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

[James S Saint]

I declare that since God's attributes are incoherent and contradict each other, that He cannot exist,.
.
.
Without a meaningful definition, one can hardly believe in something, and one cannot by definition instantiate any entity!

Nor can one declare non-existence.

[BlessedLunaticWiseman]

I declare that since God's attributes are incoherent and contradict each other, that He cannot exist, and even the arguments for Him are meaningless. This is the ignostic argument, the great argument against this married bachelor or square circle!
Without a meaningful definition, one can hardly believe in something, and one cannot by definition instantiate any entity!

The dear FINite "rationalist" seeking a deFINition for the inFINite!
Greetings;

Either there is an is,or there isn't any is!
But there is an is as the existence!
Either the is is self-sufficient,or indebted to an is for the existence!

deFINing the is(=making the is inFINite),you get "created"!
The is is the SEA,your ares are the WAVES!!
My am is derived from the same is,changing to the was in the honor of your were!


Yours/"Blessed Lunatic Wiseman"(the nonsense/serious/humorous)!

[rationalist griggsy]

Saint, without showing meaning, the term denotes, perforce, non-existence .And faith cannot instantiate existence.
Lunatic, such a sophism! It does not take omniscience to examine ideas to find them wanting, and you are begging the question of His incoherent attributes!
Please answer challenges without sophistry! I put on ignore those who do so!
I'm thankful that personal attacks are disallowed1 I do call attention to poor reasoning.

[BlessedLunaticWiseman]

Lunatic, such a sophism! It does not take omniscience to examine ideas to find them wanting, and you are begging the question of His incoherent attributes!
Please answer challenges without sophistry! I put on ignore those who do so!
I'm thankful that personal attacks are disallowed1 I do call attention to poor reasoning.

Dear "rationalist" who are ignorant about your "is"!
Greetings;

To do the sophism I should be,to "be" able to forge finally!
But you seem to "be" a "rationalist" without any particular need to "be".You think at first if you "are" or there "is" another one who thinks finally!!!?!

Well;...Is it the "existence" who really "exists" or the "substance"!??

Let's see the argument once again.

Suppose I'm a burning ass you're watching.
I'm a burning ass coinciding the concept (or the image )of the ass in your mind!

I wish you were the creator of the ass ,then I would ask if the ass in your mind was the same ass?!

If I wasn't the same ass(I mean the same substance in your mind(either before creating me,or after watching me as a burning ass),then you wouldn't grasp me as the particular ass we are talking of!You might think I was a crocodile,or deliver a crocodile instead of the ass!!!!!!!!!

So there are several burning asses in different minds;none of them are the burning one,though they are the same ass!

Well;How many "existence" are there for a particular ass?
NOTE:The particular ass may pass a glass to reach your eyes!

I guess there are different stages of the existence for a particular substance(:different stages of the existence for a particular ass!)!!

So objectivitycomes from the existence not the substance!If no the head of every single one who is imagining the ass should burn!


************************************************** ***
As I said several times on these threads:

1)If the "EXISTENTIAL CAUSE" offers the effect's identity as a whole,then the offered one will be the
effect's existence!The "Existential Cause"does as a "Shining One",the effects are indebted to it totally as the Gleams.

2)Returning to the Shining One,they kiss their own ARCHETYPES (or the God's Nose ) ,considering their specific "LORD"-falsely -as the God Almighty(as the Offering Of The Existence)!

3)But the Hidden Essence Of God Almighty remains untouchable,for there is no capacity for a limited ass to comprehend the INFINITE PURUS ESSNDI or the Pure Act Of The Existence!

You make think I'm playing with words;but seriously said,I feel I'm the God's Lip shaped as a Saxophone,delivering the lovely Songs of God altered,according to my capacity as the "heehaw" of the ass!!!!!!!!!



Yours/"Blessed Lunatic Wiseman"(the nonsense/serious/humorous)!

[Juice]

rationalist-"I declare"> pompous, hubris, so to said the king, "A Deo et Rege".

rationalist said

Without a meaningful definition, one can hardly believe in something, and one cannot by definition instantiate any entity!

Can you, rationalist, instantiate yourself to me without a meaningful definition.

Suchvorgang und sie finden, sie vinden, was sie suchen.

Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit.

