On faith

[Jan Ardena]

Irrespective of whether it is evidence for them, is it evidence for you?

If and when I have that experience, I'll try and remember to let you know.

Well, you didn't like my first offering so I googled:

Who said I didn't like it?
Wait a minute!
You purposely put that one in to get a specific reaction. I didn't bite. So you pretend that I did.
Pitiful.

Are you going to provide anything?

Google.

I don't have a view on anything that has no evidence.

And as far as you're concerned, there is no evidence for God. Job done.

That you don't consider it is starting to open my eyes as to your belief, though.

Good.

First, you are once again talking to all atheist through me rather than to me about what I post.

I really don't see much difference, given the path you've decided to take in this discussion.

You claim you understand atheists but you clearly don't, other than the caricature of a strawman you have created for yourself.

I've never claimed to ''understand atheists''.

I am indeed without God.
It is a result of my agnosticism, not the cause.

It's not. Simply because you have no concept of Theos in the first place, other than speculation.
You can't seriously want evidence of something, that does not exist, to you, as you sit and read this.

I am not saying my view is correct, or yours is wrong.
If you think I have said that, please point it out

Then accept when I say ''God IS'', regardless of whether that's what you want to hear. That is my answer.
Most of the evidences for God you find on a google search, I'm okay with.

Why can't you get past this issue of us v them?

You're the one who invoked ''v'' (versus), not me.
Other than that, there are two categories, Theos, and ATheos.

How does this answer my question?
Please answer mine first, in the spirit of honest discussion, and I will happily answer yours.

It is what it is. There is God, and there is no God. We all come into this atmosphere with that.
We all express that in some way. It seems to be a natural default for humans. I have come to believe that those two positions
are correct.

I don't need to accept it, I just want to try to understand it.

Well you're not going to understand it, until you accept it.

Did you blindly accept what someone once said?
Is that it?

I blindly accept what you, and everyone else says.
It doesn't mean I have to believe it.

And how do you think I have evaded answering your question?

Just answer the question. Or not. It's up to you.

I know about my own position, Jan, and that's the only thing I've been arguing with you on.

We all know your position Baldeee. You're atheist (lack belief in God).
There's nothing to really argue about. I'm not interested in why you're an atheist.
You have faith, but it's not in God. You don't believe in God, because as far as you can see God doesn't exist.
You may have notions of thinking that the reason you don't believe in God, is because there is a lack of evidence for God.
That being said, you believe that if evidence were to materialise, you would believe in the existence of God (atheist notion).
But as of yet, throughout the whole of history, nothing has really come close to convincing you that there is a God. All notions of evidence of God has thus far been rejected by you. You are, however, still open to the possibility that one day physical evidence will manifest. Hence you regard yourself as agnostic/atheist.

I simply am not aware of anything I reasonably consider to be evidence for God.

Other people are.
So what does that mean?

What is?
Evidence that is reasonable to you is... reasonable to you... because it just is?
As thought, you have zero interest in honest discussion.
At least have the decency to admit it up front.

''God IS'', is reasonable to me.
I don't really need to clarify that.
I don't need you to clarify why God ISN'T to me.

I can recognise some concepts of God, notably the pantheistic variety.
I don't find this concept of any value, no.
I see it as simply a label for the universe, and we already have a label for that.
I don't recognise anything else about other concepts that go beyond the pantheistic version.
Can you point something out to me that you recognise and I don't, please?

I already have. God IS.
Other than that, I don't think I could top these great thinkers explanation of evidence for God,
which is why you should consult them.

As far as pointing out stuff you don't recognise, I think the main one is... God.

So you think some are born with one default and others the other default?
Is it genetics, then?

It's not about being born with a default, it is about your conscious and sub-conscious awareness. The way we currently are, at every given moment.

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

Jan doesn't make an argument and doesn't care to. That's why he's frustrating to those who care for empirical knowledge, evidence, science, reason, and logic. I don't know what else needs to be said. He's a convenient punching bag if you want to practice talking to irrational theists.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I'm the one free from delusion in this case. You can't know that he doesn't exist because you are caught in the trap of belief.

