No one, to my knowledge, has ever lived, sacrificed, sworn, persecuted, killed or died in the name of "the god of philosophy" — 180 Proof

Be interesting to see how that hypothesis might be falsified.

"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

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'

Always interesting Wayfarer. I'm not sure arguments matter all that much on either side of the God/atheism divide. I suspect it's usually a case of a post hoc shoe shuffle. 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, like sexual orientation. You can't choose what you believe in.

I can't incorporate the Tillich conception any more than the sky-father variations. The ineffable and the insufferable just don't move me, although Tillich is more fun. In the end I'm quite pleased for people to enjoy a contemplative life as long as they don't harm others. This is much less likely to be the case when the theist literalists dominate the agora.

Nagel may be partly right. 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.

Belief comes from fear and is the most destructive thing. One must be free of fear and of belief. Belief divides people, makes them hard, makes them hate each other and cultivate war. J Krishnamurti

What's the difference between "exist" and "real"? — TheMadFool

Metaphysical question par excellence. The very first question i asked on the grandfather of this forum was about the reality of number - whether the real numbers exist. I concluded they don't, but that they're real nonetheless (which at the time I felt was a profound observation. And the very first, and by far the best, response was from @180 Proof - although we've never agreed on anything much since.)

Anyway, to rewind - it is almost universally presumed that 'what is' and 'what exists' are synonymous expressions. To say something exists is to say that it is. But, I aver, look at the etymology of 'exist'. The word comprises two particles - 'ex-', outside of, or apart from; and 'ist', to stand or to be. So to 'exist' is 'to be apart', to be this as distinct from that. Enlarging on 180's reference to Paul Tillich:

"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

Think about this another way - what is 'this moment'? Does it exist? Well, actually, no, because by the time you've read and thought about it, then you're in another moment. So what about that moment? Well, no, because..... (For some reason, the image of Mercury, quicksilver, comes to mind here.)

So, reality itself doesn't exist - it's the background against which from all particular existents (us included) come from and return to. Reality is the living now, whereas 'what exists' is what can be described, analysed, captured by instruments. That is very much how the mystics describe it (e.g. Eckhart Tolle, Power of Now, but an eternal theme.)

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

True, but there is such a thing as conversion. In my case, I only learned there were atheists when I was about 6, and I still remember that moment. (Not that my family was religious, none of them were churchy.)

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

In addition to that essay of Nagel's that I quoted he has another called Secular Philosophy and the Religious Temperament. It used to be online. The thing about Nagel, is that he says he's an atheist, which I believe, but he's also a very cool-headed rationalist and a tenured professor. Hence his criticisms of these issues ought to be taken seriously by all sides, although, predictably, the secular intelligentsia has accused him of giving aid and comfort to the enemy. (You know when Lord Martin Rees, the British Astronomer General, was given the Templeton Prize, that Richard Dawkins described him as 'a Quisling'?)

Good question. I think you have hit the psychological nail on the head.

That'll take me a while to process. :up: By the way, for what it's worth, I concur that it was and is a

profound observation — Wayfarer

Everyone has an opinion on god, but that's where the buck stops. Nobody has any evidence or supporting arguments to back up their claimed opinions.

reality itself doesn't exist — Wayfarer

Wonderful. Except how can you gain support for it?

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.

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.

I'm not sure arguments matter all that much on either side of the God/atheism divide. — Tom Storm

Arguments don't matter much to all those who are committed to one side or the other, but for proselytizing reasons they do matter. Atheists proselytize as strongly as theists of any religion. This is so because we are tribal, and our tribal identity is strongest on the level of belief of the big questions of life. "If god is with us, who can be against us?" The atheist question is not as much right on the target: "Since god does not exist, it can't be on anyone's side." It just does not have the same ring to it.

But what atheism does, and where religions fail big time, is that atheism gives strength to the SELF. The atheist does not rely on victory, or success, on the help of some supernatural agency; of a strong big brother who kicks the opposing gang's ass. If a licking is achieved, then all the glory can be owned by the self, and in case of defeat, the failure is the responsibility of the self. It is HUGELY gratifying and liberating. "It is I who has done this, and I alone. No, no, I ain't no dingleberry on some deity's hairy anus."

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

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".

The problem is religion being treated as propositional knowledge - statements about some purported entity. That's not it. 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'.

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', said Krishnamurti. It is an act, a way of being, an insight - not a belief. Originally the instructions now preserved as 'religion' were instructions how to realise that state of complete and total attention. But now all that remains are the written vestiges, a map we can no longer interpret.

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 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

The same can be said about leprechauns and ghosts, but we don't use terms like "transcendent" to describe those things, why?

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

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.

