Define God

But it is such a powerful illusion.

Indeed.

If I were to believe in God, in the sense as understood by theologians in the traditions of the three great monotheistic religions, then I would believe in a being, as creator of the world, of infinite wisdom, goodness and power. The additional attribute of infinite love is perhaps more emphasized be Christianity than Judaism or Islam.
Others have different conceptions of god, for example pantheistic, deistic etc. These ideas come in many different forms.
But as a bare minimum, belief in god requires an attribution of purposive, mental qualities to the ground of being or to being itself, depending on whether the belief is in an imminent or transcendent god.

I am interested in your reason for asking the question. Are you looking for potential rational proofs of the existence of God?

aurorell, it has been convincingly shown by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant that rational demonstration of the existence of God (or the soul, or free will as well as other metaphysical entities) is impossible. (And the fact that philosophers, many among the best of human minds, have tried unsuccessfully for at least 2000 years to discover proofs of God's existence, bears this out).

Nonetheless Kant saw himself as a Christian (it was pretty hard not to in his time). He wanted to establish the limitations of reason to make way for FAITH.
Kant had faith in God, freedom and immortality because of his belief in the rationally binding nature of the moral law. But the moral law, even if you accepted its existence and its status as warrant for faith perhaps does not offer more or less support for a Christian god than it does for a Muslim or Judaic god. The important emphasis in Kant is on doing one's duty and moral goodness.

Many religious believers seem to be more intent on convincing others of the rightness of their beliefs than on doing good in the world. This is perhaps evidence of some doubt and insecurity. For Kant duty should always be done without thought of reward, whether in this world or the next. This, for Kant, is the only form of pure goodness, and he saw Jesus' teachings as exemplifying this.

If you are capable of having faith in something for which you have no rational evidence, and that faith gives you comfort and support for your life, then perhaps it is best to just stick with it, and don't ask too many questions or try to find rational arguments to convince others to believe as you do. A search for rational support for your beliefs will more likely lead to doubt than to certainty.

The contemporary Slovakian philosopher Slavoj Zizek puts it something like this: "The believer in Jesus has reasons for her belief, which are incomprehensible to the non-believer".

See also the writings of philosopher Soren Kierkegaard for an explication of the "leap of faith" in view of the "absurd". This, for him, is entirely a matter of personal choice and responsibility, definitely not a matter of "running with the herd".

I don't actually agree an idea of "God" requires mental qualities but rather that mental qualities can be reduced to rational quality's (Rational in the sense of orderly) ...in fact in my own humble opinion, mental quality's are incompatible with the very idea of an all powerful "God", whatever ones you choose to call "mental" in the idea of "self", they all require incompleteness and lack of knowledge with certainty, in that sense, one could well argue that while thinking is the business of searching and looking for, having or "being" is rather about "performing" and providing ground...
(....that which is does not look for anything but rather is the ground of everything...)

But the question this begs is: is order the outcome of purpose. If the answer is "No", then God is superfluous, and we are left with Nature, which instantiates order by means of 'laws' without awareness or "purpose". If the answer is yes, then the awareness and its associated purpose are the very definition of 'mental'.
Do you think a computer can be rational? Do you think a computer possesses awareness?

No I believe quite the opposite, that is, that purpose is the outcome of order and not the other way around, and yes, Nature is a much better word for "God" but unlike most Americans atheists I as an European don't see much harm in the loose sense we can apply the terming "God" for referring to "The Rational", the Unity of Nature at large...

PS - ...in other words, while I believe and accept human beings can experiment a sense of purpose in their first person mind process I am not so keen to agree they really possess any real control on whatever purpose they experience...similarly from there we can generalize to the whole of nature through space and time and simply state the obvious, that being, the World it is what it is.
I would conclude with this thought:
If for one God is dead, still dead exists, and all mighty beautiful in its silent ruling...

I'm not sure I understand you, but this writing is a pleasure to read.

I am not much into the mutual compliment thing ppl naturally tend to when in group, although I obviously accept is only natural and human to do so, but I got to admit I appreciate the moderate style you chose to engage when diverging in opinion...that counts for something in my book ! I have yet to learn to control my lets say "passion" when debating long term personnel beliefs...

Just as there are many varied and conflicting ideas about gods and deities, there are also many varied and conflicting ideas about how to approach them. Logic tells us that not all approaches can be correct. Think of it this way: Before we make a telephone call, we need to know whom we are calling and we need to be confident that the person really exists and will be receptive to our call. To try to contact an imaginary person would be pointless. Worse yet, to contact an impostor could be dangerous.

A sufficient definition of a "god" in the lesser sense for me would refer to a species/entity/agent with far more capability of control then the one we have...someone able to manipulate our very own nature according to his wishes and needs...in the deeper sense of the word "God" can only mean REASON and reason in turn refers to and means UNITY, coherence in the relational process of whatever is the case ! Any other anthropomorphized definition in the idea of a ubber Master Mind is plainly childish and should be dismissed...the Unified existence of the whole of Reality is a base ground in all its extension...as Unity it does not look for or thinks about anything...IT IS the reason of things, ITSELF without reason, the unmoved mover...what it means is that reason itself is justified in Being, being !!! Above the limits of space and time throughout all the space time whatever is the case is the case ! There's nothing beyond that ! Seeking justification is something that fits incomplete agents/beings...That WHICH IS THE CASE is not justified but rather is the REASON of justification existing in a timely phenomenal sense ! What "God" is, is whatever is the case, and not a mind ! (but rather the reason of minds)

That would only be the case Fil if your "sufficient definition" can be explained to the public and used to persuade all its component parts to behave in a way which enhances life or is functionally efficient.

And you say, Seeking justification, so how can to find a right standing before God, leave many people perplexed. They have a vague feeling that they should be doing something to get right with God, but they do not know how to go about it.


So the above questions merit your close examination. Why? Because the oldest written authority on religion, the Bible, describes how a false god, operating through a serpent, enticed our first ancestors into a disastrous course. We are experiencing the distressing results of his strategy to this day. (Genesis 3:1-13) Jesus, “the Son of God,” spoke of that rebel god as “the ruler of this world.” One of Jesus’ apostles called him “the god of this system of things. At Revelation chapter 12, verse 9, he is described as “the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth.” A world empire of false religion lies under Satan’s control,so no phenomenal sense.

Dear Spreader of false notions, why do you not look for the wisdom underlying these metaphors rather than take them as literal expressions of
what seems to me to be a "false religion"?

But JL-- we know the real reason for your apostasy.

We do?

Spendius's term "apostasy" requires monotheism as a substrate to "kick against". He claims that our language and cognitive culture are so steeped in monotheistic practice that this cannot be avoided. That might be true for the term "atheism" per se but not for terms like "Buddhism" etc which require no deity for their "spirituality". Indeed the deconstruction of ordinary language (discussed extensively elsewhere) is encompassed by the term "ineffability" which is a key feature of general "spirituality".

Actuality is ineffable. How else explain Mahler and Mozart?

Yes, to some fill this void, people who reject organized religion or the belief in a Creator often turn with religious passion to some substitute god. Science, politics, philosophy, and even agnosticism and atheism become their fervently held religion.

Interesting notion, but as I see it those who reject other-worldly religiousity based on the abstract notions of theologies and metaphysics must necessarily accept or create a this-worldly religiosity based more on the concrete and immediate experiences of mysticism and art.