Why won't God go away?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is the last thing I want to do.

Good to hear.

"If the essence of God is unknowable, then belief in God without that knowledge is justifiable."

It is justifiable because it is unreasonable to expect to know what we cannot know.

If you can't know that God exists, then believing in God is unjustified. This is still true even if it's impossible to know that God exists.

It is also justifiable because we do not need to know the essence of God in order to believe in God.
If we had needed to know that God would have revealed it to us.
Also, humans would never be able to comprehend the essence of God, so why would God reveal that to us?

Begging the question.

Spoken like a true atheist...
Are you assuming that if God existed God would be observable and measurable?

Nope.

Either that or you are saying that unless God is observable and measurable you are not willing to believe God exists.

I'm saying that if God were to exist, there would be two possibilities:

1. God has measurable or observable effects on the world. These effects would be empirical evidence for God's existence. Belief in God could be justified by inference from that evidence.

2. God has no measurable or observable effects on the world. There would be no evidence to use to justify belief in God.

You've told me that case 1 is wrong, so we're in case 2... which leaves no way for belief in God to be justified rationally.

But do you understand that God could be an entity that is neither observable or measurable?

Sure. Positing such a god is called "making **** up."

We can come up with all sorts of claims that can't be proven or disproven by observation or measurement.

For instance, did you know that I'm a magical alien, only masquerading as a human? I do this very well, though - I'm indistinguishable from a regular human by any test you could run on me.

If God is such an entity then we can never observe or measure God. That is what the Bible says God is and Baha'i scriptures confirm that.

You're begging the question again.

Religious scriptures are useless to establish anything about God until you first demonstrate that the scriptures came from God.

Since, at this stage, you haven't even established that God exists, you certainly haven't demonstrated that the scriptures came from God.

I do not know what you meant by "God is irrelevant in every way we can measure." What do you mean by measure?

I mean what you said: "God is unobservable and unmeasurable."

IOW, nothing that would count as a measurement or observation of God can exist.

IOW, God has no observable or measurable effect on the physical universe.

IOW, in any observation or measurement we make, this universe is indistinguishable from a universe where God does not exist.

IOW, God is irrelevant to the physical universe, as far as we can measure or observe.

 

[PureX]

I don't...but clearly some people do and they seem (at least sometimes, at least in some respects) to have the weight of scientific and philosophical evidence (such as it is, scant as it may be), not to mention rational argument and healthy skepticism on their side

Well, they don't really have any of that, though. Keep in mind that any given man's idea or image of God is not God. So science proving that Jesus was almost certainly not a blue-eyed, honey haired caucasian man that was born of a virgin and ascended bodily into heaven, or that the world is older than in fact 6,000 years, or that faith healers are charlatans and crooks, etc., is not evidence or even a reasonable argument that God/gods don't exist. Because none of those images and stories and beliefs and behaviors associated with God, are God. So negating them is not negating God.

Because I care about other humans - don't you? I care about anything that other humans find significance in...at least when I'm trying to figure out why they find significance in it.

The only way you will ever understand it is as an act of faith. Faith, rightly applied, works. And that is why people engage in it. It's that simple.

I don't...where did I say I wanted anyone to do that? I'm asking, why, if God is not really real, have we collectively not found other pathways...?

Because God is "really real". But to understand this, you have to understand that reality is more than molecules and magnets (so to speak). Reality is our experience of being. It's physical, but it's also metaphysical.

Of course the answer might be that there are no other viable pathways to get those positive effects.

Yes, and a lot of humans simply do not have access to the wonder-cures of science, and medicine, and psychology, The elites tend to keep all that for themselves.

 

[Trailblazer]

If you can't know that God exists, then believing in God is unjustified. This is still true even if it's impossible to know that God exists.

I guess you mean that if you can't 'prove' that God exists then believing in God is unjustified?
I do know that God exists even though I cannot prove it, so my belief is justified to me.

I'm saying that if God were to exist, there would be two possibilities:

1. God has measurable or observable effects on the world. These effects would be empirical evidence for God's existence. Belief in God could be justified by inference from that evidence.

I believe that God has effects on the world. We can observe and measure these effects but we cannot be tie them back to God since we cannot observe God causing anything.

There is no empirical evidence for God's existence because God can never be observed.

You know what I always say is the evidence, the Messengers, who are both observable and measurable, but I don't want to get off on that subject again. Suffice to say that the Messengers cannot be tied back to God since there is no proof that God sent them, so what this all boils down to is that we either believe that came from God or not, based upon the evidence they provide.

