Just because machines do the labor doesn't mean that labor isn't the source of wealth. — Pfhorrest

You summed that up very efficiently. What needs to follow is taxing this labor, because when machines replace humans who must pay income taxes, the government loses revenue, right?.

The social institutes responsible for resolving conflicts about the above process should be non-authoritarian and non-hierarchical, a global cooperation of independent people working together voluntarily; basically a form of anarchism, or libertarian socialism. — Pfhorrest

What is a social institute? Would that be a school?

Maslow's pyramid of needs comes to mind. Unsatisfied needs to the extreme are painful. — god must be atheist

Okay, and people don't just naturally know how to get to the top. They may never get off the bottom. What needs to be done for people to move up the pyramid?

Except knowing what will bring pleasure and what will bring pain may be a matter of maturity and may depend on education for good moral judgment.

Are there correct answers (opinions) for all meaningful questions? If Man is a tripartite soul lacking inner unity, what is the correct opinion of love? The scientist sees it intellectually, the artist sees it emotionally, while the mechanic just wants to get to it. Yet if there is a correct opinion, how can these three attributes agree if they don't understand each other? How can they evolve from previously formed opinions into knowledge? — Nikolas

By communicating with each other. The gods argued until they had a consensus on the best reasoning. Democracy is an imitation of the gods.

The love issue is very much helped by reading books and articles about it. People who have children might want to begin with reading books and articles about child-rearing. In the past we didn't have near the science we have today, and it might seem cold and counter to emotional love to become well informed, but for centuries poets and theater have expanded our awareness.

But God knows the young people don't want to hear what the old people have to say. We seem to be compelled to rush into life without getting informed. :lol: However, as all civilizations have more and more long-lived people, I am rather excited about how this might change civilizations. If we return to education in the humanities, really exciting things could happen. I hope we return to family values and I am afraid of what might happen as more and more children grow up with single parents and do not have role models for successful, long-lasting relationships, while education grooms them to be products for industry.

I have thought a bit about how you say that I do not speak 'with education for democracy.' I think that is partly because I don't really have much sense of being in a democracy. I am not really sure that I feel that people in society are listened to by leaders and politicians. I realise that we are not free to do exactly as we please and do believe that we need certain laws, but I do find the implementation of law a bit abstract in some ways. I don't really have much sense of any involvement in the creation of laws and social policies. Having a vote in England seems to be the only involvement, but I am speaking of English politics. I have been on a few marches, but don't feel that the politicians are very interested in those at all. — Jack Cummins

Your experience is true for everyone.

Coming from my family and the political talk at our dining table, my sister and I were groomed to be political activists. Also in the 1960s most of us were socially moved to be politically active. We chanted things like "If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem". It was a really different time in history. Now we are old and President Biden is doing the social things we thought should be done in the 60ties. That might have something to do with having a lot of seniors voting right now.

I was radicalized when the state took my grandchildren. At that time Grandparents were starting to organize in a fight for their grandchildren and the governor of the state wanted to change things. I joined the grandparents and helped them get media attention and to do a conference, and I was at every meeting with the officials. The result of this activity was a complete change in the policy, putting grandparents first when the state had to take children, then extended family and not a paid foster parent unless there is no family. I was fighting for family and therefore far more motivated than normal.

I also was the leading advocate for homeless people, and in my city, the response to homeless people radically changed. I organized the homeless men, we got media attention, we attended public hearings, and spoke whenever possible. I was so glad when others realized something needed to be done and took over. :rofl: That is not exactly how my professors expected a student to use education, but two of them knew I would take a different path and I regret what I have to say about bureaucratic organization is ignored. So much of our power, or the lack of it, is about organization. Here is where philosophy has a problem- it tends to be head stuff, not practical stuff.

