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

[Nitai]

It's seems like if you speak of God like a Machine.

If we don't understand the Subject how is it possible to progress in this discussion ?
That is why I came to put back the Subject in the center and gave some clarification on Him.

The idea of God as a machine is more realistic than the idea of a God referred to as "Him". God as a "man spirit" is an obviously fantastical notion that has for too long been given a free pass due to tradition.

As adults in the modern age, surely it's time to put away childish things and face up to actual reality. Positing God as a man-spirit that looks after us is an idea that should have been put to bed two thousand years ago. If Constantine had not gone mad, it may have done.

One day, while he was in front of his tent with his officers and troops around him, he had a vision of an enormous cross of fire in the heavens. On one side of the cross were the words, in the Greek language: “By this, conquer.” The words are sometimes given in the Latin form In hoc signo vinces, the translation of which is “By this sign thou shalt conquer.”

If Constantine had not misinterpreted standard natural phenomena, being so obsessed with himself that he thought the Sun and clouds themselves spoke to him personally, then Christianity may well have drifted into obscurity, like so many of the other crazy cults going around in the Iron and Bronze Ages.

The "Him" you refer to is a myth, a misrepresentation of reality, which at the largest scales is neither personal nor gendered.

It is only in a very technological society where impersonalism reign that we can hear such absurdity.

Only on an unaccountable web forum will people make a statement about "absurdity" as a flat fact without explanation.

So you see it as necessary to see God as male? That would seem to say more about you than it does about God. Do no need many non-gendered entities to be male for you to care about them?

When we never had any spiritual experience we cannot really understand what God means.

I have had spiritual experiences. They were the most profound moments of my life and changed everything for me. Perhaps it's you who is speaking only from theory?

The experiences made crystal clear to me that your "man God" - the fellow that you refer to as "Him", and who damns the wicked to Hell - is ridiculous, just a childish relic of ancient superstition.

Come on, Nitai, you have to at least admit that the idea of a gendered God is silly in this day and age, like believing in pixies living at the bottom of your garden. After 2,000 years of learning surely we can do better than that.

An actual spiritual experience (as opposed to Christian-style wishful thinking) should leave one clear that there is no anthropomorphic God, that there is no judgement, only unconditional love. They make clear that there is no "male" God, a casually sexist notion that has persisted for far too long. There is a problem with the world today where those who can avoid being made unaccountable simply make claims based on what they what rather than what appears to be true. This dynamic must be successfully challenged for societies to move forward.

First of all I want to apologize if you felted pointed out or judge that was not my intention.

I tried just to make the point that exceptional people had very deep connexion with God and their testimony is that it is a Personal deity that we can have a personal relationship. And their are not the type of lying people, they had the most admirable qualities of any person that walked this earth.


For the absurde; I am trying to develop the point but it seems no one is interested


Then let's speak about the Him; It is just the word I use to be Personal With God because If I call by the name of Allah, Jehovah, Elohim, Krishna ... It will be perceived as sectarian but how funny it is nowadays with all this gender theorizing that even if we call God "Him" we are pointed out.

But I understand your point.
First of all let me say that our modern view of gender is so artificial; it is really only on the surface, the science of it is lacking it is why people accept all the absurdity we feed them with.
I don't want to go into this subject because nowadays it bring too much the passion in people to understand the beauty behind it.

So of course I accept that the absolute truth have both gender if not where it is coming from ? It would be absurde if I say that the absolute truth is only of one gender I agree totally.
But to put out all gender out of the absolute truth would be even more absurde.
And when I speak of gender I don't speak about the artificial view of the modern man of course.

[Belindi]

It's seems like if you speak of God like a Machine.

If we don't understand the Subject how is it possible to progress in this discussion ?
That is why I came to put back the Subject in the center and gave some clarification on Him.

The idea of God as a machine is more realistic than the idea of a God referred to as "Him". God as a "man spirit" is an obviously fantastical notion that has for too long been given a free pass due to tradition.

As adults in the modern age, surely it's time to put away childish things and face up to actual reality. Positing God as a man-spirit that looks after us is an idea that should have been put to bed two thousand years ago. If Constantine had not gone mad, it may have done.

