Convinced of a God

This is more of a topic for atheists and agnostics, but I will leave this open as a general religious debate to encourage free discussion for all perspectives to weigh in.

What would it take for you, personally, to accept that a god or gods exist?

I want you to think deeply on this... Think about your toolset that you use to distinguish what's real and what's not. Are you skeptically minded? What would it take to satisfy your skepticism?

Does a god need to be intelligent to be a god? Does a god need to be super natural to be a god? Does a god need to objectively exist to be a god, or can it exist within the confines of your mind or personal experiences in life? Is the label of "god" just weighed down by too much presumptive baggage?

I know this is a question that's been raked over a million times, but I guess what I'm getting at is that I want to know what each person's idea of god is, and what it would take for this god to live up to your personal expectations of what roles it should fill before you would use the label of "god" in reference to it. How would this god influence the lives of others (if at all)?

Gods/gods are just super beings that, real or not, become a central figure or role model of your worldview. Worldview is a Philosophical concept that can be Googled.

I type too fast into the Google box, but here's a snapshot of what a Worldview is in Philosophy:

KAT-KAT said:

Gods/gods are just super beings that, real or not, become a central figure or role model of your worldview. Worldview is a Philosophical concept that can be Googled.

Click to expand...

True, but I'm interested in each individual's personal world view.

Is your idea of god personified? Does it assume this shape due to what humans have given it, or does he or she assume that shape themselves according to their will? How much more super than a human do they need to be to become a god? If they are a role model, could any role model assume the title of "god" such as a parent or influential teacher?

SigurdReginson said:

True, but I'm interested in each individual's personal world view.

Is your idea of god personified? Does it assume this shape due to what humans have given it, or does he or she assume that shape themselves according to their will? How much more super than a human do they need to be to become a god? If they are a role model, could any role model assume the title of "god" such as a parent or influential teacher?

Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying. However, here's the problem for me. I feel I'm in the stage of having achieved spiritual enlightenment, and having the ability to spiritually query whether when I call to a God, whether it answers or not and listen to what it tells me. So for me, the question is like me knowing College math, and the teacher showing me grade school math and expecting me to somehow "show my work". I'm just not sure how to do it.

SigurdReginson said:

This is more of a topic for atheists and agnostics, but I will leave this open as a general religious debate to encourage free discussion for all perspectives to weigh in.

What would it take for you, personally, to accept that a god or gods exist?

...

Click to expand...

Nothing. I could be tricked. I can only know that there is a God if I am God and I doubt that since I can't do all the stuff God can do.

SigurdReginson said:

I want you to think deeply on this... Think about your toolset that you use to distinguish what's real and what's not. Are you skeptically minded? What would it take to satisfy your skepticism?

Click to expand...

But is belief in God merely intellectual? If someone said riding on a rollercoaster is fun, the intellectual mind mind ask if the ride is safe to be on, and look at things like the competence of the engineers who designed the ride. But the mind isn't going to convince you it's fun. Riding it is the only thing that can do that.

SigurdReginson said:

Does a god need to be intelligent to be a god? Does a god need to be super natural to be a god? Does a god need to objectively exist to be a god, or can it exist within the confines of your mind or personal experiences in life? Is the label of "god" just weighed down by too much presumptive baggage?

I know this is a question that's been raked over a million times, but I guess what I'm getting at is that I want to know what each person's idea of god is, and what it would take for this god to live up to your personal expectations of what roles it should fill before you would use the label of "god" in reference to it. How would this god influence the lives of others (if at all)?

Click to expand...

God would need to fulfill a spiritual need, which means it would have to be compatible with my other needs as well. In other words, you can't sacrifice your intellect for spirituality, and it still be considered spiritual. The spiritual has to bind all parts of ourselves together, body, mind, and spirit. If you put your mind on the chopping block for the sake of faith, it's neither faith nor spiritual. It's escapism.

SigurdReginson said:

I want to know what each person's idea of god is, and what it would take for this god to live up to your personal expectations of what roles it should fill before you would use the label of "god" in reference to it.

Click to expand...

I am as atheist as they come, but am open to valid physical evidence... Any god worthy of the title god should know what that evidence is and be able to provide it.

What criteria must be met? I'd sat most of what people attribute to god, omni everything, caring, compassion etc, etc, (there are a lot of etc's so I'll stop here). And then said god would have to answer some very searching questions.

I personally believe that gods are of the mind of those who believe in gods so hard evidence is a no, no

Windwalker said:

But is belief in God merely intellectual? If someone said riding on a rollercoaster is fun, the intellectual mind mind ask if the ride is safe to be on, and look at things like the competence of the engineers who designed the ride. But the mind isn't going to convince you it's fun. Riding it is the only thing that can do that.

Click to expand...