Anyway, you speak for most people and a lot of them don't even vote. We have a city council and a county council and of course, state legislature and our nightly news says nothing about what they are doing. :rage: This problem is far worse than it was when I participated in a hunger strike on the steps of the state capital building. We have a serious media problem and a lack of political interest problem. This kicks back to the education problem. Anyway, what I am saying is not philosophy so I will stop. :zip:

One more thing, the US Constitution as about agency

the capacity, condition, or state of acting or of exerting power — Merriam Webster dictionary

A democracy is about everyone being a part of this. Philosophically do we support this or not?

I was interested to see your links, which go back a bit before I joined the site. I think that your project sounds great. The one thing that I am not sure about, however, is your suggestion that we can find 'correct' answers to many questions. I am not just saying that I disagree with it, but that it is a complete contrast to what so many other people on this thread are saying. I know that you are suggesting backing this up with 'common experience,' but many dispute this. Personally, I don't come from the point of view that knowledge is not possible at all, and I do believe in systemic ways of seeing, but it does all seem to be a very careful art of juggling and there are so many competing perspectives. — Jack Cummins

:gasp: You do not speak with education for democracy. Liberty is not the freedom to do anything we please. It is only the freedom to decide what is right or wrong. Now we may not agree with a law but we protect our liberty by obeying the law. Second, we must take action to change a law or a policy if we believe it is wrong. Democracy is important because we participate in making our laws. They are our laws, not laws imposed on us by a king (or a Military Industrial Complex). Our laws and policies are supposed to be a consensus of the people. Not Homeland Security and being tracked through education, banking, and medical care, federal government control of education, closing schools that do not comply with federal government standards.

:gasp: The education for technology the US has had since 1958 is not education for democracy so we are destroying our democracy. From what you have said this is not just a problem in the US.

I started reading your links and I am favorably impressed. Actually, I am delighted with your timely effort. We are in a bit of crisis right now because education for a technological society with unknown values ended the transmission of culture in the US. Now we have no agreements, and worse, no shared method for forming agreements. Nothing could be more important than correcting this problem.

The US traditionally relied on religion for a culture. This worked fine when it went with liberal education and the transmission of culture for democracy. Religion does not produce a culture for democracy. Disney "Lion King" is not wonderful values for our children! No way would Jefferson and Ben Franklin be taking their children to that movie and leave talking about the wonderful value lesson. A lion king and associating the mass with hyenas is not a movie for democracy. Religion without the transmission of the culture based on liberal/classical education is a disaster! As the author of the book "Eat the Rich" said the US one-parent family policy is not working any better than China's one-child families. In so many ways we are in crisis and we need your book to pull us out of this crisis.

To answer the question in the title of this thread- the essence of philosophy is to have a civilization that does not self-destruct. We need to understand, in a democracy, everyone needs to be prepared to manifest a civilization that does not self-destruct. That is the only way to have liberty, not anarchy, and police state authority over the people.


.

I agree completely, and it's no mere coincidence that my political philosophy is modeled on my philosophy of academics, and in both I treat governance as analogous to education. In my view, governance properly understood is basically a form of moral education, and it therefore needs to be founded in a properly conducted form of moral research; and in contrast, states declaring by fiat (even majoritarian fiat, i.e. democracy) that something must be just because they say so and don't you dare question it, is as backward a way of doing things as religion. States and religions both operate on the principle of "because ___ says so", and that's no way to do anything; yet we still need governance and education. We've mostly solved the question of how to educate without ever falling back on "because ___ says so"; and my project is to come up with a way to govern likewise. — Pfhorrest

As I understand, the US modeled its education after Athens education for well-rounded individual growth. It prepared everyone for good moral judgment and for civic and political leadership. This education relied strongly on literature, the Greek and Roman classics, and hero stories from around the world. It was called a liberal education or classical education. My examination of a small selection of old textbooks indicates the classical education was Americanized. For sure American heroes replaced Greek and Roman heroes. We created an American mythology for the purpose of preparing the young, and their immigrant parents, to be good citizens. In 1958 this was replaced with the German model of education for technology, and some have seen a similarity between the past 4 years and Germany's period of the Nazi, with Hitler in power. For sure we now have the reactionary politics that Germany had and we are no longer united.

