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

[Reflex]

Reflex, Greta wrote concerning your disappointing behavior

Aside from what appears to be a catastrophic weakness in analytics, in forum terms you are a submissive. A bottom, as they say.

You are so impressed and intimidated by Nick's aggression to the point that you would never dare disagree with him, no matter how rash or ungrounded his claims.

.

I didn't know you were a bottom with a weakness in analytics. I learn something new every day. To make matter worse you wouldn't have the nerve to disagree with me. You didn't know I was such a tough guy did you? One false move and I'll attack you with a Plato quote.

One thing you have to say about Greta: she is definitely a piece of work. And she is actually a mod on a philosophy forum. You can't write this stuff.

Nietzsche wrote that God is dead. The idea has devolved into "Philosophy is dead" The only thing left is to organize the attack against the bad guys as the indoctrinated pick up the pitchforks and light the torches in defense of secularism

No, I didn't.

Greta claims to be an agnostic. Okay, but it seems I'm not the only one who dislikes agnosticism more that than atheism. Someone asked, Why does Pi (in life of Pi) dislike agnostics more than atheists? Here is the response:

Pi feels that agnostics are weak, inable to move forward in life and have conviction. He believes that doubt should exist, but should be momentary, to be replaced by a decision. Atheists have belief, and have made a specific choice about what to believe. Agnostics, if they remain so, never will. Here is the quote from the book that covers it:

"I'll be honest about it. It is not atheists who get stuck in my craw, but agnostics. Doubt is useful for a while. We must all pass through the garden of Gethsemane. If Christ played with doubt, so must we. If Christ spent an anguished night in prayer, if He burst out from the Cross, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" then surely we are also permitted doubt. But we must move on. To choose doubt as a philosophy of life is akin to choosing immobility as a means of transportation."

This isn't much different than what I've said about agnosticism. So when an atheist retreats into agnosticism (a common occurrence) in order to appear more reasonable than a theist, I see it as a retreat into cowardice, an unwillingness to conform to the logical consequences of their disbelief. But what more appalling is the sheer hypocrisy of Greta's post.

[Greta]

Someone asked, Why does Pi (in life of Pi) dislike agnostics more than atheists? Here is the response:

Pi feels that agnostics are weak, inable to move forward in life and have conviction. He believes that doubt should exist, but should be momentary, to be replaced by a decision. Atheists have belief, and have made a specific choice about what to believe. Agnostics, if they remain so, never will. Here is the quote from the book that covers it:

"I'll be honest about it. It is not atheists who get stuck in my craw, but agnostics. Doubt is useful for a while. We must all pass through the garden of Gethsemane. If Christ played with doubt, so must we. If Christ spent an anguished night in prayer, if He burst out from the Cross, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" then surely we are also permitted doubt. But we must move on. To choose doubt as a philosophy of life is akin to choosing immobility as a means of transportation."

This isn't much different than what I've said about agnosticism. So when an atheist retreats into agnosticism (a common occurrence) in order to appear more reasonable than a theist, I see it as a retreat into cowardice, an unwillingness to conform to the logical consequences of their disbelief. But what more appalling is the sheer hypocrisy of Greta's post.

That is, with respect, utterly silly. That's why Pi is listed in the fiction section.

What you show again, is simply politics - your analytics are terribly weak. You seem unable to connect two or more concepts together, rather you present each as a discrete standalone. Children do that.

A person is under no obligation to pretend to know things that they cannot possibly know. To say that it is weak not to feign knowledge is simply Trumpian "logic".

Yes, one can engage in theistic display behaviour to be accepted by those you admire but I can see something in you that you are afraid to admit - you do not really believe. It's obvious. You especially hate agnostics because they are threatening. You show no interest in science - in creation - only in human abstractions.

Yours is not religion, it is just politics. Conservative politics. Republicanism. It is time that you admitted that you yourself do NOT believe in God, but harbour similar doubts to mine - but you chose your side. You turned potential spirituality into politics.

So just come clean with us and admit that you don't really believe - not really - and you have simply chosen to be with conservative people who you like more than hated "lefties" and "snowflakes".

