a God leapt to

[iambiguous]

Soren Kierkegaard quoted in Nathan Scott's Mirrors of Man in Existentialism:

One stick's one's finger into the soil to tell by the smell in what land one is: I stick my finger into existence---it smells of nothing. Where am I? Who am I? How come I am here? What is this thing called the world? What does the word mean? Who is it that lured me into the thing, and now leaves me there....How did I come into the world?....How did I obtain an interest in this big enterprise they call reality? Why should I have an interest in it? Is it not a voluntary concern? And if I am compelled to take part in it, where is the director?

How can a mind as intelligent, introspective, incredulous as this manage to actually take a leap of faith to God? I have never understood this about Kierkegaard. I can understand a leap to God in the broadest sense of the word...where God becomes merely a metaphor for the extraordinary mystery of existence. But Kierkegaard's leap was to a God...to the God. He abandoned Regina Olsen because he felt compelled to show the world "what it is to be a Christian." His beef with Bishop Mynster and the Danish Church was not about the existence of God but how the church hierarchy had turned religious faith into a scripted, institutionalized puppet show. He insisted on concocting his own script. The existential one.

There have been other minds equally intelligent who have made this leap---Barth, Tillich, Marcel, Buber, Kung, Wilson, Updike.

Or Pascal:

When I consider the short duration of my life, swallowed up in the eternity before and after, the little space which I fill and even can see, engulfed in the infinite immensity of spaces of which I am ignorant and which know me not, I am frightened and am astonished at being here rather than there; for there is no reason why here rather than there, why now rather than then. Who has put me here? By whose order and direction have this place and time been allotted to me?

God's of course. Call it a wager.

Personally, I can only presume it is a psychological reaction to living in an essentially absurd and meaningless world; and to death and oblivion. Some minds just can't endure this. They invent actual Gods to make this go away. At least for a while. Or they invent philosophical equivalents -- monads pantheism noumena solipsism forms -- which they somehow manage to attach transcendentally to God.

They blink, in other words. Eyeball to eyeball with the useless passion we all become when eyeball to eyeball with the abyss, some, well, choke.

I recall, for example, years ago when I was politically active on the left I attended a meeting in which Daniel and Phillip Berrigan spoke. They spoke of the relationship between God and their political activism in a way that was completely nonsensical to me. Someone kept probing this relationship deeper and deeper and I got a visceral sense that it was really nonsensical to them too.
But then I kept thinking, "what the hell else is there?"

Still, I wonder: How in the world can any intelligent human being actually believe there is an actual denominational God -- and a loving just and merciful God no less! -- who created this world? Yet thousands upon thousands do. In other words, these people are not hicks from the sticks who have had God crammed into their craniums from the day they were born. They are very bright, articulate, immaginative, creative, well-informed and intellectually sophisticated in many regards. And yet somehow they manage to rationalize a leap of faith that seems utterly beyond me.

Maybe it's a genetic thing. Some of us just don't have the gene that allows this.

[Uccisore]

How isn't the practice of philosophy of religion the answer to the question you ask? I don't get it. If you go to, for example, here http://prosblogion.ektopos.com/ and just spend an hour or so reading, the inescapable conclusion seems to be that some people come to believe in the existence of God in the same way as they come to believe any other philosophical matter.
It seems like you've deliberately cited thinkers who came to (or defended) theism as a non-rational leap of thought, and ignored thinkers to came to (or defended) theism as a more classically rational matter in order to paint theism with a certain brush, then marvel at your own creation, saying 'why is reality this way'? After all, there are just as many atheists who come to (or defend) their position with some bit of leaping, some bit of poetry, or some bit of chest-thumping, but for some reason when it comes to atheism, I suspect the paragon you'd put forward is some purely rational man like an Antony Flew (irony intended).
When you ask 'how can an intelligent person actually believe there is a loving God who created this world'...well, the cosmological argument is how. The ontological argument is how. The argument from sufficient evidence is how. The refutation of the problem of evil is how. I suspect you probably don't agree with those answers, but they are the answers just the same. Frankly, to make it a socio-biological question is a bit dehumanizing.

[iambiguous]

It seems like you've deliberately cited thinkers who came to (or defended) theism as a non-rational leap of thought, and ignored thinkers to came to (or defended) theism as a more classically rational matter in order to paint theism with a certain brush, then marvel at your own creation, saying 'why is reality this way'?

I am interested in the "human condition" as it is reflected in a more integrated subjunctive point of view. "Rationalism" often devolves merely into words defining and defending other words. Something is said to be true only if you agree that the words in the argument mean what you claim they do.

And certain aspects of human reality are often not this way at all. You can't draw clear and distinct lines between thinking and feeling and reacting to the world instinctively from more "primitive" levels of the subconscious and unconscious mind.

Yet even in acknowledging this I can't make that leap myself. Not to a God. Though I once did so, in part, faith will always be a mysterious thing to me.

When you ask 'how can an intelligent person actually believe there is a loving God who created this world'...well, the cosmological argument is how. The ontological argument is how. The argument from sufficient evidence is how.

Aren't these classic examples of arguments being true "theoretically" because you think they are? The words are hooked to each other in what can become a long chain of, "if the words here mean this, then the words there mean that".

Actual leaps of faith are often much more problematic. But no less elusive for me.

And not from lack of trying.

[Uccisore]

I am interested in the "human condition" as it is reflected in a more integrated subjunctive point of view. "Rationalism" often devolves merely into words defining and defending other words. Something is said to be true only if you agree that the words in the argument mean what you claim they do.

And certain aspects of human reality are often not this way at all. You can't draw clear and distinct lines between thinking and feeling and reacting to the world instinctively from more "primitive" levels of the subconscious and unconscious mind.

Yet even in acknowledging this I can't make that leap myself. Not to a God. Though I once did so, in part, faith will always be a mysterious thing to me.

Well, then maybe that's the problem- you're seeing theism as a leap because you're seeing every move to a great (big, important) idea as a leap? If that's so, then it's possible that the body of theistic work is just too rational for your tastes, as a critic of rationalism. The people who move to theism like Kierkegaard did are going to be few and far between in the realm of Christian thinkers- an Thomist or Augustinian approach us much more likely.

Aren't these classic examples of arguments being true "theoretically" because you think they are? The words are hooked to each other in what can become a long chain of, "if the words here mean this, then the words there mean that".

