[noemon]

Marxist materialist tell you not to bother understading the greatest coordinate of all. Surprised much? no argument, just a marxist anathema!

Reality is that from this came all our branches of philosophy, science, education and the 7 Liberal Arts.

Everything you consider modern secular civilisation, including marxist materialism which is merely a sub-branch of a sub-branch.

[noemon]

2. People create moral systems via religions with values and rules of thumb from which to live by. They're either lazy or brainwashed and don't want to bother philosophizing or may not even have the intelligence or education to do so very well, they want to be told what to believe because it's a lot easier and a lot more comforting. Being uncertain of what's right vs wrong can be scary. Religious authorities also don't want people to think for themselves, they want to use religion to control the population so they do what they want. They use fear to enforce this.

My OP is quite clear about this, you do not need to subscribe to a club or accept their fear-tactics, this is about you, your atomic(personal) approach to defining the coordinate we call God.

[Unthinking Majority]

If you don't pose the question(& .ie define the coordinates) you can't get the answers.

That is precisely the point of Platonic/Aristotelian/Pythagorean Theism, also called Onto-Logy, the examination of Being(On) and The Being as in The-On=Theos=God.

Onto-Logy= modern secular form and a brach of philosophy, however this is a deeply spiritual affair regardless how you approach the matter.

Pythagoras would have you in ekstasis & geometry, Aristotle reading etymologies, Plato walking around caves & fighting MMA(where he was champion) and the Neo-Platonists would have you initiated in their proto-masonic Egyptian-type clubs.

The problem with using "God" as one of our GPS coordinates is that they're unknowable. We don't know if there's 1 God or 10 Gods or no Gods or if it's some alien being running a big simulation in a lab. And they don't provide answers about anything anyways since there's no clear, objective communication with them, just a bunch of bullshit like seeing God send a message in the shape of a cloud that nobody can confirm beyond wishful thinking.

How am I supposed to use the GPS of theism to help navigate my life when I don't get any signals from above and it's all just a bunch of humans pretending to know the coordinates? Screw that, I'm not an idiot or a sheep for these manipulators to control.

The ancient Greek thinkers and the philosophers now and throughout history are useful as examples for how we're each capable of thought and drawing our own map to navigate the world using coordinates of our own choosing. None of these philosophers are worth a damn if they relied on theism over reason. They are anti-theists because they're using their brains instead of scripture to answer life's questions and moral dilemmas. Socrates was put to death by the state for godlessness and corrupting the youth over his philosophizing. They wanted to control him.

Your OP isn't quite clear enough for me to understand, I'm not familiar with some of these terms. Can you briefly state your point in more plain language?

Also, you seem to stereotype atheists. To me atheists are pro-enlightment. Maybe they program their GPS poorly but at least the coordinates are based on their own belief choices. But as I've said, there's also great danger when an ideology with crappy GPS coordinates is embraced by a group of people, no different than wacky religious beliefs. Most modern ideologies are new and thus experimental and not well-tested for success/failure.

[noemon]

You set it as 1,2,3 or more based on your understanding of available knowledge and the constraints that you set. Philosophers generally tend to define the highest ideal they can formulate in lingual terms.

You set it pretty much like running math hypothesis.

[Unthinking Majority]

You set it as 1,2,3 or more based on your understanding of available knowledge and the constraints that you set. Philosophers generally tend to define the highest ideal they can formulate in lingual terms.

You set it pretty much like running math hypothesis.

Sure we each have the freedom to set our values to whatever we want. I just don't see how "God" has any affect on any of them. It's all just a bunch of old books and religious "authorities" making stuff up and creating a belief system for us to follow, and calling it a "religion".

Religions are just pre-made value sets of right and wrong and values/rules of how to live our lives. If they're largely positive then that's fine, there's value in that, I just don't see the need for some to lie and disguise it as "divine". Authorities, like priests and parents/teachers, just use the concepts of heaven and hell as a fear mechanism to ensure compliance.

[noemon]

The ancient Greek thinkers and the philosophers now and throughout history are useful as examples for how we're each capable of thought and drawing our own map to navigate the world using coordinates of our own choosing. None of these philosophers are worth a damn if they relied on theism over reason.

Man, for all these thinkers Theism=Reason=Theism.

I just don't see how "God" has any affect on any of them. It's all just a bunch of old books and religious "authorities" making stuff up and creating a belief system for us to follow, and calling it a "religion".

Forget about organized religion. Your anti-religious sentiment is preventing you from thinking about this without associating God or theism with them.

The OP states unequivocally:

5) While I can & do respect those who reject organized religious structures, texts, dogma, and superstition, I find it difficult to reconcile those who reject the concept of Prime Essense(Ousia) as whole humans, especially in a day and age where science allows us to unlock secrets of the universe hitherto unexplored.

