Does God's existence then require religious belief?
So let's suppose there is a God. Questions naturally arise about what kind of a God he or she is. First let's consider deism. God creates the world and then blind folds himself with regard to it. Now whether this is possible for God is debatable, because if he is all powerful would not shutting his eyes to the world lower his power? Or is it that he is all powerful so he can be blind himself to the world? After all we are talking about his creation, not his nature.
However, even if God can see us, in what sense does he watch us? What if we say God watches us but does not want us watching him! After all, where is the proof God does signs, or even wants us looking for signs. If there is a God, how do we know he wants us to pray instead of ignoring him and meditating on our breath or something? It seems to me that people assume "oh, there is a God, so he must want me to interact with him?" Who is to say if interaction with him is even possible for a creature.
So I think my questions about religious belief and actions are fair: why act religiously when there is no evidence God is listening in the sense you might think he does.
Lastly I want to point out that pantheism is the one concept of God that forces us to notice him. If we are God, once we know that everything we do is an acting out of God, there is no getting away from it.
However, even if God can see us, in what sense does he watch us? What if we say God watches us but does not want us watching him! After all, where is the proof God does signs, or even wants us looking for signs. If there is a God, how do we know he wants us to pray instead of ignoring him and meditating on our breath or something? It seems to me that people assume "oh, there is a God, so he must want me to interact with him?" Who is to say if interaction with him is even possible for a creature.
So I think my questions about religious belief and actions are fair: why act religiously when there is no evidence God is listening in the sense you might think he does.
Lastly I want to point out that pantheism is the one concept of God that forces us to notice him. If we are God, once we know that everything we do is an acting out of God, there is no getting away from it.
Comments (43)
Keep peeling back the layers Gregory.
Even those who believe they have a demonstration of God's existence (however that looks) will talk about "faith in God". I admit the whole thing from top to bottom is about faith. The one thing is though that all religions speak of an afterlife and to cultivate some spirituality in order to be open to another life seems to require at least a little faith
Who that "god" who created us could be, if you believe so, is another matter altogether. It could be a very powerful being, or it could be a school kid of a highly advanced civilization just doing his school project which ended up creating our universe.
Kant seemed to believe what you say as well but held to *faith* in God (and immortality). Some things are pure faith, but all reason seems to have some faith involved. Did aliens abduct everyone last night and so now I live with only aliens? Reason can't disprove this but it's not rational to believe this happens. There is always a paradox in knowledge and the chose to be rational will always require common sense and what looks like faith. As Hegel says, all knowledge can always be sublated to something else until you reach the perfect form of knowledge itself
-"So let's suppose there is a God."
-Why is this necessary or part of a philosophical discussion?
Because God and immortality are among the biggest philosophical questions there is and so the implications of those ideas are important.
I don't see how philosophy means anything or is anything but stifling without a desire for an afterlife. "God" is a concept we use for the virtue of hope and is more than a concept by which we measure our pain. There is reason and faith in most thinking and ideas of pure faith are the best.
I don't understand the human side of these speculations. If there is a god who is interested in what I do and think, then that is an important part of my experience. And if that is the case, I do not care about what could be said or not by this and that criteria outside of my relationship.
The entire notion is based upon whether something is going on or not for some people. It is meaningless outside of that context.
My point was even if we believe in God we can't prove he wants us to be religious. But proof is not needed for faith. It seems to me that those who try to prove God's existence are the weaker in faith. Something will knock down their argument someday.
What do you make of St. Anselm? He was not interested in replacing faith with reason. Nor vice versa.
The ontological argument requires some faith. I see Anslem's argument as a meditation tool
Anselm brought in the idea of what can be imagined and what were the conditions of such an activity. It was not a work of mysticism like others of that sort.
The ontological argument is a sham unless seen as mysticism
It all depends on how you set about in thinking about God. As you point out, we have the usual all powerful all knowing arguments, which don't make any sense, that is if we apply that idea of God to the world we live in. So there's no reason for belief.
I know there are others here who really know Mainländer really well, they can read the original text in German.
I tend to like his idea, of a metaphorical God a "being" that created the universe. I like the idea of a "simple substance", the most elemental thing we could think, which proceeded to expand into the universe we now know. How can we think of a "simple substance" or "simple being" or the simplest possible state of existence? Perhaps the singularity is what it could be, or something even more simple.
Then we can use the metaphoric name God, to whatever it is that "caused", "began" or whatever word one wants to use, the universe. But it wouldn't have any moral properties.
So, absent religious people talking about God, I don't see how to proceed here.
Quoting Gregory
One of the appeals to reason in the argument is that we could not have had a notion of the divine unless we were infected by the notion at some point. That strikes me as a very unmysitcal thing to say. We try to take inventory of our ideas and this very strange one shows up.
Rightly or wrongly, the idea is presented as an interloper, something that is not self evident.
The sun exists. My belief in it is irrelevant; it existed prior to me and will continue on after me, and it cares not one whit about my belief in it. I would make similar claims for God.
