God and the Philosophers

[Philosophy Now]

by Rick Lewis

https://philosophynow.org/issues/152/God_and_the_Philosophers

[attofishpi]

by Rick Lewis

https://philosophynow.org/issues/152/Go ... ilosophers

A question for Theists is, how can we live in relationship to a personal God, while unable to prove His existence?

There is no issue having a personal relationship with God and knowing it exists while not proving it to others - ultimately who cares what those of little vision think?

So, very easily thank you very much. Although I no longer merely consider myself a 'theist' and indeed clearly have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists here:- viewtopic.php?f=11&t=33214

Christian Pantheism\Panentheism is the glove that fits.

[Agent Smith]

God does/doesn't exist? A perennial question that's been bugging philosophers and theologian alike for countless generations with not an inch of progress made since the first time it was asked. For reasons that seem hidden from me, I don't know.

[Age]

by Rick Lewis

The guttering, smoky candle dripped wax onto the desk as the grizzled, grey-haired monk toiled late into the night on yet another treatise proving God’s existence and discoursing upon His essential nature. His tired eyes narrowed as he tested the logic of arguments ontological and cosmological, and of how God could be both three and one at the same time. Faith seeking understanding? He already stood in a very long tradition.

“Is there a God?” has been a central philosophical question since the earliest times. Don’t roll your eyes!

But why make this assumption?

Once who and what God IS is defined in a way, which makes perfect sense, then if there is a God or not becomes crystal clear.

These arguments should interest you too, and I’ll try to explain why.

But if any argument is not yet sound and valid, then they are best left aside and thus have no interest in them either. However, all sound and valid arguments are very interesting.

The Philosophy Now editorial team includes both humanists and religious believers, but we agree that questions about God are tied up with a whole series of philosophical concerns of the deepest and most personal kind – questions which keep honest folk awake at night. How should we live our lives?

In the way that is best for everyone.

How should we treat one another?

Without any abuse.

What’s the point of it all?

To observe the beauty of Creation, Itself.

What happens when we die?

If the word 'we' here refers to 'you', human beings, then;

The visible physical body part, which 'you' are all each within, just stops pumping blood and stops breathing air and just keeps changing in shape and form.

The invisible being part, which is what and who 'you' really all are, is not aware/conscious anymore, but remains existing, forevermore, in the sense that it has had some affect on how the rest of 'you' continue on living.

Where did this world come from?

That all depends on what you mean or refer to by the use of the words 'this world'. If you mean:

'The earth', then 'this world' just came from where everything else, besides the Universe came from. That is; from at least two other things coming together to form something anew.

'The Universe', then 'this world' always exists, and Itself did NOT come from anything NOR anywhere.

'The life' that you are living in, then 'this world' came from the way 'you', adult human beings, have created 'it'.

Some say that the idea of God arises from our need to answer such questions. Others retort that without God we’d never have had the wit to ask such questions in the first place.

Many people say many different things.

The questions are difficult and the question of whether God exists – and what we mean by God – particularly so, which is why Benedict O’Connell’s agnostic article on ‘God and Humility’ is well worth a read.

But, not just the questions are simple, so too are the answers. As for the question of whether God exists, and what 'we' (whoever that refers to) mean by God, are in fact VERY SIMPLE questions to ask, and just AS SIMPLE to answer.

There are – heaven knows! – many ways to divide religious believers, but one useful way to categorise them is into Theists and Deists. Those who believe in a personal God who knows each of us, and wants us to be our best selves, and perhaps is angry or disappointed if we are not, are Theists. Most Christians, Jews and Muslims are Theists. A question for Theists is, how can we live in relationship to a personal God, while unable to prove His existence?

The answer is through deception.

Read Stuart Hannabuss’s article on Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard, who conceived of the religious as a life stage, one requiring an existential leap of faith to enter. But what if the God in whom we are asked to place our trust appears to us untrustworthy?

But how thee one and only God could appear untrustworthy is by just having a misconception or misinterpretation of what God is.

Patrick Wilson in his short essay suggests that it would be unwise to believe in any deity who didn’t share our core values.

But it is through shared CORE values how who and what God IS, EXACTLY, becomes KNOWN.

Those who, by contrast, do not believe in a personal God, but who on some basis of reason and science believe in a God who created the universe, set its rules and perhaps sustains it in existence, are known as Deists.

But anyone who BELIEVES that there was something outside of the Universe, which caused or created the Universe, Itself, would have this BELIEF NOT based on anything reasonable NOR scientific.

They have included Jefferson, Voltaire and Thomas Paine, and you can read more about traditional and contemporary Deism in Robert Griffiths’ article. Can anyone really prove God’s existence using only reason and observed facts about nature?

YES.

And, VERY SIMPLY and VERY EASILY, I will add.

Theologians in the Middle Ages and many later philosophers certainly tried, with numerous variations on the ontological proof (see Peter Mullen’s piece to learn more) and the cosmological proof among others.

But, if there were REALLY 'proofs', then they could NOT be refuted.

Those so-called 'proofs' have been refuted by many.

