Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Tue May 08, 2018 5:41 am**

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue May 08, 2018 4:40 am Maybe you are divine but I am the wretched man. The wretched man communicating with a divine woman. Well it's the new age. What else can be expected?

Now you're talking more sensibly.

So... if I am divine, and you are wretched, you should stop trying to tell me what I'm concerned with because you really really have no clue!

There is no sense in a wretched man telling everyone else how it is (and how they are) from his limited and wretched view. He can only speak of how it is for himself... which is wretched. There is very little light in that place. Seems like a place that Satan would drag people into. Bob Evanson spent a lot of time there... fighting off the demons of his own imagination... while also imagining himself as a divine messenger. Do you see the recurring dynamic? It's fairly common. Perhaps it would be interesting to discuss why THAT is? Do you have any ideas why wretched people think they know everything?

Personally, I don't think anyone is wretched... I think all are divine... playing out infinite creative possibility. I think it's a lot more fun and effective recognizing and utilizing the divine in all.

Posted: **Tue May 08, 2018 7:34 am**

Lacewing wrote: ↑Tue May 08, 2018 5:41 amPersonally, I don't think anyone is wretched... I think all are divine...

I'll plump for both

I do think that the standards that people on philosophy forums apply to the naked ape are unrealistic.

Thrown frightened and clueless into this world like a newborn baby, humanity has had to struggle and scrape to reach today's level of maturity, the result of countless generations innovating, consolidating and making sacrifices and for the next generations.

Meanwhile, cultures prefer to follow their own paths rather than those of other nations, so coordination is difficult and conflicts common. We are simply in a tragedy of the commons situation at the moment, and it's not the fault of humanity but simply how nature works when population densities become unsustainable.

Posted: **Tue May 08, 2018 8:18 am**

Some individuals, and some cultures, are more wretched than others. The better individuals and the better cultures are better because------ something or other. We who want the good to win over the bad need to identify what it is that defines the better individuals and the better cultures.

The sceptics will rightly claim that each cultural group will believe their status quo to be the best and that there are no transcendent criteria. Alternatively we can look at man's past and judge that the ancient Mexicans were cannibals who sacrificed other people to their god and we may judge that even taking into account the horrors of the Inquisition, and the Crusades, Christianity was better than the culture of the ancient Mexicans.

We may adopt the same attitude towards architecture or even cooking and claim that nothing is better than anything else. Or alternatively we may choose to live according to criteria of excellence.The former attitude is post modern and the second is modern. Post modernism is insufficient as a way of life because we have to choose how we are going to live;even choosing to be a hermit is a choice.

If God is the name we give to our chosen bunch of attributes of the good then we Moderns need to be consciously aware of what those attributes are which we choose . Concepts of God are real and necessary.
There is no physical Transcendent Being who intervened to issue commands so we need to invent what ethics we are going to obey. Unlike the ancient Mexicans we Moderns know that there are numerous rationales for moral systems and each rationale is sufficient unto itself . This insight can allow us to choose our moral system wisely. 'God' is the name of moral system plus explanation of how things are what they are or seem to be.

Posted: **Tue May 08, 2018 9:18 am**

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue May 08, 2018 4:35 am...there are many expressions of Christendom but the essence of Christianity must remain hidden and available to those who need it as opposed to acceptable Christendom active in the world.

You keep quoting the gospels, so presumably the essence of Christianity is hidden in plain view.
If you ask me, the best and most essential passages in the Gospels are these:
"Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."
Matthew 22:39
Which when it comes to action is:
"So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them."
Matthew 7:12
Whether it is by the grace of god, or simply because they seem like good ideas, I can subscribe to that. If those are not the essence of Christianity, what is?

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue May 08, 2018 4:35 amThe world must hate Christianity since its awakening influence opposes secular dominance including secularized religion.

This is where it gets confusing. What do you mean by "secularized religion"? If by that you mean the major established churches, I suspect I would agree with you.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue May 08, 2018 4:35 amYou don’t realize that the essence of Christianity always was:
St Augustine said, "The very thing that is now called the Christian religion was not wanting among the ancients from the beginning of the human race, until Christ came in the flesh, after which the true religion, which had already existed, began to be called "Christian."

