In sum: only placebos require faith.

Faith is the belief without rational and verified evidences by leaping into the abyss unconditionally and blindly. Would it be rational / possible trying to prove God or God existence via rational means such as the logical debates?

1. How have you arrived at your belief that God exists? Was it after some theoretical or logical proofs on God 's existence or some personal religious experience? Or via some other routes? — Corvus

I consider myself a theist, but I doubt if people who knew my views would call me a theist.

I'm a theist because I think, on balance, some of the reports of religious experience/insight by others is likely true. There's no certainty there of course.

I think the most foolish of people are very often religious (more so than typical atheists), but I also think the ones that seem to be the most insightful are also religious, again, moreso than typical atheists. These are general impressions of course, and again there's no certainty, but they are very influential to me. I'm not willing to write off people's views by lazily saying they fear death, or it's wishful thinking, or any of the other psychological maladies that they are thoughtlessly diagnosed with, en masse.

I was influenced by a particular philosopher who pretty much persuaded me (I never met him, I just read his stuff) that some kind of theism was likely true. I was an atheist before that. I think quite a lot of what he said was likely just wrong, but much of it I find sound.

I'm a panpsychist. By itself, that is irrelevant to theism. But theism at least involves the idea that consciousness is present at the start, or even before the start of the universe if you think in those terms (and yes I know south of the south pole blah blah - I won't get into that now). So theism is, as a metaphysical position, at least involves the view that consciousness is not emergent. And panpsychism is the antithesis of emergentism in relation to consciousness. For me, this opens the door to theism, but not all of it indiscriminately. It does not follow from the fact that because atoms are conscious we therefore have to hate fags. That's nuts, obviously. It's why I don't like aligning myself with religious folks. I hate the bastards mostly. And I don't think most of them actually believe in anything in particular - they have neither insight, intellectual justification, nor any clear idea of what they believe. So I don't think most theists are actually theists at all. I don't think religious texts have much philosophical import, relevance or worth, at least from what I have seen (and I am no expert). However I think it possible they contain, in places, intuited wisdom and insight. There are babies in the bathwater that I don't want to murder, and am suspicious of indiscriminate anti-religious sentiment.

2. Why do you try to prove God in a theoretical / logical way, when already believing in God's existence?

Because I'm a philosopher by nature. I'm not a mystic, alas. I can't talk to God on my inner telephone, at least not yet. I'm not a romantic artist receiving divine inspiration, alas. I see no hand of God in the natural world, except as a result of my philosophical panpsychism. I'm a rather plodding stick-in-the-mud philosopher. And figuring out this stuff rationally is what I do, because it's the only thing I can do. I have to get inspiration and insight second hand for the most part. I don't 'just know' God, I don't think. But I do accept that some other people might.

A great and interesting post. Thank you.

Only, I think, if the g/G in question is described with predicates which entail changes (events) it's caused in (to) the world. Since the world is scientifically observable, such changes (events) purportedly unique to g/G must also be observable. (A) If, however, such changes (events) are not observed, then g/G with those predicates cannot exist; otherwise, (B) if these entailed changes (events) are observed, then such a g/G must exist. So yes, in this way, it is quite reasonable to expect that such a g/G can be demonstrated to exist or not exist. And (C) insofar as g/G is described without predicates that entail it's caused changes (events) in the world, then there are not purported facts of the matter to investigate, and such a g/G is merely an idea or imaginary, indistinguishable from a g/G which does not exist.

"Faith" in any case, it seems to me, is beside the point. (Only placebos require faith.) Makes sense?

Do you think it is possible to deliberately induce the placebo effect?
As in, "have faith" and the placebo effect will set in?

Well, I don't know. I think ritual & ceremony, especially through repetition, prime children to "believe" (fairytale) nonsense before they learn to think for themselves, and then later on in lieu of thinking critically about their "religious beliefs". IIRC the placebo effect works pretty reliably on about a third of people (re: magical / wishful thinking) and, perhaps, another third will reliably conform (as Daniel Dennett points out "believe in belief" à la groupthink), so "faith" has always been, in effect, a majoritarian mass delusion (placebo).

A long time ago I was told something interesting. In pre-literate cultures law, community, tradition, lore, etc., were all "stored" in the spoken word, and reinforced in ritual, dance, chant, and song memorized by the people, reinforced in performance. Thus, if the king wanted to learn the state of his kingdom, he could send to find out the state of the (his) word(!). In a literate world, people don't memorize much, and to be sure often don't learn much, and communities suffer.

