Philosophy Now Forum

Let's start the thread with a simple question. Should I believe in your god(s)? Why or why not?

We are all born theist. We are all born intuitively knowing there is a designer behind the design. Evo indoctrination at school readily takes care of that though.

what design? and evolution isn't indoctrination, its not teaching a way of life or a moral code of any kind. evolution is the explaination for the biodiversity on our planet. there has been no substainial evidence for creation or design. You're equating evolution to a culture or religion, that's like saying that calculus is indoctrination. Evolution is where the evidence led us. If the evidence led us to an entirely different explaination to biodiversity of life then it wouldn't be taught in schools. The very reason why creation and design shouldn't be taught in schools. there is no substainial evidence that even points us in that direction.

this is an odd question

people regularly ask me

how do you know that god exists, and your particular take on god is the correct one

but if i ask them - what is the form on the answer you are expecting - they look at me blankly

but if you have no idea what kind of form the answer to your question will take, you have no idea what your question means, what the assumptions included with your question are, what it is getting at

if I ask you 'how do you know that obamacare is good/bad?' i know what kind of form the answer will take


so i am not sure the sort of question you are asking is very meaningful

the second part of the question should have been clearer, the first part is rhetorical. if someone believes in any god(s) then they should want me to believe, if not then why do they believe in the first place. to clarify the second part, why should I believe in your god(s) over someone else's god(s)

atheosalio wrote: if someone believes in any god(s) then they should want me to believe, if not then why do they believe in the first place.

this is really a ridiculous question. why should someone's beliefs necessarily require your approval? should my belief in any subject necessitate someone else to believe the same to validate it?

apparently you do not believe in any god(s) and therefore have a belief system that you want others to believe..? if not why believe what you "believe in the first place" ?

this is really a ridiculous question. why should someone's beliefs necessarily require your approval? should my belief in any subject necessitate someone else to believe the same to validate it?

I understand how you have interpreted my question, what I am trying to ask is why did one choose the god(s) they believe instead of any other god(s).

apparently you do not believe in any god(s) and therefore have a belief system that you want others to believe..? if not why believe what you "believe in the first place" ?

I don't have a belief. Atheism is the lack of a belief in any god(s). It is the rejection of the positive claim "God(s) exist". The opposite to "God(s) exist" is not "a god(s) do not exist". An atheist may reject both claims. I do not belief that god(s) exist and I also do not believe that NO god(s) exist.

People who claim that "No god(s) exist" are still considered atheist, but it is a more restrictive subset of atheism, they would be known as gnostic atheist or hard atheist. Whereas I am an agnostic atheist, meaning while I reject the claim that a god(s) exist, I do not claim to know for sure that no god(s) exist, therefore I am rejecting the claim that a gnostic atheist would make.

The main point of this thread was to follow along this rough guideline: I believe in [place your god(s) here] instead of any other god(s), because....

I wanted to know what people of different beliefs actually believed about what made their god(s) special and why they chose to believe in that god(s) rather than the god(s) of the other thousands of religions in the world. This wasn't a secret question aimed to shoot down anything one had to say, I asked a legitimate question and wanted honest answers, just because I am an atheist doesn't mean I am closed to the possibility that a god(s) exist, I am an atheist because to this day, nobody has provided substantial evidence for the existence of a god(s) and if someday there is sufficient evidence I will follow the evidence to where it leads whether It confirms the existence of a god(s) or if it confirms that No god(s) exist.

Kayla wrote:
how do you know that god exists, and your particular take on god is the correct one

but if i ask them - what is the form on the answer you are expecting - they look at me blankly

I would expect any form of answer that has any reasoning or logic. Yes we all know that you will say it is all about belief, not logic. Belief does not need any evidence, but humans are so tired of being lied to, it is a natural right to ask for some evidence.

Though we all know there is no evidence.

atheosalio wrote:An atheist may reject both claims. I do not belief [sic] that god(s) exist and I also do not believe that NO god(s) exist.

A wise man once spoke: "I don't know if there is a god or not but I do know there is godliness in man for that I have seen."

And a Zen monk wrote: "God is nothing and that is why I believe in God." Personally, I would not say "nothing" but rather "no thing" when referring to god, (or God if one prefers), for god has no form but rather is Pure Consciousness, for lack of a better phrase to express that which is mystical and even metaphysical for discussion's sake.

The atheist or even agnostic seems to want proof of this phenomenon, which is beyond the grasp of logic or even of the mind. That is why there are those such as yourself, atheosalio... hungry for the truth but unable to grasp the formless. Drop the mind and journey within to find the answers to life's important questions.

mtmynd1 wrote:...
The atheist or even agnostic seems to want proof of this phenomenon, which is beyond the grasp of logic or even of the mind.

