You don't know God is real and you don't know he isn't

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

For once, can’t we just be honest? I don’t even mean honest with regard to the truth of the idea(s) about God, various religions, any of that. I mean honest about what is going on inside of our own minds and emotions.

If you make a claim that God DOES EXIST and you claim this belief is 100% true and you KNOW for SURE, then you are not being honest.

Likewise, if you make a claim that God DOES NOT EXIST and you claim this belief is 100% true and you KNOW for SURE, then you are also not being honest.

So can’t we all just admit that whatever we believe, we exist somewhere in the middle-space between extremes of certainty? No one can be certain, even if they have had some personal divine experience on a high spiritual sort of level or at least feels like they did. Maybe the experience was real! Maybe it was an illusion! How would you actually know?

And that is beside the point anyway for most of us, who have never had such a divine experience before. Sure I have had some pretty weird experiences, you might call paranormal. But none of them confirmed the existence of God with certainty. In fact, only one or several of them really even indicated God’s existence indirectly, and it could be quite possible that other explanations are the real cause. How am I to know for sure? Belief in God (or disbelief in God) requires a leap of faith. Even as you stack up all of your evidence and reasons and philosophical arguments, at the end of all that you still need the leap of faith to get over the gap that persists between what you CLAIM TO know vs. what you REALLY DO know.

And this gap exists for strong atheists as much as it does for strong theists. Anyone who puts themselves firmly on either end of the extremes of certainty. The only truly rational people i.e. in this case being intellectually and personally honest about the subject, are those who admit where they are along that spectrum with extremes on either end, and who also admit they don’t really KNOW for sure but rather they choose to believe for the various reasons they actually do choose to believe whatever it is they believe on the subject.

2 Likes
2

How do you, or people in general, recognize somebody’s authority about Who or What God actually is?

1 Like
3

Another reason I am making this topic is because, I think God (and also the lack of God i.e. a purely naturalistic universe) would ‘want’ us to be honest. Whether you consider God or a godless naturalist universe, truth is a very high priority value if not the highest priority value. The only situation in which that would decidedly not be the case is in a scenario in which there is a God but it is a deceptive, evil God that intends to trick us and manipulate us, keeping truth from us. In that case, according to the nature of that existence with such a God at its center and in charge, truth would have a lower priority value. Maybe not for us, but then again maybe this evil God tortures people in the afterlife to the degree they managed to value truth and see through his illusions.

In any case, that is a weird idea that, while entirely possible, wasn’t the focus of this topic. The focus is on the main two contenders: a moral God, vs. a naturalistic godless universe.

In both of the cases of these two main contenders, truth stands as a very high value. Therefore, part of the reason I am making this topic is to encourage everyone, religious believers and atheists alike, to shift yourself just a hair down from the extreme certainly in which you position yourself. Make just the slightest move toward the center. Why? Because by doing that you may well save yourself, either in terms of your God or in terms of your rationalistic naturalism; because by shifting yourself thusly you are re-prioritizing the TRUTH i.e. being finally honest about the gap that exists, the gap I mentioned above. This gap cannot be denied.

If you can admit that the gap exists, while still holding to your strong belief, then you have elevated yourself both in the eyes of God and in the eyes of a rationalistic naturalist universe, by being truthful and removing a specific dishonesty from yourself.

4

No one has an “authority” over the concept(s) of God or gods. I am not claiming any such authority. Everyone tends to conceptualize God or gods in somewhat unique ways, although importantly there are also often very key similarities too.

5

But if you want to get right down to it, philosophically speaking, everyone as an individual has the final authority over their own concepts.

1 Like
6

Furthermore, I would argue that admitting the existence of the gap does NOT negate religious (or non-religious) belief. It means we fully acknowledge the Kierkegaardian leap of faith that these beliefs actually require by their very nature.

And once you study more into the psychological and philosophical nature of the leap of faith, you can begin to see how it is a beautiful thing. Especially when done with honesty and open eyes.

2 Likes
7

Let’s start at square one.

It is either 100% true that God exists, or 100% true that God does not exist.

If it is 100% true that God exists, we are 100% insane if we believe otherwise.

Likewise, if it is 100% false that God exists, we are 100% insane if we believe otherwise.

Deal?

2 Likes
8

Throwing this out there just for funsies.

The necessary world is that which exists in every possible world, including the actual world, and contains to the highest possible degree every actual possibility, including personhood.

1 Like
9

100% true or 100% false:

“To say you cannot infer a particular from a universal is like saying you cannot infer an actual possible from a necessary possible.”

So what’s the verdict, Doc? Am I 100% insane or 100% sane?

1 Like
10

In my discussions with @AstroCat on a different philosophy forum, an Atheist astrophysics student and feminist, who primarily joined the forum as part of her intense debates with religious people about “the existence of God”, it became apparent that the idea of ‘existence of God’ might be considered a logical fallacy.

