Does philosophy favor God exists, or it does not.

This is a short treatise of yours, favouring your own bias. Have you thought it through, philosophically?

Philosophy shows the path taken by the philosopher to reach a destination…

It all depends on the background, mind set, and the path chosen and taken by the philosopher … It can show you the path to God …. Some might show the path to material and some lead the human to himself ….

Still waiting for you to explain the mechanism whereby a disembodied intelligence can affect material reality.

Depends on whose philosophy doesn’t it ?
Take your own for example. You started out with the belief that creation was proof of god’s existence. One of your own making.
Later, when you were losing that argument, you switched to love, babies, and roses as the basis of his existence. These are not physical reasons for believing. We know how both babies and roses came to be.
So your claim, is that god is proven through an emotional state.
None of your arguments, are valid. As science and/or human conditions can also explain most, the same results.

I think you got it all wrong about philosophy, for philosophically speaking what you have said is just another philosophy. Even concept of God is a philosophy. So there is no question whether philosophy favours existence of God or not, for each becomes a philosophy. Philosophy is no exemption to philosophy itself and it is wrong to say philosophy is [i]human discipline[/i].

But one can say philosophical study is a human discipline.

Saying [i]God is the ultimate for everything [/i] is saying [i]I don't know[/i] in another way.

@DocSavage

You tell me, "We know how both babies and roses came to be."

I authored the evidence of God creator from the fact that there are such beauties in our every neighborhood as babies and roses.

This is my explanation:
1. Babies and roses are wonderful beauties in every neighborhood.
2. They didn't create themselves because they came from their parents.
3. And their parents came from parents also and on and on.
4. There was a time when there was no life on earth.
5. There was a time when there was no earth.
6. We can go on and on and on but it is nonsensical.
7. All the time stages of beings which came from earlier beings cannot go on and on indefinitely except in our mind.
8. Our mind depends on our brain organ to work.
9. Man dies sooner or later but definitely certainly.
10. So, with humans there cannot and does not exist the absurd idea of an infinite regress into the past.
11. All the stages of what I call transient existence implicate the reality of an ultimately self-existent first cause.
12. This first cause is God.

Conclusion: God exists as the permanent self-existent origin of all things and all beings that are transient i.e. temporary in time.




[quote]DocSavage · M

Depends on whose philosophy doesn’t it ?
Take your own for example. You started out with the belief that creation was proof of god’s existence. One of your own making.
Later, when you were losing that argument, you switched to love, babies, and roses as the basis of his existence. These are not physical reasons for believing. We know how both babies and roses came to be.
So your claim, is that god is proven through an emotional state.
None of your arguments, are valid. As science and/or human conditions can also explain most, the same results.[/quote]

Brainfart of the day:

[quote]My on finding is that philosophy favors the existence of God, becaise ultimately God is the explanation for everything, period.[/quote]

Were someone is just saying God is real because of some internal insecurity for living with unanswered questions about his/her excistence.

There is correct philosophy and there is wrong philsophy.

Correct philosophy starts with the existence of something that is self-existent.

Wrong philosophy starts with something that is not self-existent.


How did we come to the idea of a self-existent being?

This way:
1. Humans with reason and intelligence think on the question where ultimately do we come from.
2. By elimination, it could not be from any non-self-existent being.
3. Therefore, it must be from a self-existent being.
4. Now humans go forth from thinking in the mind to searching for evidence in the concrete world of reality outside the mind indicating the existence ultimately of a being that is self-existent.
5. After thinking and thinking and thinking, the idea comes into the mind of man that the self-exstent being is in fact containing everything that is not self-existent but dependent on the self-existent being that is super in a way gigantic as to contain and operate everything not self-existent which the self-existent being creates and contains and operates.

@Abstraction

You must be a born-again Christian. You have taken Jesus Christ as your personal lord and savior.

