Please validate your belief in your God

[mhaberling]

Alright I will attempt to validate. This is actually what I was looking for. I am looking for an atheist point of view concerning my beliefs so this may be just the place. My belief is based on knowing that God exist yet not knowing who, what or where about him. (Him is not really correct. The God I know or believe I know is neither male nor female I'm just not comfortable with calling him it.)
 The God that I know is quite literally the existence of perfect love. I am not a religous person meaning I am not a church member nor do I subscribe to many of the religous beliefs that exist today. The proof of that existence has not been biblical in nature although most of what I understand does not conflict with most of what is contained in the Bible. What I have learned from the one I call God, is how to love and understand the people around me and myself. Through this communication process I have learned a great deal about myself. I would have to say that at the beginning of this learning process the main subject was perception or how I see the world around me. Since we see or judge the world we live in based on our own thoughts and feelings, it is often colored by our prejudices and desires. To correct my view of the world I had to learn to see others and life as they are not as I think or believe they are. This part of the enlightenment process has been very successful for me. I am very happily married and have quite a few children and grandchildren. My children actually respect and love me which I attribute to the person I became once I began to learn from the one I call God.
 For me the proof of God's existence is not in the physical world but in the realm of emotion. The corrections I have recieved were not of behavior but of how I understand the world around me. I do not trust people to act in a way that I would approve of but instead trust them to be themselves and act accordingly. This approach to life has allowed me to love my wife and children for who they are not who I want them to be. This is the proof of God's existence that I am talking about at least for me. I would like your views on this approach. Any arguments for or against would be appreciated.

I think your God and my God would get along really well... You would be amazed how hard it is to convince some Christians to go along with the idea that what God really want's is for us to love each other and treat each other with respect...

Also welcome to wwgha... hope you enjoy yourself

[a3dtot]

Sorry. After I posted I read some of the latter post and realized I was off subject. I found the discussion very interesting.
I am new to these types of forums and I will figure them out eventually. Thank you for your response.

[ParkingPlaces]

Sorry. After I posted I read some of the latter post and realized I was off subject. I found the discussion very interesting.
I am new to these types of forums and I will figure them out eventually. Thank you for your response.

No harm done. We love you anyway.

[3sigma]

Why don't we just stick to Solomon to keep the discussion simple.

Why don’t we? Because that isn’t one of the questions I asked in the OP. Why don’t you first answer my actual questions in the OP instead of trying to impose your own limit on what should be discussed in a thread I started?

In the OP, I asked you to provide a factual description of your god. I asked you to provide enough solid evidence and sound arguments to prove beyond reasonable doubt that your god is real. And I asked you to explain what distinguishes your belief from imagination. Let’s just stick to those questions.

Please read the OP and answer its questions.

[3sigma]

Alright I will attempt to validate.

Great. Please read the OP and answer its questions.

My belief is based on knowing that God exist yet not knowing who, what or where about him.

Did you read the OP? The first thing I asked for in the OP was a factual description of your god. I’ll take this to mean that you cannot give a factual description.

The God that I know is quite literally the existence of perfect love.

Love is only an emotion. It exists entirely within your mind. Are you saying that your god exists entirely within your mind; that it’s just a feeling you have?

For me the proof of God's existence is not in the physical world but in the realm of emotion.

It appears you are saying your god is just a feeling you have, which means your belief is based on nothing more than an unvalidated feeling.

This is the proof of God's existence that I am talking about at least for me. I would like your views on this approach. Any arguments for or against would be appreciated.

What do I think of your approach? Well, let’s see… You’ve failed to provide a factual description of your god. You’ve failed to provide a shred of solid evidence or a single sound argument to prove beyond reasonable doubt that your god is real. And you’ve failed to distinguish your belief from imagination. You’ve completely failed to validate your belief that your god is real. You’ve admitted that your belief is based on nothing more than an unvalidated feeling. Allowing yourself to believe that an unvalidated feeling is true is simply self-deception.

