Do you believe in God?

Discuss literature (e.g. books, newspapers), educational studies (getting help or opinions on homework or an essay), and philosophy.

Do you believe in God?

Yes
249
50%
No
173
35%
Other
77
15%
 
Total votes : 499

Re: Do you believe in God?

Unread postby SunXia » Fri Sep 28, 2018 11:46 am

See when people say that to me I am reminded that I used to believe that but then there was no proof that my feelings meant God. When I ask people how they know that warm feeling was God its "Because I know." Just so illogical to me.

Plus we are always told God is good but no I am sorry why create a world with suffering. "God works in mysterious ways" just does not cut it for me.

Epicurus hit the nail on the head for me:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
If becoming enlightened or an intellectual means I must become arrogant and coldly cynical about the world around me then I'd gladly remain a fool for the rest of my life!!

I'm Out4Marriage!!!Are You??

It is a CHOICE!!
User avatar
SunXia
Warrior Princess
Warrior Princess
 
Posts: 6600
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 3:48 pm
Location: Keeping Evils from this world at bay...with a smile!!

Re: Do you believe in God?

Unread postby Jackrob » Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:39 am

Yes, I have full faith on God. And I always believe there has someone who always moderates us. We are responsible both for good and bad work.
Jackrob
Tyro
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2018 3:41 pm

Re: Do you believe in God?

Unread postby Li_Shengsun » Mon Jan 14, 2019 4:23 pm

I do believe in God, i believe He created heavens and earths with all the beings live in it. And we should give our thanks to Him for allowing us to live within His magnificent creation. Everything moves within a cycle of life and renewal, and greater good.

Honestly, i hated one of His creation called 'religions' and He should intervene when this 'religion' divided into many things. 'religions' is what made mankind divided, 'religions' brings destruction to His creation, 'religions' is what made people hate each other.
Everyone has flaws. It's a matter of finding the ones you can live with.
User avatar
Li_Shengsun
Initiate
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2018 11:35 am

Re: Do you believe in God?

Unread postby PyroMystic » Thu Jan 24, 2019 9:05 am

SunXia wrote:See when people say that to me I am reminded that I used to believe that but then there was no proof that my feelings meant God. When I ask people how they know that warm feeling was God its "Because I know." Just so illogical to me.

Plus we are always told God is good but no I am sorry why create a world with suffering. "God works in mysterious ways" just does not cut it for me.

Epicurus hit the nail on the head for me:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

Not being a jerk but the intellectual problem of evil has been disapproved from time to time (the newest, and perhaps the most well-known answer is Alvin Plantinga's "Free Will Defense" in God, Freedom, and Evil). What you probably mean is the emotional problem of evil which is an entirely different question. Sure, even the latter could use Epicurus' argument but it is false to equate the two.

As for me, I always think that the skeptics are doing a pretty bad job at doubting only supernatural thing. I mean, if you want to doubt, then might as well be a real full-fledged skeptic like Descartes (who even doubt his own existence before the "Cogito ergo sum"). I mean, you can always doubt your own sense experience so don't stop at God or some other supernatural thing. Man up, be a consistent skeptics, and be a solipsist.
忍辱负重 ~ rěn rǔ fù zhòng
||endure humiliation, bear burden||
《三国志 · 吴书 · 陸遜传 》
User avatar
PyroMystic
Initiate
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 9:50 am

Re: Do you believe in God?

Unread postby SunXia » Thu Jan 24, 2019 12:38 pm

Let's start this off by saying I do not believe, as nobody has provided sufficient proof to me at all. All the "powerful" things I was told happened have either a scientific explanation OR can't be proven either way. So my place is the problem of "Evil" does not equate to my belief or justify my belief. Just helps cement that if he existed in the form of the Bible or any other religious texts ONLY THEN does Epicurus come into play.

Not being a jerk but the intellectual problem of evil has been disapproved from time to time (the newest, and perhaps the most well-known answer is Alvin Plantinga's "Free Will Defense" in God, Freedom, and Evil). What you probably mean is the emotional problem of evil which is an entirely different question. Sure, even the latter could use Epicurus' argument but it is false to equate the two.


Not being a jerk but thats not "disapproved" that's merely an argument against the idea. If God is Omnipotent, all powerful then he should be able to do anything but Plantinga puts limits on him so no he's not Omnipotent if he exists with limits. Omnipotent isn't "All-powerful but with few limitations" its unlimited power. Tries to compare a world without evil to a square circle being created. Not even close to the same thing.

