God and the supernatural have no objective existence...

[Maeght]

They may never have sensed God.......

SO not god-dodging then?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

SO not god-dodging then?

I think I've said there may be those who are not conscious of having sensed God, and I have suggested there are those who feel a pressure from God who honestly can't rationalise away their feelings(Nagel) and I have met people who have dodged God and admit it(former atheists and agnostic. There is the famous prayer, "make me a Christian lord, but not yet".

Of those who say that haven't sensed God... how do the know?
Do they know what a sense of God is?

[Maeght]

I think I've said there may be those who are not conscious of having sensed God, and I have suggested there are those who feel a pressure from God who honestly can't rationalise away their feelings(Nagel) and I have met people who have dodged God and admit it(former atheists and agnostic. There is the famous prayer, "make me a Christian lord, but not yet".

Of those who say that haven't sensed God... how do the know?
Do they know what a sense of God is?

You said they hadn't sensed God so how do you know that? How do people who claim to have sensed God know they have?

Never heard that prayer. Have heard of 'Lord, make me chaste (sexually pure) – but not yet!' which is somewhat different. Anyone praying to 'the Lord' is not an atheist.

[Nearly Sane]

You said they hadn't sensed God so how do you know that? How do people who claim to have sensed God know they have?

Never heard that prayer. Have heard of 'Lord, make me chaste (sexually pure) – but not yet!' which is somewhat different. Anyone praying to 'the Lord' is not an atheist.

For context

https://www.papertrell.com/apps/preview/The-Handy-Philosophy-Answer-Book/Handy%20Answer%20book/What-did-St-Augustine-mean-when-he-said-Please-God-make-me-g/001137013/content/SC/52caff5682fad14abfa5c2e0_Default.html

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You said they hadn't sensed God so how do you know that? How do people who claim to have sensed God know they have?

Never heard that prayer. Have heard of 'Lord, make me chaste (sexually pure) – but not yet!' which is somewhat different. Anyone praying to 'the Lord' is not an atheist.

I shall resist the temptation to be smart and say "Spot the no true atheist" argument.
I'm sure nobody prays to God, if they can help it. Just like nobody fears God will judge them(Krauss) or nobody actively and for reasons they can't explain fear God (Nagel), if they can help it

I think it was the English cleric and evangelist David Watson who, prior to his christianity and theism prayed 'experimentally' which I guess was his freedom as an agnostic.

[Maeght]

I shall resist the temptation to be smart and say "Spot the no true atheist" argument.
I'm sure nobody prays to God, if they can help it. Just like nobody fears God will judge them(Krauss) or nobody actively and for reasons they can't explain fear God (Nagel).

I think it was the English cleric and evangelist David Watson who, prior to his christianity and theism prayed 'experimentally' which I guess was his freedom as an agnostic.

How can someone pray to something they don't believe exists? The dictionary definition of prayer is 'a solemn request for help or expression of thanks addressed to God or another deity.' Unless you are using the word prayer differently.

I doubt God would be fooled by someone praying who didn't actually have a belief in him 'just in case'.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I think I've said there may be those who are not conscious of having sensed God,…

And I think I've said there may be those who are not “conscious” of having sensed leprechauns either. So what though?

…and I have suggested there are those who feel a pressure from God who honestly can't rationalise away their feelings(Nagel)

Fallacy of reification. If you want to assert a god engaged in pressuring, then you need to demonstrate this supposed god’s existence a priori.   

…and I have met people who have dodged God and admit it(former atheists and agnostic.

No you haven’t. You may have met people who believed there to be one or more gods and avoided the implications of that, but you have no argument to suggest that the belief was well founded. 

There is the famous prayer, "make me a Christian lord, but not yet".

Or a muslim. Or a leprechaunist. So?

Of those who say that haven't sensed God... how do the know?
Do they know what a sense of God is?

How do you know that you haven’t sensed leprechauns? Do you know what a sense of leprechauns is?

You might want to trouble yourself with establishing your premise “God” before worrying about whether people have “sensed” this conjecture. You know - the claim you attempt to justify with crap arguments, and then run away from when their crapness is explained to you so you can repeat the same crap arguments later on, presumably in the hope that no-one notices.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How can someone pray to something they don't believe exists? The dictionary definition of prayer is 'a solemn request for help or expression of thanks addressed to God or another deity.' Unless you are using the word prayer differently.

