Whats The Definition Of "Believe"?

[Subfallen]

Isn't asking about belief in God futility itself until we've decided on a definition of "God?"

IMO just the five participants in the other thread (vhawk, PTB, godBoy, chezLaw, MidGe) would have trouble agreeing on a common definition that captures all the essential qualities of their preferred individual definitions. Not the least because godBoy is a Christian (in some sense.)

[godBoy]

I'm happy with Dawkins' definition of God.

There exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm happy with Dawkins' definition of God.

There exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's hardly the Christian God. But, you may not be a Christian in the dogmatic sense. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] And then we don't have any problems anyways.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm happy with Dawkins' definition of God.

There exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey godboy, I have no longer any arguments with you, since your god is possibly neither benevolent, nor omnipotent. nor personal. I greatly misunderstood your position in my arguments with you. Sorry.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey godboy, I have no longer any arguments with you, since your god is possibly neither benevolent, nor omnipotent. nor personal. I greatly misunderstood your position in my arguments with you. Sorry.


[/ QUOTE ]

Please say it ain't so. The great Godboy, Midge debates have sustained me, entertainment wise, for, well, maybe a year.

[TheEkim]

Belief is a state of conviction. You have to "know" something is true to believe it.
Its a term used to describe certainty and this is why beliefs can be a bad thing, any dogmatic thinking that leads to people refusing to accept alternate viewpoints or consider new information is a negative thing IMO.
It would be nice if people could ascribe to religious theories or philosophy rooted in faith rather then dogmatic sets of belief but I think it will be a long time before we see this type of shift.

[Siegmund]

I would define believe as "accept as truth," with an implied undertone of "...without proof it actually is the truth."

One can believe there's a 70% chance that Jesus was resurrected, but that's something very different than believing Jesus was resurrected.

Its one of the things the Bayesians do quite well - identifying situations where some degree of belief is required, and forcing you to make some assessment of what your beliefs are before they'll give you odds of anything. Not saying they have all the answers - but I think the idea of a prior sums up the idea of belief well.... operating from there onward as if something were true (perhaps retaining some awareness that it may not be - but usually you have committed to not revisiting that assumption anytime soon.)

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
I have no longer any arguments with you, since your god is possibly neither benevolent, nor omnipotent. nor personal.

[/ QUOTE ]
Would you like me to give you God's weight and favorite food also?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have no longer any arguments with you, since your god is possibly neither benevolent, nor omnipotent. nor personal.

[/ QUOTE ]
Would you like me to give you God's weight and favorite food also?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea... But I do know that a benevolent, personal and omnipotent god is totally denying or at odds with existence as it is, so it cannot be.

As far as weight is concerned I would expect it to be very lightweight to no weight at all, in every meaning of the word! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] As far as favorite food I would not even hazard a guess, could be dependent on its digestive system if he has one! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]