Will Theists Accept A God That is Inferior to Another's?

Trump is an objectivist. Anyone thinking that his remarks are bad, might lead to or exacerbate bad things, is also an objectivist. Good too, for that matter. If you act to make the world a better place by opposing someone, even abstractly, you are an objectivist. If you want to complain, implicitly, like this, about someone on moral grounds you are an objectivist. There are no problems to a non-objectivist. There are merely countless phenomena and these phenomena cannot be distinguished morally or prioritized. Stuff happens is the only possible comment a non-objectivist (or a Buddhist for that matter) on such things. Stuff happens, that is the only possible position for a non-objectivist. All true non-objectivists would be hedonists of some sort. And they certainly would not think any art (taking that category broadly) is better than any other art. A Beethovan symphony or Coke commericials, neither can be judged better than the other aesthetically. Again the channeling toward hedonism as the only way to evaluate a good day. Have a good time. Take it easy. Worry about mortality, I suppose, but not about Trump statements, except to the degree they might lead to a shortening of one’s own life. Will the real non-objectivist please stand up and tell me why they are not doing something more pleasurable right now than writing endless arguments in a philosophy forum. Perhaps it is a knowledge failure. Perhaps this seems like hedonism because so few activities are being considered.

You stated, if Kant is still around, then you will ask him …"
So my reply was, it is not necessary for Kant to be around. You can read his books and philosophy to understand [not necessary agree] generic illusions and errors, which will cover any particular within the almost all-encompassing empirical-rational contexts.

I asked before, what do you mean by ‘font’ in the above case?

I understand what you are asking re frames, particular, context and change. These concepts concern the relative and the subjective of the empirical human conditions and nature’s conditions. These are all encompassed within the empirical-rational reality.

Your “ALL [100%] to be known … of existence” cannot be possible, i.e. it is an impossibility within empirical-rational reality.
This has nothing to do with a person’s or subjective frames, particular, context and change. It is as objective as trying to claim 1 + 1 = 5 within the normal arithmetic system.

My point is your “ALL [100%] to be known … of existence” is an impossibility within empirical-rational reality, thus moot and a non-starter. Thus you cannot raised this point at all. As I stated, one can only start from the known to the possible to be known. Your “ALL [100%] to be known … of existence” is impossible to be known.

That is “tribalism” and yes it is more psychological than philosophical. To be more precise, it relevant within Evolutionary Psychology and Anthropology.

Note ‘objectivity’ in the Philosophical Perspective.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy

It is not appropriate for you to invent your own definition of ‘objectivism’ in this case.

Note Hume’s - there is no way one can get an ‘ought’ from “is”.
We humans are merely confined within the “is” empirical reality with the ability to think [thought] within the ‘ought’ via reason.
Thus if you understand Hume [do you] you would never demand for an ‘ought’ within “is” because that is an impossibility.

How one can reconcile the “ought” with the “is” is to use the concept of complementarity. This what Kant, Yin-Yang, Quantum Physics, Buddhism do to reconcile the two extremes to make them work in complementarity.

either/or world
I am not sure what what this mean. I can sense any relevance of this either/or to the issue since either/or can be reconciled depending on context.

As stated this require of 'certainty of “complete and total” ’ is an impossibility and a non-starter.

Trump is off topic in this case. An “empirical realist” acknowledge the empirical is the real thing as it is.

Your points are not tenable, i.e.

  1. Your wrong use of ‘objectivism’ which is not directly philosophical.
  2. Your “ALL [100%] to be known … of existence” cannot be possible, i.e. it is an impossibility within empirical-rational reality.
  3. You are stuck with the "IS’ and “Ought” dichotomy and not being able to reconcile them.

I suggest you reframe your problem statement and you will be able to make headway and not be stuck in a circular loop.

The point is a 100 frames or 1000 frames bowling game is still an empirical possibility which can be achieved perfectly. The only difference is the odds will be very slim, but it is not an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality.

Unlike bowling a 1000 frame game perfectly which is an empirical possibility, the idea of God is non-empirical, it is not empirically possible. Thus there is no question of a possible God within empirical rational reality.

