I don’t find that to be a particularly burning question. Who cares? We are having a perfectly cromulent discussion without the OP.
More cromulent than if he were here, I suspect. But one-post drivebys piss me off.
It does mean that they’re an essential part of being human; despite the fact that some humans don’t take part in one or another of them.
Yeah, I’ve been wondering that myself.
Did they really think that somebody on these boards was going to hand them an argument that would convince all of us?
It’s entirely possible. There are lots of stories about naïve believers convinced that they have the One True Argument that will open the atheists’ eyes, only to discover it’s actually a really crappy argument that was demolished decades, or even centuries, before. They’re often a bit shell-shocked when they learn they’re not all that.
On the other hand, IIRC Smullyan came up with the following:
‘I have an argument for the existence of God.’
‘Lay it on me.’
‘God exists, if I’m not mistaken.’
‘Well, yes — if you’re not mistaken.’
‘So we agree that’s correct?’
‘Uh, technically, yeah.’
‘Then I’m not mistaken!’
Unquestionably. According to Terry Pratchett, it’s our ability to tell each other stories that sets us apart from all other creatures:
But in the context of the OP’s question, there’s no way to prove those fantasies exist outside of human minds. Mysticism wouldn’t exist, if there were no mystics.
There are many other things that seem to be essential parts of being human. Fear of the other. Tribalism. Very likely sexism. Part of our growth as a species is rejecting these parts of our character.
Not to say spirituality is as bad as these - but in the wrong hands it can be.
This is a place I struggle with understanding mystic beliefs. On the one hand, “The way that can be named is not the way” makes a certain amount of sense to me. But the way it makes sense to me is that almost every other question about The Way–including “Was the Divine around before there were humans?”–is unanswerable.
It sounds like you think that “Was the Divine around before humans?” has an objective answer (i.e., an answer independent of human opinion). Can I ask why you’re so confident in your answer to that, if your approach is so mystical?
I’m pretty sympathetic to the mystical approach, even if it’s not one I have. But I can’t quite reconcile it with unambiguous answers to questions about the divine.
Since the OP seems to be talking about the god of the Bible, it seems to me that the long path you suggest we follow to reach your destination may lead to some answer…but not an answer to the question originally asked in this thread.
I think the point Pratchett was making is that those fantasies don’t exist outside human minds. And that they are nevertheless essential.
And their effects – both good and bad – exist outside human minds; for humans cause them to do so. Just like the effects of our monetary system, which is equally a fantasy that works just as long as enough people believe in it.
ETA: and yes, the OP must have been talking about the God of the Bible, because they appeared to think that Bible stories are relevant.
And I suppose it is possible they just have never heard discussions of the subject from non-believers. I remember that years ago when I was working in vineyards I had a co-worker who kept determinedly trying to convert me to her version of Christianity. I tried telling her that I’m Jewish, which is not false and is a lot easier to use on people I don’t feel like getting into a detailed discussion with; but that didn’t stop her; she kept right on and at one point said that she didn’t see why Jews couldn’t just accept Jesus as the Messiah. I said “The coming of the Messiah is supposed to straighten out the world. Have you seen a newspaper lately?” – and that shut her up entirely; I never heard another word from her on the subject.
I’m sure Christian theologians have answers for that one – not answers I’d find convincing, but answers. But that particular person must have never run into a serious challenge, and had no clue that such things existed.
Yes, that’s precisely the point. Those thing do exist, in some fashion; but only in human minds.
Having just reread the OP, which strictly asks whether the argument from design or the argument from Scripture is better suited to confound the infidels and sway the doubtful, I think @philipdalton either A.) fundamentally misjudged the nature of this board, or B.) was attempting to provoke us heathens.
It reads to me as someone who desperately wanted a response of “what do you mean by things in nature having been designed as evidence?” so that they could helpfully answer the question for us.
Or it could be that he is one of those Christians that believe that one could only be referring to the deity of his particular sect when the word “god” is brought up.
Here:
What do you mean that things in nature are designed, and that’s evidence for God, @philipdalton?
Also, @philipdalton, @philipdalton, @philipdalton. I’m hoping for the Beetlejuice effect.
There may be an objective answer. But, it doesn’t interest me particularly. Objectivity is more a myth than the Divine. Modernity congratulates itself constantly and never asks what it has stopped seeing and knowing, and never asks if that ignorance is worth it. However, I strongly feel that this part of the thread is not only off topic but pointless, particularly for me. So I will bow out now.
And when ‘’‘’‘modernity’‘’‘’ asks exactly what it has stopped seeing and knowing the answers make the Random Deepak Chopra Quote Generator blush.
Then why do you say “of course” to any question about the divine? Do you mean something like, “Of course I believe that”?
Again, I am sympathetic to a mystical approach, a pre-modern approach so to speak. But I don’t think “of course” is congruent with that approach; to the extent that modernism congratulates itself constantly, that sort of answer sounds like what you’re calling modernism.
Or possibly Bloody Mary/Candyman.
I don’t feel like I can communicate what I believe to be true about the world, here. Because I do not use objectivity, rationality, or indeed any thought process that would be recognized by people here. I am also not stupid, not following a religious belief system. I can say what it is not, but not what it is. And I think that is the experience of anyone in my position. It’s why Zen masters teach in koans. It is what Robert Frost meant when he said that any poem is a device to tip the reader forward into the boundless. There is a place of knowledge, even certainty, that rationality will never get to. Ever. Will not. To the rationalist, that means that it doesn’t exist. And that is why it is pointless to discuss it here and why I am now sorry I participated at all.
Please stop asking me to explain what is not accessible to explanation any more. Please.
You’re welcome to quit responding to questions, but I think you’re mischaracterizing what I’m saying here. You’re coming at it from a “rationalist” place when you make those sorts of claims about divinity, and I’m not sure you’re aware of that. It may be worth some reflection on your part about the level of certainty you express.