I am a theist

Originally posted by Agerg
When I say "require" in the sense that I did I mean that given two possible choices: A or B; in order to make a coherent account of some scenario or resolution to a problem; if one chooses A then so long as this person makes a rational choice, it was deemed by this person A be better fit than B (unless it was a 50-50 choice). In this sense, their views require A in order to gel properly (from their perspective of course).

What "scenario" am I in? What "problem" needs to be resolved? Is it right to assume we "choose" to have a 'sense' of something? If the existence of God has no implications, then what is it about it that is likely to "fit" or "not fit"? I don't see that I have ever suggested that my theism makes anything "gel"?

Originally posted by John W Booth
What "scenario" am I in? What "problem" needs to be resolved? Is it right to assume we "choose" to have a 'sense' of something? If the existence of God has no implications, then what is it about it that is likely to "fit" or "not fit"? I don't see that I have ever suggested that my theism makes anything "gel"?

You seem to have decided the universe makes more sense if you introduce some sort of god. The problem solved in this case is a nonsensical universe without this notion.

Were this not the case then you would have no need to invoke the idea of god, you would have no need to explicitly state that you are a theist...unless of course you just randomly subscribe to the idea of a god because it seems like a "cool thing to do" for no other reason than that.

Originally posted by Agerg
But failing to introduce god (whatever it is) into your worldview would induce a discrepancy somewhere, otherwise you would have had no need to invoke such a thing. I'm interested in what the discrepancies are which are solved by inserting "god"

I am not aware of any discrepancies. Indeed I have admitted that if I didn't have my 'sense' that God exists, it wouldn't make any difference, as far as I know.

But failing to introduce god (whatever it is) into your worldview would induce a discrepancy somewhere

I think that saying I have introduced God into my worldview is rather overstating it. I have no reason to believe that God has any impact on the comings and goings of the world and all its human inhabitants. My worldview doesn't factor God in at all. It factors religion in, but not God.

Originally posted by Agerg
You seem to have decided the universe makes more sense if you introduce some sort of god. The problem solved in this case is a nonsensical universe without this notion.

I have been using the word 'sense' to mean 'feeling' not 'sense' as in logic.

unless of course you just randomly subscribe to the idea of a god because it seems like a "cool thing to do" for no other reason than that.

This is either tongue in cheek or it's a sign that I irritated you in some way.

Originally posted by Agerg
Were this not the case then you would have no need to invoke the idea of god, you would have no need to explicitly state that you are a theist

Are you suggesting that someone with my belief system should not explicitly state that I am a theist?

Originally posted by John W Booth
I have been using the word 'sense' to mean 'feeling' not 'sense' as in logic.

[b]unless of course you just randomly subscribe to the idea of a god because it seems like a "cool thing to do" for no other reason than that.

This is either tongue in cheek or it's a sign that I irritated you in some way.[/b]

tongue in cheek (and allowing for the possibility, for want of a different way of stating it, this is actually the case).

Indeed, given that you claim (in so many words) introducing god adds nothing to your worldview, your "picture" of the universe, your sense of how things should work, etc...; what would compel you to invoke this notion if it isn't some random whim?

Originally posted by John W Booth
Are you suggesting that someone with my belief system should not explicitly state that I am a theist?

If I randomly decide that the 198634562618472th prime number is my favourite for no other reason than 198634562618472 is what I randomly typed before "th"; what do I have to gain from making a thread saying it's my favourite prime? (in some forum where prime numbers are discussed)

Originally posted by Agerg
Indeed, given that you claim (in so many words) introducing god adds nothing to your worldview, your "picture" of the universe, your sense of how things should work, etc...; what would compel you to invoke this notion if it isn't some random whim?

I suppose I am fed up to the back teeth of how fellow theists - such as vishvahetu and robbie carrobie, to pick just two - like afficiandos at a Tolkein seminar - smother this forum with their "worldview, [their] "picture" of the universe, [their] sense of how things should work, according to "instructions" from God, which constitute the very "meaning of life" - schtick, giving the impression that all theists sleep, wake and bathe in their red pantaloons. Well I am a theist too, and I don't care what twhitehead says, I am different from them. This Spirituality Forum seemed like the only approporiate place on this chess web site to "invoke this notion".

Originally posted by Agerg
If I randomly decide that the 198634562618472th prime number is my favourite for no other reason than 198634562618472 is what I randomly typed before "th"; what do I have to gain from making a thread saying it's my favourite prime? (in some forum where prime numbers are discussed)

Try it and see.

Meanwhile, with my "I am a theist" OP, I may have both theists and atheists, to a certain degree (albeit only a few), thinking that I am THIS close to being on their team.

I look forward to seeing if the thread called "198634562618472th prime number is my favourite prime number" puts you in the middle of anything! 😛🙂

Originally posted by John W Booth
Try it and see.

