Again - There is no basis to believe as a matter of fact that God is not. You can not say, as a matter of fact that unicorns do not exist on earth. Simply because no one has seen a unicorn does not make it a matter of fact that they do not exist. If somehow you have scientific proof equal to 2 + 2 = 4, or the world is round - that it is a matter of fact that God does not exist - you would be the first one in history to do so.

There are many reasoned arguments for theism - and many reasoned arguments against - they are all very well know - hopefully you do not need a list. Both positions are reasonable.

i think all rational arguments start with the proposition that "God is" and looks for reasoned arguments for. I also think all rational arguments that "God is not" start with that proposition and look for reasoned arguments to support.

other than it is not a matter of fact that "God" is not, nor is it in conflict to reason that "God is" - there is nothing wrong with your post. But since that is not the case - everything you said is based on the proposition that "God is not" that you assume as fact - which it is not.

Can any specific religious claims be rationally argued for without support from dogmatic premises? — Janus

- the most basic of religious claims - that God is. Has been philosophically argued for about 1,000 years.

perfect

religion is not philosophy, — S

agree. Religion is religion, and philosophy is philosophy. Philosophy of religion is philosophy - arguments over theism, meaning, basis of morality etc supported by reason, and not by faith are philosophy . Questions of comparative faith based beliefs, or principals and teaching of each are theology - and should be outside the board IMO.

Religious views expressed as though by an evangelist should most certainly be deleted and persistent offenders banned, as per the guidelines. — S

Can we add equally evangelical views of atheism ?

"All definite knowledge - so I should contend - belongs to science; all dogma as to what surpasses definite knowledge belongs to theology. But between theology and science there is a No Man's Land, exposed to attack by both sides; this No Man's Land is philosophy."

Bertrand Russell

agree - just think this is more about Garland and Roe than fact finding about the alleged assaults.

sadly - I think we have moved past the point now where what actually happened matters anymore. The accusations have done enough damage that the dems will be successful in delaying confirmation until the mid terms - or force the GOP to push a questionable vote through. It is all just about the politics now. Political payback for Merrick Garland, Pelosi holds the info until the 11th hour. Now they will have an issue with the Thursday plan - add an aggressive fame seeking lawyer. Watch the Dems win the midterm - and we will have an 8 person SCOTUS for 2 years, since no Trump nominee will ever get through a Dem house. What a mess.

What really happened is an after thought now. And the people involved have just turned into pawns.

But then the Catholics went off on a crusade against scientists that claimed the Earth revolved around the Sun and was not the immovable center of the universe, as well as against evolution — LD Saunders

true - add it to a very long list of stuff they got wrong. Which goes alongside another long list of stuff they got right.

when a religious belief is used to deny a scientific theory — LD Saunders

“The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.”
― St. Thomas Aquinas

My Rank Amateur opinion is, how the topic is addressed and argued has more to do with if it is philosophy or not, than the subject.

If the universe has a cause, then yes, science should be able to explain that causal relationship. — Harry Hindu

Seems like you have faith in science.

I think Anselm did a better job :

By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.

A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.

Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.

But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.

Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.

God exists in the mind as an idea.

Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality

not sure how convincing, but it is elegant

Do you think science will be able to definitely answer how the universe was created one day ??

If you do not care to treat religion with respect, that's your business. But ad hominem attacks on those who disagree with you is hardly structured thought, never mind philosophy.... :chin: — Pattern-chaser

that covers about 99% of the reason i enter into discussions such as these. I have no issue with atheism as a belief. I have always acknowledged that there are reasonable arguments in its favor.

My only issues are, do not say as a matter of fact that God is not. And do not directly or indirectly with the oft used " fairy tale" "spaghetti monster" "Santa Clause" type language say that theism is unreasonable.

The Hitchens- esk smugness and sarcasm of the pseudo intellectual atheist is trying.

i only know of 2 basic arguments against the proposal that God is not. The first is a noseeum argument- if there was a God we would see Him, we don’t see Him, therefore He is not. The second is the argument from evil.

