0
   

What is the nature of the divine?

 
 
Ruggedtouch
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Oct, 2009 08:53 am
@Caroline,
Caroline;98082 wrote:
No I said he's responsible for everything but what we do, please check my old posts, sigh.
Thanks.
manfred
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Oct, 2009 09:01 am
@Ruggedtouch,
Ruggedtouch;98085 wrote:


What does god have to do with anything you have mentioned?Is this the point your trying to make..That we love/hate/reproduce/war/ and eventually kill each other because that's just our nature?
I really hope it is.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Oct, 2009 09:02 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;98051 wrote:
You can't miss it, if you believe it. But if you don't believe it, there is nothing to see. That is why it is called 'faith'.


Peter Viereck (a poet) once wrote that what is real is what remains when you stop believing in it. So where, according to you, does this leave God?
Ruggedtouch
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Oct, 2009 09:11 am
@manfred,
manfred;98087 wrote:
What does god have to do with anything you have mentioned?Is this the point your trying to make..That we love/hate/reproduce/war/ and eventually kill each other because that's just our nature?
I really hope it is.

I'll have to retrace some steps here but ultimately, as the author of all, the gods are responsible for all.

The problem with all of this is that given the story, man did not commit the first sin-- Lucifer did, and thus became Satan. Everyone prefers to forget that before man was created, there had to be a conflict that allowed Lucifer to become the temptor in the test God offers to his unenlightened creations, Adam and Eve. Clearly, God has created evil, and allowed it to flourish even before Man is created. The issue of "less than perfection" has already been completely established and is extant in the universe before Man is culled from dust.

And so, when God creates Man, the result of everything is already set in place. God knows Man must fail, as he has created Satan already to allow Man to fail, and in fact decides to give Satan-- whom God knows is evil prideful rebellion incarnate-- to have power of such magnitude that it will actually become a war of good versus evil in the "last days" -- when in fact God should be able to eradicate Satan and evil and hell and damnation --with a metaphorical blink of an eye. He just doesn't do it.

This nicely segues to another argument that free will under a god paradigm is a hopeless failure unfortunately. It cannot be without reducing god in some way, and theists insist god is omniscient and perfect (how perfection creates something less than perfection-- existence-- is always unanswered as well). One cannot assert an all-knowing god and then say "but we are not robots"-- because god knows every choice we can make and every choice we will make. While there is an illusion that we are not robots, we clearly are from god's perspective. Theists admit this by noting "Because God can see beyond the present circumstances to the final outcome" and "So God risked our rebellion". But, actually there was no risk at all, for God had arranged the laws of the cosmos so that man's sin, and the evil and oppression that accompanies that sin, actually serves to transform people step-by-step into His character.

0 Replies
 
manfred
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Oct, 2009 09:32 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;98088 wrote:
Peter Viereck (a poet) once wrote that what is real is what remains when you stop believing in it. So where, according to you, does this leave God?


One day an elderly woman was looking at a little mockingbird perched above he on a tree branch.Captivated by the beauty of this tiny miracle of life,she instinctively waved to the mocking bird and said hello.The little bird said,"Why hello there my lady" and then pooped on her head.The woman was shocked as she asked the little bird,"Why did you poop on my head?" to which the bird replied."Why didn't you move out of the way?"

Peter Viereck....what a silly name.
0 Replies
 
Caroline
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Oct, 2009 09:33 am
@prothero,
Ruggedtouch we have and are always developing technology that enables us to predict natural disasters, so we can get out of the way, if you did as I suggested then I wouldn't have to repeat myself. Poot to you too Manfred. Please refrain from wasting my time in future thanks.

---------- Post added 10-17-2009 at 10:37 AM ----------

I'm not going to bother, especially after posting a comment like that, we have debated this all before, i'm not bothering.
manfred
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Oct, 2009 09:40 am
@Caroline,
Caroline;98094 wrote:
Ruggedtouch we have and are always developing technology that enables us to predict natural disasters, so we can get out of the way, if you did as I suggested then I wouldn't have to repeat myself. Poot to you too Manfred. Please refrain from wasting my time in future thanks.

