And you know this how?

I don't, I believe.

Not sure about that though somewhere in the bible we are described as gods, not God though, but maybe it's a sideways reference to all of us, the one God.

Read about Plotinus. There are some good Arthur Holmes lectures on youtube if your reading time is already booked.

Booked.

What if belief is taken to be a frame of reference. It may just be another context for perspective developed in relation to certain information. As such, it would account for the many faiths, religions, etc and would be impossible to invalidate without concrete proof which reveals otherwise. Also, as a frame of reference, it can be tagged to new facts or information e.g. God created the atoms, quarks, etc., God develops humans through evolution, or God is involved in whatever we discover or invent in the future,...

Since God is not presented as a being to observe and point to as, "hey, there he is," but is supposed to be evident through a distinct set of circumstances and activities, therefore, whichever interpretation is given of God, if it doesn't match up to the original defining information, then it outlines a different circumstance or activity and therefore a different identity other than God. This applies to all who question why an omni-scient/potent/present God can't or isn't this or that. Just by having limitations in the question, they have already excluded the omni-scient/potent/present God they hoped to refer to.

In this way, it's about how we relate to information about God that determines for each individual whether God exists or doesn't. To me, this seems like a reasonable and practical way to perceive belief. Any takers?

Faith comes from within us. Therefore anything attributed to faith has its origins in us. At the same time not in fact - or we would be being informed by fact. — tim wood

Clearly, we all believe that we are being informed by fact, otherwise we'd each have to be skeptical of all of our knowledge. But we aren't such radical skeptics, because we have faith that we are informed by fact. Without that faith we'd have radical skepticism because there is no way to know with absolute certainty that we are being informed by fact.

I don't believe I being informed by fact, rather, I believe I'm being informed by beliefs and opinions. I take it all all so called'knowledge' with a pinch of salt.

God - a word about which, if it is to be a meaningful word and not a nonsense word - is all about faith. — tim wood

Demonstrate this first.

And it's crystal clear that many participants on TPF do not understand that simple point. Practice faith. Think about what it means to believe in and practice that faith. And practice goes to conduct. There's plenty in that. But all efforts to find God in science, or logic, or semantics, or anywhere else except in faith, cannot succeed. — tim wood

Not in faith, not in science, but what about in practice? As you've so nearly said?

This bullshit definition of "faith" of the new atheists is so tired and rubbery. It reveals a total lack of understanding of what faith is to the common believer. It's fucking boring.

In short, there can be philosophies of religion and theology. This is just thinking about the thinking about these topics. But that's the limit of what is reasonable. Attempts to prove existence, or presence, or anything else, outside of theology, is nonsense. — tim wood

Is it? Or is it the thinking about the traditions that bears these topics? But yes, attempts to "prove" "god" are useless.

In faith, you can have whatever your faith calls for. — tim wood

That's a facsimile of faith that precludes it's very definition. I might as well say that, in science, you can have whatever your science calls for.

God - a word about which, if it is to be a meaningful word and not a nonsense word - is all about faith. — tim wood

That definition, forgive me for so saying, is rather fideistic.

fideism
/ˈfʌɪdɪɪz(ə)m/
noun
the doctrine that knowledge depends on faith or revelation.

But that said, I don’t want to disagree with the substance of the rest. The problem I have, however, is that the insistence on faith can easily be intellectually immasculating. I mean, after all, many theocrats of all stripes would heartily endorse such an insistence.

Any yet, it is certainly true that much of the talk about ‘God’ is completely uninformed about the existential dimension of that term. The importance of practice and of anchoring one’s understanding in the lived reality of faith can’t be over-stated. Though practice one learns a dimension of existence and experience that simply can’t be learned by any other means. One cannot, after all, learn to ski by reading books about skiing.

Nevertheless, as this is a philosophy forum, and the proper approach is to make a philosophical argument for something, rather than to simply insist on believing, I will say that one facet of spirituality that mainstream Western denominations are weak in, is the ‘experiential dimension’. But I say that as one of those who sought out spiritual experience, only to realise that any worth having requires that one adopt certain attitudes and dispositions which would customarily be designated ‘religious’ . There’s probably no escape from that particular regress, but I still maintain that religion as it is propagated in Western culture has become estranged from the experiential aspects without which it is indeed simply meaningless verbiage. I think one reason is because the metaphors and myth is in which religion is embodied are now so remote from the reality of post—industrial civilisation.