That would be a good (if cynical) description of the ontological argument, but the cosmological argument is based on casual observation of the world around us and a few common sense principles. I don't see much clever word-play in it like I do from Anselm. Again, it sounds like maybe you just don't like rationalism, and what few non-rationalist theistic thinkers you can reference are such a small piece of the puzzle that they don't seem to make any sense when taken singly.

[iambiguous]

Well, then maybe that's the problem- you're seeing theism as a leap because you're seeing every move to a great (big, important) idea as a leap?

In the absense of an actual God to point to, theism is basically a leap from word to word.

Faith is a more complex leap that intertwines reason, emotion, psychology and all the parts deep down inside a "will" [a willingness] to believe -- or to believe in -- anything.

They could. I could. But now I can't.

And even if somehow I did manage the actual leap itself it would certainly not be to a God deemed loving just and merciful! More like a sadistic monster.

Aren't these classic examples of arguments being true "theoretically" because you think they are? The words are hooked to each other in what can become a long chain of, "if the words here mean this, then the words there mean that".

That would be a good (if cynical) description of the ontological argument, but the cosmological argument is based on casual observation of the world around us and a few common sense principles.

Existence = God? Why not existence = nature instead? Nothing inherently cynical about that.

Religious belief seems more rooted in indocrination that eventually is rooted in emotion. In particular, the fear of death. And the yearning for a moral scripture that eventually culminates in divine justice.

And it's not a matter of not liking rationalism so much as recognizing all the many aspects of human existence not able to be grasped in a wholly rational manner.

For example:

do apples taste better than bananas? is embryonic stem cell research moral? is there an authentic way to live? is there free will? why does anything exist at all? is an invasion of Iran justified? is there an essential self? what makes a work of art beautiful? what is justice? when are we most free?

And, of course, is there a God?

That some of these questions are among the most important we can ask is what makes the knowledge we claim to convey about human relationships so fascinating...and so excruciating.

Bruce Wilshire:

For there is what we know and know we know. There is what we know that we don't know. And then, yes, there's what we don't know we don't know. It seeps and bubbles in from all sides around the edges of our tabulations and classifications, and through the cracks. Nothing. Nothing we can name. The courageous know it is inescapable.

So maybe the less courageous take leaps instead. But who is really able to pass judgment on another when as dasein we can never really know another intimately.

If only because so few of us seem to really understand ourselves intimately.

[Uccisore]

Well, then maybe that's the problem- you're seeing theism as a leap because you're seeing every move to a great (big, important) idea as a leap?

In the absense of an actual God to point to, theism is basically a leap from word to word.

Given the absence of an actual God to point to, theism is just false. So yeah, it is strange that any reasonable person would be a theist, given your givens.

Existence = God? Why not existence = nature instead? Nothing inherently cynical about that.

I'm not sure I know what argument you're paraphrasing there. Is that the ontological or the cosmological argument you're talking about?

Religious belief seems more rooted in indocrination that eventually is rooted in emotion. In particular, the fear of death. And the yearning for a moral scripture that eventually culminates in divine justice.

It has always seemed strange to me that somebody thinks they can summarize why 5 billion people do something in a couple sentences. My natural inclination is that religious belief is rooted in a million different things depending on which believer you're talking about- and the same can be said about just about anything else that people do. But, your way of looking at humanity is more popular and accepted, so this criticism probably isn't worth too much.

do apples taste better than bananas? is embryonic stem cell research moral? is there an authentic way to live? is there free will? why does anything exist at all? is an invasion of Iran justified? is there an essential self? what makes a work of art beautiful? what is justice? when are we most free?

And, of course, is there a God?

That some of these questions are among the most important we can ask is what makes the knowledge we claim to convey about human relationships so fascinating...and so excruciating.

Right, and in all of those questions you listed except the first (and apparently, you would argue the last) there are tons of people coming to their conclusion is in the usual rational way, involving books and thought experiments and discussions like this one. I end up in this discussion on these forums a lot- where I am perplexed that other people think religious studies are inherently different than other sorts of studies. It has never made sense to me.

[Moreno]

But who is really able to pass judgment on another when as dasein we can never really know another intimately.

Notice the contradiction. The words are grammatically a question, but the punctuation fits the ever repetition of your stance. The amazing thing is that you do not notice that you pass judgment on others and that you are claiming to have knowledge of what every single human is not capable of. Rather intimate certainty you have.

I know, you are willing to say, you don't know. I don't think you understand how communication is a set of acts not a treatise that includes all your statements and disclaimers. This thread is an act.

How could a theist not consider him or herself judged?

[iambiguous]

In the absense of an actual God to point to, theism is basically a leap from word to word.

Given the absence of an actual God to point to, theism is just false. So yeah, it is strange that any reasonable person would be a theist, given your givens.

No one has actually seen the big bang but the words used to define and defend it in the scientific community are backed up by mathematics and complex correlations noted between why the universe exists as it does today and the existence of a big bang.

And the absense of an actual God to point to does not mean that no God does exist. It just means there is no hard empirical testable evidence to confirm it.

Existence = God? Why not existence = nature instead? Nothing inherently cynical about that.

I'm not sure I know what argument you're paraphrasing there. Is that the ontological or the cosmological argument you're talking about?

We have existence. One possible explanation for that is God. Another possible explanation is "natural causes". Which explanation relies on, say, the scientific method to establish its bona fides? The words scientists use point to actual relationships between actual things that correspond to actual laws of physics. With God you can say practically anything is true because allegedly there is nothing God can't do.

Religious belief seems more rooted in indocrination that eventually is rooted in emotion. In particular, the fear of death. And the yearning for a moral scripture that eventually culminates in divine justice.

It has always seemed strange to me that somebody thinks they can summarize why 5 billion people do something in a couple sentences. My natural inclination is that religious belief is rooted in a million different things depending on which believer you're talking about- and the same can be said about just about anything else that people do. But, your way of looking at humanity is more popular and accepted, so this criticism probably isn't worth too much.

Well, if 5 billion folks out there embrace religion and I don't how can my way of looking at this be more popular and accepted?

Most people believe in God because they are indoctinated as children to believe in God. But it seems to me that those who need more than that will root a leap to God in a fear of death and in the yearning for a way in which to know for certain what is right and what is wrong. And in a need to believe that bad behavior eventually gets punished.

But I need more even than that to leap. And so, as of now, I can't.

...and in all of those questions you listed except the first (and apparently, you would argue the last) there are tons of people coming to their conclusion is in the usual rational way, involving books and thought experiments and discussions like this one. I end up in this discussion on these forums a lot- where I am perplexed that other people think religious studies are inherently different than other sorts of studies. It has never made sense to me.

