My last discussion with @3017amen about debating was at pp. 10-12 of the God Almost Certainly Exists thread, of loving memory.

Going on that, when @3017amen realises folk are interested, he'll change the topic, "Swiftly abandoning a lost cause", as Jorndoe opined.

2. All domains of philosophy can be argued. — 3017amen

There is is.

Ah, who knows? Might be fun to watch.

@Baden has already offered to set up the mechanics.

I infer you do. So tell us what you know about Him.

Philosophy of Religion can encompass fields that atheists may enjoy and even support, essentially it's positive (or negative) effects on society, psychology, sense of purpose, value where there is observably little, etc. Religion as has been said varies greatly. It (generally) states there is an intelligent Creator God. The details and anything further is subjective of a specific religion. Or sometimes that there "was" as Deism states. I think.

So tell us what you know about Him. — tim wood

While I'm waiting for Daniel to respond, sure I'll banter with you.

Who's "Him"? ( Are you referring to a gender/genderless God?)

Before starting, I think we should agree on a definition of God; you know, just to make sure we are talking about the same thing. As I said, I am not a philosopher, and I am not a theologist, either; so, I am not acquainted with all the terminology used in these fields of study. You said you are a Christian existentialist; I'd like to know how a christian existentialist describes god. What is your idea of god?

Before I can answer your question, I need to know your definition of god.

What is your idea of god?

Sure, the Christian God called Jesus.

Isn't Jesus the son of God?

Warning: The discussion unfolding needs its own thread.

Isn't Jesus the son of God? — Daniel

That's what I read in the Christian Bible. I mean, that's one interpretation, no?

think that a lot of people here are tired of poorly-done philosophy done by a constant stream of newcomers with primarily philosophy of religion interests. That topic seems to attract that kind of person. But I personally don’t think there’s anything wrong with the topic itself, even though I too find that kind of poster tiresome. — Pfhorrest

I agree with this. Philosophy of religion can be really interesting. Theological systems, literary interpretation, archeology, sociology, mythology all come into play if done correctly, but oftentimes the posts are just of posters at a point where they're just trying to make sense of their personal religions and there's not much philosophical about that.

My last discussion with 3017amen about debating was at pp. 10-12 of the God Almost Certainly Exists thread, of loving memory. — Banno

I'll debate you as to whether Yaweh existed as a monotheistic god to the ancient Hebrews prior to Exodus.

Thiat is philosophy of religion in my opinion. Yours begins without even a definition of what you seek to prove or disprove.

I also suspect a debate phrased as you've suggested would meander from the topic of God to the topic of certainty and its distinction from other types of knowledge. Just a hunch.

While I'm waiting for Daniel to respond, sure I'll banter with you.

Who's "Him"? ( Are you referring to a gender/genderless God?) — 3017amen

I'm not playing. I asked you a direct question. Answer or retire.

I as a 18 year old feel very attracted to the question of God and feel like I need to settle my mind about it somehow. — DoppyTheElv

If you're serious, read Kant's first and second prefaces and introduction to his Critique of Pure Reason. It's on-line here:
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/4280/4280-h/4280-h.htm
But (imo) better to read it on paper. Your library will have a copy. Or second hand copies can be got cheaply. The book itself is formidable, but the prefaces and intro. are manageably short and readable, though not easy. And who knows, you may keep right on reading! And you could easily, for example, photocopy those few pages.

Perhaps you will want to ask why. Don't. Just do it, find out for yourself, and make your own judgment. That is the better way. And you're at a fantastic age to start.

Am I right when I have the feeling that you guys mean all the bad arguments are the ones trying to make a case for the existence of God or a deity?

If so then, well how does one even know if they think there is such a God or not in reality?

This is now on my booklist! Thank you!

:clap:

I believe in the God of Creation. Does that answer your concern?

I believe in the God of Creation. Does that answer your concern? — 3017amen

I think so. I asked you what you know, and you have answered with what you believe. That both is and is not an answer. As to knowledge it is nothing, but given the context it also says that you don't know. Fair enough.

are the ones trying to make a case for the existence of God or a deity? — DoppyTheElv

The key word is "existence." Unless you establish for yourself exactly what that means - and doesn't mean - as a fixed point (even if later you might change it), you will go 'round in circles.

think so. I asked you what you know, and you have answered with what you believe. That both is and is not an answer. As to knowledge it is nothing, but given the context it also says that you don't know. Fair enough. — tim wood

Really? Not sure fairness, has anything to do with it.

We are talking about the existence of something. In this case, in human terms, it would be the human being called Jesus. Using your words, what does knowledge have to do with existence?

what does knowledge have to do with existence? — 3017amen

Nothing I can think of, but I'll accept correction. What is your point?

Existence as in that its an 3 omni God. Or really whatever deity one argues. As in its an actual entity and not a mental fabrication.

I don't think anyone here would even claim that God is an actual entity. The problem is with "actual." For example, to be actual is to be subject to limitation.

I myself think of God as one name for a complex of regulative ideas. But not existing in any substantive sense apart from those ideas.

What is your point? — tim wood

Tim!

As I've said over in the Lounge, existentially, one does not know the true nature of their own existence, and so why should this be any different (?).

Now if you want to speculate metaphysically, you're more than welcome to elucidate there.

Now if you want to speculate metaphysically, you're more than welcome to elucidate there. — 3017amen

Sure. Purple flying hippopotami great and small in countless number control all aspects of the universe. Prove I'm wrong.

It isn't so much that philosophy of religion is bad, it's that people who are knowledgeable about it on the site don't post about it much. Even @Wayfarer who's got chops/domain expertise uses his knowledge about it predominantly in other contexts.

If you want high caliber philosophy of religion or theology discussions, start them. Inform mods that you desire it to be kept strictly on topic and flag off topic posts.

If you want the perpetually self derailing standard fare, stand back and watch.

Regardless, I think it's important not to moderate adequate quality religion discussions off site; it's a gateway drug. People who start learning philosophy in their spare time often start with god questions or atheism questions, and those two groups will argue forever.

Sure. Purple flying hippopotami great and small in countless number control all aspects of the universe. Prove I'm wrong. — tim wood

No. What I meant was explaining your own existence metaphysically. In other words, your conscious existence.

People who start learning philosophy in their spare time often start with god questions or atheism questions, and those two groups will argue forever. — fdrake

Again, that's a misnomer. God is posited in 75% of philosophical domain's.

No. — 3017amen

Good! We seem to have arrived on a common ground: no nonsense.

What I meant was explaining your own existence metaphysically. In other words, your conscious existence. — 3017amen

And just as we were doing so well! And now I have no idea what you mean. What do you mean?