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
Number of people who sell hats<Number of people who inqure [sic] about God. — Lif3r
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
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
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
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
I'm not interested in the discussion anymore because disrespect is not debate. — Lif3r
We can change the word from "God" to "Reality" and reap the same responsibility. — Lif3r
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? — MountainDwarf
If so, I would say that is the definition of faith. — MountainDwarf
If not, how can you be so certain about something you cannot see? — MountainDwarf
There are theories that modern governments spy on their citizens, do you believe or disbelieve that? Edward Snowden, just saying. — MountainDwarf
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
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.
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.”
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.
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
It is not a matter of fact that God is or God is not. — Rank Amateur
It is a reasonable belief that God is or God is not. — Rank Amateur
It is ignorant to disparage anyone’s beliefs that are not in conflict with fact or reason. — Rank Amateur
‘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 "disparaging" terms are you referring to? — S
Yeah it is. Why do you think otherwise? — S
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
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
↪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. — 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. — S
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
I believe we should consider another definition of "God" other than the definition that seems to be prevalent of "Magic sky person". — Lif3r
God is everything in existence — Lif3r
What makes you think that you can rule out 'God' as the subject of personal devotion from the discussion topic? — S
You can't back up a traditional concept with a nontraditional minority interpretation. — S
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
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
Thomas Merton
“Reason is in fact the path to faith, and faith takes over when reason can say no more.” — Rank Amateur
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
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
It would be helpful if your inevitable disagreement to this position was supported with an accompanying argument. — Rank Amateur
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.