"Can't be expected.." Why why can't he be expected he is meant to be all-powerful. (If he exists) Either he's all powerful or he's not.

The very fact of the matter is that Christians in this day in age STILL say stuff like "God is good" when something good happens like a lost relative is found (by people) or a relative has successful surgery (again by people). YET when something bad happens its "God works in mysterious ways." It's a cop out. And Epicurus hits the nail on the head for me if we are to entertain the idea that he is even there to begin with.

As for me, I always think that the skeptics are doing a pretty bad job at doubting only supernatural thing.

There is no "Job" for Atheists. It is the job for Theists to convince us that God exists. They have the burden of proof, they make the claim so convince me. But they can't because they have no proof beyond a book written by men in an age when Human understanding of the world was limited.

I mean, if you want to doubt, then might as well be a real full-fledged skeptic like Descartes (who even doubt his own existence before the "Cogito ergo sum"). I mean, you can always doubt your own sense experience so don't stop at God or some other supernatural thing. Man up, be a consistent skeptics, and be a solipsist.


So you are basically saying my belief system or lack of belief system isn't valid because I should doubt I exist? I mean you are throwing around labels here that I am a skeptic when no I am a Religious/Supernatural/Spiritual Skeptic, I am Skeptical of claims that have not and can not be proven because they are so fantastical to begin with.

It is no different if someone claimed to me they saw a Leprechaun or a Banshee, prove it. Since there is no physical evidence that they exist I won't "believe" without proof simply because I a told to. I am also not going to jump at "I don't exist" because you want to try and dismiss my values.
If becoming enlightened or an intellectual means I must become arrogant and coldly cynical about the world around me then I'd gladly remain a fool for the rest of my life!!

I'm Out4Marriage!!!Are You??

It is a CHOICE!!
User avatar
SunXia
Warrior Princess
Warrior Princess
 
Posts: 6600
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 3:48 pm
Location: Keeping Evils from this world at bay...with a smile!!

Re: Do you believe in God?

Unread postby PyroMystic » Sun Feb 17, 2019 1:49 pm

Okay I get what you said. You believe that God doesn't exist because you have seen no actual proof. But then the most logical position is then not atheism but agnosticism.

Now problem of evil is generally known to be a knock-down argument FOR the non-existence of God. So there might be more reason to be an atheist that agnosticism, which I agree. But the problem is that this argument has been disapproved. So what I'm trying to say is that the disapproving of problem of evil does NOT lead one to be theist, but leads to agnosticism.

Not being a jerk but thats not "disapproved" that's merely an argument against the idea. If God is Omnipotent, all powerful then he should be able to do anything but Plantinga puts limits on him so no he's not Omnipotent if he exists with limits. Omnipotent isn't "All-powerful but with few limitations" its unlimited power. Tries to compare a world without evil to a square circle being created. Not even close to the same thing.

But this is simply a wrong definition of Omnipotence. Being omnipotent means having the capacity of doing anything (1) THAT IS LOGICALLY POSSIBLE (2) AS A PERFECT BEING.
On the first point: can God create a square-circle? Can god create a married bachelor? Can God make 2+2=5? Can God make a contradiction true? No, absolutely not. And God is not any less powerful if He can't do something that is logically impossible
On the second point: can God scratch his head? Can God sleep? Can God change the past? Well, as an omnipotent being he ought to be able to do it. But God is a perfect being and a perfect being need not scratch his head in confusion, sleep to recuperate his energy, or change the past because he has done some terrible mistake.
Now apply this to the problem of evil:
On the first point: He can't make creatures both free and non-free by giving them the capacity to do evil, but always make it impossible for them to actualize their evil.
On the second point? Why should God preserve creaturely freedom? Simply because he's an omnibenevolent God. If he take away creaturely freedom, that would not make him God. That would be a despot.

You said that comparing a square circle with a world without evil is not a good way to make his point, but I don't see you provide any reason why. Perhaps you'd say, "because a world without evil is CONCEIVABLE but a square circle is INCONCEIVABLE." Fair enough. But this is simply inadequate. It is comparing a world WITH CREATURELY FREEDOM but without evil and square circle, which is quite a good enough comparison.

There is no "Job" for Atheists. It is the job for Theists to convince us that God exists. They have the burden of proof, they make the claim so convince me. But they can't because they have no proof beyond a book written by men in an age when Human understanding of the world was limited.