Some of us find the result of education for a technological society with unknown values; destroying the American heroes and mythology; leaving moral education to the church, very damaging to democracy in the US. So I really want to know what you are up to and what you are thinking about.

I am impressed that we are thinking of ourselves as powerful nations that have international responsibility. This demands a new philosophy because it is not equal to the personal drive for morality and personal concern for entering heaven. Our abundance today is demanding government provide us with a higher morality and we want to know our international moral role.

Science brought us into a new age. Now the power of technology and our abundance is pushing us to enter another new age.

There are two ways to have social order, authority over the people, or culture. It is only through education for a civil culture that we can have liberty.

The opinions concerning the economic situation are all well known and part of cave life. The value of real philosophy is exposing the human condition for what it is and opening one to the possibility for leaving the cave. — Nikolas

Now that would be worthy of a great civilization! Poverty does not have to mean ignorance. With libraries and other resources, we can educate ourselves for free and with relatively little money we can get even more. If I am traveling, I like to read about the history of the place I will be visiting. It is really fun if the traveling is done by train and takes a few days giving me time for the reading broken with the experience of the adventure.

It is appalling that the US stopped funding public broadcasting and the stations must beg for money. This has resulted in many hours of cooking shows instead of programs that could be more worthy of our time. The mass ignorance in the US is inexcusable. I am sure we could do better. Living in the sunshine has to be better than living in the cave. Wanting to be enlightened is better than wanting to remain ignorant.

I do think that it is debatable how much thinking is good for us. One model which I think is useful is Jung's one on the four functions: feeling, sensation, intuition and thinking. He sees the development of these as being varied in individuals, with most people having one more dominant and one or more less developed. He suggests that the ideal is to have all four developed. I do believe that my most developed function is thinking and Jung suggests that it is often that if that is dominant, feeling is the less developed. I am aware that I am more likely to say 'I think' rather than 'I feel.' But, I do try to work on my emotional side and have read a few books on emotional intelligence with this aim in mind.

I imagine that people who are drawn to philosophy are probably the thinking type. I know some people who don't enjoy thinking at all, and engaging in conversations which is analytical is not something they wish to do. I find thinking enjoyable, but sometimes find it hard to switch off and I am inclined to overthink at times. I also often find it hard to get off to sleep because I can't switch off my thoughts and worries. So, it is probably about getting balance. I listen to music and, try to meditate sometimes, to try to switch off thoughts. I do think that meditation is particularly helpful, but I don't do it as often as I probably need to do it. I tend to put it off and have not really incorporated it into my regular routine. — Jack Cummins

I like the four aspects offered by Jung. Self-awareness seems very important to me and thinking of the four aspects can help us develop self-awareness. You appear to be emotionally calm and I am not sure why you would need to work your emotions? Now if you were excitable that could be something you would want to change. But contemplative and calm is a good thing.

Meditation is something we might all benefit from because our brains chatter so much and can be very fickle! But it can be hard for me to be still and meditate so I like walking or swimming while meditating. I have also found doing math helps settle my brain down and helps me focus. Sometimes I get too excited while reading and that is when turning to math is most helpful. I might go back and further between math and reading.

Personally, I use college lectures and other audio explanations of life to calm my mind and fall asleep. It has to be something interesting enough to hold my attention, especially if I am upset about something. Also, the quality of the speaker's voice is very important. I have heard so many professors who are bad speakers, that I think voice training should be mandatory for professors. I really want to know what they have to say but if their voices are irritating I can not listen for long. Long ago, a sociology professor put me to sleep every day in his class. I really wanted to hear what he had to say, so I was totally focused on his words, but his voice was so monotone it was hypnotic and I could not stay awake. :rofl: That is why I use lectures for falling asleep.

