? Thanks for your opinion? I don't care? You're reading stuff into what I said that isn't there? Have fun with that? This thread is not for debate, as the OP specified?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

There IS a fundamental miscommunication. And it seems to center around the word "evidence". Believers think they have it, but it's not testable, falsifiable and seems that it cannot be shown to others in any qualitative way. I cannot choose to believe something without evidence, until I have evidence I remain skeptical.

You are absolutely right, the debate between science and religion is between two different views of how humans can know reality.

At a basic level, there are at least two ways of knowing the world around us. One of them, the one represented as being "science" much of the time, only allows as reality evidence that can be repeated and verified reliably by others; individual experience has no value in such a system, except as data points that when compared and combined with others, points to "reality."

Another way of knowing the world puts individual experience at the center, and hence relies more on individual "subjective" interpretation and less on collective "objective" interpretation. In many such systems, personal experience and testimony of witnesses plays a prominent role, which becomes evidence in support of the personal experience. This appears very much to be the epistemological approach of fundamental Christianity.

I've read some modern pagan things (and seen a few people here sometimes use the terms) that talk about "personal gnosis," as in knowledge or evidence that one experiences that one sees as meaningful about their relationship to deity, etc. There is "Unverified personal gnosis," experience/knowledge that no one else shares, and "Verified personal gnosis," which covers experiences/knowledge verified by other "objective" means. There are also verified and unverified "Group gnosis," which parallel the personal kinds.

"Verified gnosis," whether personal or group, seems very similar to, if not the same as, the scientific view--knowledge that is verified through external, "objective" means.

 

[jeager106]

I don't have a clue how anyone could scientifically "prove"
God exists. As has been said it's a matter of faith and faith
can not be proved nor disproved.
Remember something however.
It's only in recent years that dark matter was "discovered" and
science has yet to even begin to understand what it is, what it does,
how it does what it does that they don't know what it does (funny huh?)
and it's still a mystery. Science had a hard time convincing the
scientific community that dark matter was real and did exist.
Some scientist still scoff at the notion.
Now science in trying to deal with dark energy with all the same
conundrums about dark matter.
Dark matter appears to make up 95% of the universe.
Get that. 95% of the universe is made up of something our best
brains no almost zero about.
And yet many people want to believe there is not Power greater
than man out there some there, operating somehow.

 

[atanu]

I get the impression that Athiests tend to dominate the debates on RF, and that many theists get fed up of the atheist retort..."where's your proof!" I get the feeling that there is a major breakdown in communication between theists and atheists and that we are infact talking about completely different things and have very different ideas of what "proof" is. To test this theory I have provided a poll to see if a majority of atheists and theists would actually change their mind.

For Theists: How do you define God? What would convince you atheists were right? could you be convinced?

....

I believe, based on study and experience, the following:

That being best defined by a compound word 'bliss-consciousness-existence' which is immanent as the self of all and yet abides as one without a second transcendental non dual Self, is Brahman. It is not God per se and yet is the real controller of all, who have Brahman as their efficient and material cause. This is my very existence and my very self.

I am a scientist (geochemist) by profession and I used to be a strong atheist and materialist not long ago .. but there will be no going back now.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

(Spoiler: those things are your gods, your "higher powers," perhaps not in name, but in function)

(Spoiler: actively doing this is what it means to be religious, your "re-connection", perhaps not in name, but in function)

"Inside every g*** is an American trying to get out." - Full Metal Jacket

The sentiment you're expressing here is no less chauvinistic and no less insulting.

 

[Quintessence]

"Inside every g*** is an American trying to get out." - Full Metal Jacket

The sentiment you're expressing here is no less chauvinistic and no less insulting.

Uh... I'm sorry you chose to take it that way?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Uh... I'm sorry you chose to take it that way?

Interesting nopology.

If I told you that to the extent that you're rational, you're an atheist, how would you take it?

