Interesting observations. I would agree we are here to observe and learn, though regardless of the meanings of existence I am happy to witness it. Especially considering the life I am experiencing now is the only one I can contest to ever experiencing up to this point.

No body cares about people wearing hats. — Lif3r

Hat sellers do.

People care about God. — Lif3r

As an atheist, I care more about everything in existence than God.

Are we meant to observe reality and to become more intelligent in order to strengthen our ability to report the nature of reality back to it's existence and "Strengthen the brain of reality",or no? — Lif3r

No. We're not "meant" to do anything, least of all something which makes so little sense. Report the nature of reality back to its existence? "Hey, existence of reality! Listen up! Guess what I've just found out..." :brow:

Number of people who sell hats<Number of people who inqure about God.

That's exactly what you do every time you learn something. You are a part of the existence of reality. Your reach on reality is anyone or anything you communicate with. This process is called evolution.

As an atheist, I care more about everything in existence than God.

Do you see how if the definition of God encompasses another definition there can be a bridge built between the people who care about the "Magik Sky Person" known as "God" and the people who care about everything in existence?

Or are you more interested in the wall between the two that has already existed for thousands of years? People standing on either side of a line shouting at each other. This is a worldwide epidemic that creates war and tragedy. How is that conducive to the longevity of the species?

To formulate a ground breaking comprimise between two beliefs you have to think completely out of the box and bring your information back to the parties who fight.

You are along the same lines of refusing to redefine because of your current understanding of the word, and how much you don't like it S...

Number of people who sell hats<Number of people who inqure [sic] about God. — Lif3r

Therefore you win and it all makes sense now. For a moment there I thought I had you on the ropes, but boy, you showed me! Well, except for the minor detail of you missing the point entirely, but let's not let that get in the way.

That's exactly what you do every time you learn something. You are a part of the existence of reality. Your reach on reality is anyone or anything you communicate with. This process is called evolution. — Lif3r

You talk funny. Has anyone ever told you that?

Do you see how if the definition of God encompasses another definition there can be a bridge built between the people who care about the "Magik Sky Person" known as "God" and the people who care about everything in existence? — Lif3r

Yes, I do see how the people with an irrational sentimental attachment to an imaginary magical sky daddy can take the name of said sky daddy and conflate it with everything in existence in a superficial and ultimately pointless attempt at whitewashing theism, which, underneath the visage, either renders it indistinct from atheism, or amounts to an attempt to smuggle in theistic baggage through the back door.

Or are you more interested in the wall between the two that has already existed for thousands of years? People standing on either side of a line shouting at each other. This is a worldwide epidemic that creates war and tragedy. How is that conducive to the longevity of the species?

To formulate a ground breaking comprimise between two beliefs you have to think completely out of the box and bring your information back to the parties who fight. — Lif3r

War, fighting, tragedy, a wall between them, thousands of years, worldwide epidemic, ground breaking compromise! :lol:

You are along the same lines of refusing to redefine because of your current understanding of the word, and how much you don't like it S... — Lif3r

Yes. It is what it is and ain't what it ain't, and that's the way it is for a reason. It annoys me every time someone like you comes along and thinks that they're being innovative by doing what has been done a thousand times before, and by thinking that it will meaningfully change anything. "Hey guys, I know, let's take the name 'God' and apply it to something else!", as if that really solves anything. Do you know how many discussions I've seen pop up and fade away along the same lines? God is love, God is energy, God is everything, God is this, God is that, God is up, God is down, God is in, God is out, God is shake it all a-bloody-bout. It's a bit like, if I were to rename silence "Mother", then Mother wouldn't nag me all the time! Aren't I a bloody genius? Problem solved.

I'm not interested in this discussion with you anymore because disrespect is not debate.

I'm not interested in the discussion anymore because disrespect is not debate. — Lif3r

That's alright, I don't depend on your continued interest in the discussion or on your ideals of a debate free from harsh words and ridicule, in which we can all hold hands and speak delicately to one another like little snowflakes.

We can change the word from "God" to "Reality" and reap the same responsibility. — Lif3r

So God is everything in existence? I feel like you just answered your own question.

