God, in most cases, is by definition unprovable (the cases in which it could possibly be provable is where the God lives in the physical realm as in with the Greeks - if you wanted to prove Zeus lived on top of a mountain you could go check). The core motivation for having belief in a deity is to propose some kind of solid explanation for what is otherwise inexplicable. The concept of God serves a purpose, which simply would not be in need of being met if evidence for it existed. Now, what is of course preposterous is the idea that you can attribute conscious traits to this deity...if you can say they have trait a or b, you are claiming to have evidence of their existence. But if it's just a case of believing in a God, as it is by definition impossible to determine the existence of God, it isn't necessarily illogical to "believe" in some kind of God - or perhaps just use it as an extended metaphor; it's just the expression of a philosophy towards the existing sum of human experience.
That sounds a lot like the basis of the cartesian circle, which I don't really mean. I'm referring to something that is fundamentally semantic i.e. God is these things on this paper here that we can't understand; but perhaps most people do not recognise as a semantic term and almost think of it as being a scientific observation. From my perspective this is the rational gap in religion - observe, celebrate and revere the greater unknown, but don't assign it a consciousness with motivations! That's just weird.
Haha, I totally agree. Just to make a quick distinction between what Neil is discussing - that which we don't understand but conceivably could; and what I am drawing upon - that which we potentially can't understand in strict scientific terms. I'm talking about the metaphysical really, things that lie at the base of identity, linear time, subjective perception etc.
So basically, all the things we don't yet know how to explain? Which brings us back to the god of the gaps, whether or not you consider it either divine or even sentient. What part of "I don't know" leads you to "therefore I believe"?
My response got a little long and I really want to get what I'm trying to say right (which I don't think I have been doing above haha), so I'll hold off for now. Thanks for discussing this with me seriously rather than just treating me as an idiot. I think I'm going to write this as an actual philosophical essay. I'll post here or tag you in the post when I'm done. Thanks for inspiring me to put some effort in haha :D
Like dark matter of the philosophical realm, yes. This is why religious leaders worth their salt have said that they await science to change how they think about their religion. The more we actually know about the world, the more accurate we can make our philosophies of the metaphysical.
Ex-christian here from a heavily religious background, had a lot of time to ponder my beliefs after leaving the church. My personal philosophy as of now is that I believe there is a god merely for the sake of creation. I do not believe that it is mathematically sound enough that as science suggest everything could have happened just perfectly so. The probability is not too low for life to form, no, but for everything to then develop into such to coherent ecosystem where its such a perfect intertwined puzzle? I think something had to dictate what happened there and why.
That said, that's the only credibility I give towards a deity. I don't think that such a god has any interest in interacting with humanity. I don't think the god that may exist under my belief has been accurately depicted by christians or any other human religion that ever has or ever will exist. I don't think that understanding gods is something we are capable of, which why a lot of people end up like you, it doesn't make sense and it's not supposed to. But to come back around to your point, I suppose my "evidence" would be the creation of the universe and of life on earth. Not out of any benevolent purpose like christians might believe, perhaps out of no purpose at all, but I don't see any other way that it could happen other than intentionally.
I believe there is a God or some other type of higher being because I just don't think that the universe could just be made on its own. I still believe the big bang theory and evolution and stuff, but I think that something had to have aided it. Just my opinion though.
First of all, I am not saying I believe. I'm answering the question.
The idea of a god isn't that far-fetched when dealing with the appropriate questions. Really, in philosophy of Religion and metaphysics, the kind of questions that "god" could be an easy answer for is mindbogglingly huge. The case against pure physicalism has plenty of weird but powerful arguments, and god is an easy way out in most cases. I see the idea of an omnipotent and ever present all that always was as a powerful symbol of our ridiculously small understanding of the gigantic Reality that we face. It's easy then to succumb to cynicism or absurdism, but equally easy to just chalk it up to an ever-knowing and unprovable god.
The lack of empirical evidence shouldn't make you not believe, it should make you doubt both answers. And empirical evidence is not the only way to look at a problem, as it has problems of it's own.
Answer 2 (this time with smaller scope) - the existence or non existence of God is unverifiable, therefore opinion on the subject is an expression of preference. When an otherwise rational person believes in God, what they really mean is "I like to believe in God". The only evidence you need for an opinion is a knowledge of your own attitudes.
On the contrary, I don't understand how someone can be alive without believing in God. To me it comes down to mathematics in an abstract form. In our concious evolution, can there ever be an end? If not, which is what I am attempting to rhetorically state, then won't there always be some form of conciousness superior to our own? And won't there also be a conciousness higher than that conciousness if we assume all entities are on a continuum of enlightenment? To me God is simply the idea that learning and evolution are infinite processes and God is the ultimate goal to which we can never reach, never comprehend, but will always, for eternity, be getting closer to.
Please this is a serious post and i am just answering what i was asked.
I still don't understand how someone can believe in a god without having evidence.
