To be fair, I've never personally met a theist who has said that God/gods is/are a mystery. Most (usually Christians) argue that one can come to know God personally. Deists, following neoplatonism, along with Stoics argue God can be "known" through our use of reason (i.e. reason is the way we become like the gods)

To be fair, I've never personally met a theist who has said that God/gods is/are a mystery. Most (usually Christians) argue that one can come to know God personally. Deists, following neoplatonism, along with Stoics argue God can be "known" through our use of reason (i.e. reason is the way we become like the gods) — Paulm12

Apophatic theology is a legit branch in the philosophy of religion and speaks volumes in re whether god(s) are a part of the solution or part of the problem.

So, if "God" is not a mystery, that is, not inexplicable to human reason, then why all the mumbo-jumbo about "revealed truth" or "He reveals His presence through sacred scriptures or 'signs and wonders'"? Is it your belief that e.g. the Abrahamic "God" is explained (i.e. rationally known) by human reason? If so, then why is "faith" required? (Btw, maybe most of those "theists" you've mentioned are scriptural illiterates or ignorant of theology).

So, if "God" is not a mystery, that is, not inexplicable to human reason, then why all the mumbo-jumbo about "revealed truth" or "He reveals His presence through sacred scriptures or 'signs and wonders'"? Is it your belief that e.g. the Abrahamic "God" is explained (i.e. rationally known) by human reason? If so, then why is "faith" required? (Btw, maybe most of those "theists" you've mentioned are scriptural illiterates or ignorant of theology). — 180 Proof

Most interesting. — Ms. Marple

Xin (heart-mind). God(s) is(are) an emotional need (crutch/fetish as you said in your previous post). They/it falls under the rubric of desiderata (ignoring the late Christopher Hitchens' views on the horrors of a celestial dictatorship) rather than facta.

:ok:

Do you think fish would invent and make bicycles if they could? Like, most of them would get one? — Bylaw

if someone, anyone, could do something, do you think they would do it or not do it?

Think of a carpenter: he or she could make a table or a kitchen cabinet, but instead he or she starts a new religion afresh from a stale old one.

For my 2 shekels ...

I need God as an explanation (or justification) to why [ ... ] — Paulm12

Is there anything about this universe that requires the existence of God for an explanation? — Agent Smith

Of course not. "God" is the ultimate "mystery" (according to Abrahamic (& Vedic) traditions) and a "mystery" does not explain anything. "Mystery created it", "Mystery commands it" – beg cosmological and ethical questions, respectively, and therefore cannot answer them. — 180 Proof

The notion that God explains anything cosmological or ethical is a failure on the part of religious culture. God is not an object of knowledge, but is an object of faith (and as we all know, knowledge and faith are contradictory at best). Yet, it is incorrect to call God an "object" because God belongs entirely to subjectivity. Subjectivity has been lost in religious culture, but it is always relevant to the individual who genuinely observes his personal faith.

Xin (heart-mind). God(s) is(are) an emotional need (crutch/fetish as you said in your previous post). — Agent Smith

It is an existential crutch because existence is heavy.

A good portion of it is irrational, so we have irrational faith as a way to cope with it. More recently, our generation has developed some crazy-ass anti-psychotics to help cope with the irrationallity of our existence.

Another portion of existence is rational, and for that we have reason, from which we construct our logic and beliefs (along with our toys and amusements) to help cope with it.

Humans need god like a fish needs a bicycle. — god must be atheist

Fish bicycle. That is a great concept! How would it operate?

To be fair, I've never personally met a theist who has said that God/gods is/are a mystery. Most (usually Christians) argue that one can come to know God personally. Deists, following neoplatonism, along with Stoics argue God can be "known" through our use of reason (i.e. reason is the way we become like the gods) — Paulm12

Comprehending God is like staring at the sun. In one instance you become catatonic, in the other you go blind. That is why God is the eternal mystery, the instant you apprehend/contact It, It simultaneously incapacitates you and renders you incoherent.

Talking about one's knowledge of God is in the same category as an account of bigfoot or the great UFO.

:up:

So, a little bit of craziness and a little bit of reason. That's how we work, oui monsieur? An interesting paradigm that needs dissemination among the peoples of the world: look, you're not cuckoo alright, but you aren't exactly sane either! :snicker:

look, you're not cuckoo alright, but you aren't exactly sane either! :snicker: — Agent Smith

:lol:

Misery loves company.

if someone, anyone, could do something, do you think they would do it or not do it? — god must be atheist

I really doubt fish would be making bicycles in different regions of the ocean, even if separated from each other's influence. So I don't think the analogy holds.

Think of a carpenter: he or she could make a table or a kitchen cabinet, but instead he or she starts a new religion afresh from a stale old one. — god must be atheist

He made things out of wood because people paid him, presumably, and thought they needed them. I would guess he thought people needed to hear what he said, as other humans in most cultures did, some making changes that stuck or starting things that stuck, some affecting tiny nuances, some making big changes. All over the place. Maybe one fish artist would make a bicycle but fish would view it as an oddity or wonderful piece of art. It would be very unlikely to work and no fish would be able to use it. But humans, for good reasons or not, are drawn to that carpenters work in words, many think they need it. I don't think the analogy holds.

Which doesn't require a commitment to theism to argue.

Hell, there's a very good change religions had adaptive value. Which can, of course, be quite different from truth value, or not, case by case.

I can't see bicycles having adapative value for fish. I don't see any possible argument.

Google adaptive value theism or belief in God and you will find the issue taken seriously by scientists and others who are not committed to theism as a true model. And then I'm sure by some theists also.

You will not find scientists arguing that bicyles are potentially adaptive for fish.

Of that fish seek out those who produce them.