Plantinga's reformed epistemology assumes there is such thing as a sensus divinitatus that informs all proper-functioning humans of God's existence. Analogously: you can KNOW you're holding a rose in your hand, but you cannot prove to me that you are doing so (if I'm not seeing it myself). Same with the Sensus Divinitatus: either you sense it or you don't . — Relativist

The problem I have with this is that trying to prove that someone or something exist is vastly different than trying to prove to people that you are holding something, and there are and continue to be many examples of this throughout history. Perhaps the best way to describe it is that for example there could be a radio show host who says "I am holding a rock right now," and that is very likely to be believed, first of all because no clear incentive for anyone to say "I am holding a rock" and be lying about it. After all, what difference would it make if he or she is holding a rock? There are of course similar instances where people may have an incentive to lie and may or may not be lying, for instance if they say "I am holding a bag that contains a million dollars right now"; but generally speaking, the concept is still the same, which is either that they are lying or not, or holding something or not, with no possible in-between. Let's compare that now with saying that someone or something does or does not exist. The consequences of this are obviously far more severe, as no one is likely to have an unfavorable opinion of you if you insist that you are holding something that you are actually not holding, as opposed to claiming that a particular person or thing exists, which can lead a person to be deemed as psychologically challenged at the very least. This is probably because in theory it can be proven if you are holding something by someone who may see you holding it, but even for example if you were to tell someone that you were holding a rock yesterday, chances are that they would have a cavalier attitude about it and would not likely give a thought as to whether it was true, even if you went on to describe the experience in detail. If you were to say something such as "I saw God" or the Easter bunny, tooth fairy, bigfoot...yesterday, then chances are that the person you told would immediately dismiss you as being a little off in the head, and would certainly have this attitude if you were to describe your sighting in serious detail. So you can see that there is a big difference between saying that you were holding something and saying that someone or something exists and/or that you saw it. It's interesting, though, that only things whose existence is ambiguous seem to take the heat when it comes to suspicion of someone having seen them. Perhaps, then, it is unwise to compare a plausible scenario to one that could actually be true, especially if it involves a sensitive subject such as the existence of God.

— creativesoul

Creative soul...

...I do not do "believing."

If that bothers you...deal with it.

You will never hear me say, "I 'believe' anything."

If you are asking me if I make guesses, estimates, suppositions, or the like...I do. But I always specify that I am guessing, estimating, supposing...

...I never hide what I am doing by saying, "I believe any of those things."

When you make a statement about something, do you believe that what you say is true?

Some ask for evidence of God's existence because some like to require evidence to believe that anything exists. — creativesoul

So then would such a person not believe that George Washington existed because they don't have any "evidence"? I mean look, the fact is that life in general requires at least some measure of trust in spite of other things that can be questioned, so if you are one who is just going to question everything that has happened or everything that is said to have happened, then there is basically no reason to live. It would not even be worth the level of paranoia that you would regularly experience.

Evidence is measured in terms of relevancy and adequacy/sufficiency. The evidence for Washington's existence far exceeds the evidence for God's in both measures.

creativesoul
4.9k
↪Frank Apisa


When you make a statement about something, do you believe that what you say is true? — creativesoul

Let me try this once again:

I do not do "believing."

Okay?

I'm not asking you if you 'do believing' whatever that's supposed to mean. I'm asking you simple questions with yes/no answers. Why not just answer?

Okay?

creativesoul
4.9k
↪Frank Apisa


I'm not asking you if you 'do believing' whatever that's supposed to mean. I'm asking you simple questions with yes/no answers. Why not just answer?

Okay? — creativesoul

Okay.

Yes or no.

Have fun with that!

creativesoul
4.9k
↪Frank Apisa


Have fun with that! — creativesoul

I am.

:smile:

..I do not do "believing."

If that bothers you...deal with it.

You will never hear me say, "I 'believe' anything."

If you are asking me if I make guesses, estimates, suppositions, or the like...I do. But I always specify that I am guessing, estimating, supposing...

...I never hide what I am doing by saying, "I believe any of those things — Frank Apisa

^My problem with that statement is that ANYONE can make a "guess, estimate..." and use that as a safeguard to say they do not believe this or that, if they wish to do so. Nonetheless, having a guess is pretty much the same thing as a belief, as to say that "I'm making a guess that this happened or that so and so exists, because..." would in the grand scheme of things be the same as saying "I believe this happened because..." in that you are giving reasons in both cases. On the other hand, if you were to say "I'm making a guess that this happened," it would pretty much be a moot point unless you gave a reason why, since anyone can guess when given two binary options such as "this did or did not happen" or "this thing does or does not exist." Unless you give reasons for something, then it really does not matter if you say you guess, estimate, etc." something as opposed to saying you "believe" it, because the implication is the same regardless and varies only if you give reasons to support it.

