Do you believe in God?

[sun rise]

Unbelief (in gods) is just an outcome. For me, it was the outcome of two things:

- an upbringing by parents who respected me enough not to try to push me into a religion, and

- being guided by a personal desire to ensure my beliefs are as well-grounded in truth as possible.

My parents were atheists. The difference is in the second - I found grounding in truth in God. The experiences I had were followed by a thread of logic I could accept: If there is a God, then God is loving or not If God is loving there has to be an explanation for suffering and evil. And so forth.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Nope. Read the book I gave you. Cheers.

You didn’t give me a book.

Why not just quote the part that talks about how saying that religion is a team sport is somehow a logical fallacy?

And then I can cite sources from historians and anthropologists that suggest otherwise.

 

[sun rise]

The argument for the universe itself being God needs refining,

I like this from Kabbalah:

When we refer to G‑d’s presence within our world, giving life to all things, then She is the Shechinah.
When we refer to G‑d’s transcendence beyond this world, we call Him “The Holy One, blessed be He.”
In our prayers, collectively our souls take the role of the Shechinah, petitioning the Holy One, blessed be He.
Our mitzvahs, our Torah study and our prayer unite these two aspects of G‑d into a perfect whole. Through them, we reveal the essential G‑d who is beyond both the immanent and the transcendent—beyond all description and bounds.
And that is what we mean when we say, “On that day, G‑d will be One and His name will be One.”

Rabbi Tzvi Freeman

 

[Spice]

Calling it a discovery is a stretch though. Otherwise, we would get into a situation where people are discovering the opposite of what someone else just did.

I would imagine that happens often. I gave up my PC, so my notes are no longer available, but I remember reading about an area in Europe, centuries ago, that found "a cure" for one thing (oh, how I wish I could remember) just to make the entire region much more susceptible to TB. It nearly knocked out an entire village, as I recall.

Science itself can never be stagnant, why would philosophy or theology be any different. It's all a part of human evolution. We should all be willing to learn and relearn throughout our lives.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Advaitha is not pronounced in English. Your problem is you seem to read in English. No guru pronounces it with a T. It maybe the correct transliteration to demarcate with a S sound and a Th sound. But I don't know transliteration as I have said.

Ok

 

[Koldo]

I would imagine that happens often. I gave up my PC, so my notes are no longer available, but I remember reading about an area in Europe, centuries ago, that found "a cure" for one thing (oh, how I wish I could remember) just to make the entire region much more susceptible to TB. It nearly knocked out an entire village, as I recall.

Science itself can never be stagnant, why would philosophy or theology be any different. It's all a part of human evolution. We should all be willing to learn and relearn throughout our lives.

It doesn't work like that with God beliefs though. Neither philosophy nor theology follow the rationale that allows for advancements like science does. We can effectively say that germ theory debunked humorism, but there is simply no parallel in philosophy nor theology.

 

[Koldo]

Look up each of them and how and why they converted. No problem.

But mate. This is an anonymous discussion forum. Asking for phone numbers is not possible my friend. I have given you names, and where to find them online. You could contact them directly and even have a one on one discussion. Or if they don't have time, you could get on one of their platforms and have a discussion or debate or whatever you wish to do.

Bon Voyage.

Rofl. This is definitely the funniest misunderstanding I have read in quite a long time.

I am not asking for phone numbers. I am asking how many people (this is the number I was talking about) you personally know that never had a belief in God and then believed in God because they were convinced by a philosophical argument. And I am asking you not to count random people in the internet you have never personally met.

 

[InChrist]

Yes - you found a passage from your scriptures that happens to contain a key word from what I was talking about.

Is this supposed to be impressive (or relevant)?

I didn’t intend it to be impressive, but it should be impressive I think, that the Creator of heaven and earth would invite His creatures to reason with Him and get understanding and wisdom. Seems relevant to me.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

It doesn't work like that with God beliefs though. Neither philosophy nor theology follow the rationale that allows for advancements like science does. We can effectively say that germ theory debunked humorism, but there is simply no parallel in philosophy nor theology.

So none of the strange twists and turns and holy wars and whatnot that religion has taken here in America since the time of la conquista have been advancements?

That seems unlikely.

If they weren’t advancements, then why are some people today trying to bring back the past?

 

[Koldo]

So none of the strange twists and turns and holy wars and whatnot that religion has taken here in America since the time of la conquista have been advancements?

That seems unlikely.

If they weren’t advancements, then why are some people today trying to bring back the past?

