But why we abandon them so easily are they unanswerable or are we lazy? — philosopher004

The so-called correct, and sussinct answer is that they are Existential (Wisdom Books/Ecclesiastes).

Accordingly, abandonment only occurs from within a lazy mind :chin:

If you investigate philosophy closer, we always end up to naive questions that every child wonders, and when we grow old and if still question those, perhaps we are philosophers then.

For me those questions seem to be unanswerable, and are paradoxical. Like who created God, etc.

Those questions weren't made to be philosophized about, and yet there is impossible to find rational arguments, that would make any sense. It is mainly questions that relate religions are unanswerable, perhaps because those are irrational, and asked wrong.

Inspecting those questions always lead to disappointment, because no rational argument can go against someones dogmatic theological argument. So even if you proved in best rational to prove they are wrong, they just simply ignore you because of faith and religion. What only makes them want to seek meaningful argument that fits their religious agenda.

If God created us then who create god? — philosopher004

This question bothers me, especially the way Richard Dawkins, of meme fame, approaches. According to Dawkins, a being that can create something as complex as the universe must itself be more complex. However, Dawkins also believes in the theory of evolution and Darwin says:

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved. — Charles Darwin

Darwin clearly mentions that the beginning was simple and taking that to its logical conclusion, God must've been, necessarily, simple; in fact God has to be the simplest of all and ergo, requires no further explanation.

So even if you proved in best rational to prove they are wrong, they just simply ignore you because of faith and religion. What only makes them want to seek meaningful argument that fits their religious agenda. — batsushi7

But even then some questions are still debated .

If God created us then who create god?
Why does God has the chance of being God?
Why does Evil exist?
And a lot more... — philosopher004

As @TheMadFool mentions, the Fundamental has to be the simplest. Look for higher beings in the future, not the past, as all evolves toward more complexity. Complexity First is the most backward error that can be made. This Golden Template, that life has to come from Higher Life, namely 'God', fails after but one usage.

It can be shown that what 'IS' has to be so, since non-existence isn't an option, so there's no more asking about 'Why is there something rather than 'Nothing', for 'Nothing' cannot even be meant.

Currently, we suspect that quantum fields are what 'IS' permanent. Such as particles and higher are temporary, being quantized 'knots' of excitations in quantum fields. Thus, quantum fields are coterminal with the knots but not consubstantial, in the sense that the knots are not permanent. See Parmenidies.

Myth’s performance is now over its tasks;
The artists have taken off their masks.
The illusion is fading; it couldn’t last;
The science behind is appearing fast.

Preachers who persist in teaching about 'God' as if He were true are intellectually dishonest.

Darwin clearly mentions that the beginning was simple and taking that to its logical conclusion, God must've been, necessarily, simple; in fact God has to be the simplest of all and ergo, requires no further explanation. — TheMadFool

That's also how I view my meta-physical, non-anthro-morphic G*D : as a unique singular Whole, not a vast collection of parts. Dawkins seems to be a reductionist trying to understand a holistic concept. :smile:

That's also how I view my meta-physical, non-anthro-morphic G*D : as a unique singular Whole, not a vast collection of parts. Dawkins seems to be a reductionist trying to understand a holistic concept. :smile: — Gnomon

How does one understand the whole without understanding the parts? The very definition of a whole is that it's made up of parts.

How does one understand the whole without understanding the parts? The very definition of a whole is that it's made up of parts. — TheMadFool

As in the proposed case of covariant quantum fields, the Fundamental can't have any parts, and so needs to be such as a 'wave' or a 'field', being simple and continuous. Of course, the notion of a 'God' person/system is as far off in the wrong direction as it could be.

As in the proposed case of covariant quantum fields, the Fundamental can't have any parts, and so needs to be such as a 'wave' or a 'field', being simple and continuous. Of course, the notion of a 'God' person/system is as far off in the wrong direction as it could be. — PoeticUniverse

Blinding me with science, eh? :smile:

Accordingly, abandonment only occurs from within a lazy mind — 3017amen

Wrong fellow, it is also the deliberate act of intelligence. You will never find me discussing the theology of the Christian Holy Spirit, not because I'm lazy, but because I'm too smart to waste my life on something so fantastically absurd.

You stand corrected; you would be unsophisticated in that case :chin: Unless of course your emotions get in the way LOL

Wrong fellow, it is also the deliberate act of intelligence. You will never find me discussing the theology of the Christian Holy Spirit, not because I'm lazy, but because I'm too smart to waste my life on something so fantastically absurd. — JerseyFlight

But discussing theology is not a "non-smart" thing.In fact it is the thing that is mostly discused in the world by smart people.

