The existence of God

[Ahriman]

What claim is the Bible making, in your mind?

Just that God exists as described, and that the events occurred as described.

In your opinion, could the Bible still have value even if its claims are not true?

[Jehanne]

Just that God exists as described, and that the events occurred as described.

In your opinion, could the Bible still have value even if its claims are not true?

As literature, absolutely!!

[emjay]

Just that God exists as described, and that the events occurred as described.

In your opinion, could the Bible still have value even if its claims are not true?

I suppose so, as an insight into the past. Ie it's still a historical document, with its own unique history behind it. So if I was interested in the history of religions, then it would be more interesting to me.

[polymath257]

I haven't read much Plato. Would you please elaborate on how LinuxGal's comment betrays lack of knowledge of Plato?

Thank you for asking! I enjoy this subject a lot.

No doubt you know that Plato wrote about "Forms" or "Ideas." These are not physical objects. They exist eternally, and we may deduce their existence through experience of the world, but because they are not physical we have no sense-knowledge of them. They are only known in the mind. 

The easiest example would be numbers. We can deduce what two is because we have experience of two-ness in the world. Two chairs, two books. But we never experience the number itself through our senses. Two is therefore an intelligible object, not a sensible object. Yet two would continue to exist even if, for some reason, there were no pairs of two physical objects in the world. 

So for Plato, two exists in a way that no pointer on any device can detect.

The number 2 exists only as a concept in our minds. It is an abstraction with no independent existence. Like a game of chess.

Numbers are a simple case, but the Forms include many other intelligible objects not known through the senses. Justice, for example. At the top of the hierarchy is the Form of the Good. This is goodness itself -- not a good thing. We know of goodness by extrapolating its existence from examples in this world -- a good book or a good chocolate cake. But goodness itself exists, is not sensible, and cannot be detected by any sort of device.

And, again, the basic mistake is giving separate existence to an idea.

As you know the Bible has a lot about behavior but very little about metaphysics. When the early Christians began to worry about metaphysics, they adapted almost all of their theology from the Greeks. From Plato, they took the idea that God is like the Form of the Good. Not a physical object. Not detectable by the senses or any sort of machine that operates according to the principles of physics. Not a thing. Linux Girl wants to limit the definition of "existence" to things that a pointer on a device can point to, but of course Platonists, Neoplatonists, and Christians don't agree. 

No doubt if you look around enough you can find Christians who do speak of God (non-metaphorically) as being some sort of big guy. Like one physical object among all the other physical objects in the world. There are so many Christians in the world that you can find one of them who says just about anything. Just as if you look hard enough, you can find an atheist who thinks Hillary Clinton is an alien lizard. But all of the significant theologians -- any one you can name (not a TV evangelist) holds to this non-physical, intelligible definition of God. When Kant or Hegel write about God, this is what they're talking about. When atheist philosophers who use God as a kind of theoretical limit-case (e.g. Zizek or Badiou) talk about God, this is what they're talking about. 

I understand of course that lots of people -- probably everyone on this forum -- will reject Platonic metaphysics. Most people here believe very strongly in a materialist or physicalist metaphysics. I am not saying they are wrong. I am only saying that when people say things about the God the Christians believe in, it would make sense for them to know what it is the Christians believe. 

Which is the point. They consider things to exist that don't. They do so because of basic philosophical mistakes.

If Linux Girl challenged the Pope by saying that no pointer on any device had ever pointed to his God, the Pope would just say of course not -- that's not what God is like.

Thanks for a nice description of the basic mistakes Plato made.

We have been living with his cavemen ever since.

[Ahriman]

Of course, you're an ex-Catholic -- it's Scripture & Tradition, right??

To me, it's rituals.  Lots and lots of rituals.  

I was so surprised when I moved to SC and was introduced to free form prayer.  Prayer was very structured in the Catholic Church.  ie - The Rosary.

For what it's worth, I've found structured prayer more efficacious than free form.......free form just felt like I was talking to myself.

[arewethereyet]

To me, it's rituals.  Lots and lots of rituals.  

I was so surprised when I moved to SC and was introduced to free form prayer.  Prayer was very structured in the Catholic Church.  ie - The Rosary.

For what it's worth, I've found structured prayer more efficacious than free form.......free form just felt like I was talking to myself.

Either way you are either talking to yourself or to an audience.  A god doesn't play into it.

If gawd was as all powerful and all-knowing as he is claimed to be, you should be able to just think it and (s)he would know.

[Ahriman]

For what it's worth, I've found structured prayer more efficacious than free form.......free form just felt like I was talking to myself.

Either way you are either talking to yourself or to an audience.  A god doesn't play into it.

If gawd was as all powerful and all-knowing as he is claimed to be, you should be able to just think it and (s)he would know.

Or maybe God can't read your mind?

[arewethereyet]

Either way you are either talking to yourself or to an audience.  A god doesn't play into it.

If gawd was as all powerful and all-knowing as he is claimed to be, you should be able to just think it and (s)he would know.

Or maybe God can't read your mind?

Then he isn't all-powerful is he?

[Ahriman]

Or maybe God can't read your mind?

Then he isn't all-powerful is he?

Right, which is one reason why the Abrahamic God makes less sense than it should. The Hindu gods, and even the Zeus/Aries/Hades pantheon, make more sense than the Abrahamic God.

[arewethereyet]

Then he isn't all-powerful is he?

Right, which is one reason why the Abrahamic God makes less sense than it should. The Hindu gods, and even the Zeus/Aries/Hades pantheon, make more sense than the Abrahamic God.

Okay, I have had my daily dose of dipshittery now.

You have a day. 

Maybe someone else is interested in your babble.  You can't even spell out what it is you supposedly believe in.