How to transit from the concept of God to the existence of God

[CandideWest]

Faith has a great purpose: it keeps a child alive in the environment of its family and society. Up to a point. It is evident that a child is in kind of a hypnotic learning state up to about the age of seven. Hence the “age of ‘reason’” many would contend, as do I, that most continue in somewhat lesser state of hypnotic suggestibility for the rest of their lives.

…

*The biography of TE Lawrence adds some great insights into how religions are formed, btw.

I found little to disagree with in your post. The only note I would add is that the fact that faith is useful does nothing to recommend it as a justification for believing that something is true. That ultimately is what I care about. Hence my original point that faith is an excuse for believing something in the absence of a good reason to do so.

 

[CandideWest]

You do realize that many would point out, that the evidence is already right in front of you, you simply choose not to see it.

Sure, and indeed people have said that to me many times. But when asked to actually identify what this evidence is and how it supports the existence of some deity the answers have always been always very poor. For example here’s a common one.

T: “the evidence for the existence of God is the order in the universe”.

Me: “How is that evidence for the existence of God?”

T: “well if there wasn’t a God behind it there wouldn’t be any order”

Me: “Why do you think that’s true?”

T: “Well why else would there be order?”

…

Obviously not all of them are quite that transparently weak. But thus far they have always fallen apart after application of a little critical thinking.

They might also point out, that although the evidence may indeed be important to you, it may ultimately be too important to you. There may be a reason why the bible puts such emphasis on faith, for evidence may simply not be possible without it.

Why would faith be necessary for evidence? That seems absurd by definition.

And I suspect that the reason that many religions rely on faith is because of the absence of evidence. Hence the need for the excuse. Many religions have elevated faith to being a kind of virtue, that which in any other area we would call “gullibility”.

It’s funny sometimes what a solipsist can argue for and against. When one abandons absolutes, it’s amazing what becomes possible.

Fair enough, for what it’s worth I don’t think there is a answer to complete solipsism. But I don’t think it’s very useful either. After all, you still have to live **as if ** the world you experience is real even of you do not believe it is.

 

[ffg]

When we are talking about a concept, we are putting limits on information to fit an idea. (this, not that, here, not there, science, not history)

People want evidence to be this long, this deep, this high, this color, shape, density.

I think it’s possible ‘evidence’ is simply too big for the box.

We love to have control, and a part of that is defining our limits.

 

[KingCoil]

When we are talking about a concept, we are putting limits on information to fit an idea. (this, not that, here, not there, science, not history)

People want evidence to be this long, this deep, this high, this color, shape, density.

I think it’s possible ‘evidence’ is simply too big for the box.

We love to have control, and a part of that is defining our limits.

That is very good, as I seem to get your drift.
.
But, what do you say about my post:

Now, about tautology and the beginning of the universe is a scientific fact, here is what I know about them from my stock knowledge.

Tautology is a sentence where the subject and the predicate are identical, like for example, A boy is a boy.

Critics of tautology tell us that such a sentence does not add anything of new knowledge to listeners and readers.

But critics are not aware that the listeners and the readers can go to the universe of objective realities: of fellow humans, of objects and events, instead on just dwelling in their minds trying to figure out what is new in the sentence, A boy is a boy.

And they will come to the realization and know that there are all kinds of boys in actual reality when they come down from their realm of concepts in their minds (where they cannot make out anything new in the concept of boy in the subject of the sentence and boy in the predicate of the sentence).

So, a tautology is in effect an instruction to listeners and readers to access the universe of reality to know all kinds of say a boy; that is new knowledge, that there are in objective actual real factual reality all kinds of boys: fat ones, thin ones, handsome ones, plain ones, tall ones, intelligent ones, dumb ones, talkative ones, gleeful ones, sad ones, etc.

Now, about the universe having a beginning is a scientific fact, it is because it is a fact inferred on by them to be a past existing event, from evidence they observed present in the actual vicissitudes and circumstances of the universe today.

Science is a method of observation and experimentation; of course when something cannot be experimented on at all, like the beginning of the universe, at least scientists can observe all the evidence available in the universe today by which they infer to the existence of a past event which is the beginning of the universe.