---------- Post added 10-17-2009 at 10:37 AM ----------

I'm not going to bother, especially after posting a comment like that, we have debated this all before, i'm not bothering.


I was trying to agree with you CAROLINE,but apparently im not as funny as i think i am,however i can assure you i will never waste another moment of your time.
your welcome.
0 Replies
 
Ruggedtouch
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Oct, 2009 09:46 am
@Caroline,
Caroline;98094 wrote:
Ruggedtouch we have and are always developing technology that enables us to predict natural disasters, so we can get out of the way, if you did as I suggested then I wouldn't have to repeat myself.

I'm not going to bother, especially after posting a comment like that, we have debated this all before, i'm not bothering.

Am I to believe you're saying the gods have given us the means and methods to anticipate when these humanity destroying "acts of the gods" will occur?

Why did the gods need to create existence in such a way as to create these humanity destroying "acts of the gods" in the first place?
0 Replies
 
Caroline
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Oct, 2009 09:56 am
@prothero,
Because the planet is forever changing, it's called geography.
Thanks.

---------- Post added 10-17-2009 at 10:57 AM ----------

And my previous post wasn't aimed at you.
Ruggedtouch
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Oct, 2009 10:01 am
@Caroline,
Caroline;98105 wrote:
Because the planet is forever changing, it's called geography.
Thanks.

---------- Post added 10-17-2009 at 10:57 AM ----------

And my previous post wasn't aimed at you.

As we are lead to believe by a certain portion of Theists, the gods created the planet. As part of that "creation", (and as described previously), the laws of plate tectonics describe the physical characteristics of portions of the earth's crust which shifts and adjusts, and those elements together create shifting of landmasses we call earthquakes.

The gods established the laws of convection and rotation of planets, and those two elements together create swirling whirlwinds we call twisters. As the Author of All, he could have created a completely different existence-- but didn't.


And so the question remains firmly unanswered: Why did the gods need to create existence in such a way as to create these humanity destroying "acts of the gods" in the first place?
0 Replies
 
Caroline
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Oct, 2009 10:24 am
@prothero,
I haven't read Theists so no idea what your on about.
See ya!
Thanks.
Ruggedtouch
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Oct, 2009 10:40 am
@Caroline,
Caroline;98116 wrote:
I haven't read Theists so no idea what your on about.
See ya!
Thanks.

I actually do think you know what I'm on about. I'm on about holding you to a standard that you're unwilling to accept.

Ultimately, it will be the process of science that will explore and discover. Now, it's possible that science could be stymied and could hit the wall so-to-speak at finding a purely natural cause but that still wouldn't prove a supernatural causation. Not all the tools of science are in hand and scientific discoveries are on-going.

How do we discern the truth? By faith? By assertion and stepping away and accepting untested and anecdotal claims? Or do we assiduously test our truths, hold them up to scrutiny, demand they be accountable at some level?

In fact, the only model I see that opens up the possibility of nature gone awry is the theistic one. How often does nature simply allow a sea to part, or a dead man to rise? How many natural pillars of fire, burning bushes, or global floods are there? How often do virgins spontaneously impregnate? Where else do angels and demons fly about with abandon or men ascend golden staircases to heaven?

Yet again, we're left to question If everyone simply accepts as the answer to existence that god is the primal cause we would condemn humanity to never probing the answers to the deeper questions. And in fact during the dark ages this thought held sway -- do not seek the answers to the mysteries of life, because you cannot answer them because you cannot know the mind or character of god.

CYA,

Thanks
sneer
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Oct, 2009 03:13 pm
@prothero,
you may feel like God.

Let's try the following mind experiment.
Assume first of all, the God exist (nevermind who has the right system of handling him). According to any religion, humans are in a divine relation with him, right? Try to define this relation: absolute precedence, mind superiority, adoration, tolerance of some freedom, big-hearting, the carrot and stick, thankfulness...
The same adjectives we could use for defining the relation between a human and a dog. Now you're the God, the dog is the faithful.
Ruggedtouch
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Oct, 2009 03:40 pm
@sneer,
sneer;98173 wrote:
you may feel like God.

