I can’t believe that anyone finds this interesting, let alone that it’s still going on.
Seriously. I called in on the first page. It’s a reformulation of the problem of evil. Anyone posting on a philosophy should know the limits of both sides of this debate like the backs of their hands.
Boring.
The ‘problem of evil’ as I had explained is a subset of this OP’s encompassing thesis, God is an Impossibility.
Your last point was,
viewtopic.php?p=2683397#p2683397
i.e. you insisted you had never heard of people claiming God as what I am presenting, e.g. a perfect God.
I provided a link from SEP re Descartes claiming a Supremely Perfect Being.
I have further argued here, the ultimate of any God must imperatively be an absolutely perfect God, else a theist will end up with an inferior God. When made aware their gods are inferior, a rational believer will opt for a more superior God, the most perfect God and to the ultimate of ‘a Being than which no greater can be conceived’ - the ontological God.
Boring? obviously you are entitled to your opinion.
This proof [God is an Impossibility] is very significant for humanity’s progress and well being.
This proof ‘God is an impossibility’ will cut off the ground for theists absolutely and the most significant is those ‘SOME’ evil prone believers will not have grounds and basis to be inspired by their God to commit terrible evils and violence as evidently from the past to the present.
I understand the idea of God is a critical psychological necessity for the majority to provide comfort of security against some inevitable angst. Humanity will need to find alternatives [non-theistic spirituality, psychology, etc.] to deal with the inevitable angst.
I argue if you insist on maintaining and sustaining theism, you [may not be aware] are directly or indirectly complicit [providing support via majority consensus] to the existing and future evils & violence committed by those evil prone theists who are inspired by their God to commit terrible evils and violence.
I’ll try to re-iterate in other words. To my mind science is not fundamentally creative.Let me explain. All phenomena is ever present, if does not take perception to validate it, the sense is a development to receive signals, that then are interpreted.
Science merely simulates by analysis of what’s already there.
Ontology is a late development, after the pre conscious made the leap to the existential choice by using acceptabce/rejection as a survival mechanism. Ontology, or The basic logic of exclusion by contradiction has the above sourced dynamic characteristics.
Now the point is, that God in essence, therefore, is not merely a conceptual ontological product. but a staged effect of an existential dynamics, a primordial base of freedom anchored in the choice between acceptance and rejection.
I can elaborate on this kater, but depressing here would needlessly cloud the issue at hand.
So the argument You bring forward about the exclusive ontologocally psychological defense, fails on the face of it.
But bow that, the dynamic God, in terms of an evolving creature, even if, it uses the existential means of survival, developing out of the ontological presumption for god, does so go further and progresses out of the dilemma of logical formalism into the dialectic between the synthetic notion of a middle, an exclusion between necessity as holding, accepting a situation, or rejecting it. Whatever the derive substance in that middle ground, it is the part of and the result of the underlying existential dilemma, which presents to man a signification of conceptual shortcuts, which help him decide what action to choose
Conception has ground, it is not merely an accidentally acquired thought process , but on pre existing conditional prescriptions.ater developing into categorical assumptions, most particularly noticeable with Immanual Kant.
Ideas are sown together and channelled into intricate webs of what comes to be known as knowledge
So God was not a creation of Man, God was a living idea realized by man.Whatever God is interpreted to be, It is not an analysis and a formal body of classification and simulation, which science is, but It is a Creator of adaptative tools to signify and enrich thought processes about the way man can adapt and overcome the obstacles ofife.
That God is much more than that, in fact He is the creator, the agent behind consciousness, I have no doubt.
In the beginning was the word, and that word to become living had to have an agemcy, whereby the agent can become aware of it, and thereby gaining the understanding of who man is, his purpose and his likeness in His image.
I believe [philosophically] you got it wrong here.
Your philosophical stance here is Philosophical Realism.
I agree with the theories of Philosophical Anti-Realism, i,e, Philosophical Realism is not tenable, there are no thing-in-itself that is independent of the human conditions.
It is quite a long story to argue on this issue but your views here are not tenable.
I had argued,
Me:The only valid reason and usefulness of ‘God exists’ is for psychological reasons to soothe the terrible rising and pulsating angst.
No matter how you argue, you need to prove God exists in reality.
You have not done that at all but merely making statements, producing no arguments and merely wishing God exists.
Have you ever consider the psychological reasons why you need and must believe in a God?
For a theist is not easy to look at alternative approaches as it can be very painful to deliberate on that ‘divorce’ from theism. But for philosophical sake, it is wiser to learn of other alternatives to deal with that inherent existential crisis.
As a guide, note the philosophies of Buddhism which adopts a psychological approach to deal with that inherent existential crisis.
Not that you care, but that is not true.
When a person repeatedly responds with the same stock phrases, then he is not open to rethinking his position. He’s not even listening.
Sure, and, up to a point, that’s true of all of us.
