So what would make a secular scientist believe in GOD?

[LittleNipper]

Presented here, so that we may have a place to start is one biochemist's (Dr, Sy Garte) journey from staunch atheist to firm believer: So, why are you a believer, or what would you need to become a believer in some Creator GOD.

[Clownboat]

The same it would take for any other person: Faith. There is no way to prove God, so you need to believe first in something (axiom) then you can create knowledge on top of that belief.

Atheism doesnt make any logical sense tho.

I can't go along with this due to the fact that faith is required in order to believe that something false is true. This makes it a terrible mechanism for arriving at true beliefs.

For example, if you want to believe in fairies, faith is required.
Nessy? Faith.
Allah? Faith.
Alien abductions? Faith.
That the sun will rise in the morning or that my wife will remain faithful? Reason and evidence.

As far as atheism not making any sense, then I must ask why you are an atheist when it comes to every single god concept that is not your preferred one? You are practically an atheist yourself. An actual atheist just takes it one god further than you do. If atheism makes not sense, why do you have so much of it?

If Gods were real and interacted with this world, we would at a minimum be able to detect the interactions.
So I must ask you... what is the difference between a God that doesn't interact with our world when compared to a God that doesn't exist?

[Vilferatus]

The same it would take for any other person: Faith. There is no way to prove God, so you need to believe first in something (axiom) then you can create knowledge on top of that belief.

Atheism doesnt make any logical sense tho.

I can't go along with this due to the fact that faith is required in order to believe that something false is true. This makes it a terrible mechanism for arriving at true beliefs.

For example, if you want to believe in fairies, faith is required.
Nessy? Faith.
Allah? Faith.
Alien abductions? Faith.
That the sun will rise in the morning or that my wife will remain faithful? Reason and evidence.

As far as atheism not making any sense, then I must ask why you are an atheist when it comes to every single god concept that is not your preferred one? You are practically an atheist yourself. An actual atheist just takes it one god further than you do. If atheism makes not sense, why do you have so much of it?

If Gods were real and interacted with this world, we would at a minimum be able to detect the interactions.
So I must ask you... what is the difference between a God that doesn't interact with our world when compared to a God that doesn't exist?

Your definition of faith as 'believing something false is true' is a strawman. In epistemology, faith is the trust placed in a foundational axiom to build knowledge upon it.

You claim that the sun rising or your wife's fidelity relies strictly on 'evidence.' However, you are overlooking the classic Problem of Induction. Past data cannot mathematically guarantee future behavior. To act on the belief that your wife will be faithful tomorrow, you must make a leap of trust based on that axiom. That is structurally identical to the teistic framework.

Regarding your comment that an atheist just goes 'one god further': this is a category mistake. Theism posits that the ontological category of 'The Absolute Foundation' is occupied. Atheism posits that the category is empty. Telling a theist that they are 'practically an atheist' because they reject Zeus is as logically absurd as telling a married man he is 'practically single' because he rejects every other woman on Earth except his wife. It confuses a quantitative list with a qualitative reality.

Finally, your question about a God that 'doesn't interact' assumes a deistic model, not mine. In a consistent theistic framework, God is the very foundation that sustains reality, logic, and physical laws at every moment. The difference between a God who sustains the universe and a God who doesn’t exist is the difference between a coherent reality and literal nothingness.

[Clownboat]

Your definition of faith as 'believing something false is true' is a strawman.

I grew up believing that faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence for things not seen.
However, I did not intend define faith here. I'm explaining why using faith as a mechanism is a poor way to arrive at truths. I then provided examples, so I'm not sure why you are focusing on defining faith.
Do you acknowledge how faith is required in order to believe in Allah, Nessie or Big Foot and that by using faith in any of these will lead to believing a false claim?

In epistemology, faith is the trust placed in a foundational axiom to build knowledge upon it.

That would be one definition. I seek not to define the term though. I am only addressing the mechanism of using faith to arrive at beliefs. Care to discuss that?

You claim that the sun rising or your wife's fidelity relies strictly on 'evidence.' However, you are overlooking the classic Problem of Induction. Past data cannot mathematically guarantee future behavior. To act on the belief that your wife will be faithful tomorrow, you must make a leap of trust based on that axiom. That is structurally identical to the teistic framework.