Your lack of faith and insecurity is palpable. You are not fooling anyone. Come on, admit it. You know it's true. If we come this far then it's time to face yourself squarely rather than hiding behind lame rationalisations. You, Reflex, are an agnostic in denial!

You might think of it as a crisis of faith, but it's actually the process of waking up.

[Greta]

By contrast, I think Nick really does believe, but he is schizoid and prone to shamelessly comparing himself with Socrates and Jesus (amongst other lunacy in his broad delusional repertoire), that mostly hinge around his clear superiority over mere mortals.

That is why you follow him, Reflex, because you sense in him the hard belief you wish you had yourself.

[Greta]

Consider the logic: if you truly believed then you would not have to pick a side, you would simply believe. By the same token, I believe that evolution is a true phenomenon in nature. I don't need to choose - the evidence is sufficient.

There was no quality or courage behind my belief that evolution is true (and deeply interesting) - it's the same belief I have that the keyboard I'm typing on is true. The evidence is sufficient in itself, including post hoc circumstantial evidence (Kant and QM notwithstanding).

If you felt that same depth of belief regarding the existence of God as I have about evolution (or my PC's keyboard), you wouldn't need to quash your doubt with this "non cowardly" drive towards theism.

What you have is a determination to faithfully subscribe to myths that allows you membership to a club whose culture you find agreeable. Come on, deep down, you know this is true.

[Reflex]

Wow. Did you forget to take your meds, Greta?

[Greta]

Wow. Did you forget to take your meds, Greta?

My prediction for your reply would be be "That's your imagination". Close, but no cigar.

I am just trying an experiment, to see if I can wake you up. It seems unlikely. No one likes being woken up, but if you want to play hardball, then you need to deal.

You are so deeply in denial. The reasoning above that you have childishly tried to avoid makes clear that you do not have faith, only a wish to have one.

True believers are not spooked by agnostics. Can't you see how transparent you are? It's like Ted Haggard was always carrying on about homosexuals until busted wanting to play in a men's toilet. Overcompensation. You overcompensate as regards agnosticism.

I wonder what cute little denial you have this time to wimp out of facing the truth of your own doubts? The chances of you replying with substance are remote to say the least.

[Reflex]

Wow. Did you forget to take your meds, Greta?

My prediction for your reply would be be "That's your imagination". Close, but no cigar.

I am just trying an experiment, to see if I can wake you up. It seems unlikely. No one likes being woken up, but if you want to play hardball, then you need to deal.

You are so deeply in denial. The reasoning above that you have childishly tried to avoid makes clear that you do not have faith, only a wish to have one.

True believers are not spooked by agnostics. Can't you see how transparent you are? It's like Ted Haggard was always carrying on about homosexuals until busted wanting to play in a men's toilet. Overcompensation. You overcompensate as regards agnosticism.

I wonder what cute little denial you have this time to wimp out of facing the truth of your own doubts? The chances of you replying with substance are remote to say the least.

Meh. Whatever.

Ever hear of Buridan’s Ass? The difference between you and me is that you’ve chosen to be the ass in that scenario; I chose a different path.

[Belinda]

Greta replied to Reflex on the value of agnosticism:

A person is under no obligation to pretend to know things that they cannot possibly know.

But the existence of the transcendent personal God is not a matter of knowledge but of metaphysics. Although one cannot know one can choose. I choose unbelief in the transcendent personal God despite that I cannot know.

I feel disloyal and unloving by so saying. I attribute this feeling to indoctrination by my kindly Presbyterian parents. To be faithful to myself however I need to use reason which was also fostered by my kindly liberal parents.What I am saying is that the god one chooses is a function of who one thinks one is.

This conversation lacks definition of "the concept of God". I try to be helpful by defining God as transcendent and personal, which I guess is the popular version of God .

[Greta]

Wow. Did you forget to take your meds, Greta?

My prediction for your reply would be be "That's your imagination". Close, but no cigar.

I am just trying an experiment, to see if I can wake you up. It seems unlikely. No one likes being woken up, but if you want to play hardball, then you need to deal.

