"You have set the bar too high."
Options
Replies
-
The short answer is regardless of what proof would be required it would fall within the ability of an omnipotent being to provide it.
This is an interesting question however and I do not have time to delve in to it properly at the moment. I will provide a more qualified answer later.0 -
Well then in answer to your original question, yes. You have set the bar too high. If you require irrefutable proof of God's existence before you can or will believe then you will never truly have faith.
Faith comes when you can leap out of your fish bowl and discover that you were never a fish, but a tadpole that can now hop about outside as freely as he wishes.The time to believe in anything is after you have the evidence and not before.
Also ^^^ that is self delusional at best. You have a hundred things that you believe in without sufficient evidence to back it up.
Opinion - 1) a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
You have absolutely no problem with having your own opinions. Even in this realm in your life you have an opinion. As it is logical impossible to conclude that something doesn't exist just because you haven't found it, you can not possibly have enough evidence to support your opinion, yet you still hold a belief.
Unless I'm misreading you, and you are actual agnostic rather than atheistic.0 -
Personally I wouldn't mind believing in God. Which is partially why I don't think he exists. I've tried to leave myself open to Him. And yet here I am. Not believing. I've found nothing to convince me that a higher power exists.
And I also agree that finding one's car keys isn't enough. Nor a sunset. Just my opinion.0 -
Knowledge and belief are not the same things. Knowledge is a subset of belief. You can believe something that you don't know and you can also not believe something that you don't know. You cannot not believe something that you do know. Once a thing becomes knowledge you would have no choice about whether or not you believe in it. So assuming you can understand what I am typing here because the wording is a bit convoluted. Atheist and Agnostic are not mutually exclusive terms.Well then in answer to your original question, yes. You have set the bar too high. If you require irrefutable proof of God's existence before you can or will believe then you will never truly have faith.
Faith comes when you can leap out of your fish bowl and discover that you were never a fish, but a tadpole that can now hop about outside as freely as he wishes.The time to believe in anything is after you have the evidence and not before.
Also ^^^ that is self delusional at best. You have a hundred things that you believe in without sufficient evidence to back it up.
Opinion - 1) a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
You have absolutely no problem with having your own opinions. Even in this realm in your life you have an opinion. As it is logical impossible to conclude that something doesn't exist just because you haven't found it, you can not possibly have enough evidence to support your opinion, yet you still hold a belief.
Unless I'm misreading you, and you are actual agnostic rather than atheistic.
This might be a better way of explaining it:
Gnostic Theist= I know that god does exist!
Agnostic Theist= I don't know if there is a god but I do believe in god.
Agnostic Atheist= I don't know if there is a god but I do not believe in god. <= This is the category I would be in.
Gnostic Atheist= I know that god does not exist.
More to follow I have to go at the moment.0 -
What type of PROOF would be required?
I know you were asking him, but for me, seeing justice in the world, seeing good things happen to good people and seeing bad people get caught and justice served would be a huge first step.
Also, an amputee regrowing their limb after having prayed for it would be a huge one.
Basically, if there were a omnipotent/all loving deity running things, I'd expect things to be very very different.0 -
Honestly, no. But I think when something occurs in your life that you know would not have occurred without divine intervention, then you will know it. That experience is different for everyone. I have no idea when it will happen or how it will happen. It's possible you might have already seen it but refused to believe it for fear of what the existence of God might mean to you. You may choose to never see it, and you are entitled to that choice. But if you were more open-minded to the concept, I think you might find the proof you are looking for.
In other words, you are demanding concrete proof, but God doesn't work that way. The old testament (and I'm not good at quoting verses) tells a story of people who came face to face with God and were utterly obliterated. God intervenes, but not directly.
In my personal experience, I became convinced when I went to church, and the preacher spoke of things that had been weighing heavily on my heart. He didn't say anything directly to me, but the more he spoke, the more he described my every heartache. I was saved that day. Maybe something like this will happen to you, or maybe it will be something else. But the more you deny, even so much as the possibility of God, the less likely you are to ever recognize his intervention in your life.0 -
"To the skeptic, no evidence is enough. To the believer, no evidence is necessary."
I am a skeptic, but I am by no means "unconvincable". Provide me with the right facts or a logical argument and I will gladly set my ego aside and accept an argument.