Yes, but their conclusions are rooted in dasein and not in something able to be demonstrated as the objective truth.

[iambiguous]

But who is really able to pass judgment on another when as dasein we can never really know another intimately.

Notice the contradiction. The words are grammatically a question, but the punctuation fits the ever repetition of your stance. The amazing thing is that you do not notice that you pass judgment on others and that you are claiming to have knowledge of what every single human is not capable of. Rather intimate certainty you have.

My argument however is not that I don't pass judgments on others but that the judgments I pass on them can only be rooted in dasein. Thus I make the distinction between those who insist their own judgments must be true because they are backed by God and those who suggest that, given how they understand themselves in the world here and now, their judgments seem reasonable.

But may not seem reasonable at all there and later. And that there is no way philosophically to determine which particular judgments are the most sound.

Not sans God. Which, ironically, is why some folks do leap to Him. It's just that some leaps are more problematic [riven with the agony of choice in the face of uncertainty] than are others.

I know, you are willing to say, you don't know. I don't think you understand how communication is a set of acts not a treatise that includes all your statements and disclaimers. This thread is an act.

But few here act blindly. They choose to act in particular ways because they have come to understand themselves out in the world with others in particular ways.

That is why we choose different words here ourselves. It's just that some insist that using the tools of philosophy we can choose the choicest words.

As though this were not a discussion about leaps of faith to God but a discussion about leaping over hurdles to the finish line at a track meet.

How could a theist not consider him or herself judged?

But how does a theist consider herself judged when vis a vis a belief in God such judgments are rooted only in dasein.

[iambiguous]

Post duplicated itself for reasons unbeknownst by me

[Moreno]

I have long understood the part bolded below is what you believe to be the case about what you believe.

My argument however is not that I don't pass judgments on others but that the judgments I pass on them can only be rooted in dasein. Thus I make the distinction between those who insist their own judgments must be true because they are backed by God and those who suggest that, given how they understand themselves in the world here and now, their judgments seem reasonable.

The judgment you pass on them includes that THEIR judgments and beliefs must be rooted in dasein - because that is the way the world is, period - and since this is THE CASE, they are making an error you do not make. Notice, there is a comparison involved after the assertion of how things are and based upon who recognizes the way things are and who does not.

And you do it here again. Here you specifically focus on theists, but in general it is aimed at anyone who you see as doing something you think you avoid doing but which you also, just like them, repeatedly do.

But may not seem reasonable at all there and later. And that there is no way philosophically to determine which particular judgments are the most sound.

Not sans God. Which, ironically, is why some folks do leap to Him. It's just that some leaps are more problematic [riven with the agony of choice in the face of uncertainty] than are others.

These sentences repeat what I said above, but in a more complicated form, so i will pass on trying to demonstrate this.

I know, you are willing to say, you don't know. I don't think you understand how communication is a set of acts not a treatise that includes all your statements and disclaimers. This thread is an act.

But few here act blindly. They choose to act in particular ways because they have come to understand themselves out in the world with others in particular ways.

That is why we choose different words here ourselves. It's just that some insist that using the tools of philosophy we can choose the choicest words.

As though this were not a discussion about leaps of faith to God but a discussion about leaping over hurdles to the finish line at a track meet.

I don't think you actually know what you are doing - I shudder to think this will echo Christ's utterance on the cross, not least because I am not a christian.

What is this thread doing? We can put the adverb nicely in there, but what is this thread doing? Can you notice your own certainty and how it is about how the world and all of us are constituted and then how you judge others from this certainty?

I fear you can't.

But how does a theist consider herself judged when vis a vis a belief in God such judgments are rooted only in dasein.

[/quote]Do you mean, why should they be bothered by the judgment of a mere human? That wasn't the issue. I am trying to hold a mirror up to you. I am not concerned about theists.

[iambiguous]

I have long understood the part bolded below is what you believe to be the case about what you believe.

My argument however is not that I don't pass judgments on others but that the judgments I pass on them can only be rooted in dasein. Thus I make the distinction between those who insist their own judgments must be true because they are backed by God and those who suggest that, given how they understand themselves in the world here and now, their judgments seem reasonable.

The judgment you pass on them includes that THEIR judgments and beliefs must be rooted in dasein - because that is the way the world is, period - and since this is THE CASE, they are making an error you do not make.

Note to all:

If anyone here is convinced I am demanding that you embrace my own point of view regarding dasein and leaps of faith to God let me assure you this is just my own understanding of these relationships. In the here and in the now.

I don't know the way the world is. I merely speculate that you don't either. That, regarding crucial aspects our lives -- our sense of self, our value judgments, our understanding of things like Existence and God -- it seems reasonable to suggest a gap between what we think we know about them and all that would need to be known about them in order to understand them wholly and objectively.

...[a]nd that there is no way philosophically to determine which particular judgments are the most sound.
Not sans God. Which, ironically, is why some folks do leap to Him. It's just that some leaps are more problematic [riven with the agony of choice in the face of uncertainty] than are others.

These sentences repeat what I said above, but in a more complicated form, so i will pass on trying to demonstrate this.

And, likewise, these speculations are merely what seem reasonable to me "here and now". If you do not share them, fine. Indeed, as daseins we will necessarily come to understand ourselves and the world around us in different [sometimes very different] ways.

Yet there are some things -- math, science, actual empirical facts, the logic embedded in particular language -- that surely seem applicable to all of us. These things are impervious to dasein even if particular daseins insist on believing what is in fact not true.

But human truths are complicated even here because sometimes we predicate our behaviors not on what is in fact true but what we have come to believe is true. And surely philosophy above all else should focus on making proper distinctions here. In particular, out in the world of actual social, political and economic interaction.

What is this thread doing? We can put the adverb nicely in there, but what is this thread doing? Can you notice your own certainty and how it is about how the world and all of us are constituted and then how you judge others from this certainty?

Again, because there was a time in my life when I believed none of this I can only speculate there may well come a time when I believe none of it again. And that has been true regarding many [really important] things in my life.

That, in part, is why I am in this venue: to be challenged regarding my views about dasein, God and leaps of faith.

Among other things.

Trust me: In some important respects it is mentally, emotionally and psychologically debilitating to think about these things as I do.

I noted I cannot make a leap to God myself now but that I once did. And also that many very intelligent and introspective men and women have been able to make one. As I get closer and closer to actual oblivion a part of me yearns to make that leap again.

But: I simply cannot figure out a way to do that again.

And I have told you [repeatedly] what I see in the mirror: dasein interacting precariously with other daseins in a world that seems to be essentially meaningless and absurd.

