Does God Have a Personality?

[Gawen]

What's the difference between thinking the sun will rise, and believing the sun will rise?

The support behind the claim.

Belief that the sun will rise requires none. Expecting the sun to rise, or thinking that it will, requires at least some. For instance, the abovementioned probability seen through the eyes of history.

Okay, but even if you do have support behind the claim that the sun will rise, you still believe it will rise -- you just have a very, very good reason to believe so.

I sure you're not understanding me. My Merriam - Webster dictionary lists this definition for "belief":
1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2: something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

In the case for #1, I simply do not have a state of mind, or a habit of mind in which I trust or have confidence that the sun will come up tomorrow...because I do not. Why? Because there is always a chance that the sun will not come up tomorrow. IOW, I simply do not know that the sun will come up tomorrow. All historical experience tells me that the sun came up every day. That tells me that there is a really really good chance that it will do so tomorrow, but I do not "believe" it will. I think it will due to past experience, etc.. This train of thought does not jibe with definition #3 above because although it is true the sun came up everyday in the past, it is not a conviction of truth or a reality that the sun will come up tomorrow.
Number 2 doesn't count in this case.

People "believe" god has a personality. (Then again, we hear the usual apologetics: "God is incomprehensible", and "God is inscrutable, we cannot know his ways". But not so inscrutable or incomprehensible as theists tell us all about this incomprehensible God’s attributes until they have to run from the logical debunking of God by special pleading.) It is said that it is more than possible that one may have a "personal relationship" with god. In definition of belief #1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing, the trust or confidence is misplaced BECAUSE of definition #3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence. The evidence is no good. The evidence cannot be qualified, quantified, examined or duplicated by others. But they believe nonetheless...through faith.
I do not have faith or believe the sun will come up tomorrow. I THINK it will come up tomorrow. And if it does, I then know I was right. What Asmodean said: "Belief that the sun will rise requires none." was spot on.

[i_am_i]

But the sun doesn't rise.

[LegendarySandwich]

]I sure you're not understanding me. My Merriam - Webster dictionary lists this definition for "belief":
1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2: something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

In the case for #1, I simply do not have a state of mind, or a habit of mind in which I trust or have confidence that the sun will come up tomorrow...because I do not. Why? Because there is always a chance that the sun will not come up tomorrow. IOW, I simply do not know that the sun will come up tomorrow. All historical experience tells me that the sun came up every day. That tells me that there is a really really good chance that it will do so tomorrow, but I do not "believe" it will. I think it will due to past experience, etc.. This train of thought does not jibe with definition #3 above because although it is true the sun came up everyday in the past, it is not a conviction of truth or a reality that the sun will come up tomorrow.
Number 2 doesn't count in this case.

People "believe" god has a personality. (Then again, we hear the usual apologetics: "God is incomprehensible", and "God is inscrutable, we cannot know his ways". But not so inscrutable or incomprehensible as theists tell us all about this incomprehensible God’s attributes until they have to run from the logical debunking of God by special pleading.) It is said that it is more than possible that one may have a "personal relationship" with god. In definition of belief #1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing, the trust or confidence is misplaced BECAUSE of definition #3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence. The evidence is no good. The evidence cannot be qualified, quantified, examined or duplicated by others. But they believe nonetheless...through faith.
I do not have faith or believe the sun will come up tomorrow. I THINK it will come up tomorrow. And if it does, I then know I was right. What Asmodean said: "Belief that the sun will rise requires none." was spot on.

I (and other online dictionaries and encyclopedias, such as Wikipedia) define belief as simply thinking a proposition or premise to be true. While it is true you don't have to believe that the sun will rise tomorrow, you believe that it has a very, very good probability of doing so.

I think this is really just a semantics argument.

[LegendarySandwich]

But the sun doesn't rise.

[Gawen]

But the sun doesn't rise.

*laffin*...I know...I know...

[Gawen]

I think this is really just a semantics argument.

In that, you are probably right.

This has been bugging me. Lets look at a biblical example.
Mark 8:12: And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and said, "Why does this generation seek a sign? Truly, I say to you, no sign shall be given to this generation."
Considering what the author is communicating, "Mark" has a primary theme that belief is based on faith and not evidence. The question is, WHY does "Mark's" Jesus refuse to give a sign for the purpose of promoting belief?

Because "Mark" has a primary theme that evidence not only does not create belief, it actually destroys belief. "Mark's" disciples receive more evidence than anyone else and have the least amount of faith. Total strangers who have never seen Jesus before and received no evidence, have the most faith. In "Mark" belief is directly related to faith and inversely related to evidence.

Evidence leads to knowledge. Depending on the evidence, one 'knows' to certain degrees and does not have to believe without the evidence...hence 'faith.

Yes, there is a difference between knowing something and believing something.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I wonder what became of Goathead.

I'm pretty sure he collected some enforced time off for asshattery in another thread.

[Goathead]

I merely point out that since i_am_i/J is an active member of the forum, to spend time interpreting the original post, and disputing those interpretations as if we couldn't simply ask the original poster for clarification is rather silly, in my opinion.

Yes I fully agree.

Regarding your world view, or lack of one,

Yes lack of one.

I think I understand a little better now.  In your original statement it seems I misinterpreted

You did, yes.

and I'm glad that you clarified.  You say you don't have a world view, and I'm not going to tell you that you do.

Thank you.

But let's look at the definition of the term--

Merriam-Webster equates "worldview" with "weltanschauung," and defines it thus:

From Merriam-Webster online:

"a comprehensive conception or apprehension of the world especially from a specific standpoint"

I imagine that since you say that you perceive the world (how could you not, after all, as a sentient being?) you would agree that you have a comprehensive conception or apprehension of the world.

I disagree. I have no comprehensive conception or apprehension of the world.

So perhaps you're saying that you don't subscribe to a specific standpoint.

Not at all. My "standpoint" is perception, but that's different from a world-view.

Yet you have expressed opinions in this forum.

Allow me to correct you here: I expressed *perceptions* in this forum.

How is one able to form opinions without having a specific standpoint upon which to form them?

Because you don't a standpoint to form opinion. Opinion is opinion; fact is fact.

I'm truly curious about this topic, and am not particularly trying to give you a hard time.  I honestly want to understand why it is that you say you have no world view.  Thank you for your patience.

You're welcome. I do consider myself a patient and peaceful person.