Let's try the following mind experiment.
Assume first of all, the God exist (nevermind who has the right system of handling him). According to any religion, humans are in a divine relation with him, right? Try to define this relation: absolute precedence, mind superiority, adoration, tolerance of some freedom, big-hearting, the carrot and stick, thankfulness...
The same adjectives we could use when defining the relation between a human and a dog, init? Yes, it seems you're better for your dog, than your God to you! No? Let's imagine: if your dog is malicious during the whole life, would you have the intention, to torture him after his death, if you could? Would you attribute him the blame for this behaviour? Of course not. It's not his fault, rather yours, or bad design implications. But this is other story. Think about the freedom of your pupil.
Is he free, or not? From your, God's one, point of view - not. He can't disobey you, he can't change the owner - God!, he has to pay attention your commands, he may not bite other dogs and so on. But is he concious of the slavery? I don't think so. And for sure he's happy, only if his God is not bad one. Full stomach, fresh air, little duty and attention of the God is enough.

I have to admit I have no clue as to what that means.
sneer
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Oct, 2009 04:04 pm
@Ruggedtouch,
Ruggedtouch;98176 wrote:
I have to admit I have no clue as to what that means.


this is not the reply to your discussion, but to first post.
my proposal is trying to understand the nature of divine by becoming a God. You have all divine attributes in relation with a dog.
0 Replies
 
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Oct, 2009 04:40 pm
@Ruggedtouch,
Ruggedtouch;98125 wrote:

How do we discern the truth? By faith? By assertion and stepping away and accepting untested and anecdotal claims? Or do we assiduously test our truths, hold them up to scrutiny, demand they be accountable at some level?

In fact, the only model I see that opens up the possibility of nature gone awry is the theistic one. How often does nature simply allow a sea to part, or a dead man to rise? How many natural pillars of fire, burning bushes, or global floods are there? How often do virgins spontaneously impregnate? Where else do angels and demons fly about with abandon or men ascend golden staircases to heaven?


Good questions, and deserving of an answer. I note from one of your previous posts some conjecture about the nature of free will, and whether God willingly permits, or even is, evil. I don't really want to go the whole nine yards on these questions as (a) I am not a Christian in any sense other than the cultural and don't want to present myself as a Christian apologist and (b) they are deep and difficult matters. However I will briefly note that the orthodox response might be that God is wholly good (actually, inconceivably good, good beyond any power of our imagination to conceive of.) The question of why there is 'evil' in the world is of course a very deep question also. One doctrinally sound answer is that the only real evil is 'the privation of the good' which means the human rejection of what is truly good in pursuit of their own aims and schemes. As for natural disasters, illnesses, catastrophes, and accidents, these are calamitous and cause terrible suffering, but they are not necessarily evil or malicious. Worldly life is subject to all kinds of suffering. I can't really accept the idea of a deity who enjoys human suffering or who actively causes it - this is an anthropomorphic projection.

As regards religion and science - of course science has shown us many facts about the nature of reality which ancient cultures had no conception of. It is neverhteless culturally chauvinistic to assert that because of what we know now, we can write off the whole spiritual tradition of the West as supersition or backwardnesss. Of course this is a big bandwagon at the moment, but I want no part of it. What does have to happen is that the tradition has to be re-imagined, re-intepreted and understood again in terms of what we know now. Because it is a fact that no matter what we know, there will always be a certain layer of understanding that eludes us. Metaphysical questions will remain metaphysical, regardless of what we know about atoms, particles, genes, dna and the rest. It operates at a different level of explanation but to cling to science as the sole means of knowledge is not science, but scientism, which at the end of the day is just another species of fundamentalism.
prothero
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Oct, 2009 05:35 pm
@prothero,
One should not necessarily assume what other people believe. It is safer to state your own beliefs and ask others for clarification regarding theirs. Many theists do not believe in god as you describe "the divine". The problem of evil and suffering is a significant problem for traditional supernatural theism. Lots of "theists" are not "supernatural theists". Some are pantheists or panentheists or process theists or naturalistic theists. The range of conceptions of the divine is large. Even among those who self classify as "Christians" there are a wide range of actual understandings of "Christianity" and "the divine"

[QUOTE=Ruggedtouch;98068] Let's examine this, shall we? And let's be consistent in our argumentation and not stumble over our assertions. Along with the beauty in nature and creation you define as made by gods, all is not beautiful. As the author of all, god is thus responsible for all. [/QUOTE] The traditional doctrine of "creation ex nihilo" creation from nothing would appear to make an eternal, omniscient, omnipotent deity responsible for both the good and the evil. This is the classic "problem of evil" or theodicy.

