Aren't you familiar with Spinoza's "intellectual love of God"?

Very much so. How is that relevant to your criticism of 'disbelief in God'?

And it could be what the truth sounds like. You're going to take this as 50/50 chance? Everything has many interpretations abstractly. — Gregory

I'm not really in the truth business - except in a pragmatic sense.

How do you know what you said below?

As I said, God answers prayers as he wants, not as faithless people want. — Gregory

You seem to know an awful lot about a god - his gender and his personality. How so?

To know God is to be one with him. In that moment you are eternal with him where you are not distinguished from God but God is still distinguished from you. That's what I strive for and I've only critiqued the attempt to disprove religion in general in this thread.

If you don't want to find truth than you are truly devoid of both the philosophical and religious spirit. At least you must still be curious about things, right? All I know of God is what I've experienced throughout my life and God is infinite so I must know little about him

If you don't want to find truth than you are truly devoid of both the philosophical and religious spirit. — Gregory

You're aware, I'd assume, that there are schools of philosophy which remain skeptical about capital T truth. Are the chances of humans uncovering Truth, even if it exists, likely?

All I know of God is what I've experienced throughout my life and God is infinite so I must know little about him — Gregory

How do you arrive at this? What relationship with god/s must one have to make a claim like this?

As I said, God answers prayers as he wants, not as faithless people want. — Gregory

How is your embodied or experienced certainty distinguished from the similar certainties of a QAnon believer or a Scientologist or a Hindu?

So why blame "biochemists" for not being "mystics"? Science does what it's exceptionally good at and nothing more. Criticizing a hammer for not being a paint brush or a theorem for not being a sonnet profoundly misunderstands each of them. Sciences and arts are not 'mutually exclusive' practices or ways of being (Laozi). — 180 Proof

You're right, but there's something rather disturbing about reductionism (read science). I see progress in the universe, from matter to life to consciosuness and this forward movement is in danger of being impeded/reversed by science e.g. love is oxytocin. Very Laozi alright (we come full circle).

I see progress in the universe, from matter to life to consciosuness and this forward movement is in danger of being impeded/reversed by science e.g. love is oxytocin — Agent Smith

How till that impede or reverse the progress of the universe? For that matter, how can a human activity interfere with the universe at all?

It seems to me (à la Spinoza) that everything is "one with God" sub specie aeternitatis whether or not we are aware of this. We belong to Nature (or God) just as e.g. waves belong to the ocean. An atheist is someone who does not (have a need to) call Nature "God" or, for that matter, regard nature as "Nature"; primarily, it's theistic (& deistic) deities which atheists disbelieve in. Atheism, however, does not exclude idealism or mysticism (or even occultism) ...

there's something rather disturbing about reductionism (read science). I see progress in the universe, from matter to life to consciosuness and this forward movement — Agent Smith

Well, being free of the illusion of (evolutionary?) "progress" or the facile reduction of "science" to "reductionism", I'm not disturbed in the least by our human all too human, Faustian bargains. Apotheosis or extinction sooner rather than later? The prevailing entropy gradient of this cosmic neighborhood inspires me! Amor fati (aka "wu wei"), amigo. :fire:

How till that impede or reverse the progress of the universe? For that matter, how can a human activity interfere with the universe at all? — Vera Mont

:rofl:

QAnon? How are you distinguished from Stalin I can ask? If you don't think truth is attainable than why are you writing posts? Aren't you trying to be objective? Why should truth be hard to find? Is life bad?

there's something rather disturbing about reductionism (read science). I see progress in the universe, from matter to life to consciosuness and this forward movement
— Agent Smith
Well, being free of the illusion of (evolutionary?) "progress" or the facile reduction of "science" to "reductionism", I'm not disturbed in the least by our human all too human, Faustian bargains. Apotheosis or extinction sooner than later? The prevailing entropy gradient of this cosmic neighborhood inspires me! Amor fati (aka "wu wei"), amigo. :fire: — 180 Proof

:up: I see you disagree that there's progress the way I described it: Matter $\to$ Life $\to$ Consciousness. Why? There clearly is a sequence here, oui monsieur? Going by numbers, the progression is absent, but in terms of who runs the show on planet earth, it's as plain as the nose on your face. Of course it ain't all sunshine and rainbows for conscious beings (it hurts), but some report euphoria (high on life).

