What evidence would prove to you the existence of God? This immediately demonstrates a problem with God as an evidential being. Does he exist in that sense? What about miracles? But then we can never be sure a miracle isn't just occurring by itself or by fiat of some other powerful being.
No matter how clearly God manifests himself to us, there will always remain a doubt that he is an elaborate hoax perpetrated by some other highly advanced being. (see Wizard of Oz). That's because besides being a question of actual existence, it is also a question of identity... ie. prove to me you are the God I am familiar with and am informed about in numerous biblical stories. In this sense the question annuls itself, like asking for proof of Darth Vadar. We don't live in that fictional reality that Darth Vadar, and God, inhabit.. It doesn't make sense for God to exist as a storybook character AND as a real being that exists in our reality. One will have to go. And for me that is the latter.
That’s the thing, easier to stick God in some sort of alternate reality that no one can prove, even if higher than a kite.
We can assert that Nature or natural conditions dictate we do this or that. We can assert that reason dictates that we do this or that (as if it doesn't require selected premises to be plugged into the process). We can assert that an established secular ideology dictates we do this or that. Etc.
Other views rise up in rebellion.
IOW, we can prescribe authority to other either semi-concrete or abstract concepts and organizational affairs (the state,
The Man, the space aliens, the smart machines, etc -- certain expectations like the latter could be potentially tangible). God is just another idea of the wholly invisible variety, described or embodied by language.
In the end, it's the human motive -- either survival oriented or "protect society oriented" or group-selfish or power hungry -- that's doing the projecting. The either practical, justified, or pure scapegoating of _X_ as responsible due to the dominance and jurisdiction attributed to it, or the word/message supposedly conveyed by it to mediators.
Switching from immaterial to material, scientism advocates would be the mediators of what Nature wants or commands, to avoid scientists being declared its prophets. Some moral philosophers the mediators of what reason wants.
Faith in a higher power/God is hoping in and for “things unseen,” and the “evidence” varies from person to person. Many turn to the Bible for everyday life advice and see many of the stories as purely allegorical, while others believe it is the literal inspired word of God.
These topics usually center around Christianity but there are many belief systems out there whereby people worship and adhere to principles that they consider to be Divine. But it all takes faith. Faith in a higher power is not just following a collection of ideas passed down from one civilization to the next without questioning - it’s a lived experience, a journey of sorts.
The thing about requiring evidence of God - whose standards would need to be reached?
I don't think it would ever be that simple. History has gone out of it's way to alter and deface things to the point where what people think they know and believe, is actually just a meme.
This is my take on it, correct or not that's something for you to fathom:
Christianity for the most part was an eclectic collection of passages and oral stories taken form many different "cults" religions under Roman occupation, from when one caesar decided to change Roman belief system from a polythesism to "one system to rule them all" to match his own beliefs (Well not so much his beliefs, but the beliefs that his people were turning dissodent and the only way to appease them was to appeal to something they were dissenting with).
There is subsiquent pointers to this, for instance when the term "Amen" is used, I'd believe that to be a direct collation to Amun (Egyptian god for Universe Creation, one of many of their Polythesism), There is also passages from Solomon's Court. Furthermore when you look at the King James translation it further obfuscates it. In the case of the "New testiment", most of the "Books" are themselves duplicates of the same stories made slightly different (colloquial to fit with different cultures under roman occupation at the time.)
If the Bible had been written by one author, they would have been deemed a hack. (1 out of 5 stars)
(Aug 14, 2021 06:18 PM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ][...] But it all takes faith. Faith in a higher power is not just following a collection of ideas passed down from one civilization to the next without questioning - it’s a lived experience, a journey of sorts.
The thing about requiring evidence of God - whose standards would need to be reached?
The impetus behind faith may stem from deeming _X_ to be necessary. Crudely, like four sides being necessary for a square, or unmarried status being necessary for a spinster.
Doesn't have to be exclusively necessary for the existence of the world or whatever in some way, though; just necessary for the psychological well-being of a particular person. (As well as extendable to a whole community -- Amish culture perhaps couldn't persist without it; essential to it.)
But it's usually only an implicit "feeling" in the beginning (or always), that's not explicitly articulated or formulated. Such could also serve as the informal, silent "intellectual evidence" for the implicit theist mindset.
Of course, not everyone will either feel or construe agency of some kind (God, gods, spiritual forces, etc) as necessary. Just as one individual needs seclusion/privacy and another needs constant social interaction and the baring of their activities to the world.
We all know the role of family and community background conditioning with respect to beliefs. If an individual returns to the latter after having the conditioning stripped away, or is attracted to it without having had any conditioning, then it may qualify as a native orientation.
Anyway, it never completely worked in communist states to ban such beliefs and suppress the conditions incubating them:
League of Militant Atheists
(Aug 14, 2021 07:11 PM)C C Wrote: [ -> ] (Aug 14, 2021 06:18 PM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ][...] But it all takes faith. Faith in a higher power is not just following a collection of ideas passed down from one civilization to the next without questioning - it’s a lived experience, a journey of sorts.
The thing about requiring evidence of God - whose standards would need to be reached?
The impetus behind faith may stem from deeming _X_ to be necessary. Crudely, like four sides being necessary for a square, or unmarried status being necessary for a spinster.
Doesn't have to be exclusively necessary for the existence of the world or whatever in some way, though; just necessary for the psychological well-being of a particular person. (As well as extendable to a whole community -- Amish culture perhaps couldn't persist without it; essential to it.)
But it's usually only an implicit "feeling" in the beginning (or always), that's not explicitly articulated or formulated. Such could also serve as the informal, silent "intellectual evidence" for the implicit theist mindset.
Of course, not everyone will either feel or construe agency of some kind (God, gods, spiritual forces, etc) as necessary. Just as one individual needs seclusion/privacy and another needs constant social interaction and the baring of their activities to the world.
We all know the role of family and community background conditioning with respect to beliefs. If an individual returns to the latter after having the conditioning stripped away, or is attracted to it without having had any conditioning, then it may qualify as a native orientation.
Anyway, it never completely worked in communist states to ban such beliefs and suppress the conditions incubating them: League of Militant Atheists
True, everyone's ''standards'' as to how they interpret ''proof'' of God will be subjective. It seems that these types of discussions though center around believers not having valid proof, according to non-believers and their ''standards,'' which is why I asked. So, it tends to get broad brushed in a way that leaves out all the nuance of faith.
I want to know, not believe. Faith can’t provide evidence or information. There is no knowledge of a god, only speculation/theory as one would believe in leprechauns. As soon as one describes god (ie: a loving god) then the faithful have gone too far.
I have reached that point in my life that I find myself reaching out (instinctively?) for some non-specific higher power. I don't know in what sense it exists, whether it can be called "God" or Great Spirit or just the universe. But I leave myself open to the possibility. I can't deny that there has always been a guidance in my life during crises, even though I have no clear idea who is doin the guiding. I guess you could call this faith as I am assuming said being is real, is present, and responds to my prayers. Either way, I feel comfort and solace in this ritual turning over of my problems to a higher power. It gives me a measure of peace and confidence I would not normally experience.
I think that’s what faith is, being open to the possibility at first and then it leads into a journey. Don’t let anyone sway you from this, because if believing in God/higher power brings you peace, then let that lead you.
In my experience with faith, I see God as not a magical being who takes away all my difficulties and stress. But, believing in God gives me a lasting sense of peace that changes my outlook. If God created space, humanity, etc then surely my problems are small by comparison. lol But, many people have had horrible experiences with religion maybe in childhood or whenever, so the door shuts to the idea that God may exist at all.
Good luck exploring this path, MR.