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

[Fanman]

EricPH,

No matter what God anyone thinks they prays to, the same God hears all our prayers. The greater challenge is, how do we get on with each other despite all our differences?

If the case is that there is one God, then yes, certainly. But I think there is far too much diversity and division across the spectrum of mankind, for people to ever settle our differences and get on. Even in the face of a universal goal, I believe there would be strife. It would be difficult for people to put their individuality (hopes and aspirations) aside for a cause that is greater than themselves.

[Sy Borg]

Sy,

Hence, many report a personal connection with God, but no hint of God has ever been found by testing objective reality.

I find this a bit presumptuous because it assumes that God, who purportedly is a spirit, would want to be found that way. The entire thrust of most religions (or spiritual practices) is that God is something that is found in the heart or spirit. And belief is related to personal growth and other character developments/progressiveness - Faith is the objective, not proof. So when we try to examine God in an empirical sense, we completely lose sight of the whole purpose.

I do not believe that God is to be found so as to say, "this fact proves he/she/it exists". But rather to say that we have found God through belief and personal growth. As far as I see things, we have frameworks and precedents established in different scriptures. If those standards are met through personal experience or circumstances etc., I think that an individual has a valid reason to believe what they do. That said, establishing which God is the 'true' one, is another kettle of fish altogether.

The rules always shift but the fact remains that many attempts have been made to find God and the soul via scientific means - because what other means do we, as a society, have? - and each attempt has yielded nothing.

I appreciate personally that faith is the objective rather than the proof, but many theists don't agree with you. To fundamentalists, Biblical myths are more real than scientific experiments.

[Fanman]

Sy,

The rules always shift but the fact remains that many attempts have been made to find God and the soul via scientific means - because what other means do we, as a society, have? - and each attempt has yielded nothing.

But God is purported to be a personal being, we can’t ignore that. I don’t see how we can use empirical methods to find non-empirical things – that doesn’t seem logical. Religious testimonies are in most cases based on personal experience. We don’t have to accept them, but ruling out the existence of a spiritual entity on the basis of empirical science seems like a fallacy to me.

I appreciate personally that faith is the objective rather than the proof, but many theists don't agree with you. To fundamentalists, Biblical myths are more real than scientific experiments.

Define real.

[Belindi]

EricPH,

No matter what God anyone thinks they prays to, the same God hears all our prayers. The greater challenge is, how do we get on with each other despite all our differences?

If the case is that there is one God, then yes, certainly. But I think there is far too much diversity and division across the spectrum of mankind, for people to ever settle our differences and get on. Even in the face of a universal goal, I believe there would be strife. It would be difficult for people to put their individuality (hopes and aspirations) aside for a cause that is greater than themselves.

God Who is akin to absolute good is not "a cause greater than themselves", or "one God" but is the ground of being .This being so, the diversity and division is caused by the ground of being which is itself uncaused.

The great world religions which bind people together have much in common and it's that commonality which we need to build on. We will be forced to find common cause. Already it's quite easy to identify which politicians make and which fail to make common cause.

[EricPH]

EricPH,

No matter what God anyone thinks they prays to, the same God hears all our prayers. The greater challenge is, how do we get on with each other despite all our differences?

If the case is that there is one God, then yes, certainly.

If there is only 'One God', it would make sense to search for a greatest good meaning of 'One God'.

But I think there is far too much diversity and division across the spectrum of mankind, for people to ever settle our differences and get on.

Philosophy, greed, power and self interest could almost be held accountable for all our division. Christians know we are all worshipping the same God and the same Jesus, yet we splinter into thousands of denominations. Our division is probably the greatest argument against 'One God'.

It would be difficult for people to put their individuality (hopes and aspirations) aside for a cause that is greater than themselves.

God is greater than the sum of all the religions of the world put together. We are all created by the same God, we have a duty to care for al of God's creation. That has to mean caring for each other, despite our differences. I see hope when working alongside Churches Together in our town. We pray for each other, we pray for those in need and we do things together. We have opened food banks, homes for the homeless, good neighbours schemes and much more. I feel greatly encouraged being part of an interfaith group, where we do very much the same.

[PuerAzaelis]

Has anyone given this quote yet?

Tertullian is widely regarded as having originated the expression Credo quia absurdum (est) (I believe because it is absurd) and the phrase often appears in contemporary polemics about the rationality of religious belief.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals ... D804DED82E

[LuckyR]

Sy,

The rules always shift but the fact remains that many attempts have been made to find God and the soul via scientific means - because what other means do we, as a society, have? - and each attempt has yielded nothing.

