Then it would not be a god. — Sir2u

Thank you for sharing with us your unique knowledge of the necessary nature of the one true God, even though your God is only one of various different meanings being referred to when various different people mention God.

Michael Ossipoff

The title of the thread is disparaging. It was, and is telling, that I had to point that out to you. — Rank Amateur

Not really. If you were just referring to the title, then you should have made that clear, and if you had have done so, then I probably wouldn't have given that remark much notice. But instead you caused me to wonder whether it was something that I had said. After all, your comment followed mine, and I have somewhat of a reputation for not mincing my words.

Who cares if it's disparaging? That's secondary to whether it hits the mark. Maybe not even secondary, but further down the list of what really matters. The truth isn't always pleasant, you know. Learn to deal with it. And yes, you are being sensitive.

I didn't rule it out, I just made it clear the sense in which I was using the term. — Wayfarer

Well, you didn't say "I". You said "we". ("we are discussing a concept in traditional philosophy and not the subject of personal devotion").

It's not a non-traditional interpretation. — Wayfarer

On what grounds can you support such a claim? Can you show me evidence of this "tradition"? What historical record is there of a tradition amongst a group which do not consider themselves atheists, but in some sense consider themselves theists or believers, that God doesn't exist? How far back does it go? How widespread is it now? How widespread has it been historically?

At the very least, it's nontraditional relative to the mainstream tradition or traditions, which certainly do not posit that God doesn't exist. You'd have to be from another planet or something to make that claim. If you're going to claim that this interpretation that you've presented is traditional, then in future you should probably qualify that in some way for sake of clarity.

Reason is that standard by which you're judging the matter. And that's where you're wrong.

Reason isn't applicable to everything. Only a True-Believing Science-Worshipper thinks thinks it is.

To try to apply reason, science or logic outside its legitimate range of applicability is in conflict with reason, science or logic.

Michael Ossipoff — Michael Ossipoff

Mr. Ossipoff, please do yourself a favour and quit the propaganda-speak of "True-Believing Science-Worshippers".

I'm not trying to apply reason, science or logic outside of its legitimate range of applicability. So your comment has no bearing on my position. And if you think otherwise, then the burden lies with you.

thank you for your opinions- when you actually make an argument in defense of any of them I will be happy to respond

Then stop prevaricating and go ahead. I've already responded with argumentative points and questions for you to answer. Your response was to handwave, which is unacceptable. The burden remains with you, and I will continue to redirect your attempts to shift it, though eventually I'll lose interest and move on.

Can you show me evidence of this "tradition"? — S

I would, but I don't think you're interested.

I would, if I thought you had the least interest in anything apart from bashing theists. — Wayfarer

If you're not willing to follow through, then don't waste my time in the first place. Otherwise you're basically just trolling. I don't want to have any dealings with such people and their excuses.

I would try, but it seems to me that the only reason you're interested in discussing is, is because of your intense dislike of 'theism'. So, the argument I'm making does have a pedigree, and various sources I could quote, but the whole process is like a coconut shy - I put those ideas up for you to knock over. That's where the 'waste of time' comes into it, but if you're actually interested in the arguments, then I'll reconsider.

My motive should not be of any relevance. And yes, I'm aware of your low opinion of me. You've made that quite clear. But please do try to play the ball, and not the man. That's a basic principle, surely. If I'm critical, just consider that there might be a good reason for that. It's uncharitable to assume the worst.

argumentative is not a philosophical argument- a string of unsubstantiated opinions may be provocative but until there is some semblance of a basis it is nothing but opinion. Trading opinions is a waste of time

In what historical record is there of a tradition amongst a group which do not consider themselves atheists, but in some sense consider themselves theists or believers, that God doesn't exist? — S

It hinges on the meaning of 'to exist'. As I said, it sounds a pedantic quibble, but it is a philosophy forum, and this is a basic question of ontology and metaphysics.

