I know the Thomistic God doesn't exist because since he sustains the world he would also have to sustain child rape in act, which would contradict his holiness. So that's one god down

Frank!

Wow, this is quite a purging of sorts, eh!? Remember Pascal's Wager? That could be an analogious or a possible thesis to work from there... .

To that end, I would like to start with your definition of Belief? In your view, philosophically, what does it mean to hold or have a Belief (I'm just putting it in caps for emphasis)?

Second, as a Christian Existentialist, my 'belief' is that there is much more supporting evidence from history (the Christian Bible), nature, and existence itself for (to support) the existence of God than not. I can succincty enumerate them if you like...then we can go through each one.

(In fact--as you suggest--I will argue that the Atheist belief system is based more on ignorance than not.)

Gregory
1.3k
I know the Thomistic God doesn't exist because since he sustains the world he would also have to sustain child rape in act, which would contradict his holiness. So that's one god down — Gregory

Yeah...if the god has to accept YOUR definition of what is holy and what isn't.

Hey man, do you know what 'faith' is?

To the people who assert “there are no gods” or “it is far more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one”…

…I call, “BULLSHIT.” — Frank Apisa

I believe I've read this before somewhere, just can't remember where though.....

3017amen
2.3k
↪Frank Apisa

Frank! — 3017amen

Amen.

Wow, this is quite a purging of sorts, eh!? Remember Pascal's Wager? That could be an analogious or a possible thesis to work from there... . — Amen

The two most worthless philosophical protocols are Pascal's Wager and Occam's Razor. I do not use them.

To that end, I would like to start with your definition of Belief? In your view, philosophically, what does it mean to hold or have a Belief (I'm just putting it in caps for emphasis)? — Amen

In a philosophical discussion (or a religious discussion) the use of "belief" is a way of disguising a guess.

Second, as a Christian Existentialist, my 'belief' is that there is much more supporting evidence from history (the Christian Bible), nature, and existence itself for (to support) the existence of God than not. I can succincty enumerate them if you like...then we can go through each one. — Amen

I am sure the people who "believe" there are no gods or who "believe" it is much more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one...can also enumerate them.

None hold any water.

But give me your best one if you want and we can discuss it.

(In fact, I will argue that the Atheist belief system is based more on ignorance than not.) — Amen

I suppose you would. Just as I would suppose people who guess the other way would argue that your "beliefs" derive from ignorance.

whollyrolling
454
↪Frank Apisa Hey man, do you know what 'faith' is? — whollyrolling

Yeah.

In a religious or philosophical context...

...a "belief" is a guess about the unknown.

"Faith" is being pig-headed about insisting the guess is correct.

Hippyhead
228
To the people who assert “there are no gods” or “it is far more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one”…

…I call, “BULLSHIT.”
— Frank Apisa

I believe I've read this before somewhere, just can't remember where though..... — Hippyhead

You "believe" that...or you "know" that? :wink:

That's not what the dictionary says though. Plays on words only serve to derail conversation. Redefining a word is only convenient inside your own head or the heads of others who believe the same sleight-of-word trick works.

What is a god?

And if you can't agree on terms, then the entire conversation is pointless and will never go anywhere unless it sidetracks into more interesting things that contain common terms and insightful dialogue.

Repeating the same words without learning or progressing in any way for months isn't philosophy--or maybe it is man, who am I to say I guess.

whollyrolling
460
↪Frank Apisa That's not what the dictionary says though. Plays on words only serve to derail conversation. Redefining a word is only convenient inside your own head or the heads of others who believe the same sleight-of-word trick works. — whollyrolling

Oh. I thought you were asking me what it is...not what "the dictionary" says it is.

Judaka
736
↪Frank Apisa
What is a god? — Judaka

An entity that created or caused to be created what we humans now consider “the Universe.”

whollyrolling
460
↪Frank Apisa And if you can't agree on terms, then the entire conversation is pointless and will never go anywhere unless it sidetracks into more interesting things that contain common terms and insightful dialogue.