Maureen
30

..I do not do "believing."

If that bothers you...deal with it.

You will never hear me say, "I 'believe' anything."

If you are asking me if I make guesses, estimates, suppositions, or the like...I do. But I always specify that I am guessing, estimating, supposing...

...I never hide what I am doing by saying, "I believe any of those things — Frank Apisa


^My problem with that statement is that ANYONE can make a "guess, estimate..." and use that as a safeguard to say they do not believe this or that, if they wish to do so. Nonetheless, having a guess is pretty much the same thing as a belief, as to say that "I'm making a guess that this happened or that so and so exists, because..." would in the grand scheme of things be the same as saying "I believe this happened because..." in that you are giving reasons in both cases. On the other hand, if you were to say "I'm making a guess that this happened," it would pretty much be a moot point unless you gave a reason why, since anyone can guess when given two binary options such as "this did or did not happen" or "this thing does or does not exist." Unless you give reasons for something, then it really does not matter if you say you guess, estimate, etc." something as opposed to saying you "believe" it, because the implication is the same regardless and varies only if you give reasons to support it. — Maureen

Maureen...what I am saying is that if I make a guess...I prefer to call it a guess rather than a "belief."

Normally this doesn't matter. But the issue being discussed here is about religion...about whether there is at least one god or if there are none.

There is NOTHING whatever wrong with making a guess in either direction.

But if that guess is couched in terms of a "belief"...there are consequences.

For some this doesn't matter. They want to say, "I believe (in) God"...because they do not want to say, "My guess is that there is a God."

Some want to say, "I believe there are no gods"...because they do not want to say, "My guess is there are no gods."

I prefer to be honest about it.

I honestly do not understand why you do not see my position as reasonable...or why you show antagonism toward me because of it.

Belief is far more broad than belief statements about God. However, in the context of belief in God, your position seems fine to me.

creativesoul
4.9k
↪Frank Apisa


Belief is far more broad than belief statements about God. However, in the context of belief in God, your position seems fine to me. — creativesoul

Thank you, CS.

I agree that "belief" statements go very far beyond Gog/no god...but I decided about 20 years ago to avoid the "I believe" metric entirely...so that there was consistency in my considerations.

For certain, using "I believe I'll have another slice of the coconut cream pie" is no problem...as is "I believe he means to kill himself with that motorcycle racing" or even, "I believe the GIANTS are going to win the NFC East this year."

The refusal to use the expression is just an arbitrary decision of mine.

Glad to see my position was cleared up for you.

I don't think it's possible. How do we not know it's just a delusion.

I know I was hungry this morning. Am I just delusional? — Merkwurdichliebe

Why would god have created a universe where we could conflate its existence with delusions, or where delusions of any kind exist?

Why would god have created a universe where we could conflate its existence with delusions, or where delusions of any kind exist? — Harry Hindu

Whatever type of universe is created, conflation of existence with delusions is likely possible. Put it this way, on God's required features list for the universe, this would be way down the bottom.

in this case we are talking about the existence of someone or something that has been expressed by millions of people, which is binary and cannot be compared to something that a single person or even a few people claim to have done but can't prove it. To put it quite simply, something either exists or it doesn't; there is no in-between, and this is true whether or not you or anyone else knows whether or not the thing exists. — Maureen

I think a lot of the problems with discussions like this one are encapsulated in what you say. When applied to God, 'existence' is not binary. Does it refer, for example, to (detectable and verifiable) 'existence' in the space-time universe that science describes so well? I don't think so. This is a mistake most atheists make ... and not a few believers too. To claim objective existence for God in the same way as we claim objective existence for (say) horses, is to make a false claim.

Personally, I believe that God exists, but not in that literal way that derails most discussions like this one. God's existence is more metaphorical than literal, I think. It may even be that She is just a moral story that I subscribe to. I don't know, and I don't care, because it would affect my beliefs not a jot. But that's just me.

Just one valuable thing I can offer in this discussion: if you apply binary thinking, as you have above, you will neither find nor understand God, as She is understood by believers.

Some ask for evidence of God's existence because some require evidence to believe that anything exists. — creativesoul

:smile: :up:

I was being facetious. It is ridiculous to say that an immediate experience is a delusion. Delusion does not relate to being, only to becoming.

