If You Are Certain God Exists Why Prove It?

[Methinx]

Should be "quite easy to put it all to bed" then, but I think some of you prefer to continue on, for the love of debating

It is the believer who keeps the faith alive. It is the believer who endorses a holy book, be it the Qur'an, Bible, Gita, by placing their faith in its teachings.

I have read that this may be the case:

"Economists know that a sound currency depends on people believing that the currency is sound.

Scientists recognise that the actual objectivity of scientific studies on global warming is politically impotent unless people believe in that objectivity.

So, both economists and scientists take steps to foster and protect such beliefs that they think are benign. That's acting on 'belief in belief'.

Believers use similar tactics; often they don't themselves believe in God, but they certainly do believe that belief in God is preferable to 'non belief'.
They fear any erosion of religiosity may be chaotic and have negative effects on the way of life they are used to.
They do not seek the truth; they want to protect the 'status quo' proof or no proof."

What do you think of that?

 

[DBT]

Should be "quite easy to put it all to bed" then, but I think some of you prefer to continue on, for the love of debating

It is the believer who keeps the faith alive. It is the believer who endorses a holy book, be it the Qur'an, Bible, Gita, by placing their faith in its teachings.

I have read that this may be the case:

"Economists know that a sound currency depends on people believing that the currency is sound.

Scientists recognise that the actual objectivity of scientific studies on global warming is politically impotent unless people believe in that objectivity.

So, both economists and scientists take steps to foster and protect such beliefs that they think are benign. That's acting on 'belief in belief'.

Believers use similar tactics; often they don't themselves believe in God, but they certainly do believe that belief in God is preferable to 'non belief'.
They fear any erosion of religiosity may be chaotic and have negative effects on the way of life they are used to.
They do not seek the truth; they want to protect the 'status quo' proof or no proof."

What do you think of that?

A fair summary.

 

[ideologyhunter]

I am a god to my dog. My powers are evident to him but beyond his grasp. I can effortlessly open cans, open doors, drive a car, throw stuff from one end of the room to the other. Miracles all. I can speak, and he knows there is meaning to my words, but most of them are mystical. I can bring light to a dark room (and I don't even have to say, "Let there be..."; I've just got it.) I exist outside of time for him, because he literally cannot conceive of an existence without me; it seems to him that I am the undergirding of his universe. Damn straight, I am, except for that one time I forgot to stock up on Purina. He is the most pious of creatures; his life is an attempt to live in harmony with me and to remain in my loving presence. I will never abuse his faith, because he would have nothing to put in its place, and I figure the simpler the mind, the bigger the job for devout faith.
He is not exactly made in my image, but after all, god is the reverse of dog.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I am a god to my dog. My powers are evident to him but beyond his grasp. I can effortlessly open cans, open doors, drive a car, throw stuff from one end of the room to the other. Miracles all. I can speak, and he knows there is meaning to my words, but most of them are mystical. I can bring light to a dark room (and I don't even have to say, "Let there be..."; I've just got it.) I exist outside of time for him, because he literally cannot conceive of an existence without me; it seems to him that I am the undergirding of his universe. Damn straight, I am, except for that one time I forgot to stock up on Purina. He is the most pious of creatures; his life is an attempt to live in harmony with me and to remain in my loving presence. I will never abuse his faith, because he would have nothing to put in its place, and I figure the simpler the mind, the bigger the job for devout faith.
He is not exactly made in my image, but after all, god is the reverse of dog.

But does dog know everything about you?

I only ask because all the people I know who have gods seem to know everything that their gods want us to do, to say, to know. They can actually tell us everything we need to know and do and say to make god like us. They know the mind of their god in all its mysteriousness.

So you must have a pretty smart dog.

 

[James Brown]

Your dog knows which other dogs you do and do not like.

It's pretty much the same dogs that your own dog does and does not like, but that's just a coincidence.

 

[Wiploc]

Believers use similar tactics; often they don't themselves believe in God, but they certainly do believe that belief in God is preferable to 'non belief'.
They fear any erosion of religiosity may be chaotic and have negative effects on the way of life they are used to.
They do not seek the truth; they want to protect the 'status quo' proof or no proof."

What do you think of that?

I read Dave Barry Is Not Making This Up because I thought it would be entertaining. I didn't anticipate that it might explain major mysteries. Turns out that believers in UFOs lie about them in order to help other people to know the truth.

Thus: Sara believes UFOs are real, so she fakes a photograph so her friends will believe too. She thinks UFOs are real, and her friends believe that too, she thinks they know the truth. And she got them there by lying.

The idea that, "often they don't themselves believe in God," is new to me. I mean, sometimes, of course, but often? A preacher who doesn't believe is still going to preach, because that's how she maintains her income and her position in society. And there will be many who never come out as atheists because because of social pressure; they don't want to be reviled. I was a crypto-atheist myself, in my teens.