I wake up each morning astonished by my existence and as I grow older, coming closer to death and further away from my birth, I feel a deeper need to understand the meaning for that astonishment. So I look to applied sciences and whether biology or physics I become increasing astonished that anything should exist at all. But then I realize, in fact, that nothing actually exists since it is far too improbable for something to exist. In this I mean that despite the measurements of science if it is possible for nothing to exist without it being something then it is possible for everything to exist just the same even my growing astonishment.

[akcelticwiccan]

If you believe in God please explain why.

If you don't believe in God please explain why.

Why I don't believe in God. I'm going to make the assumption that we are talking about a Christian God. To which I do not believe in. I have not yet to see any qualifying evidence to prove that any of the christian religion ever existed. Since I cannot not believe in something I chose paganism. Why paganism? Well it started with high school mythology. Granted I'm not exactly inclined to believe the Greek/Roman's hierarchy of gods and goddesses. It dawned on me one day that suppose for a moment that they do exist! But they have only remained an echo because of two things. 1) Christianity. At approx 318 AD (give or take a hundred years) Christianity has been trying to stomp out all pagan religions based on the fact that they were evil and devil worshiping. They turned the very symbol of a pagans power into a devils icon. Notice most christian holidays fall upon the pagan holidays. Jesus' birthday was not the 25th of December but rather in January. But rather it falls on a lunar cycle. The Solstice of Winter. A celebration of death of the god so that he will be reborn again in the spring. Easter was a cover for the May Day celebrations. No sex was until marriage was imposed to stop all pagan activities. Sex was used for the creation of and considered a powerful source of energy. Well that is all I have for now. I have the sand man tapping me on the shoulder...

[Kzirb]

I do not believe and never have believed in any Gods. As I was growing up, my parents did not force any religious or spiritual beliefs down my throat. There have been many instances in my life where people have tried to convince me that their God is real, but I have not been swayed. First and foremost, I do not have a good reason to believe in God. I have a solid set of morals and values that I uphold without the influence of the divine. I like to take responsibility for my own actions rather than laying blame on divine fate. Blaming fate is a cop out and will only prevent one from trying to prevent or fix the mistakes that they have made. I do not need a God concept in order to feel comforted. I get my comfort from my family, my close friends, and myself (In knowing that humans can have genuinely good intentions). I also do not find the vast mysteries of the universe to be a discomfort, but rather adventurous and a bit of a hobby.

The God concept simply leaves me with nothing to gain, and a lot to lose. If I were to believe in the God and the teachings of any major monotheism, I would fall subject to many negative tendencies. I would feel the weight of unnecessary guilt. This guilt would stem from the times when I failed to hold back perfectly natural actions or thoughts. I would be putting faith in an irrational worldview, leaving me open to make that same mistake time and time again. I would also consequently avoid a rational and scientific understanding of the universe as it would blatantly contradict my own beliefs.

The mysteries of the Universe may not yet be explained, but this does not make the concept of God any more worthy a solution.

IMO, truth for comfort is not a good trade.

[OTavern]

I do not believe and never have believed in any Gods. As I was growing up, my parents did not force any religious or spiritual beliefs down my throat. There have been many instances in my life where people have tried to convince me that their God is real, but I have not been swayed. First and foremost, I do not have a good reason to believe in God. I have a solid set of morals and values that I uphold without the influence of the divine. I like to take responsibility for my own actions rather than laying blame on divine fate. Blaming fate is a cop out and will only prevent one from trying to prevent or fix the mistakes that they have made. I do not need a God concept in order to feel comforted. I get my comfort from my family, my close friends, and myself (In knowing that humans can have genuinely good intentions). I also do not find the vast mysteries of the universe to be a discomfort, but rather adventurous and a bit of a hobby.

The God concept simply leaves me with nothing to gain, and a lot to lose. If I were to believe in the God and the teachings of any major monotheism, I would fall subject to many negative tendencies. I would feel the weight of unnecessary guilt. This guilt would stem from the times when I failed to hold back perfectly natural actions or thoughts. I would be putting faith in an irrational worldview, leaving me open to make that same mistake time and time again. I would also consequently avoid a rational and scientific understanding of the universe as it would blatantly contradict my own beliefs.