I've already explained that the Christian notion of Hell can be traced to Plato's Myth of Er. I could add that it is a resurrection myth, Er, having been killed in battle comes back to life to tell us about the afterlife. In Christianity, this is refined into the Harrowing of Hell, according to which, between the crucifixion and the resurrection, Christ goes to Hell to save all the righteous souls who were born before him. Add to that the legend that Plato's mother, Perictione, was believed to be a virgin who was impregnated by a visit of Apollo and you really cannot tell me that I don't realise that 'Christianity' pre-dates Christ.
But if you're going to quote St Augustine, here's one back at you:
"If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself."
Which bits do you believe? If you cannot love your neighbour as you love yourself, I would suggest that you are part of the problem and not part of the solution.

Posted: **Tue May 08, 2018 4:17 pm**

”If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself."

Cool!

Posted: **Tue May 08, 2018 7:08 pm**

Belinda

Some individuals, and some cultures, are more wretched than others. The better individuals and the better cultures are better because------ something or other. We who want the good to win over the bad need to identify what it is that defines the better individuals and the better cultures.

You still assume the Christian concept of wretchedness refers to what we do and defined by cultural standards of good and bad. It isn't. Wretchedness refers to what we ARE; the human condition. Meister Eckhart describes the difference.

“People should not worry so much about what they do but rather about what they are. If they and their ways are good, then their deeds are radiant. If you are righteous, then what you do will also be righteous. We should not think that holiness is based on what we do but rather on what we are, for it is not our works which sanctify us but we who sanctified our works.”
― Meister Eckhart, Selected Writings

Where secularism seeks to indoctrinate people into what to do, Christianity seeks to awaken a person to what they are which now only exists as a potential.

Posted: **Tue May 08, 2018 7:36 pm**

Uwot

You keep quoting the gospels, so presumably the essence of Christianity is hidden in plain view.
If you ask me, the best and most essential passages in the Gospels are these:
"Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."
Matthew 22:39
Which when it comes to action is:
"So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them."
Matthew 7:12
Whether it is by the grace of god, or simply because they seem like good ideas, I can subscribe to that. If those are not the essence of Christianity, what is?

A person who has honestly witnessed themselves realizes that they do not love themselves so cannot love another. The self being referred to is the potential for human being which our fallen nature rejects. We cannot give the energy of love of self when we don’t yet have it. The question becomes how we can become capable of conscious love

The essence of Christianity is rebirth; a higher quality of being which is the goal of human conscious evolution.

John 12

24 Very truly I tell you, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. 25 Anyone who loves their life will lose it, while anyone who hates their life in this world will keep it for eternal life.

The great struggle between secular and sacred influences on human being is the Christian struggle. The implication that there is a higher quality of life than what the world offers is intolerable for secularism since it threatens it supremacy. That is why the world must hate Jesus and replace him with man made idolatry. Jesus had to be crucified. It was known in advance

Posted: **Wed May 09, 2018 6:00 am**

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue May 08, 2018 8:18 amSome individuals, and some cultures, are more wretched than others. The better individuals and the better cultures are better because------ something or other. We who want the good to win over the bad need to identify what it is that defines the better individuals and the better cultures.

The sceptics will rightly claim that each cultural group will believe their status quo to be the best and that there are no transcendent criteria. Alternatively we can look at man's past and judge that the ancient Mexicans were cannibals who sacrificed other people to their god and we may judge that even taking into account the horrors of the Inquisition, and the Crusades, Christianity was better than the culture of the ancient Mexicans.

We may adopt the same attitude towards architecture or even cooking and claim that nothing is better than anything else. Or alternatively we may choose to live according to criteria of excellence.The former attitude is post modern and the second is modern. Post modernism is insufficient as a way of life because we have to choose how we are going to live;even choosing to be a hermit is a choice.

