Thought experiment: what evidence would convince you of a theism?

I've been playing with this one a bit myself. I'm trying to come up with a scenario that would compel belief in a particular religion, and it's a bit tricky.

I've generally been of the "exceptional claims require exceptional evidence" way of thinking, but it's not just that I haven't seen the proof -- I'm having a hard time coming up with anything I could see that would constitute evidence, and this troubles me. How can one discern, in everyday life, the occurance of a truly supernatural event? There would have to be some criteria, other than "I'll know it if I see it." The essence of a scientific hypothesis is that it contains the statement of what would be required to disprove it, and I would like to think that my atheism is of a comparable quality.

Some people say that particular miracles convince them. Would traveling behind Moses when he (or YHWH, as the case may be) parts the Red Sea be sufficient? Depends on if it was a full-on parting, like in the Heston movie, or just a low-tide kind of thing I guess. And if a full-on ocean parting would be adequate, then what is the minimum miraculous event that could sway me to theism? Would it have to be a repeatable miracle, or would that simply lend credence to the notion of an underlying natural cause?

I have to admit to myself, in light of not having had such an experience, that I just don't know.

Given that, what about some of the less-intrusive deities? What sort of evidence would be adequate to convince me of such an entity? For instance, how would reclusive Haephaestus prove His existence? What about Quetzalcoatl and Tezcatlipoca? Or Ptah? Is it unreasonable to assume that they would have their own trademark miracles? How would one distinguish between miraculous events revealing, say, Ptah and Kronos? Or YHWH and the Cat in the Hat? It is unclear.

So even if a miracle sufficient to prove the existence of a supernatural entity concerned with the actions of earthly mortals comes to light, how does one discern, in particular, which deity is responsible? How does one know that the deity is what it claims to be, and not a trickster god like Loki or Coyote?

I don't think this is an irrelevant line of questioning.

First off, a mere vision is not enough, since it could easily be written off as group hallucination/hysteria (Conyers, GA, and the virgin mary, for instance). What I would require is said deity speaking from the sky, or wherever, in a booming voice stating clearly who he/ she is. Then I would like a miracle manifest in a material form, say, an enormous "hello" etched into the side of mount everest, or, even better, the immediate eradication of aids. This way the miracle could be tested. That's the only proof I'll accept.

How do we eliminate the possibility of very advanced technology? Is it even possible to do so? I think back to Arthur C. Clarke's Third Law, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

And how do we distinguish this "magic" from proof of true divinity?

Using the AIDS eradication example. If a booming voice and physical manifestation of god (which i should have added above) was proceeded by an eradication of AIDS, which booming voice said it would do, my first instinct would be to take this as proof. However, I would wait to see is SETI picked up any unusual transmission, if orbiting satellites took any strange pictures of saucer shaped ships hovering over the planet. Of course, if there is some highly advanced technology, it may be beyond our detection. But the problem with the "alien magic" is that it becomes a kind of materialist "god of the gaps"- we have witnessed something that, for lack of a better word, is miraculous, and rather than accepting the divine solution we problematize the scenario with a materialist one, which, in its own way, is as fantastic as "god did it".

Of course, I'm just as skeptical about alien visitors as I am about god. I would need to see said aliens before I would accept their intervention, just as I would need to see said god.

...if the "alien magic" is indistinguishable from "divinity", are the aliens distinguishable from gods?

Call it the Stargate dilemma, I guess.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"
--Arthur C. Clarke

Love it!

Great thread...

in my living room. Then I'd believe.

Hell, if it's that simple, you can give me directions to your home, I'll show up and be your God and drink your wine, too.

Non-existence of super-natural events is a negative. It cannot be proven. Existence of a super-natural event can theoretically be proven but you have to define what is "super-natural", which is impossible because it is a highly variable notion. It varies with space, time and subject. The only way to reduce this impossibility is statistical and is therefore non-explanatory. The moral of the story, a moral that religious philosophers soon discovered, is that belief is not reducible to logic. It requires a leap of... faith. Unconditional acceptance. And that is what I refuse to do. And, above all, what I do not NEED to do.

consider the following statement:

"As long as I lack evidence of supernatural events or divine miracles, I will assume that they do not occur."