The topic of the thread is, “How to transit from the concept of God to the existence of God.”

Please, or just give your reactions to the following abstract of my exposition of the topic:

We have the concept of God as the creator of the universe, scientists tell us the universe has a beginning, so we go to the universe to look for the cause of the beginning of the universe, and we have found the cause which we identify it as corresponding to the concept of God in the Christian faith, namely, as the creator of the universe: for the Christian Bible describes God in Gen. 1:1 thus, “In the beginning God created heaven and earth”, and in their Apostles’ Creed Christians profess proclaim God thus: "I believe in God the Father almighty creator of heaven and earth.

The way I understand your post, you are concerned with evidence.

My point is that the evidence of God is the universe which has a beginning.

So, apply your thinking on evidence to react to my knowledge that the universe having a beginning is the evidence for the existence of God, according to the concept of God first and foremost as the creator of the universe.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

I do not also read anyone reacting to the satanic obstructionists, Candide and Bodicula.

If you have anything at all pertinent to the thread here, then just react to my posts directly.

And also to anything at all which I have transmitted here in this thread in connection with the topic, or even not but can be an insight to the resolution of the issue of the thread, you can also put in your reactions.

There are two kinds of impertinent posters here, the satanic obstructionists and the juniors reluctanists; I have mentioned explicitly who are the satanic obstructionists here; as regards their juniors reluctanists, they know who they are and they know I know, but they are allowed to post their thoughts to me in re of the topic of the thread, and I will read their posts addressed to me.

Why do I call some folks here reluctanists?

It is because they are apprehensive that they might put their foot in their mouth when they try to say something that can be genuinely intelligent grounded on logic and facts, so they are reluctant.

Just speak honestly according to your best stock knowledge, don’t try to play the deep deep deep learned snobs in forums, because you will surely get lost in your own abyss.

KingCoil

 

[Sochi]

I found little to disagree with in your post. The only note I would add is that the fact that faith is useful does nothing to recommend it as a justification for believing that something is true. That ultimately is what I care about. Hence my original point that faith is an excuse for believing something in the absence of a good reason to do so.

Yes, I agree.

 

[Sochi]

Why do I call some folks here reluctanists?

It is because they are apprehensive that they might put their foot in their mouth when they try to say something that can be genuinely intelligent grounded on logic and facts, so they are reluctant.

Just speak honestly according to your best stock knowledge, don’t try to play the deep deep deep learned snobs in forums, because you will surely get lost in your own abyss.

KingCoil

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Here I’m afraid I have to disagree with you. I think the evidence (or more to the point lack of evidence) for the existence of gods matters hugely. That is the entire reason why I’m no longer a Christian - I could find no rational justification or evidence to support the beliefs of Christianity.

No, they aren’t convincing, because they fail to demonstrate the existence of a god (as has been covered extensively all over the internet, including this forum). So I’m not sure how anyone could be convinced by them.

Well as it stands, I agree. Kingcoils argument here doesn’t matter because it isn’t a sound argument. So it couldn’t possibly be convincing. If on the other hand he was able to create an argument demonstrating the existence of some god, then that WOULD matter. In fact it would I expect be one of the most significant pieces of text ever written. It would certainly change my life and probably the lives of millions of others. However, after all these centuries of trying, nobody has produced such an argument yet.

Faith is not a good reason to believe something, it’s an excuse for believing something in the absence of a good reason for doing so.

Of course you are welcome to your opinion. As to the value of " internet " testimonials, they are of no more value than testimonials found anywhere. Most people are totally unaware of the Five Ways and most of those who have heard of them either don’t understand them or they have a vested interest in denying their value ( yourself for example ). And some non-believers have indeed been converted by them. So excuse us if we reject your opinion on the matter.

But we don’t need formal proofs like the Five Ways. As St. Paul says, " …The evidence of Him is the things He has made… " So, in the span of the " centuries " millions have found this evidence enough. It is modern man, in his supreme arogance, who refects such obvious evidence.

Linus2nd

 

[Partinobodycula]

Why would faith be necessary for evidence? That seems absurd by definition.

Ah, so you’re a solipsist then? Or, alternatively, explain how the the world around you isn’t knowable only by faith. Your “evidence” for the world, is the same as others’ evidence for God, it’s there, if you believe it’s there.