I do not believe in a deity or Supreme Being in the theological sense, accept that there is no way to know for sure either way unless that type of being chooses to make itself known, and quite frankly I believe that if such a Being did exist that it would not give a hoot whether or not I believe in it anyway.
The idea that something that is all-powerful enough to create matter and existence cares whether or not I believe is incredibly arrogant.0 -
I think you have not understood my position. I am not claiming that God does not exist. I am saying that we do not yet have sufficient evidence to believe that he does exist. Until we have that proof we are not rationally justified in believing in his existence. This is why believers have to invoke faith because then you are just believing in the absence of rational justification.Well then in answer to your original question, yes. You have set the bar too high. If you require irrefutable proof of God's existence before you can or will believe then you will never truly have faith.
Faith comes when you can leap out of your fish bowl and discover that you were never a fish, but a tadpole that can now hop about outside as freely as he wishes.The time to believe in anything is after you have the evidence and not before.
Also ^^^ that is self delusional at best. You have a hundred things that you believe in without sufficient evidence to back it up.
Opinion - 1) a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
You have absolutely no problem with having your own opinions. Even in this realm in your life you have an opinion. As it is logical impossible to conclude that something doesn't exist just because you haven't found it, you can not possibly have enough evidence to support your opinion, yet you still hold a belief.
Unless I'm misreading you, and you are actual agnostic rather than atheistic.
If you want to just believe that is your right but if you want your belief to be something that others should agree with then your belief should be able to stand up to scrutiny. By invoking faith you are side stepping the process that makes it possible to support the belief.
The existence of Opinions does not lend one bit of credibility to your claim that a God exists. Just because opinions are entirely subjective and therefore not subject to the same level of scrutiny as other claims does not mean that all claims are given the same blank check of credibility.
Consider this:
Person A: "The Loch Ness monster is real."
Person B: "I don't think we have enough proof to draw that conclusion"
Person A: "Last week you said you liked chocolate and we had to just take your word for it. Why do you get to challenge my claim? That is not fair!"
[sarcasm]Person B: "I guess your right the Loch Ness monster must be real."[/sarcasm]
I have not concluded that "God does not exist." like Person B in the example above I am saying that the claim has not met the burden of proof and you are basically saying that I have set the bar too high. Which is like saying if I were simply easier to convince I would believe you by now. Well that may be true but it does not lend any credibility to the claim you are trying to champion.0 -
I think you have not understood my position. I am not claiming that God does not exist. I am saying that we do not yet have sufficient evidence to believe that he does exist. Until we have that proof we are not rationally justified in believing in his existence. This is why believers have to invoke faith because then you are just believing in the absence of rational justification.Well then in answer to your original question, yes. You have set the bar too high. If you require irrefutable proof of God's existence before you can or will believe then you will never truly have faith.
Faith comes when you can leap out of your fish bowl and discover that you were never a fish, but a tadpole that can now hop about outside as freely as he wishes.The time to believe in anything is after you have the evidence and not before.
Also ^^^ that is self delusional at best. You have a hundred things that you believe in without sufficient evidence to back it up.
Opinion - 1) a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
You have absolutely no problem with having your own opinions. Even in this realm in your life you have an opinion. As it is logical impossible to conclude that something doesn't exist just because you haven't found it, you can not possibly have enough evidence to support your opinion, yet you still hold a belief.
Unless I'm misreading you, and you are actual agnostic rather than atheistic.
If you want to just believe that is your right but if you want your belief to be something that others should agree with then your belief should be able to stand up to scrutiny. By invoking faith you are side stepping the process that makes it possible to support the belief.
The existence of Opinions does not lend one bit of credibility to your claim that a God exists. Just because opinions are entirely subjective and therefore not subject to the same level of scrutiny as other claims does not mean that all claims are given the same blank check of credibility.
Consider this:
Person A: "The Loch Ness monster is real."
Person B: "I don't think we have enough proof to draw that conclusion"
Person A: "Last week you said you liked chocolate and we had to just take your word for it. Why do you get to challenge my claim? That is not fair!"
