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

[Belindi]

What do you claim all gods have in common?

All the "gods" of Man (and note the scare quotes) are the stars of religious narratives about the nature of Divinity.
That God exists is almost certainly the case; what the nature of God is, is a mystery.
That's the role of religion in the world -- to unlock that mystery.

But unless you know "the nature of " it you can't know it exists.

For instance nobody knows what 6sgfhdje is , so how could anyone know it?

[Belindi]

What do you claim all gods have in common?

All the "gods" of Man (and note the scare quotes) are the stars of religious narratives about the nature of Divinity.
That God exists is almost certainly the case; what the nature of God is, is a mystery.
That's the role of religion in the world -- to unlock that mystery.

But unless you know "the nature of " anything you can't know it exists.

For instance nobody knows what 6sgfhdje is , so how could anyone know it?

To put it another way: one needs to be able to identify an elm tree before one can find an elm tree.
One needs to be able to identify food before one can find food.
You'd need to be able to identify a game of basket ball before you can find a game of basket ball.

You do not need to identify breathing before you can find breathing.
You do not have to be able to identify the digestion of food before you can digest your food.
However those are physiological unconscious processes . But God is not an unconscious physiological process.

God is the name of a star of a religious narrative , okay let's agree to that. What do all stars of all religious narratives have in common with each other, if anything?

[Angel Trismegistus]

I'm afraid I don't see the circle; I see a straight line -- a straight line between the evidence and what the evidence points to.
Can you help us see the circle you see?

1) The universe exists
2) Humans are part of this universe
3) Humans create the concept of gods who are capable of superhuman powers of creation, yet are undetectable
4) When queried on proof of these undetectable entities, the answer is: "see #1"

Your "circle" is broken in two places, it seems to me. One, it conflates the existence of God and human conceptions of God. Two, it conflates two separate syllogisms: the syllogism reasoning from the universe to God and the syllogism reasoning from the existence of Man to stories about God.

But our exchange of posts has inspired me to start a thread on our bone of contention. I'll try to get it up today. I hope you will grace it with your views.

[Angel Trismegistus]

All the "gods" of Man (and note the scare quotes) are the stars of religious narratives about the nature of Divinity.
That God exists is almost certainly the case; what the nature of God is, is a mystery.
That's the role of religion in the world -- to unlock that mystery.

But unless you know "the nature of " it you can't know it exists.

For instance nobody knows what 6sgfhdje is , so how could anyone know it?

Our intuitions are clearly at odds here. As between the two propositions:
1. knowledge of the existence of x is logically and temporally prior to knowledge of the nature of x. (Angel)
2. knowledge of the nature of x is a necessary condition for knowledge of the existence of x. (Belindi)

Physical science and everyday common sense support #1, it seems to me.

[Angel Trismegistus]

All the "gods" of Man (and note the scare quotes) are the stars of religious narratives about the nature of Divinity.
That God exists is almost certainly the case; what the nature of God is, is a mystery.
That's the role of religion in the world -- to unlock that mystery.

But unless you know "the nature of " anything you can't know it exists.

For instance nobody knows what 6sgfhdje is , so how could anyone know it?

To put it another way: one needs to be able to identify an elm tree before one can find an elm tree.
One needs to be able to identify food before one can find food.
You'd need to be able to identify a game of basket ball before you can find a game of basket ball.

You do not need to identify breathing before you can find breathing.
You do not have to be able to identify the digestion of food before you can digest your food.
However those are physiological unconscious processes . But God is not an unconscious physiological process.

God is the name of a star of a religious narrative , okay let's agree to that. What do all stars of all religious narratives have in common with each other, if anything?

See the post directly above this one.

We are aware of the existence of a tree before we identify it in any other way.

All the stars of religious narratives have in common the faith-based acceptance of their various natures.

[Belindi]

Do you mean the idea of a tree is in the brain-mind of a person before they ever encounter a tree?

[Angel Trismegistus]

Do you mean the idea of a tree is in the brain-mind of a person before they ever encounter a tree?