Free will is often called upon for allowing moral evil (suffering due to human choice). Free will fails to explain natural evil (disease, famine, pestilence, natural disasters) etc. Sometimes it is argued that death gives meaning or contrast to life, disease gives contrast to health, that a meaningful world entails contrast between evil and good. This is not my personal solution but it is a step above the notion that "everything that happens is part of god's plan or god's will" and that the purposes of the divine are inscrutable and not to be questioned.

Personally I think "god" and the universe co exist and that creation is not ex nihilo. That creation was the imposition of some degree of order on the "primordial chaos or void". God and the universe are co-creative and co existent. God is not omnipotent. God is powerful as the degree of order and complexity of the universe attest but God is not all powerful. The universe is full of free creative actualities each of which have a degree of self actualization. God and the world are in relationship. God is not a universal tyrant presiding over a universe of puppets. Such a deity would be unworthy of worship and such a universe unworthy of awe.

Ruggedtouch;98068 wrote:
There is really no such a things as a "natural consequence" because the root of all is the supernatural law-defining abilities of the god that cobbled it together. God doesn't cause an earthquake? Yes, he establishes the laws of plate tectonics which describe the physical characteristics of portions of the earth's crust which shifts and adjusts, and those elements together create shifting of landmasses we call earthquakes.
The ultimate value in the universe is creativity and novelty. It is not possible to create a meaningful universe in which novelty, freedom and creativity exist but risk does not. My notion of the "divine" is one of struggle against the forces of chaos and suffering with the world to create novelty. Creation is a continuous ongoing struggle; the universe is engaged in a process of "creative advance". Natural disasters and moral evil are inherent in the nature of creation, not part of the "divine" plan or the "divine" will. "God" struggles and suffers with and for the sake of creative advance against primordial chaos.

Ruggedtouch;98068 wrote:
Hey - thank god for the cancer cell, eh?
The notion that god is omnipotent and eternal are more derived from Greek Philosophy; Plato (via Augustine) and Aristotle (via Aquinas) than from any traditional or scriptural basis. In any event many consider such notions "theological errors" see Charles Hartshorne "Omnipotence and Other Theological Errors".



Ruggedtouch;98068 wrote:
What we are left with is this: Evil is of God -- no way around that -- hence, God is all good and all evil at the same time and is completely self-contradictory. Your god, someone else's god(s), any god could certainly communicate directly with mankind if he/she chose to.
There are ways around it as noted above. God is not omnipotent. God is not omniscient. The future is open, meaningful and unknown in its details even to god. God is not eternal, immutable, changeless or impassive such a deity could not relate to the world in any meaningful way. God has a consequent nature and struggles and suffers with his creation. God is the realm of possibility (primordial nature) and patiently, persistently and persuasively urges creation forward in a never ending process of creative advance. The earth is not the center of the universe and man is not the crown of creation. We are part of creation not the purpose of creation.


Ruggedtouch;98068 wrote:
God could snap his eternal digits, speak to everyone in a deep resonant voice in particular language, -- yet understood by all - and pronounce a cure to all illnesses, for an example. Yet, he hasn't.
A very immature and anthropomorphic conception of the divine (not yours I know) but the one that you seem to think all theists hold.


