Philosophy Discussion Forums

Belindi wrote: ↑July 16th, 2022, 5:05 am The Zionist regime in Israel is not a religious but a political regime that directs a colonising aggressor. They say they are religious but this is a whitewash. The Israeli regime won't even return to pre-1967 boundaries.

Sadly I agree with you, the Jewish Nation might say they are God's chosen people, and claim their right to be in Israel. But they ignore the important scriptures about loving their neighbours and applying the same laws to them.

In the Six Day War of June 1967, Israel defeated the combined armies of Egypt, Syria and Jordan, capturing the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights and the Sinai Peninsula. For Israel, it was a stunning triumph; for Arabs, a humiliating defeat

Googled

I went to Jerusalem in 1966 when most of it was inside Jordan, from memory, it seemed a far more friendly place and less hostile than our 2009 visit. In 2009, we queued up on the Jewish side for over an our to go up to the Golden Dome of the Rock. As we got to the entrance; there was a sign which said, You are entering a Holy Place where God is always present. Next to the sign where soldiers with guns, and riot shields stacked nearby. It seemed the soldiers were there to make sure no one stole their God.

If any people are God's 'chosen people' they are ancient Egyptians who are the first monotheists. Jews and Hebrews copied monotheism from the Egyptians. The 'aliens' in Palestine are the modern Zionist settlers, not the Palestinians who, around the first century AD included the very first Christians.

Political Zionism is a stain on Jews and Judaism.The state of Israel should never have been . We are all strangers in our lands whoever and wherever we live and whatever our skin colour. Very few people's ancestors are aboriginal peoples.( Maybe Australian aboriginal people are exceptional in having originated in Australia .)

Sorry, Eric, but the Bible verses you just quoted are Zionist not Christian. The "Chosen People "was a motivating story to tell ancient tribal people in search of a forever home but it was a myth with no foundation in historical reality. In this year 2022 and since 1947 the aliens are the Zionist settlers, much more so than Palestinian farmers who had worked their family farms for hundreds of years. Indeed Jesus himself was Palestinian.

Belindi wrote: ↑July 17th, 2022, 4:58 am since 1947 the aliens are the Zionist settlers, much more so than Palestinian farmers who had worked their family farms for hundreds of years.

I fully agree with you there. Whilst the Jews might have had some claim to come back to Israel, they had no right to confine the Palestinians to Ghettos and bulldoze their homes.

Political Zionism is a stain on Jews and Judaism.

Agreed.

We are all strangers in our lands whoever and wherever we live and whatever our skin colour.

Absolutely, we just have to get on with each other despite our differences.

Sorry, Eric, but the Bible verses you just quoted are Zionist not Christian.

But they are still relevant, you must love all your neighbours as you love yourselves. You must give the aliens in your land their inheritance, you must judge them by the same laws. When we turn away from God, problems start.

Your God's moral code seems to be okay by me, Eric.

I'd just like to add that modern Jews are not all descended from Palestinians. Perhaps few Jews have mostly Palestinian ancestors. Jews married out in Europe and America.
Imagine the absurdity of me a modern Scotswoman demanding the right to settle in the homeland of my ancestors somewhere in mid Europe near the Caucasus Mountains! No, Zionism is a poor rationalisation for nationalist gain.

Spectrum wrote: ↑October 29th, 2017, 9:39 pm

Wiki wrote:In monotheistic thought, God is conceived of as the Supreme Being and the principal object of faith.[3]
The concept of God, as described by theologians, commonly includes the attributes of omniscience (all-knowing), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), divine simplicity, and as having an eternal and necessary existence.
Many theologians also describe God as being omnibenevolent (perfectly good) and all loving.

nb:.. for more details, read the wiki article or elsewhere..

To date there is no convincing proof for the existence of a God.
I have demonstrated [url=http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=15155]here[/url] 'God is an Impossibility.'

Despite the above, why do theists continue to believe in a God even to the extent of killing non-theists when they perceive threats against theism?

I believe why the majority of humans believe in a God is due to a very forceful existential psychological impulse that is compelling [subliminally] them to believe in a God or some powerful forces with or without agency.

Views?

Spectrum!

The short answer to the actual OP title/question is answered with a riddle: why believe that you yourself (meaning all people) exist, when it's logically impossible to do so?

In other words, we do not understand the true nature of our own existence or reality. We cannot explain consciousness. Therefore, one "psychological impulse" to believe or disbelieve, must be based upon one's own ignorance, right? I'm asking that question not only from the premises of your "physiological" factors such as existential finitude, which is important in its own rite, but epistemology as well.