One day, while he was in front of his tent with his officers and troops around him, he had a vision of an enormous cross of fire in the heavens. On one side of the cross were the words, in the Greek language: “By this, conquer.” The words are sometimes given in the Latin form In hoc signo vinces, the translation of which is “By this sign thou shalt conquer.”

If Constantine had not misinterpreted standard natural phenomena, being so obsessed with himself that he thought the Sun and clouds themselves spoke to him personally, then Christianity may well have drifted into obscurity, like so many of the other crazy cults going around in the Iron and Bronze Ages.

The "Him" you refer to is a myth, a misrepresentation of reality, which at the largest scales is neither personal nor gendered.

It is only in a very technological society where impersonalism reign that we can hear such absurdity.

When we never had any spiritual experience we cannot really understand what God means. We may conceptualize but that theorizing is only speculative; in any science there is the experience side if not it is not valid. For as long human have being around, there is peoples with very very high qualities (ethics which is the barometer of philosophy) throughout all side of the planet, in all cultures who had the same experience of a Personal relationship with the divine and share it, and now because we have some gross perverted technology we think we know more and better of reality ? Look at the qualities and the way of life of modern man (and even of philosophers and scientists) to see that we are not progressing toward any part of reality, it is obvious.

It is not because some culture misrepresented and did things in the name of God since 2000 years that we need to be adverse to the idea of a personal deity.
We need to do a serious and sincere investigation, if not we are just playing our egotistic conditioning in the name of Philosophy.

I don't see any argument here but we can start with a philosophical search;

God being the source of everything is the cause of all causes isn't it ?

No, nature not God is the source of everything and nature is the cause of all causes.

Perhaps for all you or I can know there is not even orderly nature,but instead nothing but chaos.

If you prefer the idea of God as source of everything then you should protect and further this idea by bringing it into line with human reasoning. To be reasonable you have to abandon either 1. God is omnipotent or 2. God is omniscient.

If you choose to be a religious fundamentalist you cannot choose to be a philosopher.This is because philosophers are all sceptics (American :Skeptics) in the cause of pursuing truth.

[Nitai]

It's seems like if you speak of God like a Machine.

If we don't understand the Subject how is it possible to progress in this discussion ?
That is why I came to put back the Subject in the center and gave some clarification on Him.

The idea of God as a machine is more realistic than the idea of a God referred to as "Him". God as a "man spirit" is an obviously fantastical notion that has for too long been given a free pass due to tradition.

As adults in the modern age, surely it's time to put away childish things and face up to actual reality. Positing God as a man-spirit that looks after us is an idea that should have been put to bed two thousand years ago. If Constantine had not gone mad, it may have done.

One day, while he was in front of his tent with his officers and troops around him, he had a vision of an enormous cross of fire in the heavens. On one side of the cross were the words, in the Greek language: “By this, conquer.” The words are sometimes given in the Latin form In hoc signo vinces, the translation of which is “By this sign thou shalt conquer.”

If Constantine had not misinterpreted standard natural phenomena, being so obsessed with himself that he thought the Sun and clouds themselves spoke to him personally, then Christianity may well have drifted into obscurity, like so many of the other crazy cults going around in the Iron and Bronze Ages.

The "Him" you refer to is a myth, a misrepresentation of reality, which at the largest scales is neither personal nor gendered.

It is only in a very technological society where impersonalism reign that we can hear such absurdity.

When we never had any spiritual experience we cannot really understand what God means. We may conceptualize but that theorizing is only speculative; in any science there is the experience side if not it is not valid. For as long human have being around, there is peoples with very very high qualities (ethics which is the barometer of philosophy) throughout all side of the planet, in all cultures who had the same experience of a Personal relationship with the divine and share it, and now because we have some gross perverted technology we think we know more and better of reality ? Look at the qualities and the way of life of modern man (and even of philosophers and scientists) to see that we are not progressing toward any part of reality, it is obvious.

It is not because some culture misrepresented and did things in the name of God since 2000 years that we need to be adverse to the idea of a personal deity.
We need to do a serious and sincere investigation, if not we are just playing our egotistic conditioning in the name of Philosophy.

I don't see any argument here but we can start with a philosophical search;

God being the source of everything is the cause of all causes isn't it ?

