Atheistic Hypothetical Theism.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Setting expectations rather high

 

[ParkCungHee]

This does mean however that proselytizing is going against the will of God. Would someone convince me to believe in God, it would be without those personal experiences which people use as the base for their spirituality. In other words, I'd be 'damned' by people who try to 'save' me since I'd be going against what my personal experiences have revealed to me.

Does that make any sense … at all?

I see what you're going with here but, the problem is that you're looking at your current self as your total and complete self.
It's obvious that proselytizing now isn't working.
But, you might be a very different person in ten years, with different experiences, and so it would be wrong to stop proselytizing because it goes against who you were years ago.

 

[punkbass2000]

Setting expectations rather high

People choose their own expectations, even if my input influences their decision-making process.

I think I largely agree with you, though.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I see what you're going with here but, the problem is that you're looking at your current self as your total and complete self.
It's obvious that proselytizing now isn't working.
But, you might be a very different person in ten years, with different experiences, and so it would be wrong to stop proselytizing because it goes against who you were years ago.

El Mac's post made me see that proselytising might be God's way of interacting with me as well. But it would indeed have to resonate with me. So I got less fundamental on the proselytising front.

People choose their own expectations, even if my input influences their decision-making process.

Touche!

 

[warpus]

So, based on that, I find it reasonable to conclude that if God exists, he wants some people to believe in him, he wants every person to experience him in different ways and take different things away from that interaction and he wants some people to be oblivious of his existence. For me personally this means that God has a reason for not being in contact with me. God knows me. It knows I will not take the word of others, however much spiritual authority they may claim to have. It knows I have been open to personal contact and tried to get in touch but got no response. Cruel as it may seem at the time, it would have it's reasons.

You make far too many assumptions about God here. Even if God exists, what makes you think he gives a crap about me or you?

Most people in the world have "strange" unexplained experiences. Some people attribute it to God, some to UFOs, some to ghosts, some, like me, attribute it to "the unexplained" and leave it at that.

 

[MikeL49NYVI]

Atheistic Hypothetical Theism.

I've been remarking about this in other threads, but I think it's about time I start a dedicated thread about it to see whether I took a wrong turn in reasoning somewhere and not to trespass on those threads.

The reason for this train of thought was that people have a certain outlook on God and religion based on their personal experiences and background. Based on that and for the sake of the subject of this thread I am going to make two disclaimers. God's existence and it's characteristics cannot objectively be proven. If you have a problem with this, no worries, there are a host of other threads to vent any issues you might have with this. Second disclaimer is that I'm not arguing here: God is this or that. My conviction is still God's existence and characteristics are unknown. My argument is going to be: based on my personal experiences and those of others, it's not unreasonable to conclude that God could be like this.

One problem I faced was the many different ideas about God that exist. This is caused precisely because the interaction is a very personal one. If it's characteristics are determined by personal experiences, but there is only one God then it stands to reason that God presents itself in different ways to different people but is still the same god.

Next problem is a personal one. I'm an atheist. But I do allow for the possibility that God exists, however remote I might feel that possibility is. This is why I felt I needed to give this possibility a little more attention and see whether I could conjure up an image of God based on my own personal experiences, since this is the same way theist arrive at the way they see God. The one problem that becomes immediately apparent is, I have none of these personal experiences. So I'll need to incorporate that in my hypothetical theism. The same God who has manifested himself to others and sparked their religious believes has not manifested itself to me. When God has manifested himself to people, he has done so in many different ways and people have had varying spiritual experiences as a result of that.

So, based on that, I find it reasonable to conclude that if God exists, he wants some people to believe in him, he wants every person to experience him in different ways and take different things away from that interaction and he wants some people to be oblivious of his existence. For me personally this means that God has a reason for not being in contact with me. God knows me. It knows I will not take the word of others, however much spiritual authority they may claim to have. It knows I have been open to personal contact and tried to get in touch but got no response. Cruel as it may seem at the time, it would have it's reasons.

