What makes religious people convienced that god(s) exist?

[waitasec]

So what indicators tell us that "love," which has so many implications, can be interpreted in so many ways, and described by so many words--none of which capture the wholeness of the experience--has an objective existence?

i want to make sure i understand your question
are you asking me:

what indicators tell us that "love" has an objective existence?

 

[Willamena]

i want to make sure i understand your question
are you asking me:

what indicators tell us that "love" has an objective existence?

It was a rhetorical question, but you can answer it if you want.

If two or more people can back up the existence of "love" with reciprocation of feeling, gestures of affection, words of endearment--all these things that are done just to express an experience of love that is being felt by each--then what is so improbable that a God exists that people have experienced?

 

[waitasec]

It was a rhetorical question, but you can answer it if you want.

If two or more people can back up the existence of "love" with reciprocation of feeling, gestures of affection, words of endearment--all these things that are done just to express an experience of love that is being felt by each--then what is so improbable that a God exists that people have experienced?

the idea of god reciprocating anything requires a fair amount of evidence...
the evidence someone feels something isn't what i am questioning...of course some feel something...but is what they are feeling something that can be objectively understood...of course not.

it's like saying.."i prayed for this or that" and the person got what they wanted ONLY because god showed them he loves them while others pray and do not get what they asked for...then god is showing them he loves them by teaching them a lesson...
anything goes with this sort of thinking....

i don't get it.

 

[Willamena]

the idea of god reciprocating anything requires a fair amount of evidence...
the evidence someone feels something isn't what i am questioning...of course some feel something...but is what they are feeling something that can be objectively understood...of course not.

it's like saying.."i prayed for this or that" and the person got what they wanted ONLY because god showed them he loves them while others pray and do not get what they asked for...then god is showing them he loves them by teaching them a lesson...
anything goes with this sort of thinking....

i don't get it.

"Love" is reciprocated. The indicators of "God" can be other than reciprocation. The idea, though, is that there are/can be indicators that point to existence.

I guess I don't know what you mean by "objectively understood."

 

[waitasec]

"Love" is reciprocated. The indicators of "God" can be other than reciprocation. The idea, though, is that there are/can be indicators that point to existence.

I guess I don't know what you mean by "objectively understood."

these expressions would support love as objectively understood:
gestures of affection, words of endearment etc...

however the gestures of affection or words of endearment coming from god are subjectively understood... by the nature of how god is understood.

throw a ball towards a hoop enough times and you'll eventually make a basket

 

[Willamena]

these expressions would support love as objectively understood:
gestures of affection, words of endearment etc...

Those are indications of love that people give to each other to express the love that they are experiencing.

however the gestures of affection or words of endearment coming from god are subjectively understood... by the nature of how god is understood.

That might be interpreted as an indication of god's love... but that's not what is being talked about here. We're talking about an experience of god. Indicators of god.

Not whether a god loves you or you love it.

 

[waitasec]

That might be interpreted as an indication of god's love... but that's not what is being talked about here. We're talking about an experience of god. Indicators of god.

Not whether a god loves you or you love it.

an experience or an indicator of god is subjectively understood...

 

[javajo]

See, this is what I am interested in hearing about.
Can you be more specific?

Wow, this thread has gone crazy! Um, just that I believe God has been with me in all the troubles and situations I have faced in life and is with me in some of the things I am going through now dealing with some jacked up stuff. He always gives me the grace or strength to get me through whatever I'm challenged with and he is so merciful and kind to me as well. And when I do wrong, his loving and merciful yet firm correction is always there, too. I'm just amazed at how God takes such good care of me even though I don't deserve it. But that's my God of wonder and love, whom the heavens and the heaven of heavens cannot contain.

 

[Orias]

I'm doubt that core beliefs are necessarilly based on feelings but, rather, on something more instinctual.

Like feelings?

 

[Orias]

I am afraid you have lost me completely.

How does this relate to people not being able to explain about any exparience they have had involving their god(s)?

Do you see the atheistic POV as more reliable concerning people's experience with God?

Would you let an electrician do a plumbers job? I think its rather simple, and I don't mean to offend, but the electrician (or the theist in this case) will not explain the basics of his understanding to a plumber. Because the plumber doesn't care to know the basics of the electricians job, because he is a plumber. So the electrician will exercise his understanding of his job, to perform it. Unless the plumber is seeking to become an electrician, but then he's not a plumber, nor is he an electrician, yet.

In this case, the electrician's (the theist's) understanding of his job will allow him to perform it better, rather than a plumber (the atheist) trying to do the electrician's job.

If you're not all there yet don't worry, I always have a backup!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do you see the atheistic POV as more reliable concerning people's experience with God?

Would you let an electrician do a plumbers job? I think its rather simple, and I don't mean to offend, but the electrician (or the theist in this case) will not explain the basics of his understanding to a plumber. Because the plumber doesn't care to know the basics of the electricians job, because he is a plumber. So the electrician will exercise his understanding of his job, to perform it. Unless the plumber is seeking to become an electrician, but then he's not a plumber, nor is he an electrician, yet.

In this case, the electrician's (the theist's) understanding of his job will allow him to perform it better, rather than a plumber (the atheist) trying to do the electrician's job.

