Truth being oneness or harmony of everything or reason behind life.(i guess so, i haven't reached there, yet.)
Yes absolute truth is beyond words, and you have to get there to know it. Those who knew it could never explain it in words(I understand that language is inadequate in these matters). So, metaphorical statements have always been used.

Truth being oneness or harmony of everything or reason behind life.(i guess so, i haven't reached there, yet.)
Yes absolute truth is beyond words, — ahmad bilal

You don't see a problem here?

Metaphors are not words?

Again, wisdom seems to me to be a worth goal in itself; why add "oneness or harmony of everything or reason behind life"?

Oops! Didn't realise that this discussion was started two years ago, and didn't realise that I had already made this point. (I thought it seemed familiar...).

It is pragmatic, not "disingenuous" unless you consider pragmatism disingenuous. What do you mean by the "wrong deity", how can there be a "wrong" in this discussion.

I don't like Pascal's wager either, but it a rational alternative, and rationality does not have to be sincere, just reasonable. — Cavacava

Pascal's wager is disingenuous, not "pragmatic", if it's about belief - which it seems to be, or would have to be to be of relevance - because I can't believe in that of which I'm not convinced. So there's no other option without disingenuousness.

A wager is voluntary, belief is not, so belief is not like a wager in an important respect. It's not about what's practical, it's about what's possible. And arguing for the impossible is not reasonable.

What will wisdom achieve?

Metaphors are words, but not exact words to describe something.

Will wisdom not try to solve the greatest mystery of all in the end?(The mystery of existence)

Can word Existence apply to God? Existence only applies to things with spatial property. Isn't God supposed to be a transcendental being outside the realm of existence, reason and perception?

In that case, the question is invalid?

It's not about what's practical, it's about what's possible. And arguing for the impossible is not reasonable. — Sapientia

That depends on what you believe to be possible. :wink:

Lol okay, well how do you conceive of nothing? As a thing or concept?

"Perhaps we can speculate about God based on our intuition and perceptions of life and reality. Some of us have had closer encounters with life (and death) than others and can therefore share their spirituality. Where the more we come to accumulate knowledge, the better we can speculate about God."
-matt
As long as one understands that such talk is just a discussion/speculation then it isn't too bad, but unfortunately most talk involving 'God' isn't such. Also it isn't knowledge itself that would allow one to understand what 'God' is or might be but more like wisdom, which is more about the disciplined methods for processing information then the just information one knows. However since your post does show a mindset that seems ready for such issue (or at least from what little I can know about a person from just a post alone) I will share with you a concept called "duhkha" which roughly means pain/suffering but it is a little more than that. Its true meaning is more about how the imperfection of this world causes the human condition and other unease we all suffer from and is one of the major reasons why many if not most Buddhists do not believe in 'God'.

Dukkha:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dukkha

Knowing what 'God' is and if he/she/it exists is a non-trivial problem that is just as difficult as knowing what true objective 'good' is and because we are no where near solving either of these problems, it is pretty much a given that anyone think that either they have or we have solved it doesn't understand the problem well enough to talk properly about it, is crazier then a person who thinks they are a fried egg, or perhaps a little bit of both.

"Hence the Quaker podcast. That's how to talk about God."
-Banno
I don't disagree that it may be the proper path for some and/or that it might be useful for some in a variety of ways. I guess my main beef against many forms of Abrahamic religions is that they are hierarchical in structure, have a 'believe this way or else' mentality, and/or are hostile in one way or another to ideas and beliefs that are different than their own.

Those who are something like Unitarian Universalist and/or are solitary practitioners who don't push their beliefs on others are not really the kind of people I'm arguing against. I may not be sure of it, but I'm guessing that these Quakers you are talking about are not the evangelical sort I'm unhappy about.

Isn't the goal to listen to silence? Why is there no shushing?

Can word Existence apply to God? Existence only applies to things with spatial property. Isn't God supposed to be a transcendental being outside the realm of existence, reason and perception?