As an atheist, I care more about everything in existence than God. — S

I must ask, do you consider God to even be a possibility? If so, I would say that is the definition of faith. If not, how can you be so certain about something you cannot see? There are theories that modern governments spy on their citizens, do you believe or disbelieve that? Edward Snowden, just saying.

I must ask, do you consider God to even be a possibility? — MountainDwarf

Yes, of course, so long as nothing about the concept makes it impossible. It's either possible and in the same category as the flying spaghetti monster, or it's impossible and in the same category as square circles. But of course, the concept is arguably one of the most vague and one of the most variable out there, so further clarification would be required.

If so, I would say that is the definition of faith. — MountainDwarf

You would be talking nonsense. Acknowledging possibilities is not an acceptable definition of faith. It's reasonable to acknowledge possibilities. It's not a matter of faith. A matter of faith would be extending your belief beyond that possibility based not on reason, but your own blind faith. That would be unreasonable. It would, in all likelihood, amount to wishful thinking.

If not, how can you be so certain about something you cannot see? — MountainDwarf

Ah, you must be a novice, else you wouldn't ask such an ill-considered question. There are plenty of counterexamples consisting of things we do not see, yet which there is sufficient evidence to justify belief, but God is not one of them. Wind, bacteria, electrons, blood cells, consciousness, etc.

There are theories that modern governments spy on their citizens, do you believe or disbelieve that? Edward Snowden, just saying. — MountainDwarf

Where there is sufficient accessible evidence backing them up, I would believe them. Again, that's not faith. Faith in this scenario would be for the conspiracy theorist.

Having a theory, having some reason to doubt, having some evidence, or having grounds for investigation, does not in itself warrant jumping to a much stronger conclusion. If you fill that gap with faith, then you're no longer being reasonable. And that's the key difference.

Maybe I’m sensitive, but why is it such a common thing to use such disparaging terms to refer to someone’s beliefs.

It is not a matter of fact that God is or God is not. It is a reasonable belief that God is or God is not.

It is ignorant to disparage anyone’s beliefs that are not in conflict with fact or reason.

It's either possible and in the same category as the flying spaghetti monster, or it's impossible and in the same category as square circles. But of course, the concept is arguably one of the most vague and one of the most variable out there, so further clarification would be required. — S

‘God’ - and I use quotes as here we are discussing a concept in traditional philosophy and not the subject of personal devotion - is indeed not something that exists, or a being, or an existing being. As Bill Vallicella puts it:

If someone asserts that there there is a celestial teapot orbiting the Sun, or an angry unicorn on the far side of the Moon, or that 9/11 was an 'inside job,' one will justifiably demand evidence. "It's possible, but what's your evidence for so outlandish a claim?" It is the same with God, say many atheists. The antecedent probability of God's existence, they think, is on a par with the extremely low antecedent probability of there being a celestial teapot or an irate lunar unicorn, a 'lunicorn,' if you will.

But this is to assume something that a Thomas Aquinas would never grant, namely, that God, if real, is just another being among the totality of beings. For Aquinas, God is not an ens (a being) but esse ipsum subsistens (self-subsistent Being). God is not a being among beings, but Being itself. Admittedly, this is not an easy notion; but if the atheist is not willing to grapple with it, then his arguments are just so many grapplings with a straw man.

Or in the words of Pierre Whalen:

God does not exist.

If God does exist, then that is not God. All existing things are related to one another in various ways. It is actually impossible to imagine a universe in which there is, say, only one hydrogen atom. That unique thing has to have someone else imagining it. Existence requires existing among other existents, a fundamental dependency of relation. If God also exists, then God would be just another fact of the universe, relative to other existents and included in that fundamental dependency of relation.

In other words, God could not be God. He would be at best some sort of super-alien, flitting about the creation flashing super powers, seemingly irrationally. That is what the Flying Spaghetti Monster is. Its “worshippers,” the “Pastafarians,” are the latest in a long line of skeptics, though with perhaps a finer sense of humor. And even if said Monster existed, it could not be God. There would be no reason to worship it; in fact, one would do well to avoid it and its “noodly appendages.”