But I don't think of the ones who publicly field terrible arguments as being closet atheists. Why would they evangelize if they don't themselves believe?

Of course they often argue that religion is the basis of morality, that, in the absence of religion, any behavior would be as good as any other. Cruelty would be as good as kindness. But that argument doesn't work. It can't be defended. Attempting to defend it should result in vicious cognitive dissonance.

I think of Christians fielding bad arguments as optimistic. "One of these arguments has to work. This one never worked before, but maybe it will work this time."

I generally have to assume the Christians I debate with are sincere. I wouldn't waste time on them otherwise. And I get rude and unsociable when I think I'm being lied to. Rude and unsociable isn't my preferred public persona.

But, many Christians field the moral argument as if they really hope it will work this time. And many of those probably believe that the argument is good; they think their failure to succeed in debate is a personal failing, not the fault of the argument itself.

So, yes, it's possible that many "theists" don't believe in gods themselves but still believe that theism is necessary for a healthy functioning society.

 

[Keith&Co.]

But I don't think of the ones who publicly field terrible arguments as being closet atheists. Why would they evangelize if they don't themselves believe?

Ask this of any gay-bashing religious authority who's been found in a cheap motel with a prostitute of the same sex.

May the stigma of atheism drives them to PROVE they believe, hoping no one ever finds them in a non-denominational chapel, praying to no one....

 

[abaddon]

... I think of Christians fielding bad arguments as optimistic. "One of these arguments has to work. This one never worked before, but maybe it will work this time." ...

But, many Christians field the moral argument as if they really hope it will work this time. And many of those probably believe that the argument is good; they think their failure to succeed in debate is a personal failing, not the fault of the argument itself....

Also, by arguing, some theists find the weak spots in their EoG arguments. Then, instead of wondering "maybe the belief is false", they work at trying to make the argument watertight by whatever rhetorical tricks. It's not necessarily a matter of improving the logic, often it's word-play to make the logical problem seem like it isn't one. I call it armoring one's beliefs against reason and reality. Their slant on it is it's "learning more about God".

It's another good example of belief in Belief. Do whatever it takes to sustain the belief because it cannot be wrong, it can only be incomplete.

 

[Wiploc]

Also, by arguing, some theists find the weak spots in their EoG arguments. Then, instead of wondering "maybe the belief is false", they work at trying to make the argument watertight by whatever rhetorical tricks. It's not necessarily a matter of improving the logic, often it's word-play to make the logical problem seem like it isn't one. I call it armoring one's beliefs against reason and reality. Their slant on it is it's "learning more about God".

I guess I'm an optimist too, since I think of that as another step along the path to atheism. They have to keep discovering flaws in the arguments, and changing or adjusting their arguments, in order to eventually reach the point where they realize that the arguments are, as a whole, worthless.

Then they get to wonder why they were sent into the field armed only with garbage arguments. "Where are the good arguments? Why was I told that these were good arguments? What was the motivation of the people who told me these were good arguments?"

 

[Rhea]

..............

G) Unfathomable

So this part is always so interesting to me.

“Unfathomable”
But here you are describing personalities, intent, prior life, unverified actions. All the Christians do that. And I sort of blink and tilt my head... Which is it?

Seems you believe you have fathomed quite a bit. Of something unfathomable.
Every time you apologize for the theology, you claim to have fathomed the unfathomable.

Why should anyone (including you) trust your fathoming of an unfathomable?

It is a contradiction that is so commonly offered.

 

[ruby sparks]

G) Unfathomable, except when it isn't.

 

[DBT]

Faith providing answers for the big unanswerable questions.

 

[Wiploc]

..............

G) Unfathomable

So this part is always so interesting to me.

“Unfathomable”
But here you are describing personalities, intent, prior life, unverified actions. All the Christians do that. And I sort of blink and tilt my head... Which is it?

Seems you believe you have fathomed quite a bit. Of something unfathomable.
Every time you apologize for the theology, you claim to have fathomed the unfathomable.

Why should anyone (including you) trust your fathoming of an unfathomable?

It is a contradiction that is so commonly offered.

Here's what I have to understand when talking to Christians:

God is unknowable when I'm talking about him, not when they're talking about him.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Or he's unknowable when their pastor is eulogizing a deceased child, but very knowable the next Sunday when the same pastor can give you God's personal take on how life should be lived, on what real virtue is, what laws we need, and even, depending on the pastor, who the faithful should vote into office.

 

[Learner]

..............

G) Unfathomable

So this part is always so interesting to me.

“Unfathomable”
But here you are describing personalities, intent, prior life, unverified actions. All the Christians do that. And I sort of blink and tilt my head... Which is it?