Edit: it's disrespectful to appropriate another person's viewpoint, especially to try to twist it and claim that he secretly agrees with something he disagrees with. The fact that you might see analogs between your particular brand of theism and atheism does not make atheists theists.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

If God is a mystery, undefinable, without words, and a sense of awe, how can any person possibly describe who or what God is? You can go off what is written--but they, too, are in the same boat. You can go off of your experience, but that too is not objective description a part from interpretation. It's not a concrete definition. (Is there a word that is,really?) It's like each person holding an invisible box in their hands and we are all describing the colors we see and the colors other people two thousand years ago see, even try to read the dictionary conclude what they (not it) sees, without really KNOWING what you are holding.

It is interesting to see this done. I hope we don't do this outside RF, we we are all standing in a circle, holding up our hands and grasping an invisible box (being mines), and describing the colors we see not the color(s) of what the actual box is (that is, as an agnostic would say, there could be a box; we can't say we know either way).

Fascinating.

 

[Quintessence]

Interesting nopology.

If someone interprets one's words in a way that is not reflective of what one actually intended to say (especially when they opt to not practice active listening and jump right to mean-spirited accusations), how else is one to respond?

If I told you that to the extent that you're rational, you're an atheist, how would you take it?

Sure; however you want to map the territory. It's all maps of territory, and everyone is more than free to use the map that works for them. In responding to the OP, I was describing the map that works for me. I have no expectation that others agree with or accept it. In fact, if everyone did, that would be seriously creepy!

Edit: it's disrespectful to appropriate another person's viewpoint, especially to try to twist it and claim that he secretly agrees with something he disagrees with. The fact that you might see analogs between your particular brand of theism and atheism does not make atheists theists.

Er... kay? Not what I said, nor want I intended? Can we remember this is a discussion thread now and leave the chips at the door?

 

[Bunyip]

I don't see how defaulting to a culturally neutral definition of god(s) instead of assuming what a person means by that term is "gymnastics."

Because it is an uneeded obfuscation, it prevents meaningful discussion. Inventing your own definition - one that does not even relate to the common understanding of the term is a feat of mental gymnastics that can only serve to obscure, rather than communicate.

Er... I frequently do? Even better is for people to specify what god-concept they're discussing.

That's what I said, much better than applying your extraordinarily self serving ajd insulting definition.

For the most part, though, if someone says "God" with proper case and a capital letter like that, I presume they mean the one-god of the classical monotheists. That's perhaps being generous, though, because many people fail to follow the rules of proper grammar and they don't realize that by putting god, capitalized, singular like that specifically designates the one-god.

Okay? Have a cookie? Thanks for your opinion? I don't care? You're reading stuff into what I said that isn't there? Have fun with that? This thread is not for debate, as the OP specified?

No idea why you are so consistently rude and aggressive. Cheer up. You were just defining atheism in a truly extraordinary way - one that you are clearly incapable and unwilling to defend, explain or justify.

 

[atanu]

"Inside every g*** is an American trying to get out." - Full Metal Jacket

The sentiment you're expressing here is no less chauvinistic and no less insulting.

Honestly, no chauvinism is evident to me. Is holding a view insulting to others?

 

[atanu]

Interesting nopology.

If I told you that to the extent that you're rational, you're an atheist, how would you take it?

Is this not what we hear all the time?

 

[Stevicus]

For Agnostics: How do you define God?

In a most general sense, I would define God (if such a being exists) as the "Boss of the Universe." I was also influenced by the Christian idea of God as an all-powerful, all-knowing entity.

Do you feel that agnosticism is because atheists or theists have made inadequate arguements? Or are you agnostic for reasons other than arguments for theism and atheism? (e.g. strong agnostics believing that the question of gods existence is insoluable in principle).

I don't think anyone can make adequate arguments based solely on speculation over things which can't be proven one way or another. If we're talking about a being who is in charge of the entire universe, then we have to concede that we're just microbes on a piece of dust floating in a place we know next to nothing about. And we've only just barely acquired the knowledge of how to leave our own planet.

