Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Weird how most people think it's either certain or impossible. I vote 50 to 75%, but admittedly part of that is wishful thinking. I don't believe in God but I refuse to believe we probably cease to exist.
Because the evidence for one is not good enough. If it were, Faith would not be needed.
I thought I'd kind of run with what Arequippa said but from a somewhat different angle (and this is addressing Vizio's quote as stated above):
If one claims to have 100% certitude about something, then that is not an article or pronouncement of faith. It is rather a pronouncement of knowledge (and not even some knowledge or partial knowledge but rather absolute knowledge at that). Even famed atheist Richard Dawkins is not a 100% atheist or so-called "strong atheist" in the full sense of the word but rather what is called an agnostic atheist. Even HE says (paraphrasing a bit): "I don't know for absolute sure that there are no fairies or unicorns or angels. There might be." But what he further states as a followup to this is that this is not giving any of those things any probability of being real but just that neither he nor anyone else has "absolute knowledge" and hence he aims to avoid absolutistic statements about such matters.
Drawing upon the analogy with Dawkins given above: Why would you say you have 100% "faith" (actually, you said "belief" but the two words mean the same thing in this context) in the reality of an afterlife? Note that faith is the polar opposite of knowledge or absolute certitude about whatever. If you were absolutely certain that something is true and real (in this case, the reality of an afterlife), then "faith" is not the word to use for it. It is KNOWLEDGE. Call it for what it is. Proclaim to all persons that you have 100% knowledge of the reality of an afterlife and of the God of the Bible. So are you, from now-on, going to continue to say "my Christian faith" or are you going to alter this somewhat to say "my Christian knowledge" or "my Christian certitude"?
The point is that the concept or notion of "faith" involves at least some degree of uncertitude (i.e, it involves investing oneself in an idea for which one can't have 100% certitude about but, as an act of will, one decides to embrace it as true anyway . . . knowing in their hearts that, to at least some degree, they can't be absolutely certain of the truth or reality of what they are investing this "faith" or "belief" in). Hence, it would not be legitimate to claim fatih as "100%". Perhaps even 99% or 98% or something lesser but not 100%. 100% certitude is knowledge, Do you realize that you are, in fact, proclaiming knowledge (and absolute knowledge at that)? And statements of knowledge require legitimate proofs rather than any degree of simply making oneself believe something is true and real regardless of whether it actually is or isn't (which is instead described as "believing" or "to have faith"). It appears that you do not make such distinguishments (unless I am not wholly familiar with all that you think regarding such matters . . . which is possible).
The evidence is legion. You just prefer "We don't know" so you adopt ignorance as your default rather than call it God.
It would be reasonable to state that your definition of what constitutes "evidence" would be found to quite differ from that which is accepted as the so-called "standard definition" for proclaiming something regarding the workings of the natural order (the cosmos) and all that occurs within it is true and real (that is, "true and real" in a way that can be unambiguously and undeniably discernable to all human beings of sound mind: meaning "of intact and workable faculties and of a reasonable level of intellectual development"). Simply feeling within oneself that "Well, it feels right to me" or "It reverberates in my heart and soul" or "It resonates with the core of my being" and similar sentiments are wholly acceptable a sound basis all by themselves for proclaiming something to be factual, true and real is unworkable and unsound as a practice. Those things can serve as a foundation or impetus for formulating hypotheses or working theories but, taken alone, are not TRUE evidence in and of themselves . . . for the human mind can be deceived or not have all the pertinent facts at hand or can misconstrue what it is perceiving or what it thinks it is perceiving or can be driven by emotion or wishful thinking or can be invested in an idea that the person has invested so much in that he/she has become very attached to it and hence greatly resists letting go of it.
The evidence is legion. You just prefer "We don't know" so you adopt ignorance as your default rather than call it God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UsAll
It would be reasonable to state that your definition of what constitutes "evidence" would be found to quite differ from that which is accepted as the so-called "standard definition" for proclaiming something regarding the workings of the natural order (the cosmos) and all that occurs within it is true and real (that is, "true and real" in a way that can be unambiguously and undeniably discernable to all human beings of sound mind: meaning "of intact and workable faculties and of a reasonable level of intellectual development"). <Snip>
????? No matter what you consider God-like . . . being responsible for the existence of everything including us and all life . . . as our reality IS . . . surely would qualify at a minimum. Refusing to acknowledge that is simply preferring ignorance, IMO.
????? No matter what you consider God-like . . . being responsible for the existence of everything including us and all life . . . as our reality IS . . . surely would qualify at a minimum. Refusing to acknowledge that is simply preferring ignorance, IMO.
We do not know for a fact that there is a singular mindful entity (typically given the English name of "God/god") which or whom can legitimately claim to be responsible for the totality of existence and everything in it. We might, in fact, be the result of a non-singularcollection of God-like entities who are responsible and work or act to whatever degree in concert with one another or could even, at times, contrast with and even conflict with one another. That could just as well be the reality of it. Or it could be a deistic entity (rather than a theistic entity) which is responsible and said entity (being deistic by its nature) doesn't monitor us or get involved with us or any of its creation at all (that it just created it all at some point and then let go of it all). Or some entity created us and all that is and yet no longer exists and has simply left the cosmos in "auto-pilot mode". And so on and so on and so on and so on and so on with multitudinous other variations. Or your own conception of "God/god" could be true. The point is that each postulation offered (and any others not offered) has as much proof as each other postulation that was or could be offered . . . which is zero proof.
