Should god-claims be taken seriously?

[stvdv]

You quoted my post. Normally, that would mean that you were addressing your post to me.

Yes, normally that's true

IF "you want to know God" THEN ....
And you replied "I don't want to know God"
Hence not meant for you

No sense at all? How many relationships do you maintain with people who you aren't sure exist?

ZERO

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

ZERO

So then why did you suggest that someone do this for God?

 

[capumetu]

We've had a few threads lately asking for opinions on whether God exists. To me, this is putting the cart before the horse a bit.

It seems to me that getting to the conclusion that the monotheistic god-concept of one particular religion exists needs a few other prior steps:

1. God-claims should be taken seriously.
2. Gods (as a category of thing) are possible.
3. Gods (as a category of thing) exist.
4. A particular god exists.
5. (For monotheistic religions) no other gods exist.

Personally, I'm back before step 1: I haven't accepted the idea that god-concepts are something that ought to be taken seriously. In fact, I lean toward the conclusion that they aren't something that warrants serious attention.

For those of you who have gotten past step 1: why? How did you do it?

And please note that I'm not asking why we should take theism and its effects seriously. Theism - especially religious theism - has all sorts of real effects on the world. I'm asking why we should take claims like "God exists" as serious and reasonable propositions about reality that merit investigation to see whether they're true or false.

So... what do you think? Why are god-claims something that should be taken seriously? Or are they?

I think Joshua answered this best:
(Joshua 23:14, 15) . . .“Now look! I am about to die, and you well know with all your heart and with all your soul that not one word out of all the good promises that Jehovah your God has spoken to you has failed. They have all come true for you. Not one word of them has failed.
Read Mat 24 and compare its words to the last century, we have so much more to see than when Joshua penned that over 3000 yrs ago

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think Joshua answered this best:
(Joshua 23:14, 15) . . .“Now look! I am about to die, and you well know with all your heart and with all your soul that not one word out of all the good promises that Jehovah your God has spoken to you has failed. They have all come true for you. Not one word of them has failed.
Read Mat 24 and compare its words to the last century, we have so much more to see than when Joshua penned that over 3000 yrs ago

Sounds like you're so deep in your theistic hole that you can't even imagine other perspectives.

 

[Heyo]

NO. You read more into my words than I actually wrote; I just answered the OP question.

Besides, I clearly wrote a big IF .... THEN ... AND, and I thought the ELSE would be obvious ... IF you do NOT want to know THEN don't study it

I also started with an "if". And I put my answer into the context of the OP. And in context with my first answer to the OP.
"God" is only known through the claims of the believers. It is in their responsibility to make their stories believable.

 

[wellwisher]

We've had a few threads lately asking for opinions on whether God exists. To me, this is putting the cart before the horse a bit.

It seems to me that getting to the conclusion that the monotheistic god-concept of one particular religion exists needs a few other prior steps:

1. God-claims should be taken seriously.
2. Gods (as a category of thing) are possible.
3. Gods (as a category of thing) exist.
4. A particular god exists.
5. (For monotheistic religions) no other gods exist.

Personally, I'm back before step 1: I haven't accepted the idea that god-concepts are something that ought to be taken seriously. In fact, I lean toward the conclusion that they aren't something that warrants serious attention.

For those of you who have gotten past step 1: why? How did you do it?

And please note that I'm not asking why we should take theism and its effects seriously. Theism - especially religious theism - has all sorts of real effects on the world. I'm asking why we should take claims like "God exists" as serious and reasonable propositions about reality that merit investigation to see whether they're true or false.

So... what do you think? Why are god-claims something that should be taken seriously? Or are they?

The best way to prove God, is to prove it to yourself, by running your own experiments. As long as you can avoid running the needed experiments, one can pretend to be right in anything.

For example, say I met a person who believed the earth was flat. I tell him it is spherical. He does not believe me and he is not willing to run an experiment to prove my claim, to himself. If he can avoid the experiment he can maintain bliss in ignorance. He needs to walk the right path, to come to the truth.

If you wish to know God, you need to run an experiment. This phenomena is intermittent and does not appear on stage to impress the masses. Science cannot find it using the approach its takes. We do not look for squirrels underground, and then not finding any, assume they do not exist. The spirit of God is within yet is looked for by science, outside; underground squirrels.

Hint: The spirit of God has a connection to the inner man and not the outer man. The correct experiment needs an introspective approach, so the unconscious mind can set the stage for an appearance. Only you will be able to see or sense , since this stage is within you. The faithful often set this stage in prayer. This stage may also be induced by hard times and the need to try anything for help. The unconscious senses the sincerity and opens the door. The born again affect is an intuitive connection to the inner voice. It is connected to brain IT; information technology. The human brain offers a blue tooth connection but it has to be tuned in; inner voice.