In that case, the question is invalid? — Corvus

'Existence' may have more than just one meaning. In any case the question is about the reality of God. There must be a valid distinction between a God that has no reality beyond the human imagination, that is merely a fictional God, and a God whose reality is independent of the human imagination, the creator of everything that exists.

"Isn't the goal to listen to silence? Why is there no shushing?"
-matt
(While your post may be meant for Banno, I thought I might as well put my two cents in.)

While quietness may lead to more peace of mind and better overall health for most of us, it doesn't sell the way noise can and in a capitalistic society actions and environments that make more money than others (whether it be a loud commercial, a busy mall, packed casino, etc, etc) usually trump others even if there are other pros and cons that should be considered then just the making money part.

I'm pretty sure some of our current health issues whether it be ADHD, chronic pain/chronic fatigue, depression, anxiety, etc can be attributed to some degree due to the amount of noise we are exposed to on a daily basis and the negative impact it has on us. However when corporations or other powers that be look at the spreadsheets they have that are supposed to tell them which of the many choices they should make, it is highly unlikely that in many of the reports they consider whether "low level" noise is taken into hardly any consideration.

↪Banno Will wisdom not try to solve the greatest mystery of all in the end?(The mystery of existence) — ahmad bilal

I'd rather think that the greatest mystery is: what should we do?

conceive — matt

WHat's that, then?

have a 'believe this way or else' mentality, — dclements

I'm thinking of starting a thread on submission. It seems to me to be morally indefensible.

Isn't the goal to listen to silence? — matt

I think, rather, that silence is the result of wisdom.

That must be why God is silent.

I think there is a great difference between asking about the existence of a god in general, and asking about the existence of a specific god.

When taking the general approach, what i consider to be a god in general refers to the set of axioms a person holds to be true enough to act upon. Since all people have a set of axioms they act upon, everyone has a god they serve. Of course this set can change over time by adopting new axioms, or letting go of old axioms. So in that regard, I don't believe atheists exist, the ones that call themselve atheist merely refuse to call their belief in their set of axioms a god.

Another route leading to the same conclusion on the general approach I found by looking into the origin of the word "god". Though it's unclear what the actual source was, there are several logical options, of wich the following stroke me as most usefull:
ghut- "that which is invoked" (source also of Old Church Slavonic zovo "to call," Sanskrit huta- "invoked," an epithet of Indra), from root *gheu(e)- "to call, invoke."
If we define god as "that wich is called upon", then as long as even a single human being is calling upon something, that would constitute the existence of god.

So far the general approach, wich like pascals wager doesn't tell you wich god to believe in.

Seeing the start of the topic, especially:

I think I would consider myself an agnostic with regards to the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, creator of the cosmos. — darthbarracuda

It seems darthbarracuda is more interested in the existence of a more specific god. I'm not sure where he got the 'creator of the cosmos' part from. Since I don't think this was a main concern of people living over 2000 years ago.
In my opinion genisis 1 isn't referring to the the cosmos when it states "in the beginning". I prefer to read it like "in the beginning of human conciousness" rather than 'In the beginning of the cosmos". It makes alot more sense to me that way.

When taking the general approach, what i consider to be a god in general refers to the set of axioms a person holds to be true enough to act upon. Since all people have a set of axioms they act upon, everyone has a god they serve. Of course this set can change over time by adopting new axioms, or letting go of old axioms. So in that regard, I don't believe atheists exist, the ones that call themselve atheist merely refuse to call their belief in their set of axioms a god. — Tomseltje

Interesting, I like this sentiment. The fervor that people can have defending their views can only be described as fanatical and zealous. Calling people's axioms "gods" is analogical, I think, and not appropriate as a literal interpretation, though.