No, nature not God is the source of everything and nature is the cause of all causes.

Perhaps for all you or I can know there is not even orderly nature,but instead nothing but chaos.

If you prefer the idea of God as source of everything then you should protect and further this idea by bringing it into line with human reasoning. To be reasonable you have to abandon either 1. God is omnipotent or 2. God is omniscient.

If you choose to be a religious fundamentalist you cannot choose to be a philosopher.This is because philosophers are all sceptics (American :Skeptics) in the cause of pursuing truth.

It is not because some people in a specific time were stuck in their little brain with some difficulty that we have to abandon an universal accepted truth in all ancient cultures.

Lot of philosophy have not this problem with omnipotence and omniscience. Like I said it is a problem of understanding God. This problem rise because you take an opinion of God which is speculative and disconnected from any authorized source so you come to a non issue and that is all you give up ? It’s not serious.

And I am here to speak about logical philosophy, sceptic yes but not to the point of making doubt a philosophy, it is a tool. Truth is and stay the goal of real philosopher, not to argue ad infinitum. And we need to use all tools not just our tiny brain.
Even socrates said he took the help of his daimon in his heart.
The master show the way.

[Nitai]

It's seems like if you speak of God like a Machine.

If we don't understand the Subject how is it possible to progress in this discussion ?
That is why I came to put back the Subject in the center and gave some clarification on Him.

The idea of God as a machine is more realistic than the idea of a God referred to as "Him". God as a "man spirit" is an obviously fantastical notion that has for too long been given a free pass due to tradition.

As adults in the modern age, surely it's time to put away childish things and face up to actual reality. Positing God as a man-spirit that looks after us is an idea that should have been put to bed two thousand years ago. If Constantine had not gone mad, it may have done.

One day, while he was in front of his tent with his officers and troops around him, he had a vision of an enormous cross of fire in the heavens. On one side of the cross were the words, in the Greek language: “By this, conquer.” The words are sometimes given in the Latin form In hoc signo vinces, the translation of which is “By this sign thou shalt conquer.”

If Constantine had not misinterpreted standard natural phenomena, being so obsessed with himself that he thought the Sun and clouds themselves spoke to him personally, then Christianity may well have drifted into obscurity, like so many of the other crazy cults going around in the Iron and Bronze Ages.

The "Him" you refer to is a myth, a misrepresentation of reality, which at the largest scales is neither personal nor gendered.

It is only in a very technological society where impersonalism reign that we can hear such absurdity.

When we never had any spiritual experience we cannot really understand what God means. We may conceptualize but that theorizing is only speculative; in any science there is the experience side if not it is not valid. For as long human have being around, there is peoples with very very high qualities (ethics which is the barometer of philosophy) throughout all side of the planet, in all cultures who had the same experience of a Personal relationship with the divine and share it, and now because we have some gross perverted technology we think we know more and better of reality ? Look at the qualities and the way of life of modern man (and even of philosophers and scientists) to see that we are not progressing toward any part of reality, it is obvious.

It is not because some culture misrepresented and did things in the name of God since 2000 years that we need to be adverse to the idea of a personal deity.
We need to do a serious and sincere investigation, if not we are just playing our egotistic conditioning in the name of Philosophy.

I don't see any argument here but we can start with a philosophical search;

God being the source of everything is the cause of all causes isn't it ?

No, nature not God is the source of everything and nature is the cause of all causes.

Perhaps for all you or I can know there is not even orderly nature,but instead nothing but chaos.

If you prefer the idea of God as source of everything then you should protect and further this idea by bringing it into line with human reasoning. To be reasonable you have to abandon either 1. God is omnipotent or 2. God is omniscient.

If you choose to be a religious fundamentalist you cannot choose to be a philosopher.This is because philosophers are all sceptics (American :Skeptics) in the cause of pursuing truth.

Nature the cause fo all causes ? where does nature come from is it eternal ? where does the law of nature comes from also ?
And consciousness ?

chaos ? certainly you didn't look at the cosmos neither at the atome, what to speak of the increadible sustainability of earth.

Chaos is created by man.