[a3dtot]

I have been asked to validate the existence of God so I will give it a try.
For those of you who want physical proof I'm sorry but I cannot provide it. I know from my own life that I have had plenty of proof but it is not in a form that can be proven except to myself and those around me who have experienced the same with me. I understand that my answer will most likely not fit the requirements for proof. But I did not find and understand God by
looking for physical solutions. The God I know exist, is in the realm of emotions and how we treat each other, because nothing else really matters. Life without love is not worth living and love is what we give to one another not what we want.

 God is the personafication of perfect love, a being without form and only the existence of will. His will is love and with that love he creates all of existence in order to share that love with his creation. Whatever is required to complete his desire to create is created. God is omnipotent and omnipresent and has no begining and no end because there is no begining and no end to perfect love. Perfect love has always been true and does not change and is true in all situations it always remains the same. In order to attain real life his creations must choose to love. Love cannot be done because of rules or laws it must be something that is felt and believed in with all our heart and all of our might. The life experience that we live has been created in order to teach us the value of perfect love. The world as it is now is the way we want it to be. It is based on selfishness and not selflessness. We blame God for starving children and yet most are un-willing to truly give. We have expensive cars and homes and do not care about others unless it is brought to our attention. We do not love one another as we have been taught.
 As we create the world we want it is filled with violence, crime, judgement and fear. Until the day we accept love as our only motivation our only desire this life will only get more difficult. There are many lives today that cannot be helped by science because what is most important is how we treat one another. When a family is filled with addictions to drugs or achohol, violence and cruelty it is caused by a lack of love. If you love your children you will nuture them and guide them to a life of happiness, when others are more important than self then life will not have pain and suffering. While we may say that we are loving our children, the problem is that it is our form of love. Fathers who molest their daughters say that they love them but obviously this is not love. It is the father's perverted form of love, his own creation that gives him what he wants. We need the perfect love to show us how to love correctly and how to give those we love the best that can be offered. True perfect love is only true and perfect when it is shared and in truth it is the only thing worth sharing.

[3sigma]

I have been asked to validate the existence of God so I will give it a try.
For those of you who want physical proof I'm sorry but I cannot provide it. I know from my own life that I have had plenty of proof but it is not in a form that can be proven except to myself and those around me who have experienced the same with me. I understand that my answer will most likely not fit the requirements for proof. But I did not find and understand God by
looking for physical solutions. The God I know exist, is in the realm of emotions and how we treat each other, because nothing else really matters. Life without love is not worth living and love is what we give to one another not what we want.

You said all of this last time I asked you to reply to the OP. It was worthless as an answer then and it’s still worthless now. Look again at the OP. I ask you to give a factual description of your god. I ask you to provide enough solid evidence and sound arguments to prove beyond reasonable doubt that your god is real. And I ask you to explain what distinguishes your belief in your god from imagination. You’ve done none of that. You haven’t even attempted to answer the questions in the OP. All you have done is again drone on about love and unjustifiably claim it is your god.

Please provide a factual description of your god. Please stop making unjustified claims and start providing some solid evidence and sound arguments to prove beyond reasonable doubt that your god is real. Please explain what distinguishes your belief in your god from imagination. Above all, please stop evading those requests.

God is the personafication of perfect love, a being without form and only the existence of will. His will is love and with that love he creates all of existence in order to share that love with his creation. Whatever is required to complete his desire to create is created. God is omnipotent and omnipresent and has no begining and no end because there is no begining and no end to perfect love.

Prove it. Please establish the truth or validity of these implausible claims. If you can’t demonstrate that what you say is true then why should we trust anything you say?

[Aaron123]

I have been asked to validate the existence of God so I will give it a try.
For those of you who want physical proof I'm sorry but I cannot provide it. I know from my own life that I have had plenty of proof but it is not in a form that can be proven except to myself and those around me who have experienced the same with me. I understand that my answer will most likely not fit the requirements for proof. But I did not find and understand God by
looking for physical solutions. The God I know exist, is in the realm of emotions and how we treat each other, because nothing else really matters. Life without love is not worth living and love is what we give to one another not what we want.