If one is motivated at their core by a quest for intellectual honesty at all costs above all else, then, as to speaking of the ultimate nature of our origins and the origins of existence itself, it is the most intellectually honest stance to simply say "I don't know" or "We don't know". And as to whether we will ever know, we don't even know that. It is not "'preferring' ignorance" as you put it; it is acknowledge that we ARE, in fact, ignorant. This is no moral or ethical or intellectual virtue in claiming to know things that you do not, in fact, know. In fact, I once heard it said on a web broadcast by a female commentator (a bit paraphrased here) that for a person to insist that he/she knows things that they do not and can not possibly know and yet he/she insists anyway goes beyond being mere intellectual dishonesty . . . that it is indicative (to her) of a character flaw or at least to some degree. Why is there such a great hesitation or resistance on the part of some of our fellow humans to saying "I don't know" . . . when, in fact, it is the case that they DON"T know? If you tell me to give you the full names of each of the members of your immediate family (not ever having met you nor knowing anything about you), the only truthful and honest response I can give is to say "I don't know". Why do you and so many others think it is impressive to proclaim to have knowledge that you do NOT and can NOT, in fact, possibly have? It is OK to offer up one's ideas as postulations or hypotheses and say "This is what I lean toward in having some degree-of-probability of being possible". But to state mere postulations or hypotheses (even the so-named "God hypothesis) as knowledge or facts is pure intellectual dishonesty. Such purported "knowledge" cannot be substantiated to the satisfaction of all discerning persons. This doesn't mean that there absolutely is no God/god but just that we have nothing demonstrably factual to say about the matter one way or the other but can only offer up our varied internal mental meanderings on the matter. It isn't something that (thus far) lends itself to substantiation (smug self-satisfaction is not substantiation but simply smug self-satisfaction).
????? No matter what you consider God-like . . . being responsible for the existence of everything including us and all life . . . as our reality IS . . . surely would qualify at a minimum. Refusing to acknowledge that is simply preferring ignorance, IMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UsAll
We do not know for a fact that there is a singular mindful entity (typically given the English name of "God/god") which or whom can legitimately claim to be responsible for the totality of existence and everything in it. <Snip>
I made no claim of a singular mindful entity or any other claim. There are myriad beliefs ABOUT God . . . the Source of our existence and reality. None of them need be true to simply acknowledge that the Source of our existence and reality EXISTS (whatever it is) . . . and that a title for such a Source would typically be God. The existence does not depend on the beliefs ABOUT it . . . which are legion.
I made no claim of a singular mindful entity or any other claim. There are myriad beliefs ABOUT God . . . the Source of our existence and reality. None of them need be true to simply acknowledge that the Source of our existence and reality EXISTS (whatever it is) . . . and that a title for such a Source would typically be God. The existence does not depend on the beliefs ABOUT it . . . which are legion.
If, as you stated it, "the Source of our existence and reality EXISTS (whatever it is)", that still tells us absolutely nothing about what said "source" is. If what is credited as being "the source" is left to be wholly nebulous (whereby here, you seem to be saying that "ALL or NEARLY ALL answers are acceptable . . . whatever works for you, as long as you believe something is the 'source'"), then we can plug in nearly anything as "the source". The source could be that we are simply the outcome of a quantum reality (a quantum event), whereby there is no discernable "cause-and-effect" but that things just "happened". In essence, such a postulation is saying that "something (existence) all of a sudden came into existence from nothing (ex nihilo)" . . . even though, in the realm of physics and cosmology, there is no such thing as "nothing" in the way that we typically understand the term "nothing". The fact is that we have no clue whatsoever that said "source" is a mindful entity or entities that makes it possible for us to communicate with it/them or that communicates with us or that we can present prayers and requests to or that monitors us and doles out rewards and punishments, or that intervenes in human affairs . . . and so on and so on and so on. All we can offer up are faith notions and, in the end, one faith notion is just as good (or less-than-good) as the other. They all rest on a foundation of unsubstantiatable claims. And, if you or whoever else is not or not necessarily referring to "the source" as being a mindful entity or entities, then what is the sense or purpose of engaging in that which is called "religion" or "faith"? Who or what are people directing prayers or praise toward? The "mindless" forces of nature? Who or what are people thankful toward and worshipful of and pandering toward? And why? After all, if "the source" is of no mind or is a mind but is deistic rather than theistic in its nature, then all our religious practices, rituals, beliefs, et al are of no consequence. "Nature" itself doesn't care about one's prayers or failth notions, for it has no mind to care one way or the other . . . unless you know something that I don't (e.g., such as the faith notion that nature or existence itself is God . . . which I think is called a pantheistic view) and can prove it.
Last edited by UsAll; 05-15-2015 at 12:10 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because the evidence for one is not good enough. If it were, Faith would not be needed.
No matter what you consider God-like . . . being responsible for the existence of everything including us and all life . . . as our reality IS . . . surely would qualify at a minimum. Refusing to acknowledge that is simply preferring ignorance, IMO.