You will find in many places in the classical literature, Latin and Greek, reference to the One (sometimes depicted in Biblical terms, sometimes in philosophical - it's an uneasy marriage) as 'beyond being'. That is, after all, what 'transcendent' means. Now the way I parse this is that the word that has been translated as 'being' in these texts, ought to be translated as 'existence' - so, 'the first principle' is 'beyond existence', in the sense of not being subject to birth and death, not being composed of parts - in short, not having any of the attributes and characteristics that are predicated of all existing beings (a.k.a. 'the ten thousand things', the phenomenal domain, the manifest realm,)

The issue is, however, that since medieval times, ontology - the philosophy of the nature of being - has been 'flattened' in such a way that the conceptual space for such being-beyond-being has been lost, abandoned or rejected. So nowadays, we tend to think of 'existence' as a univocal and binary value - something either exists, or it doesn't. Our shorthand for 'what exists' is 'what is out there, somewhere'; added to which, Carl Sagan's aphorism, 'cosmos is all that exists'. So, 'what exists' is something that is 'out there', that occupies a position in space and time or which can have causal consequences that can be detected in the phenomenal domain; what can be measured or conceived by science. On that basis we're willing to believe that there are neutrinos or quarks and spend extraordinary sums on elaborate apparatus - the most expensive apparatus in history! - to pursue them. But that's in part because there's a conceptual space, a set of hypotheses, in which such entities can be considered real. Whereas the question of the real nature of being is of a different order - the answer is not 'out there somewhere'. It's never going to be discovered by the LHC or the Hubble, because it's not a phenomenal reality.

So, the arguments about whether there can be 'evidence' for such a being are beside the point. Not only beside the point, they betoken a misunderstanding of what is even being talked about. It's a category error of demanding empirical evidence for a metaphysical issue. But because of the influence of empiricism, this distinction is no longer even intelligible to us.

So - as to which tradition, or who has talked about it - it takes a bit of research. The problem is that the way that we - culture and society - think about the whole issue has itself been evolving and changing. We're nowadays instinctive naturalists who carry assumptions about what ought to be considered real, often without being aware of them.

But there are modern theological philosophers who represent the traditional understanding of God as 'being beyond being' - one being Paul Tillich:

"Existence - Existence refers to what is finite and fallen and cut of from its true being. Within the finite realm issues of conflict between, for example, autonomy (Greek: 'autos' - self, 'nomos' - law) and heteronomy (Greek: 'heteros' - other, 'nomos' - law) abound (there are also conflicts between the formal/emotional and static/dynamic). Resolution of these conflicts lies in the essential realm (the Ground of Meaning/the Ground of Being) which humans are cut off from yet also dependent upon ('In existence man is that finite being who is aware both of his belonging to and separation from the infinite'. Therefore existence is estrangement."


"Although this looks like Tillich was an atheist such misunderstanding only arises due to a simplistic understanding of his use of the word existence. What Tillich is seeking to lead us to is an understanding of the 'God above God'. We have already seen earlier that the Ground of Being (God) must be separate from the finite realm (which is a mixture of being and non-being) and that God cannot be a being. God must be beyond the finite realm. Anything brought from essence into existence is always going to be corrupted by ambiguity and our own finitude. Thus statements about God must always be symbolic (except the statement 'God is the Ground of Being').

Another is David Bentley Hart. But I should stress that in both cases, the respective authors are simply bringing up to date and re-stating an understanding that was ubiquitous in the early tradition.

So, the issue is that demanding 'evidence' for 'God' is a category error, in the sense that, for the believer, everything is evidence. Whereas with empirical evidence, you begin by excluding stuff - you're looking for a particular cause for a particular effect (polio, wheat rust, continental drift, whatever) and then looking for specific causes of those consequences. Whereas the idea of a 'first cause' is of a different order to that; but the whole sense of there being 'a different order' is what has now dropped out of the discourse.

It hinges on the meaning of 'to exist'. As I said, it sounds a pedantic quibble, but it is a philosophy forum, and this is a basic question of ontology and metaphysics. — Wayfarer

Or it hinges on what this "God" you folk talk about is supposed to be?