Most atheist don't mind a deistic God. They just don't want a deity butting into their business. Anyone who says God is in everything in his essence is a panentheist. People debate whether God choices to create or not. I don't see how these are fruitful debates. If we are one with God that is what matters. Im a nondualist. But you seem to be saying Spinoza wasn't an atheist? He believed in loving God in nature. I don't see how this relates to the occult though. The occult is nothing but anti monotheism

QAnon? How are you distinguished from Stalin I can ask? — Gregory

Include Stalin if you wish. My point, which you seem to ignore, is that people are certain about all kinds of fabricated ideas.

So my question asked earlier remains: -

How do you arrive at this? What relationship with god/s must one have to make a claim like this?

As I said, God answers prayers as he wants, not as faithless people want.
— Gregory — Tom Storm

Matter →→ Life →→ Consciousness. Why? There clearly is a sequence here, oui monsieur? — Agent Smith

:roll:

"Life —> Consciousness" —> Extinction aka "matter". A sequence (e.g. Möbius loop) =/= "progress".

But you seem to be saying Spinoza wasn't an atheist? — Gregory

Spinoza is an acosmist who rejects theistic / deistic (i.e. transcendent) divinity and deems such religions superstitions.

NB: Read the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus.

"Life —> Consciousness" —> Extinction aka "matter". A sequence (e.g. Möbius loop) =/= "progress — 180 Proof

Bravo! Laozi, very Laozi. The (Möbius) loop, exactly! We return to where we started and begin again (the Sisyphusean carousel). What are the wider ramifications of this simple cyclical pattern?

What are the wider ramifications of this simple cyclical pattern? — Agent Smith

My favorite speculation –
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/607424 :smirk:

Why is atheism the default? I'm just claiming what I know from experience. You've tried to refute the search for religion by rational argument. You're main argument seems to be that religion is a continuum. Religion is between you and God though, not between you and organized factions. If you've never had a religious moment than you don't know what this conversation is about. It doesn't matter what others say or do. It matters what you know and do

Acosmism is theism. You are neither it seems

Interesting! Loopy, definitely loopy, and I see you haven't completely solved the problem ... yet. Any progress on that front mon ami?

Why is atheism the default? I'm just claiming what I know from experience. — Gregory

Forget atheism, I'm trying to understand how you can claim you know god is male and that in your words - God answers prayers as he wants, not as faithless people want.

You know all this from experience?

Why should we accept this experiential knowledge as opposed to similar claims from other theists who, let's say, know from experience that god wants 'fags to burn in hell' and that women are inferior to men?

What is the nature of this experience and how can we tell what is true from what is false?

There's no problem to solve that I can see.

Acosmism is theism. — Gregory

:roll:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acosmism

Can you tell when you do right from wrong? That intuition is what humans were given to know truth. God doesn't have a gender. We say "he" because people sexualize God when we say "she". Why would God pay attention to willful disbelief? If it's not willful than faith can come in its due time. To ask for proof from God is not to exercise prayer. You sound like a Catholic talking to a Protestant "how do you know how to read the Bible without the Pope as it's interpreter? Ya'll disagree with each other". A Protestant uses prayer to read the Bible and it doesn't matter if others disagree with him. You are trying to see things from a God's eye view

What's the difference between the Absolute and God? You are splitting hairs in order to avoid the other side of this question

Read the links in my last post. Read Spinoza's Ethics. Then read them again, sir.

Spinoza appears to say humans lack will but he stills believes in the mind and might be a compatabilist. Anyhow, a mind can't exist without will and he was a passionately religious person. Do you see the face of God in nature? If not than you part with Spinoza

:eyes: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/767084

Why would God pay attention to willful disbelief? If it's not willful than faith can come in its due time. To ask for proof from God is not to exercise prayer. You sound like a Catholic talking to a Protestant "how do you know how to read the Bible without the Pope as it's interpreter? Ya'll disagree with each other". A Protestant uses prayer to read the Bible and it doesn't matter if others disagree with him. You are trying to see things from a God's eye view — Gregory

You seem to be answering a different question to the one I asked. Incidentally, the Catholics I know have generally regarded the Pope as a reactionary pissant and someone to ignore. This current pope seems more popular.

My question was:

Why should we accept this experiential knowledge as opposed to similar claims from other theists who, let's say, know from experience that god wants 'fags to burn in hell' and that women are inferior to men?

What is the nature of this experience and how can we tell what is true from what is false? — Tom Storm

Well those people are obviously wrong. An atheist still has to use internal conscience to decide on moral issues just as religious people have to weigh issues of religion.

Well those people are obviously wrong. — Gregory

How do we determine that the sincere personal experience of one believer is right, while the experience of another is wrong. Is there a process?