Extra-dimensional God? I believe so.

[Yazata]

But trying to convince others of this has been a bit of a struggle

The problem becomes why it is a struggle to convince people God exists.

I think that there are a variety of reasons and it's complex.

Part of it is that there's little agreement on how to define the word 'God' or about what we mean when we use the word.

Many people associate 'God' with a big cosmic emperor in the sky (or wherever). Judaism, Christianity and Islam often lean towards that. Even Hinduism in some of its many moods. And lots of people don't want to believe in that. (I'm one of them probably.)

I mean really. There's no struggle believing real things exist. Trees, rocks, clouds, and stars. They're real because they are self-evident. But there apparently is a struggle to believe God exists.

God certainly isn't self-evident to our human senses in the same way that the tables and the chairs are. So along with belief in a hidden God we seem to need some kind of theological theory of divine hiddenness. That might demand a whole ontology, with explanations or at least claims about different kinds of existence.

It's a very simple proposition in the end: "If God exists, show me he exists. The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. Then explain why he doesn't show himself to be existent."

I think that the persuasive burden lies with whoever wants to convince somebody else of something that the second person doesn't already believe. I call it a burden of persuasion rather than proof because it rarely rises to the level of proof.

I'm less convinced that a believer has any similar burden if there's no intention to convince anyone else. One might adopt an ethics of belief view and argue that it's wrong to believe anything without suitable justification, but I'm unconvinced of that. Defining 'suitable justification' would be a challenge, as would making room for morals, aesthetics, logical and mathematical intuitions. Even phenomenal sense experience.

As for me, I find myself drifting towards deism, much as Anthony Flew did late in his life. He was the atheist's-atheist, who seemingly defected to the dark-side.

I just intuit that the universe, the laws of physics, the formal patterns of logic and all that require explanation. It's possible to define 'God' to be whatever reality's ultimate explanation might be. And that forms the basis of a logical proof of the existence of God:

1. For all x, if x exists then a sufficient reason for x's existence exists. (This is philosophy's Principle of Sufficient Reason and it's controversial. But I just kind of feel that for any determinate state of affairs, we can always ask why it's that way and not some other way. Science often seems to assume it when it assumes that states of affairs aren't just givens but have histories and explanations that science can uncover. Think of what Darwin did for species.)

2. Reality exists. (Seemingly self-evident.)

3. God is reality's sufficient reason. (It's traditional in natural theology and the whole 'God as creator' thing. It's exemplified in first-cause and design arguments. Again, it's controversial.)

4. A sufficient reason for reality's existence exists. (From 1. and 2.)

5. God exists. (From 3. and 4.)

It seems to me that this is an impeccably valid logical proof. But like all logical arguments, it's only as good as its premises. 1. and 3. seem iffy to me. One might even want to argue with 2.

But I do find it somewhat convincing in my own life. I do sense (very strongly) that there are unknown explanations about which I know nothing. Unknown powers at work. (It's my surrounded by mysteries thing.) I'm not particularly motivated to call it 'God' in my own thinking, but I can see why other people might. (And many have.) Obviously there are regress problems. There's the problem that an unknown explanation isn't necessarily a suitable object of worship or any other distinctly religious emotion.

But I guess that the idea of an unknown Cosmic Source comes as close to religiosity as I come. I'm a bit of a Neoplatonist, perhaps.

[Zinjanthropos]

Belief kind of means commitment to me. I find it difficult to go all in when there’s unknown quantities. Doesn’t have to be God, could be anything that requires some faith, like putting trust in a sales pitch for example. I tend to lean in the direction of a belief if it has at least some known components, like a good theory, yet it’s possible I could still doubt despite what may be considered positive proof.

It may come down to a personal degree of skepticism. Each of us possess a different level of it I suppose, at least from what I’ve experienced in life. Believers may not like it but I think checks and balances are good things in some instances. Even theists do it, like those who say God’s there but he’s hiding just out of sensing range, isn’t that somewhat skeptical thinking?

[Magical Realist]

I'm not particularly motivated to call it 'God' in my own thinking, but I can see why other people might. (And many have.) Obviously there are regress problems. There's the problem that an unknown explanation isn't necessarily a suitable object of worship or any other distinctly religious emotion.

My problem with most religion is in it's inadequate conceptions of God and the consequential dysfunctional narrative that sets up for our lives. If you're goin to believe in something transcendental, it's gotta be something more than an invisible magical daddy figure..

Typically religious believers rise no higher morally than their own personal conception of God. So all that stuff from religion about God being a person who punishes sin in hell and judges people and requires constant worshipping just stunts their spiritual growth and ethical character over time, like God has become this gigantic projection of their own insecure childlike ego, requiring endless stroking and validation.

Do I have a personal conception of a God? The closest I come to is Being itself. It aligns with my vision in life to live a meaningful and transmundane life that discovers ultimate truths about the cosmos and reality. Being for me is best metaphorized as an eternally manifesting and all-conscious Light, expressing and revealing truth by its very nature. I don't call it God either. It's more like an assumed destining and purposing source of my life's meaning. There's something greater than me in my life making things happen fortuitously and guiding me thru soulful experiences. I feel it in my bones!

[C C]

Philosophical theism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_theism

INTRO: Philosophical theism is the belief that the Supreme Being exists (or must exist) independent of the teaching or revelation of any particular religion. It represents belief in God entirely without doctrine, except for that which can be discerned by reason and the contemplation of natural laws.

Some philosophical theists are persuaded of God's existence by philosophical arguments, while others consider themselves to have a religious faith that need not be, or could not be, supported by rational argument. Philosophical theism has parallels with the 18th century philosophical view called Deism.

Relationship to organized religion. Philosophical theism conceives of nature as the result of purposive activity and so as an intelligible system open to human understanding, although possibly never completely understandable. It implies the belief that nature is ordered according to some sort of consistent plan and manifests a single purpose or intention, however incomprehensible or inexplicable.

However, philosophical theists do not endorse or adhere to the theology or doctrines of any organized religion or church. They may accept arguments or observations about the existence of a god advanced by theologians working in some religious tradition, but reject the tradition itself. (For example, a philosophical theist might believe certain Christian arguments about God while nevertheless rejecting Christianity.)

Notable philosophical theists <includes Gödel> ..... (MORE - details)

[Magical Realist]

I remember when I was studying Whitehead how he had made room in his metaphysical system for God, as a sort of abstract source of all possibilities. That never set well with me though, leaving God out of any involvement with our human experience. Jung came along later and described God as an archetype of the Higher Self that guides us thru dreams and symbolic imagery towards the life goal of individual wholeness. That suited me better. The idea that God/Being/The Higher Self is an immanent and relevant experience of our psyche that is.