But discussing theology is not a "non-smart" thing. — philosopher004

What makes it an act of intelligence? Please keep in mind, I don't deny you the right of an aesthetic claim, you are free to discuss the powers of Zeus until the day you die if you so desire, but claiming this to be an act of intelligence is another matter. There are engineers in the world who try to figure out how to increase energy storage and energy creation, engineers who figure out how to make clean water. These are all acts of intelligence, what makes your discussions about God intelligent? I have a very hard time believing that it occupies a place of importance higher than that of agriculture. Further, is it only your idea of God that you think is a "smart thing to discuss?" I even agree with you that many smart people discuss the topic of God, but they are not smart because they discuss God. It is a tragic waste of intellectual energy.

In fact it is the thing that is mostly discused in the world by smart people. — philosopher004

Please provide your data.

They aren't absurd questions at all! They are avoided by lazy or uncomfortable minds. Philosophers demand we think about them and try to glean answers.

Please provide your data. — Pro Hominem

Martin Luther,Soren Kierkegaard,Fyodor Dostoevsky(not considered a theologian but discusses theology).I think they are smart because they didn't write for their time but took the fundamentals of everything from human attitude towards divinity to why we should take the 'leap of faith'.

What makes it an act of intelligence? — JerseyFlight

Animals do not question about God. The idea of God is a formation of imagination, what ifs, and wonderment of the world. It has driven entire philosophies, societies, government, and art. You do not like the idea of people thinkging about God, that is obvious. But I think you're trying to rationalize your dislike, and not thinking about discussions of God rationally.

The comparison to agriculture is poor. That's like saying the only thing worthwhile to spend our time on is on pure survival. What a poor life that would be! Considering the impact of belief in a God has on the entire history of humanity, and present day, it would be unintelligent not to think about it. Feel free to be detest it if you wish. I detest sports. But I don't go to sports forums and tell them all how they are wasting their time on life. Even if we don't appreciate the subject, we as intelligent beings should appreciate the variety of topics our minds are able to think on.

How does one understand the whole without understanding the parts? The very definition of a whole is that it's made up of parts. — TheMadFool

That is indeed the nature of Wholes in the real world. But my notion of the hypothetical super-natural creator of Reality (Nature) is just the reverse. My metaphysical G*D is not a thing, or a collection of things, but the eternal-infinite Potential that I call BEING (the power to exist). In that case, the inexhaustible power is never diminished by creating novel things (holons).

Of course, this imaginary Ideal entity is merely a theoretical device, intended to explain how and why our Real world is what it is. I have no scriptures or scientific evidence to support that philosophical hypothesis. Yet, I use it as an axiom for my Enformationism worldview. :nerd:

Holon : simultaneously a whole and a part
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holon_(philosophy)
NOTE : Pace Koestler, In my custom-built scenario, the holons do not "add-up" to the "Holarch". Instead, they are saturated with BEING, and they are separate from the "Holarch" only in the eyes of limited space-time perceivers.

As in the proposed case of covariant quantum fields, the Fundamental can't have any parts, and so needs to be such as a 'wave' or a 'field', being simple and continuous. Of course, the notion of a 'God' person/system is as far off in the wrong direction as it could be. — PoeticUniverse

That is one way to imagine the hypothetical fundamental non-entity I call "G*D". It's like a continuous unbounded unlimited Field of Potential (BEING), within which particles (worlds) emerge -- as-if by magic -- and then disappear again, without diminishing the Power of the Field. This is not a traditional anthro-morphic deity, but a philosophical hypothesis to explain how our natural world seemingly emerged, complete with laws & energy, from nothing --- nothing but infinite Potential. Nothing is more "fundamental" than Existence (BEING).

PS__Don't you think this concept of BEING has poetic potential? :cool:

Entity : a thing with distinct existence.

Non-entity : an amorphous indistinguishable field of potential

Potential : Possible, as opposed to Actual; capable of being or becoming. Potency.

You do not like the idea of people thinkging about God, that is obvious. But I think you're trying to rationalize your dislike, and not thinking about discussions of God rationally. — Philosophim

This is not my argument. And I have little patience for people like yourself, so I'm going to do this swiftly. 1) Define what you mean by God. This is your burden of proof. 2) Show this specific being has existence, as opposed to merely being your fun little idea. 3) Demonstrate relevance. Until you have done this I'm afraid you must take your celestial puppet show to the back of the room and play with all the other kids.

That is one way to imagine the hypothetical fundamental non-entity I call "G*D". — Gnomon

You might call it 'G-O-D', for 'Ground Of Determination', or just the latter, to avoid confusion.

Covariant Quantum Fields seem to be more than to 'imagine', since Quantum Field Theory (QFT) has a basis and gives us the Standard Model of particles.

It's like a continuous unbounded unlimited Field of Potential (BEING), within which particles (worlds) emerge -- as-if by magic -- and then disappear again, without diminishing the Power of the Field. — Gnomon

Yes, 'Potential' for particles—particles are like a kink in a rope; they can move along the rope. The 'Field' would be permanent, which I think is what you mean by 'BEING'.[/quote]

This is not a traditional anthro-morphic deity, but a philosophical hypothesis to explain how our natural world seemingly emerged, complete with laws & energy, from nothing --- nothing but infinite Potential. Nothing is more "fundamental" than Existence (BEING). — Gnomon

'God' the Person is not possible; systems have parts and so they cannot be First and Fundamental, for the parts would have to be more fundamental.

