Why Believe in a God when It is Impossible to Prove?

[Pattern-chaser]

To date there is no convincing proof for the existence of a God.

I would go farther: there is no evidence at all, for or against the existence of God.

I have demonstrated here 'God is an Impossibility.'

If you have done that without any evidence at all, I suggest you are guilty of the Argument from Ignorance logical fallacy.

[GaryLouisSmith]

To date there is no convincing proof for the existence of a God.

I would go farther: there is no evidence at all, for or against the existence of God.

I have demonstrated here 'God is an Impossibility.'

If you have done that without any evidence at all, I suggest you are guilty of the Argument from Ignorance logical fallacy.

Hello Pattern-chaser, welcome to the forum. I think you will find that I am odd-man-out among the writers here. In fact I think you will disagree with most of what I write, maybe vehemently. I don't mind. Feel free to express your disagreement as vehemently as you like. On the other hand, you will no doubt find many who agree with you. Btw, I am a gay theist who loves to argue. I am far from being a Gaian-Daoist.

[Pattern-chaser]

Hello Gary, the first writer here to mention my name in my new home (i.e. philosophy forum). Thanks for the welcome!

I would go farther: there is no evidence at all, for or against the existence of God.

If you have done that without any evidence at all, I suggest you are guilty of the Argument from Ignorance logical fallacy.

Hello Pattern-chaser, welcome to the forum. I think you will find that I am odd-man-out among the writers here. In fact I think you will disagree with most of what I write, maybe vehemently. I don't mind. Feel free to express your disagreement as vehemently as you like. On the other hand, you will no doubt find many who agree with you. Btw, I am a gay theist who loves to argue. I am far from being a Gaian-Daoist.

To the extent that vehemence is violent, you'll see no such from me. I look forward to our disagreements, which I hope we can negotiate in a courteous and friendly manner. I too love to argue (but not to fight about it). I'm a theist too, of course, even though my Gaian perspective is far removed from the Roman Catholicism my Mum raised me in (many years ago).

Unsure of proper etiquette here (I'll get used to it! ), I'll not diverge into talking about myself and my personal history. There'll be time for that once I get the feel of things here. I look forward to getting to know all the writers here, which will take a while, of course. So, to the topic:

Why believe in God? Because it feels right and proper. Even if there is no proof concerning Her? Yes, it's called faith. Faith, of itself, isn't a problem. We all believe many things we can't prove. The only problem with faith is when we declare our faith-based beliefs to be something more than they are. Faith, honestly declared and acknowledged, isn't a problem.

[GaryLouisSmith]

Why believe in God? Because it feels right and proper. Even if there is no proof concerning Her? Yes, it's called faith. Faith, of itself, isn't a problem. We all believe many things we can't prove. The only problem with faith is when we declare our faith-based beliefs to be something more than they are. Faith, honestly declared and acknowledged, isn't a problem.

Are you male or female, Pattern-chaser? You write that your deity is a Her. I have no problem with that; in fact if you are female yourself, then I think your deity should be female. If you are male, then we can discuss just why you want a female goddess, instead of a male god. I am here in Kathmandu, Nepal, where the Great Goddess looms large and so I have a lot to say about that. I study Hinduism. What do you think of a male god? You don't have to be polite when you respond.

[Belindi]

Pattern-chaser wrote:

Why believe in God? Because it feels right and proper. Even if there is no proof concerning Her? Yes, it's called faith.

I think you are either an optimist or have not separated yourself from your childhood indoctrination. I don't blame you if it's the latter especially as Pope Francis manages nicely to be conservative and liberal at the same time. However I do think unthought optimism is dangerous.

[Pattern-chaser]

Why believe in God? Because it feels right and proper. Even if there is no proof concerning Her? Yes, it's called faith. Faith, of itself, isn't a problem. We all believe many things we can't prove. The only problem with faith is when we declare our faith-based beliefs to be something more than they are. Faith, honestly declared and acknowledged, isn't a problem.

Are you male or female, Pattern-chaser? You write that your deity is a Her. I have no problem with that; in fact if you are female yourself, then I think your deity should be female. If you are male, then we can discuss just why you want a female goddess, instead of a male god. I am here in Kathmandu, Nepal, where the Great Goddess looms large and so I have a lot to say about that. I study Hinduism. What do you think of a male god?