It is nothing like the theistic framework. You just want it to be.
To evidence this claim. I can apply faith that Allah is the one true God to arrive at this belief.
I do not employ faith when determining if my so far un-cheating wife will continue to not cheat on me. However, if my wife had cheated on me in the past, I could employ faith (I could not employ reason) in her that she will not do so again. This faith can end up being the mechanism that allowed me to believe that something that ended up being false. Therefore, avoid using faith to arrive at truths. Use another mechanism is my argument.

Regarding your comment that an atheist just goes 'one god further': this is a category mistake.

I care not how you classify my claim, only if you can show it to be in error.
Why my claim is not a mistake is due to the fact that atheists lack beliefs in all god concepts and a religious person shares this quality, they just take it one god concept further. This is not a mistake, it is reality.

Theism posits that the ontological category of 'The Absolute Foundation' is occupied. Atheism posits that the category is empty. Telling a theist that they are 'practically an atheist' because they reject Zeus is as logically absurd as telling a married man he is 'practically single' because he rejects every other woman on Earth except his wife. It confuses a quantitative list with a qualitative reality.

I acknowledge that this confused you. To clarify, theist are atheists when it comes to every single god concept, less their preferred one. Feel free to argue against this position and perhaps I will need to amend my thinking. We'll see...

Finally, your question about a God that 'doesn't interact' assumes a deistic model, not mine.

Neat! Care to answer the question then? Feel free to leave your preferred god concept out of the equation when you answer.
what is the difference between a God that doesn't interact with our world when compared to a God that doesn't exist? (This is not a gotcha question).

In a consistent theistic framework, God is the very foundation that sustains reality, logic, and physical laws at every moment. The difference between a God who sustains the universe and a God who doesn’t exist is the difference between a coherent reality and literal nothingness.

As you explained, this is only true within a theistic framework and you answered a question that wasn't asked of you.

If Gods were real and interacted with this world, we would at a minimum be able to detect the interactions. - Do you not agree?

[Vilferatus]

Your definition of faith as 'believing something false is true' is a strawman.

I grew up believing that faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence for things not seen.
However, I did not intend define faith here. I'm explaining why using faith as a mechanism is a poor way to arrive at truths. I then provided examples, so I'm not sure why you are focusing on defining faith.
Do you acknowledge how faith is required in order to believe in Allah, Nessie or Big Foot and that by using faith in any of these will lead to believing a false claim?

In epistemology, faith is the trust placed in a foundational axiom to build knowledge upon it.

That would be one definition. I seek not to define the term though. I am only addressing the mechanism of using faith to arrive at beliefs. Care to discuss that?

You claim that the sun rising or your wife's fidelity relies strictly on 'evidence.' However, you are overlooking the classic Problem of Induction. Past data cannot mathematically guarantee future behavior. To act on the belief that your wife will be faithful tomorrow, you must make a leap of trust based on that axiom. That is structurally identical to the teistic framework.

It is nothing like the theistic framework. You just want it to be.
To evidence this claim. I can apply faith that Allah is the one true God to arrive at this belief.
I do not employ faith when determining if my so far un-cheating wife will continue to not cheat on me. However, if my wife had cheated on me in the past, I could employ faith (I could not employ reason) in her that she will not do so again. This faith can end up being the mechanism that allowed me to believe that something that ended up being false. Therefore, avoid using faith to arrive at truths. Use another mechanism is my argument.

Regarding your comment that an atheist just goes 'one god further': this is a category mistake.

I care not how you classify my claim, only if you can show it to be in error.
Why my claim is not a mistake is due to the fact that atheists lack beliefs in all god concepts and a religious person shares this quality, they just take it one god concept further. This is not a mistake, it is reality.

Theism posits that the ontological category of 'The Absolute Foundation' is occupied. Atheism posits that the category is empty. Telling a theist that they are 'practically an atheist' because they reject Zeus is as logically absurd as telling a married man he is 'practically single' because he rejects every other woman on Earth except his wife. It confuses a quantitative list with a qualitative reality.

I acknowledge that this confused you. To clarify, theist are atheists when it comes to every single god concept, less their preferred one. Feel free to argue against this position and perhaps I will need to amend my thinking. We'll see...

