How did God come to be?

Then why arent there others exploiting this nature of becoming a God?

Did he secure the position by not letting anyone else become a God?

When something first begins, there's likely a variety of similar existences all using the same method. Call it a playground of the Gods.

I'd be more understanding. I'd look at the 'playground' equally as I'd look at the Gods.

So what you're confusing as God is actually the nature of Gods.

(Nothing like deities, more like a species).

How did God come to be?

1. Answer: Not sure; how did your own existence come to be; is it infinitely regressive you think? If the answer is yes, that may answer part of your question. Otherwise, you're left with the simple act of creation, your mom and dad's procreation :chin:

Then why arent there others exploiting this nature of becoming a God?

2. Answer: do not understand the question, please re-state(?)

Did he secure the position by not letting anyone else become a God?

3. Answer: same as item 2.

When something first begins, there's likely a variety of similar existences all using the same method. Call it a playground of the Gods.

I'd be more understanding. I'd look at the 'playground' equally as i'd look at the Gods.

I'd realise I'm human, and not less than God - above God, made of the same nature. — wiyte

I'm not following you wiyte, is that the answer to my questions?

LOL

3017amen
1.5k
sure what to say...you are moving all over the place rather than discussing a single issue.
— Frank Apisa

Well Frank, this subject is not for the faint of hearts. It's quite comprehensive. Think of it this way, virtually all domains of Philosophy invoke God. So, that didn't come from me, it came from Philosophy :gasp:

You seem to disagree.

If you are...tell me how either of those statements is NOT a blind guess.
— Frank Apisa

I'm trying to, you're not listening Frank. Let's start with this train of thought:

If I tell you I saw God, or had a religious experience, would you believe me? If I read that someone saw God in a history book, or had a religious experience in a history book, should I believe them? What if the teacher teaches me, a something; is that true? — 3017amen

Okay...you are still going to bullshit around.

No problemo. I just thought you were serious.

I'll leave you to your fallacy then.

How did God come to be?

The bible suggests that in the beginning was God. It skips how God came to be.

In answering my only question in this post, you would discover 'becoming a God'. When at the time of before the universe, 'becoming a God' is a measure of what's possible. You, at this time. become a God if you do this. Therefore, likely a species exists.

I'm not explaining to you again. If you mis-understand.

Something did something to become God, something created God.

Frank!

What's the problem, I thought we were engaging in discursive debate? I hope you are not acquiescing by silence/not answering my questions concerning belief... .

Gosh, you are 'dropping like flies'. Think about my answers and come back with some constructive criticism when you can!

Be well!

3017amen
1.5k
↪Frank Apisa

Frank!

What's the problem, I thought we were engaging in discursive debate? I hope you are not acquiescing by silence/not answering my questions concerning belief... . — 3017amen

I am interested in YOU answering my question first...then we can go to your question.

Here it is again:

I am saying that a statement like "I 'believe' there are no gods"...is nothing more than a blind guess about whether any gods exist or not.

I also am saying that a statement like "I 'believe' (in) God" also is nothing more than a blind guess about whether any gods exist or not.

You seem to disagree.

If you are...tell me how either of those statements is NOT a blind guess.

You seem to disagree. — Frank Apisa

Yes. I disagree. Please see my response and follow-up query. Are you not able to debate those?

3017amen
1.5k
You seem to disagree.
— Frank Apisa

Yes. I disagree. Please see my response and follow-up query. Are you not able to debate those? — 3017amen

I KNOW YOU DISAGREE, AMEN.

I am asking why you think either or both of those statements are NOT just blind guesses.

I am asking why you think either or both of those statements are NOT just blind guesses. — Frank Apisa

Yes Frank, and I am saying that, by positing my simple questions about belief, those should make sense to you and provide part of the answers...but you refuse to dialogue with me.

I don't know what else I can do. Do you want to parse the differences between objective and subjective truth's? I asked you what was the nature of a truth, and you said I was 'all over the place'. Then I answered that a belief can be held philosophically as a justified true belief.

And so in the specific context of the OP, you refused to answer the questions concerning what might be a type of belief, hence:

If I tell you I saw God, or had a religious experience, would you believe me? If I read that someone saw God in a history book, or had a religious experience in a history book, should I believe them? What if the teacher teaches me, a something; is that true?

Okay...I'm not going to get an answer...and I am tired of asking.

Maybe we will meet in another thread.

If I tell you I saw God, or had a religious experience, would you believe me? If I read that someone saw God in a history book, or had a religious experience in a history book, should I believe them? What if the teacher teaches me, a something; is that true? — 3017amen

Try thinking about those questions relative to the OP. You might find the answer you are looking for....

Otherwise, I get it. No problem, if you are not ready to dialogue with me, till next time Frank!

Be well my brother!

Stay safe yourself, Amen. Same to everyone in the forum.

Hi. This is the kind of question I was answering.

The point is, if you did not experience any of those things, what would compel another uninterested person to believe, or think, or infer, that those experiences were a result of some sense of Deity? — 3017amen

My answer addressed only one conception of religion. Personally I find religion to be symbolically true in many ways and cases. Various important repeatable insights are encoded in religious texts, art, and rituals. But I understand that to be a dominant and uncontroversial view.

For experiences of God/gods to be taken as more than metaphors for states of mind, I suggest that power is what would convince, if it were indeed manifest. Instead the so-called problem of evil suggests the rhetorical necessity for a hidden or mysterious God. The 'obvious' lack of benevolent divine rule has to be explained away somehow.

Perhaps at one time to be an atheist or agnostic was being a rebel, however in this day and age such people are dime a dozen. The two main characters in the movie "Juno" describe most people who come out of high school in America.