Thoughts?

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑August 5th, 2022, 11:39 am

Spectrum wrote: ↑October 29th, 2017, 9:39 pm

Wiki wrote:In monotheistic thought, God is conceived of as the Supreme Being and the principal object of faith.[3]
The concept of God, as described by theologians, commonly includes the attributes of omniscience (all-knowing), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), divine simplicity, and as having an eternal and necessary existence.
Many theologians also describe God as being omnibenevolent (perfectly good) and all loving.

nb:.. for more details, read the wiki article or elsewhere..

To date there is no convincing proof for the existence of a God.
I have demonstrated [url=http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=15155]here[/url] 'God is an Impossibility.'

Despite the above, why do theists continue to believe in a God even to the extent of killing non-theists when they perceive threats against theism?

I believe why the majority of humans believe in a God is due to a very forceful existential psychological impulse that is compelling [subliminally] them to believe in a God or some powerful forces with or without agency.

Views?

Spectrum!

The short answer to the actual OP title/question is answered with a riddle: why believe that you yourself (meaning all people) exist, when it's logically impossible to do so?

In other words, we do not understand the true nature of our own existence or reality. We cannot explain consciousness. Therefore, one "psychological impulse" to believe or disbelieve, must be based upon one's own ignorance, right? I'm asking that question not only from the premises of your "physiological" factors such as existential finitude, which is important in its own rite, but epistemology as well.

Thoughts?

(Apart from clinical contexts) when most people say "consciousness" what they actually mean is experience. Only living things experience . It's living things that create inanimate things out of the environment the living things experience. The connection between existence itself is experience which is either absolute or relative to living beings.

Belindi wrote: ↑August 5th, 2022, 2:42 pm

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑August 5th, 2022, 11:39 am

Spectrum wrote: ↑October 29th, 2017, 9:39 pm

Wiki wrote:In monotheistic thought, God is conceived of as the Supreme Being and the principal object of faith.[3]
The concept of God, as described by theologians, commonly includes the attributes of omniscience (all-knowing), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), divine simplicity, and as having an eternal and necessary existence.
Many theologians also describe God as being omnibenevolent (perfectly good) and all loving.

nb:.. for more details, read the wiki article or elsewhere..

To date there is no convincing proof for the existence of a God.
I have demonstrated [url=http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=15155]here[/url] 'God is an Impossibility.'

Despite the above, why do theists continue to believe in a God even to the extent of killing non-theists when they perceive threats against theism?

I believe why the majority of humans believe in a God is due to a very forceful existential psychological impulse that is compelling [subliminally] them to believe in a God or some powerful forces with or without agency.

Views?

Spectrum!

The short answer to the actual OP title/question is answered with a riddle: why believe that you yourself (meaning all people) exist, when it's logically impossible to do so?

In other words, we do not understand the true nature of our own existence or reality. We cannot explain consciousness. Therefore, one "psychological impulse" to believe or disbelieve, must be based upon one's own ignorance, right? I'm asking that question not only from the premises of your "physiological" factors such as existential finitude, which is important in its own rite, but epistemology as well.

Thoughts?

(Apart from clinical contexts) when most people say "consciousness" what they actually mean is experience. Only living things experience . It's living things that create inanimate things out of the environment the living things experience. The connection between existence itself is experience which is either absolute or relative to living beings.

I think then that only leads to the questions about the relationships between mind and matter. Or as you say, animate from the inanimate.

And that could take us back to existential finitude. If we cannot explain the nature of our own conscious experiences, which in turn is the "absolute" from which all experience is conceived, how does that relate to holding a belief or disbelief? In other words, how do we trust our own beliefs or disbeliefs?

Spectrum wrote: ↑October 29th, 2017, 9:39 pm
nb:.. for more details, read the wiki article or elsewhere..

Wiki wrote:
In monotheistic thought, God is conceived of as the Supreme Being and the principal object of faith.[3]
The concept of God, as described by theologians, commonly includes the attributes of omniscience (all-knowing), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), divine simplicity, and as having an eternal and necessary existence.
Many theologians also describe God as being omnibenevolent (perfectly good) and all loving.

I believe why the majority of humans believe in a God is due to a very forceful existential psychological impulse that is compelling [subliminally] them to believe in a God or some powerful forces with or without agency.

Views?

Spectrum!

