So what would make a secular scientist believe in GOD?

[LittleNipper]

Presented here, so that we may have a place to start is one biochemist's (Dr, Sy Garte) journey from staunch atheist to firm believer: So, why are you a believer, or what would you need to become a believer in some Creator GOD.

[Clownboat]

The same it would take for any other person: Faith. There is no way to prove God, so you need to believe first in something (axiom) then you can create knowledge on top of that belief.

Atheism doesnt make any logical sense tho.

I can't go along with this due to the fact that faith is required in order to believe that something false is true. This makes it a terrible mechanism for arriving at true beliefs.

For example, if you want to believe in fairies, faith is required.
Nessy? Faith.
Allah? Faith.
Alien abductions? Faith.
That the sun will rise in the morning or that my wife will remain faithful? Reason and evidence.

As far as atheism not making any sense, then I must ask why you are an atheist when it comes to every single god concept that is not your preferred one? You are practically an atheist yourself. An actual atheist just takes it one god further than you do. If atheism makes not sense, why do you have so much of it?

If Gods were real and interacted with this world, we would at a minimum be able to detect the interactions.
So I must ask you... what is the difference between a God that doesn't interact with our world when compared to a God that doesn't exist?

[Vilferatus]

The same it would take for any other person: Faith. There is no way to prove God, so you need to believe first in something (axiom) then you can create knowledge on top of that belief.

Atheism doesnt make any logical sense tho.

I can't go along with this due to the fact that faith is required in order to believe that something false is true. This makes it a terrible mechanism for arriving at true beliefs.

For example, if you want to believe in fairies, faith is required.
Nessy? Faith.
Allah? Faith.
Alien abductions? Faith.
That the sun will rise in the morning or that my wife will remain faithful? Reason and evidence.

As far as atheism not making any sense, then I must ask why you are an atheist when it comes to every single god concept that is not your preferred one? You are practically an atheist yourself. An actual atheist just takes it one god further than you do. If atheism makes not sense, why do you have so much of it?

If Gods were real and interacted with this world, we would at a minimum be able to detect the interactions.
So I must ask you... what is the difference between a God that doesn't interact with our world when compared to a God that doesn't exist?

Your definition of faith as 'believing something false is true' is a strawman. In epistemology, faith is the trust placed in a foundational axiom to build knowledge upon it.

You claim that the sun rising or your wife's fidelity relies strictly on 'evidence.' However, you are overlooking the classic Problem of Induction. Past data cannot mathematically guarantee future behavior. To act on the belief that your wife will be faithful tomorrow, you must make a leap of trust based on that axiom. That is structurally identical to the teistic framework.

Regarding your comment that an atheist just goes 'one god further': this is a category mistake. Theism posits that the ontological category of 'The Absolute Foundation' is occupied. Atheism posits that the category is empty. Telling a theist that they are 'practically an atheist' because they reject Zeus is as logically absurd as telling a married man he is 'practically single' because he rejects every other woman on Earth except his wife. It confuses a quantitative list with a qualitative reality.

Finally, your question about a God that 'doesn't interact' assumes a deistic model, not mine. In a consistent theistic framework, God is the very foundation that sustains reality, logic, and physical laws at every moment. The difference between a God who sustains the universe and a God who doesn’t exist is the difference between a coherent reality and literal nothingness.

[Clownboat]

Your definition of faith as 'believing something false is true' is a strawman.

I grew up believing that faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence for things not seen.
However, I did not intend define faith here. I'm explaining why using faith as a mechanism is a poor way to arrive at truths. I then provided examples, so I'm not sure why you are focusing on defining faith.
Do you acknowledge how faith is required in order to believe in Allah, Nessie or Big Foot and that by using faith in any of these will lead to believing a false claim?

In epistemology, faith is the trust placed in a foundational axiom to build knowledge upon it.

That would be one definition. I seek not to define the term though. I am only addressing the mechanism of using faith to arrive at beliefs. Care to discuss that?

You claim that the sun rising or your wife's fidelity relies strictly on 'evidence.' However, you are overlooking the classic Problem of Induction. Past data cannot mathematically guarantee future behavior. To act on the belief that your wife will be faithful tomorrow, you must make a leap of trust based on that axiom. That is structurally identical to the teistic framework.

It is nothing like the theistic framework. You just want it to be.
To evidence this claim. I can apply faith that Allah is the one true God to arrive at this belief.
I do not employ faith when determining if my so far un-cheating wife will continue to not cheat on me. However, if my wife had cheated on me in the past, I could employ faith (I could not employ reason) in her that she will not do so again. This faith can end up being the mechanism that allowed me to believe that something that ended up being false. Therefore, avoid using faith to arrive at truths. Use another mechanism is my argument.

Regarding your comment that an atheist just goes 'one god further': this is a category mistake.

I care not how you classify my claim, only if you can show it to be in error.
Why my claim is not a mistake is due to the fact that atheists lack beliefs in all god concepts and a religious person shares this quality, they just take it one god concept further. This is not a mistake, it is reality.

Theism posits that the ontological category of 'The Absolute Foundation' is occupied. Atheism posits that the category is empty. Telling a theist that they are 'practically an atheist' because they reject Zeus is as logically absurd as telling a married man he is 'practically single' because he rejects every other woman on Earth except his wife. It confuses a quantitative list with a qualitative reality.