Therefore, they are NOT 'proof'.

Their occasionally mind-bending cogitations have gradually acquired wider relevance for cosmologists, philosophers and astronomers, for they wrestled with questions such as: “Why is there something rather than nothing?”;

To bear witness to the beauty that I am Creating.

“What do we mean by infinite?”;

Always, forever, eternal, or whatever other thing that one means or refers to, specifically.

“Does the universe have a first cause or does the chain of cause and effect stretch backwards in time for ever?”

Because 'you', people, add the word 'backwards' here, then this, unnecessarily, confuses things. And, the Universe does NOT have a first cause as though the Universe 'began'. The first cause of absolutely EVERY thing, from now on, is HERE-NOW, which Itself is eternal, or for ever.

The chain of cause and effect, itself is eternal, and could not be anything else.

and “What came before time?”

If the word 'time' here is used to refer to the 'art' of measuring of duration between perceived events, then what came before 'you', human beings, started measuring 'duration', then all of the things that have existed before that moment.

The word 'time' is just another one of those words that 'you', adult human beings, have not, in the days when this is being written and as some would say, 'got your heads around yet'.

You have to be careful where such trains of thought may pull you.

As evidenced and proved true not just in the writings from the ones listed above here but throughout just about all of human history.

The brilliant and pious Baruch Spinoza argued that since, by definition, there can be nothing greater than God, it follows that all things in nature must be part of God – or else an even greater God could be conceived who did include them.

But just like ALL arguments that are NOT sound AND valid, then they are, REALLY, not even worth repeating.

Therefore God is identical with Nature.

If God is identical with Nature, then WHY are 'you' even questioning whether God/Nature exists or not "rick lewis"?

Spinoza called this Deus sive Natura, ‘God or Nature’. But then a few centuries down the line, writes Lesley Chamberlain, this resulted in some nervous Spinoza scholars attempting to convince Stalin that Spinoza was a materialist and an atheist. It didn’t go well.

If any argument is sound AND valid, and thus IRREFUTABLE, then WHO CARES what just some OTHER human being named and labelled "stalin" did or does?

No doubt the medieval theologians and philosophers so earnestly disputing about God’s nature

If one is going to state or claim that 'God is identical with Nature', and then also write, 'God's nature', then what they are, REALLY, saying is, 'Nature's nature'. Which, by now, should be fairly OBVIOUS.

But anyway,

had some preconceptions and preoccupations that seem quaint today, but many of them were penetrating, subtle, patient thinkers. The logical nets they wove might catch other fish too. Tony McKenna’s article gives several startling examples of metaphysical arguments by later philosophers including Hegel, Fichte and Descartes whose form had been anticipated by theologians centuries before. This makes you want to ask, what other clever moves lurking unregarded in the obscurer works of medieval monks might turn out to be exactly what philosophy needs right now? Quick, everyone – let’s get digging!

I found finding 'the answers to Life', as some might call them, much easier and simpler WITHOUT the unnecessary writings of "others".

However, when 'you' ALSO find 'the answers to Life', then what is also SEEN is that WITHIN ALL those writings talked about here were HIDDEN 'gems of gold' or 'clues to what thee ACTUAL and True answers to Life were ALL ALONG.

The clever moves lurking, which were unregarded or misinterpreted, within all works lead to verifying, FOR CERTAIN, what IS ACTUALLY and IRREFUTABLY True, in regards to Life, Itself, and living correctly.

Just learning HOW to FIND and SEE 'the answers' for, and by, "oneself" FIRST, then one can USE all the other information for VERIFICATION and CLARIFICATION.

Because as can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED True, not just throughout this forum but throughout human history, 'trying to' find 'things' in order to just back up and support what one ALREADY BELIEVES is true, WITHOUT ACTUAL PROOF, then this does NOT work.

FIND thee Truth FIRST, and then the PROOF is NOT just found, but IT becomes CRYSTAL CLEAR, AS WELL.

[Age]

by Rick Lewis

https://philosophynow.org/issues/152/Go ... ilosophers

A question for Theists is, how can we live in relationship to a personal God, while unable to prove His existence?

There is no issue having a personal relationship with God and knowing it exists while not proving it to others - ultimately who cares what those of little vision think?

But if It has NOT YET been PROVEN to 'you', then WHY have a personal relationship with what could, after all, just be False, Wrong, or Incorrect?

But, if you would like to CLAIM that God has been PROVEN to 'you', then WHY can 'you' NOT just provide that same so-called 'proof' to "others"?

So, very easily thank you very much. Although I no longer merely consider myself a 'theist' and indeed clearly have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists here:- viewtopic.php?f=11&t=33214

LOL

Let us know if you would like to have a Truly OPEN and Honest discussion regarding that, or any other, thread "attofishpi".

That is; if you are ABLE to.

Christian Pantheism\Panentheism is the glove that fits.

And let us imagine what 'you' would have said here instead, if 'you' were brought up in and raised within an only judism, only hinduism, or only muslim environment.