[sarcasm]Person B: "I guess your right the Loch Ness monster must be real."[/sarcasm]
I have not concluded that "God does not exist." like Person B in the example above I am saying that the claim has not met the burden of proof and you are basically saying that I have set the bar too high. Which is like saying if I were simply easier to convince I would believe you by now. Well that may be true but it does not lend any credibility to the claim you are trying to champion.
Ok, I think we're having a problem with the word believe. You're saying we have to have absolute proof to "believe", but "believe" means to have confidence in something without absolute proof. You can not "believe" in a fact.
What you're saying is that God's existence must be proven to the point of fact before you will believe. The problem then is that once it is proven for you, you can no longer believe, you will know. Given that, the answer is that yes you have set the bar too high. You will never be able to believe that God exists.
And I think you're misunderstanding my example. First liking chocolate isn't an opinion is a preference. Second the conversation would go more along the lines of -
Person A: "The Loch Ness monster is real."
Person B: "I don't think we have enough proof to draw that conclusion"
Person A: "Maybe not, but I believe that it exists"
Person B: "You are not allowed to logically believe anything without absolute proof of it's truth"
Person A: "Do you believe that Obama is a better president than Mcain could have been?"
Person B: "Yes" or "No" (it doesn't really matter what the answer is because if you have an opinion either way you have a belief without absolute proof one way or the other)
Person A: "Why are you allowed to believe in a multitude of things without absolute proof while I'm not allowed to?"
The bottom line is that belief can not exist without faith. I'm not asking you to believe, I'm not declaring as fact that "God exists", and personally, I don't think you get a one way ticket to hell for not believing either. All I'm really saying is that
is false. The time to believe is, in fact and by definition, before you have evidence not after.The time to believe in anything is after you have the evidence and not before.0 -
I think you have not understood my position. I am not claiming that God does not exist. I am saying that we do not yet have sufficient evidence to believe that he does exist. Until we have that proof we are not rationally justified in believing in his existence. This is why believers have to invoke faith because then you are just believing in the absence of rational justification.Well then in answer to your original question, yes. You have set the bar too high. If you require irrefutable proof of God's existence before you can or will believe then you will never truly have faith.
Faith comes when you can leap out of your fish bowl and discover that you were never a fish, but a tadpole that can now hop about outside as freely as he wishes.The time to believe in anything is after you have the evidence and not before.
Also ^^^ that is self delusional at best. You have a hundred things that you believe in without sufficient evidence to back it up.
Opinion - 1) a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
You have absolutely no problem with having your own opinions. Even in this realm in your life you have an opinion. As it is logical impossible to conclude that something doesn't exist just because you haven't found it, you can not possibly have enough evidence to support your opinion, yet you still hold a belief.
Unless I'm misreading you, and you are actual agnostic rather than atheistic.
If you want to just believe that is your right but if you want your belief to be something that others should agree with then your belief should be able to stand up to scrutiny. By invoking faith you are side stepping the process that makes it possible to support the belief.
The existence of Opinions does not lend one bit of credibility to your claim that a God exists. Just because opinions are entirely subjective and therefore not subject to the same level of scrutiny as other claims does not mean that all claims are given the same blank check of credibility.
Consider this:
Person A: "The Loch Ness monster is real."
Person B: "I don't think we have enough proof to draw that conclusion"
Person A: "Last week you said you liked chocolate and we had to just take your word for it. Why do you get to challenge my claim? That is not fair!"
[sarcasm]Person B: "I guess your right the Loch Ness monster must be real."[/sarcasm]
I have not concluded that "God does not exist." like Person B in the example above I am saying that the claim has not met the burden of proof and you are basically saying that I have set the bar too high. Which is like saying if I were simply easier to convince I would believe you by now. Well that may be true but it does not lend any credibility to the claim you are trying to champion.
Ok, I think we're having a problem with the word believe. You're saying we have to have absolute proof to "believe", but "believe" means to have confidence in something without absolute proof. You can not "believe" in a fact.
What you're saying is that God's existence must be proven to the point of fact before you will believe. The problem then is that once it is proven for you, you can no longer believe, you will know. Given that, the answer is that yes you have set the bar too high. You will never be able to believe that God exists.
And I think you're misunderstanding my example. First liking chocolate isn't an opinion is a preference. Second the conversation would go more along the lines of -
Person A: "The Loch Ness monster is real."
