Philosophy Now Forum

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:10 am I'm not asking for evidence, simply the attributes you have confirmed for yourself regarding this entity, God. 5 please

Well, I have already pointed to paternity and triunity. And I have explained my basis for belief in both, if you've been reading this message and the ones before. Are you accepting those, to begin with? Or would you insist that you want some further proof of those?

If you are not yet convinced, then what "proof" would you accept? Let's say, jus for those two...

What PROOF!!!

"Evidence," you said. Do your prefer that word?

You got nuffin by way of proof.

You do not know this. You will not even specify to me what the word "evidence" (or "proof") would entail for you.

But if you, yourself, cannot imagine what "evidence" you would consider, then it's nobody's fault if they don't provide it for you. You won't even say what you want.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:18 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2019 2:58 pmWhat's more important is this: are we, as human beings, as souls, as contingent beings in the presence of the Necessary One, willing to take a role subordinate to God, or will we insist on being the creators, the initiators, the lords ourselves. That's what it comes down to.

This is a good point IC

I think we have to die before we can do that..don't you agree? but who wants to die? what you say?

Well, I think that the only place we can decide what we will do is here, right now. Because when we do see God, there will no longer be any possibility of choosing to disbelieve. By then, though, one's attitude to God will long ago have been settled here, on Earth, where the playing field seemed level, and people could choose not merely to believe but also, should they determine to do so, to disbelieve.

That's the terms of human freedom to know and love God. They can choose here and now. This is why Paul writes, "Behold, now is 'the acceptable time,' behold, now is 'the day of salvation.'" Now. Not later.

The opportunity of choice is only available while there is not an overwhelmingly compelling reason to be forced to accept the existence of God. His physical presence or manifestation would certainly do that -- to anyone -- with the side effect that freedom to think otherwise would be rendered instantly absurd and impossible. That's why it can't be after we die. After we die, we know.

However, now, it seems God's interested in us being free to choose Him or not. But that offer's not on the table indefinitely, because seeing God ends it...not merely empirically, but analytically and absolutely.

Proof of God as opposed to blind belief requires a requires a quality of impartial intelligence and humility which seems to be diminishing in the world as a whole. God is no longer necessary since technology has taken its place. However those like Einstein have the intelligence necessary to experience proof of God. He wrote:

Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.

The scientists’ religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 7:43 pm Proof of God as opposed to blind belief requires a requires a quality of impartial intelligence and humility which seems to be diminishing in the world as a whole. God is no longer necessary since technology has taken its place. However those like Einstein have the intelligence necessary to experience proof of God. He wrote:

Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.

The scientists’ religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.

He also said: "Einstein expressed his skepticism regarding the existence of an anthropomorphic God, such as the God of Abrahamic religions, often describing this view as "naïve" and "childlike".In a 1947 letter he stated, "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously." In a letter to Beatrice Frohlich on 17 December 1952, Einstein stated, "The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve."
Wiki

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 7:43 pm Proof of God as opposed to blind belief requires...

No.

Not, "It requires." What IS it?

You said, "You got nuffin..."

So what DIDN'T I have, in your view, that you would have accepted as "sumpin" had I had it.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:01 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 7:43 pm Proof of God as opposed to blind belief requires a requires a quality of impartial intelligence and humility which seems to be diminishing in the world as a whole. God is no longer necessary since technology has taken its place. However those like Einstein have the intelligence necessary to experience proof of God. He wrote:

Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.

The scientists’ religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.

He also said: "Einstein expressed his skepticism regarding the existence of an anthropomorphic God, such as the God of Abrahamic religions, often describing this view as "naïve" and "childlike".In a 1947 letter he stated, "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously." In a letter to Beatrice Frohlich on 17 December 1952, Einstein stated, "The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve."
Wiki

There are those who rise above blind conditioned belief and open their being to the experience of awe and wonder indicating the ineffable reality Einstein was aware of.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:04 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 7:43 pm Proof of God as opposed to blind belief requires...

No.

Not, "It requires." What IS it?

You said, "You got nuffin..."

So what DIDN'T I have, in your view, that you would have accepted as "sumpin" had I had it.

You have me confused with someone else. I never wrote "You got nuffin..."

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:22 pm You have me confused with someone else. I never wrote "You got nuffin..."

Oop. You're right. It was Atto.

Abject apologies.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:35 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:22 pm You have me confused with someone else. I never wrote "You got nuffin..."

Oop. You're right. It was Atto.

Abject apologies.

Ten lashes with a wet noodle.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:17 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:01 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 7:43 pm Proof of God as opposed to blind belief requires a requires a quality of impartial intelligence and humility which seems to be diminishing in the world as a whole. God is no longer necessary since technology has taken its place. However those like Einstein have the intelligence necessary to experience proof of God. He wrote:

He also said: "Einstein expressed his skepticism regarding the existence of an anthropomorphic God, such as the God of Abrahamic religions, often describing this view as "naïve" and "childlike".In a 1947 letter he stated, "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously." In a letter to Beatrice Frohlich on 17 December 1952, Einstein stated, "The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve."
Wiki

There are those who rise above blind conditioned belief and open their being to the experience of awe and wonder indicating the ineffable reality Einstein was aware of.