I accept that there is God, and without God, just as there is one, and there is zero.
A theist believes in God, and an atheist doesn't (without God). God doesn't exist for those that are without.
Otherwise God IS. That makes the most sense to me.

You are without faculties to discern the real from the pretend.

So anyone who believes in God, have faculties to discern the real from the pretend. Is that what you're saying?

On some level you do want to justify your belief so you created a fantasy of special knowledge.

So this occured in some evolutionary past when knuckle-draggers demanded an answer to ''why thunder and lightening?''?

That's what faith is, fake knowledge. Real knowledge can always be justified through logic and evidence.

Thanks for that. At least we now know what you think faith is.

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

So anyone who believes in God, have faculties to discern the real from the pretend. Is that what you're saying?

Quite a lot of them have blinders in this one area, because they are personally invested in the idea.

So this occured in some evolutionary past when knuckle-draggers demanded an answer to ''why thunder and lightening?''?

Yes, we call it mythology.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

↑
I talked to a Muslim guy one time who said he tried realy hard to find God... but he didnt find him.!!!
Im almost 70 an i have never even thout about/had any desire to look for a God... any idea why you thank that is.???

Because you're not interested.

I thank thats a real good answr.!!!

But now you feel the need to join in trying to convince yourself that the disinterest you hold, is actually the human default position, and as such any other position is to be accepted as deluded. Of course you'll try and explain that you only want evidence for God, but really you're not interested (currently).

An i dont know if its the "human default position" or not... but id like to hear from you'r perspective -- what are some reasons that a person woud not be interested in findin God.???

 

[Tiassa]

It's Not Tough to Figure Out

Click to hear from those with nothing to say.​

An i dont know if its the "human default position" or not... but id like to hear from you'r perspective -- what are some reasons that a person woud not be interested in findin God.???

(1) Same reason I'm not interested in hunting snipe.

(2) If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him.

If someone convinces me to forego the first, I adhere to the second. Thus:

(3) Something about the futility of undertaking futile efforts goes here.

 

[The God]

.....those who care for empirical knowledge, evidence, science, reason, and logic..... irrational theists.....

Unwittingly truthful.

A scientist while worshipping God, that is while being a theist, leaves aside his empirical knowledge, evidence, science reason and logic. Would you abuse him as irrational punching bag?

 

[The God]

I'm the one free from delusion in this....

...That's what faith is, fake knowledge. Real knowledge can always be justified through logic and evidence.

Your ignorance about the basic definition of 'faith' is palpable..

 

[Yazata]

Your ignorance about the basic definition of 'faith' is palpable..

What is the basic definition of 'faith'?

 

[DaveC426913]

What is the basic definition of 'faith'?

I believe, fairly early on in the thread we stated an assumption that we're talking specifically about faith in a higher power (as opposed to, faith in your friend, or somesuch).

So at the very least, I think it's a given - for this kind of faith - that the higher power exists. I can't presume it means that this HP watches over or influences us, unless that's the general consensus.

This is the start of a working definition, for the purposes of this discussion, so anyone feel free to add or subtract.

 

[Jan Ardena]

What is the basic definition of 'faith'?

Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

An i dont know if its the "human default position" or not... but id like to hear from you'r perspective -- what are some reasons that a person woud not be interested in findin God.???

You're currently in a better position to answer that, than me.

Jan.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

You're currently in a better position to answer that, than me.

Have you ever been in the position of searchin for God... or just not interested in searchin for God.???

 

[Yazata]

Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

That's Hebrews 11:1 from the Christian Bible. Can you explain what it means?

Is the first clause literally saying that faith is a substance? (Or is 'substance' being used metaphorically?)

Is the second clause literally saying that faith is evidence, allowing people to know things not otherwise knowable? That suggests that faith should be imagined as what Indian philosophy would call a pramana, a way (such as perception or logical inference) of acquiring true knowledge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pramana

I don't think that either interpretation (the metaphysical or the epistemological) works very well or makes much sense.

