Which god is God?

[SallyF]

Many, many cultures have imagined God in many, many ways. Certain cultures declare everyone else's idea of God to be false.

How do we objectively determine whose version of God is NOT false?

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 68 by 2ndRateMind]

... that implied some entity at the peak of the apex. That entity I call God ...

You have IMAGINED an entity at the imagined peak of an imagined apex, and you've called this imagined entity "God".

Uh huh. But once one comes to faith, God confirms His presence in manifold subjective ways. There is never an objective proof, and so the existence of God is never a matter of provable fact, but the subjective coincidences one experiences will tend to confirm to the believer that their faith is not misplaced.

Which is possibly okay if you - and everyone else on the planet with some idea or another of what they call "God" - is acknowledging that they are playing a game of pretend in their heads with imaginary things. One is free to do that right here...One is also free to point out that due to a common absence of evidence for ALL gods, one god - including yours - is as false as another.

You cannot understand if you have never believed. That's just an observation, by the way, not a criticism. Just as you cannot describe the sensation of 'red' to an individual blind from birth, you cannot describe God to an atheist since birth. All one can hope to do is to open up theological, philosophical and religious possibilities which may, at some stressful stage in the atheist's life, be useful to them should they ever need the God they are inclined, in the ordinary way of things, to deny.

BTW does your axiom/entity have a name …?

Yup. God. With a capital 'G' and capitalised pronouns, out of respect.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Tcg]

You cannot understand if you have never believed.

William S. Burroughs stated, "Junk is not, like alcohol or weed, a means to increased enjoyment of life. Junk is not a kick. It is a way of life."


I don't need to have shot up junk to disagree with Mr. Burroughs conclusions. God, as a way of life, can be rejected just as junk, as a way of life, can be. Some junkies will continue to push either one or the other in spite of this fact.

Yup. God. With a capital 'G' and capitalised pronouns, out of respect.

Respect for an axiom that exists only in the mind of the junkie pushing the axiom? Will the axiom be offended if we don't or is it just the junkie who wants their drug to be considered worthy of respect?



Tcg

[2ndRateMind]

...Will the axiom be offended if we don't or is it just the junkie who wants their drug to be considered worthy of respect?

No, I don't think God is offended if you reject Him and His love for you. On the contrary, He will respect your decision even if you don't respect Him.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Tcg]

...Will the axiom be offended if we don't or is it just the junkie who wants their drug to be considered worthy of respect?

No, I don't think God is offended if you reject Him and His love for you. On the contrary, He will respect your decision even if you don't respect Him.

Best wishes, 2RM.

You've presented no God to be offended. Nothing but an axiom you think makes life better if one accepts it.


You vote for an axiom you are now pretending exists.


Mr. Burroughs voted for junk, a drug we know exists.


Tally:

An axiom that exists only in one's head - 1

A drug shot into one's veins - 1


So far it is a tie.



Tcg

[2ndRateMind]

...Will the axiom be offended if we don't or is it just the junkie who wants their drug to be considered worthy of respect?

No, I don't think God is offended if you reject Him and His love for you. On the contrary, He will respect your decision even if you don't respect Him.

Best wishes, 2RM.

You've presented no God to be offended. Nothing but an axiom you think makes life better if one accepts it.

You vote for an axiom you are now pretending exists...

Yup, that's about right. The axiom can be accepted or rejected. You can believe or not believe. As I said before, I have tried both, and have found a better quality of life accepting the axiom and believing than rejecting it and disbelieving. I do not see why this might be a contentious attitude to adopt. Perhaps you can explain your objection to my happiness, and that of billions of believers?

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Tcg]

As I said before, I have tried both, and have found a better quality of life accepting the axiom and believing than rejecting it and disbelieving.

Yes, I've already tallied your vote. Your vote remains at 1.



Tcg

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 71 by 2ndRateMind]

But once one comes to faith, God confirms His presence in manifold subjective ways.

As a former Christian, I reject this claim of yours. I had faith, and yet no God ever "confirmed his presence in manifold subjective ways".
Even if your claim was true, just saying so for the sake of argument so as to make a point...why would an intelligent god who is actually real act this way, confirming his presence in a way which sounds to me, a skeptic, like literally nothing more than a confirmation bias?
My father can confirm his presence in manifold objective ways, no matter what I might think or not think of him. I can reject him as my father, say I hate him...but he will still exist and should you desire to speak with him, you can.

There is never an objective proof, and so the existence of God is never a matter of provable fact,

And yet, if I am to believe the Christian fables of the Old and New Testaments, things happened which (if they had happened) would have been "provable fact". People coming back from the dead, loaves and fishes being conjured, illnesses healed, etc.
I've been told by others directly on this forum that things happened to them or around them which indicated a god.

but the subjective coincidences one experiences will tend to confirm to the believer that their faith is not misplaced.

I don't see one word from you about objective. This is the great divider between something imagined and something that can actually be called real by multiple people.

You cannot understand if you have never believed.

Try me, then, if you dare. I am a former believer.

Just as you cannot describe the sensation of 'red' to an individual blind from birth, you cannot describe God to an atheist since birth.

Which is what we all are, from birth. No-one is born "knowing" or "believing" in a god. At some point in your life, or in my life, we had no belief in a god, and then others introduced the concept to us.

All one can hope to do is to open up theological, philosophical and religious possibilities which may, at some stressful stage in the atheist's life, be useful to them should they ever need the God they are inclined, in the ordinary way of things, to deny.

Am I detecting the quaint "atheist in a fox-hole" argument here...?

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 71 by 2ndRateMind]

But once one comes to faith, God confirms His presence in manifold subjective ways.

As a former Christian, I reject this claim of yours. I had faith, and yet no God ever "confirmed his presence in manifold subjective ways".

Fair enough. I respect your testimony. Nevertheless, it is entirely contrary to my own experience.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[marco]

Fair enough. I respect your testimony. Nevertheless, it is entirely contrary to my own experience.

It is not so much the experience but the interpretation of the experience. I've a friend who praises God every time something nice happens to him. Thankfully he doesn't attribute the awful things in his life to some divine punishment but I am always bemused by his relating details of his life to the whim of a deity.

I am not totally opposed to belief: my attendance at funerals tells me that it offers some sort of comfort. My little nephew has a blanket which provides a similar service.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 71 by 2ndRateMind]

But once one comes to faith, God confirms His presence in manifold subjective ways.

As a former Christian, I reject this claim of yours. I had faith, and yet no God ever "confirmed his presence in manifold subjective ways".

Fair enough. I respect your testimony. Nevertheless, it is entirely contrary to my own experience.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Okay...and so, is this the beginning and end of this discussion, between you and I? Surely from your own point of view, what I've said must be false. You said that once one comes to faith, God confirms his presence. This is something you say you believe is true. So then, by sheer default, what I said must be false.
Or is my testimony considered "true" by yourself (not just respected)?