Philosophy Discussion Forums

[b]Scribbler60[/b] wrote: There are actually two questions here:

1. Is there a god?
2. Is believing in a god somehow useful?

The answer to 1 is "probably not" because there's no evidence for one. I say "probably" because evidence might very well arise tomorrow, but in the thousands of years of trying, the success rate in proving the existence of a divine superintelligence has been zero. In a world or universe where the was a god, the existence of said god should be plainly obvious. Just the very fact that there is some dispute should put to bed the notion of an omnipotent divine superintelligence that answers prayers, is interested in humanity and cares what you do - especially when you're naked, apparently.

Good points but I differ on the above "probably."

If anyone were to claim their god has anthropomorphic qualities and imperfect, then, yes, it is probably empirically possible to exists as real, subject to the production of empirical evidence. In reality the probability is more realistically zero but in principle [because of the empirical-rational elements] we cannot eliminate its possibility totally.

I am arguing, like a squared-circle, it is impossible for a god which must be absolutely perfect to exist as real.
The point is God as an idea [philosophically and psychologically] must be absolutely perfect, else that God will be kissing the ass of another more perfect, or absolutely perfect God.
Any normal theist when faced with such a dilemma will adopt an absolutely perfect God, i.e. an ontological God. This was what St. Anselm and Descartes did for Christianity. The God in the Quran claim itself to be the ONLY absolutely perfect God and no other gods exist.

The contradiction is this: to respect and care for life-processes, to take responsibility for treating the natural order properly, is to rise above it.

Well if that is what you take out my words then I have demonstrated that this

As with Bacon, it is obvious to me that without God, humans have no way to distinguish themselves from beasts or to rise above their baser natures.

Is not true. Although it's the without God bit that I demonstrate is false not the distinguished from beasts and base nature bit (as I intended).

Eduk wrote:

As with Bacon, it is obvious to me that without God, humans have no way to distinguish themselves from beasts or to rise above their baser natures.

Is not true. Although it's the without God bit that I demonstrate is false not the distinguished from beasts and base nature bit (as I intended).

Yes, humans can eschew violence, not through fear, ritual or a snap risk assessment like other species, but logic and adherence to moral codes .

Further, I see no reason whatsoever to consciously distinguish ourselves from "beasts". Isn't the difference obvious enough for us to notice yet so we still need to point it out? However, many of us consider other species to be fascinating, beautiful and very much worthy of respect and kindness, and not inferior so much as different and simpler.

It's cute that we humans should still be insecure about our place in the biosphere even as we live in an ocean of skyscrapers, communicating instantly across the world by interpreting small black marks on screens, with our spacecraft accurately locating worlds in space many millions of kms away moving at unearthly speeds, landing safely and performing experiments.

Yes, we humans are different to other species, being one of the great emergences of the Earth, along with abiogenesis and multicellularity. None of this has anything to do with God, unless one believes the universe is gradually evolving to become more godlike (de Chardin's Omega Point), which would make humanity arguably a forward step towards that end.

Spectrum wrote:

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 here '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?

Why? Because of a combination of momentum and dogma.

There is no way to prove, nor could there be any evidence for, a God, because such a thing is simply outside of the boundaries of empiricism.

Nonetheless, the proposition is quite reasonable.

What is actually unreasonable is saying that something probably doesn't exist simply because we have never experienced it ("no evidence"), when the phenomenon in question could not be experienced in the first place (i.e. no evidence would be possible), particularly when the existence of that something would make the Universe more sensible and coherent.

What is actually unreasonable is saying that something probably doesn't exist simply because we have never experienced it

I agree with this. Probability is inapplicable. Concepts such as probability and randomness have specific purposes - they apply to situations that are repeatable and empirical. An event is probable if it is observed to happen in the same way on many repetitions. An event is random if it is observed to happen in a a different way, with no pattern, on many repetitions.

That's why it's meaningless to make statements about such things as the probability of the universe appearing, randomly, from nothing. If we had a whole series of universes to observe, some of which appeared from nothing but most of which didn't, then it would be meaningful. But we don't. We have one.

-- Updated Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:55 am to add the following --

LuckyR:

Why? Because of a combination of momentum and dogma.

