Do you believe in God?

[Didymos Thomas]

Please explain to me the logical necessity of the distinction between literal and figurative omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence. Isn't this just a fudge to explain away the bizzare consequence of these absurd absolutist claims?

It's not a matter of logical necessity, it's a matter of logical possibility. If it is possible to conceive of a God which does not suffer from the flaws you mention (taking God and God language to be figurative instead of literal), then your criticisms cannot be universally applied to all notions of God.

I still haven't looked up sufism but i maintain that there are no God notions not supernaturally characterized. It goes with the territory i'm afraid, in contradiction of sound and established scientific fact.

God is almost always described, characterized, in supernatural terms - in figurative language. That's the point. You are right, taking such language literally is misguided, but these criticisms you have presented miss God notions founded in a figurative understanding of the language.

If I suggested that the events in Dante's Inferno actually took place, you would think I'm mad. But the Inferno certainly has a great deal of meaning and value, and to recognize that value and meaning we have to look deeper than the literal meaning, we have to consider the figurative meaning.

The milk I bought on Saturday has gone off. I remeber buying the milk - and now it has undergone a change that takes time to occur. This correlation between memory, natural processes and the evidence of the senses is the source of my reasonable knowledge that i have existed before now, at least since Saturday!

Did you forget your own thought experiment?

The point i'm trying to make is that if you assert the existence of this supernatural entity - God, then nothing is even as certain as that because it denies the cause and effect relations that bind everything together. If you're asking for certainty that will map the skeptical land your God seems to inahbit, i can't provide it, and that's the point. By asserting the existence of this supernatural entity - existing in contradiction of cause and effect, you deny the possibility of knowledge, and then everything is truly meaningless.

I got the point, the problem is that your point adds nothing to your cause because you bring up an issue that applies, God or no God.

If the world and everything in it, including our memories, came into existence ten seconds ago, we would have no way of knowing. God or no God, milk or no milk, this is a legitimate problem with empirical information.

No one will argue that fundamentalist views of religion, and God, are misguided.

I don't think that religious notions are necessarily destructive - rather they are constructive of morally righteous, inward looking groups living in shared beleif. This is great if you're in one of those groups, and without such groups existing through pre-history we would still be hunting and gathering in the forest. But should someone come along who doesn't share those beliefs, they are ostrasized and demonized - perhaps ritually murdered as a heritic, or an infidel. And when one morally righteous inward looking group in this ever more crowded world rubs borders with another - all hell breaks loose.

First, you are mixing up culture with religion.
Second, you still suffer from the same flawed argument I outlined in my last post.
When you say 'But should someone come along who doesn't share those beliefs, they are ostrasized and demonized - perhaps ritually murdered as a heritic, or an infidel.'
You definately identify something terrible that has happened before. The problem is that this does not necessarily occur - the religious are not necessarily xenophobic.

And no matter how many examples you give of xenophobia among the religious, you will never establish that all religious people are xenophobic. Why? Because clearly some are not.

No we don't. No right minded man or woman should tolerate these primtive, racist, irrational and false ideas. Teaching religion to children should be considered child abuse and the meme thus stamped out.

So extreme, even though none of your arguments seem to stick.

Again, you are right to criticize misguided religious ideas, but the jump from some religious notions are misguided to all religious notions are misguided, something you have not been able to establish at all, is the irrational leap.

So, if you want to talk about primitive, racist, irrational and false ideas, before you cast that first stone, look at yourself. You draw hasty generalizations (illogical, false ideas) to demonize every culture on the planet (primitive, racist). I'm not saying you are illogical and racist, but the mistakes in your words here are mistakes of logic which result in racism.

That's why we need a degree of sensitivity for the variety of religious notions. So that we do not unjustly demonize nearly all of the species for no good reason.

Don't try and palm off the problems with religion on the most devoted among you. You moderates provide these people with thier justifications - and then stand back in mock horror while secretly chalking one up for the home team.
Your moderation echoes hollow in my ear amidst the crackle of gunfire.

And your blind bias against religion, and the lack of logical and empirical support for your bias makes me sad.