But you also know God to exist from thinking on reason and intelligence, because you say:
[quote]I've stared truth in the face and been willing for it to yield what it might.[/quote]

That is my investigation, that man by his reason and intelligence can and does come to know God exists.



[quote]Abstraction · 61-69, M

@yrger I believe God exists, yes. My reasons for believing this are many - but ultimately an initial unexpected encounter with God when I was searching. Following that many profound experiences, the profundity and beauty of the person of Christ and his teaching; my exploration of philosophy, physics, science, psychology, neuroscience, biology, ethics/morality, other religions/ world views, life experiences... and very serious exploration of Scripture. I haven't stuck to things that confirm what I think, I've stared truth in the face and been willing for it to yield what it might. I would add the impact on my life, on who it has made me, on the consistency of how applying the ethos in real life really works. In fact, all the mess in my life - and there's been some - has been when I've deviated from that path. By the way, doesn't make me feel morally superior or judge other people or tell them how to live, it helps me see below the surface and love people.[/quote]

@DocSavage

Now I am certain that you an atheist, like all atheists, are not into correct philosophy.

Why? Because correct philosophy must think literally about everything all the way [i][b]with focus into the ultimate grounds of existence or reality[/b][/i].

[quote]From Yrger:

Does philosophy favor God exists, or it does not. (Title of thread from Yrger)

Philosophy is a human discipline investigating everything on the basis of reason and intelligence, investigating [i][b]with focus on the ultimate grounds of existence or reality[/b][/i]. (Definition of philosophy)[/quote]


You DocSavage, an atheist, never ever like all atheists, you never think [i][b]with focus on the ultimate grounds of existence or reality[/b][/i]

I ask you, DocSavage, what is the one ultimate ground of existence or reality?



Hi readers, let us all sit back to await with bated breath how if ever DocSavage will explain there is no God - into the one ultimate ground of existence aka reality.

It doesn't, philosophy does not deal in such absolutes and if it does it is heavily debated since philosophy consists of many different school of thoughts.

Your statement also excludes eastern philosphies and religions that do not believe in a God like in Buddhism or that believe in multiple Gods like in Hinduism.

Philosophy is the equivalent of people looking at inkblots and telling you what they see. What philosophers are really telling you is what's in their own minds.

It's not for Philosophy to answer, only to question and think...

An explanation of everything is unspecific and isn't an explanation at all.
"Why do bodies fall?" – God wants it.
"Why is the sky blue?" -– God wants it.
"Why is sulfuric acid more acidic than vinegar?" – God wants it.
"Why is π a transcendental number?" – God wants it.

[quote] 2. By elimination, it could not be from any non-self-existent being.
3. Therefore, it must be from a self-existent being.[/quote]

You still have yet to explain why the universe itself is not Self-existent.
Scientist calculate that there more than six billion Earth - like planets in the Milky Way alone. Abiogenesis could occur on them as well as on Earth. So life , could be a byproduct of the environmental conditions, not a product of intelligent by your self existing being.
In which case , there is no need for a god. You just need the universe to move from one state, in to one that can produce conditions for life to form. The same results can be achieved, without a permanent, self existent being. All you need is a catalyst to get things moving.

@FragileHeart

You mention "creation by evolution."

Evolution is a process, and process implicates a processor, and on and on and on . . . until ultimately finally the series of processors lands on the self-existent processor which is God, the permanent self-existent spirit creator and operator of man and the universe and everything transient in nature.

If you will not accept God, what is your alternative to God?

The question arises, how to "explain the mechanism whereby a disembodied intelligence can affect material reality."

By the cosmic microwave background radiation enacted by God, scientists just have to go beyond, which they prefer to not go to.


[quote]FragileHeart · 22-25, M

@yrger Before this forum was set up it was nothing and when it will be shut down one day it will be nothing again. Same goes for human life but I don't think we were created by a God rather we came into being by adaption to environment and many other variables. Believing in a creator is to simplify reality.
I made the destinction between creation through a direct action and creation by evolution as in complex interactions leading to something different or new.[/quote]

I would say yes, but also yes for both.


