Truth being oneness or harmony of everything or reason behind life.(i guess so, i haven't reached there, yet.)
Yes absolute truth is beyond words, — ahmad bilal
It is pragmatic, not "disingenuous" unless you consider pragmatism disingenuous. What do you mean by the "wrong deity", how can there be a "wrong" in this discussion.
I don't like Pascal's wager either, but it a rational alternative, and rationality does not have to be sincere, just reasonable. — Cavacava
Can word Existence apply to God? Existence only applies to things with spatial property. Isn't God supposed to be a transcendental being outside the realm of existence, reason and perception?
In that case, the question is invalid? — Corvus
↪Banno Will wisdom not try to solve the greatest mystery of all in the end?(The mystery of existence) — ahmad bilal
I think I would consider myself an agnostic with regards to the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, creator of the cosmos. — darthbarracuda
When taking the general approach, what i consider to be a god in general refers to the set of axioms a person holds to be true enough to act upon. Since all people have a set of axioms they act upon, everyone has a god they serve. Of course this set can change over time by adopting new axioms, or letting go of old axioms. So in that regard, I don't believe atheists exist, the ones that call themselve atheist merely refuse to call their belief in their set of axioms a god. — Tomseltje
It seems darthbarracuda is more interested in the existence of a more specific god. I'm not sure where he got the 'creator of the cosmos' part from. Since I don't think this was a main concern of people living over 2000 years ago.
In my opinion genisis 1 isn't referring to the the cosmos when it states "in the beginning". I prefer to read it like "in the beginning of human conciousness" rather than 'In the beginning of the cosmos". It makes alot more sense to me that way. — Tomseltje
The fervor that people can have defending their views can only be described as fanatical and zealous. — darthbarracuda
Calling people's axioms "gods" is analogical, I think, and not appropriate as a literal interpretation, though. — darthbarracuda
The Abrahamic god is the one in the back of the minds of philosophers of religion. But I want to focus on the philosophical God — darthbarracuda
I appreciate the discussion about the origin of the word "God." That shows how a god functions in our lives. But merely invoking a god does not mean that a "god" exists, simply that someone has the idea that the god exists. On the other hand, if one was able to show a a strongly-evidenced causal connection between invoking a god and successful results from those invocations, that would be evidence that the god exists. — Michael Cunningham
A wager is voluntary, belief is not, so belief is not like a wager in an important respect. — Sapientia
A perfect deity does not need to make anything. Why did god make the universe? — darthbarracuda
I still haven't gotten a good explanation of natural disasters or why god decided to make life so cruel. — darthbarracuda
the Western, Abrahamic god, is incoherent with evolution. — darthbarracuda
God is merely a placeholder for what we do not know. — darthbarracuda
Religious acts, such as rituals and ceremonies, are superstitious and cast major doubt on the character of god. What kind of god not only allows, but wants and most often than not demands that people worship it in an irrational manner? — darthbarracuda
I still haven't gotten a good explanation of natural disasters or why god decided to make life so cruel. — darthbarracuda
I agree with Kamikaze that desire for God is a major source of religion. However, even though desire is not evidence of truth it's not evidence of falsehood either--except that if one has only desire then one does not have reasons for belief. — Michael Cunningham
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.