Wait what? Why should theist convince atheist that God exist? It is not like an atheist government is oppresing theist to renounce their religion that the theist have to convince the atheist of their conviction (oh wait, that actually happened). No, it is the atheist who claimed that faith in God is unreasonable. It is the atheist who claimed that being a skeptic is the most neutral and intellectual position. It is the atheist that claim that the belief on God is merely "opium for people". It is the atheist who claimed that religion only brought bad things and it is atheism that advance science. Heck, it is atheists that claim themselves more intelligent than religious people JUST BECAUSE they are doing half-ass job on doubting and being skeptic.
So yeah. The burden of proof is on the atheist to convince theist that they are making a better metaphysical judgment than the theist.

You said that the theist "can't [convince you] because they have no proof beyond a book written by men in an age when Human understanding of the world was limited." Well, there are dozens argument for the existence of God. Too lazy to actually mention them.
Let us compare this with the atheists: They have the burden of proof to prove that their metaphysical judgment is better than mine theistic one. But they can't because they have no proof beyond reciting the old lame saying, "I can't see, touch, hear, and feel God. Therefore, God doesn't exist."
(okay, this might be a caricature. But really, atheists only give 1 argument FOR the non-existence of God: The Problem of Evil. The other argument is argument AGAINST the existence of God which, as I said, should make one an agnostic instead of a full-fledged atheist).

So you are basically saying my belief system or lack of belief system isn't valid because I should doubt I exist? I mean you are throwing around labels here that I am a skeptic when no I am a Religious/Supernatural/Spiritual Skeptic, I am Skeptical of claims that have not and can not be proven because they are so fantastical to begin with.

It is no different if someone claimed to me they saw a Leprechaun or a Banshee, prove it. Since there is no physical evidence that they exist I won't "believe" without proof simply because I a told to. I am also not going to jump at "I don't exist" because you want to try and dismiss my values.

I'm saying that your belief system is simply ungrounded. You deny the existence of supernatural but hold tight on the belief that your sense is reliable. Your claim that you're a Religious/Supernatural/Spiritual Skeptic is the proof of that. Why pick and choose?

Also, you claim that you are skeptical of claims that have not and cannot be proven because they are so fantastical to begin with. Fair enough. Now prove to me that you're an actual human being with a conscious mind and not a bot that is programmed to reply my post. I cannot see you, I cannot touch you, I cannot hear not feel you. Prove to me you're human.

Leprechaun and Banshee is supposed to be a physical being so asking for a physical proof is valid. But God is immaterial being so asking for a visible, material, physical evidence is not valid.

Now you're making this personal. I'm not trying not dismissing your values. Why should I? I just challenged your idea but it seems you're not open to any discussion? I'm not saying that you should imitate Descartes and believe that you do not exist. What I mean to say is that IF you think your belief system is right (and more intellectual) JUST BECAUSE you're skeptical of some things (Religious/Supernatural/Spiritual), then why not be even more right by being skeptical of everything, including your own existence? By this standard, Descartes is, I think, doing an infinetely better job at being skeptical than Religious/Supernatural/Spiritual
忍辱负重 ~ rěn rǔ fù zhòng
||endure humiliation, bear burden||
《三国志 · 吴书 · 陸遜传 》
User avatar
PyroMystic
Initiate
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 9:50 am

Re: Do you believe in God?

Unread postby Shikanosuke » Mon Feb 18, 2019 2:39 pm

PyroMystic wrote:. But the problem is that this argument has been disapproved. So what I'm trying to say is that the disapproving of problem of evil does NOT lead one to be theist, but leads to agnosticism.


As many times as you repeat this, it doesn't actually become true.

But this is simply a wrong definition of Omnipotence. Being omnipotent means having the capacity of doing anything (1) THAT IS LOGICALLY POSSIBLE (2) AS A PERFECT BEING.


I'm not sure where you draw your definition from, this is is not the definition of omnipotence nor the concept of omnipotence. Omnipotence is nearly always understood to be possession of unlimited power, not the capability of doing something within the confines of what is logically possible.

On the first point: can God create a square-circle? Can god create a married bachelor? Can God make 2+2=5? Can God make a contradiction true? No, absolutely not. And God is not any less powerful if He can't do something that is logically impossible


An omnipotent god would have to absolutely be less powerful, and therefore not all-powerful, if he lacked the ability to do such things. If you believe a monotheistic god created existence, and therefore the laws in which it operates, it stands to reason said god can't alter said laws at will.