[Sy Borg]

Nature the cause of all causes ? where does nature come from is it eternal ? where does the law of nature comes from also ?
And consciousness ?

chaos ? certainly you didn't look at the cosmos neither at the atome, what to speak of the increadible sustainability of earth.

Chaos is created by man.

Chaos is part of nature, as is order. Certainly, most entities in their youth are chaotic, and in maturity they reach a maximal level of order before declining into chaos again.

There is much we don't know, but to say "God did it all" is to cease inquiries. Belief in God reveals a lack of patience, chalking the great mysteries down to God, presumably so they can move on to more productive pursuits than pondering the unknowable. Instead of keeping an open mind they black box the unknown aspects of reality and call them "God".

[Nitai]

Nature the cause of all causes ? where does nature come from is it eternal ? where does the law of nature comes from also ?
And consciousness ?

chaos ? certainly you didn't look at the cosmos neither at the atome, what to speak of the increadible sustainability of earth.

Chaos is created by man.

Chaos is part of nature, as is order. Certainly, most entities in their youth are chaotic, and in maturity they reach a maximal level of order before declining into chaos again.

There is much we don't know, but to say "God did it all" is to cease inquiries. Belief in God reveals a lack of patience, chalking the great mysteries down to God, presumably so they can move on to more productive pursuits than pondering the unknowable. Instead of keeping an open mind they black box the unknown aspects of reality and call them "God".

Yes it is interesting to note that living entities come here with great chaos and ignorance but it's search is about harmony and knowledge. And of course then the body decay but living entity are opposed to that with all their force. where is that seeking come from ?

To accept God as the source is not the end of the inquiries, it is just the beginning of the real journey toward experiencing truth.
It is good to search yourself and your goal on a map but then you need to start to walk to reach the goal. Speculating all your life on the map won't bring you anywhere.

It seems like western culture have this curse of sectarianism in his mind. There is not a broader view of the truth, either they accept God or not and that is why they are scared that to accept God will bring obscurantism.

[Sy Borg]

Nature the cause of all causes ? where does nature come from is it eternal ? where does the law of nature comes from also ?
And consciousness ?

chaos ? certainly you didn't look at the cosmos neither at the atome, what to speak of the increadible sustainability of earth.

Chaos is created by man.

Chaos is part of nature, as is order. Certainly, most entities in their youth are chaotic, and in maturity they reach a maximal level of order before declining into chaos again.

There is much we don't know, but to say "God did it all" is to cease inquiries. Belief in God reveals a lack of patience, chalking the great mysteries down to God, presumably so they can move on to more productive pursuits than pondering the unknowable. Instead of keeping an open mind they black box the unknown aspects of reality and call them "God".

Yes it is interesting to note that living entities come here with great chaos and ignorance but it's search is about harmony and knowledge. And of course then the body decay but living entity are opposed to that with all their force. where is that seeking come from ?

To accept God as the source is not the end of the inquiries, it is just the beginning of the real journey toward experiencing truth.
It is good to search yourself and your goal on a map but then you need to start to walk to reach the goal. Speculating all your life on the map won't bring you anywhere.

It seems like western culture have this curse of sectarianism in his mind. There is not a broader view of the truth, either they accept God or not and that is why they are scared that to accept God will bring obscurantism.

You are in no position to criticise skeptics, having failed to provide a compelling case as to why one should put aside one's critical faculties and make an unfounded leap of faith.

The fact is that you do not have a clue, and neither does anyone else. You present your guess as fact. By contrast, I remain agnostic as to whether matter or information (aka "consciousness") is more fundamental, which is the only position not infused with bluff and bravado. Agnosticism is the simple admission that there are mysteries we do not yet understand.

Belief is only the beginning of a journey of faith, not of truth. That's just one more life story, as lived through the lens of theism, which is nothing special as far as lives go. Also note that one's own religion does not hold exclusive Truth; if you were born in Pakistan you would be an Muslim and probably swear that the Koran's doctrine was The Truth. If you were born in the Kalahari, your Truth would be very different again.

[Nitai]

Nature the cause of all causes ? where does nature come from is it eternal ? where does the law of nature comes from also ?
And consciousness ?

chaos ? certainly you didn't look at the cosmos neither at the atome, what to speak of the increadible sustainability of earth.

