Hombre,
you misread what I wrote. I said that you have to look for God before you can believe in Him. This is not the same as what you apparently understood, which is: “Only by believing in God can you actually find evidence for him.” They are not the same. Using your example of the Billy religion, it would be proving to yourself that Billy is not there (trying to open the door, etc) instead of relying or disrelying on what the others say. Hope this makes sense.
Shadowandlight said:
That is correct.
How can something exist for me when no vestige of it enters into my personal experience? Why should i look for an entity that can not [or refuses] to be found?
God cannot be found absolutely. He can be found only imperfectly. Surely the best an individual can hope for is an understanding based on inferences drawn from observed/experienced correspondences between his actual and perpetual condition, i.e., his, ‘ever-becoming-ness,’ and that which is, ‘ever-unfolding-whilst-remaining-always-the-same,’ (that most ancient of rivers that flows both ways, the world of aesthetics and appearances.)
Thus he who follows god follows god’s will and god’s will is that spark of intelligence within him that he may choose or no to acknowledge as the bond between all that is human and all that is divine.
No man knows god absolutely. The ineffably profound nature of the concept of god is something that does belong solely in the realm of idea. There is nothing more to god than this. But herein lies its greatness, its magnificence, its majesty. For that a creature of mere flesh and bone with a brain can invent, (supposedly,) such superb and wonderful theories and explanations on the nature of the universe is surely a marvel in itself. That a flesh and bone creature in possession also of mind and the mental and moral faculties, (as opposed to mere brain cells and electro-chemical functions,) can see outside and beyond the world of flesh and bone limitation is surely testament to the existence of some highly intelligent creative force in the universe.
All other ideas are contained in the greatest of all ideas the idea of god. Whatever your understanding of your maker no matter. But to deny the most real and rational of all ideas is surely to deny yourself also.
In conclusion, you speak of this, ‘entity that refuse to be found’ (paraphrase) : is it not the same for all of us – none of us has found it, except very imperfectly. It is not there to be found. It does not exist to be found. . .
Then what is the word for a person who unreasonably accepts a belief? A Catholic child?
LOL
Your sentences aren’t even intelligible anymore.
What?! This is what I’m talking about. You unreasonably start believing in blatant lies and you start going crazy. Just read phrygianslave 
Let’s just say My Real Name meant to say, “But to the Sims it seems that the programmers have those powers.”
Sure it seems like it to them but that’s only because the Sims are ignorant.
The argument of design is a weak argument that has been refuted many times but as an atheist agnostic I leave the possiblility of a creator/s. First of all, my analogy is trying to explain the possiblility of polytheism and how it is as believible, if not more, than monotheism. Secondly, it makes the argument that creators do not have to be omni-anything. They can die, they can spill coffee on their lap, they can lose your reality because of a power outage. I refuse to call such creators “Gods.”
Thirdly, the only quality that can be given to the programmers is transcendence where defined as a being beyond our senses and experience. Let’s say there’s only one programmer. The programmer is “running” your reality and he dies of a heart attack. We could be walking around our reality without a “God”. Let’s say the programmer doesn’t know how to program the Sim to evolve fast enough: not omniscient. Let’s say that the programmer didn’t program the sprites to move where he wishes: not omnipotent. Let’s say the programmer just lost his girlfriend and in fit of frustration floods the world: not omnibenevolent.
So you see, even if you were to find a way to solidly prove that a creator exists it wouldn’t prove that the creator would be the God of Christianity or of natural theism.
Hey, if arrogant dogmatism makes you happy then go for it. Go sacrafice yourself for Santa Clause. But remember, when you die you’re not going to be able to get a refund on your life.
ShadowandLight, you wrote:
You seriously suffer from a mental malfunction. The retarded religionist’s inability to understand agnostisism is beginning to seriously irritate me.
John Kerry is not in my basement. John Kerry never came up to me nor the other people of this house to greet us. No one in this house saw or heard John Kerry come into this house. Now, this is not to say that the possibility of John Kerry being in my basement is out of the question but John Kerry is not in my basement. There is just no reason for me to believe that John Kerry is in my basement. If I believed that John Kerry was in my basement without a reason, by having faith that John Kerry was in my basement, by lying to myself that John Kerry was in my basement, I would be crazy.
God does not exist. This is not to say that God cannot exist. There is just no reason for me to believe that God exists. If I believed that God existed without a reason, by having faith in God’s existence, by lying to myself that God existed, then I would be crazy.
