Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[anonymous66]

now what?

I know many people like to make arguments for God's existence. Let's say you convince someone. Is there anything else that follows? If so, what? And why?

I'm asking because I think arguments for God's existence are interesting, and I think they do provide a rational answer to the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?". I don't think it's irrational to believe in God. I can even see myself believing in God as some kind of intelligent mind (I'm partial to arguments for panpsychism and a conscious universe... a conscious universe that could be considered to be God) that is the reason that everything exists. It's just that I don't see what, if anything, must follow from that belief.

[h_k_s]

now what?

I know many people like to make arguments for God's existence. Let's say you convince someone. Is there anything else that follows? If so, what? And why?

I'm asking because I think arguments for God's existence are interesting, and I think they do provide a rational answer to the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?". I don't think it's irrational to believe in God. I can even see myself believing in God as some kind of intelligent mind (I'm partial to arguments for panpsychism and a conscious universe... a conscious universe that could be considered to be God) that is the reason that everything exists. It's just that I don't see what, if anything, must follow from that belief.

Have you read about Aristotle's "Prime Mover" and Aquinas' "Proofs Of God" ?

These approach the issue of God from a purely philosophical perspective. Not from religion nor of course from science.

[anonymous66]

now what?

I know many people like to make arguments for God's existence. Let's say you convince someone. Is there anything else that follows? If so, what? And why?

I'm asking because I think arguments for God's existence are interesting, and I think they do provide a rational answer to the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?". I don't think it's irrational to believe in God. I can even see myself believing in God as some kind of intelligent mind (I'm partial to arguments for panpsychism and a conscious universe... a conscious universe that could be considered to be God) that is the reason that everything exists. It's just that I don't see what, if anything, must follow from that belief.

Have you read about Aristotle's "Prime Mover" and Aquinas' "Proofs Of God" ?

These approach the issue of God from a purely philosophical perspective. Not from religion nor of course from science.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but would you say the answer to my question (we're convinced that God exists... now what?)- from your point of view- is "there is no need to go farther than a belief in God..."?

[Felix]

It should be obvious that God would have to become more than merely an abstract concept to one to make a difference in one's life and the way one lives it. The Impersonal God is never invited to business conventions.

[anonymous66]

It should be obvious that God would have to become more than merely an abstract concept to one to make a difference in one's life and the way one lives it. The Impersonal God is never invited to business conventions.

That's assuming that the concept of God is supposed to make a difference in one's life and the way one lives it.

That is, it sounds like you're saying (or are suggesting that other people are saying) "in addition to merely believing in God- that belief must make a difference in one's life and the way one lives it".

[h_k_s]

Have you read about Aristotle's "Prime Mover" and Aquinas' "Proofs Of God" ?

These approach the issue of God from a purely philosophical perspective. Not from religion nor of course from science.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but would you say the answer to my question (we're convinced that God exists... now what?)- from your point of view- is "there is no need to go farther than a belief in God..."?

My discussions about God(s) are normally with the following:

1 - Religious persons who are losing or have "lost" God;

2 - Fellow philosophers who are troubled by Aristotle's or Aquinas' "Proofs Of God";

3 - Atheists who maintain there is no God;

4 - Scientists who have become agnostics and maintain that we cannot know/understand God.

You Anonymous13 should self-identify for me please so that I know who/what I am dealing with.

If I grant your preamble, about being convinced of God's existence, then you ask, does it follow as a predicate that "there is no need to go further than a belief in God" is valid?

This would also depend on what category 1 thru 4 the reflective person belongs in.

For myself from a philosophical point of view, there are certain concepts and things that we ourselves have no control over.

These include, for example:

a - gravity

b - tides

c- weather

d - the Universe

e - God(s)

f - death

etc.

