That people can arrive to the concept of theism, but also spirituality, without death. They can use love or sex (as in tantric sex which is spirituality development through sex from the Hindu tradition) — Shwah

An interesting viewpoint Shwah. I cant perceive the path you suggest myself without the 'termination'/oblivion threat. I remember a line from a poem.

'It was the sweetest berry he had every tasted.'

That was because he was hanging of the edge of a cliff and was about to plunge to his death.

Another was a scene from Babylon 5, which portrayed a character who was 'the first one.' The first thinking lifeform ever created in the Universe and he was an or thee Immortal. In the scene he makes the comment.

"Only those who have a short lifespan can perceive that love is eternal, you should enjoy that wonderful illusion as it is transitory."

I know this came from the mind of a writer but it rings true to me.

"Good evidence" is doing a lot of work - the wiki says empirically unfalsifiable which can be reworded as unverifiable here. Belief entails "good evidence" for the believer so it's immaterial here.

Anyway, again, thanks for the interesting extension to our initial exchange.
I will make room for @Tom Storm as he can take you on a more philosophical direction than I can.

I think fear can lead to it and I think death is the best expositor of fear for all creatures mostly. I personally don't think "death" is a thing so much as it's the absence of life (when your body stops working). I don't think death is a tangible or intangible object or energy which spreads over people. I think that's why I defined the beginnings of religions/spirituality/etc in terms of love (and the loss/absence of it). It seems to be a verifiable variable that can be worked with.

Edit: It was nice talking to you.

Belief entails "good evidence" for the believer so it's immaterial here. — Shwah

I don't think this is immaterial (well technically it is because there's no material evidence, but that's a separate matter) :wink:

The key question about god/s is what reason do I have for believing in god/s? Beliefs, presuppositions, faith - all of these need to be interrogated. People believe in alien abductions (there's well documented personal testimony) people believe that black people are inferior to white people. Beliefs are not sacrosanct - people believe in things for dubious reasons. Someone having a sensus divinitatis is no good answer to the atheist's question; 'What reasons do I have for accepting the preposition that god/s exists?'

consider you a joy to exchange views with! — universeness

Don't take Mello seriously, my friend! We both know better!

For theists this isn't a big picture at all (and sometimes ever) for how they deal with religion or spirituality. If it was all they focused on they would never get to worshipping God. In abrahamic religions, as well as assumedly with all other religions, you actually grow in your relationship with God so it would be God which determines your theistic positions (why and how) etc still.
The reason you believe in God is based on your relationship with him. Some conceptions of God demands animal sacrifices, some charitability, some war, meditation etc and these can speak to you in different ways with different applicability and explanatory power on your ethics and understanding of the world and its parts. You could never get to all of that and what theism does by examining belief without a conception of God.

With all due respect, you need to read a response more carefully.

If every human alive stated that god exists then I would not be calling it a fable, because I would believe it too. — universeness — universeness

No. The below is what I quoted from your post. If I didn't see that, then that's not what I responded to originally. Please see below. I'm paralleling your post below.
You were saying something about dreams.

If each human you meet, confirms to you (if you ask them) that in their opinion, humans dream, then that is proof enough.

— universeness

So anecdotal account can serve as proof. What if every human you meet confirms to you that god exists, would you accept that as proof of god? — L'éléphant

Don't take Mello seriously, my friend! We both know better! — EugeneW

I don't, I think he is hurting, who knows why? I am sure he will reject my suggestion due to pride.
So don't be surprised if I get an 'aw f*** off!' response.

Well, isn't that because atheism isn't a philosophical system? Apart from the positive dogmatists, isn't atheism simply the view that there is no good reason to accept the proposition that god/s exist. — Tom Storm

What about the reason that there exists a universe?

Ok, sorry about the crossed wires, I don't think our positions are changed by your update.

I know all this, I grew up in Christianity and I have believers as close friends. We talk. :smile:

The reason you believe in God is based on your relationship with him. — Shwah

I think that's one potential reason. I also think fear and socialization are major reasons people believe. It's hard not to be a believer when you are conditioned from birth by your culture and family to believe. When everything you know is directed towards god/s. When there is a considerable price to pay for apostasy. I think it could be naïve to say that a 'relationship with the divine' is the primary explanation. The nature of that relationship is hardly value free - it is the resolute product of upbringing, culture and expectation.

Ok, sorry about the crossed wires, I don't think our positions are changed by your update. — universeness

:ok:

It runs into an induction issue by trying to account for ontological assertions simply through culture (family or macro-cultures). For instance genders are defined as social constructs but they are informed by material considerations of sex and gametes etc.
Religion, even excluding how at least abrahamic religions approach God, could never be approachable if it was fundamentally determined by culture. Metaphysics is about first principles and a creator etc is a first principle. Your conception of God informs your worldview of math, science, ethics where what a culture can determine meaningfully is much less.