Depends on the school of philosophy and different thinkers within those schools of thought and things often get very heated between the different factions for lack of a better word.

Unlike SW, philosophy takes a rational approach to the topic without resorting to personal abuse and wild logical leaps. There are some very good arguments that defend the notion that God exists. There are also very good arguments the other way. What this means is that both positions are reasonable and can be defended from the perspective of philosophy. Like science, philosophy should be pursued dispassionately and respectfully.

But once the discussion gets to SW it's just an emotive bun-fight that doesn't resemble a rational argument very much on either side.

@FragileHeart

You ask me, "What if everything just either is or isn't?"

I tell you, it is absurd that there is an option you call the choice of everything isn't.

In which case there is only nothingness, so end of this forum and everything.

You cannot start a conversation with nothingness as the platform, it is not even wrong but pure absurdity.

Once you start with such a platform, then total nothingness ensues, so all things in a way evaporates into nothingness, end of you and me and everything.




[quote]FragileHeart · 22-25, M
@yrger There is no such thing as correct and wrong philosophy. That is just your value judgment.

You really like the idea of a self-existing being do you? You sure use the term a lot but that doesn't make it plausible. What if everything just either is or isn't? Everything is subject to change either through direct actions (like the creation you believe in) or through complex interactions.
What if the universe is just one big ever expanding endless self existing place and not a being?[/quote]

@EarthlingWise

You say, "Ultimately , philosophy is the work of philosophers."

Forgive me, but I think you are wrong, philosophy or thinking and thinking and thinking on why we are here in life, that is the duty of every human to himself, who has reason and intelligence and is most scientifically curious to discover his place in the world, otherwise the unexamined life is not worth living, we would be like cattle and donkeys and frogs.


[quote]EarthlingWise

Ultimately , philosophy is the work of philosophers, most of whom are coming up with a few limited formulas . You will find all sorts of philosophers, some are polytheists, some are monotheists, some are atheists or agnostics. Often God becomes a metaphor for the infinite, which as I see it, hardly matches the vision of the very human-like god presented in religious guide books.[/quote]

@DocSavage @newjaninev2 @BibleData @Emosaur @LeopoldBloom
@HollyW @BibleData @Thodsis @SW-User @deadgerbil @Dshhh
@HeidiA @ImperialAerosolKidFromEP @lacrossegirl25 @Rhode57 @ElwoodBlues
@Convivial @DocSavage @newjaninev2 @BibleData [@Emosaur] [@LeopoldBloom]
[@HollyW] [@TheoreticSkeptic] [@Thodsis] [@Mithraia] [@deadgerbil] [@Dshhh]
[@HeidiA] [@ImperialAerosolKidFromEP] [@lacrossegirl25] [@Rhode57] [@ElwoodBlues]
[@Convivial] [@DocSavage] [@newjaninev2] [@TheoreticSkeptic] [@Emosaur] [@LeopoldBloom]
[@HollyW] [@TheoreticSkeptic] [@Thodsis] [@Mithraia] [@deadgerbil] [@Dshhh]
[@HeidiA] [@ImperialAerosolKidFromEP] [@lacrossegirl25] [@Rhode57] [@ElwoodBlues]
[@Convivial] [@BiasForAction] [@Abstraction] [@mcane] [@allygator18] [@ DrPhibes] [@ Adstar]


Hi everyone, the list above is my invitation to you all to join in the discussion. If you are not happy with it, then you can opt to not receive any notification, by cancelling the notification feature.
---------------------


[@newjaninev2]

(Addressing everyone, let you observe and get to know how a veteran atheist, newj, think - she is a scion from generations of atheist forebears.)


Hi newj, long time no read from you, what do you say about this post from me to DocSavage, cat got his tongue.

