Is There a God?

[Philosophy Now]

David Hall reviews Is There A God? by Richard Swinburne.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/15/Is_There_a_God

[Veritas Aequitas]

This book is further evidence that intelligence and academic ability are no guarantee of sound judgement in religion, as the number of fundamentalists with degrees in the sciences well illustrates.
The reasons people give for their beliefs are always after the fact of belief itself, which comes upon them in ways they hardly know.

I agree with the above.

As I had argued, 'the fact of belief itself' is driven by an evolutionary default that generate an existential crisis giving rise to cognitive dissonances that manifest terrible primal fears and mental pains subliminally and consciously as existential angsts.
As such the above impulses are inherent in all humans while there is only a minority [on an expanding trend] at present who are not effected by it.

The idea of God [illusory] is the most effective balm to soothe the terrible existential angsts of anxieties and insecurities.
Once these insecurities are suppressed with a belief in a God, theists will rely on all sorts of arguments [defense mechanisms] to counter any threat to the non-existence of their God, else the suppressed anxieties and insecurities would resurface.
No matter how, there is no sound argument to prove God can ever exists as real.
Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument Debunked
viewtopic.php?p=683978#p683978

It is Impossible for God to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229

The idea of God is merely a thought and an illusion and to reify [hypostatize] it as real is delusional.
But nevertheless, God as an illusion is a useful-illusion that is critical for the present majority to deal with the inherent unavoidable existential crisis and its manifesting angsts.

As humans continue to evolve [as evident], eventually humanity will discover and establish rational non-theistic alternatives eventually to deal with the inherent unavoidable existential crisis; therefrom, theistic religions and other religions will be weaned off naturally in the future.

[attofishpi]

David Hall reviews Is There A God? by Richard Swinburne.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/15/Is_There_a_God

Any argument made for God having omniscience to the extent of God knowing everything about the future is doomed to failure. I think God would be rather bored in IT's creation if that was the case.

Certainly, God can will the future into destinies as IT sees desirable. God also, can know everything about our perceivable reality at any given moment in time.

The divine etymology argument explains how this is possible: https://www.androcies.com/DivineEtymology.php

PDF: https://www.androcies.com/Prose/DivineE ... ewSeas.pdf

I'd like to hear what David Hall has of the Divine Etymology agument, if he is still around somewhere in the universe of our shared perception of REAL_IT_Y.

[VVilliam]

1. The Universe exists, and therefore, it can be considered a Being.
2. If the Universe did not have a beginning, it qualifies as an uncaused being which also is able to cause things to happen (to begin, to exist, and to end) within itself.
3. Since it is known that the Universe exists, but unknown if it had a beginning, it is logical and rational to acknowledge, until shown otherwise, that the Universe appears to be the only example of an Uncaused Being which causes things that we can study.

Q: Given the premises I have formulated above, is there any reason why this idea of "God" cannot be defined as "an Uncaused Being which causes things that we can study"?

[attofishpi]

1. The Universe exists, and therefore, it can be considered a Being.
2. If the Universe did not have a beginning, it qualifies as an uncaused being which also is able to cause things to happen (to begin, to exist, and to end) within itself.
3. Since it is known that the Universe exists, but unknown if it had a beginning, it is logical and rational to acknowledge, until shown otherwise, that the Universe appears to be the only example of an Uncaused Being which causes things that we can study.

Q: Given the premises I have formulated above, is there any reason why this idea of "God" cannot be defined as "an Uncaused Being which causes things that we can study"?

IF those premises were accurate they could be the case with and without God, God is not required in any of the above.

[VVilliam]

1. The Universe exists, and therefore, it can be considered a Being.
2. If the Universe did not have a beginning, it qualifies as an uncaused being which also is able to cause things to happen (to begin, to exist, and to end) within itself.
3. Since it is known that the Universe exists, but unknown if it had a beginning, it is logical and rational to acknowledge, until shown otherwise, that the Universe appears to be the only example of an Uncaused Being which causes things that we can study.