The mysteries of the Universe may not yet be explained, but this does not make the concept of God any more worthy a solution.

IMO, truth for comfort is not a good trade.

And neither is having comfort at the expense of truth. Apparently you are very comfortable making your own decisions with no "God" to disturb your tranquility. You are comfortable with your beliefs and the people around you and not having to be bothered "wondering" about the mysteries of creations. And certainly you are very comfortable having "no guilt" about the choices you make. Having confirmed all these determinations about the nature of reality and existence must be very comforting for you.

Who says God is the source of comfort? It appears that you are the source of your own comfort. So is having comfort worth the trade?

Personally I don't avoid "a rational and scientific understanding of the universe" because it doesn't "blatantly contradict my own beliefs." I have yet to find a rational and scientific understanding that does contradict my beliefs. What most people claim to be rational and scientific when dismissing God, are like your reasons, masked grabs for comfort. One thing which is certainly true about God is that He is not comfortable because He continually challenges growth, especially in aspects of being that we find comfortable.

Seems to me anyone would be more comfortable being left to their own "devices." What could be more comfortable than being your own boss? Much less comfortable having to allow "Truth" a complete say.

Seems to me that there are only two choices.

1. Declare yourself (your present state of thinking and feeling) to be in full authority (be God) over your own life or
2. Allow yourself to be fully at the discretion of truth (God) - completely open and willing and committed to know the "whole truth" and nothing but the truth.

The most difficult and uncomfortable position is to let Truth be God (2), it is much easier and more comfortable to let ourselves be God (1). Which is the reason I doubt your whole premise that belief in God promotes comfort. Denial of God definitely produces comfort because you are challenged by nothing that you choose not to be challenged by - that comes very close to a veritable definition of the word comfort.

Further, to make yourself the arbiter of truth means that you alone have full say over all truth - what to accept and what to dismiss. To be the judge of "rational and scientific" means that "by definition" your understanding of rational and scientific is the de facto, authoritative one. Speaking of faith, that seems to be a very strong faith in your own judgment and authority.

[Kzirb]

And neither is having comfort at the expense of truth. Apparently you are very comfortable making your own decisions with no "God" to disturb your tranquility. You are comfortable with your beliefs and the people around you and not having to be bothered "wondering" about the mysteries of creations. And certainly you are very comfortable having "no guilt" about the choices you make. Having confirmed all these determinations about the nature of reality and existence must be very comforting for you.

Just for clarification; trading truth for comfort and having comfort at the expense of truth mean the same thing in different words.

Some of what you say here is correct, let me point out the parts that are not. I did not directly mention making decisions, but rather the responsibility attached to every decision. Everyone makes their own decisions, some take full responsibility for them, some do not. I am comfortable with my values and gain comfort from a select few people. It's what I find within these people - empathic ability, the capacity for compassion, and the ability to love that gives me hope and thus comfort.

Here is where you really botch things up; "and not having to be bothered "wondering" about the mysteries of creations." I specifically stated that wondering about the mysteries of the universe (creation or not) is a hobby of mine. It is an adventure of the mind - and adventures are not always comfortable!

As for guilt, it is unavoidable after making a bad decision. Whether it be nature or nurture, I have quite the emotional capacity.

Life for me is not always comforting, but I have found ways, without God or religion, to find a necessary amount of comfort. This is why I don't need God.

Now that we have gotten these assumptions out of the way...

Who says God is the source of comfort? It appears that you are the source of your own comfort. So is having comfort worth the trade?

God being a source of comfort was my assumption. This assumption is based upon the feeling that when I put myself in the shoes of a believer, I imagine myself finding comfort in areas that I have not yet found through my set of beliefs. God, if I were to believe, could certainly provide extra comfort, but I find the necessities of comfort through other means. In other words, I am not so desperate for comfort that I'm willing to delude myself.

Personally I don't avoid "a rational and scientific understanding of the universe" because it doesn't "blatantly contradict my own beliefs." I have yet to find a rational and scientific understanding that does contradict my beliefs.

What faith are you of? In this section, I was specifically referring to the main monotheistic religions; Christianity, Judaism and Islam. There are scientific and rational principles that provide a tough challenge for biblical scripture. Many religious people avoid, shelter or discredit these principles without much chance or thought because they want to protect that which makes them comfortable. As for me, I am not attached to any particular belief, so I am willing to open my mind and critically think about almost any concept (Even Intelligent Design! Imagine that!). In a nutshell, being attached to a particular belief makes one susceptible to the irrational avoidance and unwillingness to consider any concept that may contradict it.