According to Aristotle and Aquinas, God(s) exist. Aristotle conceives of a detached Deist (not Theist) God(s) who cannot be bothered with humans. Modern British Empiricism follows this line of thinking as well. This is probably the safest approach to take in your life because then you are not dependent on a fantasy God who gives things if asked. Instead you would be more self reliant. Then your prayers would be more along the lines of thanksgiving rather than petitioning for stuff.

BUT if you do concur in Aristotle's and Aquinas' views, then you must also ask yourself, "How will I cope with this Being who is a God during my mortal life?"

And this opens the door to other philosophical issues such as ethics, morality, justice, generosity, chivalry, etc.

So your predicate, "... there is no need to go further … ," is not valid, in my humble opinion.

Concluding philosophically that there must be a God(s) leads to further philosophical issues.

That's why atheists and agnostics have it so easy -- the are not compelled by a conscience to govern their own behavior. But both atheists and agnostics are founded on a faulty foundation -- at least according to Aristotle and Aquinas -- two of the most brilliant men who have ever lived.

Make any sense?

[h_k_s]

It should be obvious that God would have to become more than merely an abstract concept to one to make a difference in one's life and the way one lives it. The Impersonal God is never invited to business conventions.

I think an impersonal God(s) can still command a "fear of God."

Although you are quite right, that an impersonal God cannot command a "love of God."

[MAYA EL]

No matter how far you go back eventually you get to the point before the big bang before anything anyone cant think up and you have to confront the idea/thought "something had to make the stuff stuff is made out of " .

And for me I believe that a all creator created what we call reality and all that goes along with it.

However I believe man has given his opinion on life but in an attempt to manipulate/ take the blame off his shoulders by creating concepts and rules and saying that a superior being told them and that they are simply the humble messenger.

And lastly I'm not too sure where this confused concept came from of where we try to prove the spiritual with physical means and if it can't be proven with physical means then it doesn't exist?

This is an outlandish concept and I don't see why one Realm has to intrude on another in order for either one to be officially considered real ?.

Yes there is a spiritual Realm yes there is a Physical Realm but just because one cannot prove the other in no way does that degrade the Integrity of the other because it's that duality that makes it possible because if I can give you cold hard facts that exist in this realm that we can all see that are unchanging that prove the spirit Realm then it would no longer be the spirit Realm it would either be some weird blend of both or it would just be a mysterious new aspect of the Physical Realm because the two being separate an done blendable is what makes them work. Just like you can have a dream and be convinced I whatever the storyline is yet when you wake up you can't physically prove or share your dream in any other way than a story but that doesn't make it any less real.

Now I say all of this about the spirit realm because most assume that if there is a God then he would dwell in this Spirit Realm rather you call it heaven or whatever the culture at the time wants to call it .

So I see no point in trying to prove that a all creator exists because if someone can't see the mechanics of existence and how complex in magnificent it is and come to understand the all creator through it then there's nothing I can come up with to present to them that will make them realize it .

[Felix]

anonymous66: "It sounds like you're saying "in addition to merely believing in God - that belief must make a difference in one's life and the way one lives it."

I am just saying that if God is merely a theoretical concept that has no personal significance to you, than it's irrelevant whether or not you accept it. This was the position of existential philosophers such as Soren Kierkegaard.

[h_k_s]

anonymous66: "It sounds like you're saying "in addition to merely believing in God - that belief must make a difference in one's life and the way one lives it."

I am just saying that if God is merely a theoretical concept that has no personal significance to you, than it's irrelevant whether or not you accept it. This was the position of existential philosophers such as Soren Kierkegaard.

This reminds me of the Biblical and Catholic doctrine, that faith without works is dead. But that is a religious notion.

Aristotle seemed to conclude that understanding the necessary existence of a distant Prime Mover leads to moral and ethical behavior together with generosity -- Aristotle's "ideal man."

I am no expert on Kierkegaard other than I recognize the name.

[h_k_s]

No matter how far you go back eventually you get to the point before the big bang before anything anyone cant think up and you have to confront the idea/thought "something had to make the stuff stuff is made out of " .