I'm not trying to 'palm off the problems' on the most devoted. The most devoted are not at fault. The fundamentalists and fanatics, these are certainly misguided, and we should make appropriate criticisms.

Instead, I've offered you actual arguments - arguments which you do not respond to as you prefer to simply restate your own intolerant and illogical beliefs.

[iconoclast]

Didymos Thomas,

'You are right, taking such language literally is misguided, but these criticisms you have presented miss God notions founded in a figurative understanding of the language.'

If you want me to concede that the Bible, Talmud, Koran, ect consider deep and meaningful ethical/moral issues and communicate these in a compelling way - fine, i have no problem with that, but where there is a requirement of faith in something that cannot be known, this cannot be purely figurative, and is not presented as such.

When Cannon Nicholas Sagovsky (CofE) visited my university i asked him if he thought God really exists or whether God is a cipher for the moral authority of the social whole - and he indicated the former.

So here's the problem. If God, a supernatural entity, actually exists then the cause and effect relations that seem to bind reality together, and render it knowable, within reason, but without absolute certainty, are nullified.

If you want direct evidence against a thing that doesn't exist, anything, then you're asking me to engage in a task greater than showing all religious notions to be false. Assert the existence of a 10ft chocolate statue of Ghanid's grandad - and challenge me to disprove it. I can't. The same with God's, ghosts and goblins. What i can do is try and understand the origin and nature of these ideas and compare them to what i can reasonably, but not certainly know.

If the world and everything in it, including our memories, came into existence ten seconds ago, we would have no way of knowing. God or no God, milk or no milk, this is a legitimate problem with empirical information.

No, we couldn't absolutely know, but that hardly gives licence to claim validity, figurative or literal, for unfounded assertions that have such massive implications for who we are and what our purposes should be in the world - particularly in face of reasonable knowledge that has been hard won, and offers such potential benefits.

Religious ideas holding fast to a skeptical defence are offensive - an insult to man's greatest achievement and to the very essence of man - the learning animal. We need to embrace the spirit of knowledge and religion kills it stone dead with cliams to secular, relativist and skeptical protections for notions that are fantastical, supernatural and unreasonable.

I do not think people have a right to believe whatever they like. They have a duty to truth - a duty religion absolves them of as they pursue the agendas of thier little circles of the faithful.

You keep saying this and i don't know why:

Instead, I've offered you actual arguments - arguments which you do not respond to as you prefer to simply restate your own intolerant and illogical beliefs.

I've tried to be as forthcoming as possible - though admittedly, in my own terms. I am hearing you, i just don't agree with your analysis, or the terms in which it is made. If you wish to make this point again, please do so, but indicate which arguments you think i have not addressed.

[equation]

yes and finally yes that i finally did find him, and from the very materialistic view of this whole universe i had for this long years... i dont know what GOD actually stands for anyone, for me he is just THE CREATOR, i do not yet know whether we should have total faith in him .... he may move his steps independent of our motives ....
we have so forth come to claim a creation of our own ,AI, which we are trying to create in our own image or perhaps a stronger one....
logically reasoning what logics could deny that may be we may have been created in the replica of some other, and some other by some other ...? and for this to happen, there truly should be ONE the initial.
geologically and archeologically it may account for such existence in the course of time , but there are lots of options that really accounts, like the outer space...
AND I BELIEVE IN THE CREATOR (IN OR NOT IN OUR GOOD WILL) ONLY BECAUSE I BELIEVE WE CAN CREATE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN OR NOT IN OUR OWN IMAGE AND THAT WHICH IS POSSIBLE ONLY IF WE HAVE BEEN CREATED......

[equation]

Originally Posted by Khethil

I voted "No" for a lot of reasons. I *like* to think I'm open to suggestion and new ideas, but I am getting old and crass

I've never taken the view that 'belief' was a conscious process. To me, belief is a scale I traverse wherein as the amount of evidence and reason grows so does my scale move towards 'knowledge'. In my mind, if I'm honest with myself, its' not a decision; moreso, a statement of assertion as to where I stand. Can belief be consciously imposed? I've read many intelligent, well-intentioned folks say it can. I don't see it.