If however there is a God this may not be the case. If I can find a way to leap to Him then I will leap.

But this is not exactly like flicking a light switch to "on" is it?

[Moreno]

Note to all:

If anyone here is convinced I am demanding that you embrace my own point of view regarding dasein and leaps of faith to God let me assure you this is just my own understanding of these relationships. In the here and in the now.

I don't think you are demanding that others embrace your point of view or I would have said it. I do think you are presenting it as objective. Given what you are presenting (despite your disclaimers) as objective - that there is no accessible objectivity - it would be problematic to demand that others embrace it. Of course such contradictions are possible, but that particular one I haven't noticed.

And, likewise, these speculations are merely what seem reasonable to me "here and now". If you do not share them, fine. Indeed, as daseins we will necessarily come to understand ourselves and the world around us in different [sometimes very different] ways.

Notice the shift in this paragraph as the disclaimer recedes. You start with it then fall back into your certainty. Your claims of universal uncertainty are based on what you are certain of. It is like watching you drift into sleep. What, I didn't fall asleep. OK whatever. You may say that REALLY you viewed that second sentence as only possible or probable, I think you are not really experiencing yourself or what it is to arrive at an active worldview. It is not built on swamp all the way down, even if you hang a sing on the house that says 'no certain foundation'.

Again, because there was a time in my life when I believed none of this I can only speculate there may well come a time when I believe none of it again. And that has been true regarding many [really important] things in my life.

Sure, it's possible, but you now have a belief system that is utterly impervious to contradiction. This does not mean it is incorrect - though I do think you are hypocritical about it, and really, as a human, must be -

but sometimes you have said: if there is a more reasonable view present me with it. or that you are here to have your ideas challenged.

But your view undermines the ability of any other view of challenging it.

Much as solipsism does. In fact it is a form of partial solipsism.

That, in part, is why I am in this venue: to be challenged regarding my views about dasein, God and leaps of faith.

But you cannot be. I cannot challenge the ideas that you put forward as your position, because, like solipsism, it can explain away, and be consistent, any other model of reality, either focusing on the individual responding to you - and how their view comes from dasein, etc., or by having built in reasons why you yourself can't accept/be sure of them, given your own limited perspective, etc.

The solipsist can never be convinced - at least logically, rationally - that anyone else exists. any argument and even any phenomenon can be explained away as merely yet another part of the self.

Likewise your position is utterly impervious. This does not, I repeat, mean that it is wrong, but what you claim as your interest in having these ideas challenged shows a complete misunderstanding of the effects of your own position on yourself. Your position is utterly impregnable - not because of your temperment, but because of the position itself. In a similar way to solipsism's imperviousness.

All one can do, I think, in relation to your position, is point out how it is not really your position, which I think is the case. Or point out that at its base it is grounded on certainty.

The issue of how your older positions did change has to do with how positions based on certainty, oddly enough, can change, because they can be undermined. Notice the irony. Certainty and a belief in direct experience can be affected by other positions and experience.

Your position however cannot be.

You may still change you mind, but it is not going to happen via someone with another position presenting another position or demonstrating the flaws in yours, since yours can just swallow both of these things ad inifinitum.

The only way it will change, I would guess, is when you realize what is actually happening, what you are actually doing, and how, like ZENO'S arrow your position does reach the target of certainty, even though you think the disclaimers of your lack of certainty keep dividing up the distance and keep the arrow hovering uncertainly in space. But all the rationale that goes into the model, a good deal of which you are likely not even conscious of, you are certain of.

But you will have to actually feel this to know it.

When you present your arguments over time, one by one, the sentences all seem rational and seem like how you are thinking, and it seems like it works. If you can 'get' them all at once, you will notice that you are just another absolute position out there instrumentally.

Or you won't.

Trust me: In some important respects it is mentally, emotionally and psychologically debilitating to think about these things as I do.

I am sure this is correct. You must stay split with yourself at all times or at least as an ideal. You must transcend the primate who damn well knows that is a piece of fruit and this action will lead to its tasting it.

I noted I cannot make a leap to God myself now but that I once did. And also that many very intelligent and introspective men and women have been able to make one. As I get closer and closer to actual oblivion a part of me yearns to make that leap again.

But: I simply cannot figure out a way to do that again.

Why go the faith route. The whole faith thing is a rather odd distortion coming out of people like Paul, who really did incredible damage. Why not see it in terms of exploration and seeing if you can come in contact with God via the practices of whatever religion appeals the most or offends the least - there are plenty of tiny religions also.

One thing most agree on is that practice is vastly more important than rational debate. And nevertheless theists and non-theists argue as if this was a viable route to change. And non-theists often demand to be convinced through dialogue, as if the failure of this process demonstrated anything meaningful.

Primarily non-verbal practice, since this alters dasein - to be manipulative - is a vastly more likely route to actually changing a position. It is empirical. It is not easy - regardless of religion. It takes time and effort and stretching oneself. It goes down into the routes of both believing and experiencing....

which a lot of online mulling and discussing will never get at.

Note: I am not saying this will work, or work for you. Or even that you should try this. But attempts or interest in exploration that occur in a lot of words and reading and discussing seem to me not real attempts or interest, but rather a way of seeming to have tried so one can be even more comfortable in the beliefs one has even if these are claimed to be not really beliefs and certainly not certain ones.

And I have told you [repeatedly] what I see in the mirror: dasein interacting precariously with other daseins in a world that seems to be essentially meaningless and absurd.

And that is all your position will ever allow you to see. Nicely worded. So from now on, I think it will be utterly disingenuous for you to present your position and yourself as ready to meet arguments that could change your mind. They cannot. Not because they are wrong, but because of how your current position undermines them and is perfectly effective at this task. Reread what you wrote here. Notice how this view utterly undermines ANY potential challenge in dialogue with another human. Doesn't mean it's wrong, but it does mean any claim of openness is either dishonest or not understanding your own position.

“If you tried to doubt everything you would not get as far as doubting anything. The game of doubting itself presupposes certainty.”
― Ludwig Wittgenstein, On Certainty

If however there is a God this may not be the case. If I can find a way to leap to Him then I will leap.

But this is not exactly like flicking a light switch to "on" is it?

No. Nor is it discussing things on the internet. Oddly pretty much every religion focuses on practice and publishes texts and give free lessons in how to learn, how to come closer to God, and yet you are not choosing to move in that direction, it seems, and at the very least seem to think it should come from dialogue if it could come.