2. God has no measurable or observable effects on the world. There would be no evidence to use to justify belief in God.

You've told me that case 1 is wrong, so we're in case 2... which leaves no way for belief in God to be justified rationally.

I believe that case 1 and case 2 are both partially correct, as noted above.

Sure. Positing such a god is called "making **** up."

I did not make it up, it comes from scriptures.

We can come up with all sorts of claims that can't be proven or disproven by observation or measurement.

That is true, but so what? Not all of us need observation or measurement.

You're begging the question again.

Religious scriptures are useless to establish anything about God until you first demonstrate that the scriptures came from God.

Since, at this stage, you haven't even established that God exists, you certainly haven't demonstrated that the scriptures came from God.

It can never be demonstrated that the scriptures came from God. That is a matter of belief and faith.
It can never be established as a fact that God exists. That is a matter of belief and faith.

I believe that God wants our faith, and that is one reason God does not offer proof of His existence. That is in the Bible.

Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who approaches Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him.

I mean what you said: "God is unobservable and unmeasurable."

IOW, nothing that would count as a measurement or observation of God can exist.

IOW, God has no observable or measurable effect on the physical universe.

IOW, in any observation or measurement we make, this universe is indistinguishable from a universe where God does not exist.

IOW, God is irrelevant to the physical universe, as far as we can measure or observe.

If there were no Messengers all of the above would be true.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I guess you mean that if you can't 'prove' that God exists then believing in God is unjustified?

No, I'm saying that belief in the "unobservable and unmeasurable" God you described can't be justified.

With this kind of God, not only is proof ruled out, but any evidence at all that points to God is ruled out as well.

I do know that God exists even though I cannot prove it, so my belief is justified to me.

How do you know that God exists, though?

I believe that God has effects on the world. We can observe and measure these effects but we cannot be tie them back to God since we cannot observe God causing anything.

But you tied them back to God. So are you wrong when you say that this can't be done, or are you being unreasonable?

There is no empirical evidence for God's existence because God can never be observed.

... which would make belief in God impossibleto justify rationally.

You know what I always say is the evidence, the Messengers, who are both observable and measurable, but I don't want to get off on that subject again.

Me neither.

As I've said many times before, a purported messenger is just some guy who claims to speak for God until you can establish that God actually sent him. But you can't do that without establishing that God exists in the first place, so "messengers" are useless for establishing the existence of God.

Suffice to say that the Messengers cannot be tied back to God since there is no proof that God sent them, so what this all boils down to is that we either believe that came from God or not, based upon the evidence they provide.

I believe that case 1 and case 2 are both partially correct, as noted above.

I don't see how what you said relates back to those two cases.

I did not make it up, it comes from scriptures.

I didn't say that you made it up; my point was that it was made up by someone.

That is true, but so what? Not all of us need observation or measurement.

Or reason, apparently.

It can never be demonstrated that the scriptures came from God. That is a matter of belief and faith.
It can never be established as a fact that God exists. That is a matter of belief and faith.

I believe that God wants our faith, and that is one reason God does not offer proof of His existence. That is in the Bible.

What's the practical difference between "belief and faith" and "gut feelings and wild-*** guesses"?

Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who approaches Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him.

If there were no Messengers all of the above would be true.

And there are no messengers. Not until you establish that they're really sent by God, anyhow... and you can't do that until you establish that there's a God who could send them.

 

[Trailblazer]

No, I'm saying that belief in the "unobservable and unmeasurable" God you described can't be justified.

With this kind of God, not only is proof ruled out, but any evidence at all that points to God is ruled out as well.

Proof is ruled out but any evidence at all that points to God is not ruled out.

How do you know that God exists, though?

Because of the evidence.

But you tied them back to God. So are you wrong when you say that this can't be done, or are you being unreasonable?

How do you think I tied the effects back to God?
I believe that God has effects upon the world but that does not mean I can know what those effects are and tie those effects back to God.

There is no empirical evidence for God's existence because God can never be observed.

... which would make belief in God impossible to justify rationally.

That might be true if there were no Messengers to observe. In that case I don't think that God would expect anyone to believe He exists.

As I've said many times before, a purported messenger is just some guy who claims to speak for God until you can establish that God actually sent him.

We have to establish that in our own minds and that is what God is expecting us to do, which is one reason God gave us a rational mind.

But you can't do that without establishing that God exists in the first place, so "messengers" are useless for establishing the existence of God.