What most people claim to be rational and scientific when dismissing God, are like your reasons, masked grabs for comfort.

I agree to an extent. I don't know if it's for comforts sake, but I have witnessed a fair amount of atheists who's "rational" garbles seem to arise from some sort of anger or issue that they have had with religion rather than rational or critical thought. With that said, I think you have me all wrong.

One thing which is certainly true about God is that He is not comfortable because He continually challenges growth, especially in aspects of being that we find comfortable.

I don't understand what you are saying here. Would you mind elaborating or rewording?

Seems to me anyone would be more comfortable being left to their own "devices." What could be more comfortable than being your own boss? Much less comfortable having to allow "Truth" a complete say.

You think God is your boss? Didn't He give you free will?

Seems to me that there are only two choices.

1. Declare yourself (your present state of thinking and feeling) to be in full authority (be God) over your own life or
2. Allow yourself to be fully at the discretion of truth (God) - completely open and willing and committed to know the "whole truth" and nothing but the truth.

Oh, I'll take choice number 3. Allow yourself to be fully committed to logic - completely open, willing and committed to think rationally and nothing but rationally.

The most difficult and uncomfortable position is to let Truth be God (2), it is much easier and more comfortable to let ourselves be God (1). Which is the reason I doubt your whole premise that belief in God promotes comfort. Denial of God definitely produces comfort because you are challenged by nothing that you choose not to be challenged by - that comes very close to a veritable definition of the word comfort.

Many people follow religion solely based on the fear of judgment and hell. People find comfort in God because God provides answers for a lot of tough questions that have not yet been answered otherwise. He also provides direction. The only thing that may not be comfortable is that you are asked to restrain some harmless aspects of your nature. As for the harmful aspects - the rest of us are subject to consequence as well.

Further, to make yourself the arbiter of truth means that you alone have full say over all truth - what to accept and what to dismiss. To be the judge of "rational and scientific" means that "by definition" your understanding of rational and scientific is the de facto, authoritative one. Speaking of faith, that seems to be a very strong faith in your own judgment and authority.

I don't think in black and white. True or false is a silly game. I use my mental tools to determine the best available answer. This answer is always subject to change. I'm sure many scientists think in much the same way.

[OTavern]

Just for clarification; trading truth for comfort and having comfort at the expense of truth mean the same thing in different words.

Let me say that I am impressed by your reply. You did not react to my shelling, which does indicate a certain "detachment" from a need for assurance and a willingness to consider the truth for its own sake.

However, I don't agree that trading truth for comfort is quite the same thing as having comfort at the expense of truth.

In the former, it is assumed that truth and comfort are both understood and are deliberately traded. This implies a "selling-out" of truth. In the latter, the assumption is that comfort merely and always takes primacy over all else so truth is simply not even a consideration. Ignorance is bliss. The difference lies in motive: the first being "a calculated" response; the second is simply an unconsidered or habitual response.

The first would be intentional, the second "caused" as a result of an addiction to comfort. This might even be self-delusional in the sense of avoiding the truth by not paying any attention to anything but comfort. Someone so disposed might even have "comfortable" truths that are accepted because they are comfortable and so be deluded into thinking that the essence of truth is its "comfort producing" factor. I.e., Truth is by definition what is comfortable and anything uncomfortable would simply be false and hence not considered as possible truth.

Who says God is the source of comfort? It appears that you are the source of your own comfort. So is having comfort worth the trade?

God being a source of comfort was my assumption. This assumption is based upon the feeling that when I put myself in the shoes of a believer, I imagine myself finding comfort in areas that I have not yet found through my set of beliefs. God, if I were to believe, could certainly provide extra comfort, but I find the necessities of comfort through other means. In other words, I am not so desperate for comfort that I'm willing to delude myself.

Having comfort as a "precondition" for truth seems to place unnecessary restrictions on objective inquiry. The "comfort" of belief is irrelevant. We ought to believe what is true because it is true, not for any quality of comfort it may have or bring. To have comfort even "in the back of one's mind" when assessing truth value seems to unnecessarily "subjectify" truth. I would argue that in order to consider truth a kind of "fully aware" distance from emotion needs to be assumed.