It probably makes most sense to interpret 'faith' psychologically, in the way that the Buddhists interpret 'sraddha'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_in_Buddhism

I think that many Christians do interpret 'faith' as 'trust' or 'confidence', as descriptive of their attitude towards whatever they are faithful about. (But not as a way of knowing things they wouldn't otherwise know.) I'm not sure if The God or the author of Hebrews were using the word that way.

 

[Baldeee]

Who said I didn't like it?

In the sense of being able to say whether you found it evidence or not, you did, as per you repeating it in the first line of your response above:
"If and when I have that experience, I'll try and remember to let you know."

Wait a minute!
You purposely put that one in to get a specific reaction. I didn't bite. So you pretend that I did.
Pitiful.

I was not after any specific reaction.
Just your genuine response to whether you personally found it to be evidence of God or not.
You haven't said whether you find it evidence or not, and I'm not pretending that you did.

Google.

I did.
Yet you were not forthcoming with the example I gave.
Thus I'm asking you to give an example of something you find to be reasonable evidence.
Why do you continue to evade?

And as far as you're concerned, there is no evidence for God. Job done.

No, it's not "job done" as there is still evidence of a concept of God, a concept. that some people believe exists in actuality.

I really don't see much difference, given the path you've decided to take in this discussion.

I've asked you questions in the spirit of honest discussion, which you're simply evading.
Which path have I taken in this discussion?

I've never claimed to ''understand atheists''.

Not in so many words, no, but your comments have that implication.
If you disagree then please don't respond as though you do think you understand atheists, or try to second guess what atheists might say, or continue to create your strawmen caricatures of them.

It's not. Simply because you have no concept of Theos in the first place, other than speculation.
You can't seriously want evidence of something, that does not exist, to you, as you sit and read this.

And there you go claiming to understand atheists.
Contradict yourself much?
I do seriously want to see what you put forth as evidence that you reasonably consider to be evidence of God's existence.

Then accept when I say ''God IS'', regardless of whether that's what you want to hear. That is my answer.

Why should I accept that?

Most of the evidences for God you find on a google search, I'm okay with.

But not Jesus' face on a tortilla?
How about a statue that supposedly weeps?

You're the one who invoked ''v'' (versus), not me.

I merely made explicit the underlying tone of your expressed views.

Other than that, there are two categories, Theos, and ATheos.

So you have tried to make clear, yet you don't see it as one view v the other?

It is what it is. There is God, and there is no God. We all come into this atmosphere with that.
We all express that in some way. It seems to be a natural default for humans. I have come to believe that those two positions are correct.

Again, how does this answer the question I asked: you seem to be equating the comprehension of the concept with the acceptance of that concept as true... why?
And you have come to believe that which two positions are true?
That there is both God and no-God?

Well you're not going to understand it, until you accept it.

Let me be the judge of that.
Otherwise you are simply evading.

I blindly accept what you, and everyone else says.
It doesn't mean I have to believe it.

Accept as in "believe or come to recognise (a proposition) as valid or correct."?

Just answer the question. Or not. It's up to you.

Can you show me a question I haven't answered, other than one I explicitly said that I would only do so after you had satisfactorily answered mine?

We all know your position Baldeee. You're atheist (lack belief in God).

So you do presume to understand atheists.

There's nothing to really argue about. I'm not interested in why you're an atheist.

Yet enough to think you know why I am.

You have faith, but it's not in God.

No, I don't.

You don't believe in God, because as far as you can see God doesn't exist.

I can't say whether God exists or not as far as I can see.

You may have notions of thinking that the reason you don't believe in God, is because there is a lack of evidence for God.

And I'm sure you "don't claim to know atheists" enough to tell me that I'm wrong in my own reasoning,

That being said, you believe that if evidence were to materialise, you would believe in the existence of God (atheist notion).

I don't believe that, no.
There may well be evidence that I remain utterly oblivious to.
But if I did believe in God then it would be in God.
You keep saying that there is only one God.
Or are you saying that even if God wanted me to, I wouldn't be able to believe in God?