Now, why don’t you apprise us of all the particular changes that you went through in regard to the existence of God. How have your own assessments evolved over the years?
And, to the extent that you are able, make a distinction between your philosophical/theological assumptions and the actual experiences that you had that nudged you existentially in different directions over time.
Maybe on a brand new thread.
What would that achieve besides entertaining you?
Every time that I write something, you respond that you don’t know how it addresses your points or you don’t understand what I am saying. I have no idea what you want or expect from me. That much I will admit.
You make the accusation that others are not open to new thinking in regard to the existence of God. Okay, how is that not applicable to you in turn? How have your views changed over the years?
Cite particular instances of this.
And, here and now, note the evolution of your thinking [and repeated rethinking] about God and I will respond to it.
Let others judge for themselves the extent to which you have eschewed the “same stock phrases” in addressing this subject.
Who have you listened to in the past — folks able to reconfigure your thinking?
I can name at least a half dozen men and women [in particular circumstances] who had a profound impact on my own thinking.
And my thinking has indeed evolved dramatically over the years. As you recall, I was once myself a devout Christian and a Unitarian.
I’m not going to answer your questions.
I’m not going to cite anything for you.
I’m not going to note anything for you.
I’m not going to discuss anything with you.
Period.
I again need to denote the need to define Who or what God/God is. If God is a plenum of overreaching absolute, a Nietzchean anti overcoming then, God is necessary for Man’s consciousness, in the manner in which he needs self consciousness .to evolve . This is pantheism, and in this sense, men need God for support of belief.
Defining God precedes the argument for his/it’s existence.
There are big differences between:
We have discovered something and let’s describe it.
and
Let’s define something and try to show that it logically exists. Or. Let’s define something and try to show that it logically does not exist.
and
Let’s define something and try to empirically find it.
Note to others:
Make of this what you will.
Note to God:
What should we make of this?
Simple enough.
You jerked me around once too often.
But feel free to interpret it in any way that you want.
On the contrary, as with others, I am always willing to discuss God and religion “straight up”: an open and honest exchange of opinions between folks who respect each other’s intelligence.
And I certainly respect yours.
But I am also willing and able [sometimes eagerly] to exchange polemics. Yet even here I never lose sight of your obvious intellect.
My entire point however is that, with respect to value judgments, this is the only manner in which we can interpret such conflicting assessments. As embodied in dasein.
Why not true? You are jumping to conclusion based on ignorance of the central driver of the major religions.
There are secondary reasons [political, social, cultural, etc.] for theism and religions, but if you are familiar with the doctrines of the major religions, the central theme of concern to the individual is the fear of what will happen after death, thus the hope of the afterlife as a reward from God or other means. These are driven by psychological existential elements within the psyche of believers.
Even Buddhism which is not theistic, its central theme concern the mother of all sufferings, i.e. the fears arising from the fact of mortality [the ‘corpse’ in the Buddha Story]. Some Buddhists believe in rebirth.
In Hinduism there is transmigration and reincarnation into other bodies after death.
Show me if there are more critical themes than the matter of death and the afterlife in theism and other religions.
As for theistic religions [especially Islam and other Abrahamic religions] I am bothered by SOME of its believer who are evil prone and are inspired by their God to commit terrible evils and violence [evidence of this glaring].
Don’t blame others if your arguments are not sound nor convincing in relation to the OP.
I am still waiting for any one to prove my premises and whole argument wrong. I will welcome it as it will enable me to improve on it.
I realize that you cannot see how excessively naive you are concerning religions. Obviously you have no idea of the “central driver of the major religions”. And as long as you maintain your hatred, you will never see anything but the presumptuous evil that you paint of them for yourself and others. Out of your fear and hate, you have constructed a tunnel for your vision, thus will remain blind regardless of what anyone says. You have proven that on this thread as well as many others.
You are merely a religious preacher of your hatred (commonly referred to as a “troll”).
The “central driver of the major religions” is to maintain a social order even before there were, when there are no, and beyond the use of armies to maintain social laws. They are to prevent social chaos at the most fundamental level. They have proven themselves in that regard. And with that at heart, any and all concerns of people are blended into the soup that you so hatefully spit out. You give the impression of being no more than a young, naive recalcitrant child who has been inspired to hate his parents, completely unaware of the underlying reality that has kept you alive.
Religions serve a purpose, fulfill a function … call it what you want.
But is the religion based on a fabricated God or a discovered God?
Is it possible to fabricate God and “fool most of the people most of the time”? If so, then that means most people want to accept a falsehood. Yet evolutionary survival requires an embrace of objective reality … those who based their lives on illusion must have died in greater proportion than those who had few illusions. Pursuit of truth must be an evolved trait.
Maybe moving away from the personal “I” is the way go.
If I am not who I am, how might I see things?
Someone has to tell me what he/she sees. I have to listen to that unique person. Then I can find the common “I” - the transcending “I”.