But that is our problem, not religion’s. See Metaphysical Mistake, Karen Armstrong.

But all efforts to find God in science, or logic, or semantics, or anywhere else except in faith, cannot succeed. — tim wood

Experience of phenomena that might be called God seems possible through reason alone.

As example, you are using reason to discover the limitations of reason in regards to God beliefs. So if we discard reason, and can't accept faith, we are left with nothing.

This might be a good outcome. The overwhelming vast majority of reality is nothing (or perhaps relative nothing for you sticklers). Thus, putting our minds in a state of nothing aligns us with reality.

When our minds aren't crammed with theories, ideas and plans etc our attention is freed to focus on reality. To the degree we focus on the real world we may experience things there which were inaccessible to us while distracted by the symbolic realm.

The problem arises when we try to convert this experience of the real world in to ideas, theories, conclusions etc. Then we are back in the same old game, and if we want to create a bunch of explanations of such experience then faith may be the only available course of action, as you suggest.

But we don't have to create a big pile of explanations. We can value the experience for itself and leave it at that. As example, we get nutrition from food simply by the experience of eating it. It doesn't matter if we then go on to try to explain the processes of digestion etc, this is an optional activity which doesn't provide any nutrition.

As such, it would account for the many faiths, religions, etc and would be impossible to invalidate without concrete proof which reveals otherwise. — BrianW

Do you mean that all fantastic claims must be true, absent "concrete proof which reveals otherwise"? Janus, above, mentions Russell's teapot. You might want to give that a google.

Clearly, we all believe that we are being informed by fact, — Metaphysician Undercover

Yet clearly we are not in fact always informed by fact. On this we agree, yes? And I suspect there are some - perhaps many - who do not believe we are always informed by fact. "Always" my word; I believe you implied it, I merely wished to make it explicit.

God - a word about which, if it is to be a meaningful word and not a nonsense word - is all about faith.
— tim wood
Demonstrate this first. — Noble Dust

Demonstrate what, first? If you need any evidence that "God" is a chief ingredient in the nonsense of a lot of people, just read on this site!

That's a facsimile of faith that precludes it's very definition. I might as well say that, in science, you can have whatever your science calls for. — Noble Dust

Yet isn't that what happens in faith? All kinds of people claiming all kinds of things are true? Science has criteria. What criteria does faith have?

What criteria does faith have? — tim wood

that it is in no way in conflict with fact or reason -

I'm not talking about truth or falsity. Why would anyone do that when we're not dealing in facts? I'm suggesting that it's primarily about a certain relationship with information we have regardless of evidence. For example, I don't have to be religious to know and to relate with the concept of a religious God or religious anything. What I need is the relevant information and to understand the context. As such, at least, I can claim to have decent perspective in the matter.

The fantastic claim are just as relatable as any scientific claims given the right perspective. The problem is we're too quick to deny what isn't seeking our validation. And why? Perhaps, because of fear of being invalidated. I think those who are antagonistic to religion would think that religion is antagonistic to them. Imho there's often very little adherence to logic by those who argue against religion because most of them ignore a significant portion of what religion is.

every argument against a faith based belief that is not in conflict with fact or reason - is just another faith based belief.

How does "faith" differ from "hope" or "delusion"?

Isn't "faith" simply accepting certain knowledge with no reason to other than it is consoling?

How does "faith" differ from "hope" or "delusion"? — Harry Hindu

much of this entire issue is based on one's definitions of the words.

I would define faith as an individual basis used to believe something is true, and this basis can not be in conflict with fact or reason. All truths believed by faith are individual - although many individuals may have them in common.

using this definition - hope is not a truth claim - if you hope something is true - you are saying you don't know if or if not it is true. And if your truth claim based on faith is delusional, it would be in conflict with either fact or reason or both.

I would define faith as an individual basis used to believe something is true — Rank Amateur

What if the individual basis for believing something is based on how it makes them feel, as opposed to consistent observations and experimentation? How does the concept of god NOT conflict with fact or reason?