But I don’t think it’s very useful either. After all, you still have to live **as if ** the world you experience is real even of you do not believe it is.

Firstly, it’s not simply that I don’t believe the world is real, it may be. It’s that I can never actually know if it’s real. The belief that the world is real, is an act of faith. All that a solipsist does is to admit the necessity of faith where others deny it.

Secondly, the difference between knowing the world is real, and believing that the world is real, is at once both subtle and profound. It would take me some degree of effort to adequately explain it to you, and this isn’t the proper thread. But suffice it to say, that whereas Christians believe that they will one day find heaven, I believe that I already have.

 

[CandideWest]

Of course you are welcome to your opinion. As to the value of " internet " testimonials, they are of no more value than testimonials found anywhere.

Indeed, and I certainly wouldn’t advise anyone out there take my word for it. Go examine the arguments and understand them for yourself. Their failings become quite apparent once you get your head around them.

Most people are totally unaware of the Five Ways and most of those who have heard of them either don’t understand them or they have a vested interest in denying their value ( yourself for example ).

What vested interest do you think I have?

And some non-believers have indeed been converted by them.

Really? To which religion out of interest? The reason I ask is that the 5 ways give nobody any way of determining which of the many proposed gods exist. They could be taken as proving the existence of anything from the deists god to Allah with equal (poor) justification.

So excuse us if we reject your opinion on the matter.

Sure, please do. Same goes for anyone else out there, reject my opinion. Get to understand the arguments for yourself. Think critically about them. In fact, think critically in general. That’s the best advice I can give.

But we don’t need formal proofs like the Five Ways. As St. Paul says, " …The evidence of Him is the things He has made… " So, in the span of the " centuries " millions have found this evidence enough. It is modern man, in his supreme arogance, who refects such obvious evidence.

Ok, so what evidence do we have of your god making things? Thus far I know of none. People just tend to point to things which already exist and CLAIM that their god made it. Obviously that is no more evidence for God or Allah, than it is for the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Zeus.

And yes, I’ll grant you that this has been sufficient evidence for many people. That does not make it good evidence. People believe false things for bad reasons all the time.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Indeed, and I certainly wouldn’t advise anyone out there take my word for it. Go examine the arguments and understand them for yourself. Their failings become quite apparent once you get your head around them.

What vested interest do you think I have?

Really? To which religion out of interest? The reason I ask is that the 5 ways give nobody any way of determining which of the many proposed gods exist. They could be taken as proving the existence of anything from the deists god to Allah with equal (poor) justification.

Sure, please do. Same goes for anyone else out there, reject my opinion. Get to understand the arguments for yourself. Think critically about them. In fact, think critically in general. That’s the best advice I can give.

Ok, so what evidence do we have of your god making things? Thus far I know of none. People just tend to point to things which already exist and CLAIM that their god made it. Obviously that is no more evidence for God or Allah, than it is for the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Zeus.

And yes, I’ll grant you that this has been sufficient evidence for many people. That does not make it good evidence. People believe false things for bad reasons all the time.

Ah yes. Isn’t the Flying Spaghetti Monster what atheists refer to as Mother Earth ?

Linus2nd

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Ah yes. Isn’t the Flying Spaghetti Monster what atheists refer to as Mother Earth ?

Technically it was a figure from a political statement in which Bobby Henderson (student?) proposed a theory for the creation of the earth that was said to be as evidentially supported as some of the other religious ones when a school system considered changing their educational standards for science. The letter he wrote took off in ways he never expected. And according to the “Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster” as written by the prophet Bobby Henderson (his chosen title)people of all religions and non-religion are welcome to join his church.

 

[CandideWest]

Ah, so you’re a solipsist then? Or, alternatively, explain how the the world around you isn’t knowable only by faith.

Depends what you mean by “knowable” if you mean “know to a certainty”, well absolute certainty is unattainable. We can however gain a level of evidence sufficient to justify belief.

As for “knowable by faith”. Nothing is knowable by faith. Faith is believing things in the absence of a rational justification for doing so. It isn’t a path to determine if something is true or not.