Person B: "I don't think we have enough proof to draw that conclusion"
Person A: "Maybe not, but I believe that it exists"
Person B: "You are not allowed to logically believe anything without absolute proof of it's truth"
Person A: "Do you believe that Obama is a better president than Mcain could have been?"
Person B: "Yes" or "No" (it doesn't really matter what the answer is because if you have an opinion either way you have a belief without absolute proof one way or the other)
Person A: "Why are you allowed to believe in a multitude of things without absolute proof while I'm not allowed to?"
The bottom line is that belief can not exist without faith. I'm not asking you to believe, I'm not declaring as fact that "God exists", and personally, I don't think you get a one way ticket to hell for not believing either. All I'm really saying is that
is false. The time to believe is, in fact and by definition, before you have evidence not after.The time to believe in anything is after you have the evidence and not before.
Soldier, I've made this point with you before. Belief comes before fact. Even in science, a scientist must hypothesize the possibilities before he can generate an experiment that might prove his hypothesis. Faith works the same way as a hypothesis.
No one is aking you to have faith in God in order for it to be proven to you. But you do have to have faith that the existence of God is a possibility before evidence of His existence will become apparent to you.0 -
Soldier, I've made this point with you before. Belief comes before fact. Even in science, a scientist must hypothesize the possibilities before he can generate an experiment that might prove his hypothesis. Faith works the same way as a hypothesis.
No one is aking you to have faith in God in order for it to be proven to you. But you do have to have faith that the existence of God is a possibility before evidence of His existence will become apparent to you.
Let me just say that "apparent" is an extremely subjective word, and gets back into the argument of praying for keys is enough evidence for some and not others. God's existence may be "apparent" to some in the sun setting behind snow capped mountains while a deer grazes in the foreground from a crystal clear lake, but to say that faith will make that into evidence for everyone is really a stretch.0 -
.
[I thought I had something to contribute. On second thought, I decided differently. Carry on. Nothing to see here!]0 -
If when you say absolute proof you are referring to the kind of certainty that Renee Descartes and other philosophers mean then I would say there are only a few things that we can have certainty about. Such as the fact that I exist. I can't know that you exist but I can know that I exist with absolute certainty.Ok, I think we're having a problem with the word believe. You're saying we have to have absolute proof to "believe", but "believe" means to have confidence in something without absolute proof. You can not "believe" in a fact.
What you're saying is that God's existence must be proven to the point of fact before you will believe. The problem then is that once it is proven for you, you can no longer believe, you will know. Given that, the answer is that yes you have set the bar too high. You will never be able to believe that God exists.
And I think you're misunderstanding my example. First liking chocolate isn't an opinion is a preference. Second the conversation would go more along the lines of -
Person A: "The Loch Ness monster is real."
Person B: "I don't think we have enough proof to draw that conclusion"
Person A: "Maybe not, but I believe that it exists"
Person B: "You are not allowed to logically believe anything without absolute proof of it's truth"
Person A: "Do you believe that Obama is a better president than Mcain could have been?"
Person B: "Yes" or "No" (it doesn't really matter what the answer is because if you have an opinion either way you have a belief without absolute proof one way or the other)
Person A: "Why are you allowed to believe in a multitude of things without absolute proof while I'm not allowed to?"
The bottom line is that belief can not exist without faith. I'm not asking you to believe, I'm not declaring as fact that "God exists", and personally, I don't think you get a one way ticket to hell for not believing either. All I'm really saying is that
is false. The time to believe is, in fact and by definition, before you have evidence not after.The time to believe in anything is after you have the evidence and not before.
Personally I do not see absolute proof as necessary or even useful in that context. If the assertion that God exists could meet the same level of proof that radio waves meet then I would become a theist on the spot.
If we are suspending the philosophical definition of certainty and we are using more pragmatic definitions then yes we would have to have evidence first and then we could justify our belief in. If I were to accept your line of thinking where I first believe in something and then I look for evidence I would be in a position to believe everything anyone ever said.
What place would skepticism even have if your world?0 -
Soldier, I've made this point with you before. Belief comes before fact. Even in science, a scientist must hypothesize the possibilities before he can generate an experiment that might prove his hypothesis. Faith works the same way as a hypothesis.