But i should say being a rebel or different doesn't neccesarily equate to being an ethical person. — christian2017

I agree that it's no longer rebellious to be irreligious. I'd say that the dominant religion has simply changed. It's all on the front page of the culture war. The trans issue (to name just one) is a 'theological' problem. People were once terrified of being called atheists and are now terrified of being called racists, homophobes, etc. At the same time, someone like Jordan Peterson (who remembers him now?) could become almost instantly famous by casting himself as a rebel against the 'rebellion.'

I have seen Juno, and I agree with what I think is your implicit criticism of a certain predictable persona. I follow pop culture, and certain themes and heroes have been repeated, repeated, repeated. At the same time, godlessness is a difficult path, even as it becomes more common. The young, beautiful, and rich are living in the high-tech garden of delights, so they are exceptions perhaps.

Perhaps at one time to be an atheist or agnostic was being a rebel, however in this day and age such people are dime a dozen. The two main characters in the movie "Juno" describe most people who come out of high school in America.

But i should say being a rebel or different doesn't neccesarily equate to being an ethical person.
— christian2017

I agree that it's no longer rebellious to be irreligious. I'd say that the dominant religion has simply changed. It's all on the front page of the culture war. The trans issue (to name just one) is a 'theological' problem. People were once terrified of being called atheists and are now terrified of being called racists, homophobes, etc. At the same time, someone like Jordan Peterson (who remembers him now?) could become almost instantly famous by casting himself as a rebel against the 'rebellion.'

I have seen Juno, and I agree with what I think is your implicit criticism of a certain predictable persona. I follow pop culture, and certain themes and heroes have been repeated, repeated, repeated. At the same time, godlessness is a difficult path, even as it becomes more common. The young, beautiful, and rich are living in the high-tech garden of delights, so they are exceptions perhaps. — jjAmEs

"godlessness is a difficult path"

Based on your response you would agree godlessness (what you mean by godlessness based on the context) is a spectrum. Simple example: many Christian people are godless.

Until this country embraces true fiscal conservatism (overly-simplified: need to modify building codes)(not just raise taxes or lower taxes), it will be hard to be a moderate godless person or any person who can percieve other people's problems to a certain threshold.

Our generation has been wiped out by lazy & war mongering politicitians, suicide, a subset of Republicans who don't know what true fiscal conservatism, and as well corruption in the domestic sphere which is atleast indirectly the result of a corrupt church.

There are infact alternatives to suicide.

#Shark_Fighter_Nation

or

#Fight_A_Rattle_Snake_With_A_Pair_Of_Garden_Shears

Have a great week Sir!

So for the 101 student, what are people looking for to prove God's existence? What domains of Philosophy are appropriate? What domains of Science are appropriate? — 3017amen

I think the notion of god as a creator and the fact that gods began as beings who controlled nature says it all - god(s) were explanations of natural phenomena and of nature itself. The problem is that the explanation (god) is a product of shoddy thinking - more of a vague notion than a carefully considered inference.

Isn't it obvious then that as the suns pass by, as people put the idea of god under the lens of rigorous logic, that flaws will be detected in our conception of the divine? In other words, proving god will be next to impossible; its origins in the dim intellect of our ancestors is to blame.

So, it's not as much a matter of what kind of proof will satisfy the questioning skeptic as it is about the inherent flaws in the concept of god. Think of it; if god were defined as being as emotional as us, having flaws as we all do, imperfect so to speak, then many atheistic arguments like the problem of evil wouldn't pack the punch it does with the current definition of god as perfect in every way.

I think the notion of god as a creator and the fact that gods began as beings who controlled nature says it all - god(s) were explanations of natural phenomena and of nature itself. The problem is that the explanation (god) is a product of shoddy thinking - more of a vague notion than a carefully considered inference. — TheMadFool

Well said TMF!! I believe 'carefully considered inference' bridges the domains of both science and philosophy. And all that of course, is looking at the problem through the macro lens, as you suggest. Nevertheless, while logical inference is the wind that propels us into the next dimension of a newness/awareness, and/or a new way of Being. It is apposed to the contrast of deduction and the limitations thereto. And that is mostly because living life is not A or B, it's A and B. In other words, the irony is that while deduction is very useful in its own right, it cannot exclusively help us with the human condition and our way of Being. But you already knew all that!

With respect to the concept of God that you mentioned, I think about the omni-trilemma, or Epicurus Trilemma . We must remember that these were just humans who came up with the idea. Hence the fallibility of same. (Although one could reconcile part of the omni-attributes/dilemma if one incorporates randomness from, say, physics into a notion of macro-inference and/or other analogous/metaphorical ways of Being.)

In any case, we can't stay trapped in the logic of language here because we know that the meaning of life stuff, concerns us more with things that transcend language itself... . And so back to your idea of sentience, along with the notion that if one were to combine that with experience, phenomenology(ineffable phenom), existentialism, cosmology & metaphysics/consciousness, we would abdicate Dr. Spock's pure reason by subordinating that to the higher reaches of human nature; life isn't so bad after all :snicker:

And all of that would suggest yet another domain being relevant here: cognitive science. Of course, William James, Carl Jung, AH Maslow, and other's would be somewhat germane there...

"The difference between the theoretician of faith and the believer is as great as between the psychiatrist and the psychotic." ~E.M. Cioran

You'll have to read 'the book' and suck the sweet meats (i.e. aporia & arguments) off of these bones (i.e. criteria, methods & vocabulary) for yourself then. I'll be sure to ring the cannibell when this still-moveable feast (i.e. manuscript draft) is finally self-served.

:up: 180, Danke Schon!

“God is the name we give to the science we don't understand. Science is the name we give to the God we don't understand.”
― Steve Maraboli, Unapologetically You: Reflections on Life and the Human Experience

:point:

"Deus, sive natura."
~Lil Benny (previously Lil Barry)