And for me I believe that a all creator created what we call reality and all that goes along with it.

However I believe man has given his opinion on life but in an attempt to manipulate/ take the blame off his shoulders by creating concepts and rules and saying that a superior being told them and that they are simply the humble messenger.

And lastly I'm not too sure where this confused concept came from of where we try to prove the spiritual with physical means and if it can't be proven with physical means then it doesn't exist?

This is an outlandish concept and I don't see why one Realm has to intrude on another in order for either one to be officially considered real ?.

Yes there is a spiritual Realm yes there is a Physical Realm but just because one cannot prove the other in no way does that degrade the Integrity of the other because it's that duality that makes it possible because if I can give you cold hard facts that exist in this realm that we can all see that are unchanging that prove the spirit Realm then it would no longer be the spirit Realm it would either be some weird blend of both or it would just be a mysterious new aspect of the Physical Realm because the two being separate an done blendable is what makes them work. Just like you can have a dream and be convinced I whatever the storyline is yet when you wake up you can't physically prove or share your dream in any other way than a story but that doesn't make it any less real.

Now I say all of this about the spirit realm because most assume that if there is a God then he would dwell in this Spirit Realm rather you call it heaven or whatever the culture at the time wants to call it .

So I see no point in trying to prove that a all creator exists because if someone can't see the mechanics of existence and how complex in magnificent it is and come to understand the all creator through it then there's nothing I can come up with to present to them that will make them realize it .

I think the notion of "time" leads to a lot of confusion for humans.

If you dismiss the notion of time as simply a mental phenomenon of humans, then you don't get into the trap of thinking the Universe has time.

If the Universe has no time, then everything exists in the present. We too live in the present.

Then you get around worrying about "before the big bang."

I think of the Universe in terms of a continual present, with changes in appearance only. Ergo we all existed forever, without any beginning or ending. Death is a mere transition of form. And God(s) have/has always been with us, and they have organized the change. Sounds paradoxical but it works for me.

In other words, God(s) is/are unchanging. So we in essence are unchanging as well.

[RJG]

No matter how far you go back eventually you get to the point before the big bang before anything anyone cant think up and you have to confront the idea/thought "something had to make the stuff stuff is made out of ".

...either that, or this stuff has "always existed".

And for me I believe that a all creator created what we call reality and all that goes along with it.

...so then, who created this creator? ...or has this creator "always existed"?

1. So in either, and any case, something has "always existed"? ...agreed?
2. So now then, who/what has "always existed"? Is it...

• a) the "stuff" of the universe?, ...or
  b) a "creator" of the stuff of the universe? ...or
  c) a "greater God" that created the creator that then created the stuff of the universe?

It seems to me, that first of all, something has "always existed" (as there ain't no way to avoid this simple truth!) and secondly, if we apply Occams Razor, then it seems most probable that it is the "stuff" of the universe that has "always existed". Adding Gods/creators only puts us out further on the limb.

...agreed?

[Felix]

Aristotle seemed to conclude that understanding the necessary existence of a distant Prime Mover leads to moral and ethical behavior together with generosity -- Aristotle's "ideal man."

Doesn't seem to be enough.... and wasn't Aristotle the one who said, "It is good to die young, but even better not to be born at all." Perhaps he was just having a really bad day.

[Felix]

P.S. - That was in reply to h_k_s statement: "Aristotle seemed to conclude that understanding the necessary existence of a distant Prime Mover leads to moral and ethical behavior together with generosity"

[Newme]

Then...

1. You gain an appreciation for intelligent design & “gratitude is the parent of all virtues.”

2. You begin to explore “the kingdom of God within you” and stop looking for love/God in all the wrong places.

3. You begin to acknowledge the kingdom of God in others and treat them better, making this world a better place.

=
Still, I realize that what I (or anyone else) interpret God to mean, is more a reflection of the interpreter than of God/Truth/Love/Intelligence etc.