Nor was a lack of anything an option; thus, having something is mandatory.

The 'Field' seems to be kind of like 'energy'.

PS__Don't you think this concept of BEING has poetic potential? :cool: — Gnomon

Heaven’s Great Wheel e’er whirls its energy,
It having to turn and return, to be,
Transmuting, as ne’er still—eternally,
Into life’s temporary pattern trees.

Eterne’s transitions doom forms’ permanence;
But the time required for their constructance
Restrains for a while the shapes’ destructance;
Thus they can slowly traverse life’s distance.

My 'Discussion of Being' video

In fact it is the thing that is mostly discused in the world by smart people.
— philosopher004

Please provide your data. — Pro Hominem

Martin Luther,Soren Kierkegaard,Fyodor Dostoevsky(not considered a theologian but discusses theology).I think they are smart because they didn't write for their time but took the fundamentals of everything from human attitude towards divinity to why we should take the 'leap of faith'. — philosopher004

This is 3 examples of people who you consider smart (I think most poeple would agree, so I won't take the argument there) who have, to some degree, written about theology. That is not sufficient to support saying that theology is the single most discussed topic by smart people. There are plenty of smart people who don't discuss it at all.

Basically, this statement is so broad that it would be essentially impossible to prove and I don't think you need to anyway in order to discuss what you are wanting to discuss. Try to keep your assertions more focused. :)

There are plenty of smart people who don't discuss it at all. — Pro Hominem

Yeah I think I went too far there.I apologize. Every branch of philosophy contains smart people. These are the people I think are smart in the branch of theology.

This is not my argument. And I have little patience for people like yourself — JerseyFlight

Fortunately, I have patience to spare for the both of us then. You asked a question, and I provided you an answer. I did not say I believed in a God. You are letting your personal emotions impact the conversation. An even temperment would examine the point I made, not the point your emotions are leading you to think I made. An intellectual lets their emotions compliment their thoughts, not the other way around.

Philosophy is not about elitism. It is not about letting our perceived superiority belittle others theories we dislike. Such actions are not about discovering the truth, or lifting others to the truth. They are self serving primitive parts of the brain which intelligent people must EVER be vigilent against. Failure to do so is a waste of intellect.

Lest you dismiss this because you think I am a religious nutjob, I do not believe in religion. I have 3 degrees. I have spoken with many people far more intelligent then myself. Being an atheist does not give you a pass to the intelligence club. It is the default stance of most of the world. The temptation to belittle others is the trap of a budding intellect, because it gives you the illusion of power and superiority your mind craves. Resist it. It will make you intellectually lazy as you seek "easy marks" to fuel that illusion, a terrible human being to be around, and ultimately, miserable. There is no shame in realizing you have fallen for this trap, only shame on continuing along that path.

That is indeed the nature of Wholes in the real world. But my notion of the hypothetical super-natural creator of Reality (Nature) is just the reverse. My metaphysical G*D is not a thing, or a collection of things, but the eternal-infinite Potential that I call BEING (the power to exist). In that case, the inexhaustible power is never diminished by creating novel things (holons).

Of course, this imaginary Ideal entity is merely a theoretical device, intended to explain how and why our Real world is what it is. I have no scriptures or scientific evidence to support that philosophical hypothesis. Yet, I use it as an axiom for my Enformationism worldview. :nerd:

Holon : simultaneously a whole and a part
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holon_(philosophy)
NOTE : Pace Koestler, In my custom-built scenario, the holons do not "add-up" to the "Holarch". Instead, they are saturated with BEING, and they are separate from the "Holarch" only in the eyes of limited space-time perceivers. — Gnomon

Above my paygrade, friend. Good luck :up:

You are letting your personal emotions impact the conversation. An even temperment would examine the point I made, not the point your emotions are leading you to think I made. An intellectual lets their emotions compliment their thoughts, not the other way around. — Philosophim

Indeed. Just like there are many angry theists, there many angry atheists. It's a people problem.

The temptation to belittle others is the trap of a budding intellect, because it gives you the illusion of power and superiority your mind craves. Resist it. It will make you intellectually lazy as you seek "easy marks" to fuel that illusion, a terrible human being to be around, and ultimately, miserable. There is no shame in realizing you have fallen for this trap, only shame on continuing along that path. — Philosophim

Well said.

Above my paygrade, friend. Good luck :up: — TheMadFool

MIne too! But when has that ever stopped us from philosophizing? :smile:

MIne too! But when has that ever stopped us from philosophizing? :smile: — Gnomon

:smile: :up:

It is not about letting our perceived superiority belittle others theories we dislike. — Philosophim

Oh, come on! Where's the fun in that?!?!

What if they're like, BEGGING for it? :rofl: