Are You Are Skeptic or In Denial?

[Kurieuo]

Many who do not believe in God think themselves just being a good skeptic. Many such persons will often say there is no evidence or proof for God's existence, you may even come across such statements in discussions.

Yet, I always immediately disagree with those who'd say there is no evidence for God. There are very good reasons, I believe good evidence and proof for God's existence - so much so I see that it is overwhelming to the point I agree with the Psalmist that only a fool would say there is no God.

So then, those who pride themselves on their skepticism when it comes to rejecting God, really I see such persons as being in denial. And often, as discussions evolve, it becomes apparent to me the person who rejects God appears to be rather heavily in denial.

Now I consider myself a skeptic, and yet I believe in God. Perhaps that sounds strange to you, if you don't believe in God. I'd question however whether you are a truly healthy skeptic or merely in denial? Watch this video. Then let us know.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrGVeB_SPJg

[Kenny]

Many who do not believe in God think themselves just being a good skeptic. Many such persons will often say there is no evidence or proof for God's existence, you may even come across such statements in discussions.

Yet, I always immediately disagree with those who'd say there is no evidence for God. There are very good reasons, I believe good evidence and proof for God's , so much so I see that it is overwhelming to the point I agree with the Psalmist that only a fool would say there is no God.

So then, those who pride themselves on their skepticism when it comes to rejecting God, really I see such persons as being in denial. And often, as discussions evolve, it becomes apparent to me the person who rejects God appears to be rather heavily in denial.

Now I consider myself a skeptic, and yet I believe in God. Perhaps that sounds strange to you, if you don't believe in God. I'd question however whether you are a truly healthy skeptic or merely in denial? Watch this video. Then let us know.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrGVeB_SPJg

I actually looked at the entire video. I usually don’t look at something that long, but when I just attempted to skim through it, I actually found it quite interesting, and looked at the whole thing.
The guy in the video made the point that skeptics are more skeptical about things they don't believe than things they already believe. This is natural; if you already believe something to be true, you are no longer skeptical, but a believer in that issue. But you should be skeptical of something that sounds unrealistic. This isn’t denial unless you choose to ignore evidence when presented to you.

The Fred from Scooby Doo was skeptical at first; perhaps even getting to the point of denial, but he eventually accepted the evidence and admitted the existence of zombies, which is how it should be.

The problem with the video guy asking Dr Shearmer about evidence needed to acknowledge God, is that there is no way to know if the advanced being IS God. How would he know this being created the Universe? Because he said so? It could be an advanced space alien lying to him trying to convince him he is God and he would have no way of knowing; or it could be God and he wouldn’t be able to distinguish him from an advanced space alien. I don't see this as denial, just a simple case of him having no way of recognizing God if he met him.

I am sure there are skeptics who are in denial as the video guy suggests, but I don’t think it applies to me, so to answer your question; I am not in denial, I am a skeptical

Ken

[Kurieuo]

I suppose a follow up question is whether someone would ever see themselves as in denial rather than possessing a healthy skepticism? It seems to me if someone would consider themselves "in denial" then they would change their position because they see their own unreasonableness and ignorance. So then, we perhaps would only ever consider ourselves a skeptic of an opposing view, and perhaps only "in denial" the moment we change positions.

[PaulSacramento]

The problem with the video guy asking Dr Shearmer about evidence needed to acknowledge God, is that there is no way to know if the advanced being IS God. How would he know this being created the Universe? Because he said so? It could be an advanced space alien lying to him trying to convince him he is God and he would have no way of knowing; or it could be God and he wouldn’t be able to distinguish him from an advanced space alien. I don't see this as denial, just a simple case of him having no way of recognizing God if he met him.

You are correct that this wouldn't be denial, unless the skeptic understood what God actually is/must be.
I think that the vast majority of skeptics do NOT know what God is/must be and have a view of God that they are comfortable with disproving.

Hence my view that the classical theist understanding of God has not ( an will not) ever be refuted.

In the above example:
There is no reason to believe that a being is God simply because they are so advanced that they can do what seems to be the impossible.
Why?
Because doing the "impossible" would simply be 1 of MANY traits that God must have.

