Could you believe that God exists?

[Doug Shaver]

Are we not all liars?

No, not habitually. Most of us, most of the time, say only what we actually believe. We might be mistaken more often than we think, but as long as we believe what we say, we do not lie.

Could human beings really be suppressing the truth of God in their heart of hearts?

That is possibly so. I have no reason to think it is actually so.

[tabibito]

Let's put the shoe on the other foot. Suppose someone from another religion were to tell you, "Five minutes from now, the God I worship will make a baloney sandwich materialise before your very eyes." And five minutes later, the sandwich appears. What would be your response?

I would acknowledge that there was evidence that the other person's god was real. Discussion would proceed from there.
But, my acknowledgement of the other god would go no further than admitting that the said god existed.

However, if such a sandwich materialised in front of me without advance notice, and the person said "my god did that" afterwards, I would doubt very much that any god was involved. In the ordinary course that is - he might be able to provide an acceptable reason for me to believe him.

[Scrawly]

No, not habitually. Most of us, most of the time, say only what we actually believe. We might be mistaken more often than we think, but as long as we believe what we say, we do not lie.


That is possibly so. I have no reason to think it is actually so.

May I ask why you spend quite a bit of time discussing the issue of God's existence then? You previously stated on this thread that it is highly unlikely that you will be convinced through rational argumentation, as you have heard all the arguments before. So why continue to kick against the goads?

[robrecht]

Let's put the shoe on the other foot. Suppose someone from another religion were to tell you, "Five minutes from now, the God I worship will make a baloney sandwich materialise before your very eyes." And five minutes later, the sandwich appears. What would be your response?

Random quantum fluctuation, of course.

j/k I would be pretty amazed and would want to know more about his God. Do his religious beliefs promote love, kindness, respect, justice, and other values that might transcend magical baloney sandwiches. If I was not dying of starvation, I would want to know what the real value of magical/miraculous/mysterious baloney sandwiches is in his or her religious worldview. Is there something more profound than baloney sandwiches or is it just a cool trick of his or of his god?

[NormATive]

" Today we have the Scriptures, which were written so that we may believe...Yes, this is presuppositional argumentation, however, I have come to experience the reality that humans are not the most trustworthy. Are we not all liars? Could human beings really be suppressing the truth of God in their heart of hearts? Well, I'll leave that for you to ponder.

We lie, we tell the truth. We are both liars and truth-tellers, not one or the other. I think that we suppress the reality that we are temporal beings and we have invented in our mind religion in order to give us the illusion of immortality.

Once you remove yourself from this "Matrix" of religion, you realize that your life is entirely contained within your life span. So, you make the most of it, and seeing those around you who are suffering - you wish to relieve them of their burdens so that they too can enjoy this one and only life.

So, if God wishes to bring back those of us who have escaped the Matrix, he will have to prove himself to us - or, at the very least; show himself.

NORM

[Doug Shaver]

May I ask why you spend quite a bit of time discussing the issue of God's existence then?

Like most human beings, I suspect that the world would be a better place is more people shared my worldview. My worldview does not depend on there being no god, but my worldview is what makes me doubt that there is a god.

[Doug Shaver]

Suppose someone from another religion were to tell you, "Five minutes from now, the God I worship will make a baloney sandwich materialise before your very eyes." And five minutes later, the sandwich appears. What would be your response?

I would acknowledge that there was evidence that the other person's god was real. Discussion would proceed from there.
But, my acknowledgement of the other god would go no further than admitting that the said god existed.

I would be pretty amazed and would want to know more about his God.

Inexplicability is evidence, to me, of nothing more than my personal ignorance. I would not revise my worldview just because one person did one thing that I could not explain.

[tabibito]

Inexplicability is evidence, to me, of nothing more than my personal ignorance.
I would not revise my worldview just because one person did one thing that I could not explain.

The ability to predict is a scientific test of veracity. A one off prediction may be considered insufficient to provide proof - but it is evidence that warrants further discussion/examination. I would take a single miracle performed by a person who identifies himself as a Christian as supporting evidence, but not as proof. There are more important considerations than the mere exercise of authority.

[robrecht]

Inexplicability is evidence, to me, of nothing more than my personal ignorance. I would not revise my worldview just because one person did one thing that I could not explain.

But, if someone were to offer me an explanation, I would be inclined to inquire further and try to understand better, as I'm sure you would to, yes?

[tabibito]

If an observed event is not considered a reasonable basis for forming a hypothesis, I have to worry about the methodology of the person who doesn't base his hypotheses on the basis of observed phenomena.

[Doug Shaver]

But, if someone were to offer me an explanation, I would be inclined to inquire further and try to understand better, as I'm sure you would to, yes?

The extent of my inquiry would depend among other things on the prima facie credibility of the proposed explanation, and, of course, the investigatory resources at my disposal. I have little time and less money to devote to indulging my curiosity.

[Doug Shaver]

If an observed event is not considered a reasonable basis for forming a hypothesis, I have to worry about the methodology of the person who doesn't base his hypotheses on the basis of observed phenomena.

Hypotheses don't exist in isolation. Any hypothesis has to be consistent with everything else we think we know about the how the universe works. Nobody is obliged to revise their entire worldview just because of a single observation.

[robrecht]

The extent of my inquiry would depend among other things on the prima facie credibility of the proposed explanation, and, of course, the investigatory resources at my disposal. I have little time and less money to devote to indulging my curiosity.

Same here. My follow-up questions would be much more important to me than the initially offered explanation.

[Sea of red]

The Christian God? No. It's a concept that has too much evidence IMHO to be a reasonable belief anymore. It's clear as day to me that the religious texts said to be of divine origins are actually a projection of the ancient male ego.

I could however, see myself believing in some sort new properties in the universe that have influence in the way time evolves, but I see no evidence of that currently.

[whag]

If an observed event is not considered a reasonable basis for forming a hypothesis, I have to worry about the methodology of the person who doesn't base his hypotheses on the basis of observed phenomena.

If a supernatural experience can be believed so easily, I have to wonder about the conclusions you've been making. That's an extraordinary amount of unverified data that you allow to construct your views. Seer's floating fern story, for example, brought you comfort. To others, healthy skepticism must sometimes give way to viewing those types of stories as banal and unaffecting. The volume of them makes them so.

That being said, you are a henotheist, and henotheists come to weird conclusions by default (re: the order and operation of supernature).