So, what invalidates this thesis? Clearly, "evidence of supernatural events or divine miracles." And that is the problem. What do we consider to be those events and miracles that would shake non-faith? And here you are quite right: our definition of "supernatural" is closely tied to what we consider "natural", i.e. our understanding of nature, which is a reductive term packing either humanity's overall understanding of nature or one's own level of comprehension of that body of understanding.

So let me put the question to you another way. Hypothetically, suppose a divine being (omniscient, omnipotent, and whatever else you like) exists. How could it possibly prove its existence to you?

So your entity can only prove its existence to me in exactly the same way as the tree in my window. By being reliably testable by my senses and accessible to my understanding.

Hypothetically, suppose a divine being (omniscient, omnipotent, and whatever else you like) exists. How could it possibly prove its existence as such an entity to you?

That is to say, how could it show you that it is a divine being?

The tree shows you that it exists as a tree by being verifiable to your senses and understanding as fitting the description of a tree. What description would a divine being have to fit in order to be known as such?

to proving a negative. To prove omni-science means to prove that there is not something that is not known. More generally, to prove a universal proposition means to prove that there is not a case where it is not true. On the other hand you can disprove a universal proposition by finding a single case where it is not true. Therefore, proving the existence of a universal proposition is logically impossible. Which answers your initial question. And justifies the infamous "leap of faith". As well as my refusal thereof.

We do this all the time. You said it yourself, with respect to the "tree in my window". How do you know the tree is a tree just by looking? Easy -- you have no reason to think otherwise. It could be a high-quality plastic replica of a tree, but you are probably willing to presume that it is a real tree as there is no compelling reason to suspect otherwise. So we're not talking about absolute logical verification here. Science itself does not function at the level of absolute verification. There has to be a finite level of evidence that we accept as materially adequate, and I would propose that this is qualitatively different from the "leap of faith" that religions thus far require.

The faith that one has in the sun "rising" in the east tomorrow is empirically different from that one has in a myth. One is based on an inductive body of evidence, the other is not. To deny this is to cast doubt on the foundations of scientific methodology.

Again, I return to the hypothetical. You have before you a being you can verify, to whatever empirical degree you deem appropriate, as divine. Whatever physical evidence you require, it can provide for you. What would that minimum finite subset of all possible miraculous activity be? Of course you can claim that such a finite subset does not exist, but you would have to do it on grounds comparable to those which would not invalidate your belief that it really is (still) a tree in your window and not a plastic replica.

1- Since it can be reduced to proving a negative, there can be not logical proof of an absolute being,
2- There can be an infinity of subjective proofs of an absolute being, as there can be an infinity of subjective proofs that the tree in my window really exists.

What you are asking for amounts to a theory of the existence of an absolute being. Which is also logically impossible. A theory is such only if it can be proven wrong, which amounts to proving that an absolute being does not exist, which is logically impossible.

Let's not lose sight of the original quandary in hasty application of logic to the legendary.

> 1- Since it can be reduced to proving a negative, there can be not
> logical proof of an absolute being

Re: "can be not logical", I should ask you if you mean that as written, or meant to type "can not be logical". The differences between the two are subtle but non-trivial. What you typed is a positive statement of the existence of a certain type of proof, which I am not ready at this point to admit follows from the arguments thus far, regardless of its truth value. What I think you may have meant (and which clearly follows from your premise) is a negative statement concerning the existence of the other type of proof, with which I agree. For the purposes of this reply, I will hope for a mistype and assume the latter.