My "mind is not for rent to any god or government". — Harry Hindu

Don't flatter yourself. ;-)

Makes sense. To ignore the practical aspects - the whole body of prescribed conduct - that accompany a belief (here religion) is to completely ignore what seems to be the entire one-half of the picture. To emphasize or engage in mental manipulation of ideas about god - coming up with proofs of god, then refuting them and to repeat this cycle ad nauseum - and avoiding the recommendations on how god must become a part of daily living - prayer, ritual, meditation, etc. - is like trying to run with with one leg, impossible. Maybe God or faer counterparts, like nirvana, in other spiritual traditions are revealed only when the two halves (thought & action) come together. It takes two to tango I suppose.

Just an observation, not a "hypothesis". A counter example would be informative.

This – "exist" : "real" :: contingent : necessary :: path : horizon :: being : nonbeing :: situation : event :: nonrandom : random ...

NB: It's almost always forgotten or misunderstood that the vastly greater part of materiality is absence, negation, "void" (in and by which "atoms" swerve swirl & re/combine-into-things) – therefore, that which exists mostly does not, or is ephemeral ... and some existents (e.g. storms, humans, trees) are more ephemeral than others (e.g. stones, oceans, stars ... "gods").

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

There'd be no death or illness for sure, but it's not logically necessary that birth be painful, so an omnipotent being could make birth painless or even pleasurable, and an omnibenevolent one would want to.

True, but there is such a thing as conversion. — Wayfarer

Of course. And de-conversion or apostasy.

A counter example would be informative. — 180 Proof

Let's see.

No one, to my knowledge, has ever lived, sacrificed, sworn, persecuted, killed or died in the name of "the god of philosophy" — 180 Proof

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.

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

I am one of those people who doesn't have a problem with the existence of a god, but it is the Biblical explanation of God I have a problem with.

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

What would make the existence of a god awful? I mean if we do not use the Bible to describe God, then what is the problem? What if there is a god and it is nothing like a human but is like the universe?

Ah yeah, the old "Religion doesn't infantilize, persecute & kill people; people infantilize, persecute & kill people" problem ... to which, reason dictates, the obvious solution is: then, therefore, people need to give up (i.e. educate themselves out of) religion. :naughty:

Well it depends on what you mean by “like” the universe.
If you mean god as just another name for universe then maybe not awful but still not good because it encourages magical, wishy washy thinking. Just call it the universe.

No thank you. I intentionally lift the definition open. Magical thinking is not our only option. We have the options of philosophy and science as well.

What do you mean exactly? A scientific definition of god looks like what?

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

I am not sure we are using the right vocabulary? Everything that is, is energy. We have a materialistic language to speak of that which exist but it is all also a matter of the state of matter.

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

Well, an easy answer would be logos, the organizing force of the universe, or mathematical organization. It could include strange ideas such as Jose' Arguelles explains in "The Mayan Factor". A galactic beam through which the Earth and Sun have been passing. A strange story that may or may not connect with density waves or beams that sweep through the galaxy and influence the galaxy.

That's a good question. Some atheists probably worry that the God of the Bible does exist and will damn them to hell for eternity. In that sense, they probably hope that God doesn't exist. On the other hand, some atheists probably wish that an ever forgiving and understanding God does exist who will let them into paradise after they die, notwithstanding any disbelief.

Does a jaywalker hope there's no oncoming traffic?

Just kidding. It depends on the person I'm sure. Many atheists were once devoutly religious and due to one or more events or discoveries (typically referred to by them as "growing up" or becoming "in touch with reality" or other phrases that cast negative light) are no longer. There's an incredible amount of filth, absolutely horrific, disgusting and revolting things that would make even a nihilist pacifist want to go out and kill a man happening all around the world right now as you read this. Perhaps even closer than you may think. It doesn't become an unreasonably discouraging argument to just say "look around you and ask yourself, is this what you call the work of a loving God" .. or something like that.

It probably depends more on whether or not that atheist has been a good or bad person. You could be a good person, and hope there's a God despite believing that there isn't. That would be pleasing to find out I'm sure.

Shitz-n-giggles, right?

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

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.

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

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.)

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

The we can surmise that he was the kind of atheist who genuinely lacks belief in God or gods.
If I ask you whether you are an atheist in regard to Altjira (and I assume that you genuinely lack all belief in this deity, and that without googling it, you wouldn't even know what that word refers to -- apologies in advance if I underestimated your erudition), the question will be unintelligible to you. You can't say you are an atheist in regard to Altjira.

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

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?

Hindu monotheism or polytheism with one major god validate such claims. — baker

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.

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

"Nothing bad" by whose standards of nothing bad?
Man's or God's?