God is simple, not complex

[outhouse]

Atheists do not LIKE the answer that Almighty God is responsible, whether evidence exists or not, imo.

It has nothing to do with like. It has everything to do with the god concept evolving in mythology.

It has everything to do with complete and utter lack of ANYTHING we can attribute to your belief outside mythology.

if god exist in your mind, what does he do outside of your conscious mind???????????

 

[Nurion]

I usually offer a logical rebuttal (like, for instance, when I said, "Why does movement entail the temporality of the source and cause of movement?") when there's something to rebut. But why is it that I am required to offer a logical rebuttal and you are not?



Ever hear of the "Perennial Philosophy"? It's called "perennial" for a reason.

At the core of the Perennial Philosophy we find four fundamental doctrines:

First: the phenomenal world of matter and of individualized consciousness—the world of things and animals and men and even gods—is the manifestation of a Divine Ground within which all partial realities have their being, and apart from which they would be nonexistent.

Second: human beings are capable not merely of knowing about the Divine ground by inference; they can also realize its existence by a direct intuition, superior to discursive reasoning. This immediate knowledge unites the knower with that which is known.

Third: man possesses a double nature, a phenomenal ego and an eternal self, which is the inner man, the spirit, the spark of divinity within the soul. It is possible for a man, it he so desires, to identify himself with the Divine Ground, which is of the same or like nature with the spirit.

Fourth: Man’s life has only one end and purpose: to identify himself with his eternal Self and so to come to unitive knowledge of the Divine Ground.
​

I suspect that it's because the details or particulars vary so much that people lose interest and the fundamentals get lost.

Well I don't really intend to do a rebuttal of perennial philosophy, but this raises more questions than it answers.

First: What defines a partial reality? I have not yet encountered a reality that is outside of my consciousness, much less partial ones beside this one.
Second: In what world is a direct, yet non-provable intuition superior to discursive reasoning?
Third: How did we get this double nature? It seems like something that one does not just come by easily, therefore it must be tied to a specific belief in us being chosen by some deity as especially deserving of this honor.
Fourth: Well since I would argue for no objectifiable meaning of life, I'd strongly disagree that the only purpose in life is to search for the Divine Ground.
​

 

[Reflex]

Well I don't really intend to do a rebuttal of perennial philosophy, but this raises more questions than it answers.

First: What defines a partial reality? I have not yet encountered a reality that is outside of my consciousness, much less partial ones beside this one.
Second: In what world is a direct, yet non-provable intuition superior to discursive reasoning?
Third: How did we get this double nature? It seems like something that one does not just come by easily, therefore it must be tied to a specific belief in us being chosen by some deity as especially deserving of this honor.
Fourth: Well since I would argue for no objectifiable meaning of life, I'd strongly disagree that the only purpose in life is to search for the Divine Ground.
​

Heck, finding the answers to those questions that YOU find satisfying is what makes it fun!

What do you know about about potency and act?

 

[Reflex]

Yes .. I wonder why that is?

Dullness of mind? an insipid lack of curiosity?

Of course not. Why would anyone think so?

Beats me, but it is pretty much is the sum and substance of how atheists argue. Remember the reaction when Willamena said, "Prove it"?

 

[outhouse]

how atheists argue.

Is reason and logic based.

Not insulting, and ignoring, and dancing around evidence, and moving goal post, additional polemic and outright rhetoric.

But thanks for playing

 

[outhouse]

if god exist in your mind, what does he do outside of your conscious mind???????????

 

[prometheus11]

Dullness of mind? an insipid lack of curiosity?


Beats me, but it is pretty much is the sum and substance of how atheists argue. Remember the reaction when Willamena said, "Prove it"?

I would argue that it is dullness of mind and an insipid lack of curiosity that cause believers to answer great mysteries with the unsatisfying and nondemonstrated answer " goddidit."

If no claims about God can be proven, why should anyone take such claims seriously?

 

[Koldo]

It's more than just an extra keystroke, but a way to designate the ontological distinction between Ultimate Reality, if you will, and (real or imagined) demiurges, like Santa or the FSM. Hinduism, too, make a similar distinction.