That being would have to prove themselves to be the SOURCE AND SUSTAINER of ALL and be the ONLY ONE of it's "kind".

[Kenny]

The problem with the video guy asking Dr Shearmer about evidence needed to acknowledge God, is that there is no way to know if the advanced being IS God. How would he know this being created the Universe? Because he said so? It could be an advanced space alien lying to him trying to convince him he is God and he would have no way of knowing; or it could be God and he wouldn’t be able to distinguish him from an advanced space alien. I don't see this as denial, just a simple case of him having no way of recognizing God if he met him.

You are correct that this wouldn't be denial, unless the skeptic understood what God actually is/must be.
I think that the vast majority of skeptics do NOT know what God is/must be and have a view of God that they are comfortable with disproving.

Hence my view that the classical theist understanding of God has not ( an will not) ever be refuted.

In the above example:
There is no reason to believe that a being is God simply because they are so advanced that they can do what seems to be the impossible.
Why?
Because doing the "impossible" would simply be 1 of MANY traits that God must have.

That being would have to prove themselves to be the SOURCE AND SUSTAINER of ALL and be the ONLY ONE of it's "kind".

So getting back to the discussion on the video, If Dr Sheamer were to meet God, what method would he use to verify the person he was meeting was the SOURCE AND SUSTAINER of ALL and the ONLY ONE of its kind? How would he distinguish him from just some advanced evolved being from another planet?

[RickD]

I think pharaoh was in deNile.

[PaulSacramento]

The problem with the video guy asking Dr Shearmer about evidence needed to acknowledge God, is that there is no way to know if the advanced being IS God. How would he know this being created the Universe? Because he said so? It could be an advanced space alien lying to him trying to convince him he is God and he would have no way of knowing; or it could be God and he wouldn’t be able to distinguish him from an advanced space alien. I don't see this as denial, just a simple case of him having no way of recognizing God if he met him.

You are correct that this wouldn't be denial, unless the skeptic understood what God actually is/must be.
I think that the vast majority of skeptics do NOT know what God is/must be and have a view of God that they are comfortable with disproving.

Hence my view that the classical theist understanding of God has not ( an will not) ever be refuted.

In the above example:
There is no reason to believe that a being is God simply because they are so advanced that they can do what seems to be the impossible.
Why?
Because doing the "impossible" would simply be 1 of MANY traits that God must have.

That being would have to prove themselves to be the SOURCE AND SUSTAINER of ALL and be the ONLY ONE of it's "kind".

So getting back to the discussion on the video, If Dr Sheamer were to meet God, what method would he use to verify the person he was meeting was the SOURCE AND SUSTAINER of ALL and the ONLY ONE of its kind? How would he distinguish him from just some advanced evolved being from another planet?

I would haphazard to say that anyone meeting God FOR REAL, won't have any doubts.
The more honest question would be, what would it take to convince Dr Sheamer ( Or Kenny for example), that this being is God?

[Kenny]

The problem with the video guy asking Dr Shearmer about evidence needed to acknowledge God, is that there is no way to know if the advanced being IS God. How would he know this being created the Universe? Because he said so? It could be an advanced space alien lying to him trying to convince him he is God and he would have no way of knowing; or it could be God and he wouldn’t be able to distinguish him from an advanced space alien. I don't see this as denial, just a simple case of him having no way of recognizing God if he met him.

You are correct that this wouldn't be denial, unless the skeptic understood what God actually is/must be.
I think that the vast majority of skeptics do NOT know what God is/must be and have a view of God that they are comfortable with disproving.

Hence my view that the classical theist understanding of God has not ( an will not) ever be refuted.

In the above example:
There is no reason to believe that a being is God simply because they are so advanced that they can do what seems to be the impossible.
Why?
Because doing the "impossible" would simply be 1 of MANY traits that God must have.

That being would have to prove themselves to be the SOURCE AND SUSTAINER of ALL and be the ONLY ONE of it's "kind".

