Strawman. I never claimed or implied "that it is impossible for X to exist". I asked how do you "know that it is possible for X to exist" without knowing anything about X. Well?The assertion that X exists is nonsense in the absence of any data. But it is also silly to insist that it is impossible for X to exist, even if there is no data. — god must be atheist
I asked how do you "know that it is possible for X to exist" without knowing anything about X. Well? — 180 Proof
Ambivalence is silly, denial or assertion is wrong. — god must be atheist
I understand you want to drop the religious mumbo jumbo and think about god in those other terms, but I’ve never understood why some folks keep the term “god”. Why define god so differently that it no longer resembles the religious god at all? Why not just let go of the label and talk about whatever it is you were trying to redefine god to be? (Like love or mystery or the universe...just talk about love, mystery or the universe! Lol) — DingoJones
:lol: No one has first-hand knowledge of god. And I am NOT certain of anything.IOW, you have knowledge of God? First-hand, certain knowledge of God? — baker
This is the third time I ask this question (paraphrased) and I get ignored deeply, soundly, and unanimously, by those who have made actual claims about god.
I guess the silence I encounter to my question is an answer in a way. A very telling answer. — god must be atheist
And whose problem is that?
Do you believe in God?
"(unless by "God" you mean just a referentless, or philosophical, concept and not a 'providential entity' of Abrahamic, Vedic or pantheonic religions). — 180 Proof
Athena's position in life was dramatically changed when Athens became a democracy. — Athena
So... you knew Julius Caesar personally?
And who was Miltiades? I mean, the REAL Miltiades? — god must be atheist
Ok, but I’m not asking why someone might use the term “god”. I’m being more specific, I want to know why you, a person who recognises that the term “god” is being used to describe not the usual characteristics of “god” but to describe something else for which we already have a name for yet instead of using that name still insist on calling it “god”. — DingoJones
You do realize how immensely impractical this is, do you? I'm sure you do.Same reason I want to decide the truth of any other claim: I want to believe only things that are true, and avoid believing things that are untrue. — Pfhorrest
Hehe. I did not think of it that way, but I guess that's what that is. — god must be atheist
:chin: Some people believe science can be applied to the god question and some do not. But certainly, we can apply philosophy to the god question. — Athena
Now, what boundaries do you think we should set for the god question and why? Or, instead of boundaries, should we expand our understanding of the god question? Does not it begin with a desire to understand all of life? I certainly prefer expanding our understanding of the god question. I absolutely what to avoid the futile argument of if god exists or not because that is so repetitive and boring after several years of the same arguments again and again. — Athena
I want new arguments. What is the unified force? — Athena
That's a profound insight for the simple reason that these two - the first, failing to discover truth/falsity and the second, spewing silly nonsense - are the stuff of philosophers' nightmares. — TheMadFool
You do realize how immensely impractical this is, do you? I'm sure you do.
I also doubt you practice it consistently. You aren't all that concerned about the truth about the half-life of radioactive isotopes that exist only on Triton or the vaginal system of fleas, are you? — baker
You want to talk about understanding all life and what that might mean then great but why call that a god question? — DingoJones
That question doesn't make any sense. How do my higher priorities -- things like keeping myself alive -- "match how things really are"? What does that even mean? — Pfhorrest
Eisenstein spent his last years seeking the unified force — Athena
Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in point of fact, religious.
I'm not an atheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written these books. It does not know-how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws.
I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.
Atheists are those who still feel the weight of their chains.
From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.
A human being is a part of the whole, called by us "Universe", a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest — a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. The striving to free oneself from this delusion is the one issue of true religion. Not to nourish the delusion but to try to overcome it is the way to reach the attainable measure of peace of mind.
If you don't believe in God, then the presumed, claimed, or factual actions, qualities etc. of God are none of your business and none of your concern. — baker
The presumed, claimed, or factual actions, qualities etc. of God are a factor in deciding whether to believe such a God exists. — Pfhorrest
Why do you want to "decide whether God exists or not"? — baker
Same reason I want to decide the truth of any other claim: I want to believe only things that are true, and avoid believing things that are untrue. — Pfhorrest
You do realize how immensely impractical this is, do you? I'm sure you do.
I also doubt you practice it consistently. You aren't all that concerned about the truth about the half-life of radioactive isotopes that exist only on Triton or the vaginal system of fleas, are you? — baker
“Only things that are true” doesn’t mean “all the things that are true”... but yeah, knowing all the things would be cool too, though of course I have higher priorities in daily life. — Pfhorrest
And how do they match "how things really are"? — baker
This really isn't rocket sicence. Duh.That question doesn't make any sense. How do my higher priorities -- things like keeping myself alive -- "match how things really are"? What does that even mean? — Pfhorrest
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.