What it would take for me to believe in a personal God/believe in an impersonal God

[Szuchow]

I would have to be heavily indoctrinated to buy this god crap. Thankfully I wasn't.

[Grandizer]

It's all Bayesian for me.

So far, naturalism overwhelms theism when it comes to accounting for pretty much every aspect of reality. When somehow the pendulum starts to swing the other way, then I'll start to reconsider an impersonal God.

Personal God would need to show itself to me and convince me it is such. I'm very strict with my testing of divinity, though.

[Bucky Ball]

Evie, God doesn't appear to anyone - he reveals himself in veils, and so if you don't trust the veil, and can't see the noble trustworthiness of it, there is no way to know if it's God talking to you or a Jinn.

Prophets because of their truthful nature can asses who is a true Angel, but people can't know they are truthful or the Angels are just by themselves, revelations beyond capability of humans as well as miracles that show a majestic power only God would create and trust with such power, are needed.

The miracle of the revelation doesn't lie in Arabic eloquence or that study, it's in entirely something different, although it's eloquence is going to be beyond human eloquence that is true, but to see it's eloquence, you have to understand it's guidance and insights and how all the verses hold on to one another and bring new stages and heights of understanding and perception that you never thought possible in your mind, you never thought the book would be this. Every new level is beyond expectation.

Speech and truthfulness are linked, in that, you can prove yourself trustworthy by speech, and God is most truthful and sincere.

As for "appearing" it's about seeing how the light is linked to God, and we are all still linked to God no matter if we or don't pollute our water - whatever good we have is linked to God.

Why do you think your god is a "he" ?
Does "he" have circulating testosterone ?
Why do you not refer to her as a "she" ... especially if she's messing about with the "veils".
Or is he a drag queen ?

[MysticKnight]

God is not a he or a she, in some aspects, you are right, it resembles more of a she like being veiled and have to earn the unveling, like everything being brought out of it's light, like it's compassion, etc, closer to a she in this regard.

[Bucky Ball]

God is not a he or a she, in some aspects, you are right, it resembles more of a she like being veiled and have to earn the unveling, like everything being brought out of it's light, like it's compassion, etc, closer to a she in this regard.

But you called this *thing* a "he" ?
Why is that ?

So you think women have more compassion than men ?

[MysticKnight]

God is not a he or a she, in some aspects, you are right, it resembles more of a she like being veiled and have to earn the unveling, like everything being brought out of it's light, like it's compassion, etc, closer to a she in this regard.

But you called this *thing* a "he" ?
Why is that ?

So you think women have more compassion than men ?

In Arabic, for example, if you are referring to souls, Quran does that sometimes and there it refers to them in a feminine tone.  In Persian there is no he or she, you have to say Man or Women to distinguish, but there is no way to say "he went", so you can be neutral about gender easier.

It's because the word grammar wise is masculine.  Otherwise, there would be no reason.

English had to pick one because they don't have that words have masculine and feminine. For whatever reason they used it for God, I'm sticking to simply out of convention.

In Farsi, God is always gender neutral and the word used for that being is "The Necessary one (Khuda)".

[brunumb]

I don't think anyone can really say what it would take to make them believe in any gods.  We all have different thresholds of credibility.  This will depend on what happened in our formative years, what education and experiences we have had and particularly what interests we have cultivated over the years.  It's not a one size fits all situation.  One person may believe in Bigfoot but ridicule believers in alien visitation.  A person who believers in numerology may not understand how someone can believe in demonic possession.  And on it goes.  What convinces one but not another?

Where a belief has been inculcated through childhood indoctrination there was clearly no reasoning or assessment of any evidence involved.  I don't think those people can accurately articulate what made them believe, nor do I think they really try.  All they seem to do is refer to post hoc rationalisations that help them to maintain their beliefs.  I think that this is how the majority of people gained their belief in gods.

I don't know what it would take me to believe, again.  I lost my belief in all things supernatural in my teens when they just did not withstand what I considered to be close scrutiny and evaluation.  So far, nothing I have heard from believers regarding why they believe has been compelling to me.  Some incredible miraculous event might do the trick, but it would have to be something where conjuring trick and mind manipulation have been clearly eliminated.  But we are still left with the question of the miracle worker just being another life-form using incredible technology.  At which point do we cross that boundary between knowing we have encountered such a being or actually encountered God?  I don't think we could ever know that.