Yes. I think all sides are at fault here. One side says that evolution, including morality, is not progressive, and the other posits that we are all equally wretched. Yet, the proof is as plain before our eyes as it could be - four billion years ago life on Earth consisted of slimy colonies of mindless microbes, and now then compare with today. We need not even include humans to see the obviousness of the general progression. The dinosaurs 60 million years ago were already an extraordinary progression, never mind highly intelligent animal and bird species of today.

Yet progress is never uniform, neither in the wild nor with humanity. There are always examples of lost capacities in nature and cultures, but these are clearly isolated and short-term, given the unmistakeable general long-term trend towards progress. Humanity too, has come an extraordinary way from its bloodthirsty youth. It is invalid postmodern logic to look at today's atrocities and claim that no progress has been made. That is the same kind of weak logic that argued against evolution of humans from a common ancestor because other apes like chimps and gorillas sill exist. So, if humans came from apes, why didn't all of the apes become human?

Because reality does not work like that. We humans (et al) evolved from microbes and yet the biomass of microbes remains far greater than the emergent kingdoms of life. So, while moral and intellectual progress "at the pointy end" continues apace, there will seemingly always be masses lagging far behind. It's perhaps the most potent argument against democracy, especially given the ease with which news outlets can control uneducated opinion.

So the progress of humanity as a whole is far from uniform. While this inevitably leads to tragedies of the commons, just consider the Owellian nature of life under regimes that were motivated enough to ensure global conformity! So, in a sense, "wretched" is a fair, if melodramatic, description. Life is a stitch-up with no perfect option, no nirvana into which to retreat ... aside from the inner one, the only thing that one can even hope to control.

The "inner oasis" is theoretically available for all. When asked by a journalist to give life advice to readers, Swami Yogananda, 99 year-old yoga instructor, said "Just breathe". Brilliant advice IMO, and one that has been most helpful for me (right up there with "Attention. Attention. Attention." and "Eat food. Mostly plants. Not too much"). Returning to the breath is perhaps the very best single thing a person can do if they are feeling poorly; simplicity would appear to be the path to that inner oasis, which can theoretically be delved into deeper if need be.

Having just touted for simplicity I will add that rather than the term "wretched" I prefer to see reality as "inherently suboptimal" - and for that imperfection we inherently sub-optimal beings can be grateful lest we be strangled by the straitjackets of coercive self-righteousness!

Posted: **Wed May 09, 2018 6:49 am**

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue May 08, 2018 7:36 pmA person who has honestly witnessed themselves realizes that they do not love themselves so cannot love another.

I've had my moments of depression and low self-esteem and in those times, it is very difficult to love oneself. Add to that the middle class, English small town mindset I grew up surrounded by, according to which 'love' is something that people with no self-control do (mostly foreigners) and it is difficult to love anybody. The latter I grew out of very quickly, the former took a little longer...

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue May 08, 2018 7:36 pmThe self being referred to is the potential for human being which our fallen nature rejects.

...but I was at least fortunate that I didn't have the added burden of original sin. As far as I know, Jesus Christ didn't mention original sin, but the Romans saw the political value in an idea that made everyone hate everyone else, so made it a big feature of their catholic (i.e. 'for everyone') church.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue May 08, 2018 7:36 pmWe cannot give the energy of love of self when we don’t yet have it.

Not when you have been poisoned by the most damaging idea of all time (probably).

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue May 08, 2018 7:36 pmThe question becomes how we can become capable of conscious love

Dump the idea that you are wretched. Do that and you won't have to project it onto everyone else.

Posted: **Wed May 09, 2018 8:00 am**

Greta wrote: ↑Wed May 09, 2018 6:00 am
Belinda wrote: ↑Tue May 08, 2018 8:18 amSome individuals, and some cultures, are more wretched than others. The better individuals and the better cultures are better because------ something or other. We who want the good to win over the bad need to identify what it is that defines the better individuals and the better cultures.

The sceptics will rightly claim that each cultural group will believe their status quo to be the best and that there are no transcendent criteria. Alternatively we can look at man's past and judge that the ancient Mexicans were cannibals who sacrificed other people to their god and we may judge that even taking into account the horrors of the Inquisition, and the Crusades, Christianity was better than the culture of the ancient Mexicans.

