Is the concept of "God" necessary, let alone real?

[attofishpi]

I am not uwot, but I felt compelled to answer your question.

Why did you feel compelled to answer rather poorly, when uwot has already provided a perfectly satisfactory answer?

To make you realize what a hugely incapable person you are, Attofishpi. You tell me that uwot gave you a perfectly good answer, YET you asked immediately after, "Ah, come on uwot! What would a definition of 'God' be that remains plausible?" THIS is what I answered. You asked, and though I repeated it for you, you still can't comprehend a simple conversational exchange: You ask, I answer. (In this instance.)

If you look closely you will notice that you have it all rather the wrong way around since MY:- "Ah, come on uwot! What would a definition of 'God' be that remains plausible?" was my 1st post in this thread, and then was satisfactorily REPLIED to by uwot.

Ah, c'mon - there's no need to go all psychedelic on me every time you spit the dummy.

[Necromancer]

"It's dangerous to be an (immoral) Atheist in a group with other (immoral) Atheists because some of us are monsters!"
(Immoral Atheist because they choose to be Atheists and not (Secular/Atheist) Humanists!)

Further, that moral blindness by Atheists who of course reject (Atheist/Secular) Humanism get so stupid by that that they can actually die from stupidity, the "breakdown" of the brain from a very poor nervous system!

I'm warning you! Atheism is no good!

[Greta]

Example of the Dunning–Kruger effect above.

[Necromancer]

Example of the Dunning–Kruger effect above.

Hah-hah-hah! Isn't it the ethically and morally superior Atheist speaking?!!

Let me add the link too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E ... ger_effect.

I guess "some" people in the World know my name. You're feeling small, Greta? You seem to be so forthcoming with who you are too, just spitting out the most small-minded insults being Ad hominem "attacks".

Well, well, Greta, I've noted your user-name.

[Greta]

Example of the Dunning–Kruger effect above.

Hah-hah-hah! Isn't it the ethically and morally superior Atheist speaking?!!

1. I'm not an atheist.

2. I never claim to be superior to anyone, nor believe myself to be.

Unintelligent people like you have their own skills and capacities that are worthy of respect. However, when they enter the intellectual realm they must perform. If I join a group of carpenters I would expect to be dissed too - because I would not be competent. That is your problem - you are out of your depth on forums. You seemingly lack the intellectual capacity and maturity to contribute meaningfully.

3. As a result you say some incredibly stupid things, like your above few posts. No content, no depth - just ejaculations.

[Nick_A]

In the chapter "Atheism as a Purification" in Gravity and Grace (Routledge 1995, tr. Emma Craufurd from the French, first pub. in 1947), the first entry reads as follows:

A case of contradictories which are true. God exists: God does not exist. Where is the problem? I am quite sure that there is a God in the sense that I am quite sure that my love is not illusory. I am quite sure that there is not a God in the sense that I am quite sure nothing real can be anything like what I am able to conceive when I pronounce this word. But that which I cannot conceive is not an illusion.

The ravings of a mad woman or just a quality of understanding only a relative few are open to.

[Necromancer]

3. As a result you say some incredibly stupid things, like your above few posts. No content, no depth - just ejaculations.

"Thank you!"

[Greta]

In the chapter "Atheism as a Purification" in Gravity and Grace (Routledge 1995, tr. Emma Craufurd from the French, first pub. in 1947), the first entry reads as follows:

A case of contradictories which are true. God exists: God does not exist. Where is the problem? I am quite sure that there is a God in the sense that I am quite sure that my love is not illusory. I am quite sure that there is not a God in the sense that I am quite sure nothing real can be anything like what I am able to conceive when I pronounce this word. But that which I cannot conceive is not an illusion.

The ravings of a mad woman or just a quality of understanding only a relative few are open to.

Another silly straw person claim. You can join Necro in the Dunce corner.

Who does NOT know that there are aspects of reality that are beyond our comprehension? Pretty well everyone knows we are limited and there is much that we don't know, and they don't need Kant or Gödel to remind them, or even Rumsfeld for that matter.

[Nick_A]

In the chapter "Atheism as a Purification" in Gravity and Grace (Routledge 1995, tr. Emma Craufurd from the French, first pub. in 1947), the first entry reads as follows:

A case of contradictories which are true. God exists: God does not exist. Where is the problem? I am quite sure that there is a God in the sense that I am quite sure that my love is not illusory. I am quite sure that there is not a God in the sense that I am quite sure nothing real can be anything like what I am able to conceive when I pronounce this word. But that which I cannot conceive is not an illusion.

The ravings of a mad woman or just a quality of understanding only a relative few are open to.

Another silly straw person claim. You can join Necro in the Dunce corner.

Who does NOT know that there are aspects of reality that are beyond our comprehension? Pretty well everyone knows we are limited and there is much that we don't know, and they don't need Kant or Gödel to remind them, or even Rumsfeld for that matter.

But Simone is referring to a conscious source of existence the depth of her being is drawn to through love and you could be referring to a sub atomic particle. They are not the same.

[Greta]

The ravings of a mad woman or just a quality of understanding only a relative few are open to.

Another silly straw person claim. You can join Necro in the Dunce corner.

Who does NOT know that there are aspects of reality that are beyond our comprehension? Pretty well everyone knows we are limited and there is much that we don't know, and they don't need Kant or Gödel to remind them, or even Rumsfeld for that matter.