If you can't offer anything other than "god is part of my wishful thinking", how do you expect us to accept anything you say?

For that matter, the bible suggusts that there was plenty of physical proof of god 2,000+ years ago.  Why do you imagine it's different now?

God is the personafication of perfect love, a being without form and only the existence of will. His will is love and with that love he creates all of existence in order to share that love with his creation. Whatever is required to complete his desire to create is created. God is omnipotent and omnipresent and has no begining and no end because there is no begining and no end to perfect love. Perfect love has always been true and does not change and is true in all situations it always remains the same. In order to attain real life his creations must choose to love. Love cannot be done because of rules or laws it must be something that is felt and believed in with all our heart and all of our might. The life experience that we live has been created in order to teach us the value of perfect love.

Does "perfect love" ever allows you to say "I hate Person X"?

Does "perfect love" ever allows you to kill people or group of people?

Does "perfect love" ever allows you to order others to slaughter groups of people, including babies and children?

Can the "personafication of perfect love" directly kill a baby?

God has done all of those, according to the bible.  How can the "personafication of perfect love" be someone that kills, including babies?  How can "perfect love" order the death of large group of people?

[Dominic]

3Sigma

You repeatedly ask theists to distinguish between their claims and imagination.

So what distinguishes (your) physical reality (experience) from imagination or from a dream ?  What proof do you have that the physical world is not imagination or a dream ?

You are in the same boat as a theist if you try to answer this.

If you call this request 'solipsist' in an attempt to dismiss it then you will simply be hiding behind a label to avoid addressing perhaps the most basic issue of (our) reality.

To try and save some time I will make a quick comment on a common claim concerning the fundamental differences between dreams and physical reality -

'Dreams are not (logically) consistent.  Physical reality is.'

My response:  There is no reason why a dream could not be logically consistent - and if you look at human behaviour there are plenty of examples of logical inconsistency (ie waking inconsistency).

[keeta]

i make no apologies, i have no god. i am the ruler of me. i make my own choices, and i live with those choices i've made. when my body gives out or gives up, i'll cease to be in the physical world.
i do believe there is something unknown that happens to who we are after we leave this world as we know it.
i know i have asked for very specific things to happen from an extreamly close loved one who died, and i got the answers i needed to my questions. like locating certain items for a police investigation, i can't explain it any other way than i got help from the one person who knew, who happened to have just died extreamly tragically. i'm not saying that was god in any way, shape or form. that would take away from my loved ones efforts to help me, and i wont do that to her.  she was real. she was good. she helped others. and none of that mattered, she was still murdered anyway. she didn't deserve that. nor did her children or family. she's better than the god the bible speaks of, and i actually knew her, had proof of her. i'll believe in her any day of the week. god...well...i don't believe in santa, i don't know why i should believe in god.

[3sigma]

So what distinguishes (your) physical reality (experience) from imagination or from a dream?  What proof do you have that the physical world is not imagination or a dream?

Imagination is the faculty or action of forming images or concepts of external objects not present to the senses. The physical world is present to my senses. I can see, hear, touch, smell and taste things in the physical world. I can turn to someone next to me and say, “Did you see/hear that?”, and under normal circumstances expect them to say yes. I can use instruments to detect phenomena that I can’t detect directly with my physical senses.

Can you do any of that with your god? Can you see hear, hear, touch, smell or taste your god with your physical senses or is everything you feel about your god entirely within your imagination? If you see or hear your god and I’m standing right next to you, will I also see or hear it? Can you use any instrument to detect the presence of your god? The answer to all those questions is no so in no way are we in the same boat. You have nothing to distinguish your belief in your god from imagination. If you think you have then go right ahead and provide it.

[Dominic]

So what distinguishes (your) physical reality (experience) from imagination or from a dream?  What proof do you have that the physical world is not imagination or a dream?

