"God" is now defined, and further discussion is meaningful. There remains the very real possibility that "God" is entirely uninterested in you, me, and our existential crises. Discuss.
That's deism. It's one extreme end of the spectrum of theistic belief, between God as a personal God and God as an impersonal one.
Yuck!
As one atheist to another, this kind of ideation is a subjective reaction to the existential problem: "What am I?"
I am.
Nothing that can be added enhances that understanding. It applies to all of us ... the religious and the irreligious. And just simply the non-religious.
This thread disappeared for a while. Thought it had been destroyed. I'm getting slightly irritated by children treating mature people as if they're children and censoring them. It's clearly an attempt to make them stay children, even if some of us are probably 93.
No religious debate please.
It never fails. As soon as some busybody finds a subject with a religious theme, said busybody feels compelled to tell everyone else what they can't talk about. *Snip*
Not so much busybodies as teacher's pet wannabes. While at the same time chasing the 'largest thread' prize by spamming under the guise of games.
But this brings in more kids with paying parents which is great for business.
Yuck!
As one atheist to another, this kind of ideation is a subjective reaction to the existential problem: "What am I?"
I am.
Nothing that can be added enhances that understanding. It applies to all of us ... the religious and the irreligious. And just simply the non-religious.
This thread disappeared for a while. Thought it had been destroyed. I'm getting slightly irritated by children treating mature people as if they're children and censoring them. It's clearly an attempt to make them stay children, even if some of us are probably 93.
It´s not the reaction of the question "What am I"! It´s only the reaction of the answer: "I´m my father" 
No religious debate please.
It never fails. As soon as some busybody finds a subject with a religious theme, said busybody feels compelled to tell everyone else what they can't talk about. How about if busybodies who are offended by discussions just find some other way to amuse themselves that doesn't involve bossing around a bunch of strangers? They could avoid subjects that displease them and everyone else can go about without being scolded. Win/win.
The thing that i said, is that true ?
No religious debate please.
It never fails. As soon as some busybody finds a subject with a religious theme, said busybody feels compelled to tell everyone else what they can't talk about. How about if busybodies who are offended by discussions just find some other way to amuse themselves that doesn't involve bossing around a bunch of strangers? They could avoid subjects that displease them and everyone else can go about without being scolded. Win/win.
The thing that i said, is that true ?
You didn't say anything (a declarative statement), you posted a demand, cushioned with a "please".
Yuck!
As one atheist to another, this kind of ideation is a subjective reaction to the existential problem: "What am I?"
I am.
Nothing that can be added enhances that understanding. It applies to all of us ... the religious and the irreligious. And just simply the non-religious.
This thread disappeared for a while. Thought it had been destroyed. I'm getting slightly irritated by children treating mature people as if they're children and censoring them. It's clearly an attempt to make them stay children, even if some of us are probably 93.
Ah, by the way: The question of all questions is not "what am I", it is:
"Why is there something and not rather nothing? That is the question."
Martin Heidegger "Introduction in Methaphysics".
"
Yuck!
As one atheist to another, this kind of ideation is a subjective reaction to the existential problem: "What am I?"
I am.
Nothing that can be added enhances that understanding. It applies to all of us ... the religious and the irreligious. And just simply the non-religious.
This thread disappeared for a while. Thought it had been destroyed. I'm getting slightly irritated by children treating mature people as if they're children and censoring them. It's clearly an attempt to make them stay children, even if some of us are probably 93.
Ah, by the way: The question of all questions is not "what am I", it is:
"Why is there something and not rather nothing? That is the question."
Martin Heidegger "Introduction in Methaphysics"."
OK, firstly I do rather like Heidegger. He's one of the few philosophers who tries to build on the small amount of information we have regarding our relationships with ourselves, with the World, and with our concepts of both those things. However, he does mysticise it all a bit.
I rather disagree with him on that question and also with his reaction to the very natural "what am I?"
Since things exist, we can assume that's the natural state of things, which makes the question as to why they exist trivial. We can ask "but why is it the natural state of things" and the only reasonable answer is "because it's the natural state if things". Personifying it, it then becomes "Why does it exist?" ... "Because it does". So "what am I? .... I am" is the natural corollary to Heidegger's question. It's also simpler and more delightfully to the point, because we have to exist in order to perceive things and to ask the question "why do things exist?"
