Philosophy Discussion Forums

Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD wrote: ↑December 22nd, 2023, 11:22 am What makes me believe that the God of my religion exists?

My religion is Buddhism, and Buddhism is an a-theistic religion :

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=19194

and therefore I don't need to prove anything to anyone.

My composure fell to a troll... I didn't expect such behavior on a Philosophy forum and I didn't know how to react other than argumentation for the sake of it. I'm glad this was duly moderated. I'm also glad to witness that it was in fact duly moderated. I also apologize for how I reacted.

e_knaapen wrote: ↑December 26th, 2023, 11:40 pm Because we are not able to prove or disprove the existence of God, answering the question "does God exist?" will involve some faith (as you say- even for atheists). We can decide to be true agnostics; but, per the law of non-contradiction, God either does or does not exist, so an agnostic doesn't give him/herself a chance at answering life's greatest question correctly. If God exists, it is absolutely the most important thing to have faith, and to start living life with Him.

Epistemic justification isn't possible either way- it takes faith. Partially, it's your choice- what do you want to have faith in? But also, I would recommend reaching out to God in prayer, and asking Him to reveal Himself to you. "You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart."

Hail to you. Thank you for your response!

Let me do a definition first. Perhaps it will shed more light: "Philosophy." To me philosophy means "logic + practical-wisdom/ prudence"

I have to disagree that we cannot bear true agnosticism. I personally think it's the most rational path (although not the ultimate one because your idea of God (lessness) depends on your life circumstances). Put it this way: if an all-powerful, all-loving God wanted me to believe in Him, oh I would! He would make it so. The problem with faith is that it definitionally means belief based on bad evidence.

With all due respect, "either God exists or God does not exists" is the law of excluded middle, although non-contradiction is pretty close on this one. While this is the case that either God exists or doesn't exist, you CAN and I would argue SHOULD put that on "I don't know."

It's the same as "either many universes (multiverse) where my life goes exactly the way I want exist or they don't." If they do, even they do maybe I can transfer my conscience back and forth and make this universe the best one. Maybe.

A multiverse is 100% possible at this point according to Quantum Mechanics. Should I count on it as a matter of philosophy? No. Why not? Too many maybes. Maybe there's a universe where the Kraken exists! That's legit. The infamous philosophical quandary applies here (although originally pretty much a non-quandary).

Philosophically I shouldn't just discard THAT Kraken... It's simply fine to say that "I don't know." We barely know about the how of the Big Bang as of yet. So I can defer. But in 2024 I can also LIVE without knowing whether or not the Kraken exists somewhere in the multiverse. Until the Kraken or the multiverse is knowledge, it doesn't affect my prudence or practical decision-making.

Now you might say "saying 'I don't know' is indecisive and de-structive. Not cons-tructive." And I'll reply "there's enough knowledge and truths at our disposition, especially 2024, that we can ground ourselves very firmly and live an absolutely meaningful life (I plan to make a thread about possibly the "how" and test it out).

Howdy! Good to see you again

Stoppelmann wrote: ↑December 27th, 2023, 12:56 am Have we defined what "exist" means?

Sure. I suppose "objective existence" regardless of human knowledge is a given in terms of our understanding in this discussion.

I'd say once again existence means "is conscious, can make decisions and can affect human experience consequentially."

Stoppelmann wrote: ↑December 27th, 2023, 12:56 am The requirement of having objective reality or being assumes that we can inspect what people call God, and confirm his existence. We can't even inspect dark matter or a number of phenomena that we suspect exist. Is there much chance of going beyond the agnostic position?

No it doesn't assume God exists.

Excluded middle: Either God exists or God doesn't exist. But that's what we're debating. We can't circle back and explain the debate by its own subject.

"God of the gaps" is not God, it's human limitation.

Yes there's a lot we don't know about. At least we know there's dark matter, I'd bet the house (and the gf ) that there's waaaaayyy more that exists which we currently don't even have a concept of.

BUT

Plato: "OMG you should see WiFi! It's incredible!"

Aristotle: "What does it do?"

Plato: "Well it works a phone and a computer. People can do philosophy with each other around the world within seconds!"

Aristotle: "That's incredible! Show me the pone and the cmputer"

Plato: "Sorry I can't. We're 2300 years too early. Doesn't exist yet... But it will exist."

Next Aristotle goes "No, no such thing is true or possible" OR "Yes, God does great things."

