A Question for Theists...

[syo]

And your god doesn't exist.

Tao is real and it is God. So God exists. God is Tao. In my religion we say ''ousia'' or ''on'' (ousia is the word we use in greek paganism. ''on'' is the tao.)

 

[night912]

Theism is not based on what anyone knows, or can know about the nature or existence of "God". It is based on the positive result that comes of placing faith in something that we don't know to be so. And that positive result is the "evidence" that the faith, works (not that the God, exists).

Your question is misdirected.

No, you're wrong. What you're talking about is theism then. You are addressing the existence of faith and/or does faith work? You can can use faith and discuss it about believing in the existence of god, but once you change the conclusion to be about faith and not god, then you are no longer talking about theism.

So the question isn't misdirected. But you what you are doing avoiding the question by misdirecting it to be about faith.

 

[night912]

Tao is real and it is God. So God exists. God is Tao. In my religion we say ''ousia'' or ''on'' (ousia is the word we use in greek paganism. it is the tao.)

We're not about the existence of god or tao. This discussion isn't about debating whether god exist or not. Some theist just see the word "god" and they automatically jump into defense mode.

I give an obvious example of what I'm talking about. If I ask, "What's your favorite food?" Someone who is afraid or dumb would have an answer relating to food. They wouldn't say, "Tesla car."

So is it fear or stupidity or both?

 

[syo]

how would you be able to know that your god doesn't exist?

My God would be fake, if he was illogical.

 

[PureX]

No, you're wrong. What you're talking about isn't theism, then. You are addressing the existence of faith and/or does faith work? You can use faith and discuss it about believing in the existence of god, but once you change the conclusion to be about faith and not god, then you are no longer talking about theism.

This is an interesting point.

But ... theism is a branch of philosophy related to the ideology of the existence and effect of deity. And like all proposed philosophical ideologies, it cannot be proven true. It can only be debated, pro and con, based on logic and reason, leaving the participants to choose and adopt the more logical and reasonable conclusion regarding probable truthfulness.

As such, ALL philosophical proposition and debate is an act of faith. First; faith in the power of logic and reason to determine truth, and second; faith enough in the result of that process to live according to it's determinations. You are trying to extricate faith from theological debate, but debate is, itself, an act of faith. They cannot be extricated.

I would also like to add that for we (non-omniscient) humans, the truth cannot be attained. The best we can do is determine the relative truthfulness of a proposed truism. And the only way we have of doing that is through testing the proposal's objective/subjective functionality (reasoned practicality). So that no matter how we 'cut it', philosophical truth ends up being an issue of applied faith and relative functionality; whether we are talking about theistic philosophy (theism), or mathematics (also a form of philosophy).

 

[Dell]

Well, there are many religions, and many non-religious theists in the world. And they all have their own concepts of what they think "God" is. You just prefer attacking biblical mythology as if it were not mythology because it's an easy straw man for you to knock over, even though totally pointless. And the funny thing is that like many of the atheists that come here, you don't even see the absurd irony in it.

Maybe more that the biblical Christian/Abrahamic version of God is what we atheist are most familiar with. I don't know any other comparisons from Hindu that have multiple gods or supreme beings, or Buddhist where I don't know if there is a concept of an almighty God. Actually those doctrines seem so far out they don't even hit my radar.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Here's a question to help theists clarify what sort of evidence, if any, they have for their belief in deity.

"If your god did not exist, how would you be able to know your god did not exist?"

I propose that theists answer the question to their own satisfaction privately, rather than publicly -- and thus open their answer to debate. However, I am putting this thread in debates just in case someone does indeed want to debate their answer.

Hope you're having a good day.


If you are curious, I did not come up with the question myself. It's a standard question that epistemologists working in the field of religion ask themselves and others.

I would say they have to poke holes in their experiences.

They would literally have to be mature enough to poke holes in what they believe, challenge those holes, to develop a conclusion of whether god exists as an independent entity or their own mind and environment that shapes their belief (rather than fact).