Hail Phyrigianslave the wise. You wrote an excellent post. i liked it until i got to this part:
I can not accept the argument from design. Design does not always indicate intelligence.
and i do not necessarily take exception to your conclusion. I think most of us here would agree that ‘unknown God’ is a redundancy, but perhaps in different ways… I would ask you in what sense God is the “most real and rational of all ideas” given that conclusion?
To whom it may concern: Please do not take umbrage and attack your opponent, it adds nothing to your excellent arguments.
Love, Peace, and chicken grease.
Sigh, if a person has to resort to use ‘retarded’ or ‘malfunction’ in a post during a somewhat reasonable debate, then said person has lost all chances of ever getting his point across.
My point was, Kerry in your basement or not, there are some things that are beyond your realm of understanding and personal beliefs. Kerry wasnt in your basement. Ok. So what? The fact that you dont believe that nor know other wise is pointless. Just because you are able to disprove Kerry is not there means nothing. Since when does one belief or question proven wrong dispel all others? And as for having no reason to believe he’s there…rather you believe it or not, if he was there, he was there regardless.
You say: God doesnt exist. Then you say that doesnt mean he cant exist. Perhaps you simply mean EVIDENCE of god doesnt exist. There is no way that the God people are talking about cant exist today and be born tomorrow. The semantics kills your arguments. As for your statement about religionists, Im actually not religious, I was an atheist for many years, and to be frank while i have come to believe in a supreme being through time, I dont buy into the normal christian beliefs. It’s best not to assume.
I think God exists–if only in the hearts and minds of billions of human beings.
I am agnostic–though I lean more towards the belief that God does not exist in any physical or spiritual state. I think it is more important to state that in my approach to existence it is irrelevant whether or not God exists. I do not become a monster because I lack faith in an omnipotent being. I am not an ignorant wretch if I blindly have faith in the tooth fairy.
Like all human beings I have the capacity for what society has deemed as EVIL and GOOD. So long as I adhere to societal rules I can continue to be an outstanding citizen irregardless of my beliefs.
Stupidly, I must ask Hombre the following:
If someone witnessed President George Bush enter your home and hide in your closet and was willing to die in testifying to this would you still claim: “There is just no reason to believe that President George Bush is in my closet.”? What if twelve people were willing to testify to the same thing? Is that not reason enough for some to believe that President George Bush is in your closet?
Hombre, take it easy on me… It’s my first time. 
Hombre,About a year and a half ago i was in a similar situation as you are in. struggling to find the truth of our existence. Dose God exsit?
i can’t really remember taking much time in the past to truly think about god’s existence. Some days i would briefly wonder but other days i cared less. Until one day i started reading philosophy and i finally gave myself a chance to be truly open minded but this would not mean that i will believe simply because others told me too.
Philosophy to me and i hope for you too is about seeking truth and not giving up until you have found the answer but it would seem to me that you have already given up on your search for truth? How can you claim that god does not exist yet admit that you have no proof for your belief of gods non existence and leave your opinion at that. Where is your love for truth and wisdom? Since you know you have no proof of gods non existence how about you then continue your search and don’t give-up until you find the truth! The truth however will suprise you. Although should you chose to continue your search for truth, being so close minded may hinder your efforts. Pardon me for being so blunt but you did say:
A philosopher will not give up on their search but you have already closed the door of opportunity to be revealed the truth just by this sentience alone. Again i will remind you that you have admitted you have no proof of your belief and by doing so you admit there is still a chance god exist and yet i will remind you that you said it is insanity and madness to believe in god. How is it that it is insanity and madness to believe in God and yet admit there is a chance god exist can you not see how contradicting you sound? This is why you will never know the truth unless you open your mind!
You know there is chance god exist so How about exploring this further???
"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and yet shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you"–Matthew 7:7
What is God? But this I have already said. God is everything. All is God, the Universe is God, the Cosmos is God, the whole world is God. So it is, so it was, so it will be. From the beginning to the End. From the end to the Beginning. All God, all God.
Being, Bliss and Awareness. YOU have being, but you have no awareness and no bliss. YOU do not want to know what God is. You want an AWARENESS of God. Yes, yes! If I say God is the dew on the Lotus, then you say Huh? Mere words. Lacking an awareness of God is like describing a beautiful painting to a man born blind. You cannot touch his awareness. So it is in the land of the spiritual blind. The spiritual blind say they see no spirit, therfore no spirit exists. They take their tools and still see no spirit.