We may adopt the same attitude towards architecture or even cooking and claim that nothing is better than anything else. Or alternatively we may choose to live according to criteria of excellence.The former attitude is post modern and the second is modern. Post modernism is insufficient as a way of life because we have to choose how we are going to live;even choosing to be a hermit is a choice.
Yes. I think all sides are at fault here. One side says that evolution, including morality, is not progressive, and the other posits that we are all equally wretched. Yet, the proof is as plain before our eyes as it could be - four billion years ago life on Earth consisted of slimy colonies of mindless microbes, and now then compare with today. We need not even include humans to see the obviousness of the general progression. The dinosaurs 60 million years ago were already an extraordinary progression, never mind highly intelligent animal and bird species of today.

Yet progress is never uniform, neither in the wild nor with humanity. There are always examples of lost capacities in nature and cultures, but these are clearly isolated and short-term, given the unmistakeable general long-term trend towards progress. Humanity too, has come an extraordinary way from its bloodthirsty youth. It is invalid postmodern logic to look at today's atrocities and claim that no progress has been made. That is the same kind of weak logic that argued against evolution of humans from a common ancestor because other apes like chimps and gorillas sill exist. So, if humans came from apes, why didn't all of the apes become human?

Because reality does not work like that. We humans (et al) evolved from microbes and yet the biomass of microbes remains far greater than the emergent kingdoms of life. So, while moral and intellectual progress "at the pointy end" continues apace, there will seemingly always be masses lagging far behind. It's perhaps the most potent argument against democracy, especially given the ease with which news outlets can control uneducated opinion.

So the progress of humanity as a whole is far from uniform. While this inevitably leads to tragedies of the commons, just consider the Owellian nature of life under regimes that were motivated enough to ensure global conformity! So, in a sense, "wretched" is a fair, if melodramatic, description. Life is a stitch-up with no perfect option, no nirvana into which to retreat ... aside from the inner one, the only thing that one can even hope to control.

The "inner oasis" is theoretically available for all. When asked by a journalist to give life advice to readers, Swami Yogananda, 99 year-old yoga instructor, said "Just breathe". Brilliant advice IMO, and one that has been most helpful for me (right up there with "Attention. Attention. Attention." and "Eat food. Mostly plants. Not too much"). Returning to the breath is perhaps the very best single thing a person can do if they are feeling poorly; simplicity would appear to be the path to that inner oasis, which can theoretically be delved into deeper if need be.

Having just touted for simplicity I will add that rather than the term "wretched" I prefer to see reality as "inherently suboptimal" - and for that imperfection we inherently sub-optimal beings can be grateful lest we be strangled by the straitjackets of coercive self-righteousness!

Then you and I agree that postmodernism is wrong and modernism is right. You add evidence to that claim. Your criterion is implicit and I claim explicitly that it's reason and culture that define "the pointy end".

Which culture is the best? The Golden Rule is still hangs above the politicians' halls of dissent like an ancient banner. Do you reckon that if optimum reason is added to the vagueness of The Golden Rule we can identify the "pointy end" ? Do you agree that reason shows that The Golden Rule includes that others means all others whoever they be?

E.G.

The agreement between the P5+1+EU and Iran on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is the culmination of 20 months of "arduous" negotiations. ... The Geneva agreement was an interim deal, in which Iran agreed to roll back parts of its nuclear program in exchange for relief from some sanctions.

So the JCPoA besides employing maximum reason makes the Middle East a little safer plus it also saves Iran from its own warlike ambition.

Thank you for relaying the advice to " just breathe"; I needed that.

Posted: **Wed May 09, 2018 9:29 am**

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed May 09, 2018 8:00 amThen you and I agree that postmodernism is wrong and modernism is right. You add evidence to that claim. Your criterion is implicit and I claim explicitly that it's reason and culture that define "the pointy end".