Nope, the agnostic says there's no point in discussing it and the atheist doesn't even think about it unless it's a theist claiming it as true and then all they say is, "Show me one?".

If it's beyond the grasp of Logic and the mind then how are you talking about 'it'?

Not even a 'God' can escape Logic, at the very least not if 'it' has a language that is, e.g. if it is omnipotent can 'it' create a rock it cannot lift? An example from Philosophy of Language and Logic,
"If a god creates a world in which certain propositions are true, then by that very act he also creates a world in which all the propositions that follow from them come true. And similarly he could not create a world in which the proposition 'p' was true without creating all its objects."
Wittgenstein, TLP, 5.123

Arising_uk wrote: If it's beyond the grasp of Logic and the mind then how are you talking about 'it'?

Why indeed! Mankind has been talking about "god", talking to "god", talking against "god" since man accepted something beyond our ability to understand. Why is this board so popular and riddled with both belief and non-belief in this thing we name "god"? To speak about, to write about it, to ponder this "god" is and has been around far longer than even logic.

Arising_uk wrote:"... if it is omnipotent can 'it' create a rock it cannot lift? An example from Philosophy of Language and Logic."

Mental masturbation is all that is. That has been around as long as the word "god" has been used as something greater than ourselves. Seems we can't fathom something like that so we use our "logic" go play foolish little mind games that puzzle the ignorant.

Arising_uk wrote:"If a god creates a world in which certain propositions are true, then by that very act he also creates a world in which all the propositions that follow from them come true. And similarly he could not create a world in which the proposition 'p' was true without creating all its objects."
Wittgenstein, TLP, 5.123

All I see within this, A.uk, is "If" to begin this ridiculous proposition. The very fact that Wittgenstein uses the word "he" indicates to me that the man has been programmed to accept "god" as having a gender. Can he accept a state of perpetuity for all form, changing constantly from one place to another, from one form to another, destruction and creation as a process that has no beginning and no end..?

Not hardly, I say. Man is under the belief that we are the ultimate form of life and hence have all the answers without acknowledging that what we do know is infinitesimal to all that the universe encompasses. We know nothing compared to all there is to know, my friend. Do be disillusioned by those who proclaim to know there is nothing beyond what our hu'man mind can comprehend.

mtmynd1 wrote:... To speak about, to write about it, to ponder this "god" is and has been around far longer than even logic.

Logic has always been around, it's what reason works by.

Arising_uk wrote:Mental masturbation is all that is. That has been around as long as the word "god" has been used as something greater than ourselves. Seems we can't fathom something like that so we use our "logic" go play foolish little mind games that puzzle the ignorant.

Your answer then?

Is your position about 'god' then that it is just a mental masturbation to put us in our place as being greater than us?

All I see within this, A.uk, is "If" to begin this ridiculous proposition. The very fact that Wittgenstein uses the word "he" indicates to me that the man has been programmed to accept "god" as having a gender. Can he accept a state of perpetuity for all form, changing constantly from one place to another, from one form to another, destruction and creation as a process that has no beginning and no end..?

Well he was a german christian jew. So you're a Spinozan with respect to 'god' and there is no entity other than nature. Whatever 'it' is it still has to obey what Wittgenstein pointed out with respect to logic and propositions.

Not hardly, I say. Man is under the belief that we are the ultimate form of life and hence have all the answers without acknowledging that what we do know is infinitesimal to all that the universe encompasses. We know nothing compared to all there is to know, my friend. Do be disillusioned by those who proclaim to know there is nothing beyond what our hu'man mind can comprehend.

Thats not what we say, what we say is that you can't say this with any meaning.

marmelada wrote: I would expect any form of answer that has any reasoning or logic.

That is not very helpful.

If I claim that Atlantis is real, and you ask me how I know this, you have some idea of the structure of a possible answer.

I can cite historical references, telepathic messages from ghosts of Atlantean wizards, etc. Your question, a very meaningful one in this case, presupposes possible answers.

To say that you expect an answer that has reasoning or logic is not much more helpful than saying you want an answer that has words in it.

Arising_UK wrote:Is your position about 'god' then that it is just a mental masturbation to put us in our place as being greater than us?

Close, A.uk. Nobody really knows if there is a "god" or not, but plenty of people worldwide, believe in (a) god or gods and have been of this belief ever since hu'manity began. That's one hell of a lot of people that feel something that is beyond logic and feel strongly about it. Why else would mankind erect edifices in the name of 'god' or any other god-like entity, even tho nobody can prove beyond a doubt that this 'god' exists?