What faith are you of? In this section, I was specifically referring to the main monotheistic religions; Christianity, Judaism and Islam. There are scientific and rational principles that provide a tough challenge for biblical scripture.

Not so simple. They are meant to provide a tough challenge, but that is not a reason for skirting the issues. Truth, if it is Truth must clearly withstand any such challenges. However, the stance of many atheists is to merely dismiss what is not understood as "unprovable" or dismiss a belief because of a misinterpretation of that belief.

[Kzirb]

However, I don't agree that trading truth for comfort is quite the same thing as having comfort at the expense of truth.

In the former, it is assumed that truth and comfort are both understood and are deliberately traded. This implies a "selling-out" of truth. In the latter, the assumption is that comfort merely and always takes primacy over all else so truth is simply not even a consideration. Ignorance is bliss. The difference lies in motive: the first being "a calculated" response; the second is simply an unconsidered or habitual response.

The first would be intentional, the second "caused" as a result of an addiction to comfort. This might even be self-delusional in the sense of avoiding the truth by not paying any attention to anything but comfort. Someone so disposed might even have "comfortable" truths that are accepted because they are comfortable and so be deluded into thinking that the essence of truth is its "comfort producing" factor. I.e., Truth is by definition what is comfortable and anything uncomfortable would simply be false and hence not considered as possible truth.

Fair enough.

Having comfort as a "precondition" for truth seems to place unnecessary restrictions on objective inquiry. The "comfort" of belief is irrelevant. We ought to believe what is true because it is true, not for any quality of comfort it may have or bring.

The comfort attached with a belief is absolutely not irrelevant. I agree that it ought to be, but that is just my opinion. People may not instantaneously believe in something because it comforts them, but they are certainly willing to work towards convincing themselves. In this case, the person who wants to believe in God for comforts sake hand picks the evidence, hears only support, and disregards the rest as rubbish. Similarly, the atheist who wants to feel justified in their indulgence of life's more "carnal" pleasures will hand pick their evidence, hear only support, and disregard the rest as rubbish. In this case, the subject of delusion experiences their truth as universal truth.

To have comfort even "in the back of one's mind" when assessing truth value seems to unnecessarily "subjectify" truth. I would argue that in order to consider truth a kind of "fully aware" distance from emotion needs to be assumed.

You are absolutely right here. Emotion is the catalyst for irrational beliefs and behavior. When trying to determine truth, or thinking critically about things, I set my emotions (namely pride) aside, so that I can consider each viewpoint without bias. I don't always succeed in this, but I have often found myself surprised of what I discover when I let go of pride and other mentally debilitating emotions.

Not so simple. They are meant to provide a tough challenge, but that is not a reason for skirting the issues.

The challenge is the very point of the matter. There are blatant contradictions between certain scientific principles and certain interpretations of various different faiths or theistic beliefs. The point that I'm making has nothing to do with which side is "true", but the behavior expressed by those who are attached to a certain belief. The most important point that I made in my previous post is as follows: "In a nutshell, being attached to a particular belief makes one susceptible to the irrational avoidance and unwillingness to consider any concept that may contradict it." A rational stance on any concept is to hold nothing as absolute. Doing so would only prevent us from ever discovering "truth" (or the next best answer ) In Christianity, God does not forgive those who doubt, thus making his truth (a persons faith) absolute. If Christianity is not truth, then those who put faith in that concept of God have only stunted their possibilities of discovering a better answer.

The stance of many atheists is to merely dismiss what is not understood as "unprovable" or dismiss a belief because of a misinterpretation of that belief.

There have always been various misconceptions regarding the beliefs of atheists. A gnostic atheist believes that God does not exist. An agnostic atheist believes that God probably does not exist. In my experience, evidence suggests that God in any traditional sense of the term probably does not exist. If anyone claims to have personal evidence that God exists, I reserve the right to remain skeptical .

[athena]

I believe the universe is organized by an intelligent force. I do not believe this force intervenes personally in our lives.