Only consciousness itself can behold God. Only there can we have an awareness of God. Our conciousness is a muddy pond. Only with stillness can we be clear. Being clear we can see clearly. Then God is witnessed. The awareness of God gives us Bliss. Being, Awareness and Bliss.
Fact is that one can be deeply religious without the concept of God. One of the three biggest world religion is practically and philosophically atheistic.
This is a great thread. Everyone is nibbling around the edges of something critical.
For a moment, let’s ignore is/isn’t and play with what if? Even though I find nothing particularly convincing that there is a personal God (in the christian tradition), I find it very difficult to wander around on this ball of mud without feeling that there is something much larger going on than I can know or understand. It’s a strong feeling, an almost intuitive gut reaction than leaves me in awe of whatever this is we call life. I suspect that I’m not alone in these feelings, or this thread wouldn’t exist.
Allright, I accept this “larger” something, but what is it? It is like a flicker at the edge of vision. I am aware that something is there but I don’t know what it is. If I choose, I can say it’s there and begin to attribute qualities and characteristics to that flicker so that I can say that I ‘know’ what it is. On the other hand, I can choose to say that it isn’t there, that it is a figment of my imagination. (I don’t want to be insane) End of discussion, right?
There is the third alternative, which is to say I am aware of something but know nothing. It is based on the realization that simple awareness is not the same as knowing anything about that of which I am aware. Damn! I hate it when that happens!
So here I am caught up in this paradox, this mystery which, for lack of a better term, I’ll call God. What’s a mother to do? Well, I can sit in the garden and eat worms, or I can do the best I can with what I’ve got.
At some point, I realized that not knowing was what made ‘living’ possible. I no longer was a 'victim caught in a web, I was free to make choices. For me, not knowing is synonomous with empowerment. The awareness and wonder remains, but what is life is what I make it. The is/isn’t issue really isn’t an issue.
JT
The difference between the painting of Vincent van Gogh and that of Paul Gauguin is that whereas the former artist painted from observation the latter painted from imagination.
What I want to know is why is it we allow objects of observation existence while we deny the same to objects imagined?
Is there some in-built aesthetic bias against the imagination? I think not. I think rather the opposite to be the case.
In art we need observation, imagination and a host of other creative faculties. I don’t see that the world is any different from art. Imagine a world in which only dry, factual, scientific-type statements about perceived objects alone pertained. Would that not be an impoverished world?
God and other concepts allow us to stretch our minds outside the bare bones of existence.
ShadowandLight, your argument is uninteligible. I suspect, with no insult, that you speak English as a second language. Without understanding your argument I have no means of responding.
You don’t understand my arguement. Read my first post and do some other reading on atheist agnosticism. I can help you no more.
thirst4metal, some religionists will tell you that without God you can have no morality. You’re right in not listening to them. It’s just another one of their tricks
In regards to your hypothetical, it would not be fair to answer it. The analogy was a visual way of explaining agnosticism. The analogy isn’t strong enough to support that question. Regardless, I think what you’re getting at is divine experiences as empirical evidence for God’s existence. To avoid overwrought elaboration, if you stongly believe in anything and use all of your mind to put faith in anything, including the toothfairy, you will start hearing and seeing things. I call that type of evidence psychotic.
ang, you say that you delved into philosophy but I find that hard to believe. Your argument showed complete ignorance of agnosticism. If you read my first post then there is little I can do to help you.
But for kicks lets try this again. Faries do not exist. I’m sure you and I can agree on this. To state otherwise would be kinda crazy, wouldn’t it? Now, pay attention to this one: There is no proof for the non-existence of fairies. There is no proof for the non-existence of fairies.
As for the chance that God exists; why explore the inherently unknowable? To claim knowledge of the unknowable is arrogance, self-defeating, and rational madness.
prophile, acid kills. You define God as:
So God is just another name for the universe. Not a creator, not transendent, not a divine judge, not all-knowing. Just another name for the word “universe.”
If you wanna call the universe “God” then knock yourself out. I’ll call it “universe”, though. ::coughpotheadcough::
tentative, great post. I personally would argue “isn’t” but trying to prove “isn’t” isn’t what this thread is about, is it?
Wow. That paragraph was right on. I really is a freedom that I find uncomparable to any other. Your post was awesome.
Fairies do exist!
They are called, ‘fairies.’
You can find the word, ‘fairy,’ in any dictionary.
Just because fairies don’t belong to the realm of the senses doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Fairies do exist but outside the blunt instrument of human sensory perception!
You will find fairies only if you willingly think about them, and then only in the realm of flights of fancy and the imagination.