Imagination is the faculty or action of forming images or concepts of external objects not present to the senses. The physical world is present to my senses. I can see, hear, touch, smell and taste things in the physical world. I can turn to someone next to me and say, “Did you see/hear that?”, and under normal circumstances expect them to say yes. I can use instruments to detect phenomena that I can’t detect directly with my physical senses.

All of that can also be done in a dream.  Please verify with certainty that you are not dreaming

[William]

Please verify with certainty that you are not dreaming

It can't be done with 100% certainty.  But even if we were dreaming it is not even necessary to verify it - we'll deal with it if/when we wake up.  Meanwhile we can operate quite satisfactorily, and things plod along constantly and predictably - quite unlike in the dreams we know about from the perspective of our awake state. 

Just enjoy it for what it is - the only reality we know.

[keeta]

i've had a brain injury and no longer remember dreams...not for the last 10 years have i remembered them. i'm sure i'm having them still, but i'm not able to recall information from them. details tend to not stick around for me, though i can remember how someone made me feel even if i can't remember who they are or what we've talked about
Can't hold a grudge to save my life, can't be mad if i don't remember why i'm mad

[3sigma]

All of that can also be done in a dream.  Please verify with certainty that you are not dreaming

Once again you retreat into solipsism in an effort to avoid confronting the fact that your god is entirely within your imagination. However, it doesn’t matter if this is a dream. For the sake of argument, let’s say reality is a dream. You could even say that dream is within another dream and it still wouldn’t matter. All those differences I mentioned still hold with what we perceive as reality whether it’s a dream or not and you still cannot demonstrate that your belief in your god meets the same standards.

And, of course, you evaded every single question I asked. Can you see hear, hear, touch, smell or taste your god with your physical senses or is everything you feel about your god entirely within your imagination? If you see or hear your god and I’m standing right next to you, will I also see or hear it? Can you use any instrument to detect the presence of your god? Even if this is all a dream, you still can’t do any of those things. Your god still exists only within your imagination.

How about answering the questions I ask instead of engaging in all this sophistry and evasion? For a start, you could answer the questions in the OP, which you still haven’t attempted to do.

[Dominic]

Please verify with certainty that you are not dreaming

It can't be done with 100% certainty.  But even if we were dreaming it is not even necessary to verify it - we'll deal with it if/when we wake up.  Meanwhile we can operate quite satisfactorily, and things plod along constantly and predictably - quite unlike in the dreams we know about from the perspective of our awake state. 

Just enjoy it for what it is - the only reality we know.

A very reasonable and sensible approach.

Once someone recognises that approach they should also realise that they have no grounds for belittling the beliefs of others or for thinking their own beliefs are somehow superior.

And we'll all perhaps know a little better when we wake up.

[keeta]

match point dominic

[William]

Once someone recognises that approach they should also realise that they have no grounds for belittling the beliefs of others or for thinking their own beliefs are somehow superior.

Well no.  Dominic if you actually thought atheists had an Achilles heel because they may be dreaming, then why do you debate with them? 

See, the probability that I'm indeed dreaming is very close to zero - based on the evidence.
Whereas the probability that any gods exists is very close to zero - based on the evidence.

This is not a level playing field at all.

[Dominic]

Once someone recognises that approach they should also realise that they have no grounds for belittling the beliefs of others or for thinking their own beliefs are somehow superior.

Well no.  Dominic if you actually thought atheists had an Achilles heel because they may be dreaming, then why do you debate with them? 

To remind them that they may be dreaming ie to consider all perspectives.  To put it another way - for the same reason that Morpheus offered Neo the two pills.

See, the probability that I'm indeed dreaming is very close to zero - based on the evidence.
Whereas the probability that any gods exists is very close to zero - based on the evidence.

This is not a level playing field at all.

The concept of physical 'evidence' ASSUMES that you are not dreaming.  I don't think that you have grasped that important point yet.