Ruggedtouch;98068 wrote:
Further, there is no indication that any god - ever - has communicated directly with humans and that includes some 14,000 asserted gods of various flavors and persuasions.
Perhaps our religious inclinations and truths change and more closely approximate truth over time just as our conceptions of the material world change and more closely approximate truth. We have moved from animism, to polytheism, to monotheism, from supernatural theism to a god who works through nature and the laws of nature. We have moved from a universe of 3 stories (heaven, earth and hell) to a flat earth, to a round earth at the center of the universe, to a small planet circling an ordinary star at the fringes of an ordinary galaxy in an immense universe. Our time frame has expanded from 6000 year old earth to a universe of 14 billion years and an earth 4-5 billion years old, mass extinctions, and human history a brief flicker. Our changes in our conception of the nature of the universe dictate a change in our conception of the nature of the "divine". Religion in various forms is a constant feature of human history, culture and society. I think it is unlikely that "religion" and notions of the "divine" will cease to exist but our traditional explanations and concepts are in "cognitive dissonance" with our current notions of the nature of reality. For me process theology and panentheism are spiritual or religious views which although not scientific are compatible with both reason and the "facts of experience" as well as "the facts of science". All notions of the divine are a form of speculative philosophy which is not the abandonment of reason or of facts but is not limited by them either.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Oct, 2009 05:49 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;98183 wrote:
but to cling to science as the sole means of knowledge is not science, but scientism, which at the end of the day is just another species of fundamentalism.


Yes, I agree. But why should spiritualism (another obscurantism) be the only alternative to scientism? From the frying pan into the fire. Philosophical (or conceptual) analysis is also an alternative to scientism, and is a rational alternative. The argument that if not scientism then spiritualism, and if scientism is false, then spiritualism is true, commits the fallacy of false alternatives.
0 Replies
 
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Oct, 2009 07:59 pm
@prothero,
'Spiritualism' is not a word I am familiar with, although it conjures notions of sceances and mediums. Theology is something else again. I know it has fallen into disfavour in these scientific times but I still believe it is a meaningful subject, particulary in connection with this topic. Philosophical analysis is another type of understanding and one that is valid in its own right, as well, but when it comes to the 'nature of the divine' or 'transcendent realities' there might be other types of insights required in addition to those offered by philosophical analysis.

To this end, I am very interested in the theology of Paul Tillich. This quote is from the Wikipedia entry on his notion of the 'God beyond God':

Quote:
While theistic philosophers and theologians such as St. Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus, and William of Ockham insist God in the form of traditional theism Paul Tillich criticizes traditional theistic view of God and its philosophical tradition. Tillich's criticism [of the] the traditional theistic God is that "He deprives me of my subjectivity because he is all-powerful and all-knowing. I revolt and make him into an object, but the revolt fails and becomes desperate. God appears as the invincible tyrant, the being in contrast with whom all other beings are without freedom and subjectivity. He is equated with recent tyrants with the help of terror try to transform everything into a mere object, a thing among things, a cog in a machine they control. He becomes the model of everything against which Existentialism revolted. This is the God Nietzsche said had to be killed because nobody can tolerate being made into a mere object of absolute knowledge and absolute control. This is the deepest root of atheism. It is an atheism which is justified as the reaction against theological theism and its disturbing implications."

From this quotation [it can be seen that] Paul Tillich saw a few serious theological, cultural, and philosophical problems with the traditional theistic notion of God. First, Tillich criticized traditional theism because it places God in the subject-object dichotomy. Epistemologically God cannot be made into an object since God is simply beyond the grasp of the human mind. If God were made into the subject (The Ultimate Subject) then it is quite obvious that the rest of the existing entities are now subjected to the absolute knowledge and scrutiny of God.It deprives the person from his subjectivity, his own creativity to create meaning existentially.

Second, the kind of traditional theism that posits and presented a biblical God has provoked outcries such as Atheism and Existentialism (while other social factors, such as industrial revolution, also contributed to this). As Tillich said, the modern man could no longer tolerate the idea of being an "object" completely subjected to the absolute knowledge of God.