One can think of a God mentally but God is non-empirical. God [non-empirical] cannot be a possible explanation for ALL There Is within an empirical-rational reality.

As I had explained your ‘all that would need to be known about Existence itself’ is an impossibility within empirical-rational reality. Thus this point is moot and a non-starter and there will be no realistic Gap at all to start with.
You can think of such a Gap, but such a Gap is an impossibility.

Btw, there is no Gap at all in reference to Hume. Hume’s Problem of Induction is only in reference to Science, not Mathematics nor logic.

There is no big leap of faith re Mathematics, laws of nature and logical rules of language.
We believe 1 + 1 = 2 is true within its Framework and system as far as it is supported by proofs, i.e. reason and empirical. E.g. within the common perspective, when we hold one apple then hold another apple, the result is two apples in our hand which is always true within the defined conditions.

I mean foundation. That which one can turn to in order to demonstrate/establish one’s moral obligation to the woman.

Some will claim that this is God and offer one or another narrative from one or another religious denomination. Others will claim that this is Reason and offer one or another technically proficient deontological assessment. Or there are those of Satyr’s ilk who insist it all revolves around that which can/must be construed as “natural behavior”.

You claim to understand what I am asking, but you are very, very reluctant to then intergrate your own “empirical-rational reality” out in a particular context out in a particular world. What specifically is the “empirical-rational reality” with respect to, say, the conflicting goods that swirl around issues like DACA. What are the “dreamers” owed?

Or, again, choose your own issue. Surely, there must be occasions when you bump into others that do not share your own values. How, with regard to a specific incident of late, did you encompass “empirical-rational reality” for them in order to argue that your own frame of mind is more conducive with “progressive” human interactions “in the future”?

But then [from my frame of mind] you take the exchange straight back up into the scholastic clouds:

Whether any of this is philosophically/technically true is one thing. Making the assumption that it is philosophically/technically true and then integrating the implications of this truth out in the world of conflicted human interactions is [from my frame of mind] something else entirely different.

To wit:

Some insist that abortion/homosexuality/consuming animal flesh/owning chattel slaves etc., is moral. Others insist that abortion/homosexuality/consuming anomal flesh/owning chattel slaves etc., is immoral.

So, using your own understanding of “empirical-rational reality” as the font/foundation, how would one best go about making a rational distinction between the conflicting oughts that do in fact exist “out in the world” that we now live in, and a moral narrative/political agenda most clearly in sync with that which you construe to be “progressive” interactions among us at some point in the future?

My argument is that until we discover the precise nature of Existence itself, even the either/or world is just a set of assumptions rooted in our current understanding of mathematics, the physical laws of nature, and the rules of logic.

There’s just no getting around this for me. Until and unless, of course, someone is able to convince me that their own understanding of these relationships here and now is in fact in sync with an ontological/teleological understanding of All There Is.

But then of course this: who am I to argue that they are either necessarily right or necessarily wrong? And even this is assuming that I actually have the autonomy necessary to make such distinctions “on my own”.

And then you insist that:

As though in “stating” this, that makes it so. Come on: How on earth could you possibly know this other than as a function of all the assumptions that you make in your own intellectual contraptions/inventions above?

Indeed, as soon as I bring all this down to earth…

…you are quick to demur:

And I can only scratch my head and wonder what that has to do with the consequences — the empirical reality — that may soon be unfolding for the actual flesh and blood human beings that are involved here.

Including the fate of the “dreamers” in America. Hell, the government itself might even be shut down.

On the other hand, sure, what do these folks know about the “technical” issues here?

I agree. But then I make a distinction between this and using the word “perfection” as it is said to be applicable to God. What God? And how do mere mortals [like you and I] go about the business of caculating the odds that He does in fact exist?

Thus:

Way back in time some “primitives” invented bowling: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten-pin_bowling#Origins

Now, before it was invented, it was just an idea in someone’s head. But now it is an empirical reality.

Right?

