Does God exist? I don’t know — praxis

Well philosophy of God as to exist presupposes God's existence. Starting from that base, it is a subjective matter afterwards what anyone could consider as fallacious or falsifiable. Some will say "God's creation of the world in 7 days", others that "it can't be just one God", or that "God must be some kind of energy and not an entity" etc etc.

For me, despite being atheist, philosophies of God and religions have their significance. Mostly when examining them through the transcedental human need and how they attempt to cover-describe it throughout history. Plus the moral base that humans try to establish via each religion.

I can’t make heads or tails of this.

Not surprising for you.

Because I only know English?

No. In general.

It is common today to take the concept religion as a taxon for sets of social practices, a category-concept whose paradigmatic examples are the so-called “world” religions of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, and Daoism. Perhaps equally paradigmatic, though somewhat trickier to label, are forms of life that have not been given a name, either by practitioners or by observers, but are common to a geographical area or a group of people—for example, the religion of China or that of ancient Rome, the religion of the Yoruba or that of the Cherokee. In short, the concept is today used for a genus of social formations that includes several members, a type of which there are many tokens.

Which overlooks the overt actuality that God is not a concept. Religion might be, but G(g)od(s) is/are not.

And certainly bad-faith discussion is certainly not limited to religious folks - if only! — StreetlightX

Was this pun intentional? Brilliant!

For me, even being atheist, philosophies of God and religions have their significance. Mostly when examining them through the transcedental human need and how they attempt to cover-describe it throughout history. Plus the moral base that humans try to establish via each religion. — dimosthenis9

This leads me to the consideration that just like in New-Age soothsaying and personality slating, the therapist/chart reader must be painfully aware that he or she is a despicable charlatan, so in old time religions there always must have been at least one person who knew that the whole supernatural superstructure over the domain of mankind was mere fantasy.

in old time religions there always must have been at least one person who knew that the whole supernatural superstructure over the domain of mankind was mere fantasy — god must be atheist

I would bet more than one.

Well, depends on the size of the religion. If two followers, chances are only one is in the know. If two billion followers, then chances are that the number must be higher than one, you're right.

If we reduce "religion" as a system of belief that invovles a supernatural deity, and we at the same time strip from "religion" the criteria of its social or rather sociological nature, then is it possible or impossible, for a person who is the only believer in his "religion" to know that it's nothing but mere phantasy? If yes, then why would he or she want to believe in it and follow its prescribed traditional behavior patterns? Some Jewish folks do that: they call themselves "tradition-following culturally Jewish atheists."

If yes, then why would he or she want to believe in it and follow its prescribed traditional behavior patterns? — god must be atheist

Well if he acknowledges his religion as mere phantasy then I can't find the reason for him keep believing in it.

But someone might keep following its traditional behavior patterns just because that was what he was "taught" and the only patterns where he feels comfortable in. Or maybe they seem also reasonable to him but for other reasons.
If we involve social reasons then could be more possible that someone to keep following these patterns as to "fit in". Feeling safety doing what other social members do.

I can’t make heads or tails of this. — praxis

You are not alone.

One aspect of the debate on forum quality that might be addressed is the preponderance of low quality thread of a theological bent.

Here's a few titles, by way of example:
Was Judas a hero and most trusted disciple, or a traitor?
Is Yahweh breaking an objective moral tenet?
An Argument Against Eternal Damnation
Was Jesus aware of being Yahweh?
Does Yahweh/Jesus live by the Golden Rule?
How much is Christ's life, miracles, and resurrection a fraudulent myth?

These threads take scripture or revelation as a starting point for discussion; theology, not philosophy. — Banno

Since it's been a good couple of years since you asked the question, I'll revisit it.

As to your examples, I don't agree they're all purely theological. Whether the creator of morality is bound by morality is a philosophical question for example.

If we take faith and reason to be stark distinctions in a Kierkeegardian way, I think you're faced with any attempt to understand the sacred in a logical way as being philosophical and not theological. That is, if we challenge the teachings of Jerusalem with the reasoning of Athens we're beyond the purely theological.

@Banno This just crossed my mind. Being of Wittgensteinian bent (language games, meaning is use and all), I'm quite taken by surprise that you would want to delimit philosophy of religion to certain topics and areas in Theology. It's a distinctly non-Wittgenstein in character as far as I can tell. Remember you accused me of stipulation in this other thread on religion in which I mentioned how it could be defined with precision, avoiding the pitfalls that are part and parcel of bad definitions (family resemblance, and nebulous meanings). Looks like you too are guilty of stipulation (imposing your definitions on others for no rhyme or reason).

Whether the creator of morality is bound by morality is a philosophical question for example. — Hanover

It is a question that philosophical analysis shows to be ill conceived and question begging.