Having knowledge itself isn't proof of anything. Knowledge can be wrong - just like faith. To say that "I know" is to say that "For the moment, this is what I believe". And I'm sure you've had situations where your faith in someone had failed you.

How does the concept of god NOT conflict with fact or reason? — Harry Hindu

i am willing to argue against any set of premises that end with the conclusion " therefore theism is unreasonable"

Having knowledge itself isn't proof of anything. Knowledge can be wrong - just like faith. To say that "I know" is to say that "For the moment, this is what I believe". And I'm sure you've had situations where your faith in someone had failed you — Harry Hindu

believing something is true, does not mean it is a fact that it is true. However, until proven wrong by either fact or reason - there is no basis to say it is not true.

For example - i can say, based on reason alone, it is true that there is no such thing as a pink unicorns on earth. That statement remains true, to me, - right up until the point where someone finds a pink unicorn in some dark corner of some jungle.

this is the nature of the belief in truth.

I don't believe I being informed by fact, rather, I believe I'm being informed by beliefs and opinions. I take it all all so called'knowledge' with a pinch of salt. — TWI

Right, I am sympathetic to that position. But this is where faith is essential and necessary, without it we could not proceed with even the most simple activities, being too unsure and insecure.

Yet clearly we are not in fact always informed by fact. On this we agree, yes? And I suspect there are some - perhaps many - who do not believe we are always informed by fact. "Always" my word; I believe you implied it, I merely wished to make it explicit. — tim wood

Yes we agree here. And, because we recognize that we are not always informed by fact, though we hope we are, faith is of the utmost importance. Otherwise, we would not be able to proceed in our daily activities, out of fear that we are not being informed by fact, and our decisions and actions are mistaken. Hence the importance of faith.

So, let me return to your paragraph which I quoted.

To be brief, faith (itself) tells us nothing. Faith comes from within us. Therefore anything attributed to faith has its origins in us. At the same time not in fact - or we would be being informed by fact. Nor in reason, for reason would be informing us, and reason speaks of facts. To denominate any as "true" requires a definition of true. Except that one definition won't fit. Each will require its own truth. — tim wood

Faith does come from within, but contrary to your claim, it does tell us something. It tells us when to act. And since the act of decision making is itself an act, faith is far more important than any facts which might come to us from some external source, because we can never know with certainty whether what is coming from the external source is fact or not. Whatever comes to us from external sources, fact or not fact, must be judged, and since we can never be absolutely certain of our judgement, no judgement is possible without faith.

Do you not agree that faith ought to be cultured and propagated as a virtue similar to courage? And, that religion is the discipline which does this?

Let's differentiate between faith and blind faith, the former I think we are discussing here, the latter really is head in the sand stuff.

Knowledge of facts beyond the domain of human conduct has been of little significance to religion. There's no religion where a deity/deities uses the concept of creation of the universe to inform on morality. Such information is always used to develop the context in which to understand God's authority. It is information used to show that the deity/deities in question do have a superior point of view and therefore maybe worth the attention and due consideration.

Religion is more concerned with the facts of human conduct. Surprisingly, most religions have provided greater illumination into human conduct than any branch of science. In fact, I would argue there is nothing about the scientific study of human conduct that is not previously represented in religion. And for those who would like to argue against the kinds of instances such as where psychological conditions and diseases were not previously recognised as such, then it becomes a question of perception, language and expression of information but not its unavailability.

In terms of human conduct, religious teachings are superior to scientific teachings especially in their authority, integrity and discipline towards managing human behaviour. Religious teachings manage to ward off any sort of addiction rooted in our physical organisation (and this takes into consideration the likes of shamanism which, for longer than modern science, has promoted the use of certain drugs), a trend I would wish science to emulate in its participation in our lives.

I am one of those who, even though not adhering to any particular religion, advocate for the revision and transformation of religions into domains defined predominantly by critical analysis, intelligent beneficial methodology and strict jurisdiction in application of discipline. I don't think such an endeavour can be undertaken by people who do not fully appreciate the value of religion.