In the original post, I wasn't suggesting a strict logical proof, nor even a strongly scientific one, in the sense that it would necessarily endure rigorous peer review and repeatability. Rather, I was looking for a minimal set of observations which would enable me to say, "Gee, that's a divine being," or better yet, "That's a Zeus-like being, rather than an Apollo-like being." A complete enumeration of human mythos would be (a)outside the scope of a forum thread, and (b)outside the overall mission of the atheism forum itself, but I trust you can discern what I mean anyway.

In the absence of the possibility of the existence of such an observational set, one might well be able to construct an argument that empirical atheism is non-falsifiable. On this, I think we can also agree. It is the basis of the mental experiment, and the crux of what I take to be your logical protest -- if protest is the right word.

> 2- There can be an infinity of subjective proofs of an absolute being,
> as there can be an infinity of subjective proofs that the tree in my
> window really exists.

There may be an infinity of subjective proofs, or there may only be a finite set of subjective proofs. The quantity is not really in question at the moment, if it is nonzero. Keep in mind, I'm not asking for universal standards of divine evidence, or even my own, which I admit up front may not even exist! Same applies to yours, of course. However, I have seen what I would take to be some pretty convincing criteria mentioned even in this thread, so that brings us to...

> What you are asking for amounts to a theory of the existence of an absolute being.

In my less-than-absolute words, we want a set of criteria such that if an entity meets them, an observer could subjectively infer the entity is of a specific sort -- in this case, divine.

> A theory is such only if it can be proven wrong, which amounts to proving
> that an absolute being does not exist, which is logically impossible.

I think you are misconstruing what falsifiability would be in this situation. Relating to everyday experience, let's say one day I have a theory that all trees have leaves. "If I see a tree, it has leaves (or needles)." Later, I see a tree that doesn't have leaves -- e.g., a deciduous tree in midwinter is still a tree. There, it's falsified. We can construct falsifiable theories about trees. Right?

Let's apply falsifiability to subjective descriptions of divinity. "If there is a god, it will reside on Mount Olympus, hurl lightning bolts when angered, occasionally take the form of a swan to mate with mortals (it's a God Thing, ya know?), and have a troubled-yet-stable marriage." OK, that's a falsifiable theory about a divine being. It's not a particularly complete or compelling theory, but it's falsifiable in the same way the "trees have leaves" theory is falsifiable. All we need is an appearance of Vishnu or Anubis or YHWH or any other non-Zeus-like deity in order to do so. Ergo, we can construct falsifiable theories about divine beings.

So if your theory of godhead is something like, "A god is omniscient, omnipotent, and ultimately benevolent," that might well be falsified by an encounter with Zeus -- who is (according to legend, at least) none of the above.

One could reasonably raise the objection that I was actually asking for the opposite theoretical sense, i.e. a description that leads to specificity. "If an entity is omniscient, omnipotent, and ultimately benevolent, it is a god." How is this falsifiable? Precisely the same way as before: by the existence of one or more omniscient, omnipotent, ultimately benevolent being(s) that are not divine. The hyper-advanced space aliens from drhilarius' subthread come to mind -- and herein rests the heart of the question. What, if any, are your necessary and/or sufficient subjective criteria, and are they amenable to at least this kind of imagination-based falsifiability?

<<In my less-than-absolute words, we want a set of criteria such that if an entity meets them, an observer could subjectively infer the entity is of a specific sort -- in this case, divine.>>

That's where your argument becomes a sophism: you assume that the quality of the subject of your proposition is irrelevant to the logical chain, which it isn't. I can prove the theory that all trees have leaves only because trees have the quality of being of a finite number. If there were an infinite number of trees the theory would be unfalsifiable because we could not prove that there is not a tree that does not have leaves. The absolute nature of the quality of the subject makes the theory unfalsifiable.

Same goes for your Zeus example. The qualities you list constitute a finite subset, which, as such, does not define the absoluteness which defines the subject "god" and constitutes the core of the test.

In fact the initial contradiction resides in the question. The object of the question (i.e. finite subset) subtly contradicts the defining quality of the subject (i.e. absoluteness). Similar problems can be found with Zenon of Elea and his Achilleus' Arrow and Achilleus and the Turtle paradox.