Except that 'God' doesn't include 'Ultimate Reality' in all of its uses.

 

[Shad]

The category error is the mistaken belief that God is merely another being that exists on the same ontological level as other beings. God is not merely another being, but actually being itself in which all other beings depend upon for their very existence.

Which only applies to a God that does not interact with the universe, which is not the God of theism which has scripture like the Bible with God interacting with the universe.

 

[Koldo]

A category mistake is an error in logic in which one category of something thing is presented as belonging to another category. For example, to say "the rock is alive" assigns the category of life to that which is not alive. Another example would be to say that an idea is the color blue. It mistakenly applies the category of color to a concept in the mind. That's what atheists do here.

The vast majority of arguments one sees against the existence of God are not really arguments against God’s existence, but the existence of any number of so-called deities which may or may not exist in the universe. This is why, for example, Bertrand Russell’s teapot or the ever popular “spaghetti monster” are so silly as neither have even the basic characteristics of God and, therefore, cannot serve as adequate targets for the arguments raised by atheists. Just as frequently, an assertion of atheism is not the assertion of a complete philosophical or metaphysical position, but a way of saying, essentially, “That thing you say you believe in, which you are calling “God” – I don’t think that thing exists, or any similar thing.”

But in all the great religious traditions, God is not a name for some thing that can have similarities to other things. "According to the classical metaphysical traditions of both the East and West, God is the unconditioned cause of reality – of absolutely everything that is – from the beginning to the end of time. Understood in this way, one can’t even say that God "exists" in the sense that my car or Mount Everest or electrons exist. God is what grounds the existence of every contingent thing, making it possible, sustaining it through time, unifying it, giving it actuality. God is the condition of the possibility of anything existing at all." Therefore, even the claim to reason in the denial of God is, in a sense, an affirmation of God.

This is the trivial point which you seem to miss: There isn't an unified position on what 'God' is.

 

[outhouse]

This is the trivial point which you seem to miss: There isn't an unified position on what 'God' is.

Exactly.

They are required to move goal post and hide the god concept where logic and reason cannot address the complete lack of evidence.

My favorite quote of this thread was they are cheating!

 

[Reflex]

Of course not. Why would anyone think so?

Beats me, but it pretty much is the sum and substance

Except that 'God' doesn't include 'Ultimate Reality' in all of its uses.

Correct. That's why the proper use of lower case and upper case "g" is important.

This is the trivial point which you seem to miss: There isn't an unified position on what 'God' is.

Non sequitur

I would argue that it is dullness of mind and an insipid lack of curiosity that cause believers to answer great mysteries with the unsatisfying and nondemonstrated answer " goddidit."

If no claims about God can be proven, why should anyone take such claims seriously?

There you go again with "prove it." What are you, six?

I'm tired of your double-standard, misrepresentations, evasiveness, hypocrisy and devaluing of reason.

 

[outhouse]

I'm tired of your double-standard, hypocrisy and devaluing of reason.

if god exist in your mind, what does he do outside of your conscious mind???????????

 

[1AOA1]

This is the trivial point which you seem to miss: There isn't an unified position on what 'God' is.

In that context, "God" is a definition.

 

[outhouse]

What are you, six?

We do not attack the person here.

You are allowed to address the reply, not the person.

 

[Reflex]

In that context, "God" is a definition.

No. It is a designator, like the word "reality": it points but does not describe or define,

 

[prometheus11]

No. It is a designator, like the word "reality": it points but does not describe or define,

Why are you so emotional about the topic, then?

 

[Koldo]

Correct. That's why the proper use of lower case and upper case "g" is important.

I am afraid you still don't understand. This 'Ultimate Reality' you refer to is not at all required for the upper case 'g'.

 

[Koldo]

In that context, "God" is a definition.

Meaning what ?

 

[outhouse]

No. It is a designator, like the word "reality": it points but does not describe or define,

It describes a concept that is defined by man

It describes mythology