↪Gregory A Why are people theists? Why do people believe in God?
a day ago
— baker

As a loser, a homeless person, someone sleeping in a car, yet with a message, can communicate with others wherever they are in the world I can't help but consider such an outcome so slanted in my favour can come about by mere chance. But, still don't let me stop you believing that a 12v powered tablet computer, a hotspot from my phone, like the Mount Rushmore memorial are simply Natural features of an uncaring universe.
— Gregory A
— baker

You're working with a fallacious reduction of options. There aren't just "either believe in God, or believe in mere chance". It's also possible to not have any particular opinion on the matter. Or believe that Earth is controlled by beings from other galaxies. And whatever other cosmogonies people believe in.

Anything other than mere chance would constitute a god, Aliens etc. The choices are the randomness of Nature, or a more structured universe. God may be some sort of effect in other words. I'm not religious and can back that up by posts made on other forums.

I asked you
Why are people theists? Why do people believe in God?

Because people can sense to different degrees that there's something guiding them through life. Even you have a degree of 'faith'. You may say it is humanism, yet humans are responsible for Global Warming and as we speak are contemplating a solution to it in the form of a Nuclear Winter.

This is to point out that most people who have ever believed in God, have not done so as a result of careful consideration and choosing, but were simply born and raised into a monotheistic religion. They were taught to believe in God, they never chose to do so.

I was raised with a natural explanation of our origins. Never had any religion in my life, am not religious now. I've not rejected religion, just never had any of the stuff.

The people who _choose_ to believe in God are a minority.

Soft living moves people to the left. The Left are actively destroying religion. Churches empty out in good times regardless.

Do you have any comment on this?

I don't think these claims are convincing.

Metaphysics is about first principles and a creator etc is a first principle. — Shwah

Only if you insist. A 'creator' may also be understood as a woo of the gaps. A creator is a tentative hypothesis at best. Just because a person believes in one does not make it true.

God, could never be approachable if it was fundamentally determined by culture — Shwah

Can you back that up with evidence, or is this opinion? Personally I think most positions people hold are culturally located. Not sure how god/s are all that different to people's views on clothing.

trying to account for ontological assertions simply through culture (family or macro-cultures). — Shwah

It would be a brave person to argue that culture and family doesn't play a major role. You'll note, I said 'major reasons' not 'solely'.

The very religion a person holds is largely matter of geography. If you are born in one part of town, you're Hindu. If you are born 30 miles South of this, you're Anglican. In a town, the street you live on may determine whether you are fundamentalist, 'fag-hating' Bible thumper, or an inclusive rainbow flag wearing Liberal. The personal relationship each one has with god/s is a matter of place and time.

Your conception of God informs your worldview of math, science, ethics where what a culture can determine meaningfully is much less. — Shwah

Perhaps helping to make my point here. How difficult to see anything more if your reality is shaped and contained by the god/s and religious worldviews provided to you by family and culture.

When believers connect math and science to god/s they tend to teach creationism instead of evolution and extol the virtues of capital punishment, whilst considering abortion a sin.

Maybe a distinction between spirituality of your culture and spirituality of you as an individual may help. We would say spirituality of your culture informs the individual but that the spirituality of the culture is still deficient of God.

However you may define God (even as a "woo"), it's dealing with objects which would inform math etc. The best example I can think of which is complete is Aristotle's prime mover and how important and informative it is to the universe as he views it. His science, to whichever degrees of accuracy they are, are informed by that thing which is more fundamental than a culture. In fact his culture is polytheistic so a culture can't be an object which allows one to reach God fundamentally (even if the culture's spirituality informs your own (whichever that would be)).

However you may define God (even as a "woo"), it's dealing with objects which would inform math etc. — Shwah

Is this not what someone might call trivially true? In the end all views can have a bearing on how you view math, etc. Can you tease out more how this is helpful?

When it comes to what we call reality, do not most people keep two (or more) sets of books and hold inconsistent and contradictory epistemologies? A belief in god/s does not necessitate a particular approach to epistemology, unless people are educated and striving for consistency. Whatever happened to the non-overlapping magisteria? :razz:

I think maybe a more concrete example is how arithmetic informs calculus (you need arithmetic to do calculus but not vice versa). Whether you use a duodecimal system or decimal etc, and even how you do arithmetic (whether it's wrong or not) informs how the calculus problem will be (what digits are used and whether it's wrong or not or whether there are multiple answers).
In this same sense, culture simply doesn't have the ability to inform decisions like whether math/science are foundationalist and how they relate to each other (creation/causation narrative). An example of this is the Jesuits, and even ancient greeks up to archimedes and beyond, denying or banning infintesimals. This changed how math was done (more geometrically) and caused calculus to not be developed.

As for the last bit, I believe people pick what they believe is most true in any situation and existential crises happen when a really fundamental belief one holds is shown to not be as universally applicable so I believe trend towards a single foundation or fundamental truth but allow caveats either through ignorance or some more fundamental truth that guides when to choose between the two.

