What is God and does it exist?

[Ignorant]

For those who want answers, 

Have you genuinely tried to seek them? For years even? Is it a lifetime spent in a growing and nurturing relationship?

Or did you get impatient, frustrated, doubtful, and give up?

If you truly seek, passionately and persistently, the answers will come to you in a way that makes sense within the context of your life.

I am still seeking answers and will never stop, for I will never have all of them. From my perspective it's theists who have given up. Before Galileo, everyone thought the sun revolved around the earth. He had kept seeking. "Heresy!", cried the ones who had stopped.

[Maxmars]

What do you mean by the search for harmonious understanding?

It more of a 'way of life' free from self-generated stress, harmony...
"Hozro," as the Navajo might say. To walk in beauty... but the true meaning is
deeply nuanced... sort of like "faith."

It's not so much coping with human-created chaos...
but stopping to actually live inside yourself,
and perceive things without
the added drama of struggle.

From such a framework, reality is easier to navigate.

I meant not to delve into all that.. but my intention for the words
I'm curious what confused you about "harmonious understanding,"
perhaps they were the wrong words for that post..
 

I'll assume for now that faith is defined as a belief in something when there is no evidence for it...

I will admit up front that I have an objection to the definition as presented by religious authorities, academicians, and scholars.

It is an impossibility for any one person to "understand" the faith of another... Creeds, tribes, familial relationship... notwithstanding.

Harmoniously or not, the same can be said of defining "love."

My perspective is that faith is somehow alive in me... your attempts to invalidate it dredge up feelings of prejudicial bias, errant characterizations, a kind of resistance to simply accept the boundary that it is a judgment, a privilege to assert what one thinks.
I applaud you for allowing me to explore this topic with you... and how important it is to me that you can accept I am not trying to convince anyone about anything.

As for "faith, all we can do is define what we "see" of it... and opine or ask about what we saw... the definers don't one want offend anymore... nothing is just published ... it's scrubbed for social compliance (or should that be complacence?)

I can only opine about what I feel and perceive of faith...

Many people I respect greatly have spoken at great length and with great style about God ---- that thing upon which "faith" seems to hinge.

I never want there to be evidence of God...
Faith is too precious a gift to lose...
the only real gift one person can give to another.
 

Note that atheists can and do believe things that aren't scientifically proven. I believe, for example, that the universe is deterministic. It can never be fully proven but the evidence for it is strong enough for me to believe it; it's my best guess.

My response is that not all "belief" is "faith."
 

It's hard to decipher what you're asking here. One thing I'll say is that atheism isn't the rejection of things we can't explain. It's the rejection of one specific explanation (the god hypothesis). Atheists are more comfortable saying "I don't know" when something can't be explained, instead of reaching for explanations for which there is no evidence.

Yet even you say... "...that atheism isn't the rejection of things we can't explain..." but you're persistent rejection of God is because it can't be 'explained' to your satisfaction. Focusing for some strange reason, on people who 'personalize' their deity into something to which they can relate.

And it seems evident, even when unstated, that you feel it a sign of weakness (or perhaps simply a weak argument.)

"Atheists are more comfortable saying "I don't know" when something can't be explained"

Truly, are they? UFO Skeptics say the same... but never hesitate to immediately and preemptively declare the non-validity of one specific "hypothesis." as if the negation itself were a gospel message to be proselytized... what's up with that?
I could have understood the in as a reaction to 'opposite' institutional zeal...
but we are in a secular world of proposed inclusivity, no?
 

In other words, it's taking the position that we shouldn't believe things because they make us feel good, rather we should believe things because they are likely to be true. And we figure out what's likely to be true by observing the world and, using reason, organizing these observations into a body of knowledge (science).

How could I not agree that making a choice because it feels good could well be a dangerous proposition?
That all things done should ultimately be done for a harmonious (apologies for that word) reason, as an expression of self.

But to presume that such a state is real in every person of faith is rather demeaning and condescending...

Well, I strive to have it be about the information as much as possible. It's all anyone can do. It's why science has developed methods that remove subjectivity as much as possible. Studies are (ideally) based on observable and reproducible facts, peer reviewed, etcetera.

Theists like bringing up that we can't know anything for certain. Sure. But we all constantly and instinctively reject things based on lack of evidence. What if I said the next thing you'll eat will kill you? You'd reject it out of hand, as you should. You decide what to believe based on evidence, like everyone else.

I agree that it may have been theists themselves who made the ground fertile for the "Matrix" myth.

People reject and accept things contrary to the opinions of others as a matter of fact.

The ideas a reasoning expressed in the atheists exposition is sound...

The "activist" delivery, I can do without.