Chaos is created by man.

Chaos is part of nature, as is order. Certainly, most entities in their youth are chaotic, and in maturity they reach a maximal level of order before declining into chaos again.

There is much we don't know, but to say "God did it all" is to cease inquiries. Belief in God reveals a lack of patience, chalking the great mysteries down to God, presumably so they can move on to more productive pursuits than pondering the unknowable. Instead of keeping an open mind they black box the unknown aspects of reality and call them "God".

Yes it is interesting to note that living entities come here with great chaos and ignorance but it's search is about harmony and knowledge. And of course then the body decay but living entity are opposed to that with all their force. where is that seeking come from ?

To accept God as the source is not the end of the inquiries, it is just the beginning of the real journey toward experiencing truth.
It is good to search yourself and your goal on a map but then you need to start to walk to reach the goal. Speculating all your life on the map won't bring you anywhere.

It seems like western culture have this curse of sectarianism in his mind. There is not a broader view of the truth, either they accept God or not and that is why they are scared that to accept God will bring obscurantism.

You are in no position to criticise skeptics, having failed to provide a compelling case as to why one should put aside one's critical faculties and make an unfounded leap of faith.

The fact is that you do not have a clue, and neither does anyone else. You present your guess as fact. By contrast, I remain agnostic as to whether matter or information (aka "consciousness") is more fundamental, which is the only position not infused with bluff and bravado. Agnosticism is the simple admission that there are mysteries we do not yet understand.

Belief is only the beginning of a journey of faith, not of truth. That's just one more life story, as lived through the lens of theism, which is nothing special as far as lives go. Also note that one's own religion does not hold exclusive Truth; if you were born in Pakistan you would be an Muslim and probably swear that the Koran's doctrine was The Truth. If you were born in the Kalahari, your Truth would be very different again.

I am critizing no one who is trying to find sincerely the truth. (actually I prefer to critizise no one at all but I have to make some points I am sorry about that)
We can discuse anytime with reason for me it is important to understand, each tool provided in us have his role to play (how amazing!)

I am not an Christian, Muslmim, hindu or any external made up designation, I just see with reason and also with my own experiences that there is an essence shared by all ancient cultures and most of these culture lived peacefully and joyfully for thousand of years without destroying the earth.
And this ancien wisdom everyone is welcome to question and to argue but very few are enought serious about the truth to hear because now we think we understand better since 300 years, now we are superior, indeed we can see the qualities and the way the world is going to...

It is actually clever to be agnostic when you beging your journey, but to persist can be a stand we take to be secure.
Truth cannot be understood in our little brain by our own endeavor it's a fact I agree. That is why all great ancien culture explain what is the science to be a reservoir to receive it. But that is too strange for modern educated man of course. That is why Philosophy is there to clear the way of our doubtful mind, first we need to beging with epistemology and of course at the end of it we either take a philosophical stand or we continue our journey toward truth because we have being provided genuine experiences by people who have done the way. Everyone think everyone is like himself but there is people with higher advancement in consciousness there have alway being such people thruout the ages. I don't speak of charlatant but of boni-fide master.

But I understand fear is controlling us, to keep going in sincere search for truth is an incrediable journey but it's not easy and even impossible on our own.

We can start anytime to do some philosophy.
The only thing I said about this subject it that as long you don't understand the nature of God, or in other word as long you are stuck in your own conception of God you will find a problem with omnipotence and omniscience and free-will. I don't see that problem at all with the philosophy and the experiences that had been given to me.

I am very open to any philosophical discussion if the goal is to find the truth.

Please accept my kind respect, I'm not here to disturb anyone.

[LuckyR]

Chaos is part of nature, as is order. Certainly, most entities in their youth are chaotic, and in maturity they reach a maximal level of order before declining into chaos again.

There is much we don't know, but to say "God did it all" is to cease inquiries. Belief in God reveals a lack of patience, chalking the great mysteries down to God, presumably so they can move on to more productive pursuits than pondering the unknowable. Instead of keeping an open mind they black box the unknown aspects of reality and call them "God".

Yes it is interesting to note that living entities come here with great chaos and ignorance but it's search is about harmony and knowledge. And of course then the body decay but living entity are opposed to that with all their force. where is that seeking come from ?