But as of yet, throughout the whole of history, nothing has really come close to convincing you that there is a God.

Well, throughout my whole history.
I wasn't around for the vast majority of history, recorded or otherwise.
I guess the question is why I don't place as much stock in history that is recorded than perhaps others do that they take written and/or oral recordings at face value, etc?

All notions of evidence of God has thus far been rejected by you. You are, however, still open to the possibility that one day physical evidence will manifest. Hence you regard yourself as agnostic/atheist.

Not just physical evidence.
Any evidence.
I do regard myself not as agnostic/atheist but as an agnostic atheist.
Similarly a female Democrat does not regard themself as female/Democrat.

So not bad in trying to understand... you only got most of it wrong.

Other people are.
So what does that mean?

It means I am interested in what they find reasonable, and why they find it reasonable.
Hence my purpose for being in this thread.
I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it, even after you asked me what my agenda was.

''God IS'', is reasonable to me.
I don't really need to clarify that.

You've clarified that as your position numerous times now.
I am interested in why you think that, on what basis you think it, etc.
If you are not interested in that, why didn't you just say so at the start?

I don't need you to clarify why God ISN'T to me.

Who is asking you?
In the honest discussion that would be for me to explain my position, why I think it reasonable etc.

I already have. God IS.
Other than that, I don't think I could top these great thinkers explanation of evidence for God,
which is why you should consult them.

Jesus on a tortilla it is, then.

As far as pointing out stuff you don't recognise, I think the main one is... God.

Yes, evidence for the existence of God that I don't recognise is... God.
Nice.
Question beg much?

It's not about being born with a default, it is about your conscious and sub-conscious awareness. The way we currently are, at every given moment.

Ah, so you think atheists aren't as aware, consciously and/or subconsciously?
So what is it that you are aware of that I am not?
And please, in the spirit of honest discussion, do not just say "God" as that would be most unhelpful.

 

[Jan Ardena]

In the sense of being able to say whether you found it evidence or not, you did, as per you repeating it in the first line of your response above:
"If and when I have that experience, I'll try and remember to let you know."

I wrote what I said. Stick to it.

No, it's not "job done" as there is still evidence of a concept of God, a concept. that some people believe exists in actuality.

Right at this moment 'God' does not exist for you. Fact.

I've asked you questions in the spirit of honest discussion, which you're simply evading.
Which path have I taken in this discussion?

Firstly, you're not honest.
Secondly, you going down the 'does God exist' path.
You need to start a new thread.

Not in so many words, no, but your comments have that implication.
If you disagree then please don't respond as though you do think you understand atheists, or try to second guess what atheists might say, or continue to create your strawmen caricatures of them.

I understand the term ''atheist'', and how it is ''atheos'', despite new designs.

And there you go claiming to understand atheists.

What part of ''you'' (as in who I responding to) don't you comprehend?

I do seriously want to see what you put forth as evidence that you reasonably consider to be evidence of God's existence.

You mean you seriously want to change the discussion to 'show me evidence of God existence', because that is all you have.
Like I said, start a new thread. Who knows I may even bite.

Why should I accept that?

Because you asked me, and I responded.

But not Jesus' face on a tortilla?
How about a statue that supposedly weeps?

When I typed 'evidence for existence of God' into Google, these didn't appear.
Did the people who reported this claim it was evidence for the existence of God?

I merely made explicit the underlying tone of your expressed views.

Well you may as well converse with yourself.

So you have tried to make clear, yet you don't see it as one view v the other?

I said what I said.

Again, how does this answer the question I asked: you seem to be equating the comprehension of the concept with the acceptance of that concept as true... why?

Things aren't always as they seem. If you don't like my response. Too bad.

And you have come to believe that which two positions are true?
That there is both God and no-God?

Yes. Truth and illusion.

Let me be the judge of that.

How can you be the judge that?

Otherwise you are simply evading.

How do you know that I'm evading?