Could it be that this 'god' is beyond our logical ability to fully comprehend? Sure. Not all truths are provable. Take "love"... have we seen love or just a reaction to it? Many were taught the adage "God is Love" as at least an equal if not the same. However, ask anyone to prove that love exists and see what you get.

Arising_UK wrote:So you're a Spinozan with respect to 'god' and there is no entity other than nature. Whatever 'it' is it still has to obey what Wittgenstein pointed out with respect to logic and propositions.

That I am a "spinozan", A.uk, is you assumption,certainly not mine. When you write "'it'' has to obey what Wittgenstein pointed out with respect to logic and propositions" I reject this 'has to obey' as an untruth. This is purely theoretical and has no basis being referred to as a "truth"in any way. To demand logic as the sole judge in whether there is a "god" or not is absurd. You wrote that logic was here long before hu'manity. That is just as absurd. Logic was created by man thru the observation of Nature and the natural world as it was known. As our knowledge increases, so do the definitions we have used to understand our world.

mtmynd wrote:Not hardly, I say. Man is under the belief that we are the ultimate form of life and hence have all the answers without acknowledging that what we do know is infinitesimal to all that the universe encompasses. We know nothing compared to all there is to know, my friend. Don't be disillusioned by those who proclaim to know there is nothing beyond what our hu'man mind can comprehend.

Arising_UK wrote:Thats not what we say, what we say is that you can't say this with any meaning.

There you go again, A-uk... I can say it and mean it. If you are unable to understand any of what I wrote in the above quote, should I backtrack on any of it... or should you open your own mind to the possibility this is not only logical but borders on truth? Our mind is simply a tool in our arsenal of understanding. Far too many are somehow convinced mind is what we are. A limiting proposition and one that needs to be discarded in order to progress into alternative realities beyond mind and it's insistence to stay within the borders of intellect. We are more than that.

mtmynd1 wrote:Close, A.uk. Nobody really knows if there is a "god" or not, but plenty of people worldwide, believe in (a) god or gods and have been of this belief ever since hu'manity began. That's one hell of a lot of people that feel something that is beyond logic and feel strongly about it. Why else would mankind erect edifices in the name of 'god' or any other god-like entity, even tho nobody can prove beyond a doubt that this 'god' exists?

Because science hadn't been invented and death is a scary thing.

Could it be that this 'god' is beyond our logical ability to fully comprehend? Sure. Not all truths are provable. Take "love"... have we seen love or just a reaction to it? Many were taught the adage "God is Love" as at least an equal if not the same. However, ask anyone to prove that love exists and see what you get.

I get two or more people demonstrating their love for each other. Demonstrate your 'god'?

There are plenty of logical arguments proving the existence of 'god/s', it's empirically that it's a problem.

That I am a "spinozan", A.uk, is you assumption,certainly not mine.

Fair enough it just sounded like it. So what are you? A theist? A pantheist? etc, etc.

When you write "'it'' has to obey what Wittgenstein pointed out with respect to logic and propositions" I reject this 'has to obey' as an untruth. This is purely theoretical and has no basis being referred to as a "truth"in any way.

If you understand logic and language and reason then it's exactly a truth but only if there is a 'god' and it has a language and had a hand in creating ours.

To demand logic as the sole judge in whether there is a "god" or not is absurd.

Not what i said, what i said was that if there is a 'god' then it has to obey the rules of logic.

You wrote that logic was here long before hu'manity. That is just as absurd.

Did I? if so I apologise, I thought what i said was that as long as reason and language has been about so has logic.

Logic was created by man thru the observation of Nature and the natural world as it was known.

Nope, Logic was developed from our observation of our language and how we reason.

As our knowledge increases, so do the definitions we have used to understand our world.

And this has what relation to logic?

mtmynd wrote:Not hardly, I say. Man is under the belief that we are the ultimate form of life and hence have all the answers without acknowledging that what we do know is infinitesimal to all that the universe encompasses. We know nothing compared to all there is to know, my friend. Don't be disillusioned by those who proclaim to know there is nothing beyond what our hu'man mind can comprehend.

Who says such things? I like philosophy and as such I understand that if we cannot comprehend something then we cannot know it. I also know that this "We know nothing compared to all there is to know" is just meaningless with respect to epistemology.

There you go again, A-uk... I can say it and mean it. ...

You may well mean it but this doesn't mean that it has sense.

If you are unable to understand any of what I wrote in the above quote, should I backtrack on any of it... or should you open your own mind to the possibility this is not only logical but borders on truth? Our mind is simply a tool in our arsenal of understanding. Far too many are somehow convinced mind is what we are. A limiting proposition and one that needs to be discarded in order to progress into alternative realities beyond mind and it's insistence to stay within the borders of intellect. We are more than that.

I know, we are body in an external world but pray tell what we are that is more than this?