Yes, and that which is real (i.e. ineluctable, more-than-intersubjective) is independent of "faith".God as a subterfuge depends a lot on faith. — javi2541997
I think, in matters of ontology, it is 'essential' to determine the conditions or properties which objectively differentiate an entity (1) as real (actual) from unreal (imaginary) and (2), if real, then as existing (present) from not existing (absent); and therefore, to the degree this difference is indiscernible, I think we lack grounds to claim that any such entity is either "real" or "exists" (thus, with respect to "god/s", reliance on (suspension of disbelief in mythopoetic) make believe aka "faith" (re: Tillich, Kierkegaard ...) is required). — 180 Proof
This premise presumes physical existence, hence knowable via the 5 senses.X exists then X is detectable — Agent Smith
Theists claim God exists, but they make it a point to state that God's immaterial/nonphysical. — Agent Smith
Tillich came to make the paradoxical statement that God does not exist, for which he has been accused of atheism. "God does not exist. He is being itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore to argue that God exists is to deny him."
That statement is a continuation of Tillich’s earlier conclusion that God cannot be conceived as an object, no matter how lofty. We cannot think of God as a being that exists in time and space, because that constrains Him, and makes Him finite. Thus we must think of God as beyond being, above finitude and limitation, the power or essence of being itself. There is a clear logic in Tillich’s development here, and he makes it plain that denying God’s “existence” is in fact needed in order to affirm him. Still, at times he makes it hard to avoid the impression that there simply “is” no God, which is largely due to his use of the notion of existence. Again, the apologetic nature of Tillich’s discourse should be remembered. The purpose of such statements is to forcibly remove incorrect notions from the minds of his audience by creating a state of shock.. — New World Encyclopedia
things accessible to the senses and the intellect are said tobeexist, whereas anything which, “through the excellence of its nature” (per excellentiam suae naturae), transcends our faculties are said not tobeexist. According to this classification, God, because of his transcendence is said not tobeexist. He is “nothingness through excellence” (nihil per excellentiam). ...This mode (of thinking) illustrates Eriugena’s original way of dissolving the traditional Neoplatonic hierarchy of being into a dialectic of affirmation and negation: to assert one level is to deny the others. In other words, a particular level may be affirmed to be real by those on a lower or on the same level, but the one above it is thought not to be real in the same way. If humans are thought to exist in a certain way, then angels do not exist in that way. — John Scotus Eriugena
This premise presumes physical existence, hence knowable via the 5 senses.
But most modern god-concepts deny that premise. — Gnomon
One alternative premise is that "god is existence", the Necessary Being.
But how do you detect "necessity"? By physical or intuitive or logical processes? :smile:
PS__Apparently, most god-believers trust their Intuition more than their Reason. But philosophers seem less reliant on intuition, so require some Objective evidence to supplement their Rational deductions. — Gnomon
Most interesting. — Ms. Marple
No, as in God did not manifest in physical form as Jesus? — Jackson
What? Why are you mentioning Jesus? I don't know. God could make himself into a cat if he wanted. My point is a philosophical one. An omnipotent being can be physical, for an omnipotent being has the power to make himself physical if he so chooses. He wouldn't be omnipotent if he couldn't. — Bartricks
It is understandable that all of your premises make contradictions. You keep trying to put some titanic characteristics just to confirm God's existence: Tangible, physical, detectable or undetectable, etc... As much as I remember if I am not wrong, theists tend to defend that God is omnipotent. Inside this "virtue" it is said that God is and is not at all times and in every place. The failure of developing a grandiose image of God ends up of having a lot of contradictions. This is why, as I said previously, you would need a lot of faith to believe in something that you never "seen" neither spoken to.
Kant's statement, "I have therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge, in order to make room for faith," is one of the most famous things he wrote. However, as we will see in the text, neither he nor Jakob Fries meant by Glaube, "faith".
Kant: The Jewish faith was, in its original form, a collection of mere statutory laws upon which was established a political organization; for whatever moral additions were then or later appended to it in no way whatever belong to Judaism as such. Judaism is really not a religion at all but merely a union of a number of people who, since they belonged to a particular stock, formed themselves into a commonwealth under purely political laws, and not into a church; nay, it was intended to be merely an earthly state...
The Kant-Friesian Theory of Religion and Religious Value — javi2541997
:up:1. How do we know X exists?
We can't! There are no sufficient condition for existence.
X is detectable doesn't imply X exists (hallucinations/simulation). — Agent Smith
Already answered above. :smirk:2. How do we know X doesn't exist?
1. How do we know X exists? — Agent Smith
You know something exists when you believe it exists, it does exist, and you have epistemic reason to believe it exists. — Bartricks
Modern philosophers tend to distrust Intuition, as a hasty & emotional instead of methodical & rational way of knowing. But Intuition is fundamental, subjective, and personal, hence it makes the strongest case for belief. Only after those intuitive embryos-of-thought are established can the rational faculties analyze them to select the ones that conform to logical structures, and that can survive the gauntlet of objective social criticism. However, even those ideas that are strong enough to become firm beliefs, are based on limited information. Which is why Bayesian inference was developed, to update our provisional beliefs with additional evidence. Bayes whittled normal human logic, based on conventional concepts (words), down to a mathematical (statistical) analysis of probability. But that bare-bones abstract result may lack the emotional impact of visceral Intuition as the foundation of faith.Interesting points! Intuition as opposed to logic and that intriguing way of defining God as existence itself. — Agent Smith
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.