Finally, your question about a God that 'doesn't interact' assumes a deistic model, not mine.

Neat! Care to answer the question then? Feel free to leave your preferred god concept out of the equation when you answer.
what is the difference between a God that doesn't interact with our world when compared to a God that doesn't exist? (This is not a gotcha question).

In a consistent theistic framework, God is the very foundation that sustains reality, logic, and physical laws at every moment. The difference between a God who sustains the universe and a God who doesn’t exist is the difference between a coherent reality and literal nothingness.

As you explained, this is only true within a theistic framework and you answered a question that wasn't asked of you.

If Gods were real and interacted with this world, we would at a minimum be able to detect the interactions. - Do you not agree?

Your response continues to look past foundational epistemology to save your conclusions.

1. On Induction and Faith: You claim past fidelity guarantees future behavior without 'faith' (trust). This ignores the classic Problem of Induction. No matter how many days data shows a baseline, tomorrow cannot be mathematically proven by yesterday. To act as if your wife will be faithful tomorrow requires a leap of trust in that foundational axiom. You are confusing blind credulity (believing in Bigfoot) with epistemic faith (trusting an unproven axiom to function in the world).

2. The Category Error: Insisting a theist is 'atheist to all other gods' misses the point of ontology. Theism is the proposition that the category of 'The Absolute Foundation' is occupied. Atheism is the proposition that it is empty. You cannot be 'quantitatively atheist' anymore than a pregnant woman can be 'practically non-pregnant' regarding all other unborn children except her own. It is a qualitative binary.

3. The Interaction Question: I did answer your question; you simply disliked the answer because it broke your strawman. You ask what the difference is between a non-interacting God and a non-existent God. Within a consistent framework, the difference is the existence of reality itself.

Your demand to 'detect' an interaction assumes God must be an entity inside the universe tweaking variables. But if God is the bedrock sustaining physical laws and logic at every microsecond, then the very consistency of observable reality is the interaction. Asking to isolate God in a laboratory is like a character inside a software code asking to isolate the programmer within the pixels of the monitor. The framework itself is the evidence.

[Bradskii]

That's evidence that will lead to you holding a belief. I assumed that you meant evidence that shows something to be factually true.

That seems one in the same to me. Evidence that shows something to be factually true would lead to the belief being held.

I was just differentiating between evidence that is a simple fact about the world which has no important consequences and evidence that points towards you holding or rejecting a belief.

Here's a picture of me at Bondi.
Bradskii lives in Australia.

Here's a picture of something that looks like the Virgin Mary on a roof.
It's a miracle!

The point is that an all powerful and all knowing God would know what would convince a person. One person may be convinced by an appearance. You wouldn't be, but an all knowing God would know that about you already.

There are enough examples of people knowing absolutely, beyond any shadow of a doubt that they were abducted by aliens, that they fought alongside Napoleon, that they are a god etc etc. We know that they have mental problems. Whatever has been shown to them, whatever they have heard or seen, we know it's not real. Why on earth would I think I'd be any different to these people if I had a similar experience?

I'm not aware of the existence of such a being, therefore I currently withhold belief.

My feelings exactly. My position is that I'm more certain there isn't a God than being certain about almost anything else. But all my comments along those lines should be mentally prefaced with 'As far as I know...' I'm not a scientist, but I take the scientific view: 'From the evidence I currently have available, it all points to...'

After quite a few decades, I'm not aware of evidence that hasn't been presented. So...

[Bradskii]

Well, that was a real mess above in a-cuttin' and a-pastin' the formatting. This is a clumsy way of splicing and dicing what's been written. And I'm damned if I could find where the error is.

Is there a better way?

[Clownboat]

1. On Induction and Faith: You claim past fidelity guarantees future behavior without 'faith' (trust).

This is false. I did not make this claim, but this happens when you use AI to do your thinking and replying.

No matter how many days data shows a baseline, tomorrow cannot be mathematically proven by yesterday.

No one has claimed that tomorrow can be mathematically proven by yesterday. AI is having a hard time keeping up it seems.

To act as if your wife will be faithful tomorrow requires a leap of trust in that foundational axiom.

I don't act this way. My wife has provided me with reason and I don't think that AI is aware of that.