Seems you believe you have fathomed quite a bit. Of something unfathomable.
Every time you apologize for the theology, you claim to have fathomed the unfathomable.

Why should anyone (including you) trust your fathoming of an unfathomable?

It is a contradiction that is so commonly offered.

Ah ok. I suppose I could agree with ruby sparks and start with the quote below to, hopefully, be clearer:

G) Unfathomable, except when it isn't.

Just because knowing some things of something, doesn't automatically mean ... what we don't know, or are unsure about ..."should" also mean this to be "fathomable." We DON'T claim to know everything about God, and ...you'll find the same use of unfathomable elsewhere with some things that we do know of:


Using a few excerpts from different articles...

The one thing we know for certain about the universe is that it is unfathomable. We try to come to terms with this fact by telling stories, by creating narratives that are an attempt to abstract general principles from day-to-day events.


A quantum technique highlights math's mysterious link to physics ... 17 Feb 2020 ... A technique that relies on quantum entanglement (illustrated) ... interrelated worlds of math, computer science and quantum physics. ... with unlimited computing capability (not to mention an unfathomable supply of energy).



Corralling the cosmos in the Infinite Corridor | MIT Technology Review....
"They have to deal with unfathomable units involving both space and time, in the form of light-years—often with a full cup of coffee in hand. It ..."


"I find the almost unfathomable precision in atomic clocks to be part of the most exciting in physics with possibilities for the future: precise control of quantum systems."

Lawrence Klaus

 

[Rhea]

Just because knowing some things of something, doesn't automatically mean ... what we don't know, or are unsure about ..."should" also mean this to be "fathomable." We DON'T claim to know everything about God, and ...you'll find the same use of unfathomable elsewhere with some things that we do know of:

Hmmm. You’ll notice none of those people used it as a one word answer intended to stop discussion, the way you did. I mean, yoou literally posted just the one word as an argument.

You should be more careful of what you are trying to claim. This is not new to me, as I said, so many Christians do it. They throw down some authoritarian-style phrase that they think is a mic-drop; and it is, for them. But for the rest of us, who ponder meaning with supporting dialogue, it lands with a thud that makes us go, “really? That’s your argument?”

 

[abaddon]

Just because knowing some things of something, doesn't automatically mean ... what we don't know, or are unsure about ..."should" also mean this to be "fathomable." We DON'T claim to know everything about God, and ...you'll find the same use of unfathomable elsewhere with some things that we do know of:

Using a few excerpts from different articles...

Nobody in those quotes is talking about an indemonstrable entity. Their subjects are the universe, computing ability, atomic clocks. These are known to exist. God is not.

You've done exactly what was predicted. Critics said the concept of God is so vague that theists will say anything about it. A theist (you) then says anything about it, but acts as if he's explaining and making things more clear.

Here's an example of the kind of problem I'm pointing at:

"Loch Ness monster moves in the darkest depths of the lake".
"It's not so deep that a monster can entirely hide though".
"Sometimes the monster goes into a cavern".
"Let's see the cavern then."
"The door of the cavern closes sometimes and you can't see it".

^This kind of shifting around is not description or explanation. Trying to complete the 'coherence of Nessyism' by piling on terms, is just more stories about a story.

Atheists said: You can say whatever you please about an entity that's imaginary and magical and self-contradictory and supernatural.

You added "unfathomable".

Right. Theists will say whatever they want about an entity that people don't fully understand (including whether it even exists). You only helped to illustrate the point that the atheists had made.

 

[James Brown]

If we wish to discover the nature of the Christian God, the National Catholic Almanac offers us a
generous assortment of attributes from which to choose. According to this source, God is
“almighty, eternal, holy, immortal, immense, immutable, incomprehensible, ineffable, infinite,
invisible, just, loving, merciful, most high, most wise, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent,
patient, perfect, provident, supreme, true.”

This is certainly an impressive list, but one problem immediately becomes apparent: included in
this catalogue of characteristics is “incomprehensible.” One must wonder how it is possible to
declare God’s incomprehensibility and simultaneously list twenty-two additional attributes.

--George H. Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God

 

[Lion IRC]

"I find the almost unfathomable precision in atomic clocks to be part of the most exciting in physics with possibilities for the future: precise control of quantum systems."

Lawrence Klaus

Thanks for the quote Learner

 

[Rhea]

"I find the almost unfathomable precision in atomic clocks to be part of the most exciting in physics with possibilities for the future: precise control of quantum systems."

Lawrence Klaus

Thanks for the quote Learner

Yes, I chuckled at that one, too. Where he picked a quote that said “ALMOST unfathomable” With a bunch of context as an attempt to excuse for using “unfathomable” with no context.. Smooth attempt, but he didn’t quite get away with it!