If you're not all there yet don't worry, I always have a backup!

Your analogy is really strained. I've worked with electricians, plumbers, and all sorts of other contractors. They all talk to each other about their work. In fact, they have to have a general understanding of the other's work in order to do their own work.

 

[waitasec]

Wow, this thread has gone crazy! Um, just that I believe God has been with me in all the troubles and situations I have faced in life and is with me in some of the things I am going through now dealing with some jacked up stuff.

ok...and???

He always gives me the grace or strength to get me through whatever I'm challenged with and he is so merciful and kind to me as well. And when I do wrong, his loving and merciful yet firm correction is always there, too.

yes and???

I'm just amazed at how God takes such good care of me even though I don't deserve it. But that's my God of wonder and love, whom the heavens and the heaven of heavens cannot contain.

funny how that seems to work for a lot of people that don't believe...


i see no difference....but i'm happy for you are you happy for me?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nature. #1

1 [mass noun] the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations

So that's what you meant by "nature" when you said this?

Nature is an expression of the model working. It's not been tested, because it can't be tested. Nature exists by virtue of our belief in a particular understanding: once we see the model working, this supports our idea, and we become more certain in our belief.

Earlier you said that a God that is a superfluous piece of the model is not a god concept you believe anyone would invest in. Is nature superfluous to the model?

If so, I can't help but wonder why you think "the phenomena of the physical world" can't be tested.

 

[Orias]

Your analogy is really strained. I've worked with electricians, plumbers, and all sorts of other contractors. They all talk to each other about their work. In fact, they have to have a general understanding of the other's work in order to do their own work.

I understand this.

But there is a reason why a plumber is a plumber and not an electrician. And people don't generally tend to go a specialist to gain a general understanding, thats what schooling is for.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I understand this.

But there is a reason why a plumber is a plumber and not an electrician. And people don't generally tend to go a specialist to gain a general understanding, thats what schooling is for.

You know, at this point, I don't know what you're trying to argue. Your analogy isn't working, so why not explain in direct language?

 

[lunakilo]

i equate exist with objective understanding...

the best way i can explain that is:
X is objective understanding
Y is not.
i feel X...this is a true statement.
i feel X is Y...is a subjective statement
unless Y is backed up by X

does that make sense?

I don't understand why exists has anytjing to do with objective understanding as long as it only has to do with conviencing yourself.

If it has to do with convincing others, then yes.

 

[lunakilo]

X = love

In what manner would X be backed up if you were the only person in the universe?

If you were the only person in the universe objective = subjective.

That is:
<love> is objective understanding
Y is not. (but it is since subjective=objective, so this means Y is objective understanding)
i feel <love>...this is a true statement.
i feel <love> is Y...is a objective statement

or something like that

So if you are the only person in the universe why is love relevant?

 

[lunakilo]

Wow, this thread has gone crazy! Um, just that I believe God has been with me in all the troubles and situations I have faced in life and is with me in some of the things I am going through now dealing with some jacked up stuff. He always gives me the grace or strength to get me through whatever I'm challenged with and he is so merciful and kind to me as well. And when I do wrong, his loving and merciful yet firm correction is always there, too. I'm just amazed at how God takes such good care of me even though I don't deserve it. But that's my God of wonder and love, whom the heavens and the heaven of heavens cannot contain.

Sounds like a nice guy to have by your side

What I would really like to know is HOW God is with you.
I assume he doesn't show up in person and hands you a 100$ note when you have run out of money, so how does he manifest himself?

 

[lunakilo]

Do you see the atheistic POV as more reliable concerning people's experience with God?

More reliable than what?
I think the account of the people having the experience is more reliable than the account of people who have not.
I doubt many atheists have had any experiences with any deities

Would you let an electrician do a plumbers job? I think its rather simple, and I don't mean to offend, but the electrician (or the theist in this case) will not explain the basics of his understanding to a plumber. Because the plumber doesn't care to know the basics of the electricians job, because he is a plumber. So the electrician will exercise his understanding of his job, to perform it. Unless the plumber is seeking to become an electrician, but then he's not a plumber, nor is he an electrician, yet.

In this case, the electrician's (the theist's) understanding of his job will allow him to perform it better, rather than a plumber (the atheist) trying to do the electrician's job.

"but the electrician (or the theist in this case) will not explain the basics of his understanding to a plumber. Because the plumber doesn't care to know the basics of the electricians job, because he is a plumber."

But that is wrong. What is happening is exactly that the plumber (or in this case the atheist) is asking the electrician (or the theist in this case) will not explain the basics of his understanding because the plumber DOES care.

The plumber is not looking to become an electrician, just trying to understand what it is to be an electrician.

(why are we speaking in parables by the way? )

If you're not all there yet don't worry, I always have a backup!

Backups are good

 

[Orias]

You know, at this point, I don't know what you're trying to argue. Your analogy isn't working, so why not explain in direct language?

My point is why would an electrician (a theist) do a plumber's (an atheist) job, and vice versa? Do you think the atheistic POV is credible when asked what the theist experience is like?

The plumber is not looking to become an electrician, just trying to understand what it is to be an electrician.

How could he actually understand what its like to be if he's not?

Are you saying we are capable of experiencing without actually experiencing?