Or Terry Eagleton:

Richard Dawkins speaks scoffingly of a personal God, as though it were entirely obvious exactly what this might mean. He seems to imagine God, if not exactly with a white beard, then at least as some kind of chap, however supersized. He asks how this chap can speak to billions of people simultaneously, which is rather like wondering why, if Tony Blair is an octopus, he has only two arms. For Judeo-Christianity, God is not a person in the sense that Al Gore arguably is. Nor is he a principle, an entity, or ‘existent’: in one sense of that word it would be perfectly coherent for religious types to claim that God does not in fact exist. He is, rather, the condition of possibility of any entity whatsoever, including ourselves. He is the answer to why there is something rather than nothing. God and the universe do not add up to two, any more than my envy and my left foot constitute a pair of objects.

From your posts in this thread, it is clear that you don’t believe in God, and you can be assured that the God you don’t believe in, is not worthy of devotion. But whether that is actually ‘God’ is another matter.

Maybe I’m sensitive, but why is it such a common thing to use such disparaging terms to refer to someone’s beliefs. — Rank Amateur

What "disparaging" terms are you referring to?

It is not a matter of fact that God is or God is not. — Rank Amateur

Yeah it is. Why do you think otherwise?

It is a reasonable belief that God is or God is not. — Rank Amateur

It is a reasonable belief that God is or is not, as per the three fundamental laws of logic. As for whether it's a reasonable belief that God is, or whether it's a reasonable belief that God is not, that will depend on the reasoning. You can't justifiably determine that in advance.

It is ignorant to disparage anyone’s beliefs that are not in conflict with fact or reason. — Rank Amateur

But not otherwise? So what's the problem, then? Leaps of faith aren't reasonable. They are by nature in conflict with reason. If reason is the standard, then leaps of faith run into conflict with such a standard. Reason and faith are two categorically opposed ways of arriving at a belief, so, in terms of basis for belief, they would run into contradiction. All of which is, I think it's fair to say, indicative of a conflict between the one and the other. They're chalk and cheese, they're incompatible, they clash, you can't have your cake and eat it. You either use your capacity to reason to reach a conclusion or you disregard reason and take a leap of faith. Philosophy is an intellectual subject, and faith is more closely associated with religion. In the eyes of an intellectual with in interest in philosophy over religion, then faith should be viewed in a disparaging light. Faith is for the unthinking, for the uncritical, for those who do not care to examine, but want an easy answer to placate themselves. Socrates said that the unexamined life is not worth living.

‘God’ - and I use quotes as here we are discussing a concept in traditional philosophy and not the subject of personal devotion - is indeed not something that exists, or a being, or an existing being. — Wayfarer

What makes you think that you can rule out 'God' as the subject of personal devotion from the discussion topic? Just because you take a different approach, it's therefore excluded from the discussion? And there are various interpretations of 'God', even if you narrow the parameters to traditional philosophy, not just a single interpretation: your preferred one. All interpretations are open to the public and all interpretations are up for discussion. They're not closed off with the exception of your personal preference.

You can't back up a traditional concept with a nontraditional minority interpretation. And 'God' is first and foremost a concept in general, relevant to both religion, obviously, and less obviously, philosophy. It's not just a concept in philosophy, let alone traditional philosophy.

For hundreds of years, throughout a large part of our history, if you were to have made it known that you denied the existence of God, then you would have been at risk of severe punishment, so your interpretation, traditionally, is not a widely accepted interpretation. And it has remained that way up to the present. So I think that the way that you've presented this select interpretation is misleading.

The three writers you quote from are all from contemporary times, and all express what is very much a contemporary view, and a minority view at that. So hardly the strongest foundation for what you seem to be offering up as a single, universally acceptable interpretation for a concept which is, in any case, as I rightly pointed out, an exceptionally ambiguous concept, subject to a multitude of varying interpretations from all across the spectrum.

What "disparaging" terms are you referring to? — S

Telling comment

Yeah it is. Why do you think otherwise? — S

Further telling comment.