In my arguments to Astro Cat, I suggested the following:

Screenshot 2025-04-11 at 08-32-36 (70) Viewing profile - Astro Cat - Philosophy Discussion Forums
Screenshot 2025-04-11 at 08-32-36 (70) Viewing profile - Astro Cat - Philosophy Discussion Forums120×148 23.1 KB

The concept ‘Being’ is taken for granted in the consideration of what deserves consideration.

When it concerns the philosophical God, it might be argued that it concerns a concept that precedes (fundamentally underlays) Being itself.

The idea of God being a being might be a fallacy.

I am not religious myself but I am also not an Atheist. Atheism in my view is principled disbelief that stems from an attempt to escape religious exploitation of the weakness that is caused by the fundamental inability to answer the why question of life.

Similar to Astro Cat I have sought discussions with Atheists in the past to examine the illogical basis of their reasoning, and not in defense of a God or anything religious.

An example:

My reply:

Because without such knowledge, one can pose anything, from ‘random chance’ to ‘illusion’ to ‘magic’ to a simulation by aliens to the infinite monkey theorem. Such a situation does not allow one to make a claim that poses that reality is ‘real’.

Terrapin Station claimed that there are just 2 options to explain the universe:

  1. the universe either magically sprung into existence
  2. the universe magically always existed

He reasoned the following:

My reply:

The mentioned ‘options’ are all based on the assumption that the concept ‘begin’ (existence) is applicable to the Universe on a fundamental level and that causality is required to explain the origin of the Universe.

At question would be how a philosophical ‘option’ (magically always existed or magically have sprung into existence) is possible in the first place. It is then seen that for any option to be possible an aspect is required that is not of a nature that allows a choice.

The argument that ‘existence of God’ is necessarily either true or false appears to be similar to TP’s Atheist argument that for any given existent, it either magically appeared or always existed.

In my view all is in a sense philosophical of nature (fundamentally so) and philosophy is inherently questionable.

11

Please keep that discussion to one thread. I’m already posting identical content in multiple threads as it is. It’s ridiculous, I know. This one, or this one?

1 Like
12

Lol you know why forum philosophers never pick Spinoza to bolster their ‘god’ arguments? Because he doesn’t believe in freewill, and these folks are so shaken by that idea that they steer clear of it.

Religious posters will pick the descartes, aquinases, and leibnizs before the Spinozas… and not because they have any clue what their talking about… only because they believe in freewill.

Consider very carefully that any serious religious philosopher who avoids Spinoza might be a fraud. That is, not concerned with the truth but what makes them feel good; cool, this one says i have freewill, I’m gonna go with him then.

p.s. Astro Cat is still kickin’ it? Lol she split PN like two years ago.

13

Weird cuz the no-free-will types deny it so they can get away with being slaves to their impulses & laze around blaming everyone else (mainly authority figures like no-shit-taking females) for their bad choices.

14

That’s so crazy you would say that because that’s precisely why i haven’t yet murderered the persons who made the choices involved in my wrongful convictions, putting me on a lifetime registry, and everything that followed; problems finding housing, losing jobs, socially stigmatized, property vandalism, etc.

Because they don’t have freewill.

Disgust is something less charged than moral offense. Moral offense makes one want to take revenge and right a wrong, whereas disgust doesn’t motivate as such. So, for example, if the prosecutor fell off a bridge, that would be great, but I wouldn’t go out of my way to push em.

Why. One, nothing will be learned by society by executing prosecutors 'n shit. Things will carry on as they were a week later when it’s out of the news cycle… and SORNA will continue to exist unchanged. Two, far too much work and risk is involved in executing some rinky-dink court official because you’re angry at em, especially when you remember he has no choice not to be a piece of shit.

But yo, that’s so crazy how you did the thing that freewillists do whenever they lose an argument with a deterninist; claim the guy has no grounds for his argument and just wants to avoid responsibility and blame others… that’s why he’s a deterninist.

As if i haven’t seen that gig a hundred times already.

Man, you can’t win for losin’. Why do you then continue to bother me, pest?

15

It’s another private irony of mine. In my late 30s, i was not yet fully immoral, so i thought that I should ‘do the right thing’ and start blowing up court houses and stuff. Serving justice, as it were.

But then my righteousness was sapped by the realization that there is no freewill and that these cockroaches weren’t ‘evil’, just cockroaches doing what cockroaches do (cheating, lying, blackmailing, etc). I had an Aurelius moment, you might say.

I ceased to be angry, and a kind of transformation occurred. I became a pure egoist nihilist unconcerned with what might be right or wrong and gave my attention only to what immediately pleased me.

So it was, in fact, deterninism and egoism that mellowed me out. If i believed in freewill id’a already gone off the chain and taken retribution.