God, in most cases, is by definition unprovable (the cases in which it could possibly be provable is where the God lives in the physical realm as in with the Greeks - if you wanted to prove Zeus lived on top of a mountain you could go check). The core motivation for having belief in a deity is to propose some kind of solid explanation for what is otherwise inexplicable. The concept of God serves a purpose, which simply would not be in need of being met if evidence for it existed. Now, what is of course preposterous is the idea that you can attribute conscious traits to this deity...if you can say they have trait a or b, you are claiming to have evidence of their existence. But if it's just a case of believing in a God, as it is by definition impossible to determine the existence of God, it isn't necessarily illogical to "believe" in some kind of God - or perhaps just use it as an extended metaphor; it's just the expression of a philosophy towards the existing sum of human experience.
So you're saying that God is like a varying constant. You use it to make the equation work when you can't figure it out?
It's also known as the god of the gaps.
That sounds a lot like the basis of the cartesian circle, which I don't really mean. I'm referring to something that is fundamentally semantic i.e. God is these things on this paper here that we can't understand; but perhaps most people do not recognise as a semantic term and almost think of it as being a scientific observation. From my perspective this is the rational gap in religion - observe, celebrate and revere the greater unknown, but don't assign it a consciousness with motivations! That's just weird.
Revere the greater unknown?
Haha, I totally agree. Just to make a quick distinction between what Neil is discussing - that which we don't understand but conceivably could; and what I am drawing upon - that which we potentially can't understand in strict scientific terms. I'm talking about the metaphysical really, things that lie at the base of identity, linear time, subjective perception etc.
So basically, all the things we don't yet know how to explain? Which brings us back to the god of the gaps, whether or not you consider it either divine or even sentient. What part of "I don't know" leads you to "therefore I believe"?
My response got a little long and I really want to get what I'm trying to say right (which I don't think I have been doing above haha), so I'll hold off for now. Thanks for discussing this with me seriously rather than just treating me as an idiot. I think I'm going to write this as an actual philosophical essay. I'll post here or tag you in the post when I'm done. Thanks for inspiring me to put some effort in haha :D
I look forward to seeing what you write. :)
Like dark matter of the philosophical realm, yes. This is why religious leaders worth their salt have said that they await science to change how they think about their religion. The more we actually know about the world, the more accurate we can make our philosophies of the metaphysical.
Ex-christian here from a heavily religious background, had a lot of time to ponder my beliefs after leaving the church. My personal philosophy as of now is that I believe there is a god merely for the sake of creation. I do not believe that it is mathematically sound enough that as science suggest everything could have happened just perfectly so. The probability is not too low for life to form, no, but for everything to then develop into such to coherent ecosystem where its such a perfect intertwined puzzle? I think something had to dictate what happened there and why.
That said, that's the only credibility I give towards a deity. I don't think that such a god has any interest in interacting with humanity. I don't think the god that may exist under my belief has been accurately depicted by christians or any other human religion that ever has or ever will exist. I don't think that understanding gods is something we are capable of, which why a lot of people end up like you, it doesn't make sense and it's not supposed to. But to come back around to your point, I suppose my "evidence" would be the creation of the universe and of life on earth. Not out of any benevolent purpose like christians might believe, perhaps out of no purpose at all, but I don't see any other way that it could happen other than intentionally.
I believe there is a God or some other type of higher being because I just don't think that the universe could just be made on its own. I still believe the big bang theory and evolution and stuff, but I think that something had to have aided it. Just my opinion though.
But then what made the thing that aided it?
Well I think the higher being has existed for ever, but I don't really want to debate. Internet debates are annoying.
First of all, I am not saying I believe. I'm answering the question.
The idea of a god isn't that far-fetched when dealing with the appropriate questions. Really, in philosophy of Religion and metaphysics, the kind of questions that "god" could be an easy answer for is mindbogglingly huge. The case against pure physicalism has plenty of weird but powerful arguments, and god is an easy way out in most cases. I see the idea of an omnipotent and ever present all that always was as a powerful symbol of our ridiculously small understanding of the gigantic Reality that we face. It's easy then to succumb to cynicism or absurdism, but equally easy to just chalk it up to an ever-knowing and unprovable god.
The lack of empirical evidence shouldn't make you not believe, it should make you doubt both answers. And empirical evidence is not the only way to look at a problem, as it has problems of it's own.
Answer 2 (this time with smaller scope) - the existence or non existence of God is unverifiable, therefore opinion on the subject is an expression of preference. When an otherwise rational person believes in God, what they really mean is "I like to believe in God". The only evidence you need for an opinion is a knowledge of your own attitudes.
On the contrary, I don't understand how someone can be alive without believing in God. To me it comes down to mathematics in an abstract form. In our concious evolution, can there ever be an end? If not, which is what I am attempting to rhetorically state, then won't there always be some form of conciousness superior to our own? And won't there also be a conciousness higher than that conciousness if we assume all entities are on a continuum of enlightenment? To me God is simply the idea that learning and evolution are infinite processes and God is the ultimate goal to which we can never reach, never comprehend, but will always, for eternity, be getting closer to.