Because of nice weddings and funerals and sweet dreams when our little life is rounded with a sleep.

Atreyu wrote:There is no way to prove, nor could there be any evidence for, a God, because such a thing is simply outside of the boundaries of empiricism.

Nonetheless, the proposition is quite reasonable.

What is actually unreasonable is saying that something probably doesn't exist simply because we have never experienced it ("no evidence"), when the phenomenon in question could not be experienced in the first place (i.e. no evidence would be possible), particularly when the existence of that something would make the Universe more sensible and coherent.

A postulation for God is only reasonable and has critical utility & necessity for a very specific existential psychological reason but NEVER for consideration that it is real empirically & rationally.

For something to make the Universe more sensible and coherent reasonably, that something must be conditioned by empirical or empirically possible elements [of the senses] and within rationality [philosophical reason].

God which must ultimately be an absolutely perfect God is merely a thought [idea] and is totally void of empirical and empirically-possible elements and thus cannot be real, i.e. an impossibility. We cannot even attach any probability of real existence to God because such an idea is a non-starter for any consideration of real existence.

Earthellism can prove the existence of God,Heaven and Hell. The book " The Life and Death of Planet Earth" is the foundation of this philosophy. The greatest obstacle to prove the existence of God is the inability to solve the problem of Evil. Earthellism states that Hell is the surface of Earth and there is no Hell below us or anywhere else. Human devils cause the pain and suffering here beyond God's control. By solving the problem of Evil, it is clear that God is omnibenevolent here and only omnipotent in Heaven where God resides. Earthell is a God-less place and Hell was always thought to be a place absent from God. Two lines of evidence prove God exists, also where God is located. First of all, human beings have a soul which is much older than their physical body. This soul is not created by your parents but by your Creator, God. The second line of evidence that God exists and resides in this solar system very close to planet Earth is that some entity clearly has protected us form large asteroids over the last 65 million years. We were overdue for these asteroids for the last millions of years and they would have stopped our existence. God has protected us from these extinction level asteroids. The exact location of God was documented by Voyager as it was leaving our solar system. It was ordered to take an image of earth from 6 billion miles away and that image shows a large sunbeam only focused on earth like a giant force-field surrounding and protecting earth. That image shows God surrounding and protecting Earth and also keeping all astronauts who have ventured into space to never die in space but to return to earth. God has guided all our astronauts back to earth dead or alive. The final proof of God is Love. God is the creator and sustainer of Love a force that is the strongest in the Universe and in many ways God is Love and Love is God.

I wonder do you imagine people reading about earthell and then nodding sagely? Or shaking their head in disbelief people can be so crazy? Or something in-between of course.

Please solve the problem of Evil without using atheism as the only solution. Philosophy not Religion solves problems and answer questions. As Atheism and closet atheists increase and destroy this world, earthellism is a philosophy that helps atheist and closet atheist to develop some level of spirituality and end our current cycle of mass murders, genocides and wars.

Maybe I missed something. Since when is empiricism the sole criterion of what is real?

Dark Matter wrote: ↑December 31st, 2017, 1:51 pm Maybe I missed something. Since when is empiricism the sole criterion of what is real?

That is a bold question to ask. What would be your argument for why it isn't? Is there another criterion that can define what is real? Experience maybe?

Fanman wrote: ↑December 31st, 2017, 3:51 pm

Dark Matter wrote: ↑December 31st, 2017, 1:51 pm Maybe I missed something. Since when is empiricism the sole criterion of what is real?

That is a bold question to ask. What would be your argument for why it isn't? Is there another criterion that can define what is real? Experience maybe?

What's bold is the claim that empiricism is the sole criterion of reality. One can't get more self-centered than that.

Darsham you didn't answer my question. It wasn't rhetorical.

DM:

I don't understand? Why is it "self-centred" to claim that empiricism is the sole criterion of reality? It may not be right, but self-centred? In my view, to claim that is to believe that only that which can be examined or verified by empirical evidence is real. Such a claim is reflective of one's view of reality, not the person themselves. The irony is, without evidence to the contrary it's not an unfounded claim. You need to expound on these one-liners (which you are clearly capable of), as they make you seem bias. Perhaps you could provide an example which validates the thrust of your argument.