We don't know if the universe was created by some intelligent entity, or if it's something that just happened...somehow. Even if we could solve that question (which we can't), it wouldn't automatically mean that life on Earth was created by the same entity which created the universe as a whole. Perhaps the human race and other life on Earth was created by some lesser entity just operating in this galaxy or solar system, and may not necessarily be all-powerful across the entire universe. Perhaps Earth's God may be nothing more than some kind of branch manager. Or maybe, on some higher dimensional plane, some kid is doing a science project, and humanity is nothing more than some bizarre side effect.

Or maybe none of the above. Who knows? I sure don't. I'm not convinced that anybody else knows either.

Perhaps, in time, humans may develop the technology to be able to explore more, to learn more, to discover more. If humans are convinced that they already know all they need to know, then learning and discovery stop.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Is this not what we hear all the time?

You don't hear it from me.

 

[Quintessence]

Because it is an uneeded obfuscation, it prevents meaningful discussion. Inventing your own definition - one that does not even relate to the common understanding of the term is a feat of mental gymnastics that can only serve to obscure, rather than communicate. That's what I said, much better than applying your extraordinarily self serving ajd insulting definition.

If that's what you think, then you are spectacularly missing the point of why I hold that baseline definition and are arguing against a strawperson. But since you didn't ask, it's for the reasons noted earlier - to avoid making assumptions about another person or culture's understanding of god(s) and keep the term inclusive rather than ethnocentric or exclusive. As soon as one starts talking to a specific person or about a specific culture, the understanding of god(s) narrows down from there. I have no problem having meaningful discussions with people by beginning with this baseline, nor does it "obfuscate" in any way for conversations I have. If you would have this problem, don't use my baseline. Nobody has asked you to do that here. Not sure what you're arguing about here, honestly (in a non-debate thread, no less).

You were just defining atheism in a truly extraordinary way - one that you are clearly incapable and unwilling to defend, explain or justify.

Yes, I am completely unwilling to "defend" a definition of atheism that I never actually presented or said in a thread that is not for debating. There's a shocker!

 

[steveb1]

I get the impression that Athiests tend to dominate the debates on RF, and that many theists get fed up of the atheist retort..."where's your proof!" I get the feeling that there is a major breakdown in communication between theists and atheists and that we are infact talking about completely different things and have very different ideas of what "proof" is. To test this theory I have provided a poll to see if a majority of atheists and theists would actually change their mind.

For Theists: How do you define God? What would convince you atheists were right? could you be convinced?

For Atheists: How do you define God?What would convince you theists were right? could you be convinced?

... (some content deleted)

"Proof" for most debaters means the same thing as scientific proof - pointing to an external physical phenomenon and confirming it by observation and peer review.
But in spiritual matters, proof means something different - i.e., an internal confirmation of nonmaterial realities.

The means of knowledge acquisition is the same across the domains, a three-step process:

Injunction: "if you want to know THIS / then DO THAT." If you want to know if Jupiter has moons, look through a telescope.
Experiment: Look through the telescope; take notes.
Conclusion: Share your data with others who have adequately performed the Injunction, i.e., peer review.

A similar three-step process is used in evidencing Spirit and things thereof, but unlike looking through a telescope, one looks through the myriad "lenses" that spiritual practices and traditions provide, e.g., contemplation, meditation, visualization, etc. One notes the experiences and consequent conclusions, then shares them with a community of others who have adequately performed the Injunction (e.g.,
What is God? What are the attributes of Spirit? Is Bodh a realm or a state? Are all things inherently Buddha-Nature? What remains after ego is transcended?, etc.) The only difference is that for the spiritual experiment, "Jupiter's moons" are not eternal objects, but rather states, entities and/or archetypal forms found within, and active inside, the subjective psyche.

So I would say that "proof" of God is impossible as long as God is defined similarly to Jupiter's moons, i.e., as objects that exist externally to the subject and which are apprehended only with the "eye of flesh"; whereas the end product of the spiritual knowledge-quest is an "object" that exists internally within the subject and is perceived by the awakened "eye of Spirit".

 

[LuisDantas]

Is this not what we hear all the time?

Perhaps. It is not often what is told you, though.