The answer to that last question might depend on everyone's education. Ideally, in a democracy we argue until there is a consensus on the best reasoning, this is because, not only can it be the best way to get the best reasoning, but it is also how to get everyone to buy into that reasoning. However, the pilgrims on the MayFlower were not sailors. They were land people totally dependent on others for a safe Atlantic crossing. Under such conditions, everyone participating in the decisions is not desirable. In fact, if they had better information they probably would have refused the late-in-the-year passage to the new land. In hindsight, anyone could see the chances of their survival were made much worse by the delay in the passage. To make good decisions people need to be well informed and that is why mass education is essential to democracy. (and that is not education for technology making the young to be useful products for the industry).

Philosophy was written before mass education or it was based on the Bible and the earlier philosophies and it did not include women. I am so accustomed to males saying my posts have no value I just ignore them. It would be wonderful to replay history, with women always having equality and being as respected as males. :lol: I am sure when speaking of philosopher-kings, people are thinking of strong males who do not listen to those foolish women. I am quite sure that sends my alarms off much more than a man would be alarmed by the notion of philosopher-kings. Maybe a hundred years from now men will find value in what a woman says? It is a cultural thing. Not all cultures are so patriarchal.

.

The only thing in your post I have experience with is developing public policy. The year I took public policy classes was the most depressing year of my life. The focus on being cost-effective is of course a government concern, but I did not see how it included the cost of ignoring problems, such as ignoring the drug problem as long as it stayed in the racially created ghettos. And then there is the problem of social research. By the time a problem is narrowed down enough to become a question that can be studied, the result symbols reality as much as a plastic-wrapped steak resembles the animal it came from. Like so much was missing that I lost hope of government fixing anything.

Then came the realization only those properly processed through college education would get a bureaucratic job or sit in the seats of power. Their vision of the world is their college education and that education was so lacking it wasn't teaching them about life. Or it could have just my professor who would only accept information that came from the abstracts in the last ten years.

I have to run- bottom line, I saw a lot wrong with education and the preparation of students. Your book sounds very interesting!

But if you study the "Ship of Fools" with a little humility it becomes obvious that humanity as a whole does not know how to escape Plato's cave or the eventual catastrophe of arguing over which way the ship should go. Opinions lead to conflicting opinions until society falls apart. Then the cycle begins again. Is that our only alternative? must humanity remain not human and trapped in animalistic binary thought? Can philosophy of a certain quality reveal the way out? — Nikolas

I believe we made life much better than it once was. Most civilizations have advanced so much they name their children at birth and the people expect to live to old age and die before their children do. But we have too much inequality and too much avoidable human suffering, so we still have a lot to do and I am glad we still have big challenges! Those challenges can give our lives purpose and give us a reason to get up in the morning. I would rather have this than a heaven where I am not needed.

Until this thread, I did not question the importance of studying past philosophers and getting a college's stamp of approval validating we are philosophers. While participating in the thread I have come to wonder if a lot of that past philosophy taught in college classes has relevance to us today? We have serious global problems and what value does philosophy have if it does not help us resolve those problems? But perhaps we need to ask new questions that are relevant to today? What are the best economic choices we can make? What political choices should we make about working with the rest of the world? Should we mind our business when people are being killed or should we get involved? If we should get involved, how should we get involved? What are the best philosophers we can read to answer today's questions?

I am not sure that everyone in the world enjoys thinking. — Jack Cummins

My father who was an engineer on the Apollo that went to the moon said we avoid thinking as much as we can. I think I would love knowing nothing and worshipping a pharaoh as a god, with full faith he would take good care of us. My thoughts torment me and yet, I do not want to sink into senility and be a body without a functioning brain.

Philosophers are just confused.

There's no glory in confusion. — Banno

Now that is perfect! I will 100% agree with Banno.

Those were some very interesting questions! I think if we don't take radical measures to reverse global warming, we are all on a sinking ship.