But Simone is referring to a conscious source of existence the depth of her being is drawn to through love and you could be referring to a sub atomic particle. They are not the same.

Simone is simply guessing. That I applaud - the more ideas put towards the great riddles of life, the better. The problems start when those guesses are presented as fact, which is simply dishonest.

Besides, how do you know that love and quantum particles are not the same? After all, some mystics claim that everything is made from love, so if everything is also made up of subatomic particles, then ...

Also, how do you know the created and creator are not one and the same? How do you know that there was intelligence already present in the pre-BB quantum foam? Again, these are only hunches, guesses, and should be presented as such, not as fact - at least not on a philosophy forum.

[Reflex]

Another silly straw person claim. You can join Necro in the Dunce corner.

Who does NOT know that there are aspects of reality that are beyond our comprehension? Pretty well everyone knows we are limited and there is much that we don't know, and they don't need Kant or Gödel to remind them, or even Rumsfeld for that matter.

But Simone is referring to a conscious source of existence the depth of her being is drawn to through love and you could be referring to a sub atomic particle. They are not the same.

Simone is simply guessing.

And you are simply guessing that Simone is simply guessing.

[Greta]

But Simone is referring to a conscious source of existence the depth of her being is drawn to through love and you could be referring to a sub atomic particle. They are not the same.

Simone is simply guessing.

And you are simply guessing that Simone is simply guessing.

So you believe that she KNOWS the truth for sure. I don't.

She has no way of knowing outside of subjective impressions, and they are neither certain nor reliable. Thus, she is guessing.

I could say that I've been touched be God twice and thus what I have been saying are my revelations. The experiences were unmistakeable - I was experiencing God. Yet you don't believe me and thus you refuse to believe God - since what I say are my revelations from my twofold enlightenment (in 2000 and 2012).

However, maybe I wasn't actually touched by God? Maybe it was something else, some unusual brain dynamics? After all, unity consciousness is now repeatable in laboratories. So often that which seems unmistakeable subjectively is not applicable objectively, outside of one's head. Testimony is considered weak evidence in court for a reason - people can so easily fool themselves and others.

We either learn the basic lessons of scepticism from the early Greek and Abrabic thinkers or we regress.

[Nick_A]

Simone is simply guessing.

And you are simply guessing that Simone is simply guessing.

So you believe that she KNOWS the truth for sure. I don't.

She has no way of knowing outside of subjective impressions, and they are neither certain nor reliable. Thus, she is guessing.

I could say that I've been touched be God twice and thus what I have been saying are my revelations. The experiences were unmistakeable - I was experiencing God. Yet you don't believe me and thus you refuse to believe God - since what I say are my revelations from my twofold enlightenment (in 2000 and 2012).

However, maybe I wasn't actually touched by God? Maybe it was something else, some unusual brain dynamics? After all, unity consciousness is now repeatable in laboratories. So often that which seems unmistakeable subjectively is not applicable objectively, outside of one's head. Testimony is considered weak evidence in court for a reason - people can so easily fool themselves and others.

We either learn the basic lessons of scepticism from the early Greek and Abrabic thinkers or we regress.

Simone is not guessing. She is describing what she has experienced. Here is a portion of the above quotation:

I am quite sure that there is a God in the sense that I am quite sure that my love is not illusory. I am quite sure that there is not a God in the sense that I am quite sure nothing real can be anything like what I am able to conceive when I pronounce this word.

She uses the qualifier "quite sure". Her love is not drawn to man made idolatry but rather to what is intuitively known. Can what is intuitively known be both real and necessary? Of course. The problem with secular intolerance is it seeks to destroy through egoistic negativity the natural impulse to become inwardly open to intuition. In short: spirit killing.

[Reflex]

Simone is simply guessing.

And you are simply guessing that Simone is simply guessing.

So you believe that she KNOWS the truth for sure. I don't.

Why do atheists/agnostics feel compelled to put words in the mouths of others?

Truth is lived, it is not encapsulated in ideas. As an idea, truth can never be more than relative to the actual. Based on what I've seen, Simone "knows" a helluva lot more than you, Greta. Tell me, what is it like to live in a fog where your deepest thoughts are "I dunno"?

[Nick_A]

And you are simply guessing that Simone is simply guessing.

So you believe that she KNOWS the truth for sure. I don't.

Why do atheists/agnostics feel compelled to put words in the mouths of others?

Truth is lived, it is not encapsulated in ideas. As an idea, truth can never be more than relative to the actual. Based on what I've seen, Simone "knows" a helluva lot more than you, Greta. Tell me, what is it like to live in a fog where your deepest thoughts are "I dunno"?

Quite true Reflex. Susan Sontag concludes a book review on Simone Weil:

The principal value of the collection is simply that anything from Simone Weil’s pen is worth reading. It is perhaps not the book to start one’s acquaintance with this writer—Waiting for God, I think, is the best for that. The originality of her psychological insight, the passion and subtlety of her theological imagination , the fecundity of her exegetical talents are unevenly displayed here. Yet the person of Simone Weil is here as surely as in any of her other books—the person who is excruciatingly identical with her ideas, the person who is rightly regarded as one of the most uncompromising and troubling witnesses to the modern travail of the spirit.

Simone Weil lived her philosophy rather than hide and complain. Greta is no Simone.