I don't understand.
I was not born believing in God (some may be, but not I). And it seemed far from common sense to think he existed until I encountered a proof.

I'd say an assumption is an assumed proposition.

I see lots of people throw the word "God" around when that term, that concept, has not first been defined in the discussion. — James Riley

An assumed proposition is similar to question begging in asking for no doubt to be utilized in face of a supposition like argument about X to be held as true.

I mention that it can seem just as plausible to believe in Gods existence as the lack of his existence and no amount of empirical evidence would support either conclusion.

It's just a belief.

Because they start from axioms. Empiricism, for instance, starts from the requirement that whatever is posited is discernable by sense-experience, or is mathematically provable with reference to such evidence, as a matter of course. Logic starts from axioms and rules, such as the law of identity and the law of the excluded middle. — Wayfarer

I think the only response to this would be question begging for the existence of God in any discussion.

One first has to assume what does it mean to say that God exists, and I don't mean this in the traditional sense.

Well we can know a holy God doesn't exist, because God is said to be the necessary ground of everything and would be the necessary ground for all horrible things in the world (rape, ect). So a holy God can't be a part of that

He can't be perfectly "simple" because if he created the world than that adds a thought to his simplicity and he is no longer perfectly simply. So that's out of the way

Holiness and simplicity are essential for a traditional Western view of God.

There's some confusion here. You were talking about science. Science doesn't investigate whether God exists. Philosophers do. That doesn't mean that empirical evidence is impotent to affect the reasonableness of belief in God. It's just that any such case would be philosophical and would appeal to some non empirical premises.

One first has to assume what does it mean to say that God exists, and I don't mean this in the traditional sense. — Shawn

You will encounter in various schools of philosophy, the assertion that God is 'beyond being'. What this means, in my understanding, is 'beyond existence'. In Buddhist philosophy, it refers to that which does not come into or go out of existence, that which is 'always so'. And that tradition doesn't speak in terms of 'God' at all, nor is the Buddha supposed to be a 'creator God'. (You find a comparable idea at the origin of Western metaphysics, specifically in the fragmentary sayings of Parmenides. Both the Buddha and Parmenides are said to be exemplars of the 'axial age' of philosophy.)

So this, to me, points to the way the question has to be framed. The transcendent nature of the first cause is such that it is not encompassed by discursive reason nor by objective analysis. You might say that the only other option is faith - to believe without knowing - but I think the way is actually through the deep kind of 'un-knowing', the doorway to which is meditation or contemplation.

You have to realise that God preserved in the dessicated relics of tradition was created for a purpose, keeping the flock within the paddock, so to speak. But a philosophical awareness of the nature of question is what is needed to approach the question analytically, which is what I'm trying to do here. And it's considerably more radical than conventional theology. (I noticed this book a couple of years back.)

There's a column I often point to in this respect. It's by a Bishop of the European Episcopal Church, and it's called God does not Exist.

Well, I'm not addressing the, identification of the Westernized Abrahamic God in terms of his historical or descriptive attributes. I'm more leaning towards treating the existence of God as the sole factor here.

What I found out is interesting.

1) The Principle of Sufficient Reason is necessary for endowing God with an existence in the world, otherwise it's 'woo'.

Does anyone agree with 1)?

An assumed proposition is similar to question begging in asking for no doubt to be utilized in face of a suppository argument about X to be held as true. — Shawn

Like X = X?

You will encounter in various schools of philosophy, the assertion that God is 'beyond being'. — Wayfarer

This is where language goes on holiday. I believe that with dispensing the Principle of Sufficient Reason, that science and logic so heavily rely on, one is committing oneself to the supernatural or creationism.

I think there shouldn't be any dispute about this, or is there?

You have cut to the bone of the issue. You may or may not agree with Spinoza but he tried to answer your challenge. Moving the arguments past whether something existed or not to what is a cause.

Like X = X? — James Riley

More like:

Assume X,
Therefore, X

See the response immediately prior to yours...

Glad your still around.

That quote sounds pretty accurate to me. For instance, many folks add "good" to the definition of God. I never understood that. It certainly doesn't factor into my understanding of God. I'd also have to agree about the "lack of any coherent sense at all" when it comes to my own understanding God.

More like:

Assume X,
Therefore, X — Shawn

Got it. Thanks.