Sure... but if there's no indication that the roller coaster even exists, I'm not going to believe you when you say that it's fun to ride.

mikkel_the_dane said:

Nothing. I could be tricked. I can only know that there is a God if I am God and I doubt that since I can't do all the stuff God can do.

Click to expand...

What if there was verifiable evidence discovered in the scientific community that led to a "god theory" through repeatable tests? Maybe there could be a being discovered and observed via the Hubble space telescope to be forming a galaxy, whatever that would look like?

SigurdReginson said:

This is more of a topic for atheists and agnostics, but I will leave this open as a general religious debate to encourage free discussion for all perspectives to weigh in.

What would it take for you, personally, to accept that a god or gods exist?

I want you to think deeply on this... Think about your toolset that you use to distinguish what's real and what's not. Are you skeptically minded? What would it take to satisfy your skepticism?

Does a god need to be intelligent to be a god? Does a god need to be super natural to be a god? Does a god need to objectively exist to be a god, or can it exist within the confines of your mind or personal experiences in life? Is the label of "god" just weighed down by too much presumptive baggage?

I know this is a question that's been raked over a million times, but I guess what I'm getting at is that I want to know what each person's idea of god is, and what it would take for this god to live up to your personal expectations of what roles it should fill before you would use the label of "god" in reference to it. How would this god influence the lives of others (if at all)?

Click to expand...

Great question. As you identified, it all comes down to the definition of what a "god" is.

1. If a god is simply an extremely powerful being, then I would believe it exists using the same criteria I use to believe anything else exists. Repeatable, reliable observation, with so much evidence that the being effectively has an implicit empirical basis for its existence. That's how I believe the pyramids of Giza exist, or the element tungsten, or puppies, or jackfruit.

2. If a god has an omni property like all-powerful or all-knowing, then I can't see any way to demonstrate this in a way I would be justified in believing. Like I've said before, I could watch a being create a billion different universes, but that would still be 0% of infinite power, and it wouldn't inform me whether or not this being was actually omnipotent, also a good chef, etc. Or as Tom Jump has asked, "How many napkins would I have to hold in my hand, for you to believe I could hold infinite napkins?" If pressed, I know that conscious beings sometimes lie, and I know of no beings with omni properties, so it would seem more likely that the being in question was simply lying about its capabilities.

3. Add in the problem that "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic," and it would be difficult to justify any belief in the "supernatural," whatever that means. In fact, every time we've been able to explain a phenomenon that had previously been considered supernatural, the explanation has always been natural. Every single time, without exception. So, a non-omni god could still be entirely natural.

In summary, metaphysical claims cannot be demonstrated with empirical or conceptual evidence. As far as I'm aware, those are the only types of evidence we have access to. A god with metaphysical or omni properties cannot currently be demonstrated in a way that warrants belief. A non-omni god similar to Superman, Thor, or Zeus would be something I could believe in if provided enough evidence.

Lastly, for reference:
a. Logical arguments are not evidence for empirical or metaphysical claims. They are evidence for conceptual claims such as definitions or the description of a hypothesis.
b. Emotional appeals or appeals to intuition are likewise not evidence.
c. Arguing that a thing X, if it existed, would be sufficient to explain Y, therefore the observation of Y is evidence that X exists is not evidence. It is a fallacy.
d. Anonymous, third-hand, hearsay testimony is not evidence.
e. Mysterious personal experiences that are baselessly attributed to invisible beings is not evidence.
f. Appeals to traditions of belief, the number of people who believe something, or the practical effects of holding a belief, is not evidence that belief is true.
g. Definitions are not evidence.

KAT-KAT said:

I understand what you're saying. However, here's the problem for me. I feel I'm in the stage of having achieved spiritual enlightenment, and having the ability to spiritually query whether when I call to a God, whether it answers or not and listen to what it tells me. So for me, the question is like me knowing College math, and the teacher showing me grade school math and expecting me to somehow "show my work". I'm just not sure how to do it.

Click to expand...

Hmmm... Do you think you might be overthinking or making something more complicated than it needs to be? What do you base this idea of god on, structurally?

SigurdReginson said:

What if there was verifiable evidence discovered in the scientific community that led to a "god theory" through repeatable tests? Maybe there could be a being discovered and observed via the Hubble space telescope to be forming a galaxy, whatever that would look like?

Click to expand...

Yeah, in practice you run into this:

The cosmological principle is usually stated formally as 'Viewed on a sufficiently large scale, the properties of the universe are the same for all observers.' This amounts to the strongly philosophical statement that the part of the universe which we can see is a fair sample, and that the same physical laws apply throughout. In essence, this in a sense says that the universe is knowable and is playing fair with scientists.
William C. Keel (2007). The Road to Galaxy Formation (2nd ed.). Springer-Praxis. p. 2. ISBN 978-3-540-72534-3.

Click to expand...

