oh wait now i see. brb.

On the contrary. More space should be given to individual experience without the need for explaining why. — Valentinus

Amen (the user) was saying he hypothetically might have saw God or diety, what is wrong with sharing that experience? I suppose you might say such things are so flippant that they aren't worth emphasizing by religionists.

i guess thats fair.

One way to look at it is that the language of the mystics will never square with that of those who are interested in the boundary between the possible and what have you.
For myself, the two registers are too far apart to have an argument with each other.
But others do not feel or think that way.
My point of view is not close enough to others to make an argument either way.
I accept the criticism that such a point of view doesn't try to sort out a lot of issues.
But I own that lack of clarity. I don't blow it off as unimportant.

One way to look at it is that the language of the mystics will never square with that of those who are interested in the boundary between the possible and what have you.
For myself, the two registers are too far apart to have an argument with each other.
But others do not feel or think that way.
My point of view is not close enough to others to make an argument either way.
I accept the criticism that such a point of view doesn't try to sort out a lot of issues.
But I own that lack of clarity. I don't blow it off as unimportant. — Valentinus

i more or less agree.

So for the 101 student, what are people looking for to prove God's existence? What domains of Philosophy are appropriate? What domains of Science are appropriate? — 3017amen

In a word: power. And that means prediction and control. We care about what can help or harm us. Feed the hungry. Foil the tyrant. Heal the sick. To an unbeliever like myself, religion taken literally looks like wishful thinking. I wish there was a benevolent god. It's such a nice idea that I'm amazed I haven't let myself believe it without evidence. The skeptical path is a dark one. It's a manifestation of elitism through a 'dietary restriction' (what the mind will accept as reliable.)

(and yes i do believe in evolution). — christian2017

"Believe in" it, huh?

(and yes i do believe in evolution).
— christian2017

"Believe in" it, huh? — Frank Apisa

accepting and believing are both spectrums, and these are two spectrums with very similar meanings atleast in the case when they are used in certain contexts.

I could have said "i accept evolution" or "i accept the theory of evolution" or "i accept that the theory of evolution is true".

So for the 101 student, what are people looking for to prove God's existence? What domains of Philosophy are appropriate? What domains of Science are appropriate?
— 3017amen

In a word: power. And that means prediction and control. We care about what can help or harm us. Feed the hungry. Foil the tyrant. Heal the sick. To an unbeliever like myself, religion taken literally looks like wishful thinking. I wish there was a benevolent god. It's such a nice idea that I'm amazed I haven't let myself believe it without evidence. The skeptical path is a dark one. It's a manifestation of elitism through a 'dietary restriction' (what the mind will accept as reliable.) — jjAmEs

Perhaps at one time to be an atheist or agnostic was being a rebel, however in this day and age such people are dime a dozen. The two main characters in the movie "Juno" describe most people who come out of high school in America.

But i should say being a rebel or different doesn't neccesarily equate to being an ethical person.

christian2017
1.2k
(and yes i do believe in evolution).
— christian2017

"Believe in" it, huh?
— Frank Apisa

accepting and believing are both spectrums, and these are two spectrums with very similar meanings atleast in the case when they are used in certain contexts.

I could have said "i accept evolution" or "i accept the theory of evolution" or "i accept that the theory of evolution is true". — christian2017

It does seem as though the theory of evolution has a lot going for it. My guess would be that where we are not...where all living things are now...evolved from some earlier forms.

That "believe in" construct just sits so poorly with me, I mention it from time to time.

We have had this discussion before but what the heck, let's try again. Maybe it will get better.

If you are having conversations with God, what is there to prove? The whole thing about proof, as something that people do, is to make something necessary beyond any doubt. If God starts talking to me in clear language that my tiny mind understands, it will be life changing and incommunicable to others. Other people don't want to hear about the good time I am having with God.

And I don't blame them for their resentment. It is really annoying to have other people claim a relation to stuff that others don't feel, share, or understand.

What could make for a different outcome? — Valentinus

Valentinus!

I don't quite remember the previous discussion, but in any case I agree with your premise.

Once more, there are plenty of illusionary and/or mysterious things in life that seem real (paradoxical: time, conscious existence, abstract truth's, etc.) and so I never understood why an atheist could feel comfortable with their position. It actually seems a bit ignorant, considering all the knowledge out there. Perhaps their inability to disprove that a God exists results in that resentment you mentioned...