Male.

God is without gender, I suspect, so I'm rather hoping She won't mind if we call Her Him, if you see what I mean? As for God, I'm with the Hindus. I understand they consider God too big a thing for humans to grasp, so we use Shiva, Thor, Dian Cécht, Cthulhu, Quetzlcoatl, Allah and Jehovah as names. All of them reflect some aspect of God, so any of them can be used. Mostly I choose Gaia, but if you prefer Appollo, I won't criticise you for it. God is God, whatever you call Her.

You don't have to be polite when you respond.

Nevertheless, I choose to be courteous and friendly. I just had to leave a forum to escape the sneering and personal abuse. This is my new home, and I have every intention of sticking around. I'm autistic, so making friends is a challenging ambition, but I'm going to try....

[Pattern-chaser]

Pattern-chaser wrote:

Why believe in God? Because it feels right and proper. Even if there is no proof concerning Her? Yes, it's called faith.

I think you are either an optimist or have not separated yourself from your childhood indoctrination. I don't blame you if it's the latter especially as Pope Francis manages nicely to be conservative and liberal at the same time. However I do think unthought optimism is dangerous.

I don't especially recognise myself as an optimist, and I believe I have taken from my "childhood indoctrination" only what I wanted to bring with me, but there we go. As for popes, it was Pope Pius XII when I was being 'indoctrinated'.

Unthought optimism. The latter, as I said, I have no particular view on. But "unthought"? No, you are mistaken. There is much I left out, and much I will leave out, from this post, because I don't have the time, and I hate posts that occupy more than one screen. It makes reading inconvenient, which is perhaps especially important when you're thinking carefully about what has been written to you.

Rather than just rushing in, I will ask you this: what are you getting at when you say "unthought"? When I understand the question better, I will be able to offer a better answer...

[Felix]

The Gnostics chief diety is female, i.e., Sophia. the Old Testament god, Yahweh, was her wayward son.

[Belindi]

Pattern-chaser wrote:

Rather than just rushing in, I will ask you this: what are you getting at when you say "unthought"? When I understand the question better, I will be able to offer a better answer...

What I intended by "unthought optimism" was the Christian belief that God can intervene in nature and save us. It's a dangerous fallacy.

[GaryLouisSmith]

Are you male or female, Pattern-chaser? You write that your deity is a Her. I have no problem with that; in fact if you are female yourself, then I think your deity should be female. If you are male, then we can discuss just why you want a female goddess, instead of a male god. I am here in Kathmandu, Nepal, where the Great Goddess looms large and so I have a lot to say about that. I study Hinduism. What do you think of a male god?

Male.

God is without gender, I suspect, so I'm rather hoping She won't mind if we call Her Him, if you see what I mean? As for God, I'm with the Hindus. I understand they consider God too big a thing for humans to grasp, so we use Shiva, Thor, Dian Cécht, Cthulhu, Quetzlcoatl, Allah and Jehovah as names. All of them reflect some aspect of God, so any of them can be used. Mostly I choose Gaia, but if you prefer Appollo, I won't criticise you for it. God is God, whatever you call Her.

You don't have to be polite when you respond.

Nevertheless, I choose to be courteous and friendly. I just had to leave a forum to escape the sneering and personal abuse. This is my new home, and I have every intention of sticking around. I'm autistic, so making friends is a challenging ambition, but I'm going to try....

OK, I’m going to write something that may be a little too abstract, so hang on. You spoke of God that is (a being) too big for humans to grasp so they use various names for That. You say they all reflect some aspect of God. One Being, many aspects. Consul on this forum has a philosophy that is similar. It is a substance-aspect ontology. If I understand you correctly, aspects are literally nothing in themselves. What being they do have derives from the substance that they belong to. Thus, Shiva, Dian Cecht, Jehovah etc. are not separate entities themselves. There is only one underlying Being that those aspect/names do name.