You cannot establish that God exists 'in the first place' without the Messengers since the Messengers are needed to establish that God exists.
So what you have a catch-22.

I don't see how what you said relates back to those two cases.

Maybe you need to go back and read it again and tell me why it doesn't relate back.

I didn't say that you made it up; my point was that it was made up by someone.

I do not believe that scriptures are made up by men. I believe they are revealed by God to Messengers.
Some scriptures might be made up by man, but not all of them.

Or reason, apparently.

What is reasoned is a matter of opinion.

What's the practical difference between "belief and faith" and "gut feelings and wild-*** guesses"?

Gut feelings and wild-*** guesses are not justified by anything whereas belief and faith can be justified by evidence.

And there are no messengers. Not until you establish that they're really sent by God, anyhow... and you can't do that until you establish that there's a God who could send them.

Whether there are Messengers sent by God or not is not contingent upon whether they have been established to have been sent by God.
That is because reality is what exists, so if in reality God sent Messengers, it does not matter if we can establish that as a fact or not.

That Messengers are sent by God can never be established as a fact, it can only be believed, in which case we have established the belief in our own minds.

 

[Starise]

I think it's the hope and sense of security that belief in God provides that will prevent it from ever going away completely. Of course that doesn't mean the belief is true. I'm not convinced that anyone knows God or gods exist.

So can you explain your ungod? How can you be completely convinced beyond all doubt? For me, it's like sitting in the middle of the ocean and saying you don't believe water exists.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I think it's the hope and sense of security that belief in God provides that will prevent it from ever going away completely. Of course that doesn't mean the belief is true. I'm not convinced that anyone knows God or gods exist.

Its simply their religious themed mental puppet they had animated in their minds as a personal avatar where they pretend God is real and active in the non cerebral world.

Nothing less, nothing more.

 

[Twilight Hue]

So can you explain your ungod? How can you be completely convinced beyond all doubt? For me, it's like sitting in the middle of the ocean and saying you don't believe water exists.

Everyone already knows what water is. That would be a poor example to use in any type of defense or support for the belief in a god.

Besides you were definitely not a theist when you were born. That fact alone should tell you something.

 

[Starise]

Everyone already knows what water is. That would be a poor example to use in any type of defense or support for the belief in a god.

Besides you were definitely not a theist when you were born. That fact alone should tell you something.

I use lots of examples to try to describe how I see God and I think that one was apt for me. I have always known there was a god from the time I could reason.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I use lots of examples to try to describe how I see God and I think that one was apt for me. I have always known there was a god from the time I could reason.

And I agree for as long as it's in the proper context , that God is only present and alive in your mind , and it's entirely personal and none of it is applicable to anybody else but you alone.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So can you explain your ungod? How can you be completely convinced beyond all doubt? For me, it's like sitting in the middle of the ocean and saying you don't believe water exists.

My mental model of the universe includes no gods and agrees with experience very well.

It sounds like your mental model of the universe includes a god as a central feature. I'll assume you also think that your model agrees with experience very well.

This suggests that the difference between our mental models - i.e. the god you believe in - is irrelevant to what we experience. It doesn't improve the quality or predictive power of your mental model.

 

[PureX]

No, I'm saying that belief in the "unobservable and unmeasurable" God you described can't be justified.

Of course it can ... by the resultant effect of believing in it.

With this kind of God, not only is proof ruled out, but any evidence at all that points to God is ruled out as well.

That's false. There is a ton of evidence for the existence of God. In fact, EVERYTHING is evidence of it, ultimately. And your rejecting this assertion doesn't mean it's no longer evidence. It just means it's not evidence to you.

What's the practical difference between "belief and faith" and "gut feelings and wild-*** guesses"?

The practical difference is that faith recognizes the possibility of it's own error. Belief rejects it.

And there are no messengers. Not until you establish that they're really sent by God, anyhow... and you can't do that until you establish that there's a God who could send them.

Or perhaps we are ALL messengers of God. Just not all the time, or to everyone.

 

[PureX]

Its simply their religious themed mental puppet they had animated in their minds as a personal avatar where they pretend God is real and active in the non cerebral world.

Nothing less, nothing more.

And yet by acting on this “cerebral” God concept, it becomes an actual phenomenon in the non-cerebral world. Not unlike the “cerebral” concepts of value, or pattern recognition, or morality. Turns out that the “cerebral” realm is a rather big and influential part of the rest of the world We live in.