To accept God as the source is not the end of the inquiries, it is just the beginning of the real journey toward experiencing truth.
It is good to search yourself and your goal on a map but then you need to start to walk to reach the goal. Speculating all your life on the map won't bring you anywhere.

It seems like western culture have this curse of sectarianism in his mind. There is not a broader view of the truth, either they accept God or not and that is why they are scared that to accept God will bring obscurantism.

You are in no position to criticise skeptics, having failed to provide a compelling case as to why one should put aside one's critical faculties and make an unfounded leap of faith.

The fact is that you do not have a clue, and neither does anyone else. You present your guess as fact. By contrast, I remain agnostic as to whether matter or information (aka "consciousness") is more fundamental, which is the only position not infused with bluff and bravado. Agnosticism is the simple admission that there are mysteries we do not yet understand.

Belief is only the beginning of a journey of faith, not of truth. That's just one more life story, as lived through the lens of theism, which is nothing special as far as lives go. Also note that one's own religion does not hold exclusive Truth; if you were born in Pakistan you would be an Muslim and probably swear that the Koran's doctrine was The Truth. If you were born in the Kalahari, your Truth would be very different again.

I am critizing no one who is trying to find sincerely the truth. (actually I prefer to critizise no one at all but I have to make some points I am sorry about that)
We can discuse anytime with reason for me it is important to understand, each tool provided in us have his role to play (how amazing!)

I am not an Christian, Muslmim, hindu or any external made up designation, I just see with reason and also with my own experiences that there is an essence shared by all ancient cultures and most of these culture lived peacefully and joyfully for thousand of years without destroying the earth.
And this ancien wisdom everyone is welcome to question and to argue but very few are enought serious about the truth to hear because now we think we understand better since 300 years, now we are superior, indeed we can see the qualities and the way the world is going to...

It is actually clever to be agnostic when you beging your journey, but to persist can be a stand we take to be secure.
Truth cannot be understood in our little brain by our own endeavor it's a fact I agree. That is why all great ancien culture explain what is the science to be a reservoir to receive it. But that is too strange for modern educated man of course. That is why Philosophy is there to clear the way of our doubtful mind, first we need to beging with epistemology and of course at the end of it we either take a philosophical stand or we continue our journey toward truth because we have being provided genuine experiences by people who have done the way. Everyone think everyone is like himself but there is people with higher advancement in consciousness there have alway being such people thruout the ages. I don't speak of charlatant but of boni-fide master.

But I understand fear is controlling us, to keep going in sincere search for truth is an incrediable journey but it's not easy and even impossible on our own.

We can start anytime to do some philosophy.
The only thing I said about this subject it that as long you don't understand the nature of God, or in other word as long you are stuck in your own conception of God you will find a problem with omnipotence and omniscience and free-will. I don't see that problem at all with the philosophy and the experiences that had been given to me.

I am very open to any philosophical discussion if the goal is to find the truth.

Please accept my kind respect, I'm not here to disturb anyone.

Well, since no one knows anything about the nature of any gods (by definition), we should all "find a problem with omnipotence and omniscience", which is what I originally thought you were acknowledging when I gave you props for that.

[Sy Borg]

Nita, don't worry about "causing offence" or whatever. There is nothing to read into my posts. So when I say you are not in a position to say that my comment was absurd, I am not emotional about it at all. There is no offence, no concern, nothing to read between the lines. I like to be direct. So I was simply saying that I don't think you were in a position to say what you did, logically speaking, because the alternatives you offered were not any more convincing than mine, and arguably less so. Whatever, there is no need for any apologies, nor placation, just for us to state what we think is the case and observe points of agreement and difference.

You are in no position to criticise skeptics, having failed to provide a compelling case as to why one should put aside one's critical faculties and make an unfounded leap of faith.

The fact is that you do not have a clue, and neither does anyone else. You present your guess as fact. By contrast, I remain agnostic as to whether matter or information (aka "consciousness") is more fundamental, which is the only position not infused with bluff and bravado. Agnosticism is the simple admission that there are mysteries we do not yet understand.