This is where language goes on holiday. I — Shawn

No, it's where philosophical theology exceeds your grasp. Don't take that as a pejorative. But there is a definite and real method here if you're patient enough to try and grasp it.

I believe that with dispensing the Principle of Sufficient Reason, that science and logic so heavily rely on, one is committing oneself to the supernatural or creationism. — Shawn

That's a telling objection. Today's culture will always posit this question as a conflict between 'secure, rational science' and 'obscure, superstitious mysticism'. They are the horns of the dilemma.

1) The Principle of Sufficient Reason is necessary for endowing God with an existence in the world, otherwise it's 'woo'. — Shawn

Yes that's true, but then you have to ask if God is immanent in us or not. It's the next immediate question

There's no reason to argue with him if he's going to accept well known fallacies.

I believe that with dispensing the Principle of Sufficient Reason, that science and logic so heavily rely on, one is committing oneself to the supernatural or creationism. — Shawn

How do science and logic rely on the Principle of Sufficient Reason?

I wold have though it somewhat anachronistic. I've seen no mention of it in studies of scientific methodology nor formal logic.

Am I mistaken?

No, it's where philosophical theology exceeds your grasp. Don't take that as a pejorative. But there is a definite and real method here if you're patient enough to try and grasp it. — Wayfarer

Read the rest of the post. I instantiate that everything in this world has a cause and effect, per the PoSR. Therefore, if you assume that something came out of nothing, as per the only reason why God can possibly exist according to science (which science labels as intelligent design, assuming that you believe that God exists), then that's how the argument unfolds according the the PoSR.

He did. But common sense is not easy to tease out.

I think believing in God at one time during our evolutionary history made sense and was even rational. It's an attempt at an explanation for existence. Now those arguments aren't nearly as persuasive or good.

So early belief is in some respects easier to think about than modern belief in terms of what one uses to explain certain phenomena.

How do science and logic rely on the Principle of Sufficient Reason? — Banno

In logic, it's called material implication, in science it's called a cause for every effect.

If you subscribe to the PoSR, then God only makes sense if something came out from nothing. But, to attribute this to God is called creationism or more commonly intelligent design.

Do you agree with this?

So early belief is in some respects easier to think about than modern belief in terms of what one uses to explain certain phenomena. — Manuel

Yes, and here the PoSR has it's strength in assuming that everything has a reason for it's phenomenon or more modernly, cause. Otherwise you incur supernaturalism or revelation or some such. A religious person would say that this is where faith is needed, because belief can only be scrutinized so much.

I advise the PoSR to anyone considering any assumed proposition. Why? Logic and sound reasoning demands so.

There's no reason to argue with him if he's going to accept fallacies. — Wheatley

That may be why no one argues with me. My definition of God (what I call All, or simply A) is so broad that it defies logic. A = A and -A at the same time. I honestly can't fathom a God that does not. Anything less is certainly no God as I define it.

The PoSR:

The Principle of Sufficient Reason is a powerful and controversial philosophical principle stipulating that everything must have a reason, cause, or ground. This simple demand for thoroughgoing intelligibility yields some of the boldest and most challenging theses in the history of philosophy. In this entry we begin by explaining the Principle and then turn to the history of the debates around it. We conclude with an examination of the emerging contemporary discussion of the Principle.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sufficient-reason/#PSRContPhil

It's just game. He's just playing games.

That's a telling objection. Today's culture will always posit this question as a conflict between 'secure, rational science' and 'obscure, superstitious mysticism'. They are the horns of the dilemma. — Wayfarer

:up:

So, I take it your not a fan of the PoSR?

But what if God is purely an internal thing and is not above, below, alongside, and in any sense outside the world. The sufficient reason isn't outside things. Science can explain just fine how the world came to be (Hawking's hypothesis, ect)

But what if God is purely an internal thing and is not above, below, alongside, and in any sense outside the world. The sufficient reason isn't outside things. Science can explain just fine how the world came to be (Hawking's hypothesis, ect)
2m — Gregory

Along this line of reasoning, if one assumes that God is the World, then it seems to me that the definition logically becomes that God is Nature.

So, I leave it up to you to decide whether God has to exist in everything that we call the World or just utilize what science empirically explains as the phenomenon of Nature, etc.

How did this purely internal thing come to be? If it is separated from all the other stuff, when did that happen? And if one is to accept such a possibility, why bother trying to make sense of other things that are not like that if the internal thing is primary?