With God there is the “idea” of His existence. And, sure, that seems rooted in part in human psychology. But noting this is not the same thing as demonstrating that He does not in fact exist. At least not from my frame of mind. Existence does seem to exist. And God is one possible explanation in contemplating its creation. At least until the child comes along and asks, “who created God?”

But, come on, who among us really fucking knows?! Your mind is either completely boggled trying to comprehend it all or you are somehow able to convince yourself that “in your head” you’ve got it all figured out.

And, sure, maybe you do. So, by all means, convince me.

And then this:

Okay, so what does this have to do with the OP? How are science and mathematics and logic intertwined in all of the various conflicted views of inferior/superior Gods as this relates to that which is of most interest to me here: How ought one to live?

How ought one to live morally, righteously, virtuously, progressively etc., in a world of conflicting goods?

For example there is a clear correlation between sexual copulation and pregnancy. There are all of the biological imperatives here that, one way or another, either are or are not in sync with science, mathematics and logic in an either/or world able to be understood precisely in terms of cause and effect.

But what is the precise correlation between copulation, pregnancy, abortion and morality? And how is the “progressive” understanding of this interwined [re cause and effect] in a complete, unequivical understanding of the role that science, mathematics and logic play here?

Re your point;
And how do mere mortals [like you and I] go about the business of calculating the odds that He does in fact exist?

You missed a critical point of mine above, i.e.
Unlike bowling a 1000 frame game perfectly which is an empirical possibility, the idea of God is non-empirical, it is not empirically possible.
Thus there is no question of a possible God within empirical rational reality.

The question of whether God exists or not is moot and a non-starter within empirical-rational reality, therefore there is no question of how to calculate the odds that HE does in fact exist?

It is like a square-circle, we do not ask whether such a thing exists or not, because it a contradiction, thus moot and a non-starter.

The question of God is the same as the question of whether a square-circle exists or not, but the idea of God is a bit more subtle.

I hope you get this;
Because the idea of God is an impossibility within empirical-rational reality [proof in the other thread], the question of the odds of whether God exists is moot, a non-starter and rationally - should not be raised.

As I had pointed out the idea of God arose out of psychological factors to deal with an existential psychological problem.

The OP is related to the following;
When pushed into a corner, no theist will accept a God that is inferior to theirs.
So all theists at its ultimate will adopt an ontological God, i.e. an absolutely perfect Being.
But logically an absolutely perfect Being, i.e. God, is an impossibility within an empirical rational reality.

Since God is an impossibility within an empirical rational reality, God [illusory] has nothing to do with science and mathematics and logic within the empirical rational reality.

The only practical ‘ought’ to live is to continually improve OPTIMALLY upon one’s current status. Thus the action is to find out what is one’s current status [Know Thyself -Socrates] and improve [net-positive] and optimally upon it.
How to improve net-positively is to subject oneself to that process within the Generic Problem Solving Technique of Life (4NT-8FP) I presented earlier.

Science, mathematics and logic will be the as-and-when relevant inputs into the System of continual improvement.
Other ‘oughts’ [moral] will be inputs into the system to guide the “is” towards the relevant objectives.

Btw, do you have a good grasp of System Theory, how it works and how to embed system theory into your psyche?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory

gold is gold everywhere no matter who is possesing it. :laughing: weather you are african, englishmen, hindu, muslim, christian or whatever gold is always gold. it never become hindu gold, christian gold, this gold or that gold. similarly God or say Krishna is not sectarian at all. =D>

only we thinks that he belongs to certain sect but gold is gold everywhere.

I disagree with you on this.

Candide.
"It is demonstrable that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end.”

Let me give you a stock Gnostic Christian view of reality. Ignore the spiritual content if you like as it is not relevant to our chat, should we start one.


Gnostic Christian Jesus said, “If those who attract you say, ‘See, the Kingdom is in the sky,’ then the birds of the sky will precede you.
If they say to you, ‘It is under the earth,’ then the fish of the sea will precede you.
Rather, the Kingdom of God is inside of you, and it is outside of you.
[Those who] become acquainted with [themselves] will find it; [and when you] become acquainted with yourselves, [you will understand that] it is you who are the sons of the living Father.
But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty.”

