why does God exist?

[Rolling_Stone]

Just so everyone knows, Rolling Stone is speaking for himself. It is in no way, shape or form the policy here on RF to exclude people from expressing their ideas based on whether they are religious or not. There are group-think forums on the net, but this is not one of them.

Thank you!

OF COURSE I'M SPEAKING FOR MYSELF!!!

I'm just a bit odd, I guess, because I like consistency. Why call it a "religious forum" when in fact it's a "general discussion forum"? It's not really a complaint: I refer you to Bouncing Ball said.

 

[Magic Man]

OF COURSE I'M SPEAKING FOR MYSELF!!!

I'm just a bit odd, I guess, because I like consistency. Why call it a "religious forum" when in fact it's a "general discussion forum"?

Because we discuss religion. :yes:

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Because we discuss religion. :yes:

You cannot discuss religion from the outside.

 

[Sunstone]

You cannot discuss religion from the outside.

Sure you can.

 

[Magic Man]

You cannot discuss religion from the outside.

You cannot discuss France from America. :sarcastic

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Sure you can.

Discussing religion from the outside is psychology.

 

[Sunstone]

Discussing religion from the outside is psychology.

Yup. Or comparative religious studies. Or anthropology. Or neuroscience. There's lots of ways to discuss religion, just as there are lots of ways to examine a statue of David. Which way you choose at any given moment depends on your purpose and interests, doesn't it?

 

[Magic Man]

Discussing religion from the outside is psychology.

Nope, it's discussing religion.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Yup. Or comparative religious studies. Or anthropology. Or neuroscience. There's lots of ways to discuss religion, just as there are lots of ways to examine a statue of David. Which way you choose at any given moment depends on your purpose and interests, doesn't it?

Last time I checked, none of those things were religion.

 

[Sunstone]

Last time I checked, none of those things were religion.

Yes, but are you seriously suggesting you cannot learn anything meaningful about religion from those disciplines and sciences? Wouldn't that be a bit like saying you cannot learn anything meaningful about politics from political science, sociology, psychology, anthropology, or other disciplines and sciences? In fact, wouldn't it be a wee bit absurd to suggest that you cannot learn anything meaningful about religion from disciplines and sciences that are not themselves religion?

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Yes, but are you seriously suggesting you cannot learn anything meaningful about religion from those disciplines and sciences?

Yes. To isolate a part of life and call it religion is to distort religion and disintegrate life.

 

[Sunstone]

Yes. To isolate a part of life and call it religion is to distort religion and disintegrate life.

So you are indeed suggesting that nothing meaningful can be learned from the arts, disciplines, and sciences about religion?

 

[Rolling_Stone]

So you are indeed suggesting that nothing meaningful can be learned from the arts, disciplines, and sciences about religion?

The only way to study religion from the outside is to isolate a part of life and call it religion, but like I said, that is to distort religion and disintegrate life.

Part of the reason I find atheists in RF amusing is that they think they can know God and religion the way one knows science, creatures and other men; that is, through the physical senses and with evidence that is compelling. But this is impossible. For God, being Absolute and Unconditioned, cannot be met in intellectual an encounter, be made the object discovered at the end of mere abstract reasoning, or the conclusion of an experimental process. For God is a mystery-experience, a presence, and a gift that must be received. God is not an intellectual problem, an idea, or object. The person who sulks in atheism because he has no sensible evidence, no solid facts for God’s existence, opens himself to the critique of being petulantly unreasonable in demanding what is impossible. He is an idolater: he has faith in man's self-sufficiency to the exclusion of faith in a transcendent ideal. True to his times, he is a non-knower of death and a mis-knower of evil. ​

Like I posted somewhere else:

Religion is superemotional, unifying the entire human experience. Authentic religion is part and parcel of human existence, not something that is acquired to embellish existence or to gloss over ignorance and insecurities. Even at its most primitive, religion is not one concern alongside others, not just another attribute alongside others like “ethical,” “artistic,” or “scientific.” It's a way of living. Authentic religion “does not allow a person to be also religious.” (Paul Tillich) To isolate a part of life and call it religion (or “spiritual” or "emotion") is to disintegrate life and distort religion. Even the very concept of religion effectively destroys the reality toward which it is supposed to point.​

 

[Magic Man]

The only way to study religion from the outside is to isolate a part of life and call it religion, but like I said, that is to distort religion and disintegrate life.

Part of the reason I find atheists in RF amusing is that they think they can know God and religion the way one knows science, creatures and other men; that is, through the physical senses and with evidence that is compelling. But this is impossible. For God, being Absolute and Unconditioned, cannot be met in intellectual an encounter, be made the object discovered at the end of mere abstract reasoning, or the conclusion of an experimental process. For God is a mystery-experience, a presence, and a gift that must be received. God is not an intellectual problem, an idea, or object. The person who sulks in atheism because he has no sensible evidence, no solid facts for God’s existence, opens himself to the critique of being petulantly unreasonable in demanding what is impossible. He is an idolater: he has faith in man's self-sufficiency to the exclusion of faith in a transcendent ideal. True to his times, he is a non-knower of death and a mis-knower of evil. ​

Like I posted somewhere else:

Religion is superemotional, unifying the entire human experience. Authentic religion is part and parcel of human existence, not something that is acquired to embellish existence or to gloss over ignorance and insecurities. Even at its most primitive, religion is not one concern alongside others, not just another attribute alongside others like “ethical,” “artistic,” or “scientific.” It's a way of living. Authentic religion “does not allow a person to be also religious.” (Paul Tillich) To isolate a part of life and call it religion (or “spiritual” or "emotion") is to disintegrate life and distort religion. Even the very concept of religion effectively destroys the reality toward which it is supposed to point.​

I just wanted to throw this out there: I am an atheist, and I don't think I know God and religion the way I know science, etc. I'm sorry to prove you wrong, but I just had to.

