Is it important to know what is really real?

[Spiritman]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

Yikes! That is indeed a stretch.

To believe in something without a premise seems to be a greater stretch than believing in facts of reality because of an ultimate premise such as God.
Spiritman

[Spiritman]

Originally Posted by Charity

Welcome to RF...................God gives meaning to my life, and I feel that it is important that He is real to me..

We share the same beliefs.
Spiritman

[Spiritman]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

What's the difference between something being real and something being really real?

The difference is found in the old argument that many philosophers believe true real things do not change while that changing things are not real but are only "appearances" and not really real. I allude to this concept as taught in philosophy. On what side do you favor in this argument?
Spiritman

[Storm]

Originally Posted by Spiritman

I am new to RF. My purpose for being here is to make friends and to increase my understanding of what is really important to the meaning of life. My belief is that right reasoning and logic are the main tools for understanding what is really real. This being the case, one must be very selective in choosing premises to substantiate his reasoning. For example, theist believe that God is the most basic premise for rational thought.

I've never heard that one before. How is it justified?

It must follow that to eliminate a belief in God would be to eliminate the most basic reason for reasoning.

No, it doesn't. We reason because we are sapient, whether God exists or not.

Does it now follow that a person with the strongest belief in God has the most reliable premise on which to build a quality life and an understandable world view?

No.

Or, is this too much of a stretch to believe that it is possible and necessary to believe that one must believe in God to understand the real meaning to life?

If anybody did understand the meaning of life, you might have a leg to stand on. However, nobody's got that figured out.

[Spiritman]

Originally Posted by Storm

I've never heard that one before. How is it justified?


No, it doesn't. We reason because we are sapient, whether God exists or not.


No.


If anybody did understand the meaning of life, you might have a leg to stand on. However, nobody's got that figured out.

If this is the debate, it comes down to whether one believes in God. If God does exist then He us the facilitator of reasoning. If God does not exist, then man himself is the facilitator of reasoning.

Those who believe God is are those who have found the meaning of life and that is to reason and fellowship with the Almighty. That is a great joy to know that God is an that He rewards man with purpose for living. It is more joy to know one is not alone. In humanism a person only knows what man knows but a person of the Spirit knows what man knows plus what God knows.
Spiritman

[Storm]

Originally Posted by Spiritman

If this is the debate, it comes down to whether one believes in God. If God does exist then He us the facilitator of reasoning. If God does not exist, then man himself is the facilitator of reasoning.

Repeating it is not justifying it.

Those who believe God is are those who have found the meaning of life and that is to reason and fellowship with the Almighty. That is a great joy to know that God is an that He rewards man with purpose for living. It is more joy to know one is not alone. In humanism a person only knows what man knows but a person of the Spirit knows what man knows plus what God knows.

Are you seriously claiming to know the mind of God?

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by Storm

Repeating it is not justifying it.

How's this, then. God is all things. I think, thinking is a thing, I am a thing, therefore God is, amongst other things, me thinking. If God is not, then of course there's no custody issues.

Originally Posted by Storm

Are you seriously claiming to know the mind of God?

You know your "mind". Same deal.

[Storm]

Originally Posted by Willamena

How's this, then. God is all things. I think, thinking is a thing, I am a thing, therefore God is, amongst other things, me thinking. If God is not, then of course there's no custody issues.

You know your "mind". Same deal.

I actually agree with you, but I don't think that's what Spiritman's arguing.

EDIT: It also doesn't support his argument. If God is all things, then atheists' reasoning is no different from theists'.