As you can see from that quote, if we see God’s kingdom all around us and inside of us, we cannot think that the world is anything but evolving perfection. Most just don’t see it and live in poverty. Let me try to make you see the world the way I do.

Here is a mind exercise. Tell me what you see when you look around. The best that can possibly be or an ugly and imperfect world?

Candide.
"It is demonstrable that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end.”

That means that we live in the best of all possible worlds, given all the conditions at hand and the history that got us here. That is an irrefutable statement given entropy and the anthropic principle.

Regards
DL

Not sure what is your point.

But ‘Gold is Gold’ is only relative never absolute.
Gold is ‘Gold’ from normal observation or scientifically ‘AU’ (from Latin: aurum) and atomic number 79.

If you look deeper into what is a piece of gold, it is merely a bundle of atoms, i.e. electrons and protons and deeper still it it a cluster of quarks. These electrons and quarks keep moving in an out of that piece of Gold. What is supposedly Gold-at-t1 and never the same a Gold-at-t2 and so forth.

Whilst Gold is ‘Gold’ everywhere, for the same piece of gold, that Gold-at-t1 is not Gold-at-t2.
So depending on what the point you are trying to show, you need to take this deeper reality into account.

Yes, re your own analytic assumptions about “a possible God within empirical rational reality”. You basically analysis God out of existence. Whereas I do not believe in God [here and now] because the faithful are unable to convince me that what they claim to believe [or know, or reason] about God “in their head”, is able to be demonstrated – substantiated – empirically as in sync with what is in fact true for all of us.

And since there have been hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of actual denominational renditions of God down through the ages, what are the odds that a God, the God is your God?

How is that demonstrated such that reason and hard physical evidence coincide?

The irony here [as I construe it] is this: that, given the gap between what any particular individual claims to know about God and all that would need to be known about Existence itself, has anyone actually been able to close it?

Sure, maybe. But my argument here is that…

1] no one has yet to convince me of this
2] had someone in fact accomplished this beyond all doubt [one way or the other], it is all everyone would be talking about

I can only point out yet again the gap that I perceive between what I am asking you above and what you are telling me instead.

I am asking you to the relate the points that you raised in the OP to an actual context that most of us are familiar with. There is the role of science and logic in discussing what is either true or not true about the relationship between human sexuality, human pregnancy and the choice to abort a pregnancy.

The either/or world. If there is an existing God then these are the relationships – the biological imperatives – chosen by Him pertaining to this particular “human reality”.

There is no getting around the facts here. If there is a God, this is the way He made things.

But the discussion then shifts from what is in fact true here for all of us, to our oft-time conflicting reactions to the choices/behaviors made by individual women in individual sets of circumstances regarding individual unborn babies.

Here are different reactions: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_abortion

Some who believe in God are able to rationalize abortion, while others are not.

What then does constitute an “inferior” or a “superior” judgment from God here?

And how then do secular philosophers pin down the optimal or the only rational resolution to this particularly ferocious conflicting good?

youtu.be/WBo7xFMNZTo

Pope John Paul II wrote that names like “Holy Father” are applicable to the Pope, even though calling him that is in direct opposition to what the Scriptures teach.

"Have no fear when people call me the “Vicar of Christ,” or when they say to me “Holy Father,” or “Your Holiness.”

The MAN is delusional. LOL

As I [& Kant] had argued, the idea of God arose out of crude [aka Pure] reason. [note Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason].
Thus using the same basis [light for light] i.e. reason, Kant used a more refined and critical reason to reason out God from any possibility of existence.

Why do you need the faithful to convince you their God exists? Use your head and own ability to reason & rationalize the reality and truth.

Say, if some claim a square-circle exists, would you wait for them to produce empirical evidence. If there is none then you be agnostic and be stuck in a rut?

This is why I suggest you need to reframe your question to a more logical and realistic one. It is not logical to conflate pure reason with pure empirical, i.e. “ought” [reason] cannot be “is” [empirical].

There you go again, i.e. wallowing in the impossible, i.e. “ALL to be known”. This is pure intellectual contraption literally.

