Belief, in nothing, something, anything, or only on conditions?

[TRYPHO]

If I were atheist I would believe there was no God, until God was proven to exist. And here's why:

IF God was proven to exist, I am confidant God would not choose any particular religion*. God would simply prove God exists. And if God proved Gods existence, God would really need to come down once in every generation and give sufficient proof to every soul in the Universe at least once in that souls mature, adult existence, so that everyone believed in God, otherwise God would have to rely on faith again for all those who missed the show and therefore might as well have not bothered providing proof of existence in the first place. On that basis I conclude God hasn't, never will, and simply CANT prove his/her/its existence - since we haven't been so enlightened.

If God is not affiliated to any religion in particular, then all specific religions are incorrect***. That doesn't mean they are entirely wrong, but they lean heavily in the wrong category.

So if you are an atheist who requires proof which I have argued cannot come, is it not better to switch to the atheists-who-don't-believe-in-Gods-existence***, since in all likelihood it will never come?

Just my thoughts as I sit here,

TRYPHO

* - if God did have a chosen people I'm in the right camp!
** - some non-speicific religions would probably cope with the situation quite well!
*** - Strong-Atheist I am lead to believe

[Kelvin Mace]

1. I try not to trouble myself about the existance

of any god. Of course, some people make a nuisance of the issue, then I must address it.

I try to avoid the issue of atheism, since it immediately disqualifies everything I say in their eyes. So, I try to address theological issues using their theology to get them to stop inflicting their beastly society upon me.

[bigluckyfeet]

2. * Talks to God Directly

So There!

[Kelvin Mace]

9. Most of the time

when a person tells us that he talks to invisible people only he can hear and see, we put him someplace safe and give him psycho-tropic drugs. But, call that person "god"...

[Der Blaue Engel]

3. I don't require proof

Any more than I require proof of Santa's existence.

[Crunchy Frog]

4. I like the Douglas Adams school of thought on these matters.

Viz, the Babelfish.

Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindboggingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.

The arguement goes something like this: 'I refuse to prove I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'

'But,' says Man, 'the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguements, you don't. QED.'

'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

'Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

Most leading theologians claim that this arguement is a load of dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolan Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme of his best-selling book Well That About Wraps It Up For God.

[madrchsod]

5. we could believe in the noodle

and there would be people that would say that was stupid....a Ezekiel "saw the wheel" but was it this-----

[Crunchy Frog]

8. It was this.

[Coyote_Bandit]

6. God's "existence"

I cannot objectively prove that God exists. Likewise, I cannot objectively (or logically) prove that He does not exist. Because neither belief is based on proof, the acceptance of either proposition can be said to be an article of faith.

Likely, at some point in my life I will choose to accept one of these two propositions. The reasons for my choice cannot be entirely rational since objective proof is simply not available. But they will be my reasons. Those reasons are what "enlighten" my faith. Whatever my faith is.

[TRYPHO]

7. An answer I can get to grips with, thanks...

I cannot objectively prove that God exists. Likewise, I cannot objectively (or logically) prove that He does not exist
--
Ok, there are therefore two issues now in my head:
1. God exists or doesn't
2. Proof that God exists or doesn't.
--
Off the top of my head, is it likely to ever find proof that God doesn't exist? Whilst God proving Gods existence should God choose to do so, should be fairly simple to God (I think, what do I know about it).

Anyway, we now have four real options:

1 - God exist but no proof
2 - God exist and has proof
3 - God doesn't exist but no proof
4 - God doesn't exist and thats proven as such.


Currently these are all potential options, but I am going to reject 2 and 4, 2 on the grounds that if God was to prove Gods existence I would know about it already and 4 because I don't think you can prove that negative.

Which leaves 1 and 3 - God exists with no proof or God doesn't exist, but no proof.

Does that make any difference to anyone?

Both with no proof, therefore FAITH required for either option.

Shit, I need to start a thread on what FAITH is when it refers to belief in Gods nonexistence.

I need a brain massage.

TRYPHO

[Kelvin Mace]

10. Sciene will never tell you

"god doesn't exist", just that it is highly unlikely he does. You can't prove a negative, but you can show that the evidence for existence is non-existent, unless you invoke "faith", which then removes science completely from the discussion.

[TRYPHO]

11. OK, so lets go forward with FAITH then...

OK, I think the options are:
1. FAITH in Gods existence
2. FAITH in the possibility god exists/doesn't exist
3. FAITH in Gods non-existence.

I suppose "Faith" needs to be defined better, but lets say "belief, given lack of scientific proof to confirm".

--

So, atheists either have "faith God might exist" or "faith God might not exist", but they still have to have faith/belief in their chosen model since these are in the can't-be-proven category?

TRYPHO

[Kelvin Mace]

18. Actually

I would define faith as belief in something (say god) despite a lack of evidence, or evidence to the contrary.

To the rational mind, this is irrational.

Atheists do not have "faith" in this context.

[beam me up scottie]

12. Implicit atheist when it comes to most gods.

Explicit when it comes to gods that could not possibly exist as defined.

In other words, show me the money.

Healing an amputee or two would be a good start.

[TRYPHO]

13. You're asking for proof, I'm saying you already have faith!

Faith that you are unsure in gods existence (which seems natural as I don't think anyone knows).

I promise NOT to convince you God exists if you promise to continue having faith that God may or may not exist - which to my mind is slow close to having complete faith with a smidgeon of doubt (which I think most if not all believers have) as to be more-or-less the same position.