It seems darthbarracuda is more interested in the existence of a more specific god. I'm not sure where he got the 'creator of the cosmos' part from. Since I don't think this was a main concern of people living over 2000 years ago.
In my opinion genisis 1 isn't referring to the the cosmos when it states "in the beginning". I prefer to read it like "in the beginning of human conciousness" rather than 'In the beginning of the cosmos". It makes alot more sense to me that way. — Tomseltje

The Abrahamic god is the one in the back of the minds of philosophers of religion. But I want to focus on the philosophical God, and not a particular god of a pastoral community that commands his followers to cut their penises and sacrifice their children. Philosophical theism, subtracting personality and involvement with the world, is deism. Clockwork theism, the capstone that unifies and grounds the onto-theological reality.

The fervor that people can have defending their views can only be described as fanatical and zealous. — darthbarracuda

I can think of various other descriptions, passionate, religiously or earnestly to name some.

Calling people's axioms "gods" is analogical, I think, and not appropriate as a literal interpretation, though. — darthbarracuda

I was talking about the sets of axioms people hold true enough to act upon. Why think it was analogical and not literal? Perhaps you were thinking of the strict mathematical interpretation of the word axiom? I was more referring to assumptions people hold to be true, even science is based upon such kind of assumptions. Why wouldn't it be appropriate as a literal interpretation?

The Abrahamic god is the one in the back of the minds of philosophers of religion. But I want to focus on the philosophical God — darthbarracuda

I'd consider the Abrahamic god a specific god, I don't think we have much difference of opinion on that as long as it's clear we are not talking about that specific god. Not sure what you mean by the 'philosophical' God. Perhaps you could elaborate on that.

Though if the question is "does god exists" in the most general way, I didn't see anyone come up with a more compelling definition on (a) god(s) that people believe in than the one I used, but perhaps I just missed it. In my opinion, with any question formulated as "does X exist?" it's is essential to start with defining X as precisely as possible.

As many have said, it's critical to define what is meant by "God." I could define "God" as the laptop I'm using right now and prove to myself that "God" exists.

I agree that most philosophers of religion are conversing about the Abrahamic God. But I think the Judaeo-Christian tradition has also developed a conception of God that is often referred to as the "Philosopher's God," i.e., all-powerful, all good, omniscient, personal, etc. This is contrasted with Yahweh in the Old Testament who is portrayed as a very human sort of being with loves. jealousies, passions, intimate involvement with his chosen people, etc.

The Judaeo-Christian "Phiosopher's God" is similar to the Deistic God except that the latter is usually thought of as simply the creator who set everything in motion and then is not involved with human beings or their world.

I've thought a lot about a generic definition of a "god." The one I find most satisfying is that a god is a superhuman agent, an intentional, personal being but much more powerful than human beings and also superior in other ways. I'm thinking that even "animal" or "plant" gods could fit that definition in that they are usually conceived as having humanlike self-awareness and communication abilities. That seems to cover most of the ideas of beings that humans have referred to using the word.

I appreciate the discussion about the origin of the word "God." That shows how a god functions in our lives. But merely invoking a god does not mean that a "god" exists, simply that someone has the idea that the god exists. On the other hand, if one was able to show a a strongly-evidenced causal connection between invoking a god and successful results from those invocations, that would be evidence that the god exists.

Nevertheless, the existence of the Judaeo-Christian Philosopher's God seems to be what most westerners are concerned about. I can make a certain amount of sense out of the idea of a being who has humanlike qualities to perfection--though it's a separate question whether such a being exists. But I'm not able to imagine a purely spiritual being, one without a material existence. And even if I could, I don't know that I'd want to describe such a being as perfect. That being would seem to be lacking something needed for perfection.

So I have trouble even getting off the starting block regarding the existence of God. God simply seems to be an idea of non-material, humanlike perfection.

Or maybe God is an idea that has existence independent of the existence of that idea in anyone's mind?

How about as a necessary being ? A being contingent on nothing ?

I appreciate the discussion about the origin of the word "God." That shows how a god functions in our lives. But merely invoking a god does not mean that a "god" exists, simply that someone has the idea that the god exists. On the other hand, if one was able to show a a strongly-evidenced causal connection between invoking a god and successful results from those invocations, that would be evidence that the god exists. — Michael Cunningham

How about a simple question: Do ideas exist?