I doubt God would be fooled by someone praying who didn't actually have a belief in him 'just in case'.

An agnostic doesn't know that there isn't anything with which to message, so has nothing stopping them sending a message or requesting a response.
I know people who for a short time at least admit to dodging  the response.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

An agnostic doesn't know that there isn't anything with which to message, so has nothing stopping them sending a message or requesting a response.

That's not what "agnostic" means.

I know people who for a short time at least admit to dodging  the response.

No you don't. They may have "dodged" what they believed to be a "response," but that's all.   

[Maeght]

An agnostic doesn't know that there isn't anything with which to message, so has nothing stopping them sending a message or requesting a response.
I know people who for a short time at least admit to dodging  the response.

You can't, in my opinion, genuinely send a message to something you don't believe in.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

That's not what "agnostic" means.

OK, then I may not be talking about people who don't know there is a God and think they cannot know and that the same goes for everybody. A commitment to which might prevent speculative attempts to communicate with God....But I am talking about people who don't know if God exists at all and that lack of knowledge gives them freedom to send a speculative message to God....A kind of spiritual SETI if you will.

No you don't. They may have "dodged" what they believed to be a "response," but that's all.

That sounds like a positive assertion, Hillside... You know what you have to do.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You can't, in my opinion, genuinely send a message to something you don't believe in.

Not sure that's so, unless you have a commitment to that disbelief.

Take SETI as an example, You may not know if there is extra terrestrial life, you may not even believe it, but that doesn't have to prevent you from being the one sending the message out.

I can see that someone committed to ignorance on the matter might refuse to.

I might add that there are those who say we should not be sending messages into space because we might not like the response.

The parallels with making or not making an attempt to communication with God are obvious IMHO.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As far as I can see they are all fictional characters

I think you'd have to evidence to yourself that someone invented God rather than God being real and subsequently makes appearances in fictional works

that are portrayed as having magical properties: they can certainly be portrayed as such, and Gandalf is another example: but as far as I can see though there are no grounds to take any of them seriously, but of course I doubt that many do is the cases of Leprechauns, the Tooth Fairy and Gandalf - that some take 'God' seriously is a puzzler to me.

Magical? I do not think Fairies and Leprechauns don't exist primarily because they do magic but because beings matching their physical description have not been verified when being physical they should be.

It seems to me a universe popping out of nothing fits the term magic as does cosmic perpetual motion, infinite universes (evidence!?)and yet these are calmly suggested.

[Gordon]

But I am talking about people who don't know if God exists at all and that lack of knowledge gives them freedom to send a speculative message to God....A kind of spiritual SETI if you will.

You make it sound like going fishing.

You may know that there are such things as fish, and you speculatively go fishing in a particular river in the hope of catching some, and even though you may not catch any on that occasion your knowledge that there are indeed such things as fish in rivers remains secure. You know for sure that there is intelligent (in some but not all cases) life on this wee planet, so casting some bait in the hope of a bite from elsewhere in the universe may be equally speculative, but this speculation is grounded by the knowledge there there is life on at least one planet - so worth a cast, even if nothing bites.

However, 'God' is not an item of knowledge in the same way that there are fish is an item of knowledge: some may say that 'God' is unknowable, and others may say that the claim is a meaningless fantasy, and in either of these cases taking the trouble of sending a message in the hope that something bites seems pointless - a bit like going fishing on a water-free concrete roof. If, however, some do believe that 'God' is an item of knowledge, and that it reacted to their bait and they caught something, then they should be able to offer the fish they've caught for inspection, but they never do!

PS I have never been fishing in my life, and have no intention of ever doing so. But I do seem to recall that 'fishing' does loom large in some Christian anecdotes, so I thought I'd dip a toe in the water.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You make it sound like going fishing.

You may know that there are such things as fish, and you speculatively go fishing in a particular river in the hope of catching some, and even though you may not catch any on that occasion your knowledge that there are indeed such things as fish in rivers remains secure. You know for sure that there is intelligent (in some but not all cases) life on this wee planet, so casting some bait in the hope of a bite from elsewhere in the universe may be equally speculative, but this speculation is grounded by the knowledge there there is life on at least one planet - so worth a cast, even if nothing bites.

