Why do you actually believe in God?

[Athene]

I used to believe that God was Everything, the Beginning, the Source from which we all came, and to which we long to return. I believed that, because I wanted to. Over the passage of time it became increasingly difficult to pull off that nifty trick. 
Eventually, I found that I wasn't able to pull it off at all.

I would still like to believe, but I'm unable to trick myself any more; Unfortunately, the 'ol  noggin's hip to that now.
So, I'm stuck with the Hard Truth.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Uh... what??

Just a roundabout way of saying he's incomprehensible.

Try going to the people you love deeply and see how each reacts when you tell him or her how you define them. Usually people don't like being put in a box. Think for a moment how unreasonable it is to demand definition of the infinite I AM that encompasses who He is in His infinite fullness when you cannot even do that for finite human beings.

You will always notice that proofs of existence generally follow the negative way. Conceptions of divine attributes are formed by reflecting on what God is not. But yes, God is incomprehensible but that does not mean we cannot know some things about Him. Ultimately the relationship between God and an individual is personal not purely intellectual.

My guess is that most skeptics want believers to present them with a box to define God so they can argue about the box and avoid trying to actually reflect on what God might be.

[Spirian]

• How do you define 'God'? 
  
• Why do you (or did you) believe that this God exists? 
  

• Ineffable. 
  
• Nescience. 
  

[T.J.]

Just a roundabout way of saying he's incomprehensible.

Try going to the people you love deeply and see how each reacts when you tell him or her how you define them. Usually people don't like being put in a box. Think for a moment how unreasonable it is to demand definition of the infinite I AM that encompasses who He is in His infinite fullness when you cannot even do that for finite human beings.

You will always notice that proofs of existence generally follow the negative way. Conceptions of divine attributes are formed by reflecting on what God is not. But yes, God is incomprehensible but that does not mean we cannot know some things about Him. Ultimately the relationship between God and an individual is personal not purely intellectual.

My guess is that most skeptics want believers to present them with a box to define God so they can argue about the box and avoid trying to actually reflect on what God might be.

I didn't see anything in that post that prove my interpretation of the aforementioned post wrong. There's nothing insulting about summarizing what's being said so others can understand it.

The definition of 'incomprehensible' means exactly that you cannot know some things about him, or anything. That's why it's brought up in almost every single conversation on the matter.

Skeptics want evidence because if you remove the need for evidence anything can be true.

[Neo-Scholastic]

See my signature line. There is plenty of evidence.

[Excited Penguin]

See my signature line. There is plenty of evidence.

That's not a proper definition of evidence you've got there. Here's a legit one, try to comform your pseudo-metaphysical word salad to it and see if your belief in God is still justifiable. Don't just gloss over it, either. You'd be surprised how much ignorance can be retraced to a poor understanding of language.

Evidence - the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

[T.J.]

Evidence - the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

You know what's funny? If someone worshiped the sun or the earth they'd be able to answer this no problem.

Thus lies the problem in following something that's ineffable.

[Crossless2.0]

God is that which the greater than which cannot be conceived.

Despite any emotional objections that I feel, I must bow to what I believe is the irrefutable logic of Aquinas.

Great. Now connect the dots for us. Ontological-Proof-God=Your Favorite Character From Your Favorite Book, how again?

[Neo-Scholastic]

See my signature line. There is plenty of evidence.

That's not a proper definition of evidence you've got there. Here's a legit one, try to comform your pseudo-metaphysical word salad to it and see if your belief in God is still justifiable. Don't just gloss over it, either. You'd be surprised how much ignorance can be retraced to a poor understanding of language.

Evidence - the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Which of the statements in my signature line do you dispute?

[Ignorant]

Chad's definition of evidence predates the alternative presented by excited penguin. There is no need to fight over it, so allow me to attempt a distinction:

Chad's evidence = things that are EVIDENT. In other words, there are things clearly observable and "evident" to anyone (but do not, of themselves, argue for or relate to any proposition). Raw Data.

An example: the fossil record (as we know it, the fossil record is "evident" to us). If you ask, "evident of what", then you missed the distinction. It is merely a fact.

Excited Penguin's evidence = the modern understanding of "evidence". In other words, "evidence" is "raw data" already considered in relation to a proposition (e.g. a hypothesis)

An example: the fossil record in relation to evolutionary explanation (as we know it, evolution is evidenced by the fossil record)