[quote] yrger · 80-89, M
@DocSavage

You said in an earlier post:

Scientist calculate that there more than six billion Earth - like planets in the Milky Way alone. Abiogenesis could occur on them as well as on Earth. So life , could be a byproduct of the environmental conditions, not a product of intelligent by your self existing being.
In which case , there is no need for a god. You just need the universe to move from one state, in to one that can produce conditions for life to form. The same results can be achieved, without a permanent, self existent being. All you need is a catalyst to get things moving.

Plenty of gratuitous statements without proof, so I need not give them any attention, except this word from you, catalyst:
All you need is a catalyst to get things moving.

So, the catalyst is your ultimately your God, it gets things moving because it is self-existent and etc.

That means we have the same God but under different names.

Tell me from where and why you pick the word catalyst, in your grade school science class?

Catalyst

noun: catalyst; plural noun: catalysts

a substance that increases the rate of a chemical reaction without itself undergoing any permanent chemical change.
"chlorine acts as a catalyst promoting the breakdown of ozone"
a person or thing that precipitates an event.
"the governor's speech acted as a catalyst for debate"

(Oxford Languages)[/quote]

@ABCDEF7


I patiently listened to the long long long lecture on the definition of God, but stopped before I reached the end.

I think the lecturer should exercise precision exposition grounded on the most brief focus.

If I was in his audience, I would inform him, that for me my definition of God is the following:

God is the permanent self-existent spirit creator and operator of man and the universe and everything transient in nature.




[quote]ABCDEF7 · M

Definition of God as per Indian(Hindu) philosophy.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ftn4zCnheBk&t=480s [/quote]

Ultimately , philosophy is the work of philosophers, most of whom are coming up with a few limited formulas . You will find all sorts of philosophers, some are polytheists, some are monotheists, some are atheists or agnostics. Often God becomes a metaphor for the infinite, which as I see it, hardly matches the vision of the very human-like god presented in religious guide books.

@DocSavage

You say, I don't answer your questions.

Okay DocSavage, what questions do you care to ask me, in re God exists or not, but start with one question at a time.


Hi readers here, I always answer his questions but he does not remember his questions and my answers, in re God exists or not.


Take notice, at this point he will go into evasion by arguing with me that I am lying etc etc etc.




[quote]DocSavage · M

You tell me,
That’s your reply to everything . [b][i]Have us answer our own questions[/i][/b], because you don’t know what you’re talking about.
You’re a wast of both time and space. Regardless of who or what is responsible for either[/quote]

@SW-User

I concur with you 100%, that "ultimately God is the explanation for everything, period."


[quote]Fragmented

Could be but philosophy is closer to self centered ego and opinion.

But this is absolute truth in my world.
ultimately God is the explanation for everything, period.[/quote]

To everyone here, tell me why there is something instead of nothing.

My own answer is because:
The default status of existence is reality which God.
The default status of reality is existence which is God.
God and ultimate existence or reality are identical.


If there is nothing instead of something, then we would not be here to discuss the existence of God or no existence of God.

@DocSavage

You said in an earlier post:

[quote]Scientist calculate that there more than six billion Earth - like planets in the Milky Way alone. Abiogenesis could occur on them as well as on Earth. So life , could be a byproduct of the environmental conditions, not a product of intelligent by your self existing being.
In which case , there is no need for a god. You just need the universe to move from one state, in to one that can produce conditions for life to form. The same results can be achieved, without a permanent, self existent being. All you need is a catalyst to get things moving.[/quote]

Plenty of gratuitous statements without proof, so I need not give them any attention, except this word from you, [i][b]catalyst[/b][/i]:
[quote]All you need is a [b][i]catalyst[/i][/b] to get things moving.[/quote]

So, the catalyst is your ultimately your God, it gets things moving because it is self-existent and etc.

That means we have the same God but under different names.

Tell me from where and why you pick the word catalyst, in your grade school science class?