This does mean however that proselytizing is going against the will of God. Would someone convince me to believe in God, it would be without those personal experiences which people use as the base for their spirituality. In other words, I'd be 'damned' by people who try to 'save' me since I'd be going against what my personal experiences have revealed to me.

Does that make any sense … at all?

Ok, I'll jump in, I enjoy your thoughts and discussions. You are much more honest about these issues than most people, including those on these threads.

Just to clarify for myself, and excuse my ignorance, what do you mean that God's existance and characteristics cannot objectively be proven?

This has given me an idea for the "Ask the atheist Thread", but I do not think it belongs here.

Now, are you concentrating on the various religious experiences people claim to have had, or on proselytizing? Or both?

My thoughts on proselytizing: The validity of it totally depends upon one factor, which can have several facets, namely:
Why is the proselytizing being done?

I am real big on motivation, to me it is just as important to understand why someone is doing something as what it is they are doing. Results take a 3rd place.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

You make far too many assumptions about God here. Even if God exists, what makes you think he gives a crap about me or you?

Nothing. It is indeed an assumption. And yes, I do make a bunch of them. How can you try to form an image of God without a shipload of them? Reason might be that the idea of an interacting God who thinks it's important that people make up their own mind is very close to my own sentiments. Which is very similar to other people who create an image of God.

Again, I'm only trying to paint a non-contra-dictionary image of God. One of many, many possibilities. I could have gone with: If God exists, it doesn't interact because it doesn't give a crap. Discuss. But I did not think that to be a very interesting possibility.

Most people in the world have "strange" unexplained experiences. Some people attribute it to God, some to UFOs, some to ghosts, some, like me, attribute it to "the unexplained" and leave it at that.

Yep. It's hypothetical theism for a reason.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Ok, I'll jump in, I enjoy your thoughts and discussions. You are much more honest about these issues than most people, including those on these threads.

Just to clarify for myself, and excuse my ignorance, what do you mean that God's existence and characteristics cannot objectively be proven?

I'm talking about scientific proof. The hypothesis: "God exists" and "God has characteristics x, y and z" cannot be falsified due to the (admittedly assumed because of popular opinion) perception that God is outside the laws of the universe. I'm rolling with that perception.

Now, are you concentrating on the various religious experiences people claim to have had, or on proselytizing? Or both?

I'm wondering whether the God you believe in could be the same God I am willing to consider for argument's sake. The same God which has interacted with you, might have chosen to not interact with me. For whatever reason it might want me to make up my own mind and not guide me.

My thoughts on proselytizing: The validity of it totally depends upon one factor, which can have several facets, namely:
Why is the proselytizing being done?

I am real big on motivation, to me it is just as important to understand why someone is doing something as what it is they are doing. Results take a 3rd place.

Proselytising was just a side thought. I changed my take on it in light of this thread.

 

[warpus]

Nothing. It is indeed an assumption. And yes, I do make a bunch of them. How can you try to form an image of God without a shipload of them?

Well, it's a very wishful assumption. If God exists, chances are it isn't true.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Indeed. Just like all the other theories that exist around the characteristics of God.

So, I'm trucking in the right direction.

 

[MikeL49NYVI]

Ziggy Stardust;10481423]I'm talking about scientific proof. The hypothesis: "God exists" and "God has characteristics x, y and z" cannot be falsified due to the (admittedly assumed because of popular opinion) perception that God is outside the laws of the universe. I'm rolling with that perception.

Thanks for explaining it. OK, I was going to post this on the other thread, but I now think the mention of it might be better here.
I agree that God cannot be proven according to the Scientific Method. But can anyone using the same standards, prove that He doesn't exist? I use this as a way to reinforce your OP, and its direction.

I'm wondering whether the God you believe in could be the same God I am willing to consider for argument's sake. The same God which has interacted with you, might have chosen to not interact with me. For whatever reason it might want me to make up my own mind and not guide me.