Third, Paul Tillich has argued that the philosophical arguments of theism is simply "bad theology" and "The God of the theological theism is being besides others and, as such, a part of the whole reality. He is certainly considered its most important part, but as a part and therefore as subjected to the structure of the whole. He is supposed to be beyond the ontological elements and categories which constitute reality. But every statement subjects him to them. He is seen as a self which has a world, as an ego which relates to a though, as a cause which is separated from its effect, as having a definite space and endless time. He is a being, not being-itself"
Ruggedtouch
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Oct, 2009 08:23 pm
@prothero,
prothero;98185 wrote:
One should not necessarily assume what other people believe. It is safer to state your own beliefs and ask others for clarification regarding theirs. Many theists do not believe in god as you describe "the divine". The problem of evil and suffering is a significant problem for traditional supernatural theism. Lots of "theists" are not "supernatural theists". Some are pantheists or panentheists or process theists or naturalistic theists. The range of conceptions of the divine is large. Even among those who self classify as "Christians" there are a wide range of actual understandings of "Christianity" and "the divine"

I suppose the best thing to do then is to let the Theists make their own claims regarding beliefs as I will present mine. Anyway, I'll ask an indulgence so as to address your comments in the broad brush as opposed to identifying each comment.

First, let me make the frighteningly obvious point that most of the debate regarding as you described: "The range of conceptions of the divine"is not a question of evidence, and it should be, but rather one of chosen interpretation. We are drawn to one analytical framework or another. I will attempt to explain why it is that I prefer the abio/evolutionary framework over the spiritual.

Also, I have slightly different approaches in how I regard abiogenesis as opposed to evolution that I may go into in another (hopefully shorter) post. What both views have in common can be encapsulated in what I find preferable about naturalism as an explanation for physical/material world.

The first reason is tired and old, but one that became so precisely because it bears repeating; naturalistic explanations that have passed through the filter of the scientific method or that are at least founded upon reasonable inductive hypotheses based on the available evidence have proven again and again to be far superior to any other method in bringing us to a better understanding of the universe, life, and even our place in it.

Physiology and psychology began the evisceration of metaphysics as the province of philosophy and theology (although it is only right to recognize the extensive assistance of both philosopher and theologian in this task) and carried much of this lofty battle to a less friendly scientific arena where rude physical truths must be accounted for. In a similar way the development of the scientific method and the consensus it brings, combined with the academic and intellectual freedoms of the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment, and left less and less room for literal interpretations of any creation stories.

It does us well to remember that Darwin was not operating in an intellectual vacuum regarding an old earth. The prevailing scientific viewpoint was that the earth was extremely old by the 1800s, which was at odds with a literal interpretation of the bible.

Assuming a natural explanation for phenomena has been validated again and again. Even the work of great intellects who sought to use their scientific discoveries as proofs of the glories of God, men like Copernicus and Newton, has been pressed into the service of naturalism. Their methods and the evidence thereby derived were completely sound; their motivations noble. Nevertheless, the naturalist has encompassed their learning and driven on, pushing back the limitations of naturalism further and further into the past, surging up even to the gates of the Original Origin itself.

The second reason is to some extent predicated on the first - as naturalism has had such coruscating success, why place limits on what it might achieve? Introducing supernaturalism into the picture is an unnecessarily limiting factor, particularly when the existence of this creator is itself speculative. Some would argue that this is a contradictory position to take; that locking out the divine from the picture is blinkered thinking. But I have yet to see a convincing argument as to how allowing for supernatural creation really advances our understanding. Without a plausible framework to show us how we are to know the sculptors hand or understand the tools that he used, it is futile.

Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, a beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge? Even the more sophisticated arguments of intelligent design only seem to serve as foils for complexity, not as alternative mechanisms. In physics, when infinity shows up as a result of equations, the equations are not considered solved; they are considered to have no real-world validity. Supernatural intervention as a function seems to have a similar deadening effect.

Is this approach hubris? Is it misplaced pride? I don't believe so, if we proceed such that human knowledge is still paltry and unsure, especially when compared to the vast spans of energy, matter, and time that encompass us. We have made some astounding discoveries and gained some amazing insights into the fundamentals of nature, but there is so much left to be discovered and it may never be possible to answer the most significant questions with any certainty. Even the purest realms of deductive reasoning are bounded by the rules of their own systems. Knowledge, evidence, inductive or deductive reasoning aren't absolute.

But for now, why not proceed as if no boundary is absolute, no barrier unassailable and see where it leads us. It is far too early in the game to be throwing up our hands. That, I think, is something that many of us, religious or otherwise, can agree on.





0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 06/16/2021 at 12:21:15