Why do we need a God?

[aaqucnaona]

@aaqucnaona

Of course there are no debts in nature but we're talking about being indebted to God not nature and being indebted to God completely depends on God's will and what God obligates us for and what God obligates us for of course supercedes morality, morality is just part of what God obligates us for.

We are not indebted to god for oxygen, it is a completely naturalitic and emergent property of life on earth. How do we know about God's will when we cannot be certain that He even exists? Superceding morality, i.e. millions of years of altruism is the stuff that causes 9/11s - that is not what any God worth his name would want us to do.

[spidergoat]

Do we get to damn God when he doesn't provide?

[Big Chiller]

We are not indebted to god for oxygen, it is a completely naturalitic and emergent property of life on earth.

Just because oxygen is a completely naturalistic and emergent property of life on Earth doesn't mean that God didn't ultimately create it using God's Will, Power, and Knowledge just the act of creating is non-physical and so God can indebt people for it if God so wishes.

How do we know about God's will when we cannot be certain that He even exists?

Well one would have to know what one is looking for when looking for God one cannot know about God only recognize.

[Me-Ki-Gal]

huh, as much as the trees/plants are indebted to us I suppose?

Ah trees and plants don't need you . Sorry to bust your bubble . They can do fine with all the other animals . Humans are not that old of a creature in the long run

[spidergoat]

Just because oxygen is a completely naturalistic and emergent property of life on Earth doesn't mean that God didn't ultimately create it using God's Will, Power, and Knowledge just the act of creating is non-physical and so God can indebt people for it if God so wishes.

I don't acknowledge any debt. If he wants my life back he can take it right now. I didn't ask for this.

[gmilam]

Well one would have to know what one is looking for when looking for God one cannot know about God only recognize.

If one cannot know about god, how would one know what one is looking for?

[Big Chiller]

@gmilam

One cannot know details about God.

[gmilam]

@gmilam

One cannot know details about God.

Hmmm, ok - so how would one know what one is looking for?

[Big Chiller]

@gmilam

One would know what one was looking for by using definitions.

[gmilam]

@gmilam

One would know what one was looking for by using definitions.

There are many definitions for the word "god".

[Big Chiller]

@gmilam

One should look for the most exclusive definitions I think.

[gmilam]

@gmilam

One should look for the most exclusive definitions I think.

You think? Do you not know what you are looking for?

[Big Chiller]

@gmilam

I've already found whatever I needed to find.

[gmilam]

@gmilam

I've already found whatever I needed to find.

What'd ya find?

[Big Chiller]

@gmilam

Whatever I needed to find to have a sustained and thorough belief in God by the grace and mercy of God.

[aaqucnaona]

Just because oxygen is a completely naturalistic and emergent property of life on Earth doesn't mean that God didn't ultimately create it using God's Will, Power, and Knowledge just the act of creating is non-physical and so God can indebt people for it if God so wishes.

Of course He could. Any God worthy of the title can do that, but the point is, just because He can doesn't mean that He did or that He exists. No one can even acknowledge that debt until those two things can we proven.

[wynn]

1. Why "Western" empiricism? Is empiricism different in the East?

Sure. For example, Buddhism is founded on empiricism, but Buddhist notions of empiricism are quire different from the standard Western ones, as they involve first and foremost one's own empirical scrutiny of one's own mind and actions.
In that sense, Buddhist empiricism is turned inwards, while standard Western empiricism is turned outwards.

2. If someone can provide a notion of God that is different but does not require belief (as I don't have belief) in order to understand it... ?

I think the usual definitions are enough, and don't actually require belief. As I sketched out above.

I do so out of pragmaticism, lest one gets lost looking for what does not exist.

Of course.

However, there are things that come into existence only by our efforts.
William James used the concept of the two kinds of truths: truths of the observer, and truths of the will.

The truths of the observer are the ones that take place regardless of who observes. Atom bonds and how stars explode are such truths.
On the other hand, skills, relationships, business ventures are truths of the will: they don't realize unless one invests in them. Religious faith is a truth of the will.

Many enjoy the search, though, and it can be helped if one has an idea what one is looking for.

Like I noted earlier, God, as defined by the usual definitions, cannot be found by a human.

But I can't choose to believe, or act as though I do. God would surely know I don't believe.

This could be key - Why does it worry you whether you are a "fraud" in God's eyes or not?

[wynn]

I don't acknowledge any debt. If he wants my life back he can take it right now. I didn't ask for this.

Of course, we can only be grateful for that which we appreciate.

If one doesn't appreciate life, one can't be grateful for it.

[wynn]

p1: Material existence does not have problems.
p2: Material existence has parts.
p3: Some of the parts of material existence are commonly called "humans."
p4: Some humans have problems.

Explain how is p4 possible.

If humans are parts of material existence, and material existence has problems, then humans shouldn't have problems, or they are not parts of material existence.

p4 if possible (in my view) because of the subjective nature of problems.
I.e. they only exist as a perception... some admittedly widely felt among those capable of subjective judgements.
So while humans are part of material existence, we are conscious and can interpret situations as problems that require solutions. Material existence is not, in and of itself, capable of such... as evidenced through the lack of ability in a rock.
So it is down to the combination of parts of that material existence that give rise to the judgement of situations as "problems".

That doesn't follow.

Either humans are material and everything about them is material; or this is not the case.

[Sarkus]

That doesn't follow.

Either humans are material and everything about them is material; or this is not the case.

Why not?

Imagine you are travelling on a road, and there is a tree standing by the side.
All this is material... and there is no perceived problem in this scenarion.

Now imagine that same tree, that same matter, lying across the road in your path. This is now perceived as a problem, yet it is the same constituent parts.

Thus I conclude that it is not material existence per se, but the perception of certain arrangements of that matter.