"God does not exist. He is being-itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore to argue God exists is to deny Him. It is as atheistic to affirm God as it is to deny Him. God is being-itself, not a being." ~Paul Tillich, theologian-philosopher — 180 Proof
This is true, but nevertheless Tillich, as a theologian, clearly believed that God is real. So here, he's making a claim about the difference between 'what is real' and 'what exists'. — Wayfarer
What's the difference between "exist" and "real"? — TheMadFool
"Existence" refers to what is finite and fallen and cut of from its true being. Within the finite realm issues of conflict between, for example, autonomy (Greek: 'autos' - self, 'nomos' - law) and heteronomy (Greek: 'heteros' - other, 'nomos' - law) abound (there are also conflicts between the formal/emotional and static/dynamic). Resolution of these conflicts lies in the essential realm (the Ground of Meaning/the Ground of Being) which humans are cut off from yet also dependant upon ('In existence man is that finite being who is aware both of his belonging to and separation from the infinite' (Newport p.67f)). Therefore existence is estrangement."
"Although this looks like Tillich was an atheist such misunderstanding only arises due to a simplistic understanding of his use of the word 'existence'. What Tillich is seeking to lead us to is an understanding of the 'God above God'. We have already seen earlier that the Ground of Being (God) must be separate from the finite realm (which is a mixture of being and non-being) and that God cannot be a being. God must be beyond the finite realm. Anything brought from essence into existence is always going to be corrupted by ambiguity and our own finitude [i.e. 'the fall']. Thus statements about God must always be symbolic (except the statement 'God is the Ground of Being'). Although we may claim to know God (the Infinite) we cannot. The moment God is brought from essence into existence God is corrupted by finitude and our limited understanding. In this realm we can never fully grasp (or speak about) who God really is. The infinite cannot remain infinite in the finite realm. That this rings true can be seen when we realize there are a multitude of different understandings of God within the Christian faith alone. They cannot all be completely true so there must exist a 'pure' understanding of God (essence) that each of these are speaking about (or glimpsing aspects of)...." 1
I'm inclined to think (and I forget where I heard this quip) that having a propensity towards atheism or god/mysticism is more of an innate preference... — Tom Storm
The problem with the more famous atheists and their acolytes is that they are in locked into a form of internecine conflict that greatly reduces/limits the scope of their thinking. War makes monsters of everyone. — Tom Storm
profound observation — Wayfarer
Wonderful. Except how can you gain support for it?reality itself doesn't exist — Wayfarer
Looks likeTillich has started from an assumption which is hypothetical, and furthermore, unneeded. He then extrapolates from his own fantasy. Then it grows and grows, all his fantasies piled up on other of his fantasies, until it fills a book which then he publishes and big grown-ups clap their hands in joy when they read it. These adults forget the fundamental: All Tillich expounds is a finely worked out series of linked fantasies, all speculative, all ungrounded, all totally void of any evidence, therefore it should be treated as void of merit, not as a great mental work of a philosophical genius.What Tillich is seeking to lead us to is an understanding of the 'God above God'. We have already seen earlier that the Ground of Being (God) must be separate from the finite realm (which is a mixture of being and non-being) and that God cannot be a being. God must be beyond the finite realm.
I'm not sure arguments matter all that much on either side of the God/atheism divide. — Tom Storm
Maybe we could say that the latter is atheism and the former is a-religion. There is also a-political. A-political would include all forms of political/social coercion, not just religion/theology. Politics is essentially a religion. Politics evolved from religion. They are both forms of Big Brother. I'm not just an atheist, but a-political. My "mind is not for rent to any god or government".Droves of atheists (and anti-theists) renunciate merely the social consequences of organized, religious structures - as opposed to the (indeterminate) metaphysical assertions, that the structures themselves declaim. — Aryamoy Mitra
Religious truth is, therefore, a species of practical knowledge. Like swimming, we cannot learn it in the abstract; we have to plunge into the pool and acquire the knack by dedicated practice. Religious doctrines are a product of ritual and ethical observance, and make no sense unless they are accompanied by such spiritual exercises as yoga, prayer, liturgy and a consistently compassionate lifestyle. Skilled practice in these disciplines can lead to intimations of the transcendence we call God, Nirvana, Brahman or Dao. Without such dedicated practice, these concepts remain incoherent, incredible and even absurd.