It is possible to discuss religion from the outside. You can tell me your thoughts on it, and, if you communicate them well, I can understand it. Many people here do not subscribe to one of the larger organized religions that I had heard of before coming here, and have been able to explain them to me to the point of me understanding them. I might disagree because I haven't had the same experiences as they have, but disagreeing doesn't imply not understanding. That's the beauty of language, we can discuss anything and communicate ideas that are very personal, even emotional, so that others understand how we feel and what we think.

So, please stop with the arrogant "you can't understand religion unless you're a part of it". In that case you couldn't understand others' religions or discuss them because you would be talking about them from the outside, so what are you doing here, then?

 

[Rolling_Stone]

I just wanted to throw this out there: I am an atheist, and I don't think I know God and religion the way I know science, etc. I'm sorry to prove you wrong, but I just had to.

It is possible to discuss religion from the outside.

Amusing. Can you get any more self-contradicting?

You can tell me your thoughts on it, and, if you communicate them well, I can understand it.

Apparently not. How many times has it been said in RF that the thoughts and ideas aren't the religion?

Many people here do not subscribe to one of the larger organized religions that I had heard of before coming here, and have been able to explain them to me to the point of me understanding them. I might disagree because I haven't had the same experiences as they have, but disagreeing doesn't imply not understanding. That's the beauty of language, we can discuss anything and communicate ideas that are very personal, even emotional, so that others understand how we feel and what we think.

Again, you are identifying the thoughts with religion.

So, please stop with the arrogant "you can't understand religion unless you're a part of it".

I suppose an adult being amused by children playing in a sandbox of ideas is "arrogant," too

In that case you couldn't understand others' religions or discuss them because you would be talking about them from the outside, so what are you doing here, then?

Ahhhh. Now you're getting it! "The God-knowing man describes his spiritual experiences, not to convince unbelievers, but for the edification and mutual satisfaction of believers." (UB)

 

[Magic Man]

Amusing. Can you get any more self-contradicting?

Usually to become more something, you have to already be that something to some degree. I said that I don't know God personally, but I can discuss the idea with others. There is absolutely nothing contradictory there. :areyoucra

Apparently not. How many times has it been said in RF that the thoughts and ideas aren't the religion?

In my experience, no times. I've never heard that, actually. How many times can I say, though, that the thoughts and ideas describe the religion?

Again, you are identifying the thoughts with religion.

Nope. I'm using them to describe the religion. That is, after all, what words are for isn't it?

I suppose an adult being amused by children playing in a sandbox of ideas is "arrogant," too

Nope. It's the thinking that you are the adult and others are the children, when clearly it's you who hasn't developped fully yet.

Ahhhh. Now you're getting it! "The God-knowing man describes his spiritual experiences, not to convince unbelievers, but for the edification and mutual satisfaction of believers." (UB)

So, why are you here?

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Usually to become more something, you have to already be that something to some degree. I said that I don't know God personally, but I can discuss the idea with others. There is absolutely nothing contradictory there. :areyoucra

Maybe you should read my post again. God isn't an idea.

In my experience, no times. I've never heard that, actually. How many times can I say, though, that the thoughts and ideas describe the religion?

Really? You've never seen it said that the map is not the territory or the finger pointing to the moon isn't the moon?

Nope. I'm using them to describe the religion. That is, after all, what words are for isn't it?

Can't describe the winter snow to a summer insect

Nope. It's the thinking that you are the adult and others are the children, when clearly it's you who hasn't developped fully yet.

The analogy fits.

So, why are you here?

To be amused by the likes of you. :angel2:

 

[Magic Man]

Maybe you should read my post again. God isn't an idea. [/qquote]

That's great. Neither is my dog, but we can certainly talk about that, can't we?

Really? You've never seen it said that the map is not the territory or the finger pointing to the moon isn't the moon?

Yup. But that's not what you said.

Can't describe the winter snow to a summer insect

You can actually. You tell it that it's ice in the form of tiny crystals that appear to be white and cover the ground making it look like it's covered by a white blanket.

The analogy fits.

Only if you're the child, and others are the adults amused by you.

To be amused by the likes of you. :angel2:

So, why can't I come here to be amused by the likes of you?

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Maybe you should read my post again. God isn't an idea. [/qquote]

That's great. Neither is my dog, but we can certainly talk about that, can't we?

One is conditioned, the other isn't.

Yup. But that's not what you said.

Same thing

You can actually. You tell it that it's ice in the form of tiny crystals that appear to be white and cover the ground making it look like it's covered by a white blanket.

As hard as it is to do so, you miss the point of the analogy.

Only if you're the child, and others are the adults amused by you.

So, why can't I come here to be amused by the likes of you?

Exactly! But be aware that, in effect, you're an A.L.F. in RF.

 

[Magic Man]

One is conditioned, the other isn't.

And?

Same thing

Nope.

As hard as it is to do so, you miss the point of the analogy.

I know what the point was. I was proving your point wrong. I explained that so that someone else could understand it just like someone can explain their religion to me so that I can understand it.

Exactly.

Exactly! But be aware that, in effect, you're an A.L.F. in RF.

And so are you, by your standards.