You say that there is a god...

[nPeace]

What is a "god," anyway?

The term 'god' means 'mighty one', basically.

 

[SalixIncendium]

The term 'god' means 'mighty one', basically.

No, it doesn't.

god | Etymology of god by etymonline

"supreme being, deity; the Christian God; image of a god; godlike person," from… See origin and meaning of god.

www.etymonline.com

 

[ppp]

That is not caring about what I think of God. That is caring about how I might behave toward you.

You did not successfuly split that hair.

Then for you, the issue is closed. So why are you here? Your mind is made up, and you have no control over anyone else's. So what's your point?

You are making statements of dubious truth value, followed by questions with no warrant. I am not going to try to disentangle your assumptions for you.

 

[nPeace]

No, it doesn't.

god | Etymology of god by etymonline

"supreme being, deity; the Christian God; image of a god; godlike person," from… See origin and meaning of god.

www.etymonline.com

Old English? Hebrew was prior. Strong's Hebrew: 410. אֵל (el) -- God, in pl. gods

 

[Quintessence]

The way I read this, your question is not about god(s); it’s about a) what one can know in general and b) why one should believe what others claim themselves to “know”.

You have an epistemological question (a) and another one about reliability + authority (b). Both are valid questions, I’d say.

I’m assuming that your epistemological stance is materialist. Thus, one cannot know about gods because, if they exist, they’d be immaterial and not within what can be experienced?

Not all consider god(s) immaterial and above would not be an argument against them. They’d simply ask you why you think that god(s) must be immaterial and disagree with any reason you may provide.

Others may believe that gods are immaterial, but reject your materialist epistemological stance. They’d say that you are mistaken in that our experiences are limited to the material and ask why you believe this to be so. If they consider themself to experience beyond what is material, they’d be unlikely to accept any response you give, as it would go against what they consider themselves to experience.

Then, there is your question regarding authority [about what is and is not].

Again, I’m assuming that you are a person of our times and that as such, your main source of authority is science, with its current understanding of things? Hopefully, you are not one of those who accepts any random statement claiming to be scientific, without first looking further into what research a claim is truly based on, etc. because otherwise, you’d simply be using random “science” as some use their Bible - at face value, without any whatsoever critical reflection - in which case, you’d be what I’d consider a person of blind faith in what you are told is scientific.

Which brings us to your question about why we believe/don’t believe in what others say that they “know”. The answer is silly but nonetheless so: because we want/ don’t want to.

No one has the time and/or resources to personally experience everything in life at first hand and we’d be forever “reinventing the wheel” if we felt unable to rely on the witness of others.

Scientific research itself, too, relies on previous, reviewed studies and we trust that the ones that we choose to base our own research on, thereby indeed are valid and reliable; that they have been carried out in accordance with academic standards, reviewed and not tampered with. All knowledge production includes trust and faith.

Humbly,
Hermit

Just wanna say posts like this make me a touch annoyed the "winner" frubal is gone. So here's a proxy star for emphasis:

 

[SalixIncendium]

Old English? Hebrew was prior. Strong's Hebrew: 410. אֵל (el) -- God, in pl. gods

I'm sorry. I thought we were speaking English here.

But since you bring it up, It wasn't pronounced 'god' in Hebrew. It was pronounced 'el'.

Also, Abrahamic religions don't have exclusivity to the term 'god.' It's भगवान् (bhagavan) in Sanskrit. And I'm pretty sure Sanskrit predates Hebrew.

 

[Nakosis]

The dilemma is that how well educated and skilled at thinking are we when we start asking questions? Do we even understand social influence and peer pressure to believe norms like belief in God? How are we supposed to think we can assess possibilities of iodeas that have no actual facts?

That is likely true. As a said in a different post, exposure to alternate thinking could cause enough doubt to be a hindrance.

Here is an example, you hear others talk about what they claim to experience and you don't want to be left out. How does a self that wants to fit in and have the same experience as others know if they are having them or not? You're around people who are claiming to have a close, personal relationshi with Jesus, and you don't want to be a fraud. Maybe something's wrong with you because Jesus ain't talking back. Can you consider the possibility (since we are discussing possibilities) that people are mimicking experiences, and in essence creating their own profound experiences, and then convincing themselves theya re authentic? Is it possible? If so, what is the test in reality, and why would anyone risk being disappointed?