Accept as in "believe or come to recognise (a proposition) as valid or correct."?

More like 'consent to receive or undertake (something offered).
I'm not surprised you bypassed the prime definition and went straight to the secondary one.
You're desperate.

Can you show me a question I haven't answered, other than one I explicitly said that I would only do so after you had satisfactorily answered mine?

I have answered your question. Not my problem if you are satisfied.

So you do presume to understand atheists.

You all lack belief in God. Right?

Yet enough to think you know why I am.

Simple. You're without God.

No, I don't.

Yes you do.

I can't say whether God exists or not as far as I can see.

God doesn't exist for you.

And I'm sure you "don't claim to know atheists" enough to tell me that I'm wrong in my own reasoning,

You are without God, so you're atheist reasoning (lack of belief) cannot be wrong.

Or are you saying that even if God wanted me to, I wouldn't be able to believe in God?

It's your choice Baldeee.

Not just physical evidence.
Any evidence.

That's good.

I do regard myself not as agnostic/atheist but as an agnostic atheist.
Similarly a female Democrat does not regard themself as female/Democrat.

A female is a female, and an atheist is an atheist, no matter how you dress them up.

It means I am interested in what they find reasonable, and why they find it reasonable.

Good luck with that.

You've clarified that as your position numerous times now.
I am interested in why you think that, on what basis you think it, etc.

I think it is as natural to me, as God isn't (for whatever reason), is as natural to you.
They're both foundational points.
As of yet, you see no evidence of God, and I see that God IS.
Why don't you see evidence of God?

Jesus on a tortilla it is, then.

Why is that not evidence of God?

jan.

 

[Baldeee]

I have answered your question. Not my problem if you are satisfied.

Given the tone and the assumption that you intended for this to make sense, I think you missed out "not" before the last word.
Which is a pity, as it does rather signal the end of any chance of an honest discussion with you, Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Given the tone and the assumption that you intended for this to make sense, I think you missed out "not" before the last word.
Which is a pity, as it does rather signal the end of any chance of an honest discussion with you, Jan.

I'm not being dishonest Baldeee, and I am not being evasive. The answers I give are genuine responses.
You wish to draw this into an existence debate, and I'm not going there. It is a thread on faith, and that's where I'm coming from. I think it is obvious that you don't have much to offer this thread, why you want to take it down another path.

Now how about answering these questions, instead of avoiding them.

How do you know that I'm evading?

Why don't you see evidence of God?

Jesus on a tortilla it is, then.

Why is that not evidence of God?

jan.

 

[Sarkus]

More like 'consent to receive or undertake (something offered).
I'm not surprised you bypassed the prime definition and went straight to the secondary one.
You're desperate.

In what way can a proposition such as, say, "God IS", be offered by someone such that someone else can "consent to receive or undertake" it? It's not an object, or a challenge, a gift, a token, a blessing. It's just a proposition. And as such I'm not sure there should be any dispute as to the meaning between the two offered.
Jan... you're wrong. Worst still I think you know you are and it is rather you who is desperate, trying to achieve a victory where none sensibly is. And in doing so you highlight once again your "us v them" mentality, tiresome as it is.
And I have to ask again, as I've asked many times in the past: is English your first language?

 

[Jan Ardena]

In what way can a proposition such as, say, "God IS", be offered by someone such that someone else can "consent to receive or undertake" it? It's not an object, or a challenge, a gift, a token, a blessing. It's just a proposition. And as such I'm not sure there should be any dispute as to the meaning between the two offered.

I'm asking him to accept that 'God IS' is my response, not that it is true. He must find that out for himself.

Jan... you're wrong. Worst still I think you know you are and it is rather you who is desperate, trying to achieve a victory where none sensibly is. And in doing so you highlight once again your "us v them" mentality, tiresome as it is.

There is no victory in this thread. It is about 'Faith'.
It is not about 'does God exist', or 'where is the evidence for Gods existence', under the guise of 'I want to know why you believe in God'.

Yes English is my first language.
Why?

jan.