You are so deeply in denial. The reasoning above that you have childishly tried to avoid makes clear that you do not have faith, only a wish to have one.

True believers are not spooked by agnostics. Can't you see how transparent you are? It's like Ted Haggard was always carrying on about homosexuals until busted wanting to play in a men's toilet. Overcompensation. You overcompensate as regards agnosticism.

I wonder what cute little denial you have this time to wimp out of facing the truth of your own doubts? The chances of you replying with substance are remote to say the least.

Meh. Whatever.

Ever hear of Buridan’s Ass? The difference between you and me is that you’ve chosen to be the ass in that scenario; I chose a different path.

This time I was right - the chances were remote. Another cute little denial. You really need to get into Twitter - it would be perfect for you!

I see no point in choosing. I suppose you supported GWB's "you are either with us or against us" too.

If your notion of compulsory polarisation was true then I would be dead or destitute by now, because I am your age. Rather, your posts have long struck me as of one who is unhappy, a malcontent. Many complaints, not much joie de vie or fascination. I have the impression that you are weighing yourself down by taking yourself and your myths FAR too seriously.

There is potential meaning and depth everywhere around you at every moment, but you choose not to notice, focused only on human shenanigans as if they were all that mattered.

[Greta]

Greta replied to Reflex on the value of agnosticism:

A person is under no obligation to pretend to know things that they cannot possibly know.

But the existence of the transcendent personal God is not a matter of knowledge but of metaphysics. Although one cannot know one can choose. I choose unbelief in the transcendent personal God despite that I cannot know.

I feel disloyal and unloving by so saying. I attribute this feeling to indoctrination by my kindly Presbyterian parents. To be faithful to myself however I need to use reason which was also fostered by my kindly liberal parents.What I am saying is that the god one chooses is a function of who one thinks one is.

This conversation lacks definition of "the concept of God". I try to be helpful by defining God as transcendent and personal, which I guess is the popular version of God .

This conversation has lacked anything of worth for a while, so thanks, Belinda.

If we consider that the universe, this reality, does not have a transcendent and personal god - that being just an effect of human brains - how would that universe differ from the reality we each personally observe?

If we consider If we consider that the universe, this reality, does have a transcendent and personal deity, how would that universe differ from the reality we each personally observe?

By the way, you strike me as one who is far from disloyal or unloving and I agree that our beliefs about the way unproven things are probably say more about us than the things we believe.

[Belinda]

From Greta's original post of April 18:

So now God's most credible guise tends to be posited as the ground of being. However, many theists will disagree about what that means too

.
Does 'ground of being' mean that something exists as opposed to that nothing exists? I never felt that I understood the phrase.

I think that the most credible version of God is The Good. True, The Good has no attributes but it does provide an orientation towards reason and truth and is an incentive to learn .

Greta, I have just read yours, above.Thank you for your kind reassurance. You wrote:

If we consider that the universe, this reality, does not have a transcendent and personal god - that being just an effect of human brains - how would that universe differ from the reality we each personally observe?

Metaphysics again so I cannot know. Despite my lack of knowledge my attitude is that there is order. That events do connect in orderly fashion, and so I try to understand that order. I do so by means of narratives. The narrative as copied by Reflex from The Life of Pi is one example of a narrative that appeals to me, and there are many other narratives including scientific ones. By 'narrative' I mean any causal explanation. I especially like Spinoza's narrative in his Ethics.

Enough about me! People like us are smiths forging narratives each on the anvil of our own culture, fired and purified by uncertainty. Certainty is lack of fire and is dead. Right now I choose to believe in two states of reality, informed by vedantic dualism and non-dualism , besides Spinozan dual-aspect reality. Within this relative , temporal reality that we normally inhabit there is a multiplicity of separate notions of reality. This multiplicity is uncomfortable and is good, because the resulting cognitive dissonance drives us to think.

[Nick_A]

Socrates hatred and divisive attitude was documented. He actually questioned the Gods of the Great Beast and "asking politico-philosophic questions of his students" That sounds like me.