Only from a Chronicling point of view these ideas were part of philosophy.So was Phlogiston and Miasma etc part of science in the past but we no longer accept them as serious scientific questions.
I can only see those concepts to be relevant in Anthropology and Psychology not in Philosophy.
-"I don't see how philosophy means anything or is anything but stifling without a desire for an afterlife."
-Again that is wishful thought and superstition, not philosophy. Philosophy deals with the production of wise claims based on actual knowledge. There is nothing wise on those claims and we have zero epistemology supportive of them. Again it's a subject that can help us understand the psyche of human beings and how environmental conditions affect religiosity but begging the question fallacies like assuming the existence of deities can not really provide meaningful answers to those "important questions'.
"God" is a concept we use for the virtue of hope and is more than a concept by which we measure our pain."
-I can fully agree with this statement. This is why I classified this topic as part of a psychological or anthropological discuss. Technically speaking science is philosophy so you may be right.
"There is reason and faith in most thinking and ideas of pure faith are the best".
-in providing hope? Again I will agree.
I’m going to confess I am a believer in God but I won’t argue about whether he is real or not.
But I will say this religion is like studying anthropology.
You need to understand it goes deeper than asking if God is real or not.
Is about culture, emotional expression, art and human history.
You also have to acknowledge it was a form of structural order for a culture that didn’t have kingdoms and governments, there were only tribes.
The question of is “God Real”? Undermine many valuable attributes that I mentioned before.
Sometimes you have to go past the question “Is God Real” and analyze the content itself.
Also, if your not familiar to the type of religion you are criticizing how do you know you are not making a bias claim?
Is like me as a Christian criticizing Buddhism and I never studied there practice. It would not be a fair assessment to the Buddhist faith, I would be making a subjective opinion based on very little experience on the topic.
Or a Muslim criticizing Bushido.
To answer the question of religion you need to study the content and cross reference it to philosophy.
Like study Existential philosophy teachings of Søren Kierkegaard and compared it to the book of Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Job in the Bible.
And where the teachings diverge or become similar to each other.
Only then you can provide a fair analytical answer to the question.
But I haven’t met many Philosophers who is willing to study the teachings of both religion and compare it to philosophy since it would challenge the individuals convictions.
You would have to have a dualist mind set to pursue this.
I get it, but think you run off the rails rather quickly. You assume god and then question what you assumed. The attributes of your assumption are up to you.
The study of god is not unlike any other inquiry - it is steeped entirely in language, which is a wholly human construct (or at least is the construct of whatever inter subjective group you think is making the inquiry). When you ask about god, what you are really asking about is yourself. Being able to see god talk as fundamentally about our abstractions rather than something “out there” is a useful way to reconcile that we regularly talk about the ineffable.
I use to be Christian and I know their theology quite well. My personal stance is that God is immanent in us and hardly distinguishable from us. I find Hegel's mysticism very well thought out. Religion is about faith and you can't prove a religion based on alleged interventions by divinity. I don't believe any of these have happened because God is not "out there" in my opinion and did not create the world. Reason can point to mysticism but can never grasp it. Basing belief on miracles is a whole different approach than mysticism though. However, you have a point that fits in well here: it's about culture, art, and archetypes at that point. For a person, their culture is their truth in a way, and even Hegel himself said this. I think I am permanently in the camp of German idealist (although I am not Germans), for whatever reason this has happened.
Quoting Ennui Elucidator
Very good points
What was your turning point was it to much awareness or was it circumstantial?
Thanks for the question. I was raised Catholic, served at the Latin mass and all that, but my consciousness changed a lot from 17-19 and one day I realized I had believed only in wishes instead of something I had evidence for. Religion is something that is on my mind a lot though, which is why I post about it
Yep
I hope I am not intruding, I try to respect everyone's views and opinions here.
I want to ask is it "skepticism" or "doubt"? Because there is a difference between the two. I see many who post here getting the two confused and I wonder if anyone understand the two dynamics.
"Doubt" is more subjective, based on personal experience and emotional perspective. A sort of discouraging point of view.
Where as being "skeptic" is more of a analytical tool to understand something. Based on information or insufficient information but your willing to accept as truth if more evidence is presented.
Skepticism is like a logical tool, for example in physics. Is used to solve advanced mathematical equations and to explore options to over come obstacles.
Is a strategy often used in debates to not just win arguments but to investigate and learn.
But "Faith" and "Doubt" are like night and day. Is one of many forms of Emotional Intelligence, a way we use emotion to interpret our reality. Without emotion there would be no "cognitive" in the mind, we would be like objects. Without emotion we would not see reality. Is a core element in how we perceived the world?
"I feel there for I exist."
Like I said in previous post "How does this information make you feel?" is a question design to bring awareness to your own conscious state. And to bring an understanding that the information you are processing is not just data is emotion too.
So ask again to anyone out there. Is it "Skepticism" or "Doubt"?
What "it" are you referring to?