No. I mean there is no idea of a tree, let alone knowledge of its type or nature, before the encounter with a tree.

[Belindi]

Do you mean the idea of a tree is in the brain-mind of a person before they ever encounter a tree?

No. I mean there is no idea of a tree, let alone knowledge of its type or nature, before the encounter with a tree.

In that case, I agree.

[Angel Trismegistus]

No. I mean there is no idea of a tree, let alone knowledge of its type or nature, before the encounter with a tree.

In that case, I agree.

I'm about to start a thread on this topic. It would please me greatly if you would join the discussion there.

[LuckyR]

1) The universe exists
2) Humans are part of this universe
3) Humans create the concept of gods who are capable of superhuman powers of creation, yet are undetectable
4) When queried on proof of these undetectable entities, the answer is: "see #1"

Your "circle" is broken in two places, it seems to me. One, it conflates the existence of God and human conceptions of God. Two, it conflates two separate syllogisms: the syllogism reasoning from the universe to God and the syllogism reasoning from the existence of Man to stories about God.

But our exchange of posts has inspired me to start a thread on our bone of contention. I'll try to get it up today. I hope you will grace it with your views.

Uummm… since you are human and can thus only address things from that perspective, how can you (alone, perhaps?) differentiate between the two sides of the same coin you are trying to pass off as separate?

[Jklint]

...because that's like asking a vacuum to prove it exists.

[Angel Trismegistus]

Your "circle" is broken in two places, it seems to me. One, it conflates the existence of God and human conceptions of God. Two, it conflates two separate syllogisms: the syllogism reasoning from the universe to God and the syllogism reasoning from the existence of Man to stories about God.

But our exchange of posts has inspired me to start a thread on our bone of contention. I'll try to get it up today. I hope you will grace it with your views.

Uummm… since you are human and can thus only address things from that perspective, how can you (alone, perhaps?) differentiate between the two sides of the same coin you are trying to pass off as separate?

I must say I'm disappointed that at this point we are not discussing this in the new thread you inspired me to start -- the thread I posted/submitted three days ago. Alas!

Anyway, you're right: I am only human and in the case in question made an unfortunate word choice in writing "conceptions" in that reply to you. The word "conception" is ambiguous as between (1) an idea in the mind and (2) the description under which that idea is considered. Your completely valid point depends on reading "conception" as in #1; the point I was making intended "conception" as in #2,

Mea culpa. I'll redouble my efforts at clarity and precision.

[Sy Borg]

God is subjectivity itself, or nothing IMO.

We have looked everywhere else - from behind the lounge cushions to the alien realms of atoms and found only more stuff. When things are unexplained, it makes sense to use a placeholder term like - "quantum probability" or "dark energy" - in the expectation of finding more stuff, more reasons for things to be as they are.

Once you assume an unknown phenomena as a matter of "God dunnit", you limit inquiry, as would be the case with any premature assumption. On the other hand, when life feels dark and threatening, thinking of your calm inner core as "God" can aid emotional resolution, especially if inculcated in the tradition as a child. Different situations, different tools.

If religions explore the nature of God (or what people imagine to be God, which is the same thing, given the subjectivity argument above) then science explores God's works.

Or, viewed from a non-religious angle, religions explore aspects of the human psyche, while science explores that which the human psyche can comprehend, including aspects of itself.

[Jklint]

...because to do so requires god to exist.

[Darshan]

Earthellism answers why God doesn't prove himself. I believe John Lennon asked this question and could not get an appropriate answer in his lifetime. Many atheist like Bill Gates and Stephen Hawkins struggle with this question. The answer is that God only resides in Heaven and sends his love down here to earthell. Here on earthell, we cannot see God because God is not here. The love he sends here is proof God exists since God is the creator of all love. There is no love on the Sun or Mercury or Venus or Mars or Jupitar or Saturn.
Earthellism helps atheist believe in God because it solves the problem of evil.
God is not here but God absolutely exists in Heaven because Heaven is where God is which is not on earthell.