In other words, I don’t care if you baptize your child, or if you don’t engage with organized religion, but if you don’t understand that we are stardust composed of primal essence then I find you closer to animals than Nous.

Plato and Aristotle did not define God based on their religious prejudices but on reason! In fact, the new God they defined destroyed their old Gods, but they didn't care.

They had no such prejudice. Do you think while Aristotle and Plato established the concepts of the Primer Mover & the Good, they were thinking unreasonably? or that they were relying on popular mythology of their time like you are relying on popular atheist mythology of your time?

[Unthinking Majority]

Plato and Aristotle did not define God based on their religious prejudices but on reason! In fact, the new God they defined destroyed their old Gods, but they didn't care.

They had no such prejudice. Do you think while Aristotle and Plato established the concepts of the Primer Mover & the Good, they were thinking unreasonably? or that they were relying on popular mythology of their time like you are relying on popular atheist mythology of your time?

I'm not an atheist, I'm more of an agnostic because "I don't know" is the most logical answer to the question "do God/Gods exist?" or "Who or what, if anything, created the universe?".

Anyways, I'm unable to understand your argument in the OP because I don't know what terms like "Prime Essense(Ousia)" means.

[noemon]

I'm not an atheist, I'm more of an agnostic because "I don't know" is the most logical answer to the question "do God/Gods exist?" or "Who or what, if anything, created the universe?".

Anyways, I'm unable to understand your argument in the OP because I don't know what terms like "Prime Essense(Ousia)" means.

It's that all of us are composed of the same essence(ousia), stardust falling onto earth and eventually forming life as we know it.

It's that we are all composed of the same chemical elements.

It is the primal understanding of 'as above so below' and its twin transposition "as below not as above", the +1, 0, -1.

[noemon]

With strong cigarettes
And heart as a wing
I leave always
Like a grown child
Who has seen everything
As it were a movie

With changed voice
So as not to feel ashamed and it becomes obvious
I whisper
And I blow the smoke
With a little bit of anger
Because I never, never
Don't finish what I begin.

And the roads are wet
What did they learn
From me? What?
As if I kept
The secrets
So that they will remain secrets.

With strong cigarettes
A dive in the deep
And I float
Even if it is not right,
Whatever I think of
I will always say

With changed voice
Outsretched rope
To step
And I inhale the smoke
With a little bit of anger
Because I can never do
What I want to begin doing

And the roads are wet
What did they learn
From me? What?
As if I kept
The secrets
So that they will remain secrets.
https://lyricstranslate.com

[FiveofSwords]

It's pointless to bother debating theism vs atheism unless you can define God. You can't, by the way.

[ingliz]

unless you can define God

The Christian god is defined as hypostatically united, both transcendent and immanent, an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipresent trinitarian being.

It exists as three persons but is one being, having a single divine nature. The members of the Trinity are co-equal and co-eternal, one in essence, nature, power, action, and will. As stated in the Athanasian Creed, the Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, and the Holy Spirit is uncreated, and all three are eternal without beginning. "The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" are not names for different parts of God but one name for God because three persons exist in God as one entity. They cannot be separate from one another. Each person is understood as having an identical essence or nature, not merely similar natures.

[Potemkin]

The Christian god is defined as hypostatically united, both transcendent and immanent, an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipresent trinitarian being.

It exists as three persons but is one being, having a single divine nature. The members of the Trinity are co-equal and co-eternal, one in essence, nature, power, action, and will. As stated in the Athanasian Creed, the Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, and the Holy Spirit is uncreated, and all three are eternal without beginning. "The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" are not names for different parts of God but one name for God because three persons exist in God as one entity. They cannot be separate from one another. Each person is understood as having an identical essence or nature, not merely similar natures.

Precisely. Defining (the Christian) God is not the problem - it’s already been done. The problem (if you see it as a problem) lies in proving, using purely logical arguments, whether or not that God actually exists.

[Rich]

So take of this what you will or discard it as worthless subjectivism as you will. I have quite often found Christian Chruches and Cathedrals to be powerful places. There was a silent prayer room at a friary that I particularly liked to sit in. I remember the first time I experienced a relic. I was with my family and my sister or my nephew asked "What's a relic" to which I responded, "its just some old saints bones". So we didn't approach with any sort of reverence or expectation, but for me the relic was associated with a very powerful and beautiful presence.

I remember I'd been at a vipassana mediation day event and I and a woman from the event were just minding our own business walking down the street, when we were accosted and invited into an Orthodox Synagogue that was having an open day. As soon as we stepped inside I was like "whoa", for me it had quite a distinctly different quality to the Christian places I had experienced, but it was really, really strong. I don't know what they had being doing there but they had been doing something. I met the Chief Rabbi and was quite surprised to find him distinctly unimpressive, at least for me he didn't manifest any kind of strong presense.

On the other hand I've met many Buddhist, semi Buddhist and Hindu practioners over the years, who've had a very strong presence, but I;'e virtually never been moved by Hindu or Buddhist shrines. I've not experienced any Mosques, but I do like some of their calls to prayer.

