The only rule here is that whatever you wish to attribute to God must be derived from his existence only. — tim wood

in this thread, God's existence is granted, being supposed herein to be at the least not any less real than Samuel Johnson's stone (that he kicked) - or for that matter any degree of real beyond that you care to make Him. — tim wood

Once upon a time two explorers came upon a clearing in the jungle. In the clearing were growing many flowers and many weeds. One explorer says, "Some gardener must tend this plot." The other disagrees, "There is no gardener." So they pitch their tents and set a watch. No gardener is ever seen. "But perhaps he is an invisible gardener." So they set up a barbed-wire fence. They electrify it. They patrol with bloodhounds. (For they remember how H. G. Well's The Invisible Man could be both smelt and touched though he could not be seen.) But no shrieks ever suggest that some intruder has received a shock. No movements of the wire ever betray an invisible climber. The bloodhounds never give cry. Yet still the Believer is not convinced. "But there is a gardener, invisible, intangible, insensible, to electric shocks, a gardener who has no scent and makes no sound, a gardener who comes secretly to look after the garden which he loves. At last the Skeptic despairs, "But what remains of your original assertion? Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even from no gardener at all? — John Wisdom

But so what? — tim wood

The importance is not in what you derive from God, it is in what you understand when you recognize the need to assume God. — Metaphysician Undercover

But if you want an argument here it is. Is God exists for all intended peposes. Then only thoughts who look for him would have any benefit. God has a plan, this plan gives purpose. Purpose make us able to get thought the bad (man's search for meaning). God is a guide, not a force. He can actually as one but he wants us to trust him despite that. He may go for an intervention but only if it's a part of his plan.

To the outsider it would look like a blind fath but God would have earned there trust. Those who leave him did not have enough fath.

He is not irelivent just not visible to the hole — hachit

To speak or think of a thing it must have a nature, a set of intrinsic qualities or features (actual or imagined) that are essential to its being the kind of thing that it is. That which is non-existent is necessarily devoid of any qualities or features, be they intrinsic or otherwise. — Jehu

My own view is that the idea of God is metaphorically like a fir tree in a forest that men, in almost every case men, have come and cut down and removed from the forest to decorate and festoon with streamers and ribbons and ornaments and hangers and lights and symbols and baubles and icons — tim wood

The importance is not in what you derive from God, — Metaphysician Undercover

I would answer, it is irrelevant. If God were proven to be, but not here, not able to interact with us and the world just follows the same physic rules as ever, having us through science and technology tame this nature and universe, without any interaction from that God, then who cares if God is real? — Christoffer

So would you say that anything can be derived from God's existence alone? — Terrapin Station

The underlying issue is why does the agnostic/atheist contingent have such a difficult time with epistemic humility? Why does there appear such a need to disparage a belief that one can not muster a reasoned case that it is in fact false. I see no party having any high ground in the an explanation of the creation of the universe. My reasoned arguments for an un-created creator is as valid as you reasoned arguments. Epistemic humility would dictate we value each others beliefs with generosity. — Rank Amateur

None of that actually logically follows from god's existence, though. It only follows if we assume a variety of beliefs about god. — Terrapin Station

* We do interact with God regularly during our worldly lives; just not in ways that are detectable scientifically (and they believe that that is on purpose, because faith is important)

* Our faith in God enriches our lives in many different ways

* We interact with God after death

* How we interact with God after death depends on what our beliefs were during our Earthly life. — Terrapin Station

There are no signs at all of interacting with God, a cake enrich my life and it wasn't made by God, you cannot confirm that you will interact with God after death and how we interact is also not confirmed because of the first unconfirmed. — Christoffer

People who believe these things DO believe that there are signs of interacting with God. It changes their lives in their view, changes their mental/emotional states, their relationships with others, etc. — Terrapin Station

Wasn't the point of this to evaluate what's the point if there was a God? — Christoffer

I wasn't addressing the "overall point" of the thread. Just the one small bit that I quoted from your post (in relation to beliefs that are common among theists). — Terrapin Station

It is difficult to hold a belief and not have that belief influence your actions in some way. — Echarmion

Not everyone accepts that faith has some unique epistemic standing alongside reason. — Echarmion

One might argue that faith is merely a label used to hide - and therefore sustain - cognitive dissonance. — Echarmion

On the other hand, religions are a real and powerful phenomenon, and so are various "cult like" groups. Contrasting faith and reason and asking for reasonable arguments to support beliefs is an important step towards curtailing the power of these groups. After all, if basing your beliefs on reason is not important, what are we all doing here? — Echarmion