Which culture is the best? The Golden Rule is still hangs above the politicians' halls of dissent like an ancient banner. Do you reckon that if optimum reason is added to the vagueness of The Golden Rule we can identify the "pointy end" ? Do you agree that reason shows that The Golden Rule includes that others means all others whoever they be?

E.G.
The agreement between the P5+1+EU and Iran on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is the culmination of 20 months of "arduous" negotiations. ... The Geneva agreement was an interim deal, in which Iran agreed to roll back parts of its nuclear program in exchange for relief from some sanctions.

So the JCPoA besides employing maximum reason makes the Middle East a little safer plus it also saves Iran from its own warlike ambition.

Thank you for relaying the advice to " just breathe"; I needed that.

Yes, "Just breathe" is really surprising. Feel crappy for whatever reason? Just breathe. Some sense of relief is usually instant. It's so simple and effective that it's funny

Yes, I am agreeing with your modernist take on existence. Interestingly, ruthlessness seems to be one of the most strongly rewarded traits in natural, cultural and even social selection. Time again again the ruthless has triumphed over the ethical, like streetfighters easily dispatching opponents who are limited to Marquess of Queensbury rules. Yet, out of these layers of brutality and exploitation, somehow ever finer ethics emerge. Then they are washed away again in a return to baseness before re-emerging, more refined than ever. The dance of Brahma and Shiva.

Past form suggest that if parts of civilisations survive what's coming with climate and population pressures then humans will thrash out their ethical issues in time. I see in east Asia an approach to reason that strikes me as more consistent and reliable than I usually notice in westerners. However, western cultures strike me as more merciful to the vulnerable and creative. Meanwhile that same relativity can be observed between western and ancient/traditional cultures. With the increase in connectivity, there appears to be quite a rapid cross-pollination between cultures, where the above differences should normalise over time.

The difficulty is always balancing rival goods - the relative welfare of humans and others/the environment, especially noting that the latter impacts on the former. Based on the above, each culture can learn plenty from others but racism and cultural pride are drag factors.

Posted: **Wed May 09, 2018 1:53 pm**

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue May 08, 2018 5:01 am The intellectual purpose of philosophy and the essence of religion is to raise questions and exercise our powers of contemplation leading to verification through intuition rather than provide answers. Do you think the Apostles dropped everything to follow Jesus because he was giving fine speeches? No, they felt the quality of his "being" and realized it was what they were searching for.

What you said, whether you meant it or not, "If I, Nick_A, am squeezed into a corner in a debate, then I cloud the issue and escape through a haze of thick smoke."

What you ACTUALLY are working toward saying, was "here's nothing in reply, if you don't understand it, it's because I, Nick_A, am superior by having ingested the light of the Creator of the Universe, while you, cretins, are stuck in reality, in logic, and in trying to decipher life."

When you debate, you ultimately always come back to your self-assumed superiority due to some things that you understand but can't communicate to us. If you understand it, you ought to be able to verbalize it, is my view. Since you can't verbalize the crux of your point, I assert there is no crux; you are imagining that you have an inner secret, but it is not more than a mere mirage, a phantom, a dandy of your imagination.

Nick_A, you are an extremely and uncharacteristically well-spoken paranoid delusion-stricken person, and to my surprise, many sane ones on this forum are fallen by your eloquent but empty and nonsensical rhetoric, and mistakenly engage you as their equals.

Posted: **Wed May 09, 2018 2:15 pm**

Greta wrote:

The difficulty is always balancing rival goods - the relative welfare of humans and others/the environment, especially noting that the latter impacts on the former. Based on the above, each culture can learn plenty from others but racism and cultural pride are drag factors.

Racism and cultural pride are tribal love whereas love and care for the natural environment is universal love. Some religious cultures are tribally inward-facing but other religious cultures (damn few unfortunately) are universalistic.

Posted: **Wed May 09, 2018 4:50 pm**

uwot wrote: ↑Wed May 09, 2018 6:49 am
Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue May 08, 2018 7:36 pmThe question becomes how we can become capable of conscious love
Dump the idea that you are wretched. Do that and you won't have to project it onto everyone else.

I agree! Conscious love can see beyond ideas of wretchedness.