Whether the creator of morality is bound by morality is a philosophical question for example.
— Hanover

It is a question that philosophical analysis shows to be ill conceived and question begging. — Fooloso4

Generically I see it as a logical puzzle where an entity is defined as having an essential element that cannot ever vary and the paradoxical conclusions that arise from it. It need not be argued as a theological construct.

For example, what happens when Pinocchio says "my nose is now growing"?

What is the essential element of your creation that cannot ever vary that leads to paradoxical conclusions?

No logical puzzle arises from positing an entity to exempts itself from the rules it creates for others. The assumption seems to be that moral rules must apply without exception. The further assumption is that the creator of moral rules is like us in so far as it is free to obey or disobey the rules. But if what is essential about this entity is that its actions must be invariant then it makes no sense to ask whether it is bound by the moral rules it created.

You've really misunderstood Wittgenstein. And the OP.

You've really misunderstood Wittgenstein. And the OP — Banno

Well, that's a possibility that I can't rule out. However, it seems the two of us are converging on the same spot. Words and the things they refer to are entirely different things. I would like to introduce the Kantian notions of phenomenon (words) and noumenon (referents) as they seem apposite. That phenomena/words fall short of accurately describing/pinpointing noumena/referents doesn't say anything about the nature of noumena/referents. To illustrate, yep, the word "religion" is no good for philosophizing but that, in no way, means there's no such thing as an essence to religion.

Don't mistake the finger pointing at the moon for the moon.

I would like to introduce the Kantian notions of phenomenon (words) and noumenon (referents) as they seem apposite. — Agent Smith

Phenomena are not words, nor noumenon referents; so I've no way to make sense of this.

Phenomena are not words, nor noumenon referents; so I've no way to make sense of this — Banno

It's an analogy, that's all.

The bottom line is this:

1. Philosophical definition (used by philosophers and other thinkers who mind their ps and qs)

2. Non-philosophical definition (used by ordinary folks)

The two don't match; hence the confusion which Wittgenstein attempted to dispel/remove/address.

so I've no way to make sense of this. — Banno

You just don't want. It was a clear metaphor obviously and well said one. He just tells you that words can never fully uncover the "nature" of entire concepts like "religion" or "God", and what these concepts also represent for humans. Just like Kant's phenomenon can't uncover the nature of objects. And both are true.

I want to consider of you clever and sneaky enough as to pretend that you didn't understand.If indeed you were unable to make sense of this, well that's not very flattering for you then.

That phenomena/words fall short of accurately describing/pinpointing noumena/referents doesn't say anything about the nature of noumena/referents. To illustrate, yep, the word "religion" is no good for philosophizing but that, in no way, means there's no such thing as an essence to religion.

“Don't mistake the finger pointing at the moon for the moon.” — Agent Smith

Right, the moon is not the pointing fingers (religions). It is not religion and doesn’t need religion to be seen.

A similar Buddhist saying is something like, “don’t eat the menu.” This wouldn’t be a saying if it weren’t commonplace for folks to eat menus rather than the food it advertises, metaphorically speaking. This is because actual ‘food’ is not essential in religion. Only the menu’s and pointing fingers are essential because that is what binds people together.

Well, there was hope he was not saying something so muddled or banal.

He knows words are not all names. But here he treats them as such. Perhaps he had forgotten.

You seem a bit obsessed with definitions at the moment.

If you can get your hands on it, have a read of J.L. Austin's The Meaning of a Word. You can find it is his Philosophical Papers.

To summarize the contentions of this paper then. Firstly, the phrase 'the meaning of a word' is a spurious phrase. Secondly and consequently, a re-examination is needed of phrases like the two which I discuss, 'being a part of the meaning of' and 'having the same meaning'. On these matters, dogmatists require prodding: although history indeed suggests that it may sometimes be better to let sleeping dogmatists lie.

Right, the moon is not the pointing fingers (religions). It is not religion and doesn’t need religion to be seen. — praxis

You got it the wrong way round. The Moon is religion, science is the pointing finger. Science describes, analyzes, observes, models, hypothesizes, theorizes, etc. Religion give the reasons. The essence of the Moon.

Science describes, analyzes, observes, models, hypothesizes, theorizes, etc. Religion give the reasons. — Haglund

Can you rephrase this in a way that doesn’t force me to ask a series of questions in an attempt to discover what you’re talking about?

I'll try. Forget about the Moon. Science describes the material of the universe. It's nature, causal relations, etc. But it gives no reason for the universe and all life in it to exist. There are attempts made, like in the evolution story ((Dawkins with his selfish genes and memes, claiming the reason we live is to pass on genes or memes), or fundamental laws of physics, claimed to be causes of origin, but in the end these are just descriptions of existence, giving no true reason for the universe and life in it.

And religions give reasons for the universe and life in it? If that what you’re saying, it’s just another way of saying that we make our own reasons for the universe and life in it. Honestly, I think the reasons that religions offer are rather childish, and worse than childish, they are largely meaningless.