↪Athena
I agree with all that. What I meant was that it would be great to actually have a leader who is wise, to be able to rely on a truly wise person for direction and guidance. The rest of what I wrote that you didn’t quote was about the difficulties of being sure that that’s what we’re really going to get from someone. — Pfhorrest

I was hoping you would say that. I am a little nervous about some people's apparent preference for a strong authoritarian leader.

I am watching the report of the people's struggle with the regime in Myanmar and the Rohingya refugees. In so many places the government and the people are not at peace. Leaders are trying to stay in power with violence. Where there are not good leaders, people are starving their economy is too poor to meet their needs. How can people live like this? Are the fine, educated people who are arguing philosophy here, thinking about the things that really matter? Is arguing against using the word "God" the best we can do? Do we really need to find fault with what someone for not knowing enough about the philosophy taught in college classes when millions of people have serious life-threatening problems? Should we be doing anything about "those people" or is it okay to ignore them their sufferening?

"What is a 'real' philosopher and what is the true essence of philosophy ?"

Let me be very clear, I could not pass a philosophy exam and most people here would argue I am not a philosopher, but philosophy means a love of knowledge and perhaps the best thing we can do with our ability to learn and think is to find ways to stop suffering and empower people to stop the suffering. Is what Nietzsche thinks about that important?

IOW an actual philosopher-king would be great, — Pfhorrest

Maybe and maybe not. That is why we have democracy. We attempt to choose the best leader and we agree to follow while standing ready to take on the responsibility of leadership.

It is very important to realize we are all limited and I don't think we should look for kings, but should submit to leadership. Not depend on the leadership as a child depends on a parent, but submit to the leadership we choose, while also standing ready to argue for what is right or take over the role of leadership if need be.

We all need to be philosophers so we can recognize good philosophy and put that above us, not a man.

I do agree that it is better to define someone else as a philosopher than oneself. If a person chose to adopt the label without a socially negotiated reason for doing so it would seem rather vain. I know of people who describe themselves as being an artist or a writer, and this seems to be based not on work but on their self perceptions. Of course, anyone is entitled to define themselves subjectively, However, there is more glamour or romance in choosing to call oneself as a writer or a philosopher. — Jack Cummins

Surely a person who enjoys singing is a singer, just as a bird is a singer if it has a song to sing. But this does not mean the person sings well, nor that the bird has a pretty song to sing.

I am a writer. I have given much time to writing for most of my life. I have not published a book but I still consider myself to be a writer because that is what I do.

I think we want to encourage people to read philosophy and to think philosophically, and cutting them out of thinking of themselves as philosophers may not be the best way to promote philosophy. I don't think anyone has the right to exclude anyone from the group of philosophers. I think looking down on people and acting superior to others, excluding the other, is a bad behavior. Hum, makes me think of Christianity. The religion is known for being inclusive, but not all Christians are inclusive.

That was nice.

You want to talk about understanding all life and what that might mean then great but why call that a god question? — DingoJones

Eisenstein spent his last years seeking the unified force. If he thought that was worth his time it might be worth our time. I gave my answer to why I think it is important to speak of God and I am not going to repeat it. However, I will forfeit all the wins to you and 180 Proof because I stopped having fun and want to drop out.

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

: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.

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.

I want new arguments. What is the unified force?

So... you knew Julius Caesar personally?

And who was Miltiades? I mean, the REAL Miltiades? — god must be atheist

Well, Miltiades was certainly good-looking.

His daughter had more wisdom than Pericles and he should have respected her! :rage: Those men's egos got a little out of control and they needed to be taught a lesson. The temple they built for me was flattering but I suspect it was more about their egos than me. I think as the US today, they came to think they could manage just fine without the gods and they needed to be taught without the gods they are nothing. So the plague gave Sparta the victory in war.

Perhaps this thread should address the gods and war? :wink:

I'm not sure musical composers or choreographers are fantasizing as much as 'thinking'. — Bitter Crank

What an interesting thing to say! I never gave that thought but it is certainly worthy of thought.