Very reasonable line of thought, and discussion. However, from my particular viewpoint, as a fundamentialist Christian, God is always extremly anxious to meet with you and to establish that personal relationship with you. "You being the plural understanding of the word." He would not be the God of Love if He did not want that. And in that case, I'd be an athiest myself

And in one respect He does want you to make up your own mind.

 

[El_Machinae]

But can anyone using the same standards, prove that He doesn't exist?

Well, yeah. But to do so, you'd have to define God's characteristics first. Some descriptions of God would be scientifically provable as non-existent. Some descriptions include the non-existence being unprovable.

In fact, the statement "it's impossible to prove that God exists" is only necessarily true if God does not exist (you cannot prove a negative). Additionally, if there is no God, it remains impossible to prove that it does NOT exist (you cannot disprove a negative). There's no logical argument stating that "it's impossible to prove God exists" if there IS a god. It's merely a turn-of-phrase that people rely on to ignore the question. It's a quip that gets people to stop thinking.

In other words:
If God does not exist
- it's impossible to prove that He does exist (duh)
- it's impossible to prove that He does not exist (unless we look for characteristics that, themselves, are disprovable)

However:
If God exists
- it's impossible to prove that He does not exist (duh)
- the possibility of proving His existence is unknown, but it's not impossible

If it were logically impossible to prove that God exists, then God himself would not know if he exists. While it might be true, it doesn't resonate. So, now that we know that it would be provable, it's just a question of how hard it is to prove and the cognitive faculty of those being shown the proofs.

Finally, if the faithful honestly believed that there is no way to scientifically prove God's existence, they'd stop trying to. But they don't stop. They continue to try to prove God's existence, using references to evidence. This implicitly shows that they believe that there is actually evidence to prove God. The story of Elijah and the wet altars is an example of 'proof' being theologically viable. As well as Doubting Thomas. Or, in the Quran, people try to point out interpretations that could only have been created by an all-father. etc.

It's not like the Abrahamics are full of stories where the protagonist says "Oh, there's no way to show that God exists! But, you're totally gonna get yours if you don't behave!".

 

[timtofly]

Thanks for explaining it. OK, I was going to post this on the other thread, but I now think the mention of it might be better here.
I agree that God cannot be proven according to the Scientific Method. But can anyone using the same standards, prove that He doesn't exist? I use this as a way to reinforce your OP, and its direction.

Very reasonable line of thought, and discussion. However, from my particular viewpoint, as a fundamentialist Christian, God is always extremly anxious to meet with you and to establish that personal relationship with you. "You being the plural understanding of the word." He would not be the God of Love if He did not want that. And in that case, I'd be an athiest myself

And in one respect He does want you to make up your own mind.

What if God loves his enemy more than his children? We cannot expect (as Children) that this life will be free of misery, but the next life is our reward for "enduring" until the end. God can choose to answer our request or not. If your basing God on your feeling of being loved, it does not hold. God has blessed some in the past, but it seems that when blessings come, those people turned their back on God and mis-used the blessing. I say the only love that God showed was Jesus, and it was equal to all. If there is a God, and if He loves those more who reject him, it would be plausible they may have the best of everything in this life and never experience God. Those who are miserable and experience God, but not His "love" will receive their blessing for eternity. I believe there is a God, but if I based that on how I have been treated in life, I would be an athiest. Living in America has eased the pain, but not totally. I do have some freedom in knowing I do not live in a war zone, and there is food on my table. Am I blessed? maybe in relation to some. Do I see my full potential? no. I am sorry that I cannot explain things scientifically, but I see myself more as a psychologist. If God does not make sense to you, it does not mean that you have not experienced him, it may just mean, it has not "clicked" yet. I think there are posters here that have experienced a higher power, but have rejected it.

 

[punkbass2000]

Before really going into this, can we at least have concensus for a working definition of God? A lot of what I'm seeing here is apparently cross-purposed discussion, serving none.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Before really going into this, can we at least have concensus for a working definition of God? A lot of what I'm seeing here is apparently cross-purposed discussion, serving none.

"at least"

And it serves me fine by the way. It was actually one of the motivations of creating this thread. It does get confusing, I'll grant you that. But what fun would life be if everythign was crystal clear.

