Questioning the existence of a god.

??
Howso? I don't follow you're reasoning here..
(Though I can't say I disagree with the proposition.)

Which makes it irrelevant.

I agree with all you say here.
(Though again, as you yourself admit, this is then outside the scope of the OP's inquiry...)

Fully agreed.

Not at all.
In particular, definitely not to 'pure sciences' (geometry, symbolic logic, etc.), and not to Rationality in general.

Unlike a religious system, a scientific one must change itself to accommodate its methodology, new evidence, and its environment. This is the hallmark strength of the "Scientific Method": its flexibility. A religion is based upon canon; regardless of evidence that foundation will not, cannot change or adapt.

I think perhaps what you're getting at here is the notion that, in effect, all attitudinal systems ("faiths/sciences/pursuits/ideologies/philosophies/outlooks/lifestyles") involve faith in some keystone axiom. I'm happy to grant that.

However, it is the nature of that particular axiom that defines how effective the entire attitudinal system is. They are not all equal, nor equally amenable to the same critique.

That's a shame.

I disagree completely.

Ah, but you are.....

That's a contradiction.
Knowledge given to one is not knowledge, that's simply information.

As am I.
Gotta shave down my reading list before I hit it..

I agree fully.

Yeah, I've seen that too.
Mind, I've seen it in students who majored in every possible degree....

Yes.
Again, we're diverted due to a poorly constructed OP.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I wouldn't classify those three 'portions' of 'reality' in such a way.
I don't, however, see those as being outside the scope of Rationality, let alone science.

Theistic traditions, satisfaction, and knowledge (the three "Part of this reality..." you mention) are all readily amenable to scientific study.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You seem to be coming from the position that there is only one lifetime (this one, these 70 or 80 years or so) in which we can make choices and act on them; and where if we don't get it right this time around, we're doomed forever with no chance of redemption or correction.

Are you familiar with the concept of reincarnation, that living beings take birth in different bodies, many many times over?

I think this is a perfectly justified concern.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Divine information is different than mundane information:
the mere act of hearing divine information purifies the hearer.

The divine ipse dixit accomplishes what the mundane one cannot.

See this.

 

Not at all. See the OP and post 66.
The poster has made clear from the beginning on that that this inquiry is related to his person (with all the specifics that come with that).
This wasn't meant to be an article for the SEP or some such.

 

All mere supposition.

 

I don't follow.

 

hey in answer to the theard's question is this answer enough to prove He does exist if you go to page 64

 

You haven't read the article, have you?

 

Apparently not.

Like they say - Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I don't need to.
Any mention of divine agency can be immediately dismissed.

 

I meant, I have no idea what you're saying.
The OP is clearly a) vague, b) unclear.

 

In that case, you have already cut yourself off from knowing God ...
Makes me wonder why you participate in such threads then ...

 

I bet that in a previous life, you were an impersonalist yogi, which would explain why you have that no idea about what the OP is asking and what I'm saying.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Knowing that most human beings are "accidently" concieved reasures that my belief that there is no "God" is accurate.

 

How does that disprove God?

Accidently concieved just means that the birth was not planned. Otherwise, its a completely natural effect.

 

Incorrect.
Simply because one disavows purported properties of an object, it doesn't follow that one cannot come to know it.

Because the topic isn't about "god" per se, but rather, is about the limits and scope of the act of knowledge...

I know precisely what question it is that the OP poses. You, on the other hand, are illegitimately attempting to extend the question beyond its stated measure.

 

Yup.

GD is entirely correct here.

Man, you're trying to rig some sort of inverse deontological argument, which won't work.

Besides, not all theistic POV"s maintain that "god" is an active causal agent (in fact, that's the exception rather than the rule...).

 

You have disavowed all standard theological approaches to God.
What have you got left?

I think you are downplaying the importance and role that belief in God plays in an individual person's life.

 

In that case, you need to provide some justification for preferring those theistic perspectives (namely, the deistic and impersonalist ones) over others (the personalist ones).