Wait what? Why should theist convince atheist that God exist?


I think her point was fairly clear. When you advance an idea, and ask others to accept it as having any validity, you bear the burden of proof. Otherwise, a conversation on the topic is as pointless as you telling her you live your life in accordance with precepts of the great spaghetti monster.

It is not like an atheist government is oppresing theist to renounce their religion that the theist have to convince the atheist of their conviction (oh wait, that actually happened).


Come again now? Are you suggesting history (past and current) isn't littered with governments pushing a certain religious value upon its citizenry?

No, it is the atheist who claimed that faith in God is unreasonable.


I don't think its 'the athiest' per se (whoever that somehow generalized person is now in your mind), as it is the default position of any rigorous mind to accept that belief in something without proof (faith) is unreasonable.

It is the atheist who claimed that being a skeptic is the most neutral and intellectual position. It is the atheist that claim that the belief on God is merely "opium for people". It is the atheist who claimed that religion only brought bad things and it is atheism that advance science.


Again, lot of generalizations here and I'm not sure many atheists (myself included) think that religion has only brought bad things or does not carry some utilitarian value.

Heck, it is atheists that claim themselves more intelligent than religious people JUST BECAUSE they are doing half-ass job on doubting and being skeptic.


Again, you act like this is some 'athiest-only' position. I don't think most atheists are concerned with whether they are personally 'smarter' than a theist. Nor do I think if they did it would be based solely on the fact the theist was a theist. Regardless, being a skeptic or having doubt when someone advances an idea to you is neither an unreasonable position nor a difficult one.

So yeah. The burden of proof is on the atheist to convince theist that they are making a better metaphysical judgment than the theist.


Nope. Not how that works. First of all, the theist is the only one concerned with any metaphysical moral judgments, the atheist is not. Secondly, that's also simply not how the burden of proof works in almost any circle of study or argument.

You said that the theist "can't [convince you] because they have no proof beyond a book written by men in an age when Human understanding of the world was limited." Well, there are dozens argument for the existence of God. Too lazy to actually mention them.


I love this post because you quote her, move the goal post, and then abandon the attempt entirely. She obviously isn't interested in theological arguments (which seem to be your interest), she is looking for empirical evidence. If you can't produce that for her it would be prudent to concede you will be unable to convince her based on her statement regarding what it would take to convince her.


Let us compare this with the atheists: They have the burden of proof to prove that their metaphysical judgment is better than mine theistic one. But they can't because they have no proof beyond reciting the old lame saying, "I can't see, touch, hear, and feel God. Therefore, God doesn't exist."
(okay, this might be a caricature. But really, atheists only give 1 argument FOR the non-existence of God: The Problem of Evil. The other argument is argument AGAINST the existence of God which, as I said, should make one an agnostic instead of a full-fledged atheist).


I really don't understand where you come from. In this debate, a theist would be the moving party which advances that concept that there is a god. The atheist/skeptic/average person, being the non-moving party, would not respond with 'the problem of evil', but would simply ask for evidence of said god. That isn't lazy, lame, or irrational. If you cannot produce said evidence, which you cannot, stipulate that and move on.

Attempting to portray this as as two individuals trying to argue which 'metaphysical judgment' is better is disinginious. That is what theists of different faiths do with one another. Her argument is clear, and your attempt at burden shifting is sadly and intentionally missing the point.


I'm saying that your belief system is simply ungrounded. You deny the existence of supernatural but hold tight on the belief that your sense is reliable. Your claim that you're a Religious/Supernatural/Spiritual Skeptic is the proof of that. Why pick and choose?


I'm now convinced you're not actually reading her posts, but just regurgitating whatever arguments you've had with non-believers over the years. Her point is clear, she is skeptical of any claim unsupported by evidence. That isn't a 'ungrounded' belief system, that is how ideas are vetted and underpins most of the scientific principles you rely on everyday.

Also, you claim that you are skeptical of claims that have not and cannot be proven because they are so fantastical to begin with. Fair enough. Now prove to me that you're an actual human being with a conscious mind and not a bot that is programmed to reply my post. I cannot see you, I cannot touch you, I cannot hear not feel you. Prove to me you're human.


Cute retort. But this is where you go, really? For the sake of argument, SunXia can be touched, felt, and seen. It isn't a fantastical claim and can be supported by an empirical evidence. We done now or do you need to advance some matrix-esque Elon Musk claim to move the goal post in an attempt to assert that her position is somehow unreasonable?