But if your eyes are automatically shut from the outset then there is not a hope of your ever encountering a fairy!
So, open your mind’s eye! See with your mind’s eye!
(Why do materialists always take everything so literally?)
Not that it means anything, but the atheists are slowly catching up on the theists in the poll. Maybe in future iterations we can have agnostic as a choice and a couple other options. It would truly do justice to the spirit of exploration that has characterized this thread.
Shadowandlight. What convinced you to become a theist after being an atheist? I crossed the nexus going the opposite way but perhaps we met on the same ground somewhere.
Welcome to the forum thirst4metal! Glad to see that you have not accepted the argument that non-theists are ethically challenged.
Welcome to the forum Ang! I know that there is much that I do not understand. That is why i am here. There was a Czech president who said, “Pursue those who seek the truth and flee those who have found it!” I think any intellectually honest person must eventually come to some form of this (as you also have described) if they remain scrupulous.
Welcome to the forum Prophile. Your post reminds me of the sermon where the Buddha remained silent, yet held out a beautiful Lotus flower.
Hello Tentative. Your post reminds me of mysticism which i have always considered a more intellectually honest form of theism.
Hello Phrygianslave the wise. Einstein said that imagination is better than brilliance. I am glad that you said, “God and other concepts allow us to stretch our minds outside the bare bones of existence.” because i do not think that God is the only thing that gives us a sense of awe and wonder at the universe around us.
Hi Marshall,
I guess I’ve never thought of my position as mystic or theistic, although I can see how that my post could be interpreted that way. Perhaps I have a rather narrow view of what is agnosticism, but it seems to me that there isn’t any inconsistency in acknowledging the possibility of a god(s) and genuinely suspending judgement in the matter. As for the mystery. it’s basically the same thing with whipped cream. Saying that I have awareness and it’s all a mystery is agnostically consistent until I attempt to ascribe attributes and characteristics to that which is the mystery. The fun part is imagining the possibility of fairies without deciding how tall they are, or the color of their wings. (in my imagination MY fairies have wings!)
I certainly won’t claim intellectual honesty, it just seems that agnosticism requires genuine suspension of judgement. It’s on this narrow ‘path’ that I can entertain all the possibilities without slipping off one side or the other.
JT
It’s funny. The mystery in the matter is the one thing that we can be sure of and perhaps even agree upon. If some people take the mystery and make it mystique, have they not acted honestly at least in the sense that they only worked with what they could be sure of? Art is the lie that knows itself as lie, while fundamentally, religion is the lie which wishes to posit itself as truth. Mysticism is almost like an artistic religion. I could easily read Meister eckhart for that very reason.
phrygianslave, you bring an interesting arguement. The idea of God is a magnificent and spectacular. You are right in saying that God defined as the idea of God is very real.
I went camping the other day. Night came and me and my friends decided to take a walk through the woods with no flashlights. Walking we decided to stop and listen to the sounds of the woods. It was awe inspiring. The beautiful design of God surrounded me in all of it’s splendor. The sound of natures animals and the sight of the taller than life organic machines. Surely I can’t help but wonder of the being who is responsible and if such a being exists.
The idea of God is beautiful and is responsible for great works of art and literature.
Nevertheless, I feel that it is necessary to set this notion aside when entering the realm of science and reason. God exists in our imagination, fueling it forward, but we must not let the idea of God exist in reality for it is rational madness.
What is and what isn’t. To be or not to be. Black or White. All of these cut it up. If you want to be a cut up, then you make people laugh. God cannot be cut up. This is God and that isn’t God cannot be done. You cannot divide the indivisible. Divide the One by the one and get the One.
I tried pot once. I felt like little bugs were crawling on me. There were no bugs crawling one me but I knew that people who are on drugs sometimes report that bugs are crawling all over them. This must be what those people felt when they reported that. Afterwards I ate too many pancakes.
If a man is ready to see God and he take a drug then he will see God. If he is unready the he will see nothing. Drug helps you to pierce the veil, only if the veil is already thin.
Wake up! If you are ready then a nudge will do it. If no then you fight to go back to sleep. YOU kick the one who comes to wake you up. Go away I want to sleep. I don;’t want to awaken.
What is God? An old idea but how do you explain the sea to a fish? The fish has been in the sea its whole life. All it knows is the sea. Well they can go up to the surface and jump. Go where they have never been. Where nobody has been. Those who have been come back, others laugh at them. Nobody can go outside of the sea, they say. Press your nose against the book. You cannot see anything. To see requires a little distance. To see the sea you must leave to sea.