It's not just about half a dozen or so quotes about obscure abstracts, but also about what people actually believe, and their actions.
Championing such obscure abstracts, and hijacking the terminology for the occasion, isn't particularly representative.
Also ask ministers, pundits, imams and pagans what their "God" is supposed to be, and their ($fulltime) apologists how they justify.

Seems the word "God" is up for grabs, maybe we all ought come up with something of our own. :)

argumentative is not a philosophical argument- a string of unsubstantiated opinions may be provocative but until there is some semblance of a basis it is nothing but opinion. Trading opinions is a waste of time — Rank Amateur

Then, for the last time, and without further delay, please practice what you preach and present a revision of your original post - see here - with arguments in support of your unsubstantiated opinions.

To break it down (again):

Maybe I’m sensitive, but why is it such a common thing to use such disparaging terms to refer to someone’s beliefs. — Rank Amateur

I no longer care about this. You've clarified that you were referring to the title, and I'm not the least bit concerned about why it might be such a common thing.

It is not a matter of fact that God is or God is not. It is a reasonable belief that God is or God is not. — Rank Amateur

Your wording is ambiguous, but I addressed multiple interpretations in my reply. It's waiting for you to clarify which interpretation you meant, whether you agree or disagree, and why, given my explanation. The "why" is notably absent from your original comment, as you can see. And it is likewise absent from your empty dismissive reply. It is a bare assertion. And, as the late Christopher Hitchens said, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, which you seem to agree with, despite having done the opposite here in this discussion.

It is ignorant to disparage anyone’s beliefs that are not in conflict with fact or reason. — Rank Amateur

You can forget about whether or not it's ignorant, or whether it's disparaging, and start with an argument in support of your apparent suggestion that to believe that there's a God, or to believe that there's no God, is not in conflict with fact or reason, despite the basis for belief being left as yet unexamined.

And if that's not what you were suggesting, then it's waiting on you to clarify what you were suggesting, if anything. And if you weren't suggesting anything further, then I see little to no relevance in your above comment. The beliefs about God of those who have participated in this discussion are probably a mixture of being in conflict with reason and not being in conflict with reason. You need to be specific or you're not saying anything worth getting into.

Then, for the last time, and without further delay, please practice what you preach and present a revision of your original post - see here - with arguments in support of your unsubstantiated opinions. — S

p1 - by definition facts are. I.e. 2 + 2 = 4, the cat is on the chair, the earth is round.
P2 - facts do not stay in dispute by reasonable, sensible, and intelligent beings.
P3 - many, many very reasonable, sensible and intelligent beings have been in dispute over the existence of God for a very long time

Therefore: God is, or God is not is not a matter of fact

Your wording is ambiguous, but I addressed multiple interpretations in my reply. It's waiting for you to clarify which interpretation you meant, whether you agree or disagree, and why, given my explanation. The "why" is notably absent from your original comment, as you can see. And it is likewise absent from your empty dismissive reply. It is a bare assertion. And, as the late Christopher Hitchens said, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, which you seem to agree with, despite having done the opposite here in this discussion. — S

There is absolutely nothing ambiguous in the statement it is reasonable to believe that God does and does not exist. Since it is not a matter of fact, and there are multiple perfectly rational arguments for both positions, reasonable people can, and in fact, do hold either position. This is not a difficult concept. Christopher Hitchens has made a good living off this very concept.

You can forget about whether or not it's ignorant, — S

If it is not, it very well should be a definition of ignorance to dismiss, disparage, or degrade the beliefs of others, without any other basis than you disagree with them.

And if that's not what you were suggesting, then it's waiting on you to clarify what you were suggesting, if anything. And if you weren't suggesting anything further, then I see little to no relevance in your above comment. The beliefs about God of those who have participated in this discussion are probably a mixture of being in conflict with reason and not being in conflict with reason. You need to be specific. — S

My statement is, one can believe by faith alone what one chooses to, with no further support, with the caveat that this belief is not in conflict with fact or reason.

I have stated and supported the position that whether or not God is or is not is not a matter of fact. I have stated, and assume the hundreds of years of intelligent philosophical discussion support the position that there are reasonable arguments both for and against God is. So neither position is in conflict with reason.