It is a reasonable belief that God is or is not, as per the three fundamental laws of logic. As for whether it's a reasonable belief that God is, or whether it's a reasonable belief that God is not, that will depend on the reasoning. You can't justifiably determine that in advance. — S

That was a waste of bandwidth

But not otherwise? So what's the problem, then? Leaps of faith aren't reasonable. They are by nature in conflict with reason. If reason is the standard, then leaps of faith run into conflict with such a standard. Reason and faith are two categorically opposed ways of arriving at a belief, so, in terms of basis for belief, they would run into contradiction. All of which is, I think it's fair to say, indicative of a conflict between the one and the other. They're chalk and cheese, they're incompatible, they clash, you can't have your cake and eat it. You either use your capacity to reason to reach a conclusion or disregard reason and take a leap of faith. — S

Absolutely none of that is in anyway true.

What a waste of time engaging with you has been if that's how you reply.

I'll give you a second chance if you want to try again.

↪Rank Amateur What a waste of time engaging with you has been if that's how you reply. — S

It was all those comments of yours deserved for a reply.

It was all those comments of yours deserved for a reply. — Rank Amateur

Hmm. If that's your take, then I don't think you're best suited for discussion of an intellectual nature. Have you tried knitting? Maybe you'd be a natural pro, instead of a rank amateur.

I mean, what kind of person thinks that leaps of faith are reasonable? Or that they wouldn't run into conflict with reason, if reason is the standard by which we're judging the matter? That's delusional. And he's not even willing to explain himself.

What kind of person makes vague accusations of disparaging remarks, yet refuses to go into specifics? Why even bother? It's just hot air and virtue signalling. Lame.

I mean, what kind of person thinks that leaps of faith are reasonable? Or that they wouldn't run into conflict with reason, if reason is the standard by which we're judging the matter? That's delusional. And he's not even willing to explain himself. — S

Thomas Merton
“Reason is in fact the path to faith, and faith takes over when reason can say no more.”

There are 3 ways people can believe something to be true, and act accordingly

Fact - fact just is, 2 + 2 = 4. Other than if you are the POTUS facts are not arguable.
Reason - based on facts, one can believe something to be true by reason. Reason can not be in conflict with facts. It is not a fact, that unicorns do not exist on earth. But since we have looked in a lot of places, for a really long time, and not seen a unicorn it is reasonable to believe unicorns do not exist, and act accordingly
Faith, one is free to believe by faith alone something to be true and act accordingly. As long as such beliefs are not in conflict with faith or reason.

I restate my position that it is not a matter of fact that God is, or is not.
An that both God is, and God is not have reasonable arguments

It would be helpful if your inevitable disagreement to this position was supported with an accompanying argument.

What kind of person makes vague accusations of disparaging remarks, yet refuses to go into specifics? Why even bother? It's just hot air and virtue signalling. Lame. — S

The title of the thread is disparaging. It was, and is telling, that I had to point that out to you.

I believe we should consider another definition of "God" other than the definition that seems to be prevalent of "Magic sky person". — Lif3r

Then feel free to consider it. ...and believe in it if you want to.

[Edit: I misread your post the first time, and thought that you were saying that we should consider the definition stated in your thread-title, and were, as so many Atheists do, suggesting that that's what all Theists believe in.]

Of course that's the definition of the One-True-God for Atheists and other Biblical-Lliteralists. ...the One True God that Atheists so loudly believe in disbelieving in.

Michael Ossipoff

God is everything in existence — Lif3r

Alright, you meant that you're suggesting that there is God, and you were just saying that God isn't what you referred to in your thread-title.

Sure, many Theists would agree that, when God is referred to, what is meant is Reality, ...all that is.

I agree with that.

Why use that name? I usually don't, because it sounds anthropomorphic. But it expresses an impression about Reality, discussed in other threads.

I don't make assertions about the nature or character of Reality. It's a matter of impression,not assertion, argument or proof.

Michael Ossipoff

: "God does not exist."
Some atheist: "God does not exist."

Hm.

Some theist: "God exists."

What makes you think that you can rule out 'God' as the subject of personal devotion from the discussion topic? — S

I didn't rule it out, I just made it clear the sense in which I was using the term.

You can't back up a traditional concept with a nontraditional minority interpretation. — S

It's not a non-traditional interpretation. It is the traditional interpretation which has now been obscured by popular misunderstanding. It is well-known that popular atheism usually begins by arguing against the most facile and literalistic interpretations of the nature of deity, which is why it so often seems a mirror image of the fundamentalism it is criticizing. But if belief in God were as ridiculous as popular atheism makes it out to be, then you would indeed have to be stupid to believe it. And for sure there are many silly religious beliefs, but the God of classical theism is not among them.

