You know and can prove this or are you going on the teachings of other humans or your own desire?
Der Trihs, perhaps you can share this knowledge you keep talking about which makes you think that there can be no god?
Everything you know AT THIS POINT doesn’t point to God. Also, that’s everything YOU know, it’s not collective. Maybe God WANTS to be hid from the masses, don’t you think he’d be able to do that if he had that much power?
Do you think science perfectly explains life, or explains existence, explains how stuff like time and space exist in the first place? If you can’t give me an answer then why are you taking God out of the picture as if certain?
We’re discussing certain arguments. I don’t have to prove arguments exist do I?
That’s not how rational belief works. For me to believe something exists, I have to have pretty good, rational evidence. Time and space existing is evidence for nothing more than that time and space exist.
I could go more into the time and space thing, but the main point is this:
*Do you know everything about everything? If not, why are you sure that a knowledge of god isn’t among the things you don’t know? *
To not know and believe there is a divine order out there isn’t irrational.
I’m not sure, but one can’t base their life on the things they don’t know about. Gods, unicorns, Santa, fairies, etc., all go into the same category in my mind – mythological beings for which I have seen no evidence of their existence. It’s possible any or all of them exist, but I go about my life as if they don’t, until I have reason to behave otherwise. I think it’s unlikely any of them exist, though I haven’t ruled it out… but they have no bearing on my life.
Using this “logic”, how many gods, goddesses and mythological beings for which there is absolutely no evidence do you consider with reverence and/or worship? If you do NOT treat them all the same, please tell us what makes one(or more) of them more logical?
I’m curious to see the answer to this question. I have already gone into detail about possible answers, but it would be nice to see another opinion.
- There is no evidence that YOU have found, SO FAR.
- I have my ideas on finding the right divine order, but that is not relevent to the thread.
The point is in there being an* honest possibility* out there for some (if not to everyones mind) in that system it is not a form of denial to believe.
Well, you have no reason to think they exist. If there is a possibility of them in your mind, why shouldn’t others have had direct experiences with them? Other people can have come to different conclusions even without the experiences, and thus believing in them or basing their life around them isn’t a form of denial.
You seem to think that everyone is coming from the same base of experience/knowledge. This is not the case. What is denial to you is not for the next guy… in fact, some people it would be denial NOT to do that.
- And what evidence have you found that pertains to your particular deity and no other?
- If making declarations about the subject is relevant, then questioning those declarations is equally relevant.
Let’s take one of the examples given: Unicorns. If someone says that they believe in unicorns, but can provide no evidence for their past or current existence, should I respect that belief as much as you would have me respect any deity you believe in?
You’re not questioning my declarations, your questioning my personal belief system. One is meaningful to the subject of this thread, the other is not.
If you are asking which God is more logical to follow…
Certain people have come across different evidence as well as each having their own way of interpreting that evidence. In that, some may conclude one God to be logical to follow, while another may decide a different God should be followed. They are both seeking truth and not in a state of denial in doing so. That’s what I feel is meaningful to what this thread is about rather then what my personal belief system is.
So as far as the psychological makeup of individuals who conclude that a certain form of divinity is the truth, it isn’t a form of denial (although in some it can be).
Uhh, how is this relevant in getting to the bottom of if people are always in a state of denial in having faith? I don’t see how that is closer to being answered if I tell you if you ought to believe in unicorns because some random person told you that they do.
Gods are in the same category as unicorns, Santa, leprechauns, etc. So while I can’t be sure that someone who tells me they saw a leprechaun is mistaken or lying, it’s far more likely that they are then that they really saw a real leprechaun. Even though far more people believe in Gods then in leprechauns, I have seen no reason so far to believe that they are more likely to be correct than the leprechaun-believers.
But sure, both gods and leprechauns might exist; I’ll grant you that.
Well in their possibility of existing, how can it be sure that no one has come across one to where they are not in a state of denial if they think that the entity exists? Unless you honestly don’t think they can exist and that’s the frame of reference you assume for everyone else.
How do you define “faith” ?
Simster,
I can have faith that this year will be a good year for me. It may not be, but that can be where I mentally place my bet. Like I can have a gut feeling about something, and while I don’t necessarily know every logical argument for it, I can think it’s true. Like thinking who is the bad guy in a detective novel.
Faith can mean different things but that is how I have been using it here.
Thats more of a “confidence” - ot potentially “trust” - and is usually built upon evidence of past behaviours, etc.
For example - while I have no evidence that the sun will rise tomorrow - I have 47 years of experience that it has so far - that gives me “faith” that it will again.
Faith in the religous context is defined as “belief without evidence” - and is usually reffering to the existence of Gods and the Afterlife.
So - in that context it is fully possible to not have ‘faith’ as you are describing in your first post - and it muddies the water in these discussions to conflate the two.
Think about it this way. Say we project our 3D universe onto a plane, and project time as the third dimension. When we as limited beings move from one place to another, we trace a curve in 3 dimensions (location and time) in this space. We can look at things in the plane, but only down to the past. God, however, can move in an unlimited way through this space, and sees things in 3 dimensions - past, present, and future. So, God sees time, but is not limited by time. Time definitely exists for God - he can see it - but he is not limited by it.
An omniscient god can see this entire 3 dimensional space, and since he is not limited by time, he can see it all at once, in his eternal now. BTW, part of the 3d space includes his interactions with the universe. Through omniscience, he can see all at once. Now, how can he change anything? All of time is spread out for him, and there is no time for him, so you can’t say he changed his mind, since that implies he is a time-based being.
If was not omniscient then parts of the 3d space-time universe will be closed to him, and he can do anything he wants within them.
God in the Bible changes his mind all the time, and seems to be in time - but we can assume he is just pretending that he is, and, for instance, always knew Nineveh would be spared in the Jonah story.
If he can change his mind, btw, then parts of the 3D space time universe would be oscillating, and he’d see a variety of events changing at certain points. That doesn’t seem like omniscience to me.
Now I’ve blown my own mind. 