The only thing reasonable theism is in direct conflict with on this post is the readily apparent self elevation of your beliefs to fact and absolute truth.

Championing such obscure abstracts, and hijacking the terminology for the occasion, isn't particularly representative. — jorndoe

It is a lot easier to bash popular religion, that’s for sure.

The second premise is false. People routinely get into disputes over a wealth of issues, and these can remain in dispute for lengthy periods of time, especially in academia, and this includes reasonable, sensible, and intelligent beings. Examples can be found in the sciences, history, and of course, philosophy. There's always a fact of the matter, even if it isn't known or if there are competing claims.

Trying to support your conclusion is a lost cause. It's self-evidently absurd to claim that there's no fact of the matter. Either there's a god or there isn't, and whichever it is, that's the fact. What else would you call it?? (Not that that would make any real difference. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet).

Mr. Ossipoff, please do yourself a favour and quit the propaganda-speak of "True-Believing Science-Worshippers".

.
Call it what you want, but “True-Believing Science-Worshippers” isn’t an exaggeration.
.
There are actually people who believe that science, logic and “reason” are universally-applicable.
.
You know, people who fervently and loudly believe that faith is in conflict with reason. Maybe you know someone like that.

.

I'm not trying to apply reason, science or logic outside of its legitimate range of applicability. So your comment has no bearing on my position. And if you think otherwise, then the burden lies with you.

.
You’ve been repeatedly saying that faith conflicts with reason. Alright, then share some of your reason with us. Tell us how reason contradicts all religion, all religious faith, all of whatever various meanings people mean when referring to God, or faith in God.
.
Hint: Don’t just disprove your SkyDaddy belief that the common loud variety of Atheists, like other Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalists, have so devotedly, fervently and loudly latched-onto.
.
Michael Ossipoff

you have completely missed the point. No surprise of course

There is absolutely nothing ambiguous in the statement it is reasonable to believe that God does and does not exist. — Rank Amateur

You're far too overconfident in your own abilities, given your propensity to deny in the strongest possible terms this, that and the other. Anyway, you absolutely certainly completely categorically 100% don't have a clue what you're talking about and your responses are a waste of my time, so I'll be ending our discussion here.

Or it hinges on what this "God" you folk talk about is supposed to be?
— jorndoe

Of course, and so it would make a lot more sense if you could confine your comments to a particular specific belief, if you feel a need to make an issue of the beliefs of others who don't bother attacking you. In other words, maybe a good rule would be to know, and specifically say, what you're criticizing or disagreeing with.

Now, there are professed Theists who come to your door and give you a bad time if you don't convert to their religion. They do attack you. So, feel free to criticize their religion, because they "open the door" to the issue (to use a court term).

But at least be specific about what you're criticizing.

It's not just about half a dozen or so quotes about obscure abstracts, but also about what people actually believe, and their actions.

What's not just about that? What is it that you're talking about what it's about? What you're criticizing? You speak of what people actually believe, but then you need to clearly specify what people or beliefs you're referring to and criticizing.

"It's about" everyone,who is religious, or so you mean to imply?

Also ask ministers, pundits, imams and pagans what their "God" is supposed to be, and their ($fulltime) apologists how they justify.

But isn't that what you need to do first, and then specify what particular belief(s) you're making an issue about?

I mean, you're the one making an issue of their beliefs that you aren't specifying..

I don't know why I bother answering this never-ending spew from self-styled scientific debunkers and Defenders of Science.

Seems the word "God" is up for grabs

Translation: Different people (including loud self-esteem-problem Atheists) use it with different meanings..

, maybe we all ought come up with something of our own

Go for it. And then maybe even quiet down until you have something definite to say.

Michael Ossipoff

you are either a troll or an idiot, there are no other options

you are either a troll or an idiot, there are no other options — Rank Amateur

:up: :up: :up: :grin:

Says the rank amateur...