Q: Given the premises I have formulated above, is there any reason why this idea of "God" cannot be defined as "an Uncaused Being which causes things that we can study"?

IF those premises were accurate they could be the case with and without God, God is not required in any of the above.

Explain your premises for this.

[attofishpi]

1. The Universe exists, and therefore, it can be considered a Being.
2. If the Universe did not have a beginning, it qualifies as an uncaused being which also is able to cause things to happen (to begin, to exist, and to end) within itself.
3. Since it is known that the Universe exists, but unknown if it had a beginning, it is logical and rational to acknowledge, until shown otherwise, that the Universe appears to be the only example of an Uncaused Being which causes things that we can study.

Q: Given the premises I have formulated above, is there any reason why this idea of "God" cannot be defined as "an Uncaused Being which causes things that we can study"?

IF those premises were accurate they could be the case with and without God, God is not required in any of the above.

Explain your premises for this.

I have no interest in this. Far more important things to spend my time on.

[nemos]

...Q: Given the premises I have formulated above, is there any reason why this idea of "God" cannot be defined as "an Uncaused Being which causes things that we can study"?

Beautifuly and romantic, echoes the idea of Gaia. I think that this idea is no worse than any other, but it doesn't matter if you put some meaning in the concept of god or call the god by some name, it will not change the essence.

However, I am afraid that no matter how good the idea is, its implementation will be irretrievably ruined by the hands of diligent people with "benevolent" intentions.
And therefore my god is mine alone, and as intimate as my soul, and therefore beyond the reach of any other.

[Dontaskme]

God is a human concept. It's a label, or it is a thought, same thing.
There is no known label existing anywhere in existence without that label being thought into existence arising as and through a conscious entity known as a human being, which is just another self-arising concept here.

No human eye has ever seen a thought, a thought is simply a known image of the imageless. No thought thing has ever been seen, only known by the only knowing there is, which is imageless consciousness arising as a concept known.

Therefore, all known thought things are illusions...believed to be real by imageless consciousness.

Advaita Vedanta, and Einstein nailed this rather perplexing conundrum eons ago. Now, in present day tense, it's as new as it's old, it never changes, because reality has NO theory, or story, reality is a blank open book, that fills itself, by itself, and for itself, all alone, all one.

[bahman]

You cannot prove whether there is a God or not.

[nemos]

You cannot prove whether there is a God or not.

The main thing is that once you prove his existence, he ceases to be a god. Because god cannot be something that is comprehensible and attainable, he will lose his function as a god and will be crucified.

[bahman]

You cannot prove whether there is a God or not.

The main thing is that once you prove his existence, he ceases to be a god. Because god cannot be something that is comprehensible and attainable, he will lose his function as a god and will be crucified.

What?

[nemos]

Unexpected, right? Ask Christ how heavy the cross was.

[Walker]

Long ago I heard estimates of 250 pounds.

[VVilliam]

...Q: Given the premises I have formulated above, is there any reason why this idea of "God" cannot be defined as "an Uncaused Being which causes things that we can study"?

Beautifuly and romantic, echoes the idea of Gaia. I think that this idea is no worse than any other, but it doesn't matter if you put some meaning in the concept of god or call the god by some name, it will not change the essence.

However, I am afraid that no matter how good the idea is, its implementation will be irretrievably ruined by the hands of diligent people with "benevolent" intentions.
And therefore my god is mine alone, and as intimate as my soul, and therefore beyond the reach of any other.

Whereas the premises
1. The Universe exists, and therefore, it can be considered a Being.
2. If the Universe did not have a beginning, it qualifies as an uncaused being which also is able to cause things to happen (to begin, to exist, and to end) within itself.
3. Since it is known that the Universe exists, but unknown if it had a beginning, it is logical and rational to acknowledge, until shown otherwise, that the Universe appears to be the only example of an Uncaused Being that we can study.

Allow us all to have the same God, yet still retain the personal experience of the growth of our human personality from our unique subjective perspectives.
It makes sense for you to enjoy the "mine alone" god as a means of protecting that from those "diligent people with benevolent intentions" but what is it you are protecting and why?