I would like to provide a critique of your claims that a theist has no evidence outside of their own belief, that nobody knows if God really exists, and that theists should not attempt to convince atheists of the existence of God.

You state, “When a Christian or a person of another theistic religion says that their God exists, the truth is that they are saying this because they believe that God(s) exists.” That’s true: a person wouldn’t be a theist if they didn’t believe in God’s existence. However, you then claim that belief is the only factor present, saying, “Regardless of how sure they claim to be or what "evidence" they give, the fact is that is simply what they believe, because no one knows if any God(s) exist, which is the exact reason why no evidence has been provided for the existence of any God(s).” The last part of this assertion should be reversed; a lack of knowledge of God doesn’t necessarily entail that there is no evidence, but I assume you’re saying that there can be no knowledge of God because there is no evidence of Him. You seem to be implying that a theist’s beliefs lack foundation. I believe that this claim fails to note that a theist might consider themselves to have evidence of God’s existence, and a better route might be to question the validity of that evidence, rather than denying its existence altogether. You seem to do that in the first half of the above claim, but then switch to asserting that there is no evidence, and I think that picking one or the other would better serve your purpose. An atheist would likely agree with your claim, but if you were to tell a theist, "You have no evidence of God other than your belief," I doubt that they would accept it. I also think the "no evidence" claim is vulnerable to counterargument, and perhaps you should have defended it in your original post.

You state, “...I am simply pointing out that no one knows if God(s) exists.” Clarity would be helpful here. Do you mean that nobody knows if God exists because there is no evidence of it, or regardless of evidence? This doesn’t necessarily refute theistic beliefs: if no one knows if God exists, does anybody know that He doesn’t exist?

You conclude, “If Christians actually knew that their God exists, then they could easily provide irrefutable evidence and there would not constantly be disputes by atheists asking for said evidence. I'm not arguing for atheists or theists, I'm simply saying that theists don't actually know if God does or does not exist, and therefore they should not claim to know this or try to give atheists reasons why God(s) does exists as opposed to simply accepting that they don't know if God exists.” My issue with this is that you’re claiming that there is no way to know if God “does or does not exist.” Under that logic, atheists should provide “irrefutable evidence” that God doesn’t exist. This entire section of your argument could be reversed by switching the words “theist” and “atheist.” You claim that you’re not arguing for atheists or theists, but they could both employ this idea that the other side cannot truly have correct knowledge of God’s existence, and this argument doesn’t specifically challenge theists.

Hi Maureen, it seems like your post had the following argument:

1. If Christians actually knew that their God exists, then they could easily provide irrefutable evidence and there would not constantly be disputes by atheists asking for said evidence.
2. Christians cannot easily provide irrefutable evidence.
3. Therefore, Christians don’t actually know that their God exists.

I think premise 1 is objectionable. I don’t think knowing something entails that you can “easily provide irrefutable evidence” for it. For example, I can witness something, like someone getting pushed, and I would know it happened, but I would not be able to easily provide irrefutable evidence to someone who was not there. I could also see a weirdly shaped cloud and know it exists, but I would not be able to easily provide irrefutable evidence to someone who was blind. I could get a glimpse of a very attractive person in a public place and know that person exists, but if I try to point him out to a friend, and he is no longer there, then I can no longer easily provide irrefutable evidence for the person’s existence.

Furthermore, a lot of your argument has to do with knowing, but it’s hard to “know” what it means to know something. The following paradox is an example of this:

A. If I know I have hands, then I know I’m not a handless brain in a vat (BIV).
B. I know I have hands.
C. I don’t know I’m not a handless BIV.

A, B, and C all seem true, yet they can’t all be true because they would contradict each other. C seems true since if I was a handless BIV, I would not know that I was one so I can’t say I know that I’m not one. At what point would Christians be considered knowing that God exists if doubt can be placed on the existence of my own hands? I think doubt can be cast on any subject. We can’t even really know that we aren’t dreaming right now. However, I think for at least some Christians who claim to know that God exists, they believe that they know because of evidence that isn’t easily shared, like spiritual experiences, or possibly after looking through and weighing various philosophical arguments for both sides. Things like that are then supported by how their evidence for God existing dovetails with their evidence for everything else in the world. It’s like how there can be doubt cast on me typing on my laptop right now, like if I was being deceived by some being into thinking I was typing on my laptop. However, me typing on my laptop dovetails with my evidence for everything else in the world so I say I know I am doing it even if there can be doubt cast.