[quote]Catalyst

noun: catalyst; plural noun: catalysts

a substance that increases the rate of a chemical reaction without itself undergoing any permanent chemical change.
"chlorine acts as a catalyst promoting the breakdown of ozone"
a person or thing that precipitates an event.
"the governor's speech acted as a catalyst for debate"

(Oxford Languages)[/quote]

Every once in a while i just stand in awe of your ability to keep a closed mind.

@EarthlingWise

You mention atheists who are philosophers, tell me how they do philosophical thinking to come to the non-existence of God.

I have studied years and years the atheists who are into philosophy to prove no God exists, I find them to be into absolutely wrong philosophy.

Addressing atheists like DocSavage*, come over and present your kind of philosophy by which you arrive at the non-existence of God.


[quote]EarthlingWise ·

Ultimately , philosophy is the work of philosophers, most of whom are coming up with a few limited formulas . You will find all sorts of philosophers, some are polytheists, some are monotheists, some are atheists or agnostics. Often God becomes a metaphor for the infinite, which as I see it, hardly matches the vision of the very human-like god presented in religious guide books.[/quote]

*@DocSavage

Favouring means that God is stepping into one's situation to make it into a worthwhile difference. Favour is the highway to connect your destiny is yet another to look at it. Like one could read in lets say Plato what makes one happy is the thing to go for. In Genesis 6:8, the Bible says: “But Noah found Grace in the eyes of the Lord.” When you are connected to favour, you are connected to goodness and grace

@EarthlingWise

You say: "Believing in a super daddy that will punish the naughty ones and reward the gentle ones is quite childish."


Suppose you are the super daddy, what do you say, like you will reward the naughty and punish the gentle?

So that you being a super daddy are not childish, but what? You would be what among armchair psychologists is called a sick sociopathic or psychopathic monster.


[quote]EarthlingWise

@yrger Selfish humans, and the way life itself functions. Religions are very wicked, and responsible for a lot of injustices. Believing in a super daddy that will punish the naughty ones and reward the gentle ones is quite childish.[/quote]

@Abstraction

You say: "There are some very good arguments that defend the notion that God exists. There are also very good arguments the other way."

Let you and me be reasonable, no resorting to personal abuse, what is your preference, God exists or not, and why?

My preference is that God exists, otherwise nothing at all makes sense.


[quote]Abstraction · 61-69, M

Unlike SW, philosophy takes a rational approach to the topic without resorting to personal abuse and wild logical leaps. There are some very good arguments that defend the notion that God exists. There are also very good arguments the other way. What this means is that both positions are reasonable and can be defended from the perspective of philosophy. Like science, philosophy should be pursued dispassionately and respectfully.

But once the discussion gets to SW it's just an emotive bun-fight that doesn't resemble a rational argument very much on either side.[/quote]

@in10RjFox

You tell me, "Saying God is the ultimate for everything is saying I don't know in another way."

I don't agree with you, because I do know that God is the ultimate explanation of everything that is not God.

So, let you do more thinking in your mind and more searching in the concrete world outside our mind, for evidence to the existence of God.



[quote]in10RjFox · M

I think you got it all wrong about philosophy, for philosophically speaking what you have said is just another philosophy. Even concept of God is a philosophy. So there is no question whether philosophy favours existence of God or not, for each becomes a philosophy. Philosophy is no exemption to philosophy itself and it is wrong to say philosophy is human a discipline.

But one can say philosophical study is a human discipline.

Saying God is the ultimate for everything is saying I don't know in another way.[/quote]

If there is no God, I suggest I am a rock.

@EarthlingWise

You say you don't believe in God, and there is a lot of injustice in this world, may I ask you whether you ever think deeply what is the cause of injustice in this world?

From my part, injustice in this world comes from wicked humans, that is why in every civilized society, the government goes after wicked humans.



[quote]EarthlingWise ·

@yrger I don't believe in any god described in any book. Is there a form of natural justice ? maybe but there's a lot of injustice in this world and we're left to deal with it, with as much honesty as we can.[/quote]

@DocSavage

You you tell me, "You still have yet to explain why the universe itself is not Self-existent."