With regards to hard solipsism - as I said, I don’t think there’s a good answer to it. But application of Occam’s razor leads me to ignore such a proposition and simply take the world as it appears to be.

Your “evidence” for the world, is the same as others’ evidence for God, it’s there, if you believe it’s there.

No, there’s two different things here.

Let’s say I have a tennis ball in my hand. I show it to you, we both look at it, feel the surface, squeeze it, bounce it etc. in every way we examine it, it appears to be a real tennis ball.

So I conclude that I have a tennis ball. You as a solipsist would presumably say that there might only appear to be a tennis ball. And a theist claims that there is a tennis ball creating fairy.

Now you could quite correctly say that the evidence being pointed to by me and the theist is the same. But the key difference is that the theist is proposing the existence of some thing in addition to the tennis ball for which we have no evidence.

Even if we didn’t know how the tennis ball was made, our evidence would be sufficient to rationally justify belief that the ball exists but not that a tennis ball creating fairy exists.

Firstly, it’s not simply that I don’t believe the world is real, it may be. It’s that I can never actually know if it’s real. The belief that the world is real, is an act of faith. All that a solipsist does is to admit the necessity of faith where others deny it.

You seem to be using the word “faith” for “belief in any proposition which has not been established with 100% certainty”. Well if that’s the case then fair enough. But how do you then distinguish between propositions which are supported by rock solid evidence for which there is no evidence?

Surely this just leaves you in need of a new word? One which allows you to distinguish between:

• the “faith” that something is true based on a vast body of diverse and mutually supportive evidence and thousands of successful trials.

From

• the “faith” that something is true based on something a televangelist said once.

Or do you consider the two to be equally justified beliefs?

Secondly, the difference between knowing the world is real, and believing that the world is real, is at once both subtle and profound. It would take me some degree of effort to adequately explain it to you, and this isn’t the proper thread. But suffice it to say, that whereas Christians believe that they will one day find heaven, I believe that I already have.

Fair enough, I have yet to see a rational justification for either position.

 

[CandideWest]

Ah yes. Isn’t the Flying Spaghetti Monster what atheists refer to as Mother Earth ?

Linus2nd

No. God, Allah, the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Zeus are all proposed deities. As far as I can tell they are all equally well supported. I reject all of them on the basis of the lack of evidence or rational justification for belief in them.

 

[ffg]

The way I understand your post, you are concerned with evidence.

My point is that the evidence of God is the universe which has a beginning.

So, apply your thinking on evidence to react to my knowledge that the universe having a beginning is the evidence for the existence of God, according to the concept of God first and foremost as the creator of the universe.

KingCoil

Thanks for the reply. Though I’m not concerned about evidence. Consider -

“In order to get to the existence of God, one must consider abandoning their concept.”

Thus my last, to concept God in and of itself is setting up a barrier that only the concept creator can take down.

God’s not going to bash through our concepts.

Evidence can only be interpretted correctly with knowledge. Knowledge can only be gained through learning. Learning can only happen when we are taught. Teaching at it’s core is not thinking, it is revelation.

If what was taught is not understood (or accepted as true), we create our concepts.

 

[Partinobodycula]

Depends what you mean by “knowable” if you mean “know to a certainty”, well absolute certainty is unattainable. We can however gain a level of evidence sufficient to justify belief.

CandideWest,

I would so like to address each one of your points, but alas this isn’t the proper thread.

Plus you seem to have sufficient reasoning capabilities to understand my position if you so choose. Like I have mentioned many times, people believe what they choose to believe, and I am quite content to allow you to do that. I am at ease with my choices, as well as their choices. I have posted my position enough, that if people are truly interested, they’ll ask.

But thanks for the exchange, and I’ll be around.

Partinobodycular

 

[CandideWest]

CandideWest,

I would so like to address each one of your points, but alas this isn’t the proper thread.

No worries, if you like feel free to PM me. We can discuss that way if you like?

Plus you seem to have sufficient reasoning capabilities to understand my position if you so choose. Like I have mentioned many times, people believe what they choose to believe, and I am quite content to allow you to do that. I am at ease with my choices, as well as their choices. I have posted my position enough, that if people are truly interested, they’ll ask.