[Age]

God does/doesn't exist? A perennial question that's been bugging philosophers and theologian alike for countless generations with not an inch of progress made since the first time it was asked. For reasons that seem hidden from me, I don't know.

The question about whether does or does not God exist has ALREADY been answered.

But, obviously, just not yet all have been made aware of this Fact.

[Agent Smith]

God does/doesn't exist? A perennial question that's been bugging philosophers and theologian alike for countless generations with not an inch of progress made since the first time it was asked. For reasons that seem hidden from me, I don't know.

The question about whether does or does not God exist has ALREADY been answered.

But, obviously, just not yet all have been made aware of this Fact.

One of the millenium questions, oui mon ami?

[bobmax]

God does/doesn't exist? A perennial question that's been bugging philosophers and theologian alike for countless generations with not an inch of progress made since the first time it was asked. For reasons that seem hidden from me, I don't know.

There is a profound difference between existing and being.

To exist is to stand in front of you.

While being is what allows existence.

Being the foundation of existence, being does not exist.
Therefore being, from the standpoint of existence, is nothing.

Being = Nothing

We exist, but we are not.
While God does not exist, God is!

[Agent Smith]

God does/doesn't exist? A perennial question that's been bugging philosophers and theologian alike for countless generations with not an inch of progress made since the first time it was asked. For reasons that seem hidden from me, I don't know.

There is a profound difference between existing and being.

To exist is to stand in front of you.

While being is what allows existence.

Being the foundation of existence, being does not exist.
Therefore being, from the standpoint of existence, is nothing.

Being = Nothing

We exist, but we are not.
While God does not exist, God is!

How interesting! Is this some kinda official stance in a particular school of metaphysics? I wonder which one it is; sounds very ... inhuman!

[bobmax]

There is a profound difference between existing and being.

To exist is to stand in front of you.

While being is what allows existence.

Being the foundation of existence, being does not exist.
Therefore being, from the standpoint of existence, is nothing.

Being = Nothing

We exist, but we are not.
While God does not exist, God is!

How interesting! Is this some kinda official stance in a particular school of metaphysics? I wonder which one it is; sounds very ... inhuman!

The mystic.
Which is above all great philosophy. God is nothing.
The Nothing source of infinite possibilities.

However, this is the heart of the metaphysical thought of all times.

And isn't that also what modern physics suggests?

And also the Greek myth, with Chaos at the origin of everything?

[Agent Smith]

There is a profound difference between existing and being.

To exist is to stand in front of you.

While being is what allows existence.

Being the foundation of existence, being does not exist.
Therefore being, from the standpoint of existence, is nothing.

Being = Nothing

We exist, but we are not.
While God does not exist, God is!

How interesting! Is this some kinda official stance in a particular school of metaphysics? I wonder which one it is; sounds very ... inhuman!

The mystic.
Which is above all great philosophy. God is nothing.
The Nothing source of infinite possibilities.

However, this is the heart of the metaphysical thought of all times.

And isn't that also what modern physics suggests?

And also the Greek myth, with Chaos at the origin of everything?

Wonder of wonders! Reason reigns supreme!

[attofishpi]

Definitely a classic case of wankology.

[Age]

God does/doesn't exist? A perennial question that's been bugging philosophers and theologian alike for countless generations with not an inch of progress made since the first time it was asked. For reasons that seem hidden from me, I don't know.

The question about whether does or does not God exist has ALREADY been answered.

But, obviously, just not yet all have been made aware of this Fact.

One of the millenium questions, oui mon ami?

I do not know what it is that you are saying or asking for here.

[Age]

God does/doesn't exist? A perennial question that's been bugging philosophers and theologian alike for countless generations with not an inch of progress made since the first time it was asked. For reasons that seem hidden from me, I don't know.

There is a profound difference between existing and being.

To exist is to stand in front of you.

While being is what allows existence.

Being the foundation of existence, being does not exist.
Therefore being, from the standpoint of existence, is nothing.

Being = Nothing

We exist, but we are not.
While God does not exist, God is!

Who and/or what, EXACTLY, is this God thing, which you speak of here?

And, do 'you', human beings, exist or not? If 'being' equals nothing, then it could be said or argued that 'human beings' are therefore 'human nothings', correct?

If no, then why not?

[Age]

There is a profound difference between existing and being.

To exist is to stand in front of you.

While being is what allows existence.

Being the foundation of existence, being does not exist.
Therefore being, from the standpoint of existence, is nothing.

Being = Nothing

We exist, but we are not.
While God does not exist, God is!

How interesting! Is this some kinda official stance in a particular school of metaphysics? I wonder which one it is; sounds very ... inhuman!

The mystic.
Which is above all great philosophy. God is nothing.
The Nothing source of infinite possibilities.

But you just got through telling us that God 'is'. Yet now you say and claim God is nothing. So, which one is it?

However, this is the heart of the metaphysical thought of all times.

And isn't that also what modern physics suggests?

What does the 'that' word here refer to EXACTLY?

And also the Greek myth, with Chaos at the origin of everything?

Are you telling, or asking, us here?