> I can prove the theory that all trees have leaves only because trees
> have the quality of being of a finite number.

This is an inaccurate representation of the role of theory in science. The inductive observational strength of the theory that "trees have leaves" does not rest on the finiteness of the (dauntingly large) set of trees, any more than mathematical induction only applies to finite sets of numbers. One of the best reasons to use induction, weak or strong, is that it facilitates comprehension of general properties of extremely large or infinite sets from a finite sample.

> If there were an infinite number of trees the theory would be unfalsifiable
> because we could not prove that there is not a tree that does not have leaves.

Incorrect. The theory "trees have leaves" would be falsifiable just as I showed you before, by presenting even a single example of a tree without leaves. There could be infinite trees with leaves, and the thoery would still be falsifiable in this way. Karl Popper's classic example of white and black swans comes to mind here, as well. Falsifiable theories predict observations, and are falsified and refined by counter-observations. When the instances and impacts of counter-observations outweigh the usefulness of the initial hypothesis, it is discarded.

What you seem to be fixating on is absolute verifiability, a positivist approach that is generally unworkable for any universal generalization from experiment. How, for instance, do I demonstrate to you that the quarks I'm observing in my particle accellerator behave according to the same principles as quarks in your big toes? Even if you concede your big toes, perhaps your little toes operate according to different physical laws? I think you'd agree that such objections are somewhat specious, in the context of the study of matter.

> Same goes for your Zeus example.

Zeus appears before you. "Behold, puny mortal, I am Zeus." He then displays for you various aspects of his Zeusness. What's the problem, then? He was godly enough for the ancient Greeks, right?

> The qualities you list constitute a finite subset, which, as such,
> does not define the absoluteness which defines the subject "god"
> and constitutes the core of the test.

Your objection does not appear to rest with the notion of having criteria for identifying a divine entity so much as that you include "unverifiability absolute" as a premise for divinity -- i.e., any absolute that can be observed as such is not a true absolute, hence divinity is by its nature unobservable. You would not have difficulty identifying Zeus as Zeus, but you would not consider Zeus as satisfying the criteria for divinity. Am I reading you correctly on this?

> Similar problems can be found with Zenon of Elea and his Achilleus'
> Arrow and Achilleus and the Turtle paradox.

*shrug* these aren't really problems, IMHO. Motion happens. Smaller distances are covered proportionally faster at any given speed. Infinite sequences can converge on finite results. Achilleus catches the turtle. No surprises there. I think your objections are of a stronger quality than these.

I am not fixated on "absolute verifiability" but, on the contrary, on the logical impossibility to verify, to prove, or disprove, an absolute. We can build theories about absolutes and support, or disprove, them as we go, which is inductive scientific reasoning, but this is a different endeavor.
It is in that sense that I referred to Zenon: the quality we assume about a condition (in his case time) is not without effect on the reasoning. This point is clearer with syllogisms (i.e. deductive reasoning) but is still valid, I think, with induction.
If the best we can obtain is a theory, a provisional generalization, then there cannot be any reasoned means to recognize a divine entity. A leap, not inductive but qualitative, is necessary.

a supreme being, because such a being would be beyond human comprehension. There is nothing that could manifest that would convince me because the human brain is the biggest trickster of all, and even if I was suddenly plucked from my warm bed and found myself quaking on the brink of a fiery lake, or clinging to the back of an angel of light as it flew through untold dimensions, some small part of my mind would be asking, "Just what did I have for dinner last night?"

I'm not about to take anybody's word for it though. If it comes to pass that people stop talking about God in my lifetime, I'll give the matter some thought.

anything can be proven is objectively examining the body of evidence in such a way as to show conclusively that something extraordinary has occured. And as far as that argument is concerned, it can't happen.