I believe I understand at least most of your position, I just don’t find it very useful.

Only other point I’d raise is that I don’t choose what to believe, at least not in a simple sense. I believe what I find to be adequately justified and supported by evidence.

 

[Sochi]

No. God, Allah, the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Zeus are all proposed deities. As far as I can tell they are all equally well supported. I reject all of them on the basis of the lack of evidence or rational justification for belief in them.

I agree. All of them require a leap of faith in that they require the acceptance of a premise, usually a self-verifying one on the order of “it exists. We don’t know how it got here, so it must have been made. I couldn’t have done it, nor anyone like me, so it must be a bigger, better smarter, more magical being than me that did it.” So what happens is that a place holder is made for the gap in understanding, (which is fine–we use “0” in math,) but unfortunately for the vast majority it then stops there as sufficient explanation for everything. Fact is, by far most people don’t have the imagination to go beyond accepting the inculcation surrounding the story of a God modeled after the structure of familial relationships, or feel a need to. Thsi is especially true regarding the ideas of authority and love, both bendable to hierarchical control. As Hitler said, “It is great luck for leaders that men don’t think.” And of course, like sin being visited to the seventh generations, so are the explanations of the place holder and its mythology, all protected by the sanctions of sacredness, including direct revelation, divine guidance and punishment, and even infallibility. (Please, none of this is an attack on Catholics, as claiming infallibility, etc, is way not exclusive to the Church. I’m only speaking phenomenologically here.)

The results are a distinct lack of further inquiry into the nature of things and self as their positor, even if one is, say, a religiously faithful creationist researcher in science who accepts the standard physical explanations of evolution. Ultimately there is the avoidance of solving the duality of an objectified god, an objectified Universe, and worst of all, and objectified self. So that is one side of the God argument, a “creator” God, all powerful who made all this and His/Her relationship to it all. The other side of the duality is that there is no God, and it all came from nothing, or always simply is, by as some yet unknown mechanism not subject to infinite regression.

Very few explore the occasionally arrived at third alternative, or even conceive of the possibility of such. And if it is simply spelled out, a/theists reject it outright. And that makes perfect sense, as each rejects the other already, and the third alternative, or some personalized variant of it, must surely belong in the “other” camp. I find that a very curious dynamic.

 

[Partinobodycula]

Very few explore the occasionally arrived at third alternative, or even conceive of the possibility of such. And if it is simply spelled out, a/theists reject it outright. And that makes perfect sense, as each rejects the other already, and the third alternative, or some personalized variant of it, must surely belong in the “other” camp. I find that a very curious dynamic.

Dang I wish that I could just shut up sometimes.

But I for one thought that that was an amazing post. If I myself choose a third alternative, it’s only because I find it to be the most honest. And as difficult as this may be for some to understand, I find it to be the most humble as well. The world is very, very important to me, for without it I am nothing. The heartaches and regrets, the struggles and the pain, I treasure them all, for by them do I know the fullness of life. I experience the beginning, and I shall experience the end, and they are each important in their own way.

I said that I had found heaven, and this is it, that I have the wondrous experience of life.

 

[Sochi]

Dang I wish that I could just shut up sometimes.

???

But I for one thought that that was an amazing post.

Not to me; it’s pretty much where I live. Say things like that because too many think they are thinking when actually are moving prejudices around or using them to block doors or plug leaks.

If I myself choose a third alternative, it’s only because I find it to be the most honest.

I get that. How did you arrive at your perceived position? What led you to it?

And as difficult as this may be for some to understand, I find it to be the most humble as well.

In a way, not difficult at all; Hardest most humble is “I don’t know.” “Faith” is usually an insulator against that, it seems to me.

The world is very, very important to me, for without it I am nothing.

I and the world am one?

The heartaches and regrets, the struggles and the pain, I treasure them all, for by them do I know the fullness of life. I experience the beginning, and I shall experience the end, and they are each important in their own way.

Relatively, yes.

I said that I had found heaven, and this is it, that I have the wondrous experience of life.

Of course it is. What else could there be?

Why the label “solipsist?” Comes from, roughly, “I alone am,” yes? Who/what is that “I?”

Do you like RA Heinlein?