Leprechaun and Banshee is supposed to be a physical being so asking for a physical proof is valid. But God is immaterial being so asking for a visible, material, physical evidence is not valid.


Please. Leprechauns, banshees, gods, and fairies are whatever humans say they are. Hell, many non-abrahamic mythos easily posited that gods took on visible and physical presences (its obvious you only operate from the mindset of your own mythos). What changes about none of this is that you don't get to cheat. You don't get to say "well my god is immaterial so you can't ask for proof of him but he is real". You don't get to say 'in proving the existence of my god you don't get define what kind of proof you'll accept, you have to deal on my terms' .That is irrational and childish.

What you get to do, is to concede that you have faith and faith means believing in something without proof of it. You have to accept that in any other domain outside of theists and their religions, that is considered an irrational and unreasonable position.

Now you're making this personal. I'm not trying not dismissing your values.


Oh. That is exactly what you've done. You've set up strawmen arguments in the age old debate between the two sides and ascribed them to her. You've attempted to move the goal post every time she's asked for more evidence than your philosophical jargon. You've performed an amazing attempt at burden shifting that would boggle the mind of a high school debate student, and then asserted that her belief system is groundless.

Why should I? I just challenged your idea but it seems you're not open to any discussion?


What? She's been engaging in this thread for quite some time. She's explained to you what would be required to prove your point. You've ignored all this and attempted to redefine the parameters to suit your assertions on the existence of gods and what it should take to prove them real. (I believe at one time you mentioned you were too lazy to discuss the arguments for the existence of gods).

I'm not saying that you should imitate Descartes and believe that you do not exist. What I mean to say is that IF you think your belief system is right (and more intellectual) JUST BECAUSE you're skeptical of some things (Religious/Supernatural/Spiritual), then why not be even more right by being skeptical of everything, including your own existence? By this standard, Descartes is, I think, doing an infinetely better job at being skeptical than Religious/Supernatural/Spiritual


Not trying to put words in her mouth here, but outside of you...who said she wasn't skeptical of all of those things?
User avatar
Shikanosuke
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 4387
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:22 am
Location: US

Re: Do you believe in God?

Unread postby SunXia » Tue Feb 19, 2019 7:28 pm

Okay I get what you said. You believe that God doesn't exist because you have seen no actual proof. But then the most logical position is then not atheism but agnosticism.

I am an atheist and an agnostic. Atheism is merely me rejecting your assertion that any divine being exists until you prove it to me. Agnosticism is merely "I don't know" which can be a reason for Atheism but just because I don't know everything doesn't mean I'm going to jump to a book written during the Bronze and Iron Ages.

Now problem of evil is generally known to be a knock-down argument FOR the non-existence of God.

Actually its more a knock down for "God is good" when, if he exists he clearly does not interfere. Also IF he exists like the Bible states then he is not acting as the Bible says he does. But again there's no proof of him beyond a book written by Ancient peoples. Literally on the same keel as Egyptian pantheons and the others to me at this point.

But this is simply a wrong definition of Omnipotence. Being omnipotent means having the capacity of doing anything (1) THAT IS LOGICALLY POSSIBLE (2) AS A PERFECT BEING.

No you are adding your own definitions to suit your argument. Every definition I have seen is "all powerful" "unlimited power" etc etc You can't put logic on omnipotence when where the logic for creating the world in seven days or other such mess from the Bible. That's nothing to do with Logic as LOGICALLY we know the stuff attributed to him is impossible. A woman cannot be turned into a pillar of salt. Yet this is done in the Bible. So yeah the squared circle argument is putting justification on something you can't prove but want to pretend you can. Its changing the meaning of a word.

Can God make 2+2=5

If he's omnipotent why can't he? Oh because you now want to put limits on him. I think snapping your finger and creating "man" is much more illogical than making 2+2=5!!

That would be a despot.

I would argue the God in the story of the Bible already IS a despot. He drowned the entire world except a few. That's not kindly.

this is simply inadequate. It is comparing a world WITH CREATURELY FREEDOM but without evil and square circle, which is quite a good enough comparison.

What freedom?? Freedom to WORSHIP something or BURN IN HELL?? That's not freedom at all. No different from the freedom given to you by a burglar holding a gun to your head.

Wait what? Why should theist convince atheist that God exist?