Neither of these answers is rational or true. Does that make sense? Maybe I shouldn't take the forefathers of Philosophy as a simplistic example but my point is that: two above-average intelligence dudes testing the limits of the human mind in ancient Greece would have their rationality challenged in a bad way if they hit the bedrock of the concept of 2024 broadband internet! It appears the last answer could only come to that in a practical sense about something that's unfathomable in 300 BCE.

That's my point about why it's not only ok but good to say "I don't know" when we have no way of knowing. I believe that in 2024, we have so much access to valuable information, knowledge and truths that we can live a firmly grounded and meaningful life even if we don't know (yet) whether God exists or not (or what happened 2 seconds before the Big Bang).

Note: That doesn't mean we should stop asking ourselves the question or working on the most sincere answer. I just feel that the sincere answer right now is: "I don't know."

Hey buddy. Good to see ya!

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑December 27th, 2023, 10:32 am Objectivists often say such things, but what is the point in saying "It either is or it isn't", when there is no way to tell which one is correct? If you can't tell which one is 'right', what's the point?

I don't know... You can challenge me on that... But I think you can tell what's "right" and what's correct. My point is what is truly true is right, correct and moral. Yeah, I'm kind of willing to die on that hill until I'm challenged to see differently either by someone's good arguments or by life herself.

(I'm too tempted to quote Jordan here: "life is difficult. Mother Nature gives you the breath of life and then spends the next 100 years trying to take it away from you through various means. In the end, she ALWAYS wins the game!"... I definitely butchered that lol).

Cheers!

A Material Girl wrote: ↑December 27th, 2023, 7:32 pm If I may ask you, have you asked God in prayer to reveal Himself to you?

I don't mean to push you. I think you have other powers and I'm stating that completely unironically. But nevertheless, I wish to give you the grace of a philosopher.

May I please ask: what exactly is your position?

On the one hand, you replied to me seemingly convinced by that fake "quote" on your thread saying something to the effect of "Einstein proved through the Big Bang there is no God" or something to that effect.

That quote is just ludicrous btw because General Relativity (which is one of two theories which gave Einstein MEGAGENIUS status, we'll say) cannot measure anything that happened at the Big Bang. Einstein himself believed there's a God (a non-personal, Spinoza's weird God, but he believed in God nevertheless).

On the other hand, you asked "If I may ask you, have you asked God in prayer to reveal Himself to you?" - That wouldn't prove God. It'd have to be more concrete than that. The Bible says "Ask and ye shall receive." Did you ever pray ask for something and it didn't come to fruition? 10 things? All your life?" It almost never comes true. That's the problem. Then you start to ask yourself "is that real. That's just like Santa Claus but at least he brings me what I want every year and the Grinch never shows up... But the bad red God-enemy dude with horns seems to show up half of my life and squander my prayers... Is that even real?"

Do you believe God exists? Or not? Or you still don't know?

Nothing wrong with any position. Believer, not sure, non-believer. I'm in the third category and it's not as bad as you might think it is lol.

But I'm curious where do you fall? And what is it ultimately that you want to know? Because that's clear to me.

Cheers!

Philosophy_of_Guitar wrote: ↑April 27th, 2024, 5:31 pm Nothing wrong with any position. Believer, not sure, non-believer. I'm in the third** category and it's not as bad as you might think it is lol.

Oops I meant second** category, my bad.

Cheers!

JJJ wrote: ↑January 22nd, 2024, 8:42 pm I find it interesting that the majority of religious people have no problem in recognising the false gods of religions other than their own. They will go along with all the logic as to why these gods cannot exist but if you apply the exact same reasoning in regard to their religion’s god…..they cannot see it.

I think it would be safe to say that at least 95% of the world religious population are what they are because of the random chance of who their parents are and the location they were born. I was raised as a Christian so I read the bible cover to cover- twice and it took just three incidences from that book to convince me that the god of the bible does not exist…

Yes exactly! 95% people simply adhere to the religions they're born in and never question ANY SINGLE THING for a second. They never went for more than 2 pages of their "sacred" books, if that. Good points!

JJJ wrote: ↑January 22nd, 2024, 8:42 pm I find it interesting that the majority of religious people have no problem in recognising the false gods of religions other than their own.

The Hindus understand this rather better. They believe that there is one ineffable God, Brahman, and that all 'Gods' recognised by humans are valid, because they all illustrate aspects of Brahman. So Zeus is God, Allah is God, and Quetzlcoatl is God too. I think Americans could be in difficulty, though, as I don't think their Sacred Dollar is an aspect of God. But maybe it's me who misunderstands...?