For instance, in the Catholic church, to gain sainthood, there used to be a "waiting period" to determine whether that person who is being beatified actually performed any miracles during their lifetime. In today's world, it's less likely to happen than it was a thousand years ago, because science will show that any number of "miracles" in the past are able to be explained through scientific means.

As time moves forward, finding miracles and finding saints is going to get even tougher, and in some cases, impossible. The more we know, the less religion will be needed, except by many who can't accept their failings unless they blame them on someone else. I think that is one of the fundamental reasons why there is such a mass return right now to religion--people can not find the insight that shows that we are to blame for our own failings, and that death and disaster are not religious concepts, but the pain of living in reality.

It doesn't matter that science has already proved many elements in religious documents to be wrongly made out to be "god's fault"--people will deny that they had anything to do with it in the first place. In many ways, this is essentially the same argument that many of us used as children: when something got broken or smashed, or misplaced, most of us would blame a sibling, or, if you were an only child, you would blame it on an imaginary playmate. Transpose that argument to the adult world, and it's very plain to see that's all it is, is an excuse.

Trying to prove any argument for a god is the same as trying to prove an argument AGAINST a god. It's a situation that on one level is a very emotional argument, and on another level is merely dismissed as being falderal.

and distinguish it from either a higher intellgence or an advanced alien being. For my purposes I will define god as the ultimate creator of existence.

Personally, I don't think it's possible for me personally to EVER be convinced that there is a "god". If I was ever presented w/ rock solid proof of an advanced being (god), I would merely consider it evidence of an advanced (possibly alien) being and NOT evidence of god (the ultimate creator of existence).

Though if that advanced being started creating planets out of thin air and populating them w/ snaps of the fingers, perhaps I could be on my way to being swayed, but then again, how would I really know it was DOING this as opposed to being advanced enough to create the ILLUSION it was doing it or influencing my mind to make me believe it was doing it?

This is also why I consider myself an atheist as opposed to an agnostic. While I can never be sure there is no god, I know that I can never be convinced there is, so I live my life as if there is none anyway. Atheist all the way baby!

You would have to establish the true arbiter of reality. The brain is not up to this. Insanity could explain any of these experiences. And if one invokes "Occam's Razor" supplies the preferred explanation.

Delusion, hallucination are common occurances. Combine with philosophical stances like solopsism, proof is not possible.

Like my father used to say, "Nobody knows."

--IMM

...would be compromised in the event of a group experience. If a sufficiently large number of people were to share the same miraculous experience, it would be difficult to explain away as a hallucination.

Personally, I find solipsism to be a less-satisfying epistemology than theism, but it could just be me... ;)

And I don't think you could disprove solopsism, because all experiences could be a figment of the imagination. I don't see why it is less an explanation than theism, barring personal preferences.

Some might invoke "The Matrix" but old time science fiction fans will recall "Wine of the Dreamers" by John D. MacDonald.

--IMM

You can't be an empiricist on Monday, a solipsist on Tuesday, and go back to being an empiricist on Wednesday. Well, you could, but you'd be "flip flopping". And in the wake of the recent election, I feel the need to eschew such flip-floppery.

So I refer you to the classic refutation of solipsism: dogshit on the sidewalk. It stinks madly, it clings to your heels like an unpaid landlord, and no man is a solipsist while scraping it off his shoe.

I am not a solipsist. But we are looking for no less than to validate a deity.

So If god announces himself to you, that's valid, unless it's a delusion. So you go to others who had the same experience. How do you know that that's not a delusion, too?

It goes back to my original post saying there would be no way to really know.

Repeat, I am not endorsing solipsism. (Especially now that I know how much it pisses you off.)

--IMM

...although given my generally pissed-off attitude of late, I certainly won't blame you for ending up with that impression. Or maybe I will blame you anyway, in the name of consistency? Hell, I don't know, maybe I'll just act nice while harboring a deep unresolved resentment that eventually contributes to a marketable creative angst.