It is up to the individual to be honest with themselves. Although possible, I never came across someone that I know intentionally lying about their experience. However isn't kind of like Christians telling atheist that they are lying about their disbelief. How often do you think that happens?

We have to be very careful about what we experience. It's not just that we experience something, it is what we impose on experiencing something, and how we interpret it. Here's an example from my own life.

When I was 10 or 11 I was playing outside way after sundown a fall evening. It must have been a Saturday because it was late and we were all outside, maybe 4-6 of us kids. It was clear but no moon, it was really dark. And this was years ago before light pollution was a problem. Anyway someone mentioned they were hearing a hum. Then we all noticed it. We were looking at the sky and couldn't see anything. Then someone noticed that the stars were being blocked out by a large black mass. There was one small light on the bottom. We had all been hearing about UFOs being sighted. We all ran inside and got our parents and most of them came out. More neighbors came outside and we were al standing in the street looking at this mass hover over us. Our parents didn't know what to make of it. We kids were getting a bit upset and excited. It was unbelievable, these things are real. Weve read stories and here is one right over our houses. Someone said we should call the police. This thing was barely moving and radiating this hum. It was pitch black. And then they turned on the GOODYEAR sign.

A god damned blimp. We'd never seen one before. Apparently it was in town for the Chiefs football game the next day.

What if they never turned on the sign. Sure that is my point. People convince themselves enough of the reality that everything starts to get interpreted with this bias at a subconscious level. They don't even realize that this is what they are doing.

My point here is that had they not turned on the sign and the UFO just drifted to the horizon I would be certain that I experienced a genuine UFO. This is how we make sense of mundane experiences in ways that create meaning for ourselves. We take scraps of info and we can impose them onto what we observe and experience in a way that distorts the truth. I suggest many religious believers do this. And since so many do this it is mimicked by others, and this infectious mindset spreads as a method. Notice that @Moon said "look around" as if just looking informs us some fact about a supernatural being. It doesn't. Many believers overlay what they assume and want onto observations and experiences so their beliefs are reinforced and justified. I have stopped to look at a sunset and understand the awe that inspires some sort of deep connection. But I reel in the temptation of thinking "God" and enjoy the moment without manufacturing significance to it.

That my point really. We humans are able to convince ourselves of the reality of something to the point our mind interprets everything through that belief.

I had created an earlier thread about a new trend called shifting. Folks who are able to convince themselves of the reality of Harry Potter's world to the point that becomes their reality.

IDK, maybe it is not possible with some minds but it is possible with enough minds to start a trend.

 

[nPeace]

I'm sorry. I thought we were speaking English here.

But since you bring it up, It wasn't pronounced 'god' in Hebrew. It was pronounced 'el'.

Also, Abrahamic religions don't have exclusivity to the term 'god.' It's भगवान् (bhagavan) in Sanskrit. And I'm pretty sure Sanskrit predates Hebrew.

...and its meaning?

 

[nPeace]

What if they never turned on the sign. Sure that is my point. People convince themselves enough of the reality that everything starts to get interpreted with this bias at a subconscious level. They don't even realize that this is what they are doing.

That my point really. We humans are able to convince ourselves of the reality of something to the point our mind interprets everything through that belief.

Yes. Thus talking to such persons become impossible when they are only hearing themselves.

 

[Nakosis]

My point is that I do not have to start off by accepting the possibility. I can compltely and utterly reject the possibility. And then I can be brought to accept the possibility by an intellectually honest critical examination of the facts at hand, and a non-fallacious application of reason. It has happened before many times, and I would be surprised if it does not happen again.

There. Now you have founf it to work a different way than you expect. Will you adjust to the new information? Or are you closed to the possibility.

Yes, I am pretty closed to the possibility. To me that would mean you'd have to use science. I've found science doesn't really care much about what you want to believe. I'd think you have to believe that science is vacuous to accept "spiritual" reality. Perhaps possible but I imagine really difficult to hold onto both mindsets.