But God is purported to be a personal being, we can’t ignore that. I don’t see how we can use empirical methods to find non-empirical things – that doesn’t seem logical. Religious testimonies are in most cases based on personal experience. We don’t have to accept them, but ruling out the existence of a spiritual entity on the basis of empirical science seems like a fallacy to me.

I appreciate personally that faith is the objective rather than the proof, but many theists don't agree with you. To fundamentalists, Biblical myths are more real than scientific experiments.

Define real.

Exactly, the metaphysical cannot be proven nor disproven through analysis of the physical.

Thus the religious can rest assured that their gods cannot be disproven, yet similarly their attempts to prove the existence of their gods is equally meaningless.

[Greatest I am]

Sy,

The rules always shift but the fact remains that many attempts have been made to find God and the soul via scientific means - because what other means do we, as a society, have? - and each attempt has yielded nothing.

But God is purported to be a personal being, we can’t ignore that. I don’t see how we can use empirical methods to find non-empirical things – that doesn’t seem logical. Religious testimonies are in most cases based on personal experience. We don’t have to accept them, but ruling out the existence of a spiritual entity on the basis of empirical science seems like a fallacy to me.

I appreciate personally that faith is the objective rather than the proof, but many theists don't agree with you. To fundamentalists, Biblical myths are more real than scientific experiments.

Define real.

Exactly, the metaphysical cannot be proven nor disproven through analysis of the physical.

Thus the religious can rest assured that their gods cannot be disproven, yet similarly their attempts to prove the existence of their gods is equally meaningless.

True, if one becomes an idol worshiper.

God, to this perpetual seeker, is just the best rules and laws to live by.

That is why we seek to raise the moral bars of those who presently idol worship the genocidal, homophobic and misogynous Christian, Jewish and Muslim Gods.

Regards
DL

[Belindi]

EricPH,

No matter what God anyone thinks they prays to, the same God hears all our prayers. The greater challenge is, how do we get on with each other despite all our differences?

If the case is that there is one God, then yes, certainly.

If there is only 'One God', it would make sense to search for a greatest good meaning of 'One God'.

But I think there is far too much diversity and division across the spectrum of mankind, for people to ever settle our differences and get on.

Philosophy, greed, power and self interest could almost be held accountable for all our division. Christians know we are all worshipping the same God and the same Jesus, yet we splinter into thousands of denominations. Our division is probably the greatest argument against 'One God'.

It would be difficult for people to put their individuality (hopes and aspirations) aside for a cause that is greater than themselves.

God is greater than the sum of all the religions of the world put together. We are all created by the same God, we have a duty to care for al of God's creation. That has to mean caring for each other, despite our differences. I see hope when working alongside Churches Together in our town. We pray for each other, we pray for those in need and we do things together. We have opened food banks, homes for the homeless, good neighbours schemes and much more. I feel greatly encouraged being part of an interfaith group, where we do very much the same.

It's hard for individualistic modern people to attend church services where the order of service always includes someone preaching at all the others. Even Unitarians have the standard order of service, the hymn sandwich.

Eric, are there Humanists in your interfaith group? Many if not most self styled 'atheists' are actually Humanists and don't know it.

[Fanman]

EricPH,

If there is only 'One God', it would make sense to search for a greatest good meaning of 'One God'.

Since we have a frame of reference for that, why do we need to find the “greatest good meaning”? If we assume that that
God is the greatest good, within ourselves we know what that means, an optimally good being.

Philosophy, greed, power and self interest could almost be held accountable for all our division. Christians know we are all worshipping the same God and the same Jesus, yet we splinter into thousands of denominations. Our division is probably the greatest argument against 'One God'.

I agree, but despite the division of the church, Christians all conform to the same policy, worshipping Christ. It is difficult for people to step away from our desires in favour of a belief, as we are not perfect beings, but the fact that we try means that the potential is there to do so. I believe that Jesus made an excellent point when he said, the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.

God is greater than the sum of all the religions of the world put together. We are all created by the same God, we have a duty to care for al of God's creation. That has to mean caring for each other, despite our differences. I see hope when working alongside Churches Together in our town. We pray for each other, we pray for those in need and we do things together. We have opened food banks, homes for the homeless, good neighbours schemes and much more. I feel greatly encouraged being part of an interfaith group, where we do very much the same.