For hundreds of years, throughout a large part of our history, if you were to have made it known that you denied the existence of God, then you would have been at risk of severe punishment, so your interpretation, traditionally, is not a widely accepted interpretation. — S

Indeed - and many mystics were persecuted on exactly these grounds. Modern American fundamentalists would think that Aquinas was close to atheism in many respects. And that is because they don't understand what they're arguing about.

It hinges on meaning of the word 'to exist'. It might sound obvious, but then, this is a philosophy forum. In my philosophy, 'what exists' is, generally speaking 'the phenomenal domain' - all the things you find in an encyclopedia, all the things the natural science occupy themselves with. But there are subjects which are not necessarily amongst them, for example, what is the nature of number? what is the nature of scientific laws? Do these exist? Don't answer too quickly.

I mean, what kind of person thinks that leaps of faith are reasonable? Or that they wouldn't run into conflict with reason, if reason is the standard by which we're judging the matter? — S

Reason is that standard by which you're judging the matter. And that's where you're wrong.

Reason isn't applicable to everything. Only a True-Believing Science-Worshipper thinks thinks it is.

To try to apply reason, science or logic outside its legitimate range of applicability is in conflict with reason, science or logic.

Michael Ossipoff

Reason is that standard by which you're judging the matter. And that's where you're wrong.

Reason isn't applicable to everything. Only a True-Believing Science-Worshipper thinks thinks it is.

To try to apply reason, science or logic outside its legitimate range of applicability is in conflict with reason, science or logic. — Michael Ossipoff

Some may prefer Russell to Thomas Merton on this point.


“Philosophy is something intermediate between theology and science. Like theology, it consists of speculations on matters as to which definite knowledge has, so far, been unascertainable; but like science, it appeals to human reason rather than to authority, whether that of tradition or that of revelation. All definite knowledge—so I should contend—belongs to science; all dogma as to what surpasses definite knowledge belongs to theology. But between theology and science there is a No Man’s Land, exposed to attack from both sides; this No Man’s Land is philosophy.”

– Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy (1945), Introductory, p. xiii.

Thomas Merton
“Reason is in fact the path to faith, and faith takes over when reason can say no more.” — Rank Amateur

If reason is the path to faith, then why, pray tell, don't we all have faith in a magical sky daddy? Why hasn't faith taken over for all of us? I'll tell you why. It's because reason is the path to being reasonable, not to making unreasonable leaps of faith. Making a leap of faith is following the path to some extent, and then wandering off into the wilderness, with faith as your little comfort blanket to allay that unpleasant feeling you get when it begins to dawn on you that you're lost. If you're a sensible type with an interest in truth, then when reason can say no more, you'll close the case, or suspend it pending a change in circumstance. If you're a rash type with an interest in fiction, then you may well invent a reason when there is no grounds for doing so. What the latter type does is an example of being unreasonable, and that isn't something to be worn as a badge of pride - something, perhaps, which your monk, in all his wisdom, has to failed to realise.

There are 3 ways people can believe something to be true, and act accordingly

Fact - fact just is, 2 + 2 = 4. Other than if you are the POTUS facts are not arguable.
Reason - based on facts, one can believe something to be true by reason. Reason can not be in conflict with facts. It is not a fact, that unicorns do not exist on earth. But since we have looked in a lot of places, for a really long time, and not seen a unicorn it is reasonable to believe unicorns do not exist, and act accordingly
Faith, one is free to believe by faith alone something to be true and act accordingly. As long as such beliefs are not in conflict with faith or reason. — Rank Amateur

You haven't said anything new or remarkable so far. This is not what required explanation.

I restate my position that it is not a matter of fact that God is, or is not.
An that both God is, and God is not have reasonable arguments — Rank Amateur

You seem to have misunderstood the problem, otherwise you would know that restating your position will do diddly-squat to resolve it.

It would be helpful if your inevitable disagreement to this position was supported with an accompanying argument. — Rank Amateur

You're in no position to make demands. You can start by going back and properly addressing what I've already said, otherwise you can save your breath, so to speak.