However, 'God' is not an item of knowledge in the same way that there are fish is an item of knowledge: some may say that 'God' is unknowable, and others may say that the claim is a meaningless fantasy, and in either of these cases taking the trouble of sending a message in the hope that something bites seems pointless - a bit like going fishing on a water-free concrete roof. If, however, some do believe that 'God' is an item of knowledge, and that it reacted to their bait and they caught something, then they should be able to offer the fish they've caught for inspection, but they never do!

PS I have never been fishing in my life, and have no intention of ever doing so. But I do seem to recall that 'fishing' does loom large in some Christian anecdotes, so I thought I'd dip a toe in the water.

SETI is of course an analogy and yet you are right to remind us that the search for something we are generally agnostic about has to be seen in the round.
There are people who don’t think enough resources are given to it and there are those who think oto much is invested. And then there are those who say all right we will indulge this but we will only go at it half heartedly. And these attitudes prevail in the search for God.
It also reminds me that not seeking probably increases the chance of not finding, that we carry on or give up, that it may be, if we are looking for something like an intelligence they can choose if, when and who they reveal themselves to.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Professor Davey wrote

But why would you see this in one direction only - in other words atheists coming to realise they actually do believe in god.

Who saying I do? I think people do go from belief to unbelief but it’s worth considering when and why that happens. As I understand it, for an agnostic atheist there is never a time when they don’t believe that God is possible. How being utterly convicted that there is no God, I don’t know how that works

\
Nope - it most certainly cuts both ways Vlad. I know, because my journey was exactly the opposite.

I (and you Vlad, I guess) were brought up within a world where the default orthodoxy was that god existed. And so as a child and into early adulthood my assumption was the same - my conscious told me that god must exist because it was presumed/assumed by society that god existed. Actually I occasionally pushed myself into activities that tried to cement that 'orthodoxy', specifically church youth groups and other activities that were close to (but not fully) active worship.

Could it not be said then that you were letting society do your believing? I’m not sure when I was a child I had such a structured sociology and accompanying vocabulary. It certainly never struck me on the way back from the sweet shop that “The default orthodoxy of the world was that God existed”. I rocked up at Sunday school until I gave that up at a very early age except for the Christmas party and the day trips to Wicksteed amusement park. I can recall being fascinated by concepts like immortal, invisible, light inaccessible but sadly, trying to retroactively inject spiritual significance, I’m confronted with having been a young fan of Doctor Who where such concepts were staple.

But then I came to recognise that I try as I might to 'pretend' to believe that god existed, when I let my inner thoughts through it was clear that I did not believe in god and had never really believed in god. Which is why I describe my 'conversion' (not that it was that) as coming to recognise that I was atheist, not as becoming atheist (because I always was although for a while I tried not to let myself accept this).

I’m not sure I reached your heights of, what am I to call it? False belief, but then I cannot say I disbelieved it either. I was probably in the “there is probably something greater” camp.

So while you bang on about 'god dodging' (which is predicated on a presumption that god exists) I was most definitely 'atheism dodging' for a time in my life - and unlike god there is no doubt that atheism actually exists.

Now wait a minute, God dodging was a behaviour I had observed as a child in being told never to speak about politics and religion and the removal and tidying up of the articles of religion left by a zealous uncle, and of course the families I knew who avoided church on a Sunday and every other day of the year.

As for atheism dodging, iI thought atheism was merely the lack of belief rather than an actual thing.

[Nearly Sane]

SETI is of course an analogy and yet you are right to remind us that the search for something we are generally agnostic about has to be seen in the round.
There are people who don’t think enough resources are given to it and there are those who think oto much is invested. And then there are those who say all right we will indulge this but we will only go at it half heartedly. And these attitudes prevail in the search for God.
It also reminds me that not seeking probably increases the chance of not finding, that we carry on or give up, that it may be, if we are looking for something like an intelligence they can choose if, when and who they reveal themselves to.