Religion, it seems to me, is all about that reinforcement through repetition. Of course one learns at first, and then repeats. And that's mainly it. Literate and intelligent people indeed grow away from the repetition. And most religions - all, near as I can tell - have nothing more to offer.

if these entailed changes (events) are observed, then such a g/G must exist. So yes, in this way, it is quite reasonable to expect that such a g/G can be demonstrated to exist or not exist. — 180 Proof

What if those entailed / observed changes are by some other unknown / unverified causes such as super natural forces, ghosts or paranormal existence? How do you distinguish and verify which is which?

Then they are not unique to the deity in question and so ... it's undefined and vague, therefore only an idea, not an existing entity. If a deity's existence is the question, then only predicates attributed to it are relevant; anything else is, I think, besides the point.

it's undefined and vague, therefore only an idea, not an existing entity. — 180 Proof

When some entailed changes are observed, it seems impossible to tell exactly what was causing the changes due to above mentioned undefinedness, vagueness and non existing substance of God.

The attributed predicates of the described deity entail changes (events happening) in / to the world e.g. "parting of the red sea" "creation of the world in six days" or "second coming prophesy".

The attributed predicates of the described deity entail changes (events happening) in / to the world e.g. "parting of the red sea" "creation of the world in six days" or "second coming prophesy". — 180 Proof

Aha - they are from the Old Testaments, which are the scripts. I thought you are claiming to be able to observe the entailed changes now, by yourself directly and able to verify them yourself. If one believes what is written in the bible, then he would be believing surely God existence.

Okay, you've lost the plot (or I'm just not making it clear enough for you). Someone will have to give it a go, I've got another round of happy hour drinks on the bar. Adios, amigo.

Enjoy your drinks. Gracias. Hasta la vista.

Placebos do require faith. Without it they don't work.

And most religions - all, near as I can tell - have nothing more to offer. — tim wood

You cannot tell very nearly; since you are not near religion yourself they obviously have nothing to offer you. As Bob would have it: "Don't criticize what you can't understand"; better to remain silent than make an ass of yourself by spouting poorly informed opinions.

So I've said above (and elsewhere).

Not sure which of my posts you're responding to, 180.

1. How have you arrived at your belief that God exists? Was it after some theoretical or logical proofs on God 's existence or some personal religious experience? Or via some other routes? — Corvus

Presumably, if God exists, the action is happening without my view of the matter mattering very much. It would be a pretty wimpy god who could only get along if I supported the entity. The possibility of the existence is an element in various arguments proving this or rejecting that but such a reality is either the case or not.

That question is why I appreciate thinkers like Kierkegaard who framed the matter as what is actually happening with oneself. The matter of belief is bound up with perception of our becoming.

Framing it as a matter of "belief" is to make the topic exterior to experience by default.

Top of this page twice.

OK I've only made two posts in this thread apart from the one saying that I'm not sure which post you were responding to. So, was it the first or second post you were responding to? Or both, perhaps?

Here we go. 180 is about to clear things up and resolve a miscommunication. Let's see how he does. :) Get your score cards out.

Religion, it seems to me, is all about that reinforcement through repetition. Of course one learns at first, and then repeats. And that's mainly it. Literate and intelligent people indeed grow away from the repetition. And most religions - all, near as I can tell - have nothing more to offer. — tim wood

Most religious preachers proclaim about 'God' as if 'God' were truth and fact, even repeatedly. This is intellectual dishonesty.

Great! In terms of the topic, what does religion have to offer?

"faith" has always been, in effect, a majoritarian mass delusion (placebo). — 180 Proof

What has faith, even as placebo, to do with religion? Isn't religion a socio-cultural self-sustaining support system for those who believe that religion's biases and practices?

I don't know; I'm not religious. Comfort perhaps, or inspiration, or a sense of inter-connectedness or oneness?

And along those lines much more besides! What I am on about is the repeated claim that g/God is real in some material-but-not-material sense. And to that I say prove it, which for any Christian understanding of God cannot be done. It's all belief, which is all real Christians claim, and that's fair enough. But a lot of the believers want in where they do not belong, making whole hosts of insupportable claims. And this in many cases to solicit contributions from the ignorant. That religion unprosecuted fraud.

↪180 Proof Placebos do require faith. Without it they don't work — Janus

This one.

I said as much with my entire post. Pulling me out of context, you've missed the whole forest for a tree.

[delete post]