What evidence for the existence of God would you find persuasive?
Discussion
It makes sense to me there is a “god” or a creator or some unfathomable force behind the universe. But I have the humility to admit I could be completely wrong and that I have no idea what that means in any real way.
The likelihood I am VERY wrong in my conception of base-reality is quite high. I accept my fate as an uncertain, ignorant and minimally-knowing being. It’s the only honest tack.
Religions are man-made fictions. Just words in books that have been forked and changed hundreds of times, typically malevolently so, largely done with the intent to subjugate and control. A malicious telephone game across millennium - nothing more. Unreliable and unfounded.
Could it be that your skepticism is what is unwarranted? It's certainly a modern bias to be skeptical, which postmodernism takes to dogmatic extremes.
Belief is harder than skepticism because it means submitting yourself to an external authority, rather than holding yourself aloof and independent. It's interesting the extent to which secular humanism and empiricism have turned classical thinking around.
Being skeptical ≠ not knowing
I know there is a lot I don’t know and can’t know. That’s honest and objectively true.
Ardent belief in a particular religion is a state where one conflates belief with certainty. It is a fallacious state of being. And it isn’t hard. It’s much easier to say “yes I have faith. Faith that the belief of my family / society / culture / religion is the RIGHT one. That there is eternal bliss beyond the difficult and scary and painful existence of a mortal human. And a belief the other religions and ways of life are the WRONG ones”. These ideas have been around in most human cultures (pre-Christianity) because they provide an easily-accessible way to cope with universal human difficulties. But it is fallacious and dishonest to conflate a belief with certainty.
in fact, people who are certain in their belief regularly kill/die fighting other people who are also certain of THEIR belief, all of them quite possibly sincere, and yet…
… are they all correct???
c.s. lewis has an interesting take on this in The Last Battle btw
(apologies for jumping in here with a non-sequitur)
That's sort of my point — everyone has epistemological anchors that they work from. Starting from a position of skepticism doesn't exempt you from the very fallacy you're pointing out. The agnostic's claim of "God has not spoken" is no different than the believer's claim that he has. And an epistemology based on a concrete event like the life of Jesus is far more reliable than one based on an admission of ignorance. Agnosticism has the appearance of wisdom, but never reaches the truth. The question is, what if God spoke in a way you understood? Is there anything that could defeat your skepticism?
You can find accounts from millions of people throughout history who genuinely believe they have talked to god. Many different gods with many different and often conflicting things to “say”. You’re singling out one person from the heap to “anchor” to. It’s completely arbitrary and dependent on the conditions you were born into.
Many schizophrenics are absolutely certain they talk to god, why don’t you “anchor” to them?
Millions of people believe they’ve seen ghosts, should I anchor my reality to one of their stories too?
This is the ultimate “trust me bro” nonsense argument. Makes feel sorry for the state of your mind seeing the depths of your mental gymnastics and how far you’ll go to protect your delusions.
The solution to uncertainty is not to deny the existence of truth. There are resources at our disposal to evaluate the claims of schizophrenics and prophets. It's disingenuous to equivocate insanity and faith.
I’ve never denied the existence of truth. You have no way to verify Jesus wasn’t a schizophrenic. He was an Arabic man alive 2000+ years ago. The records of what he said and did around today are dubious at best. Telephone game on steroids.
You’re picking what evidence you accept and don’t accept with your biases, which goes back to the exact point I made - you are letting your beliefs determine what evidence you accept as credible. Doing so exactly what the original post was highlighting. The irony isn’t lost on me.
What makes your biases better than mine? How do you propose to access truth?
Admit you don’t know. That’s it.
Absolute epistemological certainty? No. But I am "convinced" of the God I've entrusted myself to, as Paul says. The thing is, if I'm wrong, I'm no worse than someone who can't commit themselves to anything.
The thing is, the only options I see are nihilism and theism. Nihilism is incoherent, theism requires transcendence to work, which really narrows down your options. Agnosticism is lazy and pointless.
Those are subjective takes and of course you’re entitled to think whatever you want.
To me, simply accepting the warped propaganda of your forefathers known as Christianity and assimilating into that narrow culture is the easy (or lazy) route - the clear path of least resistance.
Questioning the nature of reality and being open to all possibilities and accepting uncertainty with unflinching courage is stimulating, fulfilling and the far more difficult route.
To each their own. Though I will always question those who claim certainty on matters they can’t be certain about - and that’s where these conversations started. Thank you for admitting you’re not certain, I respect you for that.
Btw I never made the claim my biases were “better” than yours or that I have “access” to the truth. Fallacious straw man argumentation.
This answers my question at least. Your own position is that you have no argument against mine, it seems. You're just being stubborn by force of will, not reason.
WILLIAM
You missed the mark in claiming I rely on skepticism (as I addressed in my previous reply) but the claim that skepticism is a modern bias is laughable. The Socratic method is pure skepticism and it’s a 2500 year old tradition.
The kind of skepticism that comes from modern empiricism is very different from classical dialectic, which was at least directed at some Good. Postmodern skepticism isn't really skepticism in the classical sense, just a corrosive estrangement of the self from reality (c.f. Love and the Postmodern Predicament).
> Religions are man-made fictions.
Why not apply the same skepticism to that claim? What's it based on? A rigorous dialectic proving the non-existence of God, or a premise based on lack of evidence?
The point of divine revelation is that our starting point as humans absolutely is skepticism of the worst kind. But God breaks into that reality in a way we can understand — word, person, symbol, and sacrament. True faith has to be placed in something external to the self — it's an acceptance of God's spoken word and work, not a retreat from reality.
I grant that the truth is obscured by many competing ideas, narratives, distortions, etc. But the lack of clarity doesn't imply an absence of truth.
Anyhoooo
this is just simplistic and naive. read the traditionalists.
at the risk of broken recordism, start with The Crisis of the Modern World by Rene Guenon.
If you were born in Iran you’d be a devout Muslim, sure that allah was THE great god in the sky. Ready to reward your devotion to that narrow brand of fanaticism. You’re all the same, just with different idols and symbols to bow to. Same replies. Same fears. Sitting on the same false premises.