The assertion “I believe in God” is true or false. It cannot be anything else.
Right but what is God? There’s a myriad of different answers to that and most religions a God is not a being as much an idea or force.
This is where it not being black and white comes into play. Answering that question with True of False means you believe my god is what you believe God to be. That’s likely not the case.
Choose one god. Tell me if you believe in it or not. The answer is binary.
And your answer is a cop-out. God with a capital G, the god called God, is understood to be the Judeochristian deity. But whatever, you’re obviously not discussing in good faith so let’s end it here.
Not a cop out it’s just not black and white. You seem to really be struggling with the fact someone could be in a state between believing in God and not.
You’d be surprised how many Christians will tell you they struggle with believing from time to time. The ones who will admit it at least. Many do and to many God is different from one to the next.
A dog is a real tangible thing. Easy to say yes. You’d have to be delusional not to believe it.
God isn’t a person or thing, you can’t touch it, and the evidence is old written and many translated texts. However there is an obvious gap in our understanding of how and why we are here. So is God involved, was there a guiding hand can totally be a question that hasn’t fully resolved itself in my mind.
the evidence is old written and many translated texts
That is not evidence. They’re stories in a book that have not been corroborated by anything real later.
When you talk about evidence you need to refer to objetive, material, reproducible evidence that can be examined by skeptics, and that is valid both for the scientific method and before the law.
If your notion is unverifiable by definition, is not worth considering.
So is God involved, was there a guiding hand can totally be a question that hasn’t fully resolved itself in my mind.
You don’t have any legitimate reason to ask the question in the first place. The whole idea makes no sense.
Nobody said anything about “life”. Nice strawman you have there.
The more important question is why any rational being would want to follow a religion, but I digress.
I’m answering specifically to this assertion you made:
The assertion “I believe in God” is true or false. It cannot be anything else.
Right but what is God? There’s a myriad of different answers to that and most religions a God is not a being as much an idea or force.
This is where it not being black and white comes into play. Answering that question with True of False means you believe my god is what you believe God to be. That’s likely not the case.
Choose one god. Tell me if you believe in it or not. The answer is binary.
And your answer is a cop-out. God with a capital G, the god called God, is understood to be the Judeochristian deity. But whatever, you’re obviously not discussing in good faith so let’s end it here.
Not a cop out it’s just not black and white. You seem to really be struggling with the fact someone could be in a state between believing in God and not.
You’d be surprised how many Christians will tell you they struggle with believing from time to time. The ones who will admit it at least. Many do and to many God is different from one to the next.
It’s not a struggle on my part; the whole idea is stupid.
If I ask you if you believe that dogs are real, the only options are yes or no. You cannot be unaware of the state of your own belief.
A dog is a real tangible thing. Easy to say yes. You’d have to be delusional not to believe it.
God isn’t a person or thing, you can’t touch it, and the evidence is old written and many translated texts. However there is an obvious gap in our understanding of how and why we are here. So is God involved, was there a guiding hand can totally be a question that hasn’t fully resolved itself in my mind.
That is not evidence. They’re stories in a book that have not been corroborated by anything real later.
When you talk about evidence you need to refer to objetive, material, reproducible evidence that can be examined by skeptics, and that is valid both for the scientific method and before the law.
If your notion is unverifiable by definition, is not worth considering.
You don’t have any legitimate reason to ask the question in the first place. The whole idea makes no sense.