For example, if someone has a William James 'religious experience' (as you alluded), that is real to them. That is their truth; their experience of God, whatever that would comprise phenomenologically...

And so, I can't really answer your question about what would make a different outcome(?)

You can't prove God by reference to empirical evidence because if you did, you would be misunderstanding the epistemological method for believing in God, which is through faith alone. — Hanover

Hanover!

Thank you for those thoughts, relative to the distinctions of Faith v. experience that is... . I agree with you for the most part. However, if one did not have the ability to experience actual experience itself (or experience empirical evidence), then there would be no reason to believe through say, inductive reasoning, that phenomenal happenstance actually exists. Pragmatically, that has value and a purpose. It helps to provide for a meaning. Otherwise, we are just brains in a jar, pontificating about something or another. So, we can embrace experience as a meaningful thing.

Conversely, you mentioned the sense of wonderment (that exists a priori without experience). That in itself is a metaphysical property of consciousness (conscious existence). An innate thing that we have which has no biological/evolutionary advantages. And so yes, I would agree, that in itself, could lead to a cognitive feeling or justification of a faith. Similar to the other synthetic a priori judgements like : all events must have a cause.

Of course Kant believed in those innate structures of thought from consciousness, however, we know he never took the Kierkegaardian leap of faith.

I'm okay with the paradigms of Faith, Hope, and Love. What would Darwin say about those metaphysical properties of conscious existence, I wonder :cool:

That "believe in" construct just sits so poorly with me, I mention it from time to time. — Frank Apisa

Frank!

I realize that word 'Belief' gets under your skin. It would be intriguing to explore some of the reasons with you, as I don't recall us ever chatting or reading about that... . Can you elaborate on your contempt of same?

I could have said "i accept evolution" or "i accept the theory of evolution" or "i accept that the theory of evolution is true". — christian2017

Christian!

I get a sense that you are opposed to the dichotomization of creation and evolution. Can they co-exist? For instance, in a similar fashion, theoretical physicist Paul Davies has a theory about the concept of a di-polar God, are you familiar with that?

3017amen
1.5k
That "believe in" construct just sits so poorly with me, I mention it from time to time.
— Frank Apisa

Frank!

I realize that word 'Belief' gets under your skin. It would be intriguing to explore some of the reasons with you, as I don't recall us ever chatting or reading about that... . Can you elaborate on your contempt of same? — 3017amen

Most of the time the words "believe/belief" don't bother me at all. "I 'believe' I'll take a wizz before heading to the store" is not gonna faze me a bit. "I 'believe' the GIANTS are gonna have a great season"...is fine with me.

But in a Philosophy forum...when matters of the true nature of the REALITY of existence are being discussed, I think the words are inappropriate.

For instance, a person saying, "I believe there are no gods" is really saying, "It is my blind guess that no gods exist."

Why not say it that way? Why disguise it?

That give you a taste of my distaste of the words. If you want to travel further down this path, we can do so. Not sure it is appropriate for this thread, though.

In a word: power. And that means prediction and control. We care about what can help or harm us. Feed the hungry. Foil the tyrant. Heal the sick. To an unbeliever like myself, religion taken literally looks like wishful thinking. I wish there was a benevolent god. It's such a nice idea that I'm amazed I haven't let myself believe it without evidence. The skeptical path is a dark one. It's a manifestation of elitism through a 'dietary restriction' (what the mind will accept as reliable.)

Am!

Just so I understand, was the answer to that question in the OP, comprise your forgoing thoughts about religious paradigm's or dogma or fundamentalism, etc. etc.?

I could have said "i accept evolution" or "i accept the theory of evolution" or "i accept that the theory of evolution is true".
— christian2017

Christian!

I get a sense that you are opposed to the dichotomization of creation and evolution. Can they co-exist? For instance, in a similar fashion, theoretical physicist Paul Davies has a theory about the concept of a di-polar God, are you familiar with that? — 3017amen

Since you are a Christian, i can't be accused of evangelizing and break forum rules so

Genesis chapter 2, KJV, ESV, New Arabic version, and also Hebrew all point to an old earth. Are you familiar with time dilation or special relativity?