But I've gotta tell ya, when I see what I perceive to be honest, heartfelt and powerful belief in some I am inspired! Despite my negative views on theism I still have, in my heart of hearts, a soft spot for those with strong conviction and perhaps secretly admire them for what I have not.

yes and finally yes that i finally did find him, and from the very materialistic view of this whole universe i had for this long years... i dont know what GOD actually stands for anyone, for me he is just THE CREATOR, i do not yet know whether we should have total faith in him .... he may move his steps independent of our motives ....
we have so forth come to claim a creation of our own ,AI, which we are trying to create in our own image or perhaps a stronger one....
logically reasoning what logics could deny that may be we may have been created in the replica of some other, and some other by some other ...? and for this to happen, there truly should be ONE the initial.
geologically and archeologically it may account for such existence in the course of time , but there are lots of options that really accounts, like the outer space...
AND I BELIEVE IN THE CREATOR (IN OR NOT IN OUR GOOD WILL) ONLY BECAUSE I BELIEVE WE CAN CREATE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN OR NOT IN OUR OWN IMAGE AND THAT WHICH IS POSSIBLE ONLY IF WE HAVE BEEN CREATED......

[equation]

Also God Exist Only If It Can Be Quantified By Whatsoever Means ..... And I Believe It Can Be Quantified Solving All Our Logics, Emotions, Revelations....
One Who Believe In God Need Not Pray Him, Prayers Are Among Our Own Traditions To Bring Awareness Of God To The Next.
i Have Come To A Point Where I Cannot Alter My Beliefs For Him.
i Am Just Longing My Quest To Quantify It.it Or Him? Your Choice. I Prefer It.. Logical Choice Over Grammatical One.

[equation]

Originally Posted by boagie

Pythagorean,

It is true imagination is said to be of the utmost importance as is stated by Einstein himself,the man did not believe in a personal god.He believe in the totality and order of the universe as god,a very different concept of divinity.The reason I interject here is that Einstein himself was very frustrated at being use by the religious to fortify their claims,he stated most firmly he did not believe in a personal god.

what about accounting that he actually thought he could move on without being ever aware of gods existence. so does most of us. we find ourselves self sufficient that there even would not have to be existence of such a phrase of word. i honestly do not yet believe the fact that certain prophets claim to have divine encounters and have been assigned certain tasks as their destiny. as i stated god exist only if it can be quantified, perhaps we still change their beliefs about god.

[Didymos Thomas]

If you want me to concede that the Bible, Talmud, Koran, ect consider deep and meaningful ethical/moral issues and communicate these in a compelling way - fine, i have no problem with that, but where there is a requirement of faith in something that cannot be known, this cannot be purely figurative, and is not presented as such.

And some traditions do demand faith in the unknown. But again, not all do. With respect to God, I would argue that the subject is usually presented in a figurative way, using metaphor and allegorical stories, to explain the concept of God. This is true of the three major western monotheisms, anyway.

So here's the problem. If God, a supernatural entity, actually exists then the cause and effect relations that seem to bind reality together, and render it knowable, within reason, but without absolute certainty, are nullified.

Again, this all depends on our conception of God. As a supernatural entity which we believe literally exists (if we take scripture literally, and therefore miss the point of scripture), then yes, God is a rather silly notion. However, notions of God are not limited to literal interpretations of scripture, therefore not all notions of God suffer from this intellectual flaw.

If you want direct evidence against a thing that doesn't exist, anything, then you're asking me to engage in a task greater than showing all religious notions to be false. Assert the existence of a 10ft chocolate statue of Ghanid's grandad - and challenge me to disprove it. I can't. The same with God's, ghosts and goblins. What i can do is try and understand the origin and nature of these ideas and compare them to what i can reasonably, but not certainly know.

Right, so we try to understand the nature and origin of these ideas. And when we understand that God does not have a universal nature, that the notions of God are far too vast and diverse for such simplification, then we realize that we cannot throw such broad blanket criticisms against God at large and then expect our blanket criticisms to hold. To some notions, these criticisms will be difficult to overcome, but to other notions, the criticisms do not apply.