None of which deals with the idea that we 'kniw' life exists but not 'god(s)'.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

None of which deals with the idea that we 'kniw' life exists but not 'god(s)'.

So why bother with SETI if we know that?
The clue is in the title. The Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence which we don't know.
Why turn off this innate curiosity about intelligence just because God is involved?

[Nearly Sane]

So why bother with SETI if we know that?
The clue is in the title. The Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence which we don't know.
Why turn off this innate curiosity about intelligence just because God is involved?

And? We kno intelligence exists as in life. God is not a similar claim, especially given your other claim that God is not observable. As usual your position is riddled with inconsistencies and bad thinking.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And? We kno intelligence exists as in life. God is not a similar claim, especially given your other claim that God is not observable. As usual your position is riddled with inconsistencies and bad thinking.

I'm not trying to stretch the metaphor/analogy as far as you are. I just said that the approaches and attitudes in a matter of agnosticism in something are similar e.g. There are some who seek, and some who don't want to make the effort and those who don't make the effort because they are frightened of getting a response.
Knowing there is life and intelligence here apparently doesn't in itself answer the question of whether it is elsewhere does it?

[Nearly Sane]

I'm not trying to stretch the metaphor/analogy as far as you are. I just said that the approaches and attitudes in a matter of agnosticism in something are similar e.g. There are some who seek, and some who don't want to make the effort and those who don't make the effort because they are frightened of getting a response.
Knowing there is life and intelligence here apparently doesn't in itself answer the question of whether it is elsewhere does it?

But that' s a huge difference with a claim that something exists which is not shown to exist, and which you say is not observable. Your approach on this is based on the begging the question of God's existence.

[Enki]

So why bother with SETI if we know that?
The clue is in the title. The Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence which we don't know.
Why turn off this innate curiosity about intelligence just because God is involved?

Actually an equivalent comparison would be that we have evidence that one god exists, so why not try to seek evidence that more gods exist. Unfortunately, as we have no evidence that any god exists, your comparison with SETI is dead in the water.

Or, another way of putting it is that the essential prerequisite is to provide evidence that at least one god exists and, so far, that has failed miserably. Whereas SETI is based on the uncontroversial evidence that life exists here and therefore it is at least possible that life exists elsewhere.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Actually an equivalent comparison would be that we have evidence that one god exists, so why not try to seek evidence that more gods exist. Unfortunately, as we have no evidence that any god exists, your comparison with SETI is dead in the water.

Or, another way of putting it is that the essential prerequisite is to provide evidence that at least one god exists and, so far, that has failed miserably. Whereas SETI is based on the uncontroversial evidence that life exists here and therefore it is at least possible that life exists elsewhere.

The aim of naturalism and empiricism is to show evidence that the universe doesn't need anything else but itself for it's existence if they are to go up against theism, so so much for evidence.
It is possible that intelligent life exists elsewhere but where is the evidence?
Again the purpose of the analogy is to outline possible routes for the agnostic,including....
Laissez faire, curiosity, finding out,  committed agnosticism, not wanting to find out for fear of what the consequence could be.

[Gordon]

The aim of naturalism and empiricism is to show evidence that the universe doesn't need anything else but itself for it's existence if they are to go up against theism, so so much for evidence.

Nope - the 'aim' just to gather and present evidence, and from that pose provisional explanations that maybe revised should other evidence come to light. Theism is irrelevant, since it ain't naturalistic as things stand.

It is possible that intelligent life exists elsewhere but where is the evidence?

There is none, to date.

Again the purpose of the analogy is to outline possible routes for the agnostic
Laissez faire, curiosity, finding out,  committed agnosticism, not wanting to find out for fear of what the consequence could be.

Then your analogy is fundamentally flawed since 'extant life' and 'supernatural agency' are clearly different things, and where the latter has no supporting evidence. As such there is nothing to 'fear'.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope - the 'aim' just to gather and present evidence, and from that pose provisional explanations that maybe revised should other evidence come to light. Theism is relevant, since it ain't naturalistic as things stand.

There is none, to date.

Then your analogy is fundamentally flawed since 'extant life' and 'supernatural agency' are clearly different things, and where the latter has no supporting evidence. As such there is nothing to 'fear'.

My analogy is about the pathway open to the agnostic.