You are confusing blind credulity (believing in Bigfoot) with epistemic faith (trusting an unproven axiom to function in the world).

I'm not confused by either, but I have pointed out that faith is the mechanism being used order to believe that something false is true. No matter if we are talking Big Foot or the gods.

Insisting a theist is 'atheist to all other gods' misses the point of ontology.

Nope, its dead on. Theists are atheists (lack belief) when it comes to every other god concept, less their own. If you disagree, please explain why, but know that AI isn't doing you any favors.

Theism is the proposition that the category of 'The Absolute Foundation' is occupied.

AI has failed you again.
theism
noun
the·​ism ˈthē-ˌi-zəm
Synonyms of theism
: belief in the existence of a god or gods
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theism

Atheism is the proposition that it is empty.

Nope. Atheism makes no propositions. Atheism is the lack of belief in god or gods.
A = without or not
Theos = god
No proposition must be accepted in order to be an atheist, only a lack accepting proposed god concepts.
AI is once again, wrong.

3. The Interaction Question: I did answer your question; you simply disliked the answer because it broke your strawman. You ask what the difference is between a non-interacting God and a non-existent God. Within a consistent framework, the difference is the existence of reality itself.

This is to assume facts that are not in evidence. AI has no right to assert that the existence of reality has anything to do with any of the gods and it failed to address the actual question asked.

Your demand to 'detect' an interaction assumes God must be an entity inside the universe tweaking variables.

AI failed you again. I demand (and asked if you agreed) that if the gods interact with our reality, we would be able to detect the interactions (not necessarily the gods themselves).
I do not assert that the gods must be tweaking variables, but I do note that if they don't, then there is no difference when compared to a god concept that doesn't exist.

But if God is the bedrock sustaining physical laws and logic at every microsecond, then the very consistency of observable reality is the interaction.

Can you show that a god is this bedrock, or did AI not think this through?

Asking to isolate God in a laboratory is like a character inside a software code asking to isolate the programmer within the pixels of the monitor.

No one has made such a request. Come on AI, do better!


GPTZero AI Detection
Model 4o
We are highly confident this text was AI generated
Chance this entire text is...
AI 100%

[Clownboat]

There are enough examples of people knowing absolutely, beyond any shadow of a doubt that they were abducted by aliens, that they fought alongside Napoleon, that they are a god etc etc.

And if you were to believe their claims, faith would be the mechanism that would allow you to hold any of these false beliefs. This is why I argue that there are better methods at arriving at truths then using faith as the mechanism.

We know that they have mental problems. Whatever has been shown to them, whatever they have heard or seen, we know it's not real. Why on earth would I think I'd be any different to these people if I had a similar experience?

You're asking ME, why YOU would think differently? Surely you realize that is not a fair question, as I know you not.
Perhaps you are very intellectual though. Enough to realize that a mental problem is likely behind what you are hearing or seeing, thereby making your experience a delusion, even though it seems so very real.

We had a very intellectual (my opinion) self proclaimed sociopath (his claim) that use to post on this forum. He was a sociopath, but he knew it and thereby was able to act in a way that he thought others would act if they were in his shoes (even though empathy seemingly escaped him). I believe he referred to himself as a functioning sociopath. Therefore I find it possible that a person could experience hearing voices let's say, yet function normally because they understand the voices to be delusion, even though they 'real' to them. The person next to them having the same experience may very likely believe the voices.

I have no idea how Bradskii would react though.

[Vilferatus]

1. On Induction and Faith: You claim past fidelity guarantees future behavior without 'faith' (trust).

This is false. I did not make this claim, but this happens when you use AI to do your thinking and replying.

No matter how many days data shows a baseline, tomorrow cannot be mathematically proven by yesterday.

No one has claimed that tomorrow can be mathematically proven by yesterday. AI is having a hard time keeping up it seems.

To act as if your wife will be faithful tomorrow requires a leap of trust in that foundational axiom.

I don't act this way. My wife has provided me with reason and I don't think that AI is aware of that.

You are confusing blind credulity (believing in Bigfoot) with epistemic faith (trusting an unproven axiom to function in the world).

I'm not confused by either, but I have pointed out that faith is the mechanism being used order to believe that something false is true. No matter if we are talking Big Foot or the gods.