:chin: "Skepticism or doubt?" – false dichotomy; in philosophy, skepticism is the methodological application of doubt. Like belief and disbelief, it is usually more rational than irrational to doubt (i.e. suspend judgment believing or disbelieving) some statement when there are grounds (for doubt specifically such as insufficient evidence, incoherent assumptions, inconsistent predicates, vagueness, and/or lack of specific context / relevance) to do so. A doubt, in other words, is a(n implicit) question of a statement's truth-value in the absence of a truth-maker and, when warranted by grounds, is a public epistemic stance rather than merely a "subjective" or "emotional" disposition.
Even more so: I feel, therefore more-than-I-exists. :mask:
I do not exist and I will attack with my fists anyone who says I do exist.
Is not Jehovah considered by many here to be a God? Jehovah is 14 billion years old and created a big bunch of stuff? Is all of that so negligable as to be ignored?
And Is not not Jesus Christ considered to be a God by many here? That makes two Gods here as an absolute minimum.
And are there any Catholics participating in the above discussions? If so do not Catholics not consider Mary, wife of Jehove and mother of Jesus, to be a Goddess and being prayed to and to be listening to such prayers? Is Mary not Godly?
That makes three Gods.
I have heard of some Catholic Saints performing miracles and being prayed to. Is that not Godly behavior?
That might make multiple Gods here in these discussions.
I think you are referring to the holy trinity the Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. “3 becoming 1”.
In the faith it can be confused as 3 separate Gods. “The mystery of the holy trinity.”
I was a practicing Catholic who converted to Christianity and I have to admit is very different “poe-ta-toe”. “Pa-TA-toe ”
We both believe in The apostle and Virgin Mary, but we acknowledge they are the Servants of God.
And in the Christian faith we discourage preying to Saints since prayers should only go to God. But we acknowledge them in our faith. And Acknowledge them as Servants of the Lord.
The faith is hard to explain because there are different denomination that created different dynamics of faith. What I say through the perspective of a Christian may differ through the perspective of a Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox Christian.
You need to keep in mind each denomination cookie cutted the Bible to fit that denomination dynamics.
Catholics are more ceremonial and structured while Christianity has a more relationship outlook and free spirited. Protestants wanted reform and separated from the Roman Church. Christian orthodox have very strict practices that need to be followed.
It also depends on the church. Because you can go to a Church where the congregation express very strong opinion which in my opinion undermines the faith.
Than you have really good Churches that understand scripture very well and are not pushy in there teaching.
Is kinda like dating you’ll meet some nice girl who understands you well and with others you’ll wish you haven’t left your house.
But the point is they all encompasses the same core belief “Jesus Christ”
You misunderstand me. I was only discussing my own mild confusion and I was discussing several words and some of the many different ways that I they are used. I was not discussing religions or beliefs or dogmas or the many interpretations of Christianity. I am totally unqualified for such.
I was talking merely about five Words and the meaning of those words as they are sometimes used by many people.
I referred to nothing else and what I may personally believe or believe in (whatever that means) is my own affair.
I was talking about the use of five words. God, Gods, Jehovah, Jesus Christ, and Maria. I gave no opinions about the existence or nonexistence of such entities and I am totally unqualified to do so.
I am quite properly using their given names as they might appear on their birth certificates.
I speak only of what I, myself, have personally observed.
I have observed that many - many people refer to Jehovah as being a God. You did yourself, or rather you implied it, in your phrase: "Apostle and the Virgin Mary ....we acknowledge they are the Servants of God". I assume that you are using the words "The apostle" as another name or a nickname for "Jesus Christ" and that He and Mary are servants of Jehovah or, in the Case of Jesus, his son.
The word "servants" here is meaningless.
I simply describe the generally accepted opinions that these three entities are "Gods or Goddesses" in that all three routinely are described as engaging in the very Godlike behavior of listening to millions of prayers daily and at times acting on them.
My point is a very trivial one.
That there are three such and not merely one.
GOD: The intelligence that created this simulation? Perhaps an advanced alien from a meta universe.
Or
GOD: The highest nature of reality itself, and when you realize it you disappear.
:up: Si señor! Si!
We're a girl with (a) balloon. and God's Banksy.
The post-shredder price was higher than the pre-shredder price! Go figure! :chin: Hmmmm...
The dream like fragments - if they possesses sufficient utility, power and persuasion may attract further embellishments and more phantoms that are refined into something viral. These are the god myths that pervade a culture, possessing and attracting followers who add rituals to further preserve, sanctify and elevate. Sometimes, a myth becomes so widespread and exalted it is formalised into a religion.
God without Religion is a story about God that is insufficiently compelling to have developed into a religion. Only, let's not be too hasty to dismiss the intelligence embedded in stories that are sufficiently powerful to evolve over aeons and be deified. It's not to be scoffed at - they may be trying to tell us more than we think.
Religious texts have 1) moral lessons, and 2) religious stories of piety. These are not the same. The religious stuff can be quite immoral