You can only search for physical evidence if you are not dreaming.

Physical evidence cannot address the question of whether or not you are dreaming.

[William]

The concept of physical 'evidence' ASSUMES that you are not dreaming.  I don't think that you have grasped that important point yet.

No, I got that.

The point you are struggling with is that all assumptions are not equal.  The mere fact that you debate with me is evidence I'm not dreaming and all other evidence in my life adds to that.   It's a safe assumption.  Understand?

The same cannot be said for the assumptions that gods exist.  The beliefs in gods vary, contradict, and change over time.  They are shaky assumptions full of absurdities.  They are laughable and need validation - something which you seem reluctant to do.

[Skinz]

The concept of physical 'evidence' ASSUMES that you are not dreaming.  I don't think that you have grasped that important point yet.

You can only search for physical evidence if you are not dreaming.

Physical evidence cannot address the question of whether or not you are dreaming.

Purposely going into this territory smacks of obfuscation, man. With logic and philosophical reasoning, you can argue around and around in circles in this field without ever presenting a potential weakness. I call stalemate.

Let's assume, thought, that we are dreaming. All of us, dreaming (I assume) separate dreams. You (A fragment of my ego) have still presented me, in my dream, with no compelling arguments for faith in an intelligent creator... Rather, you've advanced the idea that ones fantasy can be as concrete as ones reality, a concept that is SURE to bite you (me) in the ass in a future debate (with myself) 

[Anfauglir]

The concept of physical 'evidence' ASSUMES that you are not dreaming.  I don't think that you have grasped that important point yet.

It's good that Dominic agrees that his god is no more real than a dream.....   

[jetson]

It is a very common approach from theists to attempt to show that reality may not be what we think it is, therefore we stand on equal ground and cannot criticize their delusions about their gods.  If they cannot show any evidence for their assertions, they are left with little choice but to try to bring the rest of us down to their unsupported level.

I'm not sure why the fact that no god has ever been shown to actually exist, has ever entered the mindset of the common theist.  That alone should be a wake up call.

[screwtape]

3Sigma

You repeatedly ask theists to distinguish between their claims and imagination.

So what distinguishes (your) physical reality (experience) from imagination or from a dream ?  What proof do you have that the physical world is not imagination or a dream ?

You are in the same boat as a theist if you try to answer this.

If you call this request 'solipsist' in an attempt to dismiss it then you will simply be hiding behind a label to avoid addressing perhaps the most basic issue of (our) reality.

Um, no, it isn't hiding behind a label.  It is pointing out that the brain-in-a-jar argument goes nowhere for either of us.  On top of that, neither of us - you nor I - behave as if we are just brains-in-jars.  You are arguing a point you do not even agree with by bringing it up.

Solipsism is the nuclear option for arguments.  It destroys all rational belief in everything, including parochial iron age deities.  You might as well bring lastTuesdayism into the discussion too.  You know, the idea that the entire universe was created last Tuesday, and it was done in such a way as to make it completely and seamlessly appear as if it was 13.5 billion years old. 

It is a stupid and dishonest argument.

[wheels5894]

The concept of physical 'evidence' ASSUMES that you are not dreaming.  I don't think that you have grasped that important point yet.

You can only search for physical evidence if you are not dreaming.

Physical evidence cannot address the question of whether or not you are dreaming.

Dominic, I think you know exactly how we know we are not dreaming when we look for physical evidence but here's the argument to help- you anyway.

Now, in my dreams, whatever I see cannot be seen by anyone else and even I don't see the same thing twice. Now if a researcher in Australia sees something in the night sky, say a supernova, and it turns out that people in Russia, the UK Canada etc can also see it, then it can't be the dream of the researcher in Australia.

Of course, there is  the question of how we behave in the real world. After all, how we act has something to do with what we think. Now, as far as I am concerned, I meet people, buy goods, drive a car on the basis that these things are part of my physical world. Indeed, I am sending you  message now about this - I would hardly do that if I thought I was dreaming.