I am not religious, but the idea of "God" has for a long time seemed very simple to me. I think that we tend to overcomplicate it. "God" is an interpretation, and some think a manifestation, of consciousness. Looking at it this way while addressing your descriptions of "God" makes a great deal of sense to me.

Is "God" omniscient, all knowing? Yes. Think about what knowledge is. Everything that is known or has been known, has been known by someone -- it has been known consciously -- so if one accepts the idea of a collective consciousness, then all that knowledge would be known by "God" -- consciousness.

If one looks at the theories of consciousness that specifically encompass the universe like Panpsychism, then omnipresence is obvious and omnipotence is likely as there is no motion, activity, or power without it. This would also mean that it has an eternal and necessary existence.

As far as omnibenevolent is concerned, "God" is also emotion, so love is a connection a bonding, which is good.

Gee

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑August 5th, 2022, 2:58 pm

Belindi wrote: ↑August 5th, 2022, 2:42 pm

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑August 5th, 2022, 11:39 am

Spectrum wrote: ↑October 29th, 2017, 9:39 pm
nb:.. for more details, read the wiki article or elsewhere..

To date there is no convincing proof for the existence of a God.
I have demonstrated [url=http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=15155]here[/url] 'God is an Impossibility.'

Despite the above, why do theists continue to believe in a God even to the extent of killing non-theists when they perceive threats against theism?

I believe why the majority of humans believe in a God is due to a very forceful existential psychological impulse that is compelling [subliminally] them to believe in a God or some powerful forces with or without agency.

Views?

Spectrum!

The short answer to the actual OP title/question is answered with a riddle: why believe that you yourself (meaning all people) exist, when it's logically impossible to do so?

In other words, we do not understand the true nature of our own existence or reality. We cannot explain consciousness. Therefore, one "psychological impulse" to believe or disbelieve, must be based upon one's own ignorance, right? I'm asking that question not only from the premises of your "physiological" factors such as existential finitude, which is important in its own rite, but epistemology as well.

Thoughts?

(Apart from clinical contexts) when most people say "consciousness" what they actually mean is experience. Only living things experience . It's living things that create inanimate things out of the environment the living things experience. The connection between existence itself is experience which is either absolute or relative to living beings.

I think then that only leads to the questions about the relationships between mind and matter. Or as you say, animate from the inanimate.

And that could take us back to existential finitude. If we cannot explain the nature of our own conscious experiences, which in turn is the "absolute" from which all experience is conceived, how does that relate to holding a belief or disbelief? In other words, how do we trust our own beliefs or disbeliefs?

Scepticism is essential to proper reasoning, and Descartes was right in his sceptical approach to existence. What he was wrong about was "cogito" and "sum" in his presumption of first person singular . If Descartes had claimed "Experientia, ergo Essend" (Essend: present participle of esse) Descartes' sceptical approach would have been perfect, as Experientia ergo Essend omits what Descartes set out to prove , which was 'I'.
Experientia ergo essend is almost synonymous with Berkeley's Esse est Percipi, to be is to be perceived but Experienta ergo Essend explains and assimilates Dr Johnson's criticism of Berkeley :

“After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley’s ingenious sophistry to prove the non-existence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it, ‘I refute it thus.'”(Boswell’s Life of Samuel Johnson, quoted from Wikipedia.)

Belindi wrote: ↑August 6th, 2022, 4:53 am

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑August 5th, 2022, 2:58 pm

Belindi wrote: ↑August 5th, 2022, 2:42 pm

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑August 5th, 2022, 11:39 am

Spectrum!

The short answer to the actual OP title/question is answered with a riddle: why believe that you yourself (meaning all people) exist, when it's logically impossible to do so?

In other words, we do not understand the true nature of our own existence or reality. We cannot explain consciousness. Therefore, one "psychological impulse" to believe or disbelieve, must be based upon one's own ignorance, right? I'm asking that question not only from the premises of your "physiological" factors such as existential finitude, which is important in its own rite, but epistemology as well.

Thoughts?

(Apart from clinical contexts) when most people say "consciousness" what they actually mean is experience. Only living things experience . It's living things that create inanimate things out of the environment the living things experience. The connection between existence itself is experience which is either absolute or relative to living beings.

I think then that only leads to the questions about the relationships between mind and matter. Or as you say, animate from the inanimate.

And that could take us back to existential finitude. If we cannot explain the nature of our own conscious experiences, which in turn is the "absolute" from which all experience is conceived, how does that relate to holding a belief or disbelief? In other words, how do we trust our own beliefs or disbeliefs?