You are not talking about philosophy or theology, right?

 

[Spice]

It doesn't work like that with God beliefs though. Neither philosophy nor theology follow the rationale that allows for advancements like science does. We can effectively say that germ theory debunked humorism, but there is simply no parallel in philosophy nor theology.

Oh, but it does work that way in philosophy and theology. That is very apparent right here on these boards as people share, and as they take what they read from others and contemplate how it fits in with their current thoughts.

But even more so -- look at how "religions" split and expand, then revert back to grassroots, and grow, just to split and expand. The fact that "most" religious school of thought tolerate their opposites is tremendous proof that theology advances.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

You are not talking about philosophy or theology, right?

Yes I am.

Were those Holy Wars not philosophical enough for you?

“If I can’t dance, then I don’t want to be part of your revolution” - Emma Goldman

Academia de San Francisco - ESGRIMA COLOMBIANA - Esgrima de machete y bordón - LAS SIETE PARADAS

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The Dunning-Kruger effect Is not limited to non-atheists in this forum.

Agreed, but it does concentrate in some demographics more than others. What it generally represents to me is an unawareness of expertise when confronted with it. I saw that most clearly during the vaccine and mask skirmishes, when people were shown evidence of the vaccine's efficacy but didn't know what to do with it and would say, "That's just your opinion" as they would take medical advice from Trump but not from Fauci.

When that occurs in a theist, it can result in him or her being unaware of how he is perceived in these discussions, where somebody a little more aware would know to avoid that.

Trump (definitely not a theist) agreeing to debate Biden is a good example. A smarter man would know to avoid that. Trump agreed to Biden's terms immediately, although I expect his advisors to talk him out of it as they talked him out of testifying.

My impression is that it isn't so much that theists avoid posting here because they've decided they're overmatched. I think that for most of them, they're sure of their beliefs without investigating them too deeply; while they couldn't come up with a sound theological argument, they remember hearing theological arguments that sure sounded convincing as a tween in catechism class/shul/madrassa/whatever and they don't bother to investigate further.

OK, fair enough, but doesn't that describe feeling overmatched? They have opinions that they would express freely among other believers but don't feel confident in their ability to support in this venue.

That's just a tribalistic type of assertion.

If you had had an argument, you would have left it, right?

Maybe you'd like a second shot at that. What I wrote was, "The only sound position possible for a skilled empiricist and critical thinker is agnostic atheism. There is no sound or valid argument that ends with, "therefore, God." If you disagree and have reason to, you can make a counterargument. If you disagree but can't make an argument, you won't, but in that case, your dissent isn't interesting to a critical thinker, who doesn't care what you believe, but rather, what you know and can demonstrate to be correct.

speaking about empiricism is a category error.

Incorrect. Look at my comment again and you'll see why.

And here's the same challenge: If you have more than bare dissent to offer - if you can justify your disagreement - then you can provide more than bare claims. If you can't make a counterargument, then your dissent is uninteresting.

 

[Koldo]

Oh, but it does work that way in philosophy and theology. That is very apparent right here on these boards as people share, and as they take what they read from others and contemplate how it fits in with their current thoughts.

Can you explain how exactly that constitutes an advancement in philosophy or theology?

But even more so -- look at how "religions" split and expand, then revert back to grassroots, and grow, just to split and expand. The fact that "most" religious school of thought tolerate their opposites is tremendous proof that theology advances.

I have no idea what you mean by 'advances'.

 

[Koldo]

Yes I am.

Were those Holy Wars not philosophical enough for you?

“If I can’t dance, then I don’t want to be part of your revolution” - Emma Goldman

Academia de San Francisco - ESGRIMA COLOMBIANA - Esgrima de machete y bordón - LAS SIETE PARADAS

No, they were not.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

No, they were not.

That’s a reflection of your own culture and religion, and I thank you for your input.

It was good enough for others.

 

[Koldo]

That’s a reflection of your own culture and religion, and I thank you for your input.

It was good enough for others.

I have no idea why you are claiming that to be so.

 

[danieldemol]

And where did these "natural laws" originate?

From the formation of the early universe according to my understanding.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Can you explain how exactly that constitutes an advancement in philosophy or theology?



I have no idea what you mean by 'advances'.

Overturning slavery.

This is considered an advancement in Catholicism.

And many other religions these days, as well, I would think.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

I have no idea why you are claiming that to be so.

It’s not your religion.

That’s all.

It’s very important for Catholics.

Not so much in your religion, I guess.