I have a different ontology. There is neither substance nor aspect in my philosophy. I consider Shiva, Apollo etc. to be real beings in themselves. They are all gods, separate and unique. They exist. They are, however all gods and it is the Form of Godness or Godhood or Godhead that makes then gods and not automobiles or whatever. There is one From of Godness, but many gods. Just as there is one Form of Chair, but many chairs. So Yes, I believe is Forms, aka Platonic Forms, and they are separate from the individuals that participate or exemplify them.

I am a Christian. I pray to Jesus, only to Jesus. My Nepali friends are Hindu-Buddhists (they mix together here) so they pray to many gods. And they do a lot of animal sacrifice. It’s quite a show. I think all those gods exist. Millions of them. But the Boy Jesus is my god. My sexuality gets all mixed up in there also

Of course atheists will tell me that I have been hopelessly indoctrinated by some evil power. I've heard it all before. Water off a duck's back.

[Pattern-chaser]

I'm autistic...

OK, I’m going to write something that may be a little too abstract, so hang on.

I'm assuming your words are in response to me saying I'm autistic. If not, just skip to the next bit. First, thanks for your consideration. Happily, our inability to transcend literality is folklore, based on misunderstanding. Many of us revel in metaphor, and in abstract thinking. I won't try now to expand further into this off-topic area, but thanks again for your courtesy.

You spoke of God that is (a being) too big for humans to grasp so they use various names for That. You say they all reflect some aspect of God. One Being, many aspects. Consul on this forum has a philosophy that is similar. It is a substance-aspect ontology. If I understand you correctly, aspects are literally nothing in themselves. What being they do have derives from the substance that they belong to. Thus, Shiva, Dian Cecht, Jehovah etc. are not separate entities themselves. There is only one underlying Being that those aspect/names do name.

Yes, that's about it.

I have a different ontology. There is neither substance nor aspect in my philosophy. I consider Shiva, Apollo etc. to be real beings in themselves. They are all gods, separate and unique. They exist. They are, however all gods and it is the Form of Godness or Godhood or Godhead that makes then gods and not automobiles or whatever. There is one From of Godness, but many gods. Just as there is one Form of Chair, but many chairs. So Yes, I believe is Forms, aka Platonic Forms, and they are separate from the individuals that participate or exemplify them.

This rather muddles things, don't you think? How do you reconcile the differences in, er, outlook between them? If they are all God, who or what is God?

Of course atheists will tell me that I have been hopelessly indoctrinated by some evil power.

...and who could argue with them?

[Pattern-chaser]

Pattern-chaser wrote:

Rather than just rushing in, I will ask you this: what are you getting at when you say "unthought"? When I understand the question better, I will be able to offer a better answer...

What I intended by "unthought optimism" was the Christian belief that God can intervene in nature and save us. It's a dangerous fallacy.

Yes, Christians have accumulated some odd views on life, and on God. IMO, of course. During my RC upbringing, I passively absorbed the impression that God gave humans the world as their plaything, and its creatures for their use. This impression I heartily refute! Climate change is on humans, not God, and Greta Thunberg has more useful things to say on the subject than any Pope I've come across....

[Belindi]

The Pope does well considering he has to carry the Church on his back. Greta Thunberg is not so far institutionalised.

[Belindi]

GaryLouisSmith wrote;

There is one From of Godness, but many gods. Just as there is one Form of Chair, but many chairs. So Yes, I believe is Forms, aka Platonic Forms, and they are separate from the individuals that participate or exemplify them.

Then Platonic Forms are not mind-dependent.In that case is there a Platonic Form of soup? If not why not? If so what defines soup?

[GaryLouisSmith]

GaryLouisSmith wrote;

There is one From of Godness, but many gods. Just as there is one Form of Chair, but many chairs. So Yes, I believe is Forms, aka Platonic Forms, and they are separate from the individuals that participate or exemplify them.

Then Platonic Forms are not mind-dependent.In that case is there a Platonic Form of soup? If not why not? If so what defines soup?

Yes, there is a Platonic Form of Soup. That was the great advance of Postmodern Pop Art. It brought the whole commercial world into the Realm of Platonic Forms. So are things of the demi-monde that Baudelaire wrote about. They,of course, are not mind-dependent.