If would turn into philosophy and could be explained by us being inside an Alien computer simulation.

SigurdReginson said:

Hmmm... Do you think you might be overthinking or making something more complicated than it needs to be? What do you base this idea of god on, structurally?

Click to expand...

The only thing I'm going by is how I've formed my own path and worldview with inspiration by Hindu writings. I see things as happening in about three stages - spiritual awakening, then eventually spiritual enlightenment, then moksha and going beyond your need for a god. In considering these things, based on some personal life experiences of mine, I just see myself in stage 2 - spiritual enlightenment. So I'm not saying I have it all figured out, but I am lucky that I have such deep communication with gods, as I do believe one can achieve moksha even without it.

Windwalker said:

But is belief in God merely intellectual? If someone said riding on a rollercoaster is fun, the intellectual mind mind ask if the ride is safe to be on, and look at things like the competence of the engineers who designed the ride. But the mind isn't going to convince you it's fun. Riding it is the only thing that can do that.

Click to expand...

Interesting. Are you saying that belief in god is more visceral or intuitive? Maybe belief in god might be more of an experiential thing that people either have come to like or dislike, similar to the roller coaster?

Windwalker said:

God would need to fulfill a spiritual need, which means it would have to be compatible with my other needs as well. In other words, you can't sacrifice your intellect for spirituality, and it still be considered spiritual.

Click to expand...

Hmmm... If a maximally powerful being didn't fill any spiritual needs, like a deistic god, would they not be a god? What would they be instead?

Windwalker said:

The spiritual has to bind all parts of ourselves together, body, mind, and spirit. If you put your mind on the chopping block for the sake of faith, it's neither faith nor spiritual. It's escapism.

Click to expand...

I definitely agree with you here! Forsake the mind and you are left as a puppet to be influenced as the heart strings are pulled. Forsake the human spirit, and you are left without intuition or empathy, IMO.

SigurdReginson said:

This is more of a topic for atheists and agnostics, but I will leave this open as a general religious debate to encourage free discussion for all perspectives to weigh in.

What would it take for you, personally, to accept that a god or gods exist?

I want you to think deeply on this... Think about your toolset that you use to distinguish what's real and what's not. Are you skeptically minded? What would it take to satisfy your skepticism?

Does a god need to be intelligent to be a god? Does a god need to be super natural to be a god? Does a god need to objectively exist to be a god, or can it exist within the confines of your mind or personal experiences in life? Is the label of "god" just weighed down by too much presumptive baggage?

I know this is a question that's been raked over a million times, but I guess what I'm getting at is that I want to know what each person's idea of god is, and what it would take for this god to live up to your personal expectations of what roles it should fill before you would use the label of "god" in reference to it. How would this god influence the lives of others (if at all)?

Click to expand...

I think you have it wrong way round. Doesn't matter what one thinks the entity needs to be. First the entity must be observed and from observation determine its properties. Until the entity is observed, there is no entity.

Once the entity is observed, then you can apply a label to that thing, be the label God, or George, or Snuffles.

mikkel_the_dane said:

Yeah, in practice you run into this:


If would turn into philosophy and could be explained by us being inside an Alien computer simulation.

Click to expand...

Eh... I suppose. Everything can be a simulation, though. It's not a very useful or practical to have for a belief, or a theory.

Some could say the same for belief in gods, but even then, some atheists agree that placebos from prayer can positively impact the lives of folks. How would one capitalize on placebos from belief in the Matrix?

KAT-KAT said:

The only thing I'm going by is how I've formed my own path and worldview with inspiration by Hindu writings. I see things as happening in about three stages - spiritual awakening, then eventually spiritual enlightenment, then moksha and going beyond your need for a god. In considering these things, based on some personal life experiences of mine, I just see myself in stage 2 - spiritual enlightenment. So I'm not saying I have it all figured out, but I am lucky that I have such deep communication with gods, as I do believe one can achieve moksha even without it.

Click to expand...

Very interesting! Thank you for your insight.

So are you an atheist, then?

MikeF said:

I think you have it wrong way round. Doesn't matter what one thinks the entity needs to be. First the entity must be observed and from observation determine its properties. Until the entity is observed, there is no entity.

Once the entity is observed, then you can apply a label to that thing, be the label God, or George, or Snuffles.

Click to expand...

I can see what you mean...

The problem is that the well has already been poisoned. Everyone, for the most part, has an understanding of god, and that understanding has flourished for thousands of years. Here we are in this boat, whether we like it or not, so we got to make the best of it.

I like the way you think, though, and I have to agree with you. Thank you for giving me something new for my brain to chew on.

9-10ths_Penguin said:

Sure... but if there's no indication that the roller coaster even exists, I'm not going to believe you when you say that it's fun to ride.

Click to expand...

Technically speaking, yes it does. The question is about belief in God, and cleary that exists. It's what we are discussing.