But what is clear is that this ineffable reality is not "God".

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 9:32 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:17 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:01 pm

He also said: "Einstein expressed his skepticism regarding the existence of an anthropomorphic God, such as the God of Abrahamic religions, often describing this view as "naïve" and "childlike".In a 1947 letter he stated, "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously." In a letter to Beatrice Frohlich on 17 December 1952, Einstein stated, "The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve."
Wiki

There are those who rise above blind conditioned belief and open their being to the experience of awe and wonder indicating the ineffable reality Einstein was aware of.

But what is clear is that this ineffable reality is not "God".

For some reason many people can only imagine God as being in the image of Man. It creates the personal God and all the problems that arise when people argue over whose side this personal god is on.

My interest is in the eventual natural reconciliation of the goals of science and religion. The fact that they seem opposed is just proof of our stupidity. In reality we do not know what Man is much less what God is. If we did there would be no division between the facts of the world revealed by science and the universal values sustaining our great universe and all life within it.

We have two great questions: what is God and what is Man. Einstein's intelligence accepts God as consicious intelligence which creates this great living machine we cdll universe. rather than a person worried about what I do. It is a beginning and invites us to learn the dynamics of universal values and the responsibility of Man within them.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 10:01 pm For some reason many people can only imagine God as being in the image of Man.

Maybe; but Biblically, the reverse is said. Mankind is created "in the image of God," in Genesis, not God in the image of mankind, as Nietzsche et al supposed.

It's important to realize that no coherent theology regards man as the prototype and God as the copy. Analytically, "God" must necessarily exist before "man." To read back any explanation of God from what we think men are is partial at best, misleading at worst. We'll always get it wrong. Man finds his original place in the universe only when God has defined it for him and created him to fulfill it.

In other words, the theological position is that we can only ask (and expect any complete answer) "What is man?" when we have already asked the first question, "What is God?" That's why Genesis begins with God, then introduces mankind as contingent beings derived from that great Original.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 10:01 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 9:32 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:17 pm

There are those who rise above blind conditioned belief and open their being to the experience of awe and wonder indicating the ineffable reality Einstein was aware of.

But what is clear is that this ineffable reality is not "God".

For some reason many people can only imagine God as being in the image of Man. It creates the personal God and all the problems that arise when people argue over whose side this personal god is on.

My interest is in the eventual natural reconciliation of the goals of science and religion. The fact that they seem opposed is just proof of our stupidity. In reality we do not know what Man is much less what God is. If we did there would be no division between the facts of the world revealed by science and the universal values sustaining our great universe and all life within it.

We have two great questions: what is God and what is Man. Einstein's intelligence accepts God as consicious intelligence which creates this great living machine we cdll universe. rather than a person worried about what I do. It is a beginning and invites us to learn the dynamics of universal values and the responsibility of Man within them.

No way.
Spinoza/Einstein's God is not "interested" or conscious. "He" does not create. Has no need or desire and no concern about human activity. It is nothing more than nature.
That is no "God" at all.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 10:26 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 10:01 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 9:32 pm
But what is clear is that this ineffable reality is not "God".

For some reason many people can only imagine God as being in the image of Man. It creates the personal God and all the problems that arise when people argue over whose side this personal god is on.

My interest is in the eventual natural reconciliation of the goals of science and religion. The fact that they seem opposed is just proof of our stupidity. In reality we do not know what Man is much less what God is. If we did there would be no division between the facts of the world revealed by science and the universal values sustaining our great universe and all life within it.

We have two great questions: what is God and what is Man. Einstein's intelligence accepts God as consicious intelligence which creates this great living machine we cdll universe. rather than a person worried about what I do. It is a beginning and invites us to learn the dynamics of universal values and the responsibility of Man within them.

No way.
Spinoza/Einstein's God is not "interested" or conscious. "He" does not create. Has no need or desire and no concern about human activity. It is nothing more than nature.
That is no "God" at all.

If nature is just a reacting machine, what IYO created the universal laws which enable the living machine we call universe to function? Laws do not create themselves. If there is no conscious source, how did they come to be?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 10:15 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 10:01 pm For some reason many people can only imagine God as being in the image of Man.

Maybe; but Biblically, the reverse is said. Mankind is created "in the image of God," in Genesis, not God in the image of mankind, as Nietzsche et al supposed.

It's important to realize that no coherent theology regards man as the prototype and God as the copy. Analytically, "God" must necessarily exist before "man." To read back any explanation of God from what we think men are is partial at best, misleading at worst. We'll always get it wrong. Man finds his original place in the universe only when God has defined it for him and created him to fulfill it.

In other words, the theological position is that we can only ask (and expect any complete answer) "What is man?" when we have already asked the first question, "What is God?" That's why Genesis begins with God, then introduces mankind as contingent beings derived from that great Original.

John 14

9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me?

This is one of these passages that can be argued superficially and condemned as foolish. Yet for others it can be perceived as an expression the most profound truth. What does it mean for the Son to be in the father and the Father to be in the Son Can we go further to say that Man can be in the Son or the mediator between God and Man?

How do you understand it? Do you see how the same passage can have meanings that will resonate with different qualities of intelligence?