Belief is only the beginning of a journey of faith, not of truth. That's just one more life story, as lived through the lens of theism, which is nothing special as far as lives go. Also note that one's own religion does not hold exclusive Truth; if you were born in Pakistan you would be an Muslim and probably swear that the Koran's doctrine was The Truth. If you were born in the Kalahari, your Truth would be very different again.

I am not an Christian, Muslmim, hindu or any external made up designation, I just see with reason and also with my own experiences that there is an essence shared by all ancient cultures and most of these culture lived peacefully and joyfully for thousand of years without destroying the earth.
And this ancient wisdom everyone is welcome to question and to argue but very few are enought serious about the truth to hear because now we think we understand better since 300 years, now we are superior, indeed we can see the qualities and the way the world is going to...

Human populations have more than tripled in the last 70 years. That exponential population growth, along with ever heavier consumption of resources by a small percentage of people, is, as you say, "destroying the Earth". Most cultures are still largely religious anyway, which is a significant driver of population growth.

But are humans "destroying the Earth"? We live on the thinnest sliver on its surface, and the deepest we have ever drilled is 12kms (and it's about 6,000 kms to the Earth's centre). The Earth is just fine but its atmosphere and biosphere are undergoing rapid changes, which happens from time to time. This time the extinction event is being driven by technological primates rather than asteroids, cosmic rays, supervolcanoes, microbes or fluctuations of the magnetic field. Whatever humans are doing, they are being driven by the planet and its parent star, whether we have the humility to admit it or not. We are part of the planet's cycles of relative equilibrium and chaos.

It is actually clever to be agnostic when you beging your journey, but to persist can be a stand we take to be secure.

I don't see it as a strategic issue. I see nothing "clever" about agnosticism, be it as a child or as an adult. It's just an honest admission that there is much yet to learn. Belief is not logically insupportable. Rather, belief is largely a means of emotional support in a tough world, a life hack.

1) Belief can bolster one's confidence, where one's efforts are believed to be supported by [x] deity

2) Belief allows one to put aside philosophical inquiries so as to focus on the exigencies of life - working, breeding, rearing.

3) Belief can provide a social network with like-minded others.

I think where theists can fall down is trying to justify belief in terms of logic and science. It's not possible. There is a terrific YouTube series by former neuroscientist, Robert Kuhn, called "Closer to Truth". Simply, Robert has a strong survival instinct, so he hopes for an afterlife, a continuation of being after death. However, he refuses to fool himself. So he seeks ideas and explanations from theists, hoping that their ideas may give him optimism that death does not equal the total disappearance of one's being. I too have hoped hope to find just one theist who can convince me. Like Robert, I want to be convinced that it's true, but the explanations provided are inevitably underwhelming, and often surprisingly weak, even from relatively sophisticated religious thinkers. (I have my own hypotheses about this, which are not in the scope of this topic).

So I question the existence of a God that is separate from its creation. If God is all-knowing, then that appears to be simply each living thing's individual knowledge aggregated. If we have free will, the scope of freedom within the strictures of physics, biological inheritance, society, personal ethics (self programming) and cause and effect appears to be trivial at best, or even illusory. Still, I have long maintained that if free will is illusory, the point is moot because it feels as though we have free will.

Truth cannot be understood in our little brain by our own endeavor it's a fact I agree. That is why all great ancient culture explain what is the science to be a reservoir to receive it. But that is too strange for modern educated man of course. That is why Philosophy is there to clear the way of our doubtful mind, first we need to begin with epistemology and of course at the end of it we either take a philosophical stand or we continue our journey toward truth because we have being provided genuine experiences by people who have done the way. Everyone think everyone is like himself but there is people with higher advancement in consciousness there have alway being such people thruout the ages. I don't speak of charlatant but of boni-fide master.

We need to start with the science. That is, things we know for sure, and things where educated guesses can be made (by educated practitioners). So anything we believe needs to not contradict facts established by rigorous experiment and observation.

Science, though, cannot probe a significant chunk of reality - subjective experience. I agree that there are masters of the subjective in the East, who have delved into the subjective and then systematically reported on their findings. However, their relative mastery of the subjective does not necessarily translate to understanding of the objective realm, which can be probed by science. Attempts to link the subjective and objective have been about as successful as attempts to link quantum mechanics with relativity. Hmm :)

I'm okay with not knowing the ultimate answers to the nature of reality and see no reason to black box reality as "God" at the most fundamental levels. At least some people in the future will know better than we do today, just as those today know better than those of the past who passed down their knowledge to us.