:

”Thomas Merton
“Reason is in fact the path to faith, and faith takes over when reason can say no more.” “— Rank Amateur
.
If reason is the path to faith, then why, pray tell, don't we all have faith in a magical sky daddy?

.
1. Because some of us are befuddled by a belief in what we incorrectly imagine to be reason.
.
2. If reason is the path to (toward) faith, that needn’t mean that everyone reasonable continues past reason along that path, to an interest in what’s outside reason’s purview.
.
“…when reason can say no more.” But maybe not everyone wants to pursue more.
.
3. You’re equating faith with “SkyDaddy”. If you’d said that at the beginning of this thread, maybe that could be excusable. But you’re still saying it even after several people have explained to you, many times, in various ways, with many quotes from respected writers, that your SkyDaddy doesn’t define or characterize what faith is about, or what is meant when people speak of God. SkyDaddy is what Biblical Literalists like you have devotedly latched onto. You want to attribute it to Theists in general. It’s been more than amply explained to you that you’re wrong.
.
Your continued repetition of something that you’ve been amply corrected about suggests that you don’t qualify for a reply here. I won’t waste time replying to you again. I don’t know why anyone else here would.
.

If you're a sensible type with an interest in truth, then when reason can say no more, you'll close the case

Then close it, instead of saying things that you can’t support.

When reason can say no more, then don’t keep on saying more about what reason says.

(When I don’t reply to S., that doesn’t mean that he’s said something irrefutable. It’s just that he’s demonstrated that he doesn’t rate a reply.)
.
Michael Ossipoff

Bertrand Russel was quoted:

“Philosophy is something intermediate between theology and science. Like theology, it consists of speculations on matters as to which definite knowledge has, so far, been unascertainable

Regarding religion, I'd say it's unprovable, un-assertable matters. But I don't know if "speculation" is the right word. "Speculation" implies wondering about which potentially-provable factual way it is.

I thought it was more a matter of impression and feeling.

There are the 5 arguments, but I don't consider it a matter for assertion or argument, and certainly not proof. There are interesting discussions about it. That's what I call them instead of arguments. Some of the discussions seem convincing, and some others seem possibly convincing in some form. I consider some of those discussions to be intriguing and interesting.

You said that the matter is indeterminate. With respect to proof, argument and assertion, sure.

But faith means believing something that isn't provable, and something that you wouldn't assert or argue. (...though of course you could tell what suggests an impression about it.)

Regarding that matter, and the impressions that I've expressed about it, I can't prove it, I don't assert it or argue for it. ...and I don't doubt it.

Russell must not have spoken to many religious people if he regards it as a matter of speculation about what the potentially-provable truth of the matter is.

I'm not criticizing him. No doubt he was very good at what he was good at.

Continuing the Russell quote:

; but like science, it [philosophy] appeals to human reason rather than to authority,

Yes, I've often been saying that metaphysics has much in common with science. ...for example, as regards the requirements and desiderata such as falsifiability and no-brute-facts.

whether that of tradition or that of revelation.

Then that's Russell's notion about what religion is. It sounds more like that of the religious-promoters who knock on my door, than like the authors I agree with.

All definite knowledge—so I should contend—belongs to science

No. Definite things can be reliably said in metaphysics. Sure, no one can disprove an unfalsifiable, unverifiable assertion of a brute-fact, in metaphysics. But isn't that true in physics too? A difference is that physics has more opportunity for a mountain of experimental evidence to pile up, but, in principle an unfalsifiable proposition remains un-disprovable. ...discreditable, but not disprovable....just as in metaphysics.

But even though I can't prove that Materialism's unverifiable, unfalsifiable brute-fact isn't true, I can tell you why it's an unverifiable, unfalsifiable brute-fact. That's the best that you can do in metaphysics. Discredit a discreditable proposal.

; all dogma as to what surpasses definite knowledge belongs to theology.

He's all wrong there. Philosophy is full of dogma. And not all Theists espouse or express dogma.

Michael Ossipoff

I think you may be reading more into the quote, than its intention. I think all he was trying to do was establish some blurry borders between the disciplines of science, philosophy, and theology.