Can you verbalize more about that thought?

Absolutely! As a horse is created to run and a bird is created to fly, we are created to think. I think it is totally sad to go through life without being delighted in exploring what life is all about. From the day a child enters school, the child should learn books and reading make our lives rich. We need to turn our focus from materialism that is not sustainable to a quest for knowledge and wisdom.

We are not addressing the reality of living on a finite planet. We are running out of resources and our way of life is not sustainable, but we can be abundantly happy if we focus on knowledge and our relationship. I worry that society is not supporting you as you should be supported, so just keep it mind what you are doing with reading and sharing, and starting conversations is one of the most important things that can be done right now.

"(unless by "God" you mean just a referentless, or philosophical, concept and not a 'providential entity' of Abrahamic, Vedic or pantheonic religions). — 180 Proof

You worded that very well. Yes, and what is philosophy about if it is not about asking the questions that are impossible to answer and attempting to answer them anyway. That is what humans do and hopefully, we enjoy the doing. :grin:

IOW, you have knowledge of God? First-hand, certain knowledge of God? — baker

:lol: No one has first-hand knowledge of god. And I am NOT certain of anything.

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?

If there is a problem it is attitude. We are taking ourselves way too seriously.

Well, there are a few more problems like famine and pandemics and wars and global warming, but we are not going to come together and resolve those problems if we don't lighten up and stop thinking that what we want is what God wants for us.

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

Nothing could be better than starting the day with such wonderful questions. I love it. :grin: Let us go back to ancient times when no one was sure about what a god is and what a god does. A time when the gods were being created. :lol: We have an overpopulation of people now, and back in the day there was an overpopulation of gods and goddesses. Every time the priest became aware of a new concept they had a new god. Then we turned around and wanted a unifying force. :wink:

An Egyptian pharaoh thought the population of gods was too crowded and had the priest search the archives for the true god. When his grandson came to power he ordered a city to the one and only god be built and that the rest of the gods be forgotten. When this pharaoh and his wife died, his city was dismantled and buried. Some believe the followers of the one god religion fled to what was once Sumer and that they searched Sumers archives for knowledge of the true god and they plagiarized Sumerian stories. This would be the origin of the Hebrews, the Garden of Eden, the flood, and at least 3 other stories.

Athena's position in life was dramatically changed when Athens became a democracy. She could not have held the new position of rule by reason, before Apollo, a god of reason, came into being.

How exciting to question what we believe and to discover new gods or change our stories. :grin: Our technological society is overly concerned with facts. We have forgotten the importance of spirit. I don't mean a supernatural spirit but spirit meaning how we feel about things. To be wonder full as a child and play full about learning is a very different spirit than demanding the facts and proofs. And that is essential to knowing truth. As soon as we think we know god, we know god not. Some say we can study god in nature and others say we must read a book, but neither nature nor a book is god. If we want truth we must talk about this. We must begin with "I do know" and then see what we can find and argue about until we have a consensus on the best reasoning.

Then in comes science with the atom and oh no, the atom isn't the smallest thing, there are protons, neutrons, and electrons. Whoops, there are also quarks and :lol: will they ever stop naming new subatomic particles? As I was reading about the problem of too many gods, science began naming one subatomic particle after another, and I was impressed by how similar both searches of truth have been. We need to lighten up and be more playful.

A counselor I had said we create our own life drama. That is our story about our childhood and relationships and experiences. Life as it is seen from our own perspective. This can lead to emotional problems. Hum, I think that is related to our ego. It can be upsetting if someone argues what we believe of ourselves and our relationships, is not true. While Joseph Campbell who came from Jung speaks of our need for mythology and how our lack of shared mythology leads to creating our own mythology using the people in our lives as the monsters and heroes.