16

So let’s assume you didn’t do any of that shit. What if some random person that ain’t you does it — do they deserve to be on a lifetime registry because they did it twice and are recidivist? Answer yes or everyone has every reason to doubt you. Then remind yourself that we don’t make exceptions for you … because we think you are as capable as everyone else … and are not a slave to your impulses … and do have free will. But. I bet if you had a problem with it … you couldn’t even rap about it.

17

I laugh every time I read your words. That’s OK right … ‘cause you are actually joking, right?

Right?

18

How very American Protestant of you, Pezer…

If Authority of God is left to Human Individuality, then God is not a Centralized force, not a Centralized thing / entity / creature / being / becoming / concept?

But I reject the notion that “just anybody” can dictate about the Nature of God or Divinity. Any step into history or human nature demonstrates that some Churches / Sects / Religions “Do” a lot better than others. Some have “It” (like Morality/Ethics) down, while others do not. So there is a trend toward “Righteousness”, Purity, Divinity, Etc.

How do you explain these discrepancies if it’s all down to “The Individual”?

19

I know that god is not real to the exact same degree that I know Gandalf is not real.

20

(Edit: sorry, forgot the ‘r’ word isn’t allowed here).

And don’t call be pezer, that’s hitting below the belt.

We are talking about the CONCEPT of God, not God itself. Why? Because no one can prove or know that God even exists. All we have are our concepts… including you, all you have in that little brain of yours is some ideas swirling around about what you think this “God” thing is.

Authority? Every authority in ideas ultimately comes down to reality. Ok. So what is real with respect to the idea of God, hey let’s make it even easier: What is real with respect to YOUR idea of God, and how do you know?

The honest answer is that you do not know. Just admit it. I wanna read you type those words, cmon you can do it, like this: “I don’t know if God exists or what God’s true nature would be even if it did exist”. You can do it, I believe in you.

Do you see the religious trick? This is a psychological projection: you take the energetic power behind an idea, like the idea of God, which has amassed a huge amount of psychological power over human history, and you project that power out into reality itself. Thereby achieving your special “Authority of God”. The problem is, the move you just made to project the conceptual power inside your own mind outward into reality itself, is not justified. It is nothing but another concept in your head.

Maybe God really does exist, maybe God has some kind of Authority. Cool. Awesome. So you think your personal little human psychological projection of your own mind’s conceptual power behind an idea you have rolling around up there in your noggin, about “God” and all that, has some connection to whatver is actually out there in reality? It’s even possible there is some connection, some overlap between your idea of God and whatever happens to be real. But you will never know it.

All you can do is make assumptions and go with your emotional hopes. You want God to be this or that, and you want your ideas about God to match whatever is really real about God, and you pretend like somehow you are able to ascertain this for yourself. Pretty hilarious dishonesty for someone as otherwise intelligent as you.

If you still want to centrally focus on this idea of Authority of God ITSELF (outside of human individuals) then go for it. Explain, logically, how you think that works. It will be a cool story bro, I am sure. Problem is, it’s in your imagination. You have no way of knowing if what’s in your imagination here matches up with what is out there in the reality beyond your imagination.

And any REAL authority God MIGHT have still comes down to human individuality, because it is HUMANS who are interpreting these ideas about God and what it is and what it wants and what its powers and authorities are, so and and so on, religion to religion, sect to sect, culture to culture, geographic region to geographic region, eon to eon, and individual to individual.

Do you understand that even if God exists and has its own centralized authority, that doesn’t even matter in terms of the human world? Because none of us actually knows what that is, and we all make up our own ideas about it. Oh sure, people like you can pick an already-existing religiously formulated template and believe it utterly, so as to remove yourself from the picture. That doesn’t mean you aren’t still following some other individuals’ ideas about God, again with no basis for actually being able to know whether or not any of that is correct.

Yeah, you want to appeal to authority and find a big chuchy structure of a RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION to tell you what to think. I already see that.

And if some churches/sects/religious/INDIVIDUALS have it better than others in terms of morality, ethics, etc. then guess what? First of all, again 1) you can’t even know if any of that ‘better’ ideas stuff as applying to God is even related to anything out in reality that could be called God, and 2) you are really just doing philosophy, working on ethics/morality/logic/reason for its own sake. Why bother needing to project that outward into some deity being that may or may not exist, may exist in some way radically different from your own ideas of it, and despite all that even if it DID exist as YOU imagine it you would never be able to even know that fact?

Because everything comes down to the individual. Why? Because it is individual people who have minds. A church doesn’t have a mind, it doesn’t think. All it is is a collection of records of stuff that OTHER INDIVIDUALS said and wrote in the past. Forming a collective of works and ideas that you have decided to believe and stop thinking about for yourself, for whatever reason.