 

[wellwisher]

Well yes...assuming (for the sake of discussion) that God doesn't really exist, and fails to meet any reasonable test of logical or philosophical necessity (at least any more)...presumably his continued presence amongst us serves some utilitarian purpose...

...but what purpose? What use is God? What good does God achieve that could not be got by other (less costly) means?

As the Bible says, Adam and Eve ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil or law. Law is analogous to a magnet, in physics, that has both a south and a north pole. There are no magnetic monopoles, but rather if one pole is there, there other is also nearby, even if we cannot see it. They always come in connected pairs.

That being said, religion came first, since ancient times, and was seen as the good, so the evil or opposite was, implied but not yet seen. This led to Atheism. Since Atheism is now the antagonist, defining religion as evil, the other pole of good will also appear and makes new generations seek the good in religion even in a rational world. Atheism is feeding this dipole, more than religion is feeding this dipole.

The analogy is telling a child not to do something, such as drinking is bad; prohibition creates temptation; make the full magnet conscious; opposite pole appears. So what is sold as evil, may not look that bad due to the magnet, and your POV; north or south facing? Until the tree of knowledge of good and evil; law, is sealed, this polarization will remain in the collective unconscious; needs an update.

The best approach is to not make any value judgments of good and evil, right or wrong, better or worse, but to enjoy your own path and live and let live and even dabble in both; tree of life.

Psychology is not advance enough to understand human nature, but fixates on the ego and the magnet of social good and evil in terms of collective good. Jung was more advanced, but he used collective human symbolism, the best of which was from the world's religions, which was taboo among the Atheist living on the South Pole.

I like to visit both poles to be more complete, so I can get beyond the magnet, to the atom where now positive and negative can exist apart; monopoles, but opposites can also bind into one, to make something better then either; electrostatic analogy. Adam was the atom of hydrogen; proton and electron merge to start chemistry leading to life; tree of life.

 

[F1fan]

Why is it so difficult to make "God" go away?

Illusion and fantasy is easy. Reality and truth is hard.

Much of this human behavior is due to how the human brain evolved, and then how we shaped our societies over many millenniums.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Its simply their religious themed mental puppet they had animated in their minds as a personal avatar where they pretend God is real and active in the non cerebral world.

Nothing less, nothing more.

And you know this how?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Illusion and fantasy is easy. Reality and truth is hard.

Much of this human behavior is due to how the human brain evolved, and then how we shaped our societies over many millenniums.

Life is hard, for some more than others of course. But everybody suffers. Faith makes suffering easier to bear. Where is the virtue in unnecessary suffering?

 

[Twilight Hue]

And you know this how?

I don't need to know what is made so obvious by default. It's naturally made clear.

God lives only in people's minds and is found absolutely nowhere else.

That's just how it is and there's nothing you or anybody else can do to disprove that fact.

 

[F1fan]

Life is hard, for some more than others of course.

Right, and this motivates many to use fantasy and illusion to cope. Stronger, more resilient, personalities can function better without the common frameworks that soothe anxiety. Atheists have a great deal more freedom in life and don't have to manage superstition and non-rational religious belief.

But everybody suffers. Faith makes suffering easier to bear. Where is the virtue in unnecessary suffering?

I suffered being forced to go to church as a kid, and having to listen to untrue claims about Jesus and God. Church and religious belief is unnecessary for rational minds who understand what these concepts are in reality.

You are referring to copng strategies. Well not every single minute of life is unbearable. In fact with modernity and science we humans can build environments and lives that are quite comfortable. Believers make it sound as if they are in a constant state of misery, and the only thing that keeps them going is belief in whatever religious framework they learned as a child.

Unless you get terribly ill or face some trauma, or have a child that is ill, the need for coping via illusory belief isn't needed. Many religious people learn emotional dependency and helplessness, and this habit of belief sets in and, ironically, creates some of the suffering they thing religion offsets. Look at extremists like creationists, they have been taught false ideas about nature, and they know they hold views that are contrary to fact, science, and reality. THAT causes cognitive dissonance, and THAT is unnecessary suffering. They are trapped, and they are willing co-conspirators with a toxic society of belief. More religion can't save them from this toxic dogma, only reason and facing reality can.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I don't need to know what is made so obvious by default. It's naturally made clear.

God lives only in people's minds and is found absolutely nowhere else.

That's just how it is and there's nothing you or anybody else can do to disprove that fact.

And there’s nothing you can do to prove it, so on what basis are you calling your perception a fact?