I'll concede you explicit-religion-list if I can ask for more information on your implicit theology.

Fascinating.

TRYPHO

[Kelvin Mace]

19. For myself

I have no belief in any god, especially as defined in human theology (or more correctly mythology)

Some humans can't seem to handle the idea that they are alone in the universe and ultimately responsible (collective) for what does or doesn't happen on this planet and in their lives.

[beam me up scottie]

20. Oh brother. Here we go again.

Implicit atheism is also called weak atheism.

It's not a religion nor a theology.

Faith is required for those who claim to know gods exist or don't without having evidence to back up either position.

I don't need faith to not believe in gods that cannot be proven to exist.




I refuse to argue about this anymore on DU.

Go find another masochist.

[TRYPHO]

22. Fair enough BMUS, but...

Don't forget I am new here and have some catching up to do. I am sure this is boring for you, so use the "hide thread" button, but don't poo-poo it for me mate - I'm trying to learn/understand not bore.

TRYPHO

[beam me up scottie]

25. I answered your question honestly and politely only to have you tell me I was wrong about my atheism

And I wasn't bored, I was disgusted.

Here's a hint, TELLING people what they believe or don't is rude, both on DU and off, so how "new" you are has nothing to do with it.

Not everyone is going to applaud your posts and agree with everything you say. If you post in here you need to get used to debate.

[Az]

14. What is proof?

This word gets used a lot in theistic debates and thats rather unfortunate. See if anyone waits for proof in any endevour they will always be waiting. Proof in its absolute sense is simply not possible in the real world. We don't even experience reality first hand. Reality is just our brain recreating for us what our senses sort of conveyed to it. Its like we are watching a slightly delayed and somewhat editted version of reality. So even if you found yourself standing before God there would still be room for doubt because you can't be certain your senses are not betraying you.

Evidence. Evidence for God is what is sought. Proof is too high a standard for anything reasonable.

Now if anyone has any evidence for God that would be something.

[TRYPHO]

15. Excellent Point - I will learn lots from DU today

So, can you accept, in all likelihood, that evidence of God will never be found, because, as I argued earlier, if "evidence" (was "proof") was found it would have to have been found universally, and we should already have known about it - and since we don't, it hasn't, and therefore it wont be.

Now, leaving aside religions*, can you accept my point that you must therefore have a belief (or some faith) that evidence of Gods' existence may never be found? And that, to shift your paradigm a smidgen to the right (only a smidgen) that sounds to em exactly the same (but a smidgen to the left of) someone who is a strong-believer but accepts the slightest possibility of doubt in Gods existence (which is logical since no "evidence" has or can be found).

Discuss.

TRYPHO
* - which mess up any good argument!

[Az]

16. That is not a presumption I am prepared to make

I make no presumption about what evidence god may or may not leave. I make no assuption about what sort of god there is (see the Silly Bugger god argument). I simply observe that I am unaware of any evidence for god at this time. If at any time I become aware of evidence for god that I cannot refute then I will have to shift my position somewhat.

Outside of the lack of evidence for gods I am also keenly aware of the nature of the human mind and in particular its capacity to create internal dialogs that it itself cannot recognise as coming from self. The very nature of how we recognise self and other is key to understanding the persistance of the god concept. Just as we do not experience the identity of other people but learn to project our sense of self onto them we learn to project a sense of self onto the universe (or any other thing which presents us with patters). Without the ability to dismantle this concept of identity associated with the target the notion of identity persists. In the case of people this is a good thing because it is likely that there is someone there. But in the case of the universe there does not seem to be any convincing evidence that there is a person there and instead is simply just our own natures projecting a sense of identity upon a universe that we do not fully understand and wish to.

[TRYPHO]

17. OK, but you're not denying the possibility...

So, even though I have faith in a proofless, wishy-washy something-or-otherness that I imagine makes sense of the Universe (for me), and even though you don't deny the possibility (and my faith puts the odds of there being a divine-something-or-otherness at say 50.01%, whilst you probably put it at 0.01% currently), we could be arguing over percentage points really; because there's little to be gained from trying to figure out WHAT God might be, but a lot to gained by finding out what the effect of that belief or lack-of-belief might have on the person/race/country.

Again interesting. Thanks.

TRYPHO

[pberq]

21. Very important point!

The human intellect operates on information received from the senses. This information is limited, and only shows us a portion of reality. Therefore, conclusions reached by the intellect are limited.

As humans we also have the faculty of intuition. In most of us, this faculty is mostly undeveloped. By developing intuition, we can start to perceive aspects of reality that can't be known through the senses.

[TRYPHO]

23. I'm happy to be enlightened...

I'm a scientist, but I have faith in the existence of God. I don't percieve an issue between my rational scientific mind and my irrational faith; I just go with the latter for my own reasons. However, my scientific mind enjoys scientific processes and would be delighted to expand its horizon if you could share some of your concepts of intuition development pberq.


TRYPHO

[pberq]

26. intuition development

thank you for your reply, TRYPHO

Intuition can be developed through meditation. In meditation, we shut down the restless thoughts and start getting in touch with our soul nature. One of the faculties of the soul is intuition.

These thoughts come from the teachings of Paramahansa Yogananda. One point he stresses is that the science of meditation as taught by the yoga masters of India is just that - a science. Step-by-step methods are followed which give definite results.

Here's a link:

http://www.yogananda.org/

[Zhade]

24. As an atheist, I DON'T think the way you suggest you would.

My atheism is of the lacking-belief-in-any-gods kind, not the believing-no-gods-exist kind.