Skeptical theism answers both the same way. That there is no basis to believe that we have the tools to evaluate either proposal

Both the atheist and the theist base their respective beliefs on faith. One in a faith in man’s ability to reason, the other in God.

God is or is not, is not a matter of fact, and there are reasoned arguments for both- each positions ultimately believe is faith based.

none of that changes the fact, that all we really have, at least so far, are the 35 year old memories of 3 people to make some judgement on what in fact happened. That is it.

All we factuality have is the memories of 3 people of an act from 35 years ago. That is it. Every thing else is speculation.

Right, and I would agree. I think that mainline churches make a lot of sense in a post truth age. — MountainDwarf

And you know, as a matter of fact, what truth is. That will certainly save us all a great deal of angst.

You have a perfect right to believe it, but it's not really that relevant in a philosophy forum. — Wayfarer

All due respect, I disagree. The proposition that God is, and the purpose of religion is salvation, is as valid a proposition as the others proposed here. And although agreed, the ultimate belief would be based on faith, it is a proposition that can be tested by reason.

I see no philosophical difference between this proposition as an answer to the op, as many of the others expressed, sitting on an equally faith based belief that God is not.

At the core it is a human hubris in some that we have the ability to reason all, and that which with can not exist by reason does not exist. Interestingly, there are almost an unlimited number of historical examples showning this to be false. Yet, the intellectual high ground is still claimed by many, who paradoxically by their faith in reason, declare its superiority to faith.

thanks, just thought the actual stated purpose was worth a line, along with the various philosophical and psychological conjectures.

There also is a chance that Jesus is actually the Son of God, and the purpose of His Church is our salvation. Just sayin.

Thanks - pretty sure I don't know enough about this to ask anything reasonably intelligent about it, but I won't let that stop me.

If that were the case, free will must have originated somewhere. — Ötzi

My very novice question of what is the origin of these restrictions on free will, where did they originate - are they "installed at manufacture" somehow - or are they a personal history of observation and experience - of others, acting on free will inside their history, who in turn are doing the same of other etc etc.

In my amateur reasoning - this is a regression back to where there is less and less personal history, and less and less restrictions.

I guess i see this elevation of thought and reason as evolutionary. Similar to trying to find the absolute first instant a man walked upright. We know it had a beginning - but we can't say, with any degree of certainty which individual organism was the absolute first.

The answer is quite simple: your reference framework. Now this framework exists for a small part in the conscious mind and for a large part in the subconscious mind. Keeping all past experiences alive in the conscious mind would significantly clutter and slow down your decision-making., hence experiences are moved to the subconscious. Each and every choice you make is based on a combination of a metaphorical balance in the subconscious mind and a conscious weighing of perceived options. — Ötzi

is it fair to say that this "framework" is an amalgamation of the acts of freewill of others. Can't a case be made - that all of the things that go into this "determinism" are a regression of the entire history of acts of free will of others. The way I read this - it appears to be more a random programming installed by the manufacture , and less a personal history of accumulated experiences.

Philosophy is for thinkers, religious faith is for wishful thinkers. — S

Like say Aquinas?

So many of these chats come down to what is fact, reason or faith. As an example.

You are standing at your front door about to open it.

You can not say at that moment in time it is a fact your spouse is not waiting on the other side
with a gun about to kill you.

You can by reason believe it to be true, that it is safe to open the door. You haven't done anything to warrant being killed by your spouse, you haven't had an argument - however spouses with similar reasoned arguments have been shot before.

So when you turn that knob - it is an act of faith.

Amateur question - Can this determinism be viewed as a regression of a series of acts of free will of others ?

What do you think religion's purpose is & how does one interact with it? — MountainDwarf

for some - the purpose is your eternal salvation

IMO one finds the way to God thru the heart, not the head. It is by faith, not reason. It is the place of reason to test what we believe by faith to ensure it is not in conflict with reason, which would make the belief foolish.