Last repeat: leaps of faith and the concept of faith is a very marginal conception of how to reach God. yet if you looked at online discussions between theists and non-theists, it would seem like religions are ALL focusing on this concept and were not primarily advocating long term, deeply engaged, non-verbal practices, without an upfront leap of faith.

Obviously if someone has no interest, they have no interest. But if there is an interest, there are plenty of potential routes offered with practical steps, and most expert practitioners - gurus, priests, shamans, whatever - would consider the light switch metaphor a very poor one.

we are not digital.

[iambiguous]

Note to all:

If anyone here is convinced I am demanding that you embrace my own point of view regarding dasein and leaps of faith to God let me assure you this is just my own understanding of these relationships. In the here and in the now.

I don't think you are demanding that others embrace your point of view or I would have said it. I do think you are presenting it as objective. Given what you are presenting as objective - that there is no accessible objectivity, it would be problematic to demand that others embrace it. Of course such contradictions are possible, but that particular one I haven't noticed.

I don't agree. And here we have no alternative but to agree to disagree. Until one of us comes up with a more persuasive argument.

And over and again I note a distinction between things I do believe are within our grasp objectively [math, science, empirical facts, things true by definition, knowledge gleaned from analytically sound arguments etc] and things that seemingly are not [identity, value judgments, long disputed antinomies etc.].

Again, because there was a time in my life when I believed none of this I can only speculate there may well come a time when I believe none of it again. And that has been true regarding many [really important] things in my life.

Sure, it's possible, but you now have a belief system that is utterly impervious to contradiction. This does not mean it is incorrect - except where I see you contradicting it via action - but sometimes you have said - if there is a more reasonable view present me with it.

What more is there in a venue such as this? I argue that in a world sans God [a world lacking an omniscient, omnipotent point of view] we can only speculate about the relationship between "in my head" and "out in the world" from an existential vantage point deeply rooted in contingency, chance and change.

But some things clearly can be shown to be applicable to all. Or as close to this as we are able here and now to actually demonstrate it.

But what of those things not applicable to all?

I note them and I proffer arguments why they are rooted more in dasein [a point of view] than in "the truth". How is that then "impervious to contradiction", "beyond challenge", "sollipsistic"?

You say...

I cannot challenge the ideas that you put forward as your position, because, like solipsism, it can explain away, and be consistent, any other model of reality, either focusing on the individual responding to you - and how their view comes from dasein, etc., or by having built in reasons why you yourself can accept them, given your own limited perspective, etc.

The solipsist can never be convinced - at least logically, rationally - that anyone else exists. any argument and even any phenomenon can be explained away as merely yet another part of the self.

Likewise your position is utterly impervious. This does not, I repeat, mean that it is wrong, but the calls for challenges show a limited understand of the effects of your own position on yourself.

...and I am genuinely at a loss in understanding how this is applicable to someone like me; someone, in other words, who once did not believe what he does now [as a staunch Christian, Unitarian, Objectivist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist etc. ] and who openly acknowledges that, given the vicissitudes and vagaries of contingency, chance and change, he may not believe it again. How can I be viewed in this way?

If you want to argue my point of view today reflects, "just another absolute position out there instrumentally", you may well manage to convince others but you have not yet managed to convince me.

Trust me: In some important respects it is mentally, emotionally and psychologically debilitating to think about these things as I do.

I am sure this is correct. You must stay split with yourself at all times.

No, I don't know how to reconfigure "I" into a more wholistic point of view.

I noted I cannot make a leap to God myself now but that I once did. And also that many very intelligent and introspective men and women have been able to make one. As I get closer and closer to actual oblivion a part of me yearns to make that leap again.

But: I simply cannot figure out a way to do that again.

Why go the faith route. The whole faith thing is a rather odd distortion coming out of people like Paul, who really did incredible damage. Why not see it in terms of exploration and seeing if you can come in contact with God via the practices of whatever religion appeals the most or offends the least - there are plenty of tiny religions also.

And what are all of the "tiny religions" doing but replicating the same leap of faith all of the big ones employ. Faith implies the absense of certainty. That's why we can have faith in anything if we don't have to be certain of it.

But in this world? A world bursting at the seams with so much unrelenting horror? The existence of God is surely the least of it for some of us.

And what of your own "practical exploration", your own "contact with God"?

And believing something without good reasons to believe it is also a path I am no longer able to take. That to me is but a recognition that some have the capacity to believe what makes them feel good...or whole...or necessary.

God is not something I can believe in now without acquiring a substantive and substantial sense that God does exist.

What I would need then are others able to articulate existentially their own "explorations" of God. I would need an actual subjunctive sense of what these words mean.

And I have told you [repeatedly] what I see in the mirror: dasein interacting precariously with other daseins in a world that seems to be essentially meaningless and absurd.

And that is all your position will ever allow you to see. Nicely worded. So from now on, I think it will be utterly disingenuous for you to present your position and yourself as ready to meet arguments that could change your mind. They cannot. Not because they are wrong, but because of how your current position undermines them and is perfectlyl effective at this task.

This might make more sense to me if in the past I had not been reasoned with by others who very much succeeded in changing my point of view. Or if I had not had new experiences that pushed me in a new direction.

It can happen again. And I do believe I am always open to it.

“If you tried to doubt everything you would not get as far as doubting anything. The game of doubting itself presupposes certainty.”
― Ludwig Wittgenstein, On Certainty

But there are already many, many, many things I do not doubt. Dasein is only implicated [for me] when one attempts to posit a core self or to root moral, political and aesthetic values in objective truth or in professing to believe in the existence of a God, the God, my God.

....there are plenty of potential routes offered with practical steps, and most expert practitioners - gurus, priests, shamans, whatever - would consider the light switch metaphor a very poor one.

And what would they make of my "dasein living precariously with other daseins in a world essentially meaningless and absurd---a world ending for each of us one by one in the eternity that is oblivion?" They would all have their own story to tell; but if you believed one then all of the other stories must be wrong.

Their Gods become the journey but the journey still takes place in the world as I know it through, say, the New York Times. And what do they make of this world? I suspect whatever allows them to more fully escape it. Or to more fully explain it away.

[V-OutOfTheWilderness]

What I would need then are others able to articulate existentially their own "explorations" of God.

One thing is for sure : people like to make up shit about God. Maybe not all of it is bullshit, but 99% give the rest a bad name.

The fact that people love to make up shit about God should cause all of us pause, when it comes to ideas and statements about God.