Anyway, I have nothing against solipsists, per se. Some of my best friends are solipsists, even though they don't think I exist. Anyone who will still spring for a pint even when he thinks I'm a figment of his imagination is a real mensch, in my book.

Good stuff!

I'm actually pretty sure you are a figment of my imagination and I'd buy you a drink anyway! :toast:

Actually, sometimes I think if it weren't for my imaginary friends, I might have no one to drink w/ at all! ;-)

I'm not really UNconvinced of a theism at this point in time. I believe that if a benevolent deity exists, it won't really care one way or another if I believe that it exists. If a non-benevolent deity exists, I wouldn't worship such a deity even if its existence were proven.

But assuming some supernatural deity-like individual decided to prove itself to me, a demonstration of powers that are beyond the ability of humans would convince me that it had power beyond the ability of humans. You know, stuff like flying unassisted, escaping mortal wounds unscathed, instant transportation...can you tell I've been watching a little too much sci-fi? The extent of its power/knowledge/presence and my belief in those abilities would be directly tied to such demonstration. The more powerful you show yourself to be, the more powerful I will believe you are.

But if this deity is expecting my fealty or something in exchange for revealing itself...forget it. I don't think a benevolent deity that's concerned with the actions of mortals could have much power, otherwise this planet wouldn't be in such a state. And I've already stated my opinion in regard to non-benevolence.

You know the one, where the crew beams down to the planet inhabited by a lonesome Apollo who craves the prayers of humanity.

So, in that vein, let's say this demonstrably powerful and benevolant deity says to you, "I don't expect blind loyalty, but if you want me to help you out from time to time, all you have to do is ask nicely and maybe burn a dead ox on my altar once a month."

Do you head right off to Ed's Used Ox Shop, or is it "Non Servium all the way" for you?

What constitutes a "god/supreme being" that could make it distinguishable from some say, a Q-like(gratuitous STNG/pop culture reference) alien, re., Clarke's "tech/magic"?

"The supernatural" has come to mean, more or less, "anything science can't explain"... but then the explanation is pretty much ignored when it arises.
Bigfoot, crop circles and Nessie were admitted hoaxes and yet people *still* believe.

The thing about the supernatural is that it is mutually exclusive to the natural... so anything it does simply *can't* jibe with the rules/laws of natural behavior.

Making fundamental changes to the universe as a whole, like the strong nuclear force, the speed of light, or the cosmological constant, would go a long way in convincing me that something "supreme" exists.
But then is it the Q, a "human god" or is it some clever techno/magic alien trick?

As far as the rest of the human-made deistic pantheon, I could no more be convinced of their existence than I could of Superman, Buck Rogers or the Hulk.
They "exist" as fictional human creations pertinent to that particular culture... nothing more.

Cletus

If your definition of "divinity" includes some sort of absolute unmeasurable supremacy, I think you're headed for a situation in which physical demonstration of godhead is impossible. If you don't mind the notion that your atheism is of the same faith-based quality as a devout Christian's theism, then you're good to go.

Otherwise, you wind up in exactly the kind of quandary that you describe -- identifying the boundary between natural powers and supernatural ones.

In order for me to believe in a "god," it would have to reveal itself to the entire planet all at once, having everyone's full attention. Anything else involves hearsay, which goes straight to the bullshit column.

BTW, there will never be any evidence proving the existence of a supernatural entity; once it's proven, it's no longer supernatural...it's SCIENCE.

Any "miracle" that I might witness would just be something I couldn't explain yet with current models of the universe.