↪baker
I was responding to the claim that because there is illness, sickness, death, evil, etc, then there could be no God, because if God is omniscient, benevolent, etc, then none of these could be allowed to exist. This is a popular argument in today’s world which rests on a misconception of what the purported goodness of God actually entails (and which I describe as ‘the hotel manager theodicy’). But as those who repeat it likely have no practical experience of what ‘goodness’ entails beyond and above ‘the pleasure principle’, then there’s little use trying to explain it, as it will only result in an interminable argument from incomprehension. — Wayfarer

Oh but God gave man free will. He didn't give that to women who must submit to men. However, in Heaven, there is no free will, because our free will does not go with perfection. :lol:

I don’t see how that would end the conflict of whether god exists or not. Using the term “god” when what you really mean is the universe or mystery of the universe only confuses the matter. How would it end the conflict?

“Basis”, not “bias”. — DingoJones

Thanks for correct me. :lol: I feel like an idiot for that mistake. Maybe I need to check my medication?

About the argument about if god exists or not, I love to argue with Christians who want to believe I do not believe in God, because as soon as I say I do believe in God, that ruins what they believe about me as a non-Christian. When we argue there is no God, we are proving them right. The Bible tells them about non-believers so when they come across a non-believer, they go," ah, ha, the Bible is right. Here is a non-believer". I don't think proving the Bible right is the right way to go.

So I like to shift the argument to what kind of God makes sense? And here is another thing, Coming from Hellenism- logos, not even the gods can violate the laws of nature. The early god stories were more fantasy than reason, but as the Greeks developed reason, they pulled away from the supernatural and concluded even the gods were limited by the laws of nature. Athena marks a turning point from rule by brute force to rule by law, and that law is not imposed by the strongest person but comes about by arguing until there is a consensus on the best reasoning.

Christianity is a religion of miracles, and rewards and punishments are dished out according to the whims of God and it goes with another supernatural being, Satan. I have no idea how Christians figure if bad things happening are the result of God punishing them or Satan? None of that is cause-and-effect thinking. It is not science. For me, that makes the Christian God, an unbelievable god. I rather argue about what is a believable god than if there is or isn't a god. It is about having a fun argument instead of the futility of arguing against a god Christian's experience every day through prayer.

I love your argument and playfully will argue a different way to receiving things. Now, mother nature does not care if we live or die, and if we violate her rules, things will go very badly for us. We could even die. That is how we know she is running the show and the best we can do is figure out how she wants things done and do things her way. It is sort like the Tao, the way it is, we can go with the flow or against it. Denying its existence does not work so well.

I don't know the history of the unknown God. You know, the one that is beyond our comprehension? I think He is mentioned the Bible, along with not using His name and not making images so we do not create a false god. Some people have chosen to go against that wisdom.

I totally like the Greek gods whom I see as archetypes and concepts. I believe fantasies can be very powerful and that incantations of the gods/goddesses can be effective. Calling upon Artemis when I was in a dangerous situation in the mountains, helped me calm down enough to make rational decisions and get to safety. That is not magic. Our brains do what we tell them to do, and our bodies take orders from our brain. The god/goddess concepts are patterns we can use to accomplish what we want to accomplish. But this can seem like magic. That is, if we do not know how our brains work praying to God, can seem to prove that God is very real, and arguing that "there is no discernible evidence of any of god's qualities or attributes" is not a believable argument for those who have had their prayers answered.

I think people live their fantasies, they just don't know they are fantasies. This would include people being exactly as we believe they are, if we like them, love them, or think they are really terrible, for all practical purposes, they are as we think they are. I think a good fantasy of family life is very important, and it is very important for people to share their fantasies of family before marriage or a child is conceived. And does the fantasy end in 10 years or last a life time? When people's fantasies of family are not compatible the displeasure will surely follow. When the fantasy is a short one, the marriage will end at about mid-life. But if the fantasy includes growing old together, that is likely to happen.

The problem of theodicy exists only because people try to explain God on human terms. — baker

What other terms are there? I would love to open up the discussion of God, and I am getting push back.