And because we can only see God thru human eyes, most of the shit made up about God makes Him (gender is made up shit) into some kind of humanoid, with anger, jealousy, wrath, vengeance and genocide.

And, a God that walks in the cool of the day, and needs to take a rest every 7 days. Don't waste your time praying on the sabbath, cuz God is resting, with 'Do not Disturb' hanging on the door knob. Feel free to break the sabbath. You won't get caught. Cuz God is not paying attention ... It's the sabbath. He's resting ...

[Moreno]

I don't agree. And here we have no alternative but to agree to disagree. Until one of us comes up with a more persuasive argument.

You don't agree? So you are telling me what I believe and asserted?

I don't think you are demanding that others embrace your point of view or I would have said it.

You responded as if I had asserted something about you. And I hadn't.

And over and again I note a distinction between things I do believe are within our grasp objectively [math, science, empirical facts, things true by definition, knowledge gleaned from analytically sound arguments etc] and things that seemingly are not [identity, value judgments, long disputed antinomies etc.].

That wasn't relevent here.

Sure, it's possible, but you now have a belief system that is utterly impervious to contradiction. This does not mean it is incorrect - except where I see you contradicting it via action - but sometimes you have said - if there is a more reasonable view present me with it.

What more is there in a venue such as this?

This doesn't make sense as a response to what I wrote. I asserted that your position is impervious to contradiction. I argued why more fully later in that post. To say what more in a venue like this? and then reassert why you have the beliefs you have is not a direct response to what I wrote.

I argue that in a world sans God [a world lacking an omniscient, omnipotent point of view] we can only speculate about the relationship between "in my head" and "out in the world" from an existential vantage point deeply rooted in contingency, chance and change.

But some things clearly can be shown to be applicable to all. Or as close to this as we are able here and now to actually demonstrate it.

But what of those things not applicable to all?

I note them and I proffer arguments why they are rooted more in dasein [a point of view] than in "the truth". How is that then "impervious to contradiction", "beyond challenge", "sollipsistic"?

You say...

I cannot challenge the ideas that you put forward as your position, because, like solipsism, it can explain away, and be consistent, any other model of reality, either focusing on the individual responding to you - and how their view comes from dasein, etc., or by having built in reasons why you yourself can accept them, given your own limited perspective, etc.

The solipsist can never be convinced - at least logically, rationally - that anyone else exists. any argument and even any phenomenon can be explained away as merely yet another part of the self.

Likewise your position is utterly impervious. This does not, I repeat, mean that it is wrong, but the calls for challenges show a limited understand of the effects of your own position on yourself.

...and I am genuinely at a loss in understanding how this is applicable to someone like me; someone, in other words, who once did not believe what he does now [as a staunch Christian, Unitarian, Objectivist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist etc. ] and who openly acknowledges that, given the vicissitudes and vagaries of contingency, chance and change, he may not believe it again. How can I be viewed in this way?

You are confusing an epistemological issue, here in this response, with a tempermental one. Your position views all positions - relevent to this discussion - as subjective, fallible and dasein created. Any challenges you get will be viewed in this light and then your own reactions will be seen in this light - as long as you hold your position.

SO IT CANNOT CHANGE.

If you want to argue my point of view today reflects, "just another absolute position out there instrumentally", you may well manage to convince others but you have not yet managed to convince me.

I do think that this is the case, but that is not what I am arguing here. I am arguing that like the solipsist the conclusions in your position undermine any potential challenges from outside you or inside you, since this can and will be viewed as the products of dasein.

No, I don't know how to reconfigure "I" into a more wholistic point of view.

Well, you could stop viewing your thoughts and reactions are merely dasein. This instantly creates a split. But, yes, I know why you do not want to do this.

And what are all of the "tiny religions" doing but replicating the same leap of faith all of the big ones employ.

Seriously, I don't think you are paying attention. Even the big ones focus on practices and experience.

And what of your own "practical exploration", your own "contact with God"?

There is plenty of such literature out there. To ask after mine is to do precisely what I am criticising. It is as if there was any chance a response could have any meaning to you except as the fallible culture determined products or at least something you must remain agnostic about. And frankly, I tend to agree with you. You need to experience things yourself.

Do you see what I mean? You are acting as if there was some way this information might have some relevence and you are interested, when as an educated person you must know there is a vast supply of this kind of reporting in books and online and this cannot possible change your mind about anything. (and if you looked at much of these first person accounts, you will find people engaged long term in practices meant to bring them closer to God, expressing doubt about their own experiences and conclusions, and through a long process of experience, rather than faith, coming to a solid belief in God. Of course some people babble about 'faith' in Christianity especially, but much of religion is experiential and critically so, not some mental pretending to believe something. Even if you think 'faith' is the main character of religion (which is not the case) you are still capable of finding those religious paths that emphasize practice and experience. Try one of those. Or not, whatever you want.)

And believing something without good reasons to believe it is also a path I am no longer able to take. That to me is but a recognition that some have the capacity to believe what makes them feel good...or whole...or necessary.

Which is precisely why religions ALL recommend practice so that through practice you get reasons that YOU consider good. Sure, some practitioners prattle on about faith - but even they will then talk about the impotance of prayer, certain attitudes, good works, contemplation and so on - even in the dimmest, most cro magnon areas of Christianity, let alone the view of more advanced practitioners or other religions.

God is not something I can believe in now without acquiring a substantive and substantial sense that God does exist.

And again, practices is the recommended route. So there is something disingenuous, at least from this moment forward, if you request people's viewpoints, when the near universal emphasis in on practices on not mental verbal debate and discussion. If you don't see this as universal, fine. I can only say that you must have noticed how many religions do have practices and at least some of these religious and branches of EVERY religion offer people a path based on practice.

What I would need then are others able to articulate existentially their own "explorations" of God. I would need an actual subjunctive sense of what these words mean.

Would you? and you are not aware of the huge literature out there covering this. And how would this help you have good reasons to believe in God? Given, as I have said, your beliefs, this could not possible do anythign for you. You can simply view it the way you already do.

And I have told you [repeatedly] what I see in the mirror: dasein interacting precariously with other daseins in a world that seems to be essentially meaningless and absurd.

And that is all your position will ever allow you to see. Nicely worded. So from now on, I think it will be utterly disingenuous for you to present your position and yourself as ready to meet arguments that could change your mind. They cannot. Not because they are wrong, but because of how your current position undermines them and is perfectlyl effective at this task.

This might make more sense to me if in the past I had not been reasoned with by others who very much succeeded in changing my point of view. Or if I had not had new experiences that pushed me in a new direction.