Also, if someone thinks there's a question of "how we can become capable of conscious love", then they are already potentially separating themselves and others from it... perhaps to explore/justify their own infatuation with a particular mindset, path, structure, or set of judgements. There's an agenda at work when you appear to separate people from what is divinely within them... and claim to be able to lead them to it! Honor the divine in people, and the questions change!

Personally, I think awareness arises from getting rid of all the noise and delusions that are piled up. No matter how magnificent you think ideas are, they obscure the clear presence and natural simplicity that exists without all the noise. I'm not suggesting that we don't play with ideas for fun -- as that seems to be part of the adventure of being here -- but the ideas are NOT US, and at any moment, we can go quiet and tap into the clear presence that we already are. Nobody needs to GIVE that to us! It's a matter of desiring it enough to REMOVE whatever obscures what is already natural within us -- what we came into this world with as children.

Posted: **Wed May 09, 2018 6:32 pm**

-1- wrote: ↑Wed May 09, 2018 1:53 pm
Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue May 08, 2018 5:01 am The intellectual purpose of philosophy and the essence of religion is to raise questions and exercise our powers of contemplation leading to verification through intuition rather than provide answers. Do you think the Apostles dropped everything to follow Jesus because he was giving fine speeches? No, they felt the quality of his "being" and realized it was what they were searching for.
What you said, whether you meant it or not, "If I, Nick_A, am squeezed into a corner in a debate, then I cloud the issue and escape through a haze of thick smoke."

What you ACTUALLY are working toward saying, was "here's nothing in reply, if you don't understand it, it's because I, Nick_A, am superior by having ingested the light of the Creator of the Universe, while you, cretins, are stuck in reality, in logic, and in trying to decipher life."

When you debate, you ultimately always come back to your self-assumed superiority due to some things that you understand but can't communicate to us. If you understand it, you ought to be able to verbalize it, is my view. Since you can't verbalize the crux of your point, I assert there is no crux; you are imagining that you have an inner secret, but it is not more than a mere mirage, a phantom, a dandy of your imagination.

Nick_A, you are an extremely and uncharacteristically well-spoken paranoid delusion-stricken person, and to my surprise, many sane ones on this forum are fallen by your eloquent but empty and nonsensical rhetoric, and mistakenly engage you as their equals.

It isn't my superiority but rather our collective inferiority and our becoming closed off to the inner recognition of objective truth the soul of man is drawn to. My advantage is just my willingness to admit it. I cannot explain the value of deductive reason beginning from an intuitive experience any better than Reflex could. It just appears obvious to me that secularism has done what it can to further the skill of inductive reason while doing everything it can to deny the potential for developing the ability to experience what is necessary to enable deductive reason. It will better help me to understand your objections if you explain to me why you disagree with Einstein if you do.

We try to make for ourselves, in the manner that best suits us, a simplified and intelligible picture of the world; we then attempt in some manner to substitute this cosmos of ours for the world of experience, and thus to surmount it. This is what the painter, the poet, the speculative philosopher and the natural scientist do, each in his own manner. He makes the cosmos and its construction the pivot of his emotional life in order to find in this way the peace and the serenity which he cannot find in the narrow whirlpool of personal experience… It is my belief [that]… the general laws on which the structure of theoretical physics is based, must claim to be valid for any natural phenomenon. With them it ought to be possible to arrive at the description, that is to say the theory, of every natural process, including life, by means of pure deduction, if that process of deduction were not far beyond the capacity of the human intellect. The physicist’s renunciation of completeness for his cosmos is therefore not a matter of fundamental principle. The supreme task of the physicist is to arrive at those universal elementary laws from which the cosmos can be built up by pure deduction. There is no logical path to these laws; only intuition, resting on sympathetic understanding of experience, can reach them.

—Albert Einstein, “Prinzipien der Forschung: Rede zum 60. Geburtstag von Max Planck” in Mein Weltbild pp. 107-110 (1918) in The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, vol. 7, it. 7 (2002)(S.H. transl.)

Philosophy Now Forum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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