Meanwhile, with my "I am a theist" OP, I may have [b]both theists and atheists, to a certain degree (albeit only a few), thinking that I am THIS close to being on their team.

I look forward to seeing if the thread called "198634562618472th prime number is my favourite prime number" puts you in the middle of anything! 😛🙂[/b]

I somehow doubt such a thread would garner any result other than facepalms!

What I'm essentially saying is that given your introduction of "God" does nothing to give you any tangible degree of closure to your "feeling" about how this universe (et al.) should work, then I struggle to see how you could hold any belief about it's existence. If without considering god, there is no void with respect to your impression of how things should be, then why the needless baggage?

Originally posted by Agerg
If without considering god, there is no void with respect to your impression of how things should be, then why the needless baggage?

If I start coming to terms with death by telling myself that I am going to live forever, or that God is watching over everyone's sex life, or that cheap sherry and little white wafers can and do transubstantiate into the body and blood of God's child, or that failure to accept the Vedas is - medically speaking - akin to having syphilis, then we will talk about "needless baggage". As far as I am concerned I am not currently carrying any around.

Originally posted by John W Booth
If I start coming to terms with death by telling myself that I am going to live forever, or that God is watching over everyone's sex life, or that cheap sherry and little white wafers can and do transubstantiate into the body and blood of God's child, or that failure to accept the Vedas is - medically speaking - akin to having syphilis, then we w ...[text shortened]... k about "needless baggage". As far as I am concerned I am not currently carrying any around.

We seem to have established your worldview would be completely fine if we subtracted god. It is therefore an unnecessary inclusion.

Originally posted by Agerg
We seem to have established your worldview would be completely fine if we subtracted god. It is therefore an unnecessary inclusion.

Well obviously you believe that, being an atheist. All the more so because I make no case for its "necessity", something you appear to think is key. I didn't "include" it consciously, mind you. It is a 'sense' that I have. I am interested as to how, in practical terms, you think that I might be encumbered in any way by it [i.e. your comparing it to "baggage"]. Can you speculate and mention, say, three specific, contrasting encumbrances that it might cause in my life?

Originally posted by John W Booth
Well obviously you believe that, being an atheist. All the more so because I make no case for its "necessity", something you appear to think is key. I didn't "include" it consciously, mind you. It is a 'sense' that I have. I am interested as to how, in practical terms, you think that I might be encumbered in any way by it [i.e. your comparing it to "bag ...[text shortened]... mention, say, three specific, contrasting encumbrances that it might cause in my life?

I need (and will) only suggest one encumbrance: inefficiency
You could do just fine and dandy without the idea of god; adding it merely complicates things (however small this complication is it has greater than zero weight)

Originally posted by John W Booth
I don't indulge in metaphysical speculation about the nature of the God I sense. All the metaphysical speculation I have across - along with all the theology, superstition, worship, codes of behaviour, prophecies attendant thereto - has struck me as unfouned and, more often than not, peculiarly specific and almost peversely far-fetched.

As for claim ...[text shortened]... and the 'red pantaloons' (I mentioned earlier) and nothing much else.

Thanks. I think (contra my old friends twhitehead and Agerg?) that “intuition” (if I can use that word for having such “a sense” of something) is valid. We tend to focus on reason in these threads, but intuition is also a cognitive function, and one that I suspect has as much to do with the survival of the species as does reasoning. It is generally “quicker”, say as an assessment of some immediate situation confronting us, than reasoning; and its “holistic” conclusions are often difficult, even after the fact, to break down into rational components.

In the case of the topic at hand, it is not a response to some immediate situation so much as a persistent “sense” of how things are (as you say, “that bubbles up to the surface from time to time”—a kind of a background sense for the general gestalt? Rather the way that we intuit the ground from the figures: we can’t perceive the figures absent some surrounding ground; but we never actually perceive the ground (at most a collective of figures: a segment of the forest, rather than a single tree—but that segment of forest still needs an implicate ground in order to be perceived).

[Intuition can be in error, of course (and you acknowledge as much); so can reasoning: our logic can be faulty, or we can be reasoning from incomplete or erroneous facts. And you clearly allow for that.]

I’m not sure that Ockham’s razor can defeat such a “sense” of how things are, especially within the kind of gestaltic framework that I’ve imposed on your thoughts (just to acknowledge that that’s my “spin”, and not necessarily yours). In order for that “efficiency” criterion to apply, I think that you’d have to make more specific epistemic claims than you are. You also do not make any metaphysical claims that might founder on the shoals of logical consistency—and I, for one, do not see your use of the “G-word” as committing you to any such metaphysical claim, since, as I noted, that word can cover an awful lot of conceptual ground, which I think that you allow.

I don’t mean to sound presumptuous: you don’t need my affirming your view, certainly, and I’m just “thinking out loud”. My sense of things is such that I wouldn’t use the “G-word”; but that’s not something that I think you really take issue with.

Good food for thought. Thanks again.