It is good that you’ve found such a community, and nice to be part of such a warm and giving lifestyle. For a Christian, doing things that are pleasing to God is the goal. And if that also gives you a sense of fulfilment – then your faith is definitely an asset to you.

[Fanman]

LuckyR,

Exactly, the metaphysical cannot be proven nor disproven through analysis of the physical.

That is true to the extent of actually searching for its existence via physical means – actually trying to find God. But if there is a physical effect from a purportedly metaphysical happenstance, then we have a means of assessing if there is any validity to the metaphysical claim. That’s where I think we can build a foundation for enquiry. Otherwise, it is akin to chasing the wind.

Thus the religious can rest assured that their gods cannot be disproven, yet similarly their attempts to prove the existence of their gods is equally meaningless.

I don’t think so, faith is a tenuous thing. I don’t believe that anyone has unwavering faith – that’s why Christians or believers in God try to prove that their God is real. In the context of what is required for proof in an empirical sense, then yes it is meaningless. But to the believer, attaining proof of God’s existence is a personal thing, ideally.

[Belindi]

Sy,

The rules always shift but the fact remains that many attempts have been made to find God and the soul via scientific means - because what other means do we, as a society, have? - and each attempt has yielded nothing.

But God is purported to be a personal being, we can’t ignore that. I don’t see how we can use empirical methods to find non-empirical things – that doesn’t seem logical. Religious testimonies are in most cases based on personal experience. We don’t have to accept them, but ruling out the existence of a spiritual entity on the basis of empirical science seems like a fallacy to me.

I appreciate personally that faith is the objective rather than the proof, but many theists don't agree with you. To fundamentalists, Biblical myths are more real than scientific experiments.

Define real.

Exactly, the metaphysical cannot be proven nor disproven through analysis of the physical.

Thus the religious can rest assured that their gods cannot be disproven, yet similarly their attempts to prove the existence of their gods is equally meaningless.

Yes, but we don't need to talk about proof, only probability.In the case of miraculous interventions by a supernatural being it's more probable that the people who experienced the miracle were misinterpreting phenomena.

[LuckyR]

Sy,

The rules always shift but the fact remains that many attempts have been made to find God and the soul via scientific means - because what other means do we, as a society, have? - and each attempt has yielded nothing.

But God is purported to be a personal being, we can’t ignore that. I don’t see how we can use empirical methods to find non-empirical things – that doesn’t seem logical. Religious testimonies are in most cases based on personal experience. We don’t have to accept them, but ruling out the existence of a spiritual entity on the basis of empirical science seems like a fallacy to me.

I appreciate personally that faith is the objective rather than the proof, but many theists don't agree with you. To fundamentalists, Biblical myths are more real than scientific experiments.

Define real.

Exactly, the metaphysical cannot be proven nor disproven through analysis of the physical.

Thus the religious can rest assured that their gods cannot be disproven, yet similarly their attempts to prove the existence of their gods is equally meaningless.

Yes, but we don't need to talk about proof, only probability.In the case of miraculous interventions by a supernatural being it's more probable that the people who experienced the miracle were misinterpreting phenomena.

Absolutely correct, though it is not logical to criticize someone for believing in the possible but improbable.

[LuckyR]

LuckyR,

Exactly, the metaphysical cannot be proven nor disproven through analysis of the physical.

That is true to the extent of actually searching for its existence via physical means – actually trying to find God. But if there is a physical effect from a purportedly metaphysical happenstance, then we have a means of assessing if there is any validity to the metaphysical claim. That’s where I think we can build a foundation for enquiry. Otherwise, it is akin to chasing the wind.

Thus the religious can rest assured that their gods cannot be disproven, yet similarly their attempts to prove the existence of their gods is equally meaningless.

I don’t think so, faith is a tenuous thing. I don’t believe that anyone has unwavering faith – that’s why Christians or believers in God try to prove that their God is real. In the context of what is required for proof in an empirical sense, then yes it is meaningless. But to the believer, attaining proof of God’s existence is a personal thing, ideally.

To be correct, your definition of the word proof would be nonstandard.

Can you give an example of the actions of the metaphysical creating a physical effect?

[Fanman]

LuckyR,

To be correct, your definition of the word proof would be nonstandard.

Don’t you understand what I mean?

Can you give an example of the actions of the metaphysical creating a physical effect?

The fulfilment of prayer or Biblical scripture in a person's life.