(1) Why do you need someone to convince you.
In this case you must convince the issue yourself using a higher up level of reason and critical thinking.

(2) No one will be able to accomplished that claim [prove or disprove God empirically] beyond all doubts because God is an impossibility in the first place. It is moot and a non-starter.

The idea of God arose out of reason, so we use reason and critical thinking to review it and the conclusion is such a hypothesis is an impossibility within the default empirical-rational reality.

Nope, science and logic do not play any primary role in the above questions.
The primary knowledge to deal with the above is Philosophy-proper and Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.
I had proposed the most appropriate Framework and System of Morality and Ethics is the Kantian one. Don’t bring the ‘side-dish’ re ‘lying -murderer’ casuistry to deflect. What is critical is you need to master Kantian Morality and Ethics and System Theory to discuss and deliberate on the issue.

IF, IF … that is your problem, you keep dwelling on the possibility of God when the idea of God is an impossibility. This is how you are caught in a loop and rut.

You need to activate your highest level of reason and critical thinking to understand the idea of God is an impossibility. Once you can do that, you will be free from this load of the BIG stone on your shoulder or the terrible cladding clasping and choking your psyche.

You need to critically rationalize God away using your highest level of the reason faculty.
The question of an “inferior” or a “superior” God do not arise in relation to the issue [re morality] you raise above.

The primary knowledge to deal with the above is Philosophy-proper and Philosophy of Morality and Ethics. The absolute Moral law is ‘Thou Shalt Not Kill’, but within Ethics there are provisions where killing is permissible without triggering guilt.
The basic requirement is ‘equanimity’ so that one do not get shaken in the event any doubts creep in.

Pope John Paul II wrote that names like “Holy Father” are applicable to the Pope, have no fear when people call me the “Vicar of Christ,” or when they say to me “Holy Father,” or “Your Holiness.”

This is contrary to what the Scriptures teach. Don’t these MEN read the Scriptures?

“And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven”.
Matthew 23:9 (KJV)

youtu.be/WBo7xFMNZTo

Amusing to say the least.

Well, let’s just say that we understand Kant differently: Take this argument for example: ethicalrealism.wordpress.com/20 … th-in-god/

No, we can’t know that in fact God does exist. But He has to. Why? Because without one or another transcending frame of mind there is no ontological/teleological foundation upon which mere mortals can rationalize telling the murderer where the woman is hiding.

And, really, how far is this sort of thinking from Platonic Forms?

From my own vantage point, all you are noting here is this: that were I to use my head and my own ability to reason, I would think like you do about these things. I would share your own reality and truth.

Trust me: I get that part.

And then you go here:

As though this is really relevant to the conflicts that exist regarding that which constitutes a superior or inferior God. But it sure does take us out of the is/ought world. After all, how many folks do you know who actually claim that a square circle does in fact exist? Or that a circle ought to be square?

As I see it, it can only be an intellectual contraption here and now because no one has ever been able to encompass the very nature of Existence itself. At least not to my own satisfaction. Why something and not nothing? Why this something and not another something? But common sense tells me that until I do grasp this, I cannot possibly comprehend a full and complete understanding of something as seemingly insignificant as the “human condition”. In other words, in the context of All There Is. Let alone a full and complete understanding of the relationship between mere mortals on this tiny little rock floating in the vastness of space and the existence of a God, the God.

Because sans God I can only conclude [reasonably I believe] that we live in an essentially absurd and meaningless universe that ends for “I” in oblivion.

And, in turn, on this side of the grave, I am entangled in my dilemma because sans God there does not appear to be any font/foundation I can turn to in order to obviate conflicting goods embedded in dasein out in any particular world governed by the dictates of political economy.

And to that you go straight back up into the clouds of abstraction:

In other words, to whatever extent this is relevant to the actual existential parameters of human interaction in a No God world, you believe it.

You claim that God is an “impossibility in the first place” becasue you simply argue that He is. In a world of words. You demonstrate nothing. And, as with folks like James Saint [who seems to have disappeared of late], that ever and always revolves around the “definitional logic” of the “analysis” embedded in the intellectual contraption/invention itself.