I acknowledge that this confused you. To clarify, theist are atheists when it comes to every single god concept, less their preferred one. Feel free to argue against this position and perhaps I will need to amend my thinking. We'll see...

Finally, your question about a God that 'doesn't interact' assumes a deistic model, not mine.

Neat! Care to answer the question then? Feel free to leave your preferred god concept out of the equation when you answer.
what is the difference between a God that doesn't interact with our world when compared to a God that doesn't exist? (This is not a gotcha question).

In a consistent theistic framework, God is the very foundation that sustains reality, logic, and physical laws at every moment. The difference between a God who sustains the universe and a God who doesn’t exist is the difference between a coherent reality and literal nothingness.

As you explained, this is only true within a theistic framework and you answered a question that wasn't asked of you.

If Gods were real and interacted with this world, we would at a minimum be able to detect the interactions. - Do you not agree?

[Vilferatus]

Your definition of faith as 'believing something false is true' is a strawman.

I grew up believing that faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence for things not seen.
However, I did not intend define faith here. I'm explaining why using faith as a mechanism is a poor way to arrive at truths. I then provided examples, so I'm not sure why you are focusing on defining faith.
Do you acknowledge how faith is required in order to believe in Allah, Nessie or Big Foot and that by using faith in any of these will lead to believing a false claim?

In epistemology, faith is the trust placed in a foundational axiom to build knowledge upon it.

That would be one definition. I seek not to define the term though. I am only addressing the mechanism of using faith to arrive at beliefs. Care to discuss that?

You claim that the sun rising or your wife's fidelity relies strictly on 'evidence.' However, you are overlooking the classic Problem of Induction. Past data cannot mathematically guarantee future behavior. To act on the belief that your wife will be faithful tomorrow, you must make a leap of trust based on that axiom. That is structurally identical to the teistic framework.

It is nothing like the theistic framework. You just want it to be.
To evidence this claim. I can apply faith that Allah is the one true God to arrive at this belief.
I do not employ faith when determining if my so far un-cheating wife will continue to not cheat on me. However, if my wife had cheated on me in the past, I could employ faith (I could not employ reason) in her that she will not do so again. This faith can end up being the mechanism that allowed me to believe that something that ended up being false. Therefore, avoid using faith to arrive at truths. Use another mechanism is my argument.

Regarding your comment that an atheist just goes 'one god further': this is a category mistake.

I care not how you classify my claim, only if you can show it to be in error.
Why my claim is not a mistake is due to the fact that atheists lack beliefs in all god concepts and a religious person shares this quality, they just take it one god concept further. This is not a mistake, it is reality.

Theism posits that the ontological category of 'The Absolute Foundation' is occupied. Atheism posits that the category is empty. Telling a theist that they are 'practically an atheist' because they reject Zeus is as logically absurd as telling a married man he is 'practically single' because he rejects every other woman on Earth except his wife. It confuses a quantitative list with a qualitative reality.

I acknowledge that this confused you. To clarify, theist are atheists when it comes to every single god concept, less their preferred one. Feel free to argue against this position and perhaps I will need to amend my thinking. We'll see...

Finally, your question about a God that 'doesn't interact' assumes a deistic model, not mine.

Neat! Care to answer the question then? Feel free to leave your preferred god concept out of the equation when you answer.
what is the difference between a God that doesn't interact with our world when compared to a God that doesn't exist? (This is not a gotcha question).

In a consistent theistic framework, God is the very foundation that sustains reality, logic, and physical laws at every moment. The difference between a God who sustains the universe and a God who doesn’t exist is the difference between a coherent reality and literal nothingness.

As you explained, this is only true within a theistic framework and you answered a question that wasn't asked of you.

If Gods were real and interacted with this world, we would at a minimum be able to detect the interactions. - Do you not agree?

Your response continues to look past foundational epistemology to save your conclusions.

1. On Induction and Faith: You claim past fidelity guarantees future behavior without 'faith' (trust). This ignores the classic Problem of Induction. No matter how many days data shows a baseline, tomorrow cannot be mathematically proven by yesterday. To act as if your wife will be faithful tomorrow requires a leap of trust in that foundational axiom. You are confusing blind credulity (believing in Bigfoot) with epistemic faith (trusting an unproven axiom to function in the world).

2. The Category Error: Insisting a theist is 'atheist to all other gods' misses the point of ontology. Theism is the proposition that the category of 'The Absolute Foundation' is occupied. Atheism is the proposition that it is empty. You cannot be 'quantitatively atheist' anymore than a pregnant woman can be 'practically non-pregnant' regarding all other unborn children except her own. It is a qualitative binary.

3. The Interaction Question: I did answer your question; you simply disliked the answer because it broke your strawman. You ask what the difference is between a non-interacting God and a non-existent God. Within a consistent framework, the difference is the existence of reality itself.

Your demand to 'detect' an interaction assumes God must be an entity inside the universe tweaking variables. But if God is the bedrock sustaining physical laws and logic at every microsecond, then the very consistency of observable reality is the interaction. Asking to isolate God in a laboratory is like a character inside a software code asking to isolate the programmer within the pixels of the monitor. The framework itself is the evidence.