Philosophy_of_Guitar wrote: ↑April 27th, 2024, 4:57 pm Hey buddy. Good to see ya!

You too!

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑December 27th, 2023, 10:32 am Objectivists often say such things, but what is the point in saying "It either is or it isn't", when there is no way to tell which one is correct? If you can't tell which one is 'right', what's the point?

Philosophy_of_Guitar wrote: ↑April 27th, 2024, 4:57 pm I don't know... You can challenge me on that... But I think you can tell what's "right" and what's correct.

Let's be careful here. I can tell what's "right" merrick.stephen@gmail.com morally right, that is — even though that would be my *opinion*. What is "correct" is more objective, and I cannot state honestly that I "can tell" what is correct. Can you?

Philosophy_of_Guitar wrote: ↑April 27th, 2024, 2:14 pm The problem with faith is that it definitionally means belief based on bad evidence.

Faith cannot stand against convincing, contradictory evidence. Having said that, evidence may not even be necessary for faith to exist, and to do its thing. I venerate Gaia as God, and I see things (partly) based on this perspective, that the Universe is a living thing, and each of us is an indivisible part of that Whole. I have no evidence for this at all. None. But I believe nonetheless, and my belief sets many of my paths and directions in a way that I value highly. My God *works* for me, here in the real world, in that way. So what if I can't offer scientific evidence that She exists? I don't care. Do you?

Philosophy_of_Guitar wrote: ↑April 27th, 2024, 4:14 pm Excluded middle: Either God exists or God doesn't exist.

Random comment: The so-called 'Law' of the Excluded Middle applies only to binary thinking. If we branch out toward systems thinking, that I prefer to call network thinking, then the 'Law' of the Included Middle applies...

Either, or, both, or neither...

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 28th, 2024, 7:44 am

Philosophy_of_Guitar wrote: ↑April 27th, 2024, 4:57 pm I don't know... You can challenge me on that... But I think you can tell what's "right" and what's correct.

Let's be careful here. I can tell what's "right" morally right, that is — even though that would be my *opinion*. What is "correct" is more objective, and I cannot state honestly that I "can tell" what is correct. Can you?

Howdy!

Should this email address be removed from these posts?

With regards to your answer, unless and until we know whether God exists:

1. Whatever makes the greatest possible amount of conscious beings the most fulfilled and prosperous is the highest moral virtue.

2. Conversely, whatever brings the maximum amount of pain and suffering, for the maximum amount of time, to the greatest possible amount of conscious beings is the utmost evil.

So whatever action or belief moves the needle closer to 1. is right and whatever action or belief moves the needle closer to 2. is wrong. (again if a god exists, these might change).

You're indeed right in saying that we cannot tell with absolute philosophical certitude that anything at all is objectively right (other than the fact that you think and you exist right now)... However, we have to pull ourselves by the bootstrap at some point and accept what's empirically true. The fact that you get hungry or have a great mean or that you're happy or sad, all that is correct in the context that we're framing the term "correct."

Cheers

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 28th, 2024, 7:52 am Faith cannot stand against convincing, contradictory evidence. Having said that, evidence may not even be necessary for faith to exist, and to do its thing. I venerate Gaia as God, and I see things (partly) based on this perspective, that the Universe is a living thing, and each of us is an indivisible part of that Whole. I have no evidence for this at all. None. But I believe nonetheless, and my belief sets many of my paths and directions in a way that I value highly. My God *works* for me, here in the real world, in that way. So what if I can't offer scientific evidence that She exists? I don't care. Do you?

What you raised is an important aspect of this discussion. And to answer, I would say it depends.

I have a friend who's a Jehovah's Witness. She believes that she's not worthy to be baptized because she had pre-marital sex and that Satan is in the wild to knock her down and tempt her at every step. Her best friend is gay and she believes he will go to hell! When I say "believe," in her mind and inner world, that's knowledge. She also has a few mood disorders including Major Depressive Disorder.

It's crystal clear to me that her mental disorders are tightly linked to her belief system. So in this case, her faith is causing her horrible suffering and a bleak worldview. Therefore, what she believes in is bad for her.

On the other hand, my other friend is Christian but separates religious from non-religious tasks and does just fine. I think then that's probably good.

However, I have a caveat... If his back one day is truly against the wall and he makes decisions based on his Christian belief (that's when people become the most religious, when the going gets really tough), is that going to be good for him? Because then he may make poor decisions based on bad evidence (faith).