Or, rather, so it certainly seems to me.

In other words, you simply did it again. I ask you to situate these Capital Letter Words embedded in what I construe to be an analytic contraption, in an exchange that revolves around a context that most of us will be familiar with. I like to focus on abortion here for all the reasons that I have noted on other threads. But, sure, choose your own context, your own conflicting good.

In other words…

From my own frame of mind, this reflects yet again the numbingly scholastic didacticism embedded in the so-called analytic contributions of the “serious philosopher”.

Again, what Will Durant called the “epistemologists”:

“In the end it is dishonesty that breeds the sterile intellectualism of contemporary speculation. A man who is not certain of his mental integrity shuns the vital problems of human existence; at any moment the great laboratory of life may explode his little lie and leave him naked and shivering in the face of truth. So he builds himself an ivory tower of esoteric tomes and professionally philosophical periodicals; he is comfortable only in their company…he wanders farther and farther away from his time and place, and from the problems that absorb his people and his century. The vast concerns that properly belong to philosophy do not concern him…He retreats into a little corner, and insulates himself from the world under layer and layer of technical terminology. He ceases to be a philosopher, and becomes an epistemologist.”

It doesn’t surprise me then that you don’t follow “politics”. Of course my problem may well be worse. I do follow politics. Only to come back time and time again to this:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

In other words, unlike the objectivists, my own “I” here is busted. And then right around the corner is oblivion.

My only option then being to find a narrative that might yank me up out of it. But your narrative in my view is really not all that far removed from the narratives of the folks you are going after. Again, what counts seems less who is right than that one of you must be.

And that ever and always brings me back to one or another rendition of this:

[b]1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], you are taught or come into contact with [through your upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] a worldview, a philosophy of life.

2] Over time, you become convinced that this perspective expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to you as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational.

3] Eventually, for some, they begin to bump into others who feel the same way; they may even begin to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view the world in a particular way.

4] Some begin to share this philosophy with family, friends, colleagues, associates, Internet denizens; increasingly it becomes more and more a part of their life. It becomes, in other words, more intertwined in their personal relationships with others…it begins to bind them emotionally and psychologically.

5] As yet more time passes, they start to feel increasingly compelled not only to share their Truth with others but, in turn, to vigorously defend it against any and all detractors as well.

6] For some, it can reach the point where they are no longer able to realistically construe an argument that disputes their own as merely a difference of opinion; they see it instead as, for all intents and purposes, an attack on their intellectual integrity…on their very Self.

7] Finally, a stage is reached [again for some] where the original philosophical quest for truth, for wisdom has become so profoundly integrated into their self-identity [professionally, socially, psychologically, emotionally] defending it has less and less to do with philosophy at all. And certainly less and less to do with “logic”.[/b]

Whilst I have VERY high regard for Kant’s philosophy, I do not agree with his use of the term ‘God’ which has a very strong negative baggage.
I wrote somewhere, Kant has an alternative term i.e. Ens Realissimum.

I don’t agree with your ‘ontological/teleological foundation’ but rather I agree there must be absolute moral laws to ground and for mere mortals to rationalize their ethical acts.
This absolute moral laws are associated with the Ens Realissimum which is actually has nothing to do with God as generally understood and believed by theists.

Note this point from the article you linked;

Thus if you believe Kant incorporate God as generally understood into his Morality, then you are wrong.

Re the ‘lying-hiding person’ casuistry this is not the deontological approach as you and most would think is Kant’s basis of morality. Kant did not use the deontological approach for his Morality and Ethics.

The point is, to Kant, the idea of God is an illusion and an impossibility within the empirical-rational reality. However the idea of God [in the Kantian way - reconciles with Plato only in this case] is necessary for Morality and Ethics.

I am trying to say your insistence on ‘ALL that is to be known of existence’ is equivalent to trying to know a square-circle.
If you can give up the idea of ‘ALL that is to be known of existence’ then you will be free of all its encumbrances and sufferings you are entangled with at present.