So getting back to the discussion on the video, If Dr Sheamer were to meet God, what method would he use to verify the person he was meeting was the SOURCE AND SUSTAINER of ALL and the ONLY ONE of its kind? How would he distinguish him from just some advanced evolved being from another planet?

I would haphazard to say that anyone meeting God FOR REAL, won't have any doubts.
The more honest question would be, what would it take to convince Dr Sheamer ( Or Kenny for example), that this being is God?

If as you said; anyone meeting God FOR REAL won't have any doubts, I suspect that is the answer to your question

Ken

[PaulSacramento]

If as you said; anyone meeting God FOR REAL won't have any doubts, I suspect that is the answer to your question

Ken

Indeed, I think that is the case.
BUT, that said, The God that I believe in ( as an example) isn't the type to "force" belief and that is something that I think many skeptics forget.
God doesn't need or require US to believe in Him, it is to our benefit that we do but God doesn't "need" it or "gain" from it.
God "wants" us to believe because He is love BUT the proof that He has given has certainly been enough for BILLIONS over the centuries, so...

[Kenny]

If as you said; anyone meeting God FOR REAL won't have any doubts, I suspect that is the answer to your question

Ken

Indeed, I think that is the case.
BUT, that said, The God that I believe in ( as an example) isn't the type to "force" belief and that is something that I think many skeptics forget.
God doesn't need or require US to believe in Him, it is to our benefit that we do but God doesn't "need" it or "gain" from it.
God "wants" us to believe because He is love BUT the proof that He has given has certainly been enough for BILLIONS over the centuries, so...

No; I wouldn’t want God to force belief, that wouldn’t be necessary anyway. As I said before, by just coming out of hiding (making his existence obvious to all) would be enough to convince without using force.

Ken

[PaulSacramento]

If as you said; anyone meeting God FOR REAL won't have any doubts, I suspect that is the answer to your question

Ken

Indeed, I think that is the case.
BUT, that said, The God that I believe in ( as an example) isn't the type to "force" belief and that is something that I think many skeptics forget.
God doesn't need or require US to believe in Him, it is to our benefit that we do but God doesn't "need" it or "gain" from it.
God "wants" us to believe because He is love BUT the proof that He has given has certainly been enough for BILLIONS over the centuries, so...

No; I wouldn’t want God to force belief, that wouldn’t be necessary anyway. As I said before, by just coming out of hiding (making his existence obvious to all) would be enough to convince without using force.

Ken

I am not talking about force, I am talking about God wanting us to believe via trust ( faith) as opposed to "our eyes".
If God comes into the world then MOST would believe of course ( I am sure there would still be those that would choose not to), but then again, I am not sure that type of belief is what he wants.
As the saying goes, even the demons believe and shudder, but they still reject, right?

[Kurieuo]

I'd like to note that "belief in the existence of God" is only a prerequistite to something much more important in Christianity and even Judaism. Much of Israel believed in God, and yet their hearts were far from Him. Believing in God's existence, just like believing in Christ's teachings about Himself, is one thing -- but placing trust in God/Christ is something entirely different and the end goal.

So then, yes, God could show Himself in a more physical way. There is no reason I see to deny that, Kenny and Shermer are right in this respect so far as I see. Certainly in times past, and even today, I'd be lying if I said I hadn't wished God was physically present Himself. He made Himself known at various times to the Israelites and various prophets in the past, yet I often desire to see, feel and touch. Such is afterall how I am made.

Yet, I also realise that God interestingly doesn't want such. In Christianity, we see God enter into the world incognito in Christ as a man. We see Christ being secretive, not wanting people to know who He was until the right time. Even then, those most close to Him, who had believed in and loved Him -- didn't truly believe who He was until post-resurrection. There Christ questions Thomas, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed."

Given this, the God of Christianity isn't one out to prove His own existence. He doesn't coerce or force people to believe in His existence. Rather, the end goal is something more, the heart of people. And for that, it seems God is interested in knowing those who don't try to deny what I think is obvious, namely that all the structured and orderly world around us and things within were created rather than just being there and happening by chance. If you deny such, than chances are your heart isn't in the right place anyway such that knowing whether God exists plays second fiddle.