I am NOT talking about your temperment. I think I made that clear. I am talking about your position.

I do see signs in the way you miss points that your temperment is resistent to changing now. But that is not my point. I did not mention some particular solipsist. I mentioned the position of solipsism. It is your position that is impervious. I believe I specifically said you might change your mind. It is the position that is impervious. You yourself may also be impervious and have come home to a position that you are reluctant to give up for reasons of character and temperment, but that's another issue.

And what would they make of my "dasein living precariously with other daseins in a world essentially meaningless and absurd---a world ending for each of us one by one in the eternity that is oblivion?" They would all have their own story to tell; but if you believed one then all of the other stories must be wrong.

Why don't you find out instead of guessing? If you are interested. If you are not, fine. But if you can't see how your position makes it impossible for change via people talkign about their experiences, you are very confused about your own position.

Their Gods become the journey but the journey still takes place in the world as I know it through, say, the New York Times. And what do they make of this world? I suspect whatever allows them to more fully escape it. Or to more fully explain it away.

So you know what would happen if you followed the interest you seemed to claim you have and actually followed their suggestions about how to get closer to God.

Now I can openly say I see a tempermental block to actually challenging your ideas and or a disingenuousness about your interest.

You think you can simulate what will happen if you take their suggestions seriously.

Good.

No more need for discussion.

Your position undermines being challenged by their experiences. You faith in your own ability to mentally imagine what would happen if you engaged in an experiential process at their suggestion, keeps you from having your own experiences.

I look for other options. See none.

You stated you are open. I think you are confused. Sure, this venue is set up for debate and discussion. But if I find someone here trying to get me to scratch and itch on their back, I am going to tell them that they are confused about what can be done here. I might tell them, of course, to lean on a doorway and move their back back and forth like a bear and see if that helps.

Which is precisely what I have done here with you. But otherwise it isn't the right venue.

The Story:

A man was walking home late one night when he saw the Mulla Nasrudin searching under a street light on hands and knees for something on the ground. "Mulla, what have you lost?" he asked.

"The key to my house," Nasrudin said.

"I'll help you look," the man said.

Soon, both men were down on their knees, looking for the key.

After a number of minutes, the man asked, "Where exactly did you drop it?"

Nasrudin waved his arm back toward the darkness. "Over there, in my house."

The first man jumped up. "Then why are you looking for it here?"

"Because there is more light here than inside my house."

I know you see yourself as bringing things down to the ground, but I find you very up in your head here. You stated an interest or wish that you could believe. Religions offer steps towards experience. Those steps are on the ground, very practical - physical even - experiential. You can stay up in the clouds guessing about what they would say when you tell them your beliefs, or you could follow their suggestions about what you can do so that you may have experiences such that you feel YOU have good grounds to consider there is a God - etc.

I will leave it here at least for some significant period of time.

[Typist]

Personally, I can only presume it is a psychological reaction to living in an essentially absurd and meaningless world; and to death and oblivion. Some minds just can't endure this. They invent actual Gods to make this go away.

If you want to understand this, and not just attempt to debunk it, you can see the very same process being documented in your own post.

The central fact is that we don't know. And we'd be more comfortable if we did know. This is the psychological reaction you've referred to.

You don't know either, just like everybody else. But because you are just as human as the rest of us, you wish you did know, because that would make you more comfortable.

And so you invent some explanations, in an attempt to convince yourself that you know. You declare the world to be "essentially absurd and meaningless" even though there's no way you could possibly know this. You declare death to be oblivion, even though there's no way you could possibly know this either.

You are intelligent enough to know that there's no way you could possibly know these things, but you believe in your explanations with sincere conviction anyway. Welcome to the world of faith, the world we all share together.

They blink, in other words. Eyeball to eyeball with the useless passion we all become when eyeball to eyeball with the abyss, some, well, choke.

You are blinking, just like everybody else. You are not somehow above it, not somehow higher than "those people over there". This is merely the most ordinary of fantasies that we all indulge in to help ourselves get through the day. I'm doing it now by typing this post.

You think you are being brave by going eyeball to eyeball with "the abyss". This is the atheist delusion, your religion's version of Bible stories.

The simple non-fantasy based fact is....

You don't know.

You have no way of knowing.

Neither does anybody else, so no one is coming to rescue you.

If your goal is to be a grown up tough guy, go eyeball to eyeball with that.

[iambiguous]

I don't agree. And here we have no alternative but to agree to disagree. Until one of us comes up with a more persuasive argument.

You don't agree? So you are telling me what I believe and asserted?

You made the claim that, "I do think you are presenting it as objective." Then I noted a distinction I make between, "things I do believe are within our grasp objectively [math, science, empirical facts, things true by definition, knowledge gleaned from analytically sound arguments etc] and things that seemingly are not [identity, value judgments, long disputed antinomies etc.]."

But this distinction is rooted only in the manner in which I understand these things as dasein. And in the limitations of language in articulating these things out in a world sans God.

And that does seem relevant to me.

And "in a venue like this" all we have are words that make suggestions or assertions about what other words mean. We don't have the capacity to yank them literally "down to earth" in order to connect them wholly to actual physical objects interacting empirically out in the world with other physical objects. So, if language is limited down here, it is all the more limited when other words are all there are to exchange.

...I am genuinely at a loss in understanding how this is applicable to someone like me; someone, in other words, who once did not believe what he does now [as a staunch Christian, Unitarian, Objectivist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist etc. ] and who openly acknowledges that, given the vicissitudes and vagaries of contingency, chance and change, he may not believe it again. How can I be viewed in this way?

You are confusing an epistemological issue, here in this response, with a tempermental one. Your position views all positions - relevent to this discussion - as subjective, fallible and dasein created. Any challenges you get will be viewed in this light and then your own reactions will be seen in this light - as long as you hold your position.

Yes, sans God or a scientific TOE, it seems reasonable [to me] to suggest that anything you or I assert is true about any particular relationship between "in my head" and "out in the world" is subjective. Which is merely to ask, what else can our knowledge of the world and our place in it be but derived from a particular subject---a particular "I"?

My point is only that for all practical purposes there is a distinction to be made between, "Barack Obama is the President of the United States" and "Barack Obama is a bad president". Between, "abortion is medical procedure that kills the unborn in the womb" and "abortion is immoral".

The former are either/or relationships. The latter are just points of view. But I suppose we can argue endlessly over what "technically" does constitute being "objective" here.

If you want to argue my point of view today reflects, "just another absolute position out there instrumentally", you may well manage to convince others but you have not yet managed to convince me.