And there is no question any more.
No religious debate please.
It never fails. As soon as some busybody finds a subject with a religious theme, said busybody feels compelled to tell everyone else what they can't talk about. How about if busybodies who are offended by discussions just find some other way to amuse themselves that doesn't involve bossing around a bunch of strangers? They could avoid subjects that displease them and everyone else can go about without being scolded. Win/win.
The thing that i said, is that true ?
You didn't say anything (a declarative statement), you posted a demand, cushioned with a "please".
There was no "?"
Unlike in french a demand is not a question in English.
"Will you please be quiet?" is just one example of a demand which is formally a question, in English. So your knowledge of English may be imperfect: but don't feel too tense about it.
The answer “because it’s the natural state of things” sounds close to a physical deterministic thought. Which may be closer to correct than i originally thought now that i think it over. It would fit nicely with the Rule of Simplicity or as @archaja put it, Occam’s Razor.
Unlike in french a demand is not a question in English.
"Will you please be quiet" is just one example of a demand which is formally a question, in English. So your knowledge of English may be imperfect: but don't feel too tense about it.
English doesn't know me too well.
OK. Your English is better than my schoolboy French.
The answer “because it’s the natural state of things” sounds close to a physical deterministic thought. Which may be closer to correct than i originally thought now that i think it over. It would fit nicely with the Rule of Simplicity or as @archaja put it, Occam’s Razor.
It is and it is, except that determinism ISN'T the natural state. Things operate much more according to probabilities.
I believe it's necessary to seperate determinism from the idea that in general, existence takes its only, natural form. The latter is a generality whereas determinism is with regard to specifics. Thus **everything** would take its only possible form as a necessary **and only** reaction to a series of causes. The problem arises with **and only**. This is the fundamental, logical error of those who propose determinism. Probability is not only concerned with when a thing will happen but with the nature of that thing, too.
why something, rather than nothing?
an eternal Spirit created time, space & matter:
'He who hath seen me hath seen the Father.'
would it be too hard for the Creator of everything to visit us & live a life in human form... or would He not remain Himself if He did?
could He not 'drop the mic' & ascend back from whence He came?
Yuck!
As one atheist to another, this kind of ideation is a subjective reaction to the existential problem: "What am I?"
I am.
Nothing that can be added enhances that understanding. It applies to all of us ... the religious and the irreligious. And just simply the non-religious.
This thread disappeared for a while. Thought it had been destroyed. I'm getting slightly irritated by children treating mature people as if they're children and censoring them. It's clearly an attempt to make them stay children, even if some of us are probably 93.
Ah, by the way: The question of all questions is not "what am I", it is:
"Why is there something and not rather nothing? That is the question."
Martin Heidegger "Introduction in Methaphysics"."
OK, firstly I do rather like Heidegger. He's one of the few philosophers who tries to build on the small amount of information we have regarding our relationships with ourselves, with the World, and with our concepts of both those things. However, he does mysticise it all a bit.
I rather disagree with him on that question and also with his reaction to the very natural "what am I?"
Since things exist, we can assume that's the natural state of things, which makes the question as to why they exist trivial. We can ask "but why is it the natural state of things" and the only reasonable answer is "because it's the natural state if things". Personifying it, it then becomes "Why does it exist?" ... "Because it does". So "what am I? .... I am" is the natural corollary to Heidegger's question. It's also simpler and more delightfully to the point, because we have to exist in order to perceive things and to ask the question "why do things exist?"
And there is no question any more.
Which is precisely why Heidegger is awful as a philosopher. his prime contribution being derailing Phenomenology from its husserlian purity into a quagmire of bad scholarship in education and the humanities
He helped muddle things up fairly nicely, as a reaction to the fake philosophy of logical positivism, which had come just before. And nothing he wrote was really wrong, so many people will find Heidegger inspiring. Which can mean he wasn't awful as a philosopher, except maybe to those of us who have clearer minds. 
No religious debate please.
It never fails. As soon as some busybody finds a subject with a religious theme, said busybody feels compelled to tell everyone else what they can't talk about. How about if busybodies who are offended by discussions just find some other way to amuse themselves that doesn't involve bossing around a bunch of strangers? They could avoid subjects that displease them and everyone else can go about without being scolded. Win/win.