[EvieTheAvocado]

I don't think anyone can really say what it would take to make them believe in any gods.  We all have different thresholds of credibility.  This will depend on what happened in our formative years, what education and experiences we have had and particularly what interests we have cultivated over the years.  It's not a one size fits all situation.  One person may believe in Bigfoot but ridicule believers in alien visitation.  A person who believers in numerology may not understand how someone can believe in demonic possession.  And on it goes.  What convinces one but not another?

Oh, if I accepted premise 1 of the OP I would DEFINITELY believe in some sort of god.

[brunumb]

Oh, if I accepted premise 1 of the OP I would DEFINITELY believe in some sort of god.

The question then becomes what would make you accept premise 1?

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'd be cool with evidence, but that so far seems notable by its absence.

[EvieTheAvocado]

Oh, if I accepted premise 1 of the OP I would DEFINITELY believe in some sort of god.

The question then becomes what would make you accept premise 1?

Indeed, it begs the question, as previously noted back at post #13 of this very thread:

By the way, I'm aware that my first premise begs the question ... but I have no idea what could possibly convince me of premise 1.

That, indeed, is not something that I know the answer to.

But, in all fairness, I ultimately don't know what would cause myself to change my belief on any matter (I can only hope that when I do change my mind that it's for rational reasons)! It's easy to come up with a post hoc justification, or rationalization, after the fact, when one's mind is changed, and say to yourself: "That's what caused me to change my mind." But what caused that? And what caused the cause of that? And so on. There is always question-begging left over, at the end of it all.



Wait, but if (1) Beliefs cause our actions:



... and if (2) We ultimately don't know the cause of our beliefs, nor should we, because "ought" implies "can":



... then does this mean that I am saying that (3) We ultimately have absolutely no idea why we ever take any action at all? And we're kidding ourselves to think otherwise?




...Yes.

But, the highest form of freedom paradoxically comes from the understanding that you're not actually as free as you think:

[Claywise]

I think it was Asimov who famously said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."  

It was Arthur C. Clarke, actually, Asimov's good friend.

Clarke formulated the following three laws:

1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
   
   
2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
   
   
3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. 
   

[Gwaithmir]

What would it take? Let that god move the needle on my Yo, God! God Detector.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Yo,+God!...80&dpr=1.5

[Smercury44]

What would it take? Let that god move the needle on my Yo, God! God Detector.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Yo,+God!...80&dpr=1.5

I think I’d quite like one of those

[WhiskeyDebates]

Evie, God doesn't appear to anyone - he reveals himself in veils, and so if you don't trust the veil, and can't see the noble trustworthiness of it, there is no way to know if it's God talking to you or a Jinn.

Considering that neither of those things is real it's actually really easy to tell who is talking to you. It's yourself.

Prophets because of their truthful nature

BAHAHAHAHA are you fuckin' serious mate? "Truthful nature", should I go through and list al the hugely unethical actions of the so-called prophets of history? Tell me what's your opinion on first cousin incest or pedophilia? Big fan?

can asses who is a true Angel,

Angels are not real.

but people can't know they are truthful or the Angels are just by themselves, revelations beyond capability of humans as well as miracles that show a majestic power only God would create and trust with such power, are needed.

That's a whole bunch of words that say nothing of worth.

The miracle

The fact that a man, or a group of men, wrote a book that is in terms of its content and knowledge entirely in lockstep with the knowledge and views of the time it was written is not a miracle, nor is the truth of something dependent on its eloquence. Also, miracles are not a thing, grow up.

although it's eloquence is going to be beyond human eloquence that is true,

Prove it. This is such nonsense, I've read Wordsworth and whatever parables or platitudes found in your text are not only not "beyond human eloquence" they have already been outmatched and bettered by any number of people throughout history by degrees of magnitude. There is no eloquence in existence to make the barbarism and cruelty found throughout that text palatable nor desirable. It is not a book worthy of adoration or emulation, no matter how pretty you find the damn words.

but to see it's eloquence, you have to understand it's guidance and insights and how all the verses hold on to one another and bring new stages and heights of understanding and perception that you never thought possible in your mind, you never thought the book would be this. Every new level is beyond expectation.