Proverbs chapter 1 KJV says we need to embrace spectrum and also dark sayings (as in deep and heavily implicit statements).

Job chapter 12 says "speak to the earth and it will teach you"

Job also says that God/Jesus Christ created the universe or earth with tremendous wizdom which would imply it took a long time or his thoughts raced through his head and he ran a ridicoulous number of scenarios to produce the wizdom to make heavens (universe) and the earth the way it is.

There is also the cliche verse from the new testament "a day is a 1000 years and a 1000 years is a day for God"

Then there is the verse out of the book of Hebrews that says if we do XYZ we can enter into God's 7th day which implies his 7th day isn't a 24 hour day.

One of the words for day in Hebrew is Yom, yom is not neccesarily a 24 hour day. I believe yom is used in genesis 1 and 2.

Back in my Yom (day), we had to walk up hill both ways and we didn't have shoes. Are you familiar with that joke or cliche?

Evolution while possibly might not be the reality of everything does not break whatsoever with either the old testament nor the new testament, unless you can prove otherwise.

also check out genesis chapter 1 & possibly do a google translate of genesis chapter 2 for new arabic version NAV.

In any of the versions i mentioned before pay attention genesis 2:4 and i think maybe genesis 2:7 (not sure about 2:7 because its been a while). You should read the whole chapter.

Once again because you are a Christian this can't be classified as evangelizing.

in a Philosophy forum...when matters of the true nature of the REALITY of existence are being discussed, I think the words are inappropriate. — Frank Apisa

Frank!

Well, I get it, sort of... . I mean I get the ambiguous usage.

And it's okay to parse the meaning of belief because in my opinion it is still germaine. It seems to me that faith and belief are closely related. For example, at the risk of redundancy, the Kantian judgment that all events must have a cause, is based on an element of faith or belief, or something...

And the so-called pragmatics of that proposition or judgement (or irony in the case of the atheist), is the essence of , or what drives the logic, behind thoretical physics. In other words, most all physical theories start with a synthetic premise. A premise that can be tested. Part of the scientific method.

So there is some sort of belief system at work in our consciousness...

It seems to me that faith and belief are closely related. — 3017amen

I agree with this. They are related.

"Belief" (in the context we are discussing) is a blind guess about the unknown.

"Faith" is INSISTING that the blind guess is correct.

Insisting is what one does to others. I insist to you that my belief or faith is correct. But that is not inherent in faith. One can have quietly and asocially faith in something.

Here's the so-called definition standards:

Belief:
1.an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.

"his belief in the value of hard work" ·
synonyms:

guess · speculation · surmise · fancy · notion · suspicion · presumption ·

•something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.

"we're prepared to fight for our beliefs" ·
synonyms:

opinion · view · viewpoint · point of view · attitude · stance · stand ·
•a religious conviction.

"Christian beliefs" ·
synonyms:

ideology · principle · ideal · ethic · conviction · doctrine · teaching · dogma · tenet · canon · article of faith · credence · creed · credo · code of belief

2.
(belief in)

trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.

"a belief in democratic politics" ·

Faith:
1.complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

"this restores one's faith in politicians"
synonyms:

trust · belief · confidence · conviction · credence · reliance · dependence · optimism · hopefulness · hope · expectation

2.strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

"bereaved people who have shown supreme faith"
synonyms:

religion · church · sect · denomination · persuasion · religious persuasion · religious belief · belief · code of belief · ideology · creed · teaching · dogma · doctrine

•a system of religious belief.

"the Christian faith"
synonyms:

religion · religious belief(s) · religious persuasion · religious conviction ·

•a strongly held belief or theory.

"the faith that life will expand until it fills the universe"


Frank!

I don't think Belief is a blind guess. Belief, in the context we are discussing (synthetic a priori statements/judgements) are not blind in the sense of what is referred to as a person having blind faith. A belief is both an innate sense of something (an idea existing), along with some empirical evidence that infers existence or possibility. Life without a belief system, or life without a system of beliefs, would not allow our sense of wonderment to flourish. Flourish in the context of scientific discovery, advanced cognition, and other quality of life (meaning/purpose) features of conscious existence.

Now all that relates back to metaphysical elements of consciousness which transcends Darwinism, yes?