No, we couldn't absolutely know, but that hardly gives licence to claim validity, figurative or literal, for unfounded assertions that have such massive implications for who we are and what our purposes should be in the world - particularly in face of reasonable knowledge that has been hard won, and offers such potential benefits.

Nope, no liscence to cast out what we seem to know - I agree. However, your initial claim that the notion of God causes this problem (that everything might be just ten seconds old, and our memories might deceive us) is wildly off base as the problem exists God or not.

And that's the thing - while some notions of God force us to throw out what we know, for example, scientific knowledge, not all notions of God share this terrible quality.

Religious ideas holding fast to a skeptical defence are offensive - an insult to man's greatest achievement and to the very essence of man - the learning animal. We need to embrace the spirit of knowledge and religion kills it stone dead with cliams to secular, relativist and skeptical protections for notions that are fantastical, supernatural and unreasonable.

I'm sorry, was this another blanket criticism of religion when there is no way you could even begin to support the criticism? Once again, religions are vast and varied. Fantastical? some, but not all, then again, so are some scientific claims. Supernatural? Some, but not all. Unreasonable? This is just an expression of your bias.

I do not think people have a right to believe whatever they like. They have a duty to truth - a duty religion absolves them of as they pursue the agendas of thier little circles of the faithful.

Again, this is just an expression of your bias - and far from any sort of evidence to support your claims, much less a response to my arguments (yeah, argumenets).

I've tried to be as forthcoming as possible - though admittedly, in my own terms. I am hearing you, i just don't agree with your analysis, or the terms in which it is made. If you wish to make this point again, please do so, but indicate which arguments you think i have not addressed.

Well, I've argued that religion and God notions are too diverse to be addressed by blanket criticisms. For example, you criticize God as being a supernatural notion, but not all notions of God rely on supernatural claims.

Here are a few in case you missed them the first time:

It's not a matter of logical necessity, it's a matter of logical possibility. If it is possible to conceive of a God which does not suffer from the flaws you mention (taking God and God language to be figurative instead of literal), then your criticisms cannot be universally applied to all notions of God.

First, you are mixing up culture with religion.
Second, you still suffer from the same flawed argument I outlined in my last post.
When you say 'But should someone come along who doesn't share those beliefs, they are ostrasized and demonized - perhaps ritually murdered as a heritic, or an infidel.'
You definitely identify something terrible that has happened before. The problem is that this does not necessarily occur - the religious are not necessarily xenophobic.

And no matter how many examples you give of xenophobia among the religious, you will never establish that all religious people are xenophobic. Why? Because clearly some are not.

Again, you are right to criticize misguided religious ideas, but the jump from some religious notions are misguided to all religious notions are misguided, something you have not been able to establish at all, is the irrational leap.

So, if you want to talk about primitive, racist, irrational and false ideas, before you cast that first stone, look at yourself. You draw hasty generalizations (illogical, false ideas) to demonize every culture on the planet (primitive, racist). I'm not saying you are illogical and racist, but the mistakes in your words here are mistakes of logic which result in racism.

That's why we need a degree of sensitivity for the variety of religious notions. So that we do not unjustly demonize nearly all of the species for no good reason.

[edwardelrich]

Do I believe in god? heres my opinion I believe every culture has a religion
wether it be islamic, budism, or christianity. We all have morals that we should
live by. Each one of those religions have one thing in common and that is the
belief that a person should be good and not bad. God as we know is the essence
of good ;and Everything positive that happens is good, the creation humanity
was most certainly not a bad thing. I believe everthing that is good comes from
God for example a person is diagnosed with cancer and is given 2 weeks to live
and is miraculously is cured, and lives. We can't explain that but we know it is good;
which I think is a will of God who the is essence of good. Who can be seen in ever mircale such as nature and the existance of man.

[Professer Frost]

Each one of those religions have one thing in common and that is the
belief that a person should be good and not bad.

Yes but conceptions of what is True Good and what True Evil vary vastly from religion to religion. Just something to consider.
Your friend,
Professor Frost

[Mephistopheles]

Sorry to resurrect this thread, but no, I do not believe in a God for the same reason I don't believe there is an invisible purple dragon in my garage (ignore the fact I have no garage though), nor that Santa Claus exists.