Do you believe in God?

[Philosopher]

I believe in me and God MUST be happy for that because the only thing in myself that God has is my humanity!

[Play_Dough]

Yes! I believe in God but not in my pathetic (of Pathos) cultural descriptions of God.
To me "God" is a playful phenomenon who creates and then occupies his/her creations. And just like all other playful eternal children, "God" can occassionally get him/her self into a temporary 'jam' (problematic context).
God is omnipotent but can temporarily abandon omnipotence for the sake of challenge and adventure!
God, fortunately, is deaf to all prayers except the prayer, "God, what can I do to help you".
"God" exists, in some measure, in all of us. And.. when we get rid of the 'us' part then all that remains is God.
.

[Peter]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Perhaps I've missed the point - does any of what you've said establish that "lack of evidence does not prove nonexistence" is not accurate?

You're right, Didymos Thomas. Lack of evidence does not prove nonexistence. The reason for this is that it is impossible to prove a general empirical negative. Only logical contradiction can do that; for example, I can be completely certain that I will never find a square circle. But if a concept does not contain a logical inconsistency then its existence is a logical possibility.

Logical possibility, however, is a long way from validating belief or from indicating the slightest feasability that the object exists. Only evidence can do that. If we depart from the principle that belief should be in accordance with evidence then we are open to all kinds of superstition - and worse, such as racist slurs and rumours. Just about every incitement to group hatred contains allegations which are deficient in evidence but are logical possibilities, and are believed (by those who accept them) on that basis.

Peter

[Alveolate]

I believe in God, or some sort of Almighty that guides me, but does not hold my hand and lead the path ahead of me. I think of God as a teacher. She never fully gives me the answer, but He helps me in such a way that a close friend or a close family member would.

I don't view God as the big, giant Humanoid in the sky that constantly points His giant index finger down on people when they do something against what they are told he does not approve of. I view God as a spiritual guide to some form of truth.

Any time I am frustrated and don't see a reason to believe in God, my intuition reminds me that there must be. Even if there is no proof, there must be God. Why is proof so important? If I am not opposing anyone else's beliefs or hurting anyone both physically and mentally, what does it matter? It's there. I can feel it. I can't really describe how or why, but It's there.

[Peter]

Welcome to this site, Alveolate.

Originally Posted by Alveolate

Even if there is no proof, there must be God. Why is proof so important? If I am not opposing anyone else's beliefs or hurting anyone both physically and mentally, what does it matter? It's there. I can feel it. I can't really describe how or why, but It's there.

Proof is important, in a fairly basic way, because it enables us to distinguish truth from falsehood. Intuition can supply us with brilliant insights and compelling feelings, but also with false and misleading ideas, usually of a kind that further our interests and prejudices. The problem is how to distinguish one from the other. It is for this reason that it is important to subject our intuitive notions to a process of rational evaluation designed to expose their weaknesses.

In practice, of course, absolute proof is unattainable outside the sphere of logic. When dealing with empirical knowledge we are limited to varying degrees of probability, but the principle of subjecting our ideas to rational criticism remains valid as the only means of separating true statements about the universe from false ones.

Peter

[Didymos Thomas]

Then I've certainly missed your point, Peter. We both agree that lack of evidence for something does not mean that something is not so, nor does lack of evidence provide any reason to think that something is so.

You may not like my example of a man named John from India, and I'm sure better examples exist, but my point remains: Both the strong athiest and strong theist claims are too extreme to be defended adequately.

[Peter]

I understand what you are saying, Didymos Thomas. There is a level of thinking at which both the strong theist and the strong atheist position are unsupportable: the level of logical demonstration and proof. However, this is not the level at which empirical knowledge is discussed and judged, because no empirical statement is capable of being proved to the absolute standard of certainty which is present in a logical demonstration.

Logical proof amounts to demonstrating that if the conclusion were untrue, this would involve a contradiction. No empirical statement can ever be proved at this level since it is always possible to conceive of it being otherwise. I firmly believe that witches do not exist and that the sun will rise tomorrow, but neither of these can be logically demonstrated. There is a standard of proof (practical certainty) which falls short of logical demonstration but which is the standard to be applied to empirical knowledge.

The absolute standard of proof which you invoke would invalidate not only the strong theist and atheist positions but also all our basic knowledge of the world we live in. When dealing with empirical knowledge we need to abandon the concept of absolute (logical) proof and focus on assembling and comparing evidence.

Peter

[Didymos Thomas]

I don't think my arguments need an absolute standard of truth, even if my post may have been worded in such a fashion. Sorry for any confusion.

The strong atheist claim is that God does not exist. Supporting this claim encounters a great many problems. What is God? Can you prove the nonexistence of something?
God is not an easy word to define in a universal way. Understandings vary too widely.
As for proving the nonexistence of something, how can this be done empirically? As you point out, such a task, proving somethings nonexistence, is outside the scope of empirical knowledge. What we can do with empirical knowledge is ask ourselves if there is any reason for believing a claim, such as 'God exists'. If no evidence for the claim is available, there is no reason to believe the claim. This leads us to the soft atheist claim, 'there is no evidence that God exists, therefore there is no good reason for me to believe that God exists'. This soft claim, I think, is reasonable.

[Justin]

Just to inject my thought for the day on this topic...

God exists in the way that each individual allows God to exist and in the form of their perception. If God doesn't exist to one man, and exists to another, both are very real and very right, yet very different. God is as individual and as autonomous as we human beings are.

So God's existence is directly related to an individuals belief in a God and they are all different. Like DNA, there are no two God's exactly alike... and there will never be enough empirical evidence to prove otherwise. Proof can also be argued to be an illusion.

[ogden]

Originally Posted by Justin

Just to inject my thought for the day on this topic...

God exists in the way that each individual allows God to exist and in the form of their perception. If God doesn't exist to one man, and exists to another, both are very real and very right, yet very different. God is as individual and as autonomous as we human beings are.

So God's existence is directly related to an individuals belief in a God and they are all different. Like DNA, there are no two God's exactly alike... and there will never be enough empirical evidence to prove otherwise. Proof can also be argued to be an illusion.

Hi Justin,

So if I say alien life forms exist (I can feel them, and I don't know how, but I just know), and you say they do not; then alien life forms do exist, but only in my mind (my subjective perception). Correct?

That makes sense to me because I say God is a concept, like time, or infinity. Either way, its futile to try to proov in any emperical way because there is no evidence, only beliefe and acceptance, or doubt and denial. Value judgement.

Right?