That definition, forgive me for so saying, is rather fideistic.
fideism
noun
the doctrine that knowledge depends on faith or revelation. — Wayfarer

Thank you for providing a definition of the word! The short reply is, with respect to faith, shouldn't it be? If God isn't a matter of faith, what is it? Next there's the notion of knowledge. In respect of faith, "knowledge" needs a careful definition or qualification. Give it a try?

The importance of practice and of anchoring one’s understanding in the lived reality of faith can’t be over-stated. Though practice one learns a dimension of existence and experience that simply can’t be learned by any other means. One cannot, after all, learn to ski by reading books about skiing.

No disagreement here.

I will say that one facet of spirituality that mainstream Western denominations are weak in, is the ‘experiential dimension’. But I say that as one of those who sought out spiritual experience, only to realise that any worth having requires that one adopt certain attitudes and dispositions which would customarily be designated ‘religious’ . There’s probably no escape from that particular regress, but I still maintain that religion as it is propagated in Western culture has become estranged from the experiential aspects without which it is indeed simply meaningless verbiage. I think one reason is because the metaphors and myth is in which religion is embodied are now so remote from the reality of post—industrial civilization.

Where do you draw the line between religion and psychology? By psychology I mean mental health and being mentally strong and healthy. It seems to me that, as with so many words used in connection with religion, that even "religion" needs a careful definition. It may even depend on context. Give that a try?

What criteria does faith have?
— tim wood
that it is in no way in conflict with fact or reason - — Rank Amateur

If only!

I'm not talking about truth or falsity. Why would anyone do that when we're not dealing in facts? I'm suggesting that it's primarily about a certain relationship with information we have regardless of evidence. For example, I don't have to be religious to know and to relate with the concept of a religious God or religious anything. What I need is the relevant information and to understand the context. As such, at least, I can claim to have decent perspective in the matter. — BrianW

You're right! My bad. Your criteria was the impossibility of invalidation, lacking concrete proof. Question: Do you accept as valid any and every claim you cannot invalidate? And I might as well ask what you mean by "valid." I assume you mean some variation of true with respect to selected criteria, but not the whole thing, and this I buy.

Imho there's often very little adherence to logic by those who argue against religion because most of them ignore a significant portion of what religion is. — BrianW

Amen. You're kind with "ignore." I think ignor-ant is more accurate (actually stupid, understood as applied ignorance in the face of facts). But that includes a lot of people for religion as well. And that's mainly what I'm on about, the debate between different factions of stupid. If only ignorance-stupidity came with a warning dashlight, so that practitioners would know to carry on off-stage, such discussions of their's being profoundly ob-skena (off-stage), obscene.

every argument against a faith based belief that is not in conflict with fact or reason - is just another faith based belief. — Rank Amateur

Interesting. Have you an example of such a faith-based belief?

there is always a major issue in discussions on faith. the first is agreeing on a definition of what the word means, and the second is it is an individual concept - that we wish to apply universally.

so at least my definition is faith is a basis we use to believe something is true, and act accordingly. faith is linked to truth and to action. For this basis to be valid, and for me to use it as a basis to believe something is true it can not be in conflict with fact or reason.

i can not say through faith alone I believe it is true the world is flat. It is in conflict with fact, and it just makes me a fool. It does not make "faith" a fool, nor did "faith" make me a fool, my denial of fact makes me a fool.

that does not mean - fools don't claim foolish things by faith, and that maybe greater fools continue to argue with them -

the second point is that all truth claims are personal believes - many individuals may hold identical truth claims - but they are all individual beliefs. There is always issues with expanding the individual to the universal

How does "faith" differ from "hope" or "delusion"?
Isn't "faith" simply accepting certain knowledge with no reason to other than it is consoling? — Harry Hindu

Do you really mean knowledge? I accept the Pythagorean theorem, though I have yet to feel consoled by it. Nor would a reasonable person accept that faith, hope, and delusion are alike, except perhaps iin some very narrow way. Likely you've a point to make, but you haven't yet made it. Write a little more?

Knowledge can be wrong — Harry Hindu

Now just here is a problem. There are folks like me who would hold that knowledge can't be wrong. People can be wrong about what they believe is knowledge. It's a useful distinction. Is it one you would have made?