That would indeed be easier. Frustrating that he doesn't, really.
Why is that frustrating?
As far as I can tell, you can never "understand that God was involved." God causing an event must always reside in the unknown.
"We don't know what caused it, therefore I have faith that God caused it."
It is an argument from ignorance.
As
@FrumiousBandersnatch mentioned, we seek materialistic, natural explanations first. If we can't find one, then that doesn't mean there isn't one, it just means we don't know what's going on. And our lack of knowledge shouldn't lead us to jump to the conclusion "therefore God".
Why should I think God's causing an event must reside in the unknown?
I find it odd that you'd bring up the God of the Gaps argument. That's irrelevant. I never suggested that we should jump to conclusions in the way you described.
Yes, people are satisfied by certain answers which I find unsatisfying.
For example, to say, "God caused that miracle" for some people is an explanation. For me, it is not an explanation but rather an introduction of a far more complicated scenario involving so many more questions.
Again, God of the gaps... irrelevant. A claim about miracles isn't meant to be an explanation about how the natural world works. They're assertions about specific events, such as Jesus' Resurrection.
I mean it is epistemologically useless. It cannot be used to further our collective knowledge. It is useless in our pursuit for understanding reality.
It may be subjectively useful. Sure. A person can believe things exist if they so desire. Are delusions virtuous?
Does someone that believes dragons improve their lives helping anyone but themselves? Are they contributing to our knowledge about the universe by studying their imaginary dragons? They can't show us their subjective dragons. They can't prove it. It is useless to everyone else.
If it's true that scripture contains knowledge about God, heaven, and hell, and how one ought to live, I think we could say it's pretty useful. As for delusions, I don't have good reasons to think belief in God is a delusion. Imaginary dragons are not the same as God. You'd have to say, "imaginary God", but that'd require you to affirm that it's the case that no God exists certainly. Another thing, what proof do you have that says metaphysical solipsism is false? You can't show yourself that other minds actually have experience of what it is like to be conscious. You'd have to have a belief not based on evidence.
Knowledge about the universe is pretty much useless, since we can't prove that our senses are reliable, or that we're not in the Matrix.
And until that time, you may be considered delusional: believing things to exist without showing that they do. Until you show us that they do exist, they might as well be delusions.
I guess that means I am delusional for denying metaphysical solipsism.
I don't think you've defined delusional properly.
Additionally, can you please show me that it's true that one needs to prove to other individuals that X is the case, in order for it to be considered non-delusional... because until you do, it may as well be considered a delusion.
The neutral hypothesis is to assume something does not exist until shown otherwise.
This is not a positive claim. It is inherently agnostic. I have not seen any evidence that God exists (or that God is a coherent concept), so the default is to assume that God does not exist until shown otherwise.
Similarly, I do not know that dragons do not exist, but I have not seen any evidence that dragons exist. So it is the neutral (and agnostic) hypothesis to assume that dragons do not exist until shown otherwise.
Can you please prove the statement, "The neutral hypothesis is to assume something does not exist until shown otherwise."
Until you do, I don't think I should accept that.
You haven't proven to me that you're a real person, and not an AI. So, please send me evidence that you're not an AI, or I'd be delusional to believe that you're a human. Otherwise, I'd be believing... without evidence.
As for dragons, I've never seen a dragon... therefore I
suspend judgement on the matter. I don't assume one way or another.
This is incoherent. How can something exist but can't be proven to exist?
What I said was, I believe in God... I just haven't proven to you, personally, that he exists.
I didn't say he can't be proven to exist.
Yea sure its possible there is a bear. But if my friend can't point to the bear and just says, "I believe there is a bear, but I can't show you or prove it", then what am I left to do? Take his word for it?
What if I walk down the path and stand right where he claims the bear is and I see no bear?
Unless my buddy can show me this bear in some sort of tangible, coherent way, then I am left to conclude that there is no bear, until shown otherwise.
What if you're both blind, or your eyesight simply isn't reliable?
Oh, and how would you know that your eyesight is reliable?
I don't think you would know, so you should go with your own thinking... assume your eyesight is not reliable.
In addition to that, can you prove that your cognitive faculties are reliable, and always accurate?
Listening to a friend, I'd just act as if there were a bear, and perhaps trust my friends words. I would be cautious and get to a safer place. I think that's a smarter move, because failure to be cautious in the forest, a place where bears are known to be, is not smart.