Very reasonable line of thought, and discussion. However, from my particular viewpoint, as a fundamentialist Christian, God is always extremly anxious to meet with you and to establish that personal relationship with you. "You being the plural understanding of the word." He would not be the God of Love if He did not want that. And in that case, I'd be an athiest myself

That's an odd way of reasoning. Starting with your last comment. If God wouldn't want to contact me, and somehow you found out about that, you would stop believing it exists? How can something that doesn't exist not want to contact me?

And my point is that from your viewpoint God is extremely anxious to meet me. From my point of view he isn't. I tried to contact it for a long period of time and had no luck. And since God's motivations and reasons for it's actions are described as "mysterious" I find it strange you have such intimate knowledge about what God wants. But that's a little besides the point. Instead, a question and I'm going from your personal point of view to try to point out there really is no contradiction.

As a fundamental Christian I take it you love God's creations, even the sinning portion of it (hate the sin, love the sinner). Do you have to meet every single person to love them? Does God not love me simply because I'm one of his children? Could this God not have concluded I'm doing fine in this mortal life and there's a shipload of time left to be in contact? I know your religion says I'm not going to be with God after I die, but to be really honest, you do not know this. Know. So, just as I took the possibility of God existing a step further and tried to give it an appearance, you should be able to consider the possibility of God not really being exactly as fundamental Christianity describes it. Unless in your personal connection with God he validated every last bit of the Christian faith, which I'm not buying. Feeling a loving presence, sure, having a face to face with God and it explaining exactly his motivations and desires is a whole different matter. I do not see how God's ways can be at the same time mysterious and crystal clear.

And in one respect He does want you to make up your own mind.

And I do. In exactly the same manner as you did. You have faith because of your personal experiences. Now take those away. Then you're in my shoes. Do you still have faith?

You could argue I don't recognize the signs or the ways God tries to contact me. I could argue you don't recognize the way the human brain has the ability to fool us. But at the end of the day, no one is convincing anyone. So, how does the way I came to my image of God differ from yours?

Keep in mind I'm speaking purely hypothetically. I don't believe for a moment what I described in the OP is reality. I decided to use the same reasoning a believer does. Bar one thing. I do not extend my personal experiences by subscribing to an organized religion. That is the moment for me where believers are straying from believing what they do because of personal experiences, but wander into believing what self-proclaimed authorities tell them. I cannot understand that literal leap of Godless faith.

As a matter of fact, it's puzzling for me why not every believer reasons the way I did.

Did God every literally tell you you shouldn't have sex before marriage? Or he created the world in 6 days? Or all those other things you take to be true. None of those (or few) came from your connection with God. They were presented to you be a third party. They were available to you because of your location. I'm positive that if you'd been born in a remote area of Africa, never having heard of Christians your religious outlook would be wildly different, even if you'd still had the exact same personal experiences.

You'd be free-wheeling. Like me.

Can you give me a reasonable explanation why gays marrying is morally wrong, based purely on your religious personal experiences? Can you explain to me what makes you believe in the holy trinity? Maybe your connection with God it was a conference call

 

[punkbass2000]

"God alone is."

How's that for a first principle?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Yoda-esque.

How embarrassing, just 3 words and I don't get it :/

 

[MikeL49NYVI]

"God alone is."

How's that for a first principle?

Actually, that works for me. But I think you should explain it.

 

[El_Machinae]

"God alone is."

How's that for a first principle?

It's a pretty powerful first principle! And the logical extrapolations from this principle have caused some pretty impressive acts of goodness

(looks awfully familiar!)

 

[BasketCase]

Now if you don't want to talk about this in a civil way, this will be the last time I'll respond to you.

Sweet!

Well, yeah. But to do so, you'd have to define God's characteristics first.

Bingo. And most people are going about this the wrong way. As the OP put it, people tend to develop their view of God from their own personal experiences. Since different people are known to perceive the same things differently, just using your own experiences isn't enough.