Insisting a theist is 'atheist to all other gods' misses the point of ontology.

Nope, its dead on. Theists are atheists (lack belief) when it comes to every other god concept, less their own. If you disagree, please explain why, but know that AI isn't doing you any favors.

Theism is the proposition that the category of 'The Absolute Foundation' is occupied.

AI has failed you again.
theism
noun
the·​ism ˈthē-ˌi-zəm
Synonyms of theism
: belief in the existence of a god or gods
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theism

Atheism is the proposition that it is empty.

Nope. Atheism makes no propositions. Atheism is the lack of belief in god or gods.
A = without or not
Theos = god
No proposition must be accepted in order to be an atheist, only a lack accepting proposed god concepts.
AI is once again, wrong.

3. The Interaction Question: I did answer your question; you simply disliked the answer because it broke your strawman. You ask what the difference is between a non-interacting God and a non-existent God. Within a consistent framework, the difference is the existence of reality itself.

This is to assume facts that are not in evidence. AI has no right to assert that the existence of reality has anything to do with any of the gods and it failed to address the actual question asked.

Your demand to 'detect' an interaction assumes God must be an entity inside the universe tweaking variables.

AI failed you again. I demand (and asked if you agreed) that if the gods interact with our reality, we would be able to detect the interactions (not necessarily the gods themselves).
I do not assert that the gods must be tweaking variables, but I do note that if they don't, then there is no difference when compared to a god concept that doesn't exist.

But if God is the bedrock sustaining physical laws and logic at every microsecond, then the very consistency of observable reality is the interaction.

Can you show that a god is this bedrock, or did AI not think this through?

Asking to isolate God in a laboratory is like a character inside a software code asking to isolate the programmer within the pixels of the monitor.

No one has made such a request. Come on AI, do better!


GPTZero AI Detection
Model 4o
We are highly confident this text was AI generated
Chance this entire text is...
AI 100%

Fixating on the tool used to format these replies is a transparent ad-hominem escape to avoid the core epistemological failures of your position. Let’s look at your arguments stripped of your rhetoric:

1. The Collapse on Induction: You admit past data doesn't guarantee the future, yet claim you don't make a leap of trust regarding your wife because she gave you 'reasons'. You are trapped in a loop. Since those past reasons cannot mathematically prove her behavior tomorrow, acting as if she will be faithful tomorrow is, by definition, an act of trust (epistemic faith) placed on those reasons. You are utilizing the exact same mechanism you claim to reject.

2. The Dictionary Fallacy: Citing a general Merriam-Webster definition of 'theism' to counter an ontological framework is a severe category mistake. In philosophical theology and classical theism, 'God' is not a localized entity on a list; God is defined as the Ontological Bedrock and Unconditioned Source of Reality.

3. The Logical Binary: You claim atheism makes no propositions. This is a semantic shield. If the category of 'Absolute Foundation' is either occupied (Theism) or empty (Atheism), it is a qualitative binary. Telling a theist they are 'atheist to other gods' remains as logically absurd as telling a married man he is 'practically single' because he rejected every other woman on Earth except his wife.

4. The Demand for Proof: You ask, 'Can you show that a god is this bedrock?' This very question confirms you missed the point of the entire thread. It is a working model. My thesis is that a framework where an Intelligible Absolute sustains reality explains the consistency of physical laws and logic far better than a materialistic framework—which can only treat 13.8 billion years of cosmic order as a temporary stroke of random luck.

If you cannot address the explanatory power of the model without retreating into semantic games about dictionaries or crying foul over AI formatting, you have simply run out of arguments.

And one last thing, even if it was AI saying the truth, not me... the result is the same. Truth is truth, it doesnt matter who says it.

[bluegreenearth]

The same it would take for any other person: Faith. There is no way to prove God, so you need to believe first in something (axiom) then you can create knowledge on top of that belief.

Atheism doesnt make any logical sense tho.

If you are referring to an epistemological framework, please describe the functionality of the one you are using (i.e., the axioms it includes, the rationale, etc.)

Have you tested the reliability of your epistemology by applying it consistently to various claims and observing if it produces any incompatible results?

Does your epistemology include a mechanism for mitigating the possibility of confirmation bias?