 

[stvdv]

So then why did you suggest that someone do this for God?

I liked your OP's title, hence I gave my answer to this question. And I also liked the OP, makes sense to me; because usually many steps are skipped

 

[stvdv]

I also started with an "if"

Yes, true. The IF statement works "miracles" for me on RF

"God" is only known through the claims of the believers

Thanks for putting it this way. I would never have thought that there are people who believe this way

And I totally disagree with this
"God is never known through the claims of other believers" would make more sense to me

It is in their responsibility to make their stories believable.

I agree that it's the responsibility of the story tellers to make their stories believable

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's reason.

To take baseless extra-ordinary claims seriously, is by definition not reasonable.
Nothing subjective about that.

Reason is in the brains of humans and not independent of a given human's choice of what makes sense.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The best way to prove God, is to prove it to yourself, by running your own experiments.

Why would I consider that a productive use of my time?

Why should I prioritize "running experiments" to try to prove God over investigating any number of other apparently baseless claims?

As long as you can avoid running the needed experiments, one can pretend to be right in anything.

For example, say I met a person who believed the earth was flat. I tell him it is spherical. He does not believe me and he is not willing to run an experiment to prove my claim, to himself. If he can avoid the experiment he can maintain bliss in ignorance. He needs to walk the right path, to come to the truth.

Investigating whether the Earth is flat is another baseless claim that's competing for my time and attention against investigating whether God exists. Both are competing for my time and attention against that YouTube channel where they drop interesting things off a tall tower to see what happens when they hit the ground.

Why should I consider investigating these apparently baseless claims a better use of my time than watching those YouTube videos?

Even if I decide to spend my time investigating baseless claims, why should I pick God as the claim I should investigate and not any of the other apparently baseless claims out there?

I mean, what you said about God ("As long as you can avoid running the needed experiments, one can pretend to be right in anything.") can be said about just about anything. Maybe the Hollow Earth people are right, but time I spend looking for God is time I can't use to investigate that claim.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Why would I consider that a productive use of my time?

Why should I prioritize "running experiments" to try to prove God over investigating any number of other apparently baseless claims?

...

That is subjective and has nothing to do with evidence. You are asking about what is useful to you.
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

 

[leroy]

We've had a few threads lately asking for opinions on whether God exists. To me, this is putting the cart before the horse a bit.

It seems to me that getting to the conclusion that the monotheistic god-concept of one particular religion exists needs a few other prior steps:

1. God-claims should be taken seriously.
2. Gods (as a category of thing) are possible.
3. Gods (as a category of thing) exist.
4. A particular god exists.
5. (For monotheistic religions) no other gods exist.

Personally, I'm back before step 1: I haven't accepted the idea that god-concepts are something that ought to be taken seriously. In fact, I lean toward the conclusion that they aren't something that warrants serious attention.

For those of you who have gotten past step 1: why? How did you do it?

And please note that I'm not asking why we should take theism and its effects seriously. Theism - especially religious theism - has all sorts of real effects on the world. I'm asking why we should take claims like "God exists" as serious and reasonable propositions about reality that merit investigation to see whether they're true or false.

So... what do you think? Why are god-claims something that should be taken seriously? Or are they?

1. God-claims should be taken seriously.

And what does it take for you to move from 1 to 2?......what type of evidence do you need to see.?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And what does it take for you to move from 1 to 2?......what type of evidence do you need to see.?

I haven't gotten to 1 yet. I haven't accepted the idea that god-claims are something that ought to be treated seriously.

As for what I'd need to see... I don't know. That's partly why I created this thread: to find out what got other people over that hump.

At the very least, god-claims would need to have a surface level of credibility and reasonableness that suggests further investigation might be fruitful.

 

[leroy]

I haven't gotten to 1 yet. I haven't accepted the idea that god-claims are something that ought to be treated seriously.

As for what I'd need to see... I don't know. That's partly why I created this thread: to find out what got other people over that hump.

At the very least, god-claims would need to have a surface level of credibility and reasonableness that suggests further investigation might be fruitful.

Ok more fundamentally, what does it mean to take something seriously?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

At the very least, god-claims would need to have a surface level of credibility and reasonableness that suggests further investigation might be fruitful.

Only with strong strait evidence as you demand, show with evidence, what fruitful is. You can't!

 

[rational experiences]

If any human asked why are you claiming you are looking for the spirit of God. Science says so. Science is. Everyday human says I know God exists.