Depending on the "miracle" I witness it might cause me to reconsider some part or all of my philosophy of life but nothing would make me think it is "supernatural". If something that looked like a ghost appeared to me it would just mean there was a way for such an entity to exist in nature not outside nature. It might mean there is some very powerfull force or entity but again that just means they are part of nature not supernatural.

you all belive in nature right? And that gravity works? That quantum physics presents unfathomable mystery? Okay then. I am a pagan just visiting, reading your thread, because, geez, i thought, it must be so hard for you agnostics to stomach the jesus trip most of the country is on. I am about fed up with jesus myself. But, he was a liberal, you know. Anyways, I think it's just silly how literally the christians interpret their god. Pagans realize their pantheon consists of archtypes...of a jungian sort...we don't think anybody is actually living up in the coulds with a big white beard demanding things. We use symbology and our mythology to evoke qualities in our deep minds, but, we don't confuse it with the reality of this paradigm. We think the universe is wonderfully complex, and that life is a miracle, and that we are all made of the same star stuff. But you know, those ideals are substantiated by science, as opposed, say, to buying the christian myths literally. So, I was reading about the chruch of realism online, and, I wanted to suggest it to you all. They would be perfect for you all, because, then, you could tell peeps you had a religion, "Realism" and the jehovahs witnesses and the mormons would stop knocking on your door trying to save you. Isn't that annoying when they do that? Honestly. And you would like realism, I think, because it is entirely based on science, their belief system does not encompass anything which cannot be scientifcally proven. That's pretty cool, huh?

actually sounds interesting if it's true that you don't actually believe in a old man father of the universe actually sitting up in the clouds or little godlets running around taking care of things and just use it as a way to communicate and express the reality we experience.

When my wife and I agreed not to send my son to CCD (we were both raised Catholic) I wanted to make a wiser choice than my parents who just left a blank for ethical moral teaching. I said we need to be sure we set good examples and teach him throughout his life, but I thought we should also try to give some structure to this with say a once a week 30 min sit down to talk about what we believe, read him stories and play games we thought would help teach him what we hoped to teach him about how to form a ethical foundation. I eventually formed my own ideas of course but it really took me until my early 30's to develop a consistant aproach that I could articulate. Hopefully I'll keep learning but I felt like I was without a foundation for a long time. In fact I had a brief (very brief) time where I tried to accept at least in part my catholic upbrining because of this. Didn't work out. :)

Anyway, it isn't always easy to bring the ideas I have developed to a lesson for my son. I'm not a teacher I'm sure a professional would have an easier time of it. So I just wonder if something like Paganism would help me by providing a framework for teaching my son.

PS: For anyone who knows, isn't Hinduism similar to what "Is It Fascism Yet" describes for Paganism?

We pagans use our myths to explore human nature and ethics. We realize they are STORIES which exemplify some of the qualities we may bring out in ourselves, like heroism, honesty, patriotism, loyalty. Christians use their myths for the same purpose but somewhere along the way they seem to have forgotten they are "myths" not realities. Our ethical creed is "If it harms none, do as thou wilt" It's a very live and let live but don't step on toes philosophy. It might be useful to you but I think you might like the Church of Realism better for your son, because it is not only sans dogma, but also sans worship. Church of Reality believes only in what can be proven by scientific method. I am not sure if they promote any philosophy, but to be sure, philosophy is the best teacher of ethics, and dogma serves no purpose whatsoever, except politics, in my humble opinion. When your son is older perhaps you will have fun with reading Plato's Republic to him, or the philosophy of Marcus Aurelius, or Epicuris, and that would be so much better than the hell fire and brimstone stuff the christian church wants to shove at us.

I cannot imagine proof that would convince me. That being so, I might be unconvinced even in the face of an actual divine manifestation.

So I recognize that I can never know.

is she married? my dog is looking hard for someone to bear his puppies!

It's like pornography, I can't define it but I know it when I see it.

Really, I can't describe what it would take, but it would almost certainly involve a number of different incidents, one of them would have to be something big like making all the weapons being used in a religious war (I consider the war in Iraq a religious war) disappear all at once and publically striking those responsible for starting it dead, and a voice from a cloud explaining why.

I guess I am ready and willing to see any strange and amazing things in my life - hopefully good. None would lead me to worship - although I do feel a general sense of gratefulness to the universe when that happens - which spurs me to do good deeds. Does this count as "theism"?