A wager is voluntary, belief is not, so belief is not like a wager in an important respect. — Sapientia

Why assume belief is not voluntary. If someone tells me something, I can either choose to believe him/her, disbelief him/her or be agnostic about what that person said. Now unless you come for the predestination angle, rejecting all choises and thus even the existance of something to be voluntary, I don't see why you consider belief to be involuntary.

A perfect deity does not need to make anything. Why did god make the universe? — darthbarracuda

Why assume god made the universe?

I still haven't gotten a good explanation of natural disasters or why god decided to make life so cruel. — darthbarracuda

the abrahamic god with the archetype father respresenting order is one half of the story, nature with the archetype mother representing chaos is the other half. God didn't make life so cruel, nature did, god is the answer on how to limit suffering caused by nature.

the Western, Abrahamic god, is incoherent with evolution. — darthbarracuda

Why assume the abrahamic god is incorherent with evolution? I studied both and I don't see a discrepancy.

God is merely a placeholder for what we do not know. — darthbarracuda

one could think of god as such, personally i rather think of god as the guide on exploring the unknown.

Religious acts, such as rituals and ceremonies, are superstitious and cast major doubt on the character of god. What kind of god not only allows, but wants and most often than not demands that people worship it in an irrational manner? — darthbarracuda

Nonsense, it's not god that wants such, it's (some) people that do. God allows you to make your own choice and face the consequences of your choice.

I became an atheist because I finally came to understand that I believed what I believed not because it was true, but merely because I wanted it to be true.

God(s) is made in man’s image, then ideal.

I agree with Kamikaze that desire for God is a major source of religion. However, even though desire is not evidence of truth it's not evidence of falsehood either--except that if one has only desire then one does not have reasons for belief.

In my mind though it makes sense to search for things we desire. That could include God.

But wouldn't we have to have at least some minimal reason for thinking God existed for it to make sense to search for God?

What would be a good analogy? A cure for cancer? Another planet with humanlike beings? Medical technology that prevented death? A non-material soul for every human being?

I still haven't gotten a good explanation of natural disasters or why god decided to make life so cruel. — darthbarracuda

I am not sure if you would or would not consider it a good explanation or not, but the one most used by theists like myself would be the concept of compensating goods. Dr. Hud Hudson has a very good lecture on it on youtube based on The Rabbit in the Garden Story if you have an hour to kill on a drive.

The evil, caused by human acts of free will, is kind of easy. The ability to act freely is a good thing, it has a consequence that it also allows people to act badly and cause suffering, but the value of free will compensates for the suffering.

Natural disasters are harder, and in general involve some type of no seeum defense. Something along the lines off what makes us think we would know the compensating good, even if we saw it.

This part is not a defense - but it is something I always wonder when someone brings up the problem from evil, is they never mention the good. Seems like we are happy to accept the good as a creation of man, but the bad - well that is God. Just an aside.

I agree with Kamikaze that desire for God is a major source of religion. However, even though desire is not evidence of truth it's not evidence of falsehood either--except that if one has only desire then one does not have reasons for belief. — Michael Cunningham

This in general is Camus' absurdity. We have some innate desire to search for meaning, yet we lack the ability and the tools to actually find it, if it even exists. Camus' answer is an acceptance of this absurdity, while he feels others perform some type of philosophic suicide in finding meaning in false faiths. God being the most used.

My personal answer to this absurdity is a theistic belief, that does provide a meaningful reason to push the rock up the hill one more time. However, I fully acknowledge that most of these beliefs are based on faith and are outside reason. I see nothing wrong with that as long as the beliefs are not in conflict with fact or reason. And all opinions to the contrary - theism is still a reasonable believe

And my reasoned defense for my theistic believe is twofold, the first is easy, it works for me. It makes me happier, more joyful, and in many ways a better human being as I define that. The second is either due to some combination of nature or nurture I am always drawn back to my faith. I have tried to intellectualize myself out it on many occasions, but there is some part of me that is always drawn back.

More theology than philosophy in that last part.