By teaching quotes.

Did science invent the earth as his ego claim I know it all?

No.

Yet science satanic conversion heat attack quotes I know God to have converted God. Modern day belief only in sciences.

Just his belief.

To do a convert of Sion. Mass of any study form about stone minerals chemicals......human naming of God.

Natural consciousness self...human....spiritual....aware. by father adult male teacher who existed before my baby life taught me. God we said planet. Father teacher before us teacher loving self about God.

What I know. Memory tells me.

Mind defect subliminal today...of two minds

His beliefs.
His stories...yet they are just thoughts.

Magical says a child

Science not any child says I know.

You however never knew God. Sink holes...holes. theme space gained is your satanic subliminal claim AI effect. I copied mother of God...holder of God and formed holes.

Mother womb space empty coldest place.

Mother of God coldest is empty space highest man thought concept.

Radiating black hole space cooling after mass that owned no space converted and became space.

Science says it's position is to force earth mass to copy spatial reactions conditions.

Removed original sin meaning origin of heated mass from even existing.

Sink hole. God gone. Never meant to achieve result is not knowing God.

Original sin is not knowing God. Concept when God mass was burning not even a God term. Word description. Coercive. Stone one never burnt.

Science thinking uses recorded image memory. Looks at it in vision says I understand.

Then the records image get destroyed.

First record Moses.
Second record Jesus.

Image....feedback...recordings. stories.

Stories cloud visions lots of characters. Multi imaged feedback dreams with sounds recorded and voices.

I was told says the visionary by the God records. Also not God. As you did all the telling to gain a change to God body to claim I know.

You knew you were wrong.

Teaching O God the stone owned itself stone and it's own stone released gases from its womb.

New teaching let's just say mother earth so we won't lie about knowing God as a male concept.....O earth...immaculate space womb concept ion. How spirit heavens owned presence.

Just a story

Ion what science ponders is not gas spirit heavens.

Theist using codes in words misquoted reasoning today. Heard in feedback only partial use of worded description.

Then expressed strange beliefs about codes is words. His fact.

Father said his science son lies.

 

[alypius]

Gods (as a category of thing) are possible.

What if God were not a thing or being within any category?

 

[loverofhumanity]

We've had a few threads lately asking for opinions on whether God exists. To me, this is putting the cart before the horse a bit.

It seems to me that getting to the conclusion that the monotheistic god-concept of one particular religion exists needs a few other prior steps:

1. God-claims should be taken seriously.
2. Gods (as a category of thing) are possible.
3. Gods (as a category of thing) exist.
4. A particular god exists.
5. (For monotheistic religions) no other gods exist.

Personally, I'm back before step 1: I haven't accepted the idea that god-concepts are something that ought to be taken seriously. In fact, I lean toward the conclusion that they aren't something that warrants serious attention.

For those of you who have gotten past step 1: why? How did you do it?

And please note that I'm not asking why we should take theism and its effects seriously. Theism - especially religious theism - has all sorts of real effects on the world. I'm asking why we should take claims like "God exists" as serious and reasonable propositions about reality that merit investigation to see whether they're true or false.

So... what do you think? Why are god-claims something that should be taken seriously? Or are they?

No one can ever know Agoda. So when people say God doesn’t exist, what they are saying is they can’t directly communicate with Him so to them He doesn’t exist.


Then why do people believe in God? A number of reasons. Many see in nature no accident but order and organisation so believe that reflects a Creator and also that we did not create ourselves. We can only reproduce and combine not create.


Then others have learned about God from the Lives and Teachings of the Educators such as Christ, Muhammad and Moses etc.


But the reality is that we cannot know God directly. So many just assume that there is no God but I believe we can know God by His Signs. To me the greatest signs are the Educators then we have things like nature and that neither man nor the universe created itself. Hope this helps.

 

[ppp]

No one can ever know Agoda. So when people say God doesn’t exist, what they are saying is they can’t directly communicate with Him so to them He doesn’t exist.

No they're not saying any such thing. When people say that gods don't exist, it is the same as saying pixies, lizardmen and tulpa don't exist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ok more fundamentally, what does it mean to take something seriously?

It means that it's a reasonable subject for investigation and not one that's fit for ridicule.

Another way of looking at it: it's physically impossible to investigate every claim, so we all need to have some sort of filter to screen out the claims that don't seem worth bothering with.

Obviously, these are subjective value judgements, but layered on top of that is something less subjective: for all the things that make it past that filter, you still need to prioritize them somehow. Generally - at least for me - will be based on my first impression of how likely the claim is to be true.