I believe we may infer something about what we might call God, through the study of nature. I think all holy books, and books on math, science, philosophy help us know truth, and none are more important than another. That is to say, everything in those books is human thought, not the word of God, no matter how accurately they may speak of truth, and the God presented in the Christian bible is not believable to me, any more than I believe in Krishna or Zeus.

[OTavern]

A rational stance on any concept is to hold nothing as absolute. Doing so would only prevent us from ever discovering "truth" (or the next best answer )

That is in itself an absolute stance - to hold nothing as absolute. In other words, truth is tentative and therefore no truth at all. Self-contradictory.

A better rational stance is to hold that truth is what is absolute and the onus is on the truth-claimer to establish and maintain the truth value in the face of all contradictory evidence. It is very rational to believe in the absolute nature of truth because truth is, at bottom, a representation of what must be - what absolutely is.

In Christianity, God does not forgive those who doubt, thus making his truth (a persons faith) absolute. If Christianity is not truth, then those who put faith in that concept of God have only stunted their possibilities of discovering a better answer.

Not true of Christianity. I suspect you have a misunderstanding of doubt and faith. What God doesn't forgive is stubborn refusal. Honest doubt is one way to the truth.

Further, faith in the "concept of God" is no faith at all. Faith has to be "in God" not in a conceptualization of God. A conceptualization is a representation of God that in fact is a false idol. To have real faith, the faith has to be "in God," not in a concept of God. To trust God you have to know God, Who God is. This is not mental gymnastics "about" God, this is encounter with Truth.

This is similar to someone who claims to love someone else. There are two possibilities. The person may 1) love their idea of that other person or 2) actually love that person.

Love #1 is virtually always the love of someone who "falls in love." They cannot really love the other person because they don't really know the other person as they are in themselves, therefore their love can only be a love for an "idea" of that person, an illusion about that person because that person cannot be known in such a short time. This idea of love may in fact lead to disillusionment or worse because it is not Truth that forms the basis of this love, it is emotion.

Love #2 is a journey of discovery to find out all about the other because this kind of love realizes that the other person is indeed "other" and therefore part of this real love is a "getting" to know the other, as other, more completely. This love is only possible to someone who knows themselves deeply because the depth we know ourselves determines the depth we can know others.

This applies to God as well, because the depth we know ourselves is the depth we can know God. In fact, at a point it becomes God "knowing" us, because at that point we become open to complete and absolute truth "about self." We know self as we are known by God - that is faith becoming realized because Truth is trusted to push past all fears and insecurities to the point of self being grounded in absolute Truth. We are not afraid to be "open" to the absolute Truth because we trust or have faith in the absolute Truth of Being. This trust overcomes fear and insecurity to allow self-discovery beyond what is possible to self-alone. It is a mirror held up to the soul and only possible with absolute "trust" in the Love of the Absolute.

Only when God knows us completely can we know ourselves completely and God can only "know" us completely when we trust God to be completely present in the absolute depth of Being.

God in Christianity does not command us to "have faith." God commands us to "love with our entire being." That assumes an understanding that other is indeed other and very discoverable, but on its terms, not ours, because if discovery is on our terms, "other" cannot be other, just self (desires, emotions, wants, longings, etc.) that is projected on other.

We find out "Who God is," in a journey of discovery. God is not a concept or an image created in our minds that we analyze and believe or analyze and reject. God is Who I AM and becomes known as He is in Himself the more we know and love Truth, the more we become ourselves, in Truth. No hiding behind insecurities, fears, comfortable feelings or self-delusion, just naked Being in Truth. This is God - Absolute Truth. Our "faith" has to be in Absolute Truth rather than in limited "self."

[PurpleBottle]

See, by general human definition, god would be an omnipotent (all-powerful) and benevolent. If that definition stands, then let me pose this question.

God is all-powerful and all-knowing.

Can god create a rock heavy enough that he himself will be unable to lift it?

(For those to perceive and would like to argue that god is not a being of physical existence, well then, put this into context -- if he is omnipotent, let he create a body for our little experiment, oui?)

[OTavern]

See, by general human definition, god would be an omnipotent (all-powerful) and benevolent. If that definition stands, then let me pose this question.

God is all-powerful and all-knowing.

Can god create a rock heavy enough that he himself will be unable to lift it?

See Post #110 in the thread Questions I'd Like to See a Christian Answer

http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... &start=105