Do you believe in a supernatural creator, God or gods of any sort?

[JFRobot]

I personally do not believe the isn't evidence for God. i just believe that Atheists refuse to see it as such.

[Interbane]

I personally do not believe the isn't evidence for God. i just believe that Atheists refuse to see it as such.

The refusal, at least for myself, isn't an emotional one. I don't refuse on a whim.

I have never heard of or found a single piece of evidence that supports the idea of a god. That is not my fault JFR. For the longest time while I was straddling the fence in the Air Force over this issue, I absorbed as much philosophy and epistemology as I could soak in. I gained a good sense of how we acquire knowledge, and what the best methods are for arriving at the truth. There is simply no evidence for god that passes any test, and after enough conversation I'm sure you'd agree as well(it may take years). Barring another Stahrwe, who was hopelessly lost in his world of words.

Any conversation about god is worthless until we gain a much greater understanding of epistemology. When a massive percentage of humanity uses fallacy to support their position, the point sinks in. We are not well equipped to arrive at the truth. Left to our own devices, we'll follow all the wrong heuristics, and never turn a critical eye to the foundations of our beliefs.

I've examined the foundations of my beliefs, and I have a good handle on the conceptual definition of "evidence". If you're going to play the expert here, at least be open to discussion about it. Even if it's uncomfortable for you. I'm pretty sure the fault lies in how you define evidence, and is not a pseudo-skeptical stance by your opponents.

[jaywalker]

If this has been said already-forgive me. ''We are all Atheists, it's just that I believe in one god less than you.''

[johnson1010]

I don't refuse to see evidence for god, i just acknowledge all the other explanations for that evidence and realize it doesn't HAVE to be god.

When other more reasonable explanations exist, which all involve perfectly ordinary, readily observed phenomena, why should i credit a magical jinn as the cause?

[Doulos]

I don't refuse to see evidence for god, i just acknowledge all the other explanations for that evidence and realize it doesn't HAVE to be god.

When other more reasonable explanations exist, which all involve perfectly ordinary, readily observed phenomena, why should i credit a magical jinn as the cause?

Absolutely.

The only answer would be if you were certain that other reasonable explanations failed to adequately explain the phenomena. It might help if you didn't presuppose the answer as being "magical jinn" however, since that would not accurately portray the God of the Bible.

[Interbane]

The only answer would be if you were certain that other reasonable explanations failed to adequately explain the phenomena.

Even in this instance, it's not justified. Argumentum ad ignorantum. No answer should be accepted by 'default', or as a last resort. The proposition or belief must still be supported by sound evidence and reasoning.

Johnson's comment means something slightly different. The crux is what the evidence points at. So much of what people believe is evidence for god is instead evidence for something entirely different, or simply doesn't support the conclusion.

[Robert Tulip]

The trouble with God is that the explanation as psychological projection explains the phenomena far better than the explanation as supernatural entity. We have abundant evidence for people believing things that they wish to be true which in fact turn out to be imaginary. We have no evidence for anything that cannot be explained in agreement with the laws of physics. For God, the only reason to believe is that people find it a comforting story.

[Penelope]

robert wrote:

We have no evidence for anything that cannot be explained in agreement with the laws of physics. For God, the only reason to believe is that people find it a comforting story.

OOoooh, this is the man who called me a pompous pom. Well, pot, kettle and black!

Many people are just not interested either way.

For those of us to whom it is vital, if we surmise that there might be a God, because it certainly is more comforting to think that there is, then we need to have enough evidence to support our belief system to keep us believing for a lifetime. We only seem to get enough evidence for that on a daily basis. If I pray for faith to last six weeks, I get nothing to support it. But daily, I get enough to convince me. This doesn't make me a better or worse person. In fact, it makes me stupid in many peoples' eyes. So be it.

Bearing in mind that I reject the petulant and vengeful, 'personified' God of the Bible and adopt the Brahma idea of the Hindu faith. In that everything is a manifestation of the spirit of God, including mankind. We, as human beings are self-aware and so we can become more and more aware of our source and more an more in tune with the vibration or wave which is manifesting our world. It is a belief, with some evidence, that we are spiritual beings more than corporal. Oh dear, it does sound pompous!

[Robert Tulip]

kettle and black!

Attunement to spiritual vibrations is one thing; belief in a supernatural entity is another. There is no question that spiritual feeling is real, and it is often a good and comforting thing, of much solace to the lonely and distressed. But that does not mean God is real. Other than the sort of neo-Buddhist atheist God which you believe in Penelope, it is all just imaginary friends.

Even Einstein believed in a pantheist spirituality, despite being a total atheist.

It is even possible to hold a metaphysical conversation about love and grace without believing in an intentional personal God.

[Kevin]

robert wrote:We have no evidence for anything that cannot be explained in agreement with the laws of physics. For God, the only reason to believe is that people find it a comforting story.

Mr. Tulip, why is there matter at all? I'm guessing you have an answer, (a simple one hopefully) and I'm not going to argue it regardless of my view of it... I'm just curious at this moment, that's all.