But during the modern period, scientific logos became so successful that myth was discredited, the logos of scientific rationalism became the only valid path to truth, and Newton and Descartes claimed it was possible to 'prove' God's existence - something earlier Jewish, Christian and Muslim theologians had always vigorously denied. Christians bought into the scientific theology, and some embarked on the doomed venture of turning their faith's mythos into logos. — Karen Armstrong
The same can be said about leprechauns and ghosts, but we don't use terms like "transcendent" to describe those things, why?The point about the transcendent nature of 'God' is that we can't make an object out of it - there is no such object, and so no objective method to know about 'it'. — Wayfarer
You'd have to know when you're in a state of "unknowing", hence you cannot ever escape a state of knowing, unless you're dead or unconscious.But the point of practical spirituality is to 'know by not knowing' (again remeniscent of Socrates) - hence 'the cloud of unknowing'. 'The known must cease for the unknown to be', — Wayfarer
Right. So in your perfect world, ruled by aforesaid perfect deity, there would no birth, death, or illness, right? Because all of those entail suffering, and according to this model, no suffering could exist, so nobody could ever be born, right? — Wayfarer
A counter example would be informative. — 180 Proof
No one, to my knowledge, has ever lived, sacrificed, sworn, persecuted, killed or died in the name of "the god of philosophy" — 180 Proof
Hi, I am a theist and I have a question for atheists. I hope this does not cause too much turmoil. Do atheists actively not want God to exist? I am aware that many atheists come to their conclusion because they believe God is impossible and other reasons. However, is there ever an element of not wanting God to exists? I hope this makes sense. — Georgios Bakalis
many also recognise how awful it would be if god actually did exist, especially if various horrifying content of the bible were true as well. — DingoJones
An interesting point. I've asked this question a couple of times in the forum and never got a satisfactory answer.
What's the difference between "exist" and "real"?
What this query is meant to probe is the materialistic bias that the word "exist" has - to be perceived is to exist and vice versa but this fits the definition of the material too - to be perceived is to be material and vice versa. Basically, exist = material/physical the way the words "exist" and "material" are defined.
The issue popped up in a discussion about god. A member claimed that god exists but is immaterial to which I pointed out that such is impossible because exist is just another way of saying material. If that's how this game is played then, yes, Wayfarer, you're right in that there's a...difference between 'what is real' and 'what exists' — TheMadFool
Plasma is the fourth state of matter. ... To put it very simply, a plasma is an ionized gas, a gas into which sufficient energy is provided to free electrons from atoms or molecules and to allow both species, ions and electrons, to coexist. — Wikipedia
What do you mean exactly? A scientific definition of god looks like what? — DingoJones
Hindu monotheism or polytheism with one major god validate such claims. But since those theisms don't threaten with eternal damnation for making the wrong religious choice, they seem to have little traction in Western philosophy or culture at large.It would be awesome if an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good being existed, because then nothing bad would ever happen.
— Pfhorrest
I'd be interested to know which Biblical or other religious texts validate this claim.
/.../
The conception of 'God' as any kind of super-director, intelligent designer, or cosmic potentate, which is how he's most often depicted by current atheism, is a 'straw god' argument, comprising an attack on what David Bentley Hart describes as the God of 'monopolytheism'. — Wayfarer
No. The Hindus would say that in that perfect world, people would understand the role of illusion, maya, and so wouldn't suffer, even though there would birth, death, old age, and disease. (But no New Age.)Right. So in your perfect world, ruled by aforesaid perfect deity, there would no birth, death, or illness, right? Because all of those entail suffering, and according to this model, no suffering could exist, so nobody could ever be born, right? — Wayfarer
The we can surmise that he was the kind of atheist who genuinely lacks belief in God or gods.The question I would put to the Epiucureans is that, Socrates was accused of atheism, but he denied it. He didn’t profess any belief in the Athenian pantheon - that was one of the causes of his condemnation - but he also said he wasn’t atheist. Of course, it is legendarily difficult to pin down what he did believe in, but he denied being atheist. So is that complaint of the Epicureans directed at whatever deity Socrates did believe in? — Wayfarer
Shall we revisit the Psalms, wade knee-deep in the blood of David's enemies, to see that there is plenty of justification for hostility and violence in the Bible that believers in Jehovah can draw on?Yes, you make a good point. I was reading again the other day of the atrocious story of the murder and dismemberment of Hypatia of Alexandria at the hands of 'Christian mobs'. That 'mob mentality', no matter what ideology clothes it, is a dreadful thing. And I agree that Christian history has been marked by many such episodes. But as I see it, the fact that religion is misunderstood so as to cause such atrocities is attributable to the ignorance of its followers, and also to the greed of those who get themselves into positions of power because of it. — Wayfarer
Hindu monotheism or polytheism with one major god validate such claims. — baker
"Nothing bad" by whose standards of nothing bad?What I sought validation for, was the claim that ‘if God is good, then there could be no suffering’. I call this the ‘hotel manager theodicy’ - the expectation, that if God is the ‘ideal CEO’ the nothing bad ought ever to happen. — Wayfarer
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.