This is what happened to me and this is what truly accentuated my agnosticism. I made poor decisions during the roughest time of my life based on the belief that if I'm a good, moral, decent human, God won't let me fall. I nearly fell all the way to 6 feet under, literally. It's only after I came out that I started thinking "what did I do wrong?" Then I realized I acted intensely illogically based on an irrational belief.

So I hope my Christian friend never has to get to this point where his faith is truly tested.

I wish the same to you.

Do you believe that Gaia truly exists as a conscious being? Or an ethereal being who is a representation of the Earth and does not necessarily have agency or consciousness?

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 28th, 2024, 7:57 am

Philosophy_of_Guitar wrote: ↑April 27th, 2024, 4:14 pm Excluded middle: Either God exists or God doesn't exist.

Random comment: The so-called 'Law' of the Excluded Middle applies only to binary thinking. If we branch out toward systems thinking, that I prefer to call network thinking, then the 'Law' of the Included Middle applies...

Either, or, both, or neither...

The law of Excluded Middle is a law of logic. As such it is a tautology; it is true in any and every circumstance.

Either p or not p. P and not-p cannot both be true at the same time.

Here's the syllogism:

1. God exists
2. God doesn't exist.

Either 1 or 2 is true.
Both 1 and 2 cannot be simultaneously true.
And the statement "neither 1 nor 2 is true" is devoid of sense.

Cheers!

Philosophy_of_Guitar wrote: ↑May 17th, 2024, 10:14 pmI have a friend who's a Jehovah's Witness. She believes that she's not worthy to be baptized because she had pre-marital sex and that Satan is in the wild to knock her down and tempt her at every step. Her best friend is gay and she believes he will go to hell! When I say "believe," in her mind and inner world, that's knowledge. She also has a few mood disorders including Major Depressive Disorder.

It's crystal clear to me that her mental disorders are tightly linked to her belief system. So in this case, her faith is causing her horrible suffering and a bleak worldview. Therefore, what she believes in is bad for her.

On the other hand, my other friend is Christian but separates religious from non-religious tasks and does just fine. I think then that's probably good.

My sister became a Jehovah's Witness. I would say she was depressed before joining up, hence her recruitment. My impression was that the religion satisfied her social needs - to find a nice, trustworthy husband without bad habits and a crowd of nice people whom she could trust. As a result, she struck me as pretty happy with it all. She didn't mind throwing away her knowledge and replacing it with fundamentalist superstition. After, the creation of the universe and evolution are arcane stuff that make little difference to one's daily life. In Camus's words, she committed "philosophical suicide".

At her funeral, there were about 260 or so Witnesses. I talked with dozens of them because she and I looked a bit alike, and I had the feeling that I was like I was a bridge to her for them, if that makes sense. I was amazed at how many of them not only knew her, but clearly knew her well. She must have become a mighty networker

The beauty of religion is that you can set aside all of your questions about life and just get on with it. Unlike my sister, I was always always watching, assessing, wondering and questioning. She did that before religion, but after her conversion she got on with work, family life and friends.

Religion is a great idea. It brings societies together, facilitates control, acts as a social conduit and frees people from philosophical /existential concerns. It would seem more attractive to me personally if theists conceded that the magical aspects of their religion were either metaphorical or ancient "marketing", and to realise that miracles are available, but in your head. All you need is to want God in your head, and you have it. God is a purely subjective entity.

It's fascinating. Humans seem to function better when they put harsh reality through a softening filter. We apparently function better with BS than reality. Fair enough, too. Reality is not kind. The Earth has a history of extraordinary creation, albeit with suffering and death as major components.

I don't subscribe to Lovelock's Gaia, the one who is being destroyed by humans who are absurdly not considered to be part of Gaia. Destruction is simply part of the world's (often harsh) creative processes, as per prior extinction events.

Further, if the Earth has a mind, it is fragmented, more like the nerve net of a jellyfish than a chordate's brain. At present, the Earth has many billions of minds - from the simple minds of its invertebrates to its technology-enhanced humans.

I see the Earth slowly moving towards several loci of control, largely based on the US, China, India and Islam. However, over time (a very long time away, probably post-biology), there will probably be one single locus of control. That could be called Gaia/God.

Imagine single amalgamated super-mind awakens. It is alone in space, surrounded by mindlessness for trillions of kms. It would need to build bases all over the solar system for company, or it would go nuts or die. In time, Earth will be too hot or even a super-mind and it's superior tech, and it will need to move away. Maybe it will be able to store basic copies of its mind in Von Neumann probes and spread across the galaxy?

It would be rather godlike ...