So for me there are a multiple ways to approach Christianity (and other religions). Another aspect is what actually happened in the early first century. For me this is a fascinating subject, love it or hate it, but you can not deny the immense, immense importance of Christianity. So how did thing actually start. I don't think it was anything like what our initial intuitions might be. Unfortunetly getting to the truth could be very upsetting for most Christian believers.

[late]

Precisely. Defining (the Christian) God is not the problem - it’s already been done. The problem (if you see it as a problem) lies in proving, using purely logical arguments, whether or not that God actually exists.

Over a hundred years ago, all proofs were found wanting.

Since there is no evidence, there is no rational basis for believing in deities, or tooth fairies.

Academics have to play by academic rules, which is why academic theologians started saying things like "leap of faith" at that time.

Frankly, Nietzsche didn't go far enough, we didn't kill god, we took his place.

"We are as gods, we might as well get good at it."
Stuart Brand

[noemon]

Precisely. Defining (the Christian) God is not the problem - it’s already been done. The problem (if you see it as a problem) lies in proving, using purely logical arguments, whether or not that God actually exists.

1) The concept of God definitely exists, hence why many have proclaimed even if God doesn't exist, we would have to invent him.
2) Ontology requires the existence of God for metaphysics to make sense with logic.
3) Statement number 2 makes the existence of God imperative for Logic to exist.
4) Christianity is aware that God has been proven logically by the Philosophers and hence why Jesus co-opted most of the Platonic, Aristotelian, Pyhtagorean, and Stoic positions, you see that in all his icons: "In the beginning there is Logos=Logic" and O Ω Ν = The Being and Pythagoras' Triangles in the Trinity.

See top halo O Ω Ν

Ο=Masculine "The", like hoi polloi= hoi = plural article, polloi = many.
ΩΝ=Being

[late]

1) The concept of God definitely exists, hence why many have proclaimed even if God doesn't exist, we would have to invent him.
2) Ontology requires the existence of God for metaphysics to make sense with logic.
3) Statement number 2 makes the existence of God imperative for Logic to exist.
4) Christianity is aware that God has been proven logically by the Philosophers and hence why Jesus co-opted most of the Platonic, Aristotelian, Pyhtagorean, and Stoic positions, you see that in all his icons: "In the beginning there is Logos=Logic" and O Ω Ν = The Being and Pythagoras' Triangles in the Trinity.

All the 'proofs' were ripped apart over a century ago.

[ingliz]

@noemon

The Epicurean paradox proves that God *If He/She/It exists* is not the Christian God.

As to the 'free will' get out, Einstein showed us that free will is an illusion in the block universe.

[Rich]

Over a hundred years ago, all proofs were found wanting.

Since there is no evidence, there is no rational basis for believing in deities, or tooth fairies.

What about Ramanujan's math? He said he received it from a deity, as far as I'm aware no one's offered a convincing alternative explanation for how he got it. OK that's a bit thin to start building a whole cosmology upon, but there's no real proof for scientific naturalism either, And across every culture in the world and across history as far as we can ascertain, billions of people have had experiences seemingly in contradiction of scientific naturalism.

I know @Potemkin thinks I'm unreasonably hard in going after Christianity and other religions, but i do that precisely because I don't just accept the scientific consensus. I don't just accept the Neo Darwinist synthesis. And I'm deeply sceptical that cosmologists understand the biggest scales of the cosmos half as well as they think they do. For me every religion needs to be debunked individually and in detail. They can't just be dismissed because they invoke some para normal events.

[FiveofSwords]

The Christian god is defined as hypostatically united, both transcendent and immanent, an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipresent trinitarian being.

It exists as three persons but is one being, having a single divine nature. The members of the Trinity are co-equal and co-eternal, one in essence, nature, power, action, and will. As stated in the Athanasian Creed, the Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, and the Holy Spirit is uncreated, and all three are eternal without beginning. "The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" are not names for different parts of God but one name for God because three persons exist in God as one entity. They cannot be separate from one another. Each person is understood as having an identical essence or nature, not merely similar natures.

This 'definition' might make sense to you (because you are christian) but for me it is a bunch of incoherent babble and does not help me one bit to understand what you mean by God. But it also is clearly not the proper definition according to your own ideology because I know that you have a concept of a 'false god'...so you understand the word god is more general than your narrow definition. For example, if you speak English I am sure you have heard of the pantheon of Greek gods..and they aren't fitting your definition at all.

[ingliz]

@Rich

Britannica says he got it from a book, George Shoobridge Carr’s Synopsis of Elementary Results in Pure and Applied Mathematics, 2 vol. (1880–86), and built upon that.

I find it odd his deity had no more mathematical knowledge than that known in 1886. He was almost completely unaware of modern developments in mathematics when he went to Trinity College.