Look bud literally every religious motherfucker says the exact same thing about their book, to the point where your claims to being special are so common they are the norm. Also if you had something special do explain why everywhere that book goes where it's adherents claim the majority that nation becomes among the most barbaric, regressive, authoritarian, oppressive nations on earth? In the modern age, its strictures and it's adherents create, almost universally, some of the single worst places to live on the planet especially for women, homosexuals, and children.

History is, among other things, a battle of competing ideas and your ideas (or more accurately the ideas you advocate for) have produced a demonstrably worse result. How is that possible if your book is so enlightened and beyond anything produced by mortal men?

Speech and truthfulness are linked, in that, you can prove yourself trustworthy by speech, and God is most truthful and sincere.

You can also hide maliciousness, stupidity, and foolishness behind speech, in fact, it's common. As you so aptly demonstrated.

[SYZ]

You can also hide maliciousness, stupidity, and foolishness behind speech, in fact, it's common. As you so aptly demonstrated.

Short side note...  MysticKnight    departed these shores a month ago.    

[Gwaithmir]

What would it take? Let that god move the needle on my Yo, God! God Detector.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Yo,+God!...80&dpr=1.5

I think I’d quite like one of those

Unfortunately, the website doesn't work anymore. I think they went out of business. I bought a couple of the basic detectors, but that was well over ten years ago. No movement on either detector in all that time. It's a great gadget for stupefying Jehovah's Witnesses.

[Cheerful Charlie]

To believe in a morally perfect personal God/creator of the universe I would have to accept the following premises:

(1) A grand intelligence at the beginning of reality is not less plausible than an absence of a grand intelligence at the beginning of reality.

(2) "Divine Command Theory" is true.

(3) Utilitarianism is true.

(4) "The Utility Monster" thought experiment is not repugnant.

However, I do not accept any of these premises.



To believe in an impersonal God/creator of the universe I would have to accept the following premise:

(1) A grand intelligence at the beginning of reality is not less plausible than an absence of a grand intelligence at the beginning of reality.

However, I do not accept this premise.



What about you, my fellow atheists? What would it take you to believe in a personal God (non-deistic non-pantheistic theism)? And what would it take you to believe in an impersonal God (deistic or pantheistic theism)?

And, non-deistic and non-pantheistic theists, what would it take you to become a deist? What would it take you to become a pantheist?

And deists, what would it take you to become a pantheist? And pantheists what would it take you to become a deist?

And deists and pantheists ... what it would it take you to believe in a personal, non-deistic and non-pantheistic God/creator of the universe?

I look forward to the responses!

I need hard evidence to believe in some sort of God. I need evidence that there is indeed a God of any sort.  I need evidence that any God that is supposedly an intelligent being that is not made of matter is in fact possible and is indeed existent.
Most theists claim there is a supernatural realm.  I need hard good evidence for that claim.  The God exists as a supernatural being.  I need hard good evidence.  Omnipotence?  Hard evidence.  Omniscience?  Hard evidence.

I am a metaphysical naturalist. I experience only a natural Universe.  I refuse to accept any a priori claim that has absolutely no supporting evidence for that claim.

The basic claims for God create too many contradictions, problems and incoherent claims for me to entertain the idea that they are true in any way.

As to God and metaphysics, we have three things to consider.
A.  A priori claims, essentially axioms.  That approach prove nothing except imagination run wild.
B.  Revelation.  Revelation does not prove anything.  Revelations are claims that need evidence to support that they are true              claims and not false claims.
C.   Empiricism.  Observation and experimentation to achieve knowledge.  This works well but religion cannot find a way to                   achieve evidence for its claims by starting from naturalism to theology's more esoteric claims.

In the end, we have no sort of evidence for God and related a priori claims.  and the claims made for God soon create problems, the problem of evil, free will and omniscience and other problems.

The burden of proof is on theology and that has not been met.  I don't do the disproove Russellian teapots nonsense.

[EvieTheAvocado]

Most theists claim there is a supernatural realm.  I need hard good evidence for that claim.

The problem with that need is that it seems that the supernatural realm is something that there in principle can't be evidence of.

[Grandizer]

Just have faith.