I believe the cosmological argument is a reasonable argument that there is, or at least was a necessary being. I also believe that skeptical theism is a sufficient argument against the argument from evil, which is the most robust argument against the existence of God.

thanks all yours, FYI Kant has the classic argument against Anselm's OA. It is probably the least favorite theist argument, but I think it is amazingly elegant. Your post just gave me an excuse to post it.

There is absolutely no reason why the idea of perfection should mean that there is an absolute perfection somewhere other than in our imagination. — Blue Lux

You have the start of the OA there. Just in case for some.

By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.

A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.

But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.

Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.

God exists in the mind as an idea.
Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality.

with tongue firmly in cheek - I hope this helps.

The pick a religion decision tree:

1. Do you believe there is a God ? ( Title for most perfect being, the three o’s, etc)
Yes – go to question 2
No - Find a list of non – God based religions and pick one – but really why bother. Or if you are not Asian or Indian - pick one of the eastern ones and act real cool and all

2. Do you believe in Jesus as God ?
Yes – go to question 3
No - Pick Judaism or Islam depending on you athletic ability.

3. You want this choice to be a full time thing, or just a kind of nice to have thing ?
Full time – go to question 4
Nice to have - Find a list of major protestant churches - find the one in your area
With a really good choir - or just watch Joel Osteen on TV

4. Are you a complete idiot ?
Yes - Grab a snake you’re a fundamentalist
No - You’re a Catholic

I think you may be reading more into the quote, than its intention. I think all he was trying to do was establish some blurry borders between the disciplines of science, philosophy, and theology.

you are either a troll or an idiot, there are no other options

you have completely missed the point. No surprise of course

And if that's not what you were suggesting, then it's waiting on you to clarify what you were suggesting, if anything. And if you weren't suggesting anything further, then I see little to no relevance in your above comment. The beliefs about God of those who have participated in this discussion are probably a mixture of being in conflict with reason and not being in conflict with reason. You need to be specific. — S

My statement is, one can believe by faith alone what one chooses to, with no further support, with the caveat that this belief is not in conflict with fact or reason.

I have stated and supported the position that whether or not God is or is not is not a matter of fact. I have stated, and assume the hundreds of years of intelligent philosophical discussion support the position that there are reasonable arguments both for and against God is. So neither position is in conflict with reason.

The only thing reasonable theism is in direct conflict with on this post is the readily apparent self elevation of your beliefs to fact and absolute truth.

You can forget about whether or not it's ignorant, — S

If it is not, it very well should be a definition of ignorance to dismiss, disparage, or degrade the beliefs of others, without any other basis than you disagree with them.

Your wording is ambiguous, but I addressed multiple interpretations in my reply. It's waiting for you to clarify which interpretation you meant, whether you agree or disagree, and why, given my explanation. The "why" is notably absent from your original comment, as you can see. And it is likewise absent from your empty dismissive reply. It is a bare assertion. And, as the late Christopher Hitchens said, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, which you seem to agree with, despite having done the opposite here in this discussion. — S

There is absolutely nothing ambiguous in the statement it is reasonable to believe that God does and does not exist. Since it is not a matter of fact, and there are multiple perfectly rational arguments for both positions, reasonable people can, and in fact, do hold either position. This is not a difficult concept. Christopher Hitchens has made a good living off this very concept.

Then, for the last time, and without further delay, please practice what you preach and present a revision of your original post - see here - with arguments in support of your unsubstantiated opinions. — S

p1 - by definition facts are. I.e. 2 + 2 = 4, the cat is on the chair, the earth is round.
P2 - facts do not stay in dispute by reasonable, sensible, and intelligent beings.
P3 - many, many very reasonable, sensible and intelligent beings have been in dispute over the existence of God for a very long time

Therefore: God is, or God is not is not a matter of fact

argumentative is not a philosophical argument- a string of unsubstantiated opinions may be provocative but until there is some semblance of a basis it is nothing but opinion. Trading opinions is a waste of time