This and this alone, to my way of thinking, empowers the idea of God, that it be limited only by combined imagination and reason - and not by mere material/physical being.

Well yes in the realms of human discourse, religion, politics and human intellectual knowledge. But none of that answers the question, the EOG, unless God can be reduced to, or subject to, the human understanding of God. That God can only exist in the minds of those who profess to believe in him, a psychological crutch. Or others explain that God is an artefact of human knowledge and thinking. Just like the perfect circle exists as a concept, but no truly perfect circle can exist, only the concept can.

Such philosophical arguments don't address the issue, they are nothing more than atheist apologetics and any serious philosophical enquiry into EOG must firstly conclude that humanity and therefore human philosophical knowledge is not equipped to answer the question. We are hopelessly ignorant of our origins, the origin of the world we find ourselves in (science has only managed to describe some things about what we are equipped to detect), any purposes, or meaning in regard of our origin, or our presence in such a world. We have no idea whether we are here due to a happenstance burp in the cosmic soup, as a kindergarten for baby Gods, or a kind of livestock being fattened up for slaughter.

We are uniquely blind not only to these truths, but in the modern world to our very blindness. We are the blind denying our lack of sight, insisting that our minds eye sees what we are. Philosophy ought to lay this bare, that what we know about existence, about the existence of God amounts to a hill of beans.

Some people who reach this kind of conclusion, then turn to other means of determining the answers to this issue and throughout the ages have reported on and written down what they have discovered. This is what has become known as the perennial wisdom.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perennial_philosophy

Now as I pointed out before philosophers can poke holes in it with their logic and rhetoric, but philosophy is toothless in this regard and we're back to hitting each other over the head with inflatable hippopotami and unicorns.

and any serious philosophical enquiry into EOG must firstly conclude that humanity and therefore human philosophical knowledge is not equipped to answer the question. — Punshhh

And where does that leave you? What even does it mean to have a "serious philosophical inquiry" into matters that "humanity and therefore human philosophical knowledge" are not equipped to answer? All you have is speculation and speculative reason. When you figure out how to think something you cannot think, please let us all know.

And you mock flying hippos, but the point is that whatever baseless speculation produces, the hippos - and any and every other baseless thing else - are equally justified. The only thing that favours your story is you. And that's not proof in any sense of the existence of your God. Which, by the way, is perfectly all right for you to have, and a good thing for most of us to have. It's just we oughtn't be the by turns dishonest, lying, manipulative, vicious, mean, ignorant and stupid that many people are with their stories. Not all, but many.

"Atheist apologetics!?" Is that your phrase for knowledge and the limits of it? You can believe what you like. You do endorse that position, yes? So if you want to believe nonsense is knowledge, there's no help for you unless you want it. But such is an obscenity. Please keep it to yourself.

Helena Blavatsky was the driving force behind the creation of Theosophy. — Punshhh

Yeah, I looked her up when you asked, but nothing around here is named after her so I hadn’t heard of her before.

I can understand that, she was a controversial figure in her day.

And where does that leave you? — tim wood

Acknowledging my and humanity's lack of knowledge of our origins and the origins of the world we find ourselves in.

What even does it mean to have a "serious philosophical inquiry" into matters that "humanity and therefore human philosophical knowledge" are not equipped to answer?

They are not privy to the information required, or means to get it through rational thought, so as to be in a position to answer the questions of our origins. This would presumably be established through a serious philosophical enquiry. Is there a philosophical enquiry which has reached a different conclusion? I would be interested to know

I am not saying that philosophy is not equipped with the intellect (not able to) to comprehend answers of our origins, but rather they do not have the necessary information. This is because the evidence of (the required information pertaining to) our origins is not available to us*.

All you have is speculation and speculative reason. When you figure out how to think something you cannot think, please let us all know.

As I have just pointed out, I am not saying we cannot think it, but rather, that we are in the position of being in ignorance. Someone might discover some secret to our origins enabling them to determine our origins. But while we remain in ignorance we cannot think the thoughts that such a person would employ.

And you mock flying hippos, but the point is that whatever baseless speculation produces, the hippos - and any and every other baseless thing else - are equally justified.

I am not speculating, I am merely acknowledging our ignorance.

The only thing that favours your story is you.

I have not provided a story, I have referred to revelation and that revelation provides an alternative means to acquire knowledge. Personally I don't attach a narrative, or story to it.

And that's not proof in any sense of the existence of your God.

I don't profess to know the answer to the EOG, it is largely irrelevant to me. I am commenting on statements affirming an answer to the question and that rational thought can't answer it. I do accept though that it may be possible to answer it through personal revelation and that those who claim to have done this are not to be dismissed as weak willed, or to have fallen into a psychological trap of thinking a concept of a God somehow justifies a belief in that God, or conviction in its existence.

Not all, but many.

Quite, religious doctrine and revelation have often been bent to the purposes of manipulative people and groups. Religion has a lot to answer for.

"Atheist apologetics!?" Is that your phrase for knowledge and the limits of it?

I qualified that statement limiting it to the attempts by some to label believers as mistaken, weak willed (requiring a religious crutch), or subject to a psychological trait, or conditioning of believing a set of concepts as proving something to be true in the external world.

This is apologetics in the sense that it seeks to dismiss religious experience, or revelation as a figment of the mind and invalid. If that is what someone is doing, I would label it atheist apologetics.

You can believe what you like.

I prefer to limit belief to the tangible things in my everyday life.

So if you want to believe nonsense is knowledge, there's no help for you unless you want it.

I am rigorous in my reasoning. Are you able to provide knowledge of our origins?

But such is an obscenity.

I think you misunderstand me.