The above re your pursuit for ‘All There Is’ i.e. the impossible is where your are digging your own hole and entrapping yourself deep in it.
For Philosophy sake you must ask the above questions, note Russell’s ‘the purpose of philosophy is not to arrive at definite answers but to keep asking questions.’

As I had suggested you have to reframe your question and stop seeking and expecting answers to ’ what is ALL there is".

In one perspective, you are what you believe.

If you believe;
Because sans God I can only conclude [reasonably I believe] that we live in an essentially absurd and meaningless universe that ends for “I” in oblivion.
then you are bringing pessimistic sufferings to yourself.

As I had posted somewhere, DNA wise all human beings are born with an inherent meaning to life and what we need to do is to reflect with knowledge, understand it and strive to flow with it as much as possible.

The point is you don’t have sufficient knowledge to do it at present and you do not show any interest in gathering the necessary knowledge, e.g. knowledge of the “I” which I had proposed in another post.

If you cannot get the essential and relevant knowledge for various reasons, then the most effective way is to psycho-analyze and accept whatever is more psychologically positive, i.e. the optimistic view rather than the pessimistic.

You got the above wrong and that is where it created your own bottleneck to hinder any progress within you.

The point is the path to any knowledge must start with abstraction, if not what else.

  1. From the abstraction we form/argue a reasonable hypothesis.
  2. Then the hypothesis is tested with available evidences.
  3. If proven, the hypothesis will be concluded as knowledge.

What I have done is to follow the above methodology.
Note process 1 is firstly to be argued with reasons/thoughts only to generate a reasonable hypothesis.
Accordingly I have countered with reason, ‘God is an impossibility’ because the idea of God cannot even pass process 1. The idea of God is moot and a non-starter.
With process 1, what other processes can I do other than to argue to agree or reject the hypothesis. Yes, it has to be a world and war of words only in process 1.

I am arguing the same for your insistence to know ‘ALL there is’ which cannot be a feasible hypothesis. You are chasing an illusion. Give this up and you will be a ‘free’ man.

Somehow you don’t have a very good working short-term memory.
I believe the analytical/intellectual must be complemented with the practical.
I have presented loads of practical views in addition to the intellectual.

Buddha’s 4NT-8FP -A Life Problem Solving Technique
Note the viewtopic.php?f=5&t=187395&p=2516030&hilit=4NT#p2516030

This is not a theoretical model merely to be discussed, one has to carry out the relevant process to rewire one’s brain for the purpose.
I suggested you give up the impossible idea ‘All to be known re existence’.

I believed I have discussed the issue of abortion. I believe this issue even if you do not agree with whatever should be taken as ‘spilt milk’ thus why bother about the past, just focus on the present and plan for the future. Just accept no fallible humans can be absolutely perfect. We already have 7+ billion i.e. much more enough to ensure the reproduction of the next generation and preservation of the species.

As for my own conflicting good;
For the good of humanity, I believe all religions has potential for evils and some are committing terrible evil acts thus preferably should be weaned off now if possible but nevertheless I accept it cannot be done at present for various critical reasons, so I believe we have to accept religion for what they are at the present.
To understand this dilemma I have gone at length to dig up whatever [fact] is relevant to understand the issue and do what is necessary, i.e. critique the problem.
I am well equipped [theory and practice] not to be emotionally bothered by such a dilemma.

I don’t fit in with Durant’s point.
It is most likely he was referring to academic philosophy, which someone has condemned as ‘incestuous’.

As I mentioned above, Philosophy-proper must essentially both be theoretical and practical.

Somehow with the above points you are describing yourself. You are defending your own self-defeating and non-progressive position in a very efficient manner.

Note your problem is centered on point 1.
As I had suggested you must exhaust as much as possible what is to be known of the “I”.
Then one must do the necessary exercises [practical] to modulate the impulses of the empirical “I” from the depth of the psyche. So the ‘knowing’ must be complemented with the ‘doing’.

You don’t realize you are the one who is entrapped by your intellectual contraption literally, i.e. the yearning to know ‘All there is’ which hinder your path to move forward and progress in some ways.

Btw, I believe we are going in circles. The only one who can yank yourself out of your own self-dug hole is yourself.