While we might say God lacks nothing, nonetheless I see He wants to be pursued as much as pursuing, wooed as much as wooing, and takes joy from His relationship with us (or else it wouldn't be on offer). It is a little enigmatic since God is always trying to draw us to Himself, I believe. I'd perhaps argue that this is the God who exists and is revealed in Christ -- one that wants to be known, yet makes Himself unknown. One that pursues, yet wants to be pursued. One that loves, yet wants to be loved. Such in various ways mimicks games of love people play when courting.

So then when Atheists say if God exists and wanted me to believe in Him then x, y, z. It is I think safe to say God doesn't care that we believe of His own existence if our heart doesn't follow. We see this as the God found in Israel's theologically entwined history, and also in Christ's and the Apostles' teachings found in Scripture -- God who purposefully chooses to not make Himself known, but chooses the right time to reveal Himself to some. Am I wrong?

So then Shermer's argument isn't really one against God as Christians believe, but rather an argument of incredulity that God would play some sort of hide-and-seek courting love game. Yet, isn't this precisely what Scripture often talks about, our desiring God, our seeking God, and then God will open that door, reveal Himself and let us in?

[Kenny]

If as you said; anyone meeting God FOR REAL won't have any doubts, I suspect that is the answer to your question

Ken

Indeed, I think that is the case.
BUT, that said, The God that I believe in ( as an example) isn't the type to "force" belief and that is something that I think many skeptics forget.
God doesn't need or require US to believe in Him, it is to our benefit that we do but God doesn't "need" it or "gain" from it.
God "wants" us to believe because He is love BUT the proof that He has given has certainly been enough for BILLIONS over the centuries, so...

No; I wouldn’t want God to force belief, that wouldn’t be necessary anyway. As I said before, by just coming out of hiding (making his existence obvious to all) would be enough to convince without using force.

Ken

I am not talking about force, I am talking about God wanting us to believe via trust ( faith) as opposed to "our eyes".

Yeah I get it, but trust (faith) doesn’t work for people like Dr Sheamer or myself; we have to believe with our eyes.

[PaulSacramento]

If as you said; anyone meeting God FOR REAL won't have any doubts, I suspect that is the answer to your question

Ken

Indeed, I think that is the case.
BUT, that said, The God that I believe in ( as an example) isn't the type to "force" belief and that is something that I think many skeptics forget.
God doesn't need or require US to believe in Him, it is to our benefit that we do but God doesn't "need" it or "gain" from it.
God "wants" us to believe because He is love BUT the proof that He has given has certainly been enough for BILLIONS over the centuries, so...

No; I wouldn’t want God to force belief, that wouldn’t be necessary anyway. As I said before, by just coming out of hiding (making his existence obvious to all) would be enough to convince without using force.

Ken

I am not talking about force, I am talking about God wanting us to believe via trust ( faith) as opposed to "our eyes".

Yeah I get it, but trust (faith) doesn’t work for people like Dr Sheamer or myself; we have to believe with our eyes.

You don't have faith in anything other than what your eyes see?

[Kenny]

Indeed, I think that is the case.
BUT, that said, The God that I believe in ( as an example) isn't the type to "force" belief and that is something that I think many skeptics forget.
God doesn't need or require US to believe in Him, it is to our benefit that we do but God doesn't "need" it or "gain" from it.
God "wants" us to believe because He is love BUT the proof that He has given has certainly been enough for BILLIONS over the centuries, so...

No; I wouldn’t want God to force belief, that wouldn’t be necessary anyway. As I said before, by just coming out of hiding (making his existence obvious to all) would be enough to convince without using force.

Ken

I am not talking about force, I am talking about God wanting us to believe via trust ( faith) as opposed to "our eyes".

Yeah I get it, but trust (faith) doesn’t work for people like Dr Sheamer or myself; we have to believe with our eyes.

You don't have faith in anything other than what your eyes see?

In the context of the conversation, eyes means experience empirically .

Ken