Why use the word "god"? To avoid the dead-end conflict of if there is a god or not. I hate that argument because it is the same over and over again. Also, I think there are psychological benefits to considering universal laws such as the Tao and feel subject to it.

Logos means nothing without definition.

What do you mean by scientific bias? I don't think research is supposed to be biased?

What do you mean exactly? A scientific definition of god looks like what? — DingoJones

Well, an easy answer would be logos, the organizing force of the universe, or mathematical organization. It could include strange ideas such as Jose' Arguelles explains in "The Mayan Factor". A galactic beam through which the Earth and Sun have been passing. A strange story that may or may not connect with density waves or beams that sweep through the galaxy and influence the galaxy.

An interesting point. I've asked this question a couple of times in the forum and never got a satisfactory answer.

What's the difference between "exist" and "real"?

What this query is meant to probe is the materialistic bias that the word "exist" has - to be perceived is to exist and vice versa but this fits the definition of the material too - to be perceived is to be material and vice versa. Basically, exist = material/physical the way the words "exist" and "material" are defined.

The issue popped up in a discussion about god. A member claimed that god exists but is immaterial to which I pointed out that such is impossible because exist is just another way of saying material. If that's how this game is played then, yes, Wayfarer, you're right in that there's a...difference between 'what is real' and 'what exists' — TheMadFool

I am not sure we are using the right vocabulary? Everything that is, is energy. We have a materialistic language to speak of that which exist but it is all also a matter of the state of matter.

Plasma is the fourth state of matter. ... To put it very simply, a plasma is an ionized gas, a gas into which sufficient energy is provided to free electrons from atoms or molecules and to allow both species, ions and electrons, to coexist. — Wikipedia

No thank you. I intentionally lift the definition open. Magical thinking is not our only option. We have the options of philosophy and science as well.

Hi, I am a theist and I have a question for atheists. I hope this does not cause too much turmoil. Do atheists actively not want God to exist? I am aware that many atheists come to their conclusion because they believe God is impossible and other reasons. However, is there ever an element of not wanting God to exists? I hope this makes sense. — Georgios Bakalis

I am one of those people who doesn't have a problem with the existence of a god, but it is the Biblical explanation of God I have a problem with.

many also recognise how awful it would be if god actually did exist, especially if various horrifying content of the bible were true as well. — DingoJones

What would make the existence of a god awful? I mean if we do not use the Bible to describe God, then what is the problem? What if there is a god and it is nothing like a human but is like the universe?

And I can pry open a can of paint with a screw driver, although I shouldn't because it may wreck the tool. And that my bias: Aristotelean rationalism, such as it is, for the support of religion an abuse of Aristotelian rationalism. But on this I welcome correction. Please correct. — tim wood

It is about inductive and deductive reasoning. Bacon challenged the ancient authorities and this became a very important social movement radically changing our relationship with "authority" and social organization! Democracy could not happen without the change brought about by Bacon. Aristotle is deductive reasoning. Bacon and those who followed are inductive reasoning and empiricism follows. Before the change brought in by Bacon we did not have the consciousness, the questions, that promote science, empiricism, and change. That is the modernism that took us out of the dark ages. For about 2 thousand years, people did not challenge "authority" and did not expect change.

Inductive reason is relatively new and totally changed our relationship with authority and opportunities in life. In the past, we thought God controlled everything. Martin Luther thought God chose who would-be masters and who would serve, and that was determined by birth. Crazy isn't it? Philosophy led to radical changes in how we understand life and our social/political organization.

You might notice the Bible begins with linage and you might remember the Jews and Greeks had a war when the Greeks conquered the Jews and then hired people to do jobs on merit rather than the Jewish rules of positions being controlled by birth. It is pretty amazing Christians accepted the social/political order of Democracy considering the Bible is about kings and slaves, not democracy. My point being Bacon and inductive reason truly brought us into a new age.