Now, Dominic, if you think there is reason to think the opposite, what are your arguments- not that you would post them as you would be dreaming!

[Mooby]

Where am I getting this information? (Of course, I was lumping deluded people in with liars.) The slippery answer is that you are free to name anybody honest, who has God speaking through them. The more general answer is that any lying bastard seems free to start a cult or religion, and I surmise that in a universe that God genuinely did not interact with, these manipulators would be hard at work, creating religions, to exploit the desperate and gullible; so it would look no different to our own religiousphere, where you propose that a God really does interact [or matter] within it. I derive this from the conflciting diversity of religions on this planet, that have evolved.

I have to disagree with you there.  In the universe you described (or one with an absent deity), all of the cults/religions would have had to be started for gain/exploitation, or out of delusion.  I don't see on what basis you can conclude that such a universe would be identical to our current one.

For instance, if we imagined a universe were all lawyers were greedy, it's a bit of a hasty conclusion to say that such a universe would be identical to our own.  Sure, we could cite the average salary of lawyers or their stereotype as greedy, or point out that greedy people are free to become lawyers, or even sample individual lawyers, but we don't know whether the outliers would change the universe.  If 4% of lawyers are not greedy, we could easily get a >95% sample and conclude all lawyers are greedy, but that could still result in a vast difference between a universe with 96% greedy lawyers and 100% greedy lawyers via the butterfly effect.

Similarly, I don't see how the mere existence of diversity in religious belief is evidence that our universe is identical to one where all religions were founded on delusion or deceit.  Especially with many religious beliefs being so ancient, it's impossible to say what the result would be.  Hinduism, for example, is nearly 4000 years old.  How can we predict how our world would be different depending on whether the original Vedic writings were based on legitimate experience or fraud?  How can we say that Christianity would be exactly the same if Jesus was liar, lord, or lunatic?  Or Islam's Muhammad, for that matter?  Or any other religion with its founders?

It should come as no surprise to you, that I think that the evolutionary shaping-forces on religion are what the adherents want to believe, rather than what the silent God actually wants; so, the religions should converge, in universes where God does not talk to us.

No, that does not come as a surprise to me.  But as I don't believe in a deistic god, I don't believe God is silent, so I don't reach the same conclusion.

A horrific thing might be, if a God really did talk to us, and we found out how he wanted something entirely different to what we had wanted. He might for example say, "I don't like you. I want you all to die." We might reply, "We don't like you, and will continue to love each other, and do our best", to which he might reply "Go ahead, it's pointless; I will kill you all in the end, anyway." That might be a real God talking, so it's just as well he leaves us alone, to invent shit.

How does that prevent Yougod from being omnimax? He becomes irrelevantmax.

God going all Marshall Brain on this universe kind of contradicts being omnimax.  I don't see how a deity could fit both being omnimax and your description.

[Azdgari]

Once someone recognises that approach they should also realise that they have no grounds for belittling the beliefs of others or for thinking their own beliefs are somehow superior.

Except that if I'm dreaming, then you are a figment of my dream and I have every reason to belittle your beliefs, since they are out-of-sync with the dream-reality I know.

And we'll all perhaps know a little better when we wake up.

Who is "we"?  The real people, or the dream-figments like you?

[Dominic]

Once someone recognises that approach they should also realise that they have no grounds for belittling the beliefs of others or for thinking their own beliefs are somehow superior.

Except that if I'm dreaming, then you are a figment of my dream and I have every reason to belittle your beliefs, since they are out-of-sync with the dream-reality I know.

You dream me up and then you belittle me!  That's a a bit mean : - )  Try waking up and rolling on your other side.

And we'll all perhaps know a little better when we wake up.

Who is "we"?  The real people, or the dream-figments like you?

We'll know that when we wake up also!

[Azdgari]

I meant that response seriously, Dominic.

And your response to the second quote still uses a "we" that you have not defined.