There is no defect in my mind about relying on what is measurable and evident in the world... it is an imperative. I am still unwilling to accept that all we can measure and detect is all there is... and we need look no further than the mouthpieces and publishers of science for the truth of facts.
 

I can imagine being in a state of mind where the truth becomes so uncomfortable that my brain will be forced to reject it in favor of a belief that makes me feel better. For example, maybe on the brink of death I could change my mind just so I don't have to face the uncomfortable but nonetheless true fact that this is the end.

Thank you for the answer, it helps me to keep to things to which we can both relate. Your position that faith is a defect, or a symptom of some "malady of thought," (or perhaps an ill-considered 'choice' facing stress) is clear.
 

Not sure what you're asking here. Rephrase?

I'm sorry that I didn't make that clearer... When people 'pretend' in their heads... a lot of baggage can be seen, remembered... including base bias... I was wondering if your personal "image" of the typical faithful person is a mindless waste of space...
But in the end, that's none of my business..
 

I agree. This isn't debate club. We're here to exchange ideas, and to try to understand each other. Still, I will challenge things you say that I think are inaccurate, and I hope you'll do the same for me. Expressing one's thoughts and having them scrutinized is the best way to flesh them out, in my experience.
 
Imagining things helps us explore possible truths in our heads. But the next step is to test these possible truths either by direct experiment or by reviewing existing evidence. If we imagine something and believe it to be true without testing it, that is indeed foolishness. To people who believe things so readily, I say: Imagine there's an omnipotent flying spaghetti monster and it wants you to give me all of your money, or it will torture you forever. (Crypto addresses available on request).

I understand the power of words, and I really do believe that everyone should enjoy freedom of expression...

It has never been the meat of the argument about atheism that troubled me...
It was the consistent manner of it's proselytization...
The underlying repeating anger and disdain for a specific group of people

But it is bias by it's design, since it determines a status of less worth... I labor to not position myself so that I must damage people I disagree with.
Atheist activists NEVER appear to do that.... in fact, they celebrate the flaws of people
of faith similar to mockery we see on the media... I wonder what's up with that?

PS: Thank you so much for the chat....

[Creaky]

I am still seeking answers and will never stop, for I will never have all of them. From my perspective it's theists who have given up. Before Galileo, everyone thought the sun revolved around the earth. He had kept seeking. "Heresy!", cried the ones who had stopped.

Galileo was prosecuted by the Roman Catholic Church, right about the time Luther was taking Europe away from their teachings
Right before the printing press, public education, public universities and education and medicine was about to bring European from the dark ages
Christianity was on the verge of unlocking education for everyone, bringing about the European birth of science

Bit late for Galileo unfortunately

[Ignorant]

It more of a 'way of life' free from self-generated stress, harmony...
"Hozro," as the Navajo might say. To walk in beauty... but the true meaning is
deeply nuanced... sort of like "faith."

It's not so much coping with human-created chaos...
but stopping to actually live inside yourself,
and perceive things without
the added drama of struggle.

From such a framework, reality is easier to navigate.

 
Ok so you're talking about a sort of introspective, mentally healthy state of mind? And you're saying this is easier to get to with faith in god or at least faith in something? I think that's true to an extent, for most people.
 

I'm curious what confused you about "harmonious understanding," perhaps they were the wrong words for that post.

It's not so much confusing as can be interpreted multiple ways. Clearer language would have helped, sure.
 

My perspective is that faith is somehow alive in me... your attempts to invalidate it dredge up feelings of prejudicial bias, errant characterizations, a kind of resistance to simply accept the boundary that it is a judgment, a privilege to assert what one thinks.

I suppose I would say faith is alive in you in the same way (other) emotions are alive in people. To the person feeling them, they are very real and important. It's just that, in a discussion about what is true (in the objective sense), they don't have much value. And atheism happens to be the rejection of a certain hypothesis because it's unlikely to be true.

I'm not trying to invalidate faith, just defining the word and explaining where I think it comes from and why I reject it for myself. I get why that may seem judgmental. It's pretty much impossible not to offend when explaining why one rejects something that is deeply personal to the other party. I do admit I make very little attempt to "mince words" as they say. That's just how I am. It's not at all my intent to invalidate or offend you; I'm just expressing my thoughts directly and honestly.

I'll say that, to your earlier point, while the rejection of evidence for a belief that makes us feel better is not helpful in the pursuit of knowledge, I do think it's often helpful for mental health. I know some atheists who would probably be happier if they believed in god. The ability to believe the thing that makes us the happiest, evidence be damned, is valuable. There is something to be admired in it. It's also, unfortunately, one of the reasons people's relationships with the truth are rapidly deteriorating in the social media era. For that reason, I still find that I personally look upon it unfavorably, not so much in an individual sense (you do you), but in a "this is bad for society" sense.