Regardless it does look like you're downplaying atheism's actual intentions which are to take away the rights of those who believe. — Gregory A

That's paranoid projection, brother, for which you have not made a case. I'm not sure that most people can walk without that crutch or something like it. If you take away Jesus, they'll get their fix from the child-eating lizardmen who live in tunnels or the Pleiadians come to save us from outer space. If the species makes it another few centuries, we'll probably have believers in the mutterings of a pontifical pulsar, with cryptographers interpreting its beeps and buzzes for a priesthood. I suspect that you're defending a monotheism (and not 'the Seven' or The Secret) simply because you were born among those who babbled of it and not some other fairy's tail. You've shown up late, too, for its glory days are past indeed, and the educated, if still Christian, are at least modest enough to take their theology negative (figurative or cultural at the least.)

You can check out The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire to discover that Christianity was originally an offensive heresy that refused to tolerate the other religions already in place, like an only child who just would not share its toys.

Atheism's antipathy for theists is apparent whenever an atheist opens his or her mouth. — Gregory A

To be an atheist is usually to also be a relatively educated person with respect for science. The average theist who shoulders into an intellectual discussion comes off as 'pre-philosophical' in their apparent disregard of the norms of critical inquiry or just polite conversation. For instance, the contempt than this or that noisy atheist may have for your current beliefs is not censorship. It sounds to me like you'd like them silenced for hurting your feelings. Free speech cuts both ways, brother.

I think maybe a more concrete example is how arithmetic informs calculus (you need arithmetic to do calculus but not vice versa). Whether you use a duodecimal system or decimal etc, and even how you do arithmetic (whether it's wrong or not) informs how the calculus problem will be (what digits are used and whether it's wrong or not or whether there are multiple answers). — Shwah

I doubt any of this plays a role in the atheism versus theism debate in general, regardless of any epistemological implications of some beliefs.

When your thinking becomes evolved, one of the benefits is to spot a wannabe thinker immediately, which will save you from wasting time on them. — Joe Mello

Well said, friend! Well said!

But a cats like to play with mice, do they not?

You said math can be informed by anything and I showed an example where calculus, which is really close to arithmetic, still can't inform arithmetic.
In this, since religion informs math, it is not informable by culture. You may be conflating math the field with math the objects/relationships of quantity etc.

Edit: Math, the field, may decide to go to lunch later because a fire drill where math, the system of relationships between quantities, is never affected by fire drills, it actually informs the physics which allows them.

Most posters here are Internet trolls who Google their asses off to plagiarize and sound intelligent. — Joe Mello

Are you sure it's the boots and not your feet ?

The Left are out to censor all things that hurt their eyes and ears, theism with its patriarchs is one of those things. — Gregory A

Some of them are, yes ! And I don't like those mother flappers either ! For what it's worth, I like gun rights and free speech and distrust book burning chew believers of every polkadot and stripe.
Man-haters are as tedious as woman-haters. Our war is against cliché perhaps. Beware the cardboard windmill and the candycane lance. Check for the enemy behind you. Or, better stool, within you.

In this, since religion informs math, it is not informable by culture. — Shwah

How does religion inform math? When I said math can be informed by anything I simply meant that math is practiced via a perspective and this perspective can be influenced by anything from education to technology.

Sure but perspectives would be immaterial here to the question of God's existence or not.
For lack of exhaustion, this link deals a bit more into the issues of a scholastic conception of christ as used by catholics then.

Edit: For fun, this is a positive example of religion affecting physics. Newton's particular conception justified an aristotelian prime mover which informed his physics in a different way from Leibniz. A key difference between the two is Newton's acceptance of absolute motion where Leibniz only allowed relative motion. I don't know the formal derivation but I imagine this suffices.

Also this may be interesting,

In recent literature, Newton's theses regarding the ontology of space and time have come to be called substantivalism in contrast to relationism. It should be emphasized, though, that Newton did not regard space and time as genuine substances (as are, paradigmatically, bodies and minds), but rather as real entities with their own manner of existence as necessitated by God's existence (more specifically, his omnipresence and eternality).

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton-stm/

That quote is emphasizing why Newton chose absolute space and absolute time which was a development past Descartes, who denied space because he didn't think anything could be empty. Two different conceptions of God with two different physics derivations.

What about the reason that there exists a universe? — EugeneW

Please accept my playful challenge, friend.


A Dialogue
by Thomas Money, Sean Dough, and Brian Fog
========================

Q. Why is there a Universe?
A. God created one.
Q. Why is there a God ?
A. There just had to be one.
Q. Why can't someone say then that there just had to be a Universe?
A. Because the Universe is not like a person.
Q. Why does the big Explanation of things have to be like a person?
A. Because I'm more comfortable with that. Now brush your teeth and go to bed.
========================

Ok. I had a quick look. Sounds more like the cultural cost of doing math, when a religion is unhappy with it. Anyway let's bracket this part of the discussion for now it doesn't seem a rich source of evidence of god.