I say all the time that the material-physical universe is made up of particles, so it needs a creator assembler to produce the particles and put them together: so it cannot be self-existent.


[quote]DocSavage · M
2. By elimination, it could not be from any non-self-existent being.
3. Therefore, it must be from a self-existent being.

You still have yet to explain why the universe itself is not Self-existent.
Scientist calculate that there more than six billion Earth - like planets in the Milky Way alone. Abiogenesis could occur on them as well as on Earth. So life , could be a byproduct of the environmental conditions, not a product of intelligent by your self existing being.
In which case , there is no need for a god. You just need the universe to move from one state, in to one that can produce conditions for life to form. The same results can be achieved, without a permanent, self existent being. All you need is a catalyst to get things moving.[/quote]

@Kwek00

You can play the psycho-analyst's card, but there is still the issue God exists or not, and if not what is your alternative to God.

Play the human card of having reason and intelligence and scientific curiosity to find out what or who put us here in life.






[quote]Kwek00 · 36-40, M

Brainfart of the day:

My on finding is that philosophy favors the existence of God, becaise ultimately God is the explanation for everything, period.

Were someone is just saying God is real because of some internal insecurity for living with unanswered questions about his/her excistence.[/quote]

@in10RjFox

I say that God is self-existent, meaning He does not need another being to put Him into existence, on the contrary He is the origin of all beings which are not self-existent like the universe and mankind.


[quote]in10RjFox · M

@yrger the basic question is .. who thinks or said that we are self-existent being ? albeit what are we self-existent ?[/quote]

The fact that you get on here and argue about nonsense is one thing. But at your age you should have a better grip on life than arguing a singular topic on the internet with strangers your entire life.

Hi everyone with reason and intelligence, consider this text below, and write something to explain your alternative to God, but it must be also self-existent before anything else.

[quote]How did we come to the idea of a self-existent being?

This way:
1. Humans with reason and intelligence think on the question where ultimately do we come from.
2. By elimination, it could not be from any non-self-existent being.
3. Therefore, it must be from a self-existent being.
4. Now humans go forth from thinking in the mind to searching for evidence in the concrete world of reality outside the mind indicating the existence ultimately of a being that is self-existent.
5. After thinking and thinking and thinking, the idea comes into the mind of man that the self-exstent being is in fact containing everything that is not self-existent but dependent on the self-existent being that is super in a way gigantic as to contain and operate everything not self-existent which the self-existent being creates and contains and operates.[/quote]

@DocSavage

Tell me something you want me to concur on, in re God exists, or not.


By the way, newjaninev2 has not come over in this thread, what happened to her, cat got her tongue?

[quote] You tell me, [/quote]
That’s your reply to everything . Have us answer our own questions, because you don’t know what you’re talking about.
You’re a wast of both time and space. Regardless of who or what is responsible for either

It's all about perspective. Sometimes I notice too many coincidences in the universe for there not to be some kind of god, then my nihilism kicks in and that starts to fade away

God is only the answer to everything if you believe in a God. For those who do not believe in God, He/She cannot be the answer.

“I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.” - Galileo Galilei

This thread just reminds me that there's really no logical evidence for the supernatural. Ah well.

@wildbill83

That's very true: yes man by his God-endowed reason and intelligence can and does come to the existence of God, no doubts about it.


[quote]wildbill83 · 36-40, M

“I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.” - Galileo Galilei[/quote]

Could be but philosophy is closer to self centered ego and opinion.

But this is absolute truth in my world. [quote]ultimately God is the explanation for everything, period[/quote].

Neither. Existence and non-existence are side-by-side self-fulfilling prophecies. I’ve told you this several times before.

Just in case you don’t know who [c=009E4F]yrger [/c] is.
He’s the cry baby theist, who thinks he knows what you think and believe better than you do.