Outside of that, you'd be talking to a brick wall (as I already see some dodging the question here already)

 

[Sunstone]

Tao... is God.

Typical superficial understanding of the Tao.

 

[Sunstone]

I wouldn't exist either.

Are you ashamed of yourself for that cop out?

 

[Sunstone]

Not Applicable ( N/A ) because He exist in the heart.

Alas! Getting defensive more often leads to stupid answers than to insightful ones. An intelligent person can entertain a thought in their head that they do not necessarily agree with and can furthermore advance a case for it.

 

[ameyAtmA]

An intelligent person can entertain a thought in their head that they do not necessarily agree with and can furthermore advance a case for it.

Sure they can, but they have the choice not to, and are not obligated to. That was the point I was making.

 

[night912]

Understand what the poster is saying before calling them stupid (not that I care what you think).
Do not presume all theists are riding on a raft of "Belief"
Many have experienced. the SacchidAnanda and we are not interested in a hypothetical IF-THEN-WHEN-ELSE discussion about non-existence of the One we know to exist.

Not all mystics will tell you this openly, which I am going to share now: I had a mystical meeting with the Supreme Being (Highest Self of all, SacchidAnanda Para-Brahman' ParamAtmA) about 14 years ago and the awareness of the Presence is with me ever since. I live with the Supreme and am not the only one.

My original answer was this:
"Not Applicable ( N/A ) because He exist and is with me right now."

Since that is too much for many to digest , I edited my answer to "in the heart" which is not wrong either. In fact the SaccidAnanda Supreme consciousness, is watching me type this and it is just that I am fortunately aware of His Presence. It may be too much for you to digest that we communicate telepathically and live as Two-in-a-shared-Heart (two-in-one - The Father and I are One.).
We mind our own business. so you need not worry about a new religion popping up.

That is what most ancient prophets and mystics encountered. Jesus, Rumi, Kabir, Meera, the aLwars of TamilNadu and many Indian saints and spiritual leaders ... all experienced, interacted and lived with the Supreme Brahman'. So do some in today's time.

ParaBrahman' ParamAtmA is omnipresent, and lives everywhere, but only a few are aware of His presence. You can too, if you ask and seek.

So your answer is stupidity. Got it.

 

[night912]

Understand what the poster is saying before calling them stupid (not that I care what you think).

Yes, perhaps you should try to understand. And why the need for dishonesty, especially when you're so transparent? Obviously you do care what I think, that's why you respond to my comment.

the SacchidAnanda and we are not interested in a hypothetical IF-THEN-WHEN-ELSE discussion about non-existence of the One we know to exist.

That's why I said it's stupidity. Yea, you don't care, yet you bother to reply. With stupid answer.

My original answer was this:
"Not Applicable ( N/A ) because He exist and is with me right now."

He can't be with you if he doesn't exist.

Sure they can, but they have the choice not to, and are not obligated to. That was the point I was making.

Obligated or not, giving an answer to a question that has no content to the question is a stupid answer. Therefore, stupidity .

 

[night912]

This is an interesting point.

But ... theism is a branch of philosophy related to the ideology of the existence and effect of deity. And like all proposed philosophical ideologies, it cannot be proven true. It can only be debated, pro and con, based on logic and reason, leaving the participants to choose and adopt the more logical and reasonable conclusion regarding probable truthfulness.

As such, ALL philosophical proposition and debate is an act of faith. First; faith in the power of logic and reason to determine truth, and second; faith enough in the result of that process to live according to it's determinations. You are trying to extricate faith from theological debate, but debate is, itself, an act of faith. They cannot be extricated.

I would also like to add that for we (non-omniscient) humans, the truth cannot be attained. The best we can do is determine the relative truthfulness of a proposed truism. And the only way we have of doing that is through testing the proposal's objective/subjective functionality (reasoned practicality). So that no matter how we 'cut it', philosophical truth ends up being an issue of applied faith and relative functionality; whether we are talking about theistic philosophy (theism), or mathematics (also a form of philosophy).