I do think that ultimately the healthiest thing, both for the individual and for society, is to learn to accept the uncomfortable truths about the meaninglessness of life and the finality of death. But if that was not an option and I was given the choice to either believe a falsehood and be content, or believe the truth and be depressed, I would choose the former. I'll just have to hope that the truth never offends me to the extent that I have to abandon it to stay sane. (E.g. in the theoretical "brink of death" scenario I mentioned earlier).
 

I applaud you for allowing me to explore this topic with you... and how important it is to me that you can accept I am not trying to convince anyone about anything.

Same. It's hard for people with our particular belief systems to have healthy discussions, I've found.
 

As for "faith, all we can do is define what we "see" of it... and opine or ask about what we saw... the definers don't one want offend anymore... nothing is just published ... it's scrubbed for social compliance (or should that be complacence?)

I can only opine about what I feel and perceive of faith...

Many people I respect greatly have spoken at great length and with great style about God ---- that thing upon which "faith" seems to hinge.

I never want there to be evidence of God...
Faith is too precious a gift to lose...
the only real gift one person can give to another.

Care to expound on why you value faith so much? I imagine the ability to essentially choose what to believe would feel freeing in a way. Does that have something to do with it?
 

Yet even you say... "...that atheism isn't the rejection of things we can't explain..." but you're persistent rejection of God is because it can't be 'explained' to your satisfaction. Focusing for some strange reason, on people who 'personalize' their deity into something to which they can relate.

Ah I think when we say "something we can't explain" we mean different things. When I say it, I'm talking about a phenomenon that we've observed and are unable to explain (let's take consciousness as an example). The god hypothesis is an explanation for that phenomenon and atheism is the rejection of that particular explanation.
 

And it seems evident, even when unstated, that you feel it a sign of weakness (or perhaps simply a weak argument.)

I think I did state it. But I'll nuance it a little and say that I don't think faith is always a sign of weakness. I think for many, faith is instilled into them from such a young age that it becomes such a part of their identity they have almost no option but to accept it. And it's harsh even to describe people who get into it later in life as weak, even if the description rings true to an extent.

As for its strength as an argument: I understand the arguments for the merits of faith and I agree with them. But faith is not something you can consciously choose to feel, even if you do understand its merits. It's like emotions in that sense. I can understand the merits of enjoying work, but I can't choose to feel that way.
 

How could I not agree that making a choice because it feels good could well be a dangerous proposition?

But to presume that such a state is real in every person of faith is rather demeaning and condescending...

Well, it would be true almost by definition, if faith is defined as the belief in something that there is no evidence for. The only other reason a person would believe something is that it makes them feel better (or, if you prefer, it makes them more harmonious within themselves). Or is there another reason that I'm missing?
 

There is no defect in my mind about relying on what is measurable and evident in the world... it is an imperative. I am still unwilling to accept that all we can measure and detect is all there is... and we need look no further than the mouthpieces and publishers of science for the truth of facts.

Atheists don't claim that what we can detect is all there is! They readily acknowledge that humanity's body of knowledge is incomplete.
 

Thank you for the answer, it helps me to keep to things to which we can both relate. Your position that faith is a defect, or a symptom of some "malady of thought," (or perhaps an ill-considered 'choice' facing stress) is clear.

Not so much a defect as a coping mechanism.
 

I'm sorry that I didn't make that clearer... When people 'pretend' in their heads... a lot of baggage can be seen, remembered... including base bias... I was wondering if your personal "image" of the typical faithful person is a mindless waste of space...
But in the end, that's none of my business..

 
It's not at all my position that faith stops a person from being thoughtful, kind, fun to be around, or useful to society.
 

I understand the power of words, and I really do believe that everyone should enjoy freedom of expression...

It has never been the meat of the argument about atheism that troubled me...
It was the consistent manner of it's proselytization...
The underlying repeating anger and disdain for a specific group of people

But it is bias by it's design, since it determines a status of less worth... I labor to not position myself so that I must damage people I disagree with.
Atheist activists NEVER appear to do that.... in fact, they celebrate the flaws of people
of faith similar to mockery we see on the media... I wonder what's up with that?

PS: Thank you so much for the chat....

If I come across angry, disdainful, or like I'm trying to convince you, that's a shame because I'm none of these, believe it or not. I'm long past judging people for believing things as long as their beliefs don't infringe on the freedom of others, and I'm very long past trying to convince theists that one of the most important things in their lives is not real. I do have to say that the latter accusation amuses me, considering I've found theists to be rather obsessed with convincing others of their truth. And of course they are, when they're told that convincing another is literally saving them from eternal torture. (Yes, people have tried to "save" me).