Of course, I did. I had a great many experiences that I attributed to the Holy Spirit. But the problem is that the only reason that I had the concept f a Holy Spirit is that I was given that concept by my religion. There was no where independent of people saying that Experience X was the Holy Spirit for me to confirm that any of them new what they were talking about. Nor that I knew what I was talking about.

No independent "group" of people?
What, you didn't want to be part of the special crowd that held the truth? One of the few people in the know?

If all 8 billion people on Earth (including you and me) say that Experience X is an experience of the Holy Spirit, how do we confirm that we are correct?

Science.
Well it seems you questioned yourself. The truth of what you yourself experienced. Do you know what caused you to do that?
I've found very few believers that questioned the truth of what they've experienced for themselves.
Science gets us around that but if you never really accept the process of science I'm not sure how your thinking gets to that point.

No. I was from a small southern (US) town of 6000 people in the 70s. I knew nothing of skepticism or atheism. I had to derive it on my own.

Perhaps you are an outlier.

 

[Nakosis]

Yes. Thus talking to such persons become impossible when they are only hearing themselves.

Like I said in another post. That is why you need science to get around your own bias.

 

[SalixIncendium]

...and it's meaning?

In English? ‘Lord’ or ‘God’.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

Just wanna say posts like this make me a touch annoyed the "winner" frubal is gone. So here's a proxy star for emphasis:

Bless you @Quintessence, that’s very kind of you.

Humbly,
Hermit

 

[nPeace]

Like I said in another post. That is why you need science to get around your own bias.

Scientists are men. They, like everyone else are not immune to preconceived ideas and bias.
You would disagree?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I believe to know know know Him is to love love love Him and I do.

Can someone truly love something they don’t understand?

 

[nPeace]

In English? ‘Lord’ or ‘God’.

The Hebrews understood God to mean ‘Lord’ or ‘God’?

 

[Nakosis]

Scientists are men. They, like everyone else are not immune to preconceived ideas and bias.
You would disagree?

Exactly, they are men. That is why every theory, premise, claim is subject to peer review.
We can't rely on our own observations/experiences.

Your theories/claims only survive if everyone who has tried to disprove it has failed.

 

[nPeace]

Can someone truly love something they don’t understand?

When you say don't understand, I suppose you mean don't understand everything about.
For example, a man may not fully understand a woman, but that won't prevent him from loving her.
I loved sunsets when I was very young. I didn't understand anything about them until I got older.

 

[ppp]

Yes, I am pretty closed to the possibility. To me that would mean you'd have to use science. I've found science doesn't really care much about what you want to believe. I'd think you have to believe that science is vacuous to accept "spiritual" reality. Perhaps possible but I imagine really difficult to hold onto both mindsets.

I am sorry, but I am not tracking what you are saying there.

No independent "group" of people?
What, you didn't want to be part of the special crowd that held the truth? One of the few people in the know?

I didn;t say "group". Why on Earth did you inject that? Stop that. I said, No where independent of people. If people tell me that ducks quack, I can go look at a duck (independent of people) to verify the quackiness.

Science.

You think so? I would beg to differ on the grounds that the "Holy Spirit" is a non-falifiable hypothesis, and that Science is methodological naturalism which excludes it from examining non-natural phenomenon. Of course this does not give the Holy Spirit a pass for credibility. It just makes those who are claiming the existence of such non-credible.

Perhaps you are an outlier.

Perhaps. But we had discussion groups on NCREN in the early 80s and later the alt.atheist usenet group in 1990. WHile there was a lot of diversity, I was hardly unusual in my stance.

 

[nPeace]

Exactly, they are men. That is why every theory, premise, claim is subject to peer review.
We can't rely on our own observations/experiences.

That doesn't prevent biases. Did you read any of the links?

Your theories/claims only survive if everyone who has tried to disprove it has failed.

Not true. Go back over a century of history of science, and work forward to the present.
You should see that your "perfect" worldview is just make-believe.

Even if you were to say, it's only in some cases, that applies equally with everyone else... including me.