* I do not want to diminish the achievements and discoveries of science, I am claiming that such discoveries have not provided any evidence, or information as to our origins and may never do.

You use words like "metaphysics," existence," "wonder," "God," "consicous" and "consciousness" all in peculiar and almost incoherent ways. Stop playing the fool and provide some understanding. Last call. — tim wood

Hey Tim!

I hope you had a good weekend. Now back to the boxing match:.

Mmmmm, sounds like to me that you are throwing in the towel. You are on a philosophy site, and you are claiming that there is no God. Metaphysics, synthetic a priori knowledge, the nature of existence, metaphysical consciousness/the sense of wonderment/the Will, those are the many conceptual tools we are using for round one in the match. And in our match, I can't tell you how to train, which routine is best for you, which strategy to use, the best gloves to wear, how many sit-ups to do, ad nauseum.

So once again, using ad hominin to hide behind your lack of training only substantiates my arguments to you.

Oh well, maybe try to train harder next time :chin: .

Unless I hear some skillful attack, it's two atheist's down in round one (you and jorndoe) LOL

you are claiming that there is no God. — 3017amen

Never have, never will. You need to learn to read. And it is clear you're using words. phrases, and concepts you do not know the meaning of. Debate's over until and unless you engage in a substantive way. Till then you're a waste of time.

Btw, I have no idea what your point is, or what you're arguing. Good job of making nonsense!

Btw, I have no idea what your point is, or what you're arguing. Good job of making nonsense! — tim wood

Hiding behind ad hominem only serves to substantiate my point to you, which is, you don't even understand the nature of your own existence, so how can you make any logical distinctions between whether something exists or not(?).

Put a quarter in and try again! LOL

PoR is not a bad subset of philosophy to me, but I think I can explain why it's (at least one of) the part with the most quarrel.
1. Any philosophical thinker thinks about Region at some point and has a satisfying answer for his/herself, it's not like Hegel or Heidegger, etc, which are read and understood and discussed by a part of thinkers, and the most of the readers would not claim that they totally understand it.
2. Thinkers on Heger or Heidegger, etc, share a lot of common sense, and based on that they might agree or disagree with each other. While the thinkers on Religion are sorted into clearly 3 classes: theist, atheist, agnostic, and all disagree with each other. They do share the same world, but their ways to read the world are very different, and, as far as I observe, most people do not want to understand others' perspectives. It's certainly very hard and empirically most people don't or do with little effort.
3. Other subsets of philosophy are external knowledge that might not really affect your daily behavior, while religion is the most fundamental part of your worldview. People really defend their own fundamental beliefs.

I think the idea of god stalls philosophical discussion since it "solves" many of the unknowns with which philosophy deals. In my opinion, you cannot do philosophy when you assume a supernatural entity is the main cause of existence. You can believe in god and do philosophy, but your philosophy cannot be based on the existence of god. — Daniel

Rather than assuming God's existence and arguing from there I think it is better to argue from existence and arrive at an argument for God's existence as being the most persuasive explanation of reality.

But once you arrive at that argument, all philosophical thinking stops because you simply explain everything with the existence of god or you put a constraint to any discussion (everything is within god's existence). I think philosophy must be done from a completely atheist perspective, which does not mean that you must be an atheist to do philosophy; it simply means that one must assume that no god exists when doing philosophy. Being honest with oneself, one must admit that if god exists, its existence may never be proven (at least not in our lifetime). So, why have as an objective of one's philosophy proving the existence of god or why use the existence of god as one's philosophical foundation? It is better, I think, to use philosophy as a tool to explore that which is unknown and to use one's curiosity and ignorance as one's philosophical foundation (that is, I know nothing, and I am that which is curious and explores the unknown through reason).

So, why have as an objective of one's philosophy proving the existence of god or why use the existence of god as one's philosophical foundation? — Daniel

I think it is a question of approaching things with an open mind and, for me, realizing that God is the most coherent explanation for the world. I would not assume God exists and start arguing from there. I argue about the world I see and experience and then come to the conclusion that the existence of God is the best explanation.

Philosophy of religion has bed reputation in many of western secular universities, including in study of religion, because the field may seriously offend some people (mainly people with religious beliefs), and in general philosophy of religion is lot of "apologetic" witch is basically systematical defending Christianity with philosophical arguments.

Lot of people kinda feel it is threat to religious freedom, and mainly is against scientific "empirical" evidence. Some christian private universities still study the field tho. And the field is seen "dangerous", and mainly sciences try not to ask the question "weather if God exist, or not".

But for theologians it might be very interesting, because "you can not do good theology without knowing the philosophy", and we got many brilliant minds in field of philosophy of religion, mainly Thomas Aquinas, but his 5 ways (proofs of god), are taken nowadays as some kind of jokes that u tell people in bar when u are getting drunk. But also William Lane Craig, and Alvin Plantinga, have done some serious work on field of philosophy of religion.

In everyday life, people dont need to prove their faith to believe into something, like Alvin Plantinga's conception of "warranted christian belief" what means that you do not need to give any rational explanations for your belief to be true, and claims that all religious beliefs are true, just because of private individual emotional/experience. So it seems, like there is nothing to argue.

Philosophy of religion got bad reputation mainly because it tries to find one explanation to prove one religion/belief system right, and others wrong. But the main problem relies on by having to give arguments against other religions, including Islam,Jewish, Buddhist, etc. What can be seen as "racist", or antisemitic, and no university/science field want to get involved with that.

It is dangerous topic, like genetics, and human experiments. What can cause lots of untentional harm to believers, and in many countries is even against the law to give arguments against religious beliefs, and existence of God, gods, or in general transcendental beings.