Maybe atheists sound like they're trying to convince you simply because their arguments are, by merit, convincing 

[Bootless]

 
I suppose I would say faith is alive in you in the same way (other) emotions are alive in people. To the person feeling them, they are very real and important. It's just that, in a discussion about what is true (in the objective sense), they don't have much value. And atheism happens to be the rejection of a certain hypothesis because it's unlikely to be true.

I'm not trying to invalidate faith, just defining the word and explaining where I think it comes from and why I reject it for myself. I get why that may seem judgmental. It's pretty much impossible not to offend when explaining why one rejects something that is deeply personal to the other party. I do admit I make very little attempt to "mince words" as they say. That's just how I am. It's not at all my intent to invalidate or offend you; I'm just expressing my thoughts directly and honestly.

I think that I may define another type of god.

4) The Personal Sense-able god: That which an individual feels to be present.

To explain it, I must refer to the daemons ever present in Philip Pullman's books His Dark Materials . He got the idea from Socrates' mention in Apology by Plato. And Carl Jung made some explanation in the Anima/animus materials.

Dæmons are the external physical manifestation of a person's "inner-self" that takes the form of an animal. Dæmons have human intelligence, are capable of human speech—regardless of the form they take—and usually behave as though they are independent of their humans. Pre-pubescent children's dæmons can change form voluntarily to become any creature, real or imaginary. During adolescence a person's dæmon undergoes "settling", an event in which that person's dæmon permanently and involuntarily assumes the form of the animal which the person most resembles in character. Dæmons are usually of the opposite sex to their human, though same-sex dæmons do exist.

- from the first link

It is stated in one of Pullman's books that humans in our World have daemons too, just they are not external but internal. Personal god in the sense that there is some communication as if with another person.

Sense-able in that it is felt; sometimes in the solar plexus region, or lower, or even in a hand at times, or even somewhere associated in the head, maybe that third eye area.

People may feel this and think that it is evidence of that 3) Hypothetical God of Theism. It isn't.

It isn't eternal, or omniscient, and definitely did not create the World. It's part of the human psyche. See: transpersonal psychology. I haven't read that link yet but I may get around to it.
Forget that last link. It's a rabbit hole.

[quintessentone]

I think that I may define another type of god.

4) The Personal Sense-able god: That which an individual feels to be present.

To explain it, I must refer to the daemons ever present in Philip Pullman's books His Dark Materials . He got the idea from Socrates' mention in Apology by Plato. And Carl Jung made some explanation in the Anima/animus materials.
[Image: https://denyignorance.com/uploader/image...laimon.jpg]
It is stated in one of Pullman's books that humans in our World have daemons too, just they are not external but internal. Personal god in the sense that there is some communication as if with another person.

Sense-able in that it is felt; sometimes in the solar plexus region, or lower, or even in a hand at times, or even somewhere associated in the head, maybe that third eye area.

People may feel this and think that it is evidence of that 3) Hypothetical God of Theism. It isn't.

It isn't eternal, or omniscient, and definitely did not create the World. It's part of the human psyche. See: transpersonal psychology. I haven't read that link yet but I may get around to it.

That is just another rabbit holes which brings us back to asking "What is consciousness?", at least that is where I always end up.

[Ignorant]

I think defining stuff that goes on in the human brain as "god" is stretching the definition a bit far.

[Maxmars]

I hope we are all really enjoying this as I am... I will post some follow-ups here with recent attendees' comments...
... this may take a while...

Thank you everyone for not confusing the search for meaningful information, with an attempt to persuade...
which - in social media - seems to be a "given objective" or "wanting to win on the internet."

As for me?  I already won... we are talking about it!

[Bootless]

That is just another rabbit holes which brings us back to asking "What is consciousness?", at least that is where I always end up.

I edited my post. Ignore that last link.

I don't even attempt to answer that "What is consciousness?" question.

[Bootless]

I think defining stuff that goes on in the human brain as "god" is stretching the definition a bit far.

Okay.
Sure.
But that is because the commonly accepted dictionary definition of "God" is so freaking grandiose that nothing can measure up. 
I Mean shoot, might as well be an atheist as to stick with orthodox definitions.

I concede. Let's just stick with daemon then.

But now consider the social and cultural benefits afforded when labelling daemon as god:

When someone exclaims "Oh! God bless you!" and it would seem so not quite right to respond "and I bless you", see? "and god bless you" seems less hubristic.

Or when one must say, "So help me god"
or
"under god"
or even if one is court ordered to go to some group meeting thing where higher power is demanded. Then it is simple to pretend that one's daemon fits the bill.