No one is aking you to have faith in God in order for it to be proven to you. But you do have to have faith that the existence of God is a possibility before evidence of His existence will become apparent to you.
Let me just say that "apparent" is an extremely subjective word, and gets back into the argument of praying for keys is enough evidence for some and not others. God's existence may be "apparent" to some in the sun setting behind snow capped mountains while a deer grazes in the foreground from a crystal clear lake, but to say that faith will make that into evidence for everyone is really a stretch.
Fair enough. What might be evidence for some, may not be for others.0 -
If when you say absolute proof you are referring to the kind of certainty that Renee Descartes and other philosophers mean then I would say there are only a few things that we can have certainty about. Such as the fact that I exist. I can't know that you exist but I can know that I exist with absolute certainty.Ok, I think we're having a problem with the word believe. You're saying we have to have absolute proof to "believe", but "believe" means to have confidence in something without absolute proof. You can not "believe" in a fact.
What you're saying is that God's existence must be proven to the point of fact before you will believe. The problem then is that once it is proven for you, you can no longer believe, you will know. Given that, the answer is that yes you have set the bar too high. You will never be able to believe that God exists.
And I think you're misunderstanding my example. First liking chocolate isn't an opinion is a preference. Second the conversation would go more along the lines of -
Person A: "The Loch Ness monster is real."
Person B: "I don't think we have enough proof to draw that conclusion"
Person A: "Maybe not, but I believe that it exists"
Person B: "You are not allowed to logically believe anything without absolute proof of it's truth"
Person A: "Do you believe that Obama is a better president than Mcain could have been?"
Person B: "Yes" or "No" (it doesn't really matter what the answer is because if you have an opinion either way you have a belief without absolute proof one way or the other)
Person A: "Why are you allowed to believe in a multitude of things without absolute proof while I'm not allowed to?"
The bottom line is that belief can not exist without faith. I'm not asking you to believe, I'm not declaring as fact that "God exists", and personally, I don't think you get a one way ticket to hell for not believing either. All I'm really saying is that
is false. The time to believe is, in fact and by definition, before you have evidence not after.The time to believe in anything is after you have the evidence and not before.
Personally I do not see absolute proof as necessary or even useful in that context. If the assertion that God exists could meet the same level of proof that radio waves meet then I would become a theist on the spot.
If we are suspending the philosophical definition of certainty and we are using more pragmatic definitions then yes we would have to have evidence first and then we could justify our belief in. If I were to accept your line of thinking where I first believe in something and then I look for evidence I would be in a position to believe everything anyone ever said.
What place would skepticism even have if your world?
You said in an earlier post that you do not believe God exists. By accepting this belief without any evidence, you have already accepted tross0924's line of thinking.0 -
You are incorrect.
If when you say absolute proof you are referring to the kind of certainty that Renee Descartes and other philosophers mean then I would say there are only a few things that we can have certainty about. Such as the fact that I exist. I can't know that you exist but I can know that I exist with absolute certainty.Ok, I think we're having a problem with the word believe. You're saying we have to have absolute proof to "believe", but "believe" means to have confidence in something without absolute proof. You can not "believe" in a fact.
What you're saying is that God's existence must be proven to the point of fact before you will believe. The problem then is that once it is proven for you, you can no longer believe, you will know. Given that, the answer is that yes you have set the bar too high. You will never be able to believe that God exists.
And I think you're misunderstanding my example. First liking chocolate isn't an opinion is a preference. Second the conversation would go more along the lines of -
Person A: "The Loch Ness monster is real."
Person B: "I don't think we have enough proof to draw that conclusion"
Person A: "Maybe not, but I believe that it exists"
Person B: "You are not allowed to logically believe anything without absolute proof of it's truth"
Person A: "Do you believe that Obama is a better president than Mcain could have been?"
Person B: "Yes" or "No" (it doesn't really matter what the answer is because if you have an opinion either way you have a belief without absolute proof one way or the other)
Person A: "Why are you allowed to believe in a multitude of things without absolute proof while I'm not allowed to?"