I don't think Belief is a blind guess. — 3017amen

You don't, huh?

Okay.

On the question, "Does at least one god exist...or do no gods exist?"...

...tell me how a response in either direction is NOT a blind guess?

There is absolutely nothing one can do to answer that question...except to make a blind guess. One could just as easily flip a coin.

No I don't. Philosophically, you could say belief is all part of a justified true belief, belief system.

If I tell you I saw God, or had a religious experience, would you believe me? If I read that someone saw God in a history book, or had a religious experience in a history book, should I believe them? What if the teacher teaches me, a something; is that true?

Faith would be trusting what I said, or what I read, is true. Which begs the question, what is true? (What does truth really mean.)

Thoughts?

Not sure what to say...you are moving all over the place rather than discussing a single issue.

I am saying that a statement like "I 'believe' there are no gods"...is nothing more than a blind guess about whether any gods exist or not.

I also am saying that a statement like "I 'believe' (in) God" also is nothing more than a blind guess about whether any gods exist or not.

You seem to disagree.

If you are...tell me how either of those statements is NOT a blind guess.

It seems to me that faith and belief are closely related.
— 3017amen

I agree with this. They are related.

"Belief" (in the context we are discussing) is a blind guess about the unknown.

"Faith" is INSISTING that the blind guess is correct. — Frank Apisa

"i have faith that my mother will get the job"

Mom went to school for x years and got y certificates.

Mom is not a crack head

To some extent Mom is qualified for the job.

This type of faith (a very common faith) is not blind faith. not all faith is blind faith.

"IN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT WE ARE DISCUSSING!"

I have written those words several times in this thread.

I am discussing people using the words "believe/belief" and "faith" IN THE CONTEXT OF A DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT DOES OR DOES NOT EXIST IN THE REALITY OF EXISTENCE.

It really has nothing to do with your mother, Christian. Surely she is a fine woman...learned, educated...and not a crack-head. I hope she gets the job.

"IN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT WE ARE DISCUSSING!"

I have written those words several times in this thread.

I am discussing people using the words "believe/belief" and "faith" IN THE CONTEXT OF A DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT DOES OR DOES NOT EXIST IN THE REALITY OF EXISTENCE.

It really has nothing to do with your mother, Christian. Surely she is a fine woman...learned, educated...and not a crack-head. I hope she gets the job. — Frank Apisa

thanks she got the job! She is a cocktail waitress at the bunny ranch in Nevada.

God doesn't exist.

If the multiverse exists, then what you're mis-understanding as God is actually community.

You project that some immaterial form exists.

This may be so, but why would it encompass all of the universe and work alone? Isn't that better a 2 man job? So God is less significant than you'd first thought.

The moderators of existence are just that.

Member 'of existence' is a more crucial topic.

How things can exist. How the universe came to be. Etc. All fall into that category.

It isn't all reduced to one being, but perhaps one, or multiple types of being are involved in the creation of simulation. That's a species, not a deity.

sure what to say...you are moving all over the place rather than discussing a single issue. — Frank Apisa

Well Frank, this subject is not for the faint of hearts. It's quite comprehensive. Think of it this way, virtually all domains of Philosophy invoke God. So, that didn't come from me, it came from Philosophy :gasp:

You seem to disagree.

If you are...tell me how either of those statements is NOT a blind guess. — Frank Apisa

I'm trying to, you're not listening Frank. Let's start with this train of thought:

If I tell you I saw God, or had a religious experience, would you believe me? If I read that someone saw God in a history book, or had a religious experience in a history book, should I believe them? What if the teacher teaches me, a something; is that true?

God doesn't exist. — wiyte

Are you sure?

You project that some immaterial form exists. — wiyte

What is; wonder, the will, colors, love, sentience, music, mathematics, change, and of course, consciousness? (What is the nature of those things and can they be explained logically without paradox?) Is that/those things metaphysical or material?

How things can exist. How the universe came to be. Etc. All fall into that category.

It isn't all reduced to one being, but perhaps one, or multiple types of being are involved in the creation of simulation. That's a species, not a deity.

I'm not following you exactly there...I guess I'll ask the rhetorical question; how do things exist? (Through what methodology, axiom, or domain of Philosophy & Science?)