If a woman claims she was raped, and she doesn't go to the police until 3 years later, should police accept your view and say, "pics or it didn't happen"... because you assume things if there's no evidence for the claim. I think you ought to instead, suspend judgement, and try to find out more. You shouldn't simply say, "the rape never happened since we can't prove it".
Rather, either it happened and we lacked the means to prove it, or it didn't happen.
Good point. God is often logically invalid as a concept. For example the problem of omnibenevolence, omniscience and omnipresence present problems when we consider evil, free will, etc.
I'm not convinced that the "omni-qualities" of God are logically contradictory. So until you prove it, I'll say it's not contradictory... or should I suspend judgement?
You are too trusting. People see all sorts of things when they are in the forest. They make things up in their heads. They hear a twig crack and make all sorts of fear-based assumptions.
But remember, the point of my analogy is that you turn to your friend and ask, "Why do you think there is a bear?" If they respond, "I don't know, I just believe there is one" or "I don't know, I just feel it." or "I can't prove there is a bear, you just have to trust me."
All these answers are such BS. If you have a good reason for thinking there is a bear, then tell me and lets either leave the area or not. Don't give me all this beating around the bush nonsense.
I think your bear example is irrelevant. I believe it's more probable than not, that God exists. I find the arguments for God's existence convincing. If the person gave good arguments for why he believes there's a bear... you ought to take action.
Uh yea I would assume there is no bear...because you're just being scared and making dumb fear-based assumptions about a bear existing. Why would you think you saw a bear and then readily admit that its too dark to tell?
If its too dark to tell, then you obviously didn't see a bear. You're just making stuff up.
Also, I wouldn't go in the cave without a flashlight. I wouldn't assume that I knew there was a bear in the cave and therefore just not go in the cave. What a boring way to live. I would find a way to actually look in the cave and assess the danger. If I don't see a bear, I would proceed.
Bears can move from light places, to shadier places. So, the bear goes from a slightly lit place... to a darker part deeper into the cave.
I don't see why you'd try to assess the danger, afterall, you're rule would be to assume there is no danger.
If there is no evidence for the bear, assume it is not there. By your rule, you would just proceed without assessing danger, since no danger was proven to you.
Go in the cave, after trying to determine whether or not there's a bear? Oh... so first you suspend judgement, and then try to find out the truth, and then act on it... smarter than assuming there's no bear.
I will live my life assuming there isn't danger unless there is a good reason to assume danger is present. If you assume danger is present, you won't experience much because you can always invent possible dangers.
Someone saying, "There is a bear in that dark cave, but I have zero reason to think there is a bear in the cave because I haven't been in there and can't see in and don't have a flashlight" will not persuade me to believe the bear in the cave exists.
Danger is all around us. There are good reasons to assume danger is present. However, that doesn't mean we don't stop living... we just take the standard precautions. Ex. locking one's doors at night. Carrying a weapon. Using anti-virus software. Wearing glasses when driving. Buying insurance.
As for the bear, there's bear tracks leading into the cave. Why are you excluding reasons and evidence from the scenario exactly? Is it because you think there are no good reasons to believe in God?
If I heard a crackle of a twig in a forest, I wouldn't immediately assume, "Bear!"
In the few times I've encountered a bear in the forest, it has been obvious. I come around a corner and there is a bear. Obvious. Unambiguous. Verifiable. There is no doubt.
Oh, but what if the bear was a grenade instead... We're both soldiers, and I yell "GRENADE!"
I see a grenade, but you don't... you're too busy shooting at the terrorists. You then ask for evidence, but the gunfire is too loud for either of us to converse properly. I'm sorry to say, the grenade fell two feet behind you, and it wasn't in your sight at the moment. Wouldn't you think it's appropriate to trust someone's words at some point?
Belief in deism is more rational than belief in theism (or Christianity).
You need to explain what "God" actually is. Because, from what you described, this "God" could be some mysterious naturalistic force.
My understanding is that, when most people get down to it, God is more like an emotion rather than a verifiable external entity. God is a substitute for a cumulative group of emotions like "love+awe+peacefulness".
Are you asking for my understanding of God? I don't think of God as an emotion.
God is a rational being, the creator of the universe. He has revealed himself physically through Jesus of Nazareth.