But I understand fear is controlling us, to keep going in sincere search for truth is an incrediable journey but it's not easy and even impossible on our own.

We can start anytime to do some philosophy.
The only thing I said about this subject it that as long you don't understand the nature of God, or in other word as long you are stuck in your own conception of God you will find a problem with omnipotence and omniscience and free-will. I don't see that problem at all with the philosophy and the experiences that had been given to me.

I have no problem with omnipotence, omniscience and free-will. I see them all as questionable and, really, not that important. I think that the Man-Spirit as so often believed in today is based on overly literal reading of the Bible's metaphorical content. For instance, the creation passage in Genesis is obviously a metaphorical description of evolution, as observed before scientific terminology existed.

As for ancient claims that God/Allah is all-powerful and all-knowing, we are talking about people who saw "the world" as the Europe, the Middle East and northern Africa. And this "small world" lay within a "universe" that consisted of a small Sun and Moon orbiting Earth amongst a dome of stars. They weren't to know that we orbited a star that is millions of times more massive than the Earth, or that there are billions of other stars around us, and billions more galaxies full of billions of stars at impossible distances from us.

The Bible's and Koran's writers were, understandably, highly parochial and culturally-specific. This was the case for all ancient religions around the world.

[Belindi]

Nitai wrote:

as long you don't understand the nature of God, or in other word as long you are stuck in your own conception of God you will find a problem with omnipotence and omniscience and free-will. I don't see that problem at all with the philosophy and the experiences that had been given to me.

Well that is honest! Please concede that respected philosophers do see the theists' problem of evil.

What philosophers do is pursue truth which is always saying goodbye. But philosophers nevertheless pursue truth, or at least the best truth available. One method by which philosophers try to catch truth is by the sort of conversations where each tries to understand what each is saying, and then perhaps revise what each originally thought.

Free Will is impossible because whatever you think is caused by the circumstances of your upbringing and who were and are your significant others. For some reason you and I feel free to discuss as though reasoning with each other could catch truth for us. Philosophical reasoning will not do so. However all academic disciplines including philosophy teach us what questions to ask of the universe.

Religions used to teach as if they knew for a fact what questions were to be answered. Free Will is no longer in question and is known to be an hypothesis that helps to make sense of the Deity Who knows everything, can do everything, and is beneficent to everything.

[chewybrian]

Free Will is impossible because whatever you think is caused by the circumstances of your upbringing and who were and are your significant others.

How can something be impossible when it exists? We have a free will, but we do not have a will free from influence. We can't do exactly what we want because of all sorts of roadblocks in the world and preconceptions we can't always erase, and base desires we can't always rise above. But we are free to try, whenever we are able to see that we can. Existence precedes essence. As we gain knowledge, more choices become apparent to us. Some people overcome their upbringing or environment, and some don't. But, you don't define free will as some sort of super power, do you?

[Belindi]

Free Will is impossible because whatever you think is caused by the circumstances of your upbringing and who were and are your significant others.

How can something be impossible when it exists? We have a free will, but we do not have a will free from influence. We can't do exactly what we want because of all sorts of roadblocks in the world and preconceptions we can't always erase, and base desires we can't always rise above. But we are free to try, whenever we are able to see that we can. Existence precedes essence. As we gain knowledge, more choices become apparent to us. Some people overcome their upbringing or environment, and some don't. But, you don't define free will as some sort of super power, do you?

We are sometimes not free to try. Sometimes it is obvious to all concerned when a person's options are nil.Usually some character flaw, and we all have those, stops us in the end from doing what we might have wanted to do.You and I cannot think of any uncaused event.

[Jaded Sage]

Does anyone know Bible verses that say God is omniscient? I think that quality is a philosophical invention.

[Steve3007]

Apparently Psalm 147:5 says:

Great is our Lord and abundant in strength;
His understanding is infinite.

Re omniscience, that's probably the clincher for people who are into that sort of thing.