Scepticism is essential to proper reasoning, and Descartes was right in his sceptical approach to existence. What he was wrong about was "cogito" and "sum" in his presumption of first person singular . If Descartes had claimed "Experientia, ergo Essend" (Essend: present participle of esse) Descartes' sceptical approach would have been perfect, as Experientia ergo Essend omits what Descartes set out to prove , which was 'I'.
Experientia ergo essend is almost synonymous with Berkeley's Esse est Percipi, to be is to be perceived but Experienta ergo Essend explains and assimilates Dr Johnson's criticism of Berkeley :

“After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley’s ingenious sophistry to prove the non-existence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it, ‘I refute it thus.'”(Boswell’s Life of Samuel Johnson, quoted from Wikipedia.)

Subjective idealism is a fusion of phenomenalism or empiricism, which confers special status upon the immediately perceived, with idealism, which confers special status upon the mental. Idealism denies the knowability or existence of the non-mental, while phenomenalism serves to restrict the mental to the empirical. Subjective idealism thus identifies its mental reality with the world of ordinary experience, and does not comment on whether this reality is "divine" in some way as pantheism does, nor comment on whether this reality is a fundamentally unified whole as does absolute idealism. This form of idealism is "subjective" not because it denies that there is an objective reality, but because it asserts that this reality is completely dependent upon the minds of the subjects that perceive it.

The OP should read something like: Why disbelieve in God when my own existence is logically impossible to prove.

Spectrum wrote: ↑October 29th, 2017, 9:39 pm To date there is no convincing proof for the existence of a God.

To date there is no convincing proof that a God does not exist.

I have demonstrated [url=http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=15155]here[/url] 'God is an Impossibility.'

Wow, in light of the fact that it is impossible to demonstrate that "God is an Impossibility", that's quite a feat ... well done!

How ironic ... this thread is titled, "Why Believe in a God when It is Impossible to Prove?", and here you are believing there is no God, when it is impossible to prove.

Buzzard3 wrote: ↑August 8th, 2022, 1:51 pm

Spectrum wrote: ↑October 29th, 2017, 9:39 pm To date there is no convincing proof for the existence of a God.

To date there is no convincing proof that a God does not exist.

I have demonstrated [url=http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=15155]here[/url] 'God is an Impossibility.'

Wow, in light of the fact that it is impossible to demonstrate that "God is an Impossibility", that's quite a feat ... well done!

How ironic ... this thread is titled, "Why Believe in a God when It is Impossible to Prove?", and here you are believing there is no God, when it is impossible to prove.

Wrong perspective. Metaphysical entities cannot be proven nor disproven, thus the title of the thread is meaningless as written. One's only option with gods is either to believe or not believe, since no one can truly know that gods exist or not exist.

LuckyR wrote: ↑August 8th, 2022, 2:46 pm One's only option with gods is either to believe or not believe,

That may be true if you were searching for God.

since no one can truly know that gods exist or not exist.

Evidence and science is incomplete. However, personal experience since the age of around fifty; has left me in no doubt; that God the creator of all that is seen and unseen exists. Too many profound coincidences have happened after prayer. I use the word coincidence, because this is what you would say.

EricPH wrote: ↑August 10th, 2022, 12:10 pm

LuckyR wrote: ↑August 8th, 2022, 2:46 pm One's only option with gods is either to believe or not believe,

That may be true if you were searching for God.

since no one can truly know that gods exist or not exist.

Evidence and science is incomplete. However, personal experience since the age of around fifty; has left me in no doubt; that God the creator of all that is seen and unseen exists. Too many profound coincidences have happened after prayer. I use the word coincidence, because this is what you would say.

I am totally fine with your observations and conclusions, as long as your "no doubt" is in the belief category, not in the know or proven categories.

Perhaps the case is that God exists, but it is impossible to prove empirically because the spirit and empirical are two completely different categories. For example, if one person overcomes seemingly insurmountable odds due to the strength of their character (as is commonplace in the Bible). In that situation, claiming God helped them is not an empirical fact. But due to the difficulty factor of what they achieved, it is problematic to conclude that they did so alone.

Fanman wrote: ↑August 10th, 2022, 5:51 pm Perhaps the case is that God exists, but it is impossible to prove empirically because the spirit and empirical are two completely different categories. For example, if one person overcomes seemingly insurmountable odds due to the strength of their character (as is commonplace in the Bible). In that situation, claiming God helped them is not an empirical fact. But due to the difficulty factor of what they achieved, it is problematic to conclude that they did so alone.

Very possible, yet only one of many possibilities.