"God exists" is true

[MNoBody]

options:
A-assume everything is true, then work it out from there.....
B-assume everything is a lie, then work it out from there.....
see how what is found plays out as reliable.
start building models with those thinker-toys and see how they run....do they crash, or have stability?

 

[stvdv]

Interconnected motion. Nothing is static. God is ideally seen as eternal, static. It makes more sense to say maybe continuous existence. I don't know.

All philosophers have been cracking their brains on this their whole life, for millennia, so you are not the only who says "OMG, I don't know"

 

[Heyo]

All philosophers have been cracking their brains on this their whole life, for millennia, so you are not the only who says "OMG, I don't know"

If very smart people didn't find an answer and not even could work out a path to an answer, maybe they were pondering the wrong question?
That's the strength of Agnosticism. We realized that "Does god exist?" is the wrong question as long as we can't answer "What is god?".

 

[columbus]

I believe Santa Claus exists, both as a fictional character and as a personification of some good moral teachings. Similar to God.

Does that count?
Tom

 

[stvdv]

not even could work out a path to an answer

They did work out a path, though

 

[Unveiled Artist]

If very smart people didn't find an answer and not even could work out a path to an answer, maybe they were pondering the wrong question?
That's the strength of Agnosticism. We realized that "Does god exist?" is the wrong question as long as we can't answer "What is god?".

I thought I was the only one who asked this question.

 

[Heyo]

I thought I was the only one who asked this question.

Nope. Thomas Huxley pondered this in the 19th century. Agnostics are often defamed as not knowing about the existence of god (fence sitting) when Huxley said he doesn't know about the existence or nature of god(s) - (and neither does anybody else). In that the Agnostic is more radical than the atheist who gives the believer the benefit of the doubt s/he might know what s/he is talking about. We don't.

 

[Tambourine]

I answered true and false to all.

True, false and exists are to vague. And for all of the "things" for which it was asked about both answers could be correct. Even for some assumptions about existence I as "I" don't exist.

Aw come on, the res cogitans is self evident!

 

[MNoBody]

Aw come on, the res cogitans is self evident!

Maybe, it certainly seems to be ...but appearances aren't everything

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Aw come on, the res cogitans is self evident!

No, I think, therefore I am is not self-evident.
The "I" as an "I" is not self-evident as such or nor is the existence, so it ends as:
Something thinks, therefore something else is happening.

Or if you like:
A process is taking place, therefore a process is taking place. While this is true, it doesn't tell you anything else. And not if the process is an "I"?