Because people are not born believing God exists. They are taught by people making the claim. You speak of Logic, but logic dictates you prove your assertion. Can't prove a negative.

No, it is the atheist who claimed that faith in God is unreasonable.

Theists claimed he existed to begin with. The ownership is on your to prove that he does.

It is the atheist that claim that the belief on God is merely "opium for people".

You might be thinking of anti-theist. Atheists merely reject your claim as nothing more than stories and myths because you lack proof.

Heck, it is atheists that claim themselves more intelligent than religious people

Generalisation does not help your cause. I have never stated that I am more intelligent than theists. However, unlike theists, I am not afraid to say "I don't know" without jumping to sky fairies and dragons.

The burden of proof is on the atheist to convince theist that they are making a better metaphysical judgment than the theist.

Again wrong, you make the claim, prove it. Can't prove a negative its logical fallacy for you to expect that.

Well, there are dozens argument for the existence of God.

Ahem if you have proof I am all ears. Or eyes.

But they can't because they have no proof beyond reciting the old lame saying, "I can't see, touch, hear, and feel God. Therefore, God doesn't exist."

Theists have no proof beyond "The Bible says so". Wow see how that works and isn't an argument??

But really, atheists only give 1 argument FOR the non-existence of God: The Problem of Evil.

Here's one. PROVE IT. I reject your assertion without proof.

should make one an agnostic instead of a full-fledged atheist

You need to get more info than just apologists. Atheist is a lack of belief. Agnostic is not knowing either way. You can be both.

I'm saying that your belief system is simply ungrounded.

Nope pretty grounded in logic and scientific method. Prove he exists.

I cannot see you, I cannot touch you, I cannot hear not feel you. Prove to me you're human

I can provide medical records, x-rays and birth certificate. Being on the internet in another place in the world is not the same as God who has not been photographed or anything. I know I exist I see the effects my presence has on the world around me. But this discussion isn't about me its about your divine being.

I just challenged your idea but it seems you're not open to any discussion?

I don't mind having a discussion but this thread is about God you turned it into "If God doesn't exist you don't hahah" which is light trolling on your part. The world exists we know it does. You still can't prove god.

Shika wrote:Oh. That is exactly what you've done. You've set up strawmen arguments in the age old debate between the two sides and ascribed them to her.

Thanks Shika, least was not the only one that noticed the "If you dont agree with me you are ungrounded" worded a different way.
If becoming enlightened or an intellectual means I must become arrogant and coldly cynical about the world around me then I'd gladly remain a fool for the rest of my life!!

I'm Out4Marriage!!!Are You??

It is a CHOICE!!
User avatar
SunXia
Warrior Princess
Warrior Princess
 
Posts: 6600
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 3:48 pm
Location: Keeping Evils from this world at bay...with a smile!!

Re: Do you believe in God?

Unread postby Aygor » Wed Feb 20, 2019 1:38 pm

PyroMystic wrote:Man up, be a consistent skeptics, and be a solipsist.


Oof, never take unfalsifiable grist to the mill
分久必合,合久必分
Ἀτύφως μὲν λαβεῖν, εὐλύτως δὲ ἀφεῖναι
User avatar
Aygor
Langzhong
 
Posts: 560
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 5:09 pm

Re: Do you believe in God?

Unread postby XuanPin » Thu Feb 21, 2019 5:13 am

The question "Do you believe in God" presupposes that intellectual assent is an important existential act.

This is a legitimate point of view, but not the only legitimate one. People in archaic societies, like the Greeks in Homer's time, didn't "believe" in the gods. The gods were simply one of the conditions of existence. The early Greeks neither believed or disbelieved in them any more than you believe of disbelieve in the weather.

Of course you believe that the weather is real, but you don't think your acceptance of the weather's reality is an existentially significant act. You don't "believe in" the weather as you would believe in God. Well, the archaic Greeks didn't believe in the gods the way you believe in God (if you do.) And that says something interesting about what belief is.

The question "Do you believe in God" presupposes a scientific attitude to reality (that it can be tested) which limits from the outset the kinds of reality we are able to consider.

I assure you, Zhuge Liang would have been baffled by the question whether he "believed in" the Tao. And when you explained what you meant, he would have laughed and laughed.
User avatar
XuanPin
Apprentice
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2019 3:29 am

PreviousNext

Return to Literature, Academics, and Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Copyright © 2002–2008 Kongming’s Archives. All Rights Reserved