Repeating the same words without learning or progressing in any way for months isn't philosophy--or maybe it is man, who am I to say I guess. — whollyrolling

Okay. Maybe you want to find a thread that more suits your needs and wants.

I have no idea if “no gods exist” or if at least one does. I prefer not to guess on the issue, because all such guesses would be nothing but blind guesses—nothing more than a coin toss. — Frank Apisa

How reasonable this is depends a lot on what you mean by "exist".

It's fairly obviously the case that our current best empirical theories about the physical world don't include a god or gods. So if existence refers to physical existence, then God or gods don't exist.

There is plenty of empirical evidence for people acting as if they believed in a god of gods, and, making some basic assumptions, it follows that God or gods "exist" fairly commonly as mental idea and as a shared social entity.

If we're talking about metaphysical "existence" in some unfathomable way, the "coin toss" stance seems apt. But the "unfathomable" bit kind of throws a wrench into things. Can something be meaningfully said to "exist" if it's entirely unclear what such "existence" entails? I tend to answer that with a "no".

How reasonable this is depends a lot on what you mean by "exist". — Echarmion

Or by what we mean by "How" "reasonable" "this" "is" "depends" etc.

You know what I mean by "exist." Or...make a guess.

It's fairly obviously the case that our current best empirical theories about the physical world don't include a god or gods. So if existence refers to physical existence, then God or gods don't exist. — echarmion

If gods exist...they exist. If humans, the puny beings on this nondescript planet circling this nondescript star in this nondescript galaxy cannot perceive them for some reason...IF THEY EXIST they exist nonetheless.

We do not know if gods exist.

There is plenty of empirical evidence for people acting as if they believed in a god of gods, and, making some basic assumptions, it follows that God or gods "exist" fairly commonly as mental idea and as a shared social entity. — echarmion

We agree on that.

If we're talking about metaphysical "existence" in some unfathomable way, the "coin toss" stance seems apt. But the "unfathomable" bit kind of throws a wrench into things. Can something be meaningfully said to "exist" if it's entirely unclear what such "existence" entails? I tend to answer that with a "no". — echarmion

If gods or ghost or spirits or extradimensional beings exist...despite humans abilities to perceive them in any way...then they exist.

The two most worthless philosophical protocols are Pascal's Wager and Occam's Razor. I do not use them. — Frank Apisa

The reason I bring that up is because your 'belief system' (we'll come back to what that means including the concept of belief itself) seems to indicate, that a sort of either/or binary analysis is taking place in your mind, hence, you rolling the dice/Pascal's Wager. And, don't misunderstand, you don't have to buy into anything, I was just making an obvious observation.

In a philosophical discussion (or a religious discussion) the use of "belief" is a way of disguising a guess. — Frank Apisa

Sort of a glib or insincere response that glossed over then true meaning of holding or having a 'belief', no? We'll come back to what that means (see below list). In the meantime, using logic, think about what it means for human's to have a belief about a some thing, ok?

am sure the people who "believe" there are no gods or who "believe" it is much more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one...can also enumerate them.

None hold any water.

But give me your best one if you want and we can discuss it. — Frank Apisa

suppose you would. Just as I would suppose people who guess the other way would argue that your "beliefs" derive from ignorance. — Frank Apisa

**List of pragmatic, existential, metaphysical and cognitive phenomena, including cosmology and logic:

**Some can easily overlap into other disciplines and/or domains, and this is by no means a comprehensive list

Logic/epistemology:

1. logical possibility
2. logical necessity
3. a priori v. a posteriori
4. synthetic a priori knowledge
5. binary v. dialectic reasoning
6. reason and belief

Phenomenology/Metaphysics:

1. consciousness
2. subjective truth v. objective truth
3. the religious experience
4. revelation
5. NDE
6. music
7. math
8. love
9. instinct
10.sentience

Metaphysics:

1. consciousness
2. self-awareness
3. the will
4. the sense of wonder
5. causation
6. sentience

Cosmology:

1. the illusion of time
2. holographic principle
3. participatory anthropic principle
4. energy
5. gravity
6. causation
7. Panentheism