I do think that this is the case, but that is not what I am arguing here. I am arguing that like the solipsist the conclusions in your position undermine any potential challenges from outside you or inside you, since this can and will be viewed as the products of dasein.

But unlike the solipsist I do not believe that only my "self" exists. And I do not need God to make all the rest of it relevant. The world does exist independent of me. There are other "selfs" out in the world that view it in ways other than as I do. And not everything is reflective only of a particular point of view. Dasein does not make the world what it is. It's not the center of the universe. But it is especially relevant with regard to 1] who I have come to think I am when 2] my behaviors come into conflict with others.

And what of your own "practical exploration", your own "contact with God"?

There is plenty of such literature out there. To ask after mine is to do precisely what I am criticising.

Yes, and to avoid probing your own is precisely what I'm criticizing. Why? Because when you do so you might learn something about why you are who you think you are. And also about limitations regarding what you think you control [or can even understand] regarding this.

I learned the implications of that when I had my own mind changed repeatedly by others.

Of course some people babble about 'faith' in Christianity especially, but much of religion is experiential and critically so, not some mental pretending to believe something. Even if you think 'faith' is the main character of religion (which is not the case) you are still capable of finding those religious paths that emphasize practice and experience. Try one of those. Or not, whatever you want.)

Are you suggesting the folks I mentioned above did not base their own leap of faith on intensely personal "practice and experience"? They, above all others, grappled mightily with God in the context of the lives they actually lived. I puzzle how they could do so in part by acknowledging how my own faith was almost entirely rooted in my upbringing.

With the "practice and experience" of most religious denominations [big and small] there is almost always a liturgy one subscribes to. A catechismic approach to God that revolves around any number of rules and rituals.

Therefore, why can't you detail your own "practice and experience" with respect to God? Did you walk your talk here? Where did it lead you?

In other words:

What I would need then are others able to articulate existentially their own "explorations" of God. I would need an actual subjunctive sense of what these words mean.

Would you? and you are not aware of the huge literature out there covering this. And how would this help you have good reasons to believe in God? Given, as I have said, your beliefs, this could not possible do anythign for you. You can simply view it the way you already do.

But my own past is not reflected in your argument. I changed my moral and political [and even aesthetic] proclivites over and again not by engaging the "literature" but by engaging actual flesh and blood men and women instead; folks who talked to me about their own experiences and invited me into their lives. Just as I have changed the minds of others by doing the same.

You can't simply "view things the way you already do" when others show you ways that, over time, seem to make more sense.

What I will concede however is that the combination of "positions" I am partial to today -- dasein, moral nihilism, political economy -- have been around longer than any positions I have ever held before. But I still don't see myself as "impervious" to change. The challange I have today is that my disability makes it much more difficulat for me to engage new experiences. So now more than ever I am able only to search for new arguments.

You stated you are open. I think you are confused. Sure, this venue is set up for debate and discussion. But if I find someone here trying to get me to scratch and itch on their back, I am going to tell them that they are confused about what can be done here. I might tell them, of course, to lean on a doorway and move their back back and forth like a bear and see if that helps.

But you understand these things only as dasein. In some ways the life you have lived and the manner in which you have come to understand it may overlap mine and me; but in other ways we are almost certainly not even close to having lived it and understood it in the same way.

So: Tell me of your own choices vis a vis the advice you give me here. Did you end up taking it yourself?

The Story:

A man was walking home late one night when he saw the Mulla Nasrudin searching under a street light on hands and knees for something on the ground. "Mulla, what have you lost?" he asked.

"The key to my house," Nasrudin said.

"I'll help you look," the man said.

Soon, both men were down on their knees, looking for the key.

After a number of minutes, the man asked, "Where exactly did you drop it?"

Nasrudin waved his arm back toward the darkness. "Over there, in my house."

The first man jumped up. "Then why are you looking for it here?"

"Because there is more light here than inside my house."

And what exactly does this have to do with the manner in which I situate dasein, moral nihilism and political economy out in a world some are able to make a leap to God in? Are you suggesting that I am suggesting that under the "light" I shine here is the only place I deem worthy enough to commense the search for their "true" meaning? That, in other words, I refuse to go to the light others shed on them?

Oh, but I will.

Let's start then from where you begin your own search now. And, personally, I have had a zillion experiences myself. I was born and raised in the belly of the working class beast outside of Wilkes Barre and Baltimore. Very poor but very street wise. I worked in the ship yards and the steel mills. I was drafted into the Army, shipped to Vietnam and spent a year in a MACV -- a real hellhole outside Song Be -- in Phuouc Long Province. There, under some truly woolly conditions, I met folks who reconfigured me from a devout right wing Christian into a radical and rabid atheist.

After being discharged from the Army, I was so fucked up I had to go to various shrinks and counselors at the Vet Center and in the VA clinics in and around Baltimore.

When I finally got my head back up on my shoulders I matriculated into college. This was back in the mid seventies. And, as a result, I can assure you that, from sex and drugs to "lifestyles" and politics, there was almost nothing I didn't try at least once.

I majored in political science and philosophy at CCBC and Towson State University. And I was involved in radical political organizations for nearly three decades. I was married, divorced and rasied a daughter as a single parent.

As I said, lots and lots and lots of experiences.

And from those experiences I am all the more convinced there is no God. And that, even if there is one, He must be, given the world we live in, a truly sadistic bastard.

Either that or Rabbi Kushner's God---one that is not omnipotent.

I will leave it here at least for some significant period of time.

Well, okay, but that means that, for "some significant period of time", I will have the final word here!

[Typist]

As I said, lots and lots and lots of experiences. And from those experiences I am all the more convinced there is no God. And that, even if there is one, He must be, given the world we live in, a truly sadistic bastard.

Our personal experiences would certainly be a factor in why we believe whatever we believe. But they don't really have any bearing on whether there is a God or not.

[iambiguous]

As I said, lots and lots and lots of experiences. And from those experiences I am all the more convinced there is no God. And that, even if there is one, He must be, given the world we live in, a truly sadistic bastard.

Our personal experiences would certainly be a factor in why we believe whatever we believe. But they don't really have any bearing on whether there is a God or not.

True. But that still leaves the gap between a belief in God and the actual existence of God. Some folks are able to make a leap of faith to close it. But faith implies some measure of uncertainty so it is closed only in their heads.

But, admittedly, for each of us one by one that's really all it takes. If you believe in God then you live your life accordingly. God does not actually have to exist at all if you believe He does.