God and the Philosophers
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2022 10:23 pm
For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
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?Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Fri Oct 28, 2022 10:23 pm 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?
But why make this assumption?Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Fri Oct 28, 2022 10:23 pm 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 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.Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Fri Oct 28, 2022 10:23 pm These arguments should interest you too, and I’ll try to explain why.
In the way that is best for everyone.Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Fri Oct 28, 2022 10:23 pm 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?
Without any abuse.
To observe the beauty of Creation, Itself.
If the word 'we' here refers to 'you', human beings, then;
That all depends on what you mean or refer to by the use of the words 'this world'. If you mean:
Many people say many different things.Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Fri Oct 28, 2022 10:23 pm 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.
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.Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Fri Oct 28, 2022 10:23 pm 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.
The answer is through deception.Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Fri Oct 28, 2022 10:23 pm 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?
But how thee one and only God could appear untrustworthy is by just having a misconception or misinterpretation of what God is.Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Fri Oct 28, 2022 10:23 pm 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 it is through shared CORE values how who and what God IS, EXACTLY, becomes KNOWN.Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Fri Oct 28, 2022 10:23 pm 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 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.Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Fri Oct 28, 2022 10:23 pm 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.
YES.Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Fri Oct 28, 2022 10:23 pm 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?
But, if there were REALLY 'proofs', then they could NOT be refuted.Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Fri Oct 28, 2022 10:23 pm 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.
To bear witness to the beauty that I am Creating.Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Fri Oct 28, 2022 10:23 pm 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?”;
Always, forever, eternal, or whatever other thing that one means or refers to, specifically.
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.Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Fri Oct 28, 2022 10:23 pm “Does the universe have a first cause or does the chain of cause and effect stretch backwards in time for ever?”
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.
As evidenced and proved true not just in the writings from the ones listed above here but throughout just about all of human history.Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Fri Oct 28, 2022 10:23 pm You have to be careful where such trains of thought may pull you.
But just like ALL arguments that are NOT sound AND valid, then they are, REALLY, not even worth repeating.Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Fri Oct 28, 2022 10:23 pm 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.
If God is identical with Nature, then WHY are 'you' even questioning whether God/Nature exists or not "rick lewis"?
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?Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Fri Oct 28, 2022 10:23 pm 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 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.Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Fri Oct 28, 2022 10:23 pm No doubt the medieval theologians and philosophers so earnestly disputing about God’s nature
I found finding 'the answers to Life', as some might call them, much easier and simpler WITHOUT the unnecessary writings of "others".Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Fri Oct 28, 2022 10:23 pm 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!
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?attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 3:31 amThere 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?Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Fri Oct 28, 2022 10:23 pm 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?
LOLattofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 3:31 am 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
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.
The question about whether does or does not God exist has ALREADY been answered.Agent Smith wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 6:32 am 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.
One of the millenium questions, oui mon ami?Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 8:56 amThe question about whether does or does not God exist has ALREADY been answered.Agent Smith wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 6:32 am 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.
But, obviously, just not yet all have been made aware of this Fact.
There is a profound difference between existing and being.Agent Smith wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 6:32 am 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.
How interesting! Is this some kinda official stance in a particular school of metaphysics? I wonder which one it is; sounds very ... inhuman!bobmax wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 6:10 pmThere is a profound difference between existing and being.Agent Smith wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 6:32 am 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.
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!
The mystic.Agent Smith wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 6:19 pmHow interesting! Is this some kinda official stance in a particular school of metaphysics? I wonder which one it is; sounds very ... inhuman!bobmax wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 6:10 pm 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!
Wonder of wonders! Reason reigns supreme!bobmax wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 6:45 pmThe mystic.Agent Smith wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 6:19 pmHow interesting! Is this some kinda official stance in a particular school of metaphysics? I wonder which one it is; sounds very ... inhuman!bobmax wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 6:10 pm 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!
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?
I do not know what it is that you are saying or asking for here.Agent Smith wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 5:38 pmOne of the millenium questions, oui mon ami?Age wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 8:56 amThe question about whether does or does not God exist has ALREADY been answered.Agent Smith wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 6:32 am 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.
But, obviously, just not yet all have been made aware of this Fact.
Who and/or what, EXACTLY, is this God thing, which you speak of here?bobmax wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 6:10 pmThere is a profound difference between existing and being.Agent Smith wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 6:32 am 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.
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!
But you just got through telling us that God 'is'. Yet now you say and claim God is nothing. So, which one is it?bobmax wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 6:45 pmThe mystic.Agent Smith wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 6:19 pmHow interesting! Is this some kinda official stance in a particular school of metaphysics? I wonder which one it is; sounds very ... inhuman!bobmax wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 6:10 pm 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!
Which is above all great philosophy. God is nothing.
The Nothing source of infinite possibilities.
What does the 'that' word here refer to EXACTLY?
Are you telling, or asking, us here?