No. Because once you shift to logic, it becomes available to having objective truth. Logic has laws and proper formats that one must follow. If they are dismissed, then you are no longer debating with logic and/or is illogical.

And I never said you couldn't use faith for arguing for god. But if you argue faith as the conclusion and god, then you are no longer arguing about thesim.

Debating is not based on faith. And if you argue that it is, you just refuted yourself. You are then using circular reasoning.

It is based on the positive result that comes of placing faith in something that we don't know to be so. And that positive result is the "evidence" that the faith, works

That's why debates are based on faith.

 

[atanu]

But there's one key elements that you're forgetting. And that would be, memory loss. Since we can observe others sleeping and their body is still functioning, so the senses are still active. Upon awakening, memory is restored. And sometimes when there's "glitches" during sleep, we are aware during sleep and upon awakening and remembering.

Yes, memory. The fact that most will say “I slept blissfully” or that most remember “I had a frightful/joyful dream” , indicates that the self is not the waking, or dreaming, or the sleeping forms, but is distinct seer of these changing forms.

 

[atanu]

That would make the ego self be the seer self.

What is true is the seer.

 

[PureX]

Maybe more that the biblical Christian/Abrahamic version of God is what we atheist are most familiar with.

Letting other people define the terms for you is not the sign of a thoughtful mind. Especially when you then reject the validity of the definition while refusing to consider any other alternative. No, I think it's all about defeating the straw man.

I don't know any other comparisons from Hindu that have multiple gods or supreme beings, or Buddhist where I don't know if there is a concept of an almighty God. Actually those doctrines seem so far out they don't even hit my radar.

Perhaps your radar screen is so small that you ought not to be passing judgments of what comes across it, then.

 

[PureX]

No. Because once you shift to logic, it becomes available to having objective truth.

Objective truth is a myth, which itself requires faith to accept as a reality.

Logic has laws and proper formats that one must follow. If they are dismissed, then you are no longer debating with logic and/or is illogical.

Like 'God', and 'truth', ideological absolutes only exist in an idealized form.

And I never said you couldn't use faith for arguing for god. But if you argue faith as the conclusion and god, then you are no longer arguing about thesim.

Saying that doesn't make it so.

Debating is not based on faith. And if you argue that it is, you just refuted yourself. You are then using circular reasoning.

Again, saying that doesn't make it so.

It is based on the positive result that comes of placing faith in something that we don't know to be so. And that positive result is the "evidence" that the faith, work.

Everything we humans presume true is being arrived at that way. Logic is just another way of determining functionality.

 

[Dell]

Letting other people define the terms for you is not the sign of a thoughtful mind. Especially when you then reject the validity of the definition while refusing to consider any other alternative. No, I think it's all about defeating the straw man.

Defining what terms? Like falsifying experimentation or discovery? By other people you mean like professors of physics, cosmology, biology, etc..? You mean creditable people? Your not clear, but being abstract in a weird way.. "the straw man".. really?

Perhaps your radar screen is so small that you ought not to be passing judgments of what comes across it, then.

Hmm... thats very humorous... Other religions dont make the radar because they lack even more logic and contain more nonsense than Christianity does. Provide me an example of a non abrahamic religion with its doctrine of God that does? Granted I dont know much of other religions, but from what I do know, the Abrahamic version would be far more believable than others.

 

[SA Huguenot]

So how is God defined except in a perspective of man made scriptures? Dont see God defined anywhere else do you? Funny also about scriptures, man cant agree what is written about "Him". I.e. as if God was male, obviously a perspective of male dominated ancient thinking. Funny also if God was a male there would have to be a female version of God.

It is an interesting thought you have here.
But did you not hear what Jesus,...God said about the life hereafter?
Mat 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
Mat 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
There is no such a thing as Male and Female in heaven.
The Body you will receive will be one of immortality, and there is no need to procreate children to populate the ones that die!
Why do you have the idea that God is Male?
God is not matter at all!
the thought that God is male is actually a display of a very flat immagination confined to that we understand of human nature, and not spiritual nature.