Nick and Socrates - peers

Your delusions are both florid and extraordinary. It reminds of the times you compared yourself to Jesus, being persecuted by wicked secularists. Bit of a step down to just being like Socrates, isn't it?

Do you also believe that you are the reincarnation of Alexander the Great's chief eunuch or was that your bit of fluff, Reflex?

Greta has no sense of scale. She believes she is an artist. This is only because she doesn't know what art is and cannot differentiate between art and expression. I can be inspired by Jesus and Socrates which is not to say my being is on their level. Of course not. But if my beliefs reflect what they introduced into the world, the results will be the same. They will be hated by the disciples of the Great Beast since what Jesus and Socrates awakens us to threatens the dominance of the state for deciding objective human meaning and purpose. Clearly that is intolerable.

[Nick_A]

This is a real mind stretch. Compare what Belinda wrote to what Simone Weil wrote

Belinda

Enough about me! People like us are smiths forging narratives each on the anvil of our own culture, fired and purified by uncertainty. Certainty is lack of fire and is dead.

Simone Weil

"To believe in God is not a decision we can make. All we can do is decide not to give our love to false gods. In the first place, we can decide not to believe that the future contains for us an all-sufficient good. The future is made of the same stuff as the present....

"...It is not for man to seek, or even to believe in God. He has only to refuse to believe in everything that is not God. This refusal does not presuppose belief. It is enough to recognize, what is obvious to any mind, that all the goods of this world, past, present, or future, real or imaginary, are finite and limited and radically incapable of satisfying the desire which burns perpetually with in us for an infinite and perfect good... It is not a matter of self-questioning or searching. A man has only to persist in his refusal, and one day or another God will come to him."
-- Weil, Simone, ON SCIENCE, NECESSITY, AND THE LOVE OF GOD, edited by Richard Rees, London, Oxford University Press, 1968.- ©

Those like Greta give their certainty to the gods of the Great Beast. Simone in contrast gives her certainty to the emptiness of the human condition and what it creates in relation to objective human meaning and purpose. This certainty of the human condition invites help from above to reconcile it. The Gods of the Great Beast offer Greta the World as the greatest expression of human meaning and purpose while opposition to the normal tendency of blind belief in the world offers Simone freedom from self deception.

That is why the World must hate Jesus' message. It threatens the psychological dominance of the gods of the Great Beast. This is intolerable

[Lacewing]

She believes she is an artist. This is only because she doesn't know what art is and cannot differentiate between art and expression.

Greta IS an artist... and she makes excellent points and asks good questions!

YOU, Nick, cannot distinguish anything that does not match up exactly to your well-worn groove of limited awareness.

And REFLEX refuses to answer the hard questions that call his comments into question. It's cowardly and dishonest... but he seems fine with that.

Honestly, if either of you two guys were honorable about these discussions, you would SEE TRUTH on MANY SIDES, NOT just in your little corners. You refuse to look at your foolish claims from ALL SIDES because you KNOW (on some level), you cannot defend all sides! So you put up a front, and try to pretend that no one can see your bum hanging out on the backside. Oh we see it!!! It's just too bad that you can't take a step forward into broader truths for your own sake -- that would make you more of a "winner" than the illusion of being one which you're trying to protect.

Either you want to believe you are right = avoid answering questions that might show otherwise

Or ultimately, you want to understand broader truth = willing to see and acknowledge truth beyond your current position

I think that TRUE PHILOSOPHY KEEPS SEARCHING AND EXPANDING ALWAYS!!! Your unwavering stance and avoidance in response to thought-provoking examination is a dance of the ego, and belongs on some sort of social chat site.

[Nick_A]

Refles, Greta has voluntarily taken on the responsibilty for waking you up. You still have hope and are not a lost cause like me. Greta wrote:

I am just trying an experiment, to see if I can wake you up. It seems unlikely. No one likes being woken up, but if you want to play hardball, then you need to deal.

Once you experience through indoctrination that 2+2=5 or even sometimes 3, then you will be saved and become a devoted advocate of the Great Beast. These secularists really care. Do you think making snowflakes is easy? Of course not so you must be grateful when those like Greta condescend to wake you up.