The bottom line is that belief can not exist without faith. I'm not asking you to believe, I'm not declaring as fact that "God exists", and personally, I don't think you get a one way ticket to hell for not believing either. All I'm really saying is that
is false. The time to believe is, in fact and by definition, before you have evidence not after.The time to believe in anything is after you have the evidence and not before.
Personally I do not see absolute proof as necessary or even useful in that context. If the assertion that God exists could meet the same level of proof that radio waves meet then I would become a theist on the spot.
If we are suspending the philosophical definition of certainty and we are using more pragmatic definitions then yes we would have to have evidence first and then we could justify our belief in. If I were to accept your line of thinking where I first believe in something and then I look for evidence I would be in a position to believe everything anyone ever said.
What place would skepticism even have if your world?
You said in an earlier post that you do not believe God exists. By accepting this belief without any evidence, you have already accepted tross0924's line of thinking.
Saying "I do not believe God exists." is not the same as saying "I believe God does not exist."
"I do not believe God exists." = I reject your assertion that god exists.
"I believe god does not exist." = I am asserting that god does not exist.
In the second one a positive claim is being made which carries with it a burden of proof. I am not making a positive claim. I am rejecting a positive claim that is being made by others that claim god does exist. I do not have a burden of proof.
I have already explained this. I am an agnostic atheist. I do not know if god exists or not but I do not believe in god.
I really wish I could get this point across. I feel like I am in the middle of a crowded room shouting but nobody can hear me.0 -
I have always been an atheist, some of my earliest childhood memories are of going to church and not believing. I wanted to believe,everyone in my family did. I spent a good chunk of my early years keeping my mind open. it would come to me I was sure of it. Needless to say it never did. I couldn't understand what was wrong with me, being so young I didn't know what an atheist was, I prayed and waited, and got good at pretending. Then I got older and started reading everything I could the Old Testament. The New Testament everything I could find. The loving god everyone had talked to me about wasn't so loving, the bible did nothing but contrdict itself. At this point there is nothing anyone could point me to that would make me believe because all anyone has is the bible , and times when they had a feeling that something had to have happened for a reason.0
-
You are incorrect.
Saying "I do not believe God exists." is not the same as saying "I believe God does not exist."
"I do not believe God exists." = I reject your assertion that god exists.
"I believe god does not exist." = I am asserting that god does not exist.
In the second one a positive claim is being made which carries with it a burden of proof. I am not making a positive claim. I am rejecting a positive claim that is being made by others that claim god does exist. I do not have a burden of proof.
I have already explained this. I am an agnostic atheist. I do not know if god exists or not but I do not believe in god.
I really wish I could get this point across. I feel like I am in the middle of a crowded room shouting but nobody can hear me.
You completely lost me here. Both those statements are exactly the same. Neither carries a burden of proof. Neither are a positive claim in any way. You cannot insert the word "not" in a sentence in any position and then, declare it to be a positive claim of anything. Technically, it is not a "claim" at all. You are stating your belief, and both statements have exactly the same meaning.0 -
Do you or do you not believe there is a god, regardless of what others think?0
-
Do you or do you not believe there is a god, regardless of what others think?
My own personal philosophy is as follows:
I think that I run into some severe issues when I act as if I am god -- by attempting to control things that are going on around me, push and prod things in the way I want them to be, and engineer situations in ways that are favorable to me. When things don't work out, I get frustrated and angry -- if I control the variables, then any failure is a personal failure. I didn't do something correctly.
That's a pretty negative space for me to be in, because in life, more often than not, things don't always work out the way you anticipate them to. So I made the decision to focus on the things I can control, my actions and reactions to things, and attribute the rest of the stuff to other people's actions and a higher power. Sometimes, when I'm feeling down and/or conflicted, and I don't have anyone to talk to, I pray to a specific mental image of that higher power (whatever it may be at that given point). Then I feel better. Do I feel better because there's an actual higher power, or does the act of praying make you feel better? Who knows? The end effect is the same, and I'm comfortable with that.
I try to live a moral life and make good decisions. Belief in some form of higher power (and trust me, it changes frequently depending on my mood) helps me be happy in my day to day interactions with others. I figure, if I die, and there is a God, then he should be OK with the "moral life and good decisions" stuff. If I die, and there's no God, then I tricked myself into living a happy life, and I should be happy with that, too.0
