God is dying. Will he be dead?

[Newme]

Respectfully I disagree. Faith ought to be reasonable and functional.

Faith as conventionally understood is beyond reasoning and analysis. Faith is what you have decided, given a choice, to believe in. Faith is stronger than selection. It can be functional.

I agree with the implication that faith is trusting in some idea etc, without full knowledge. But there are educated guesses and dysfunctional/stupid guesses.

Everyone has faith. Nobody knows everything about everything they think, say or do. A lot of faith exercised is subconscious - assumptions, beliefs, cognitive distortions, motivations etc. According to Paul Tillech everyone worships a god/ultimate-concern. Whatever is most concerning - where their faith is mostly - is their god. So God is not & never will be, dead.

[gad-fly]

Faith as conventionally understood is beyond reasoning and analysis. Faith is what you have decided, given a choice, to believe in. Faith is stronger than selection. It can be functional.

I agree with the implication that faith is trusting in some idea etc, without full knowledge. But there are educated guesses and dysfunctional/stupid guesses.

Everyone has faith. Nobody knows everything about everything they think, say or do. A lot of faith exercised is subconscious - assumptions, beliefs, cognitive distortions, motivations etc. According to Paul Tillech everyone worships a god/ultimate-concern. Whatever is most concerning - where their faith is mostly - is their god. So God is not & never will be, dead.

Faith is a leap over a gap of reasoning. Hence the leap of faith. Everyone worships a God? Paul whoever must be speaking for himself. Faith is mostly in God? I can have faith in you too. Indeed, some may have more faith in you than in God.

[Newme]

I agree with the implication that faith is trusting in some idea etc, without full knowledge. But there are educated guesses and dysfunctional/stupid guesses.

Everyone has faith. Nobody knows everything about everything they think, say or do. A lot of faith exercised is subconscious - assumptions, beliefs, cognitive distortions, motivations etc. According to Paul Tillech everyone worships a god/ultimate-concern. Whatever is most concerning - where their faith is mostly - is their god. So God is not & never will be, dead.

Faith is a leap over a gap of reasoning. Hence the leap of faith. Everyone worships a God? Paul whoever must be speaking for himself. Faith is mostly in God? I can have faith in you too. Indeed, some may have more faith in you than in God.

Still, faith, even a “leap of faith” - is not ignoring truth - that’s denial.

How do you define God? God is defined in countless ways - hundreds in just the Bible. Most atheists seem to borrow from the most insane definitions from the Old Testament because like a straw man, they’re easier to dispute.

So how do YOU, personally define God? Do you go along with theist or atheist dogma in your definition? Bandwagon logical fallacy is another common error on both sides. Who dares think for themself - or even consider someone else who thinks outside the box, like Paul Tillech? Tillech suggested god as more based on what a person worshipped or prioritized in PRACTICE... their “ultimate concern.” Makes more sense than a tyrannical grandpa in the sky. Though belief tends to have “true influence” because it colors all we perceive. So, what do you prioritize? Car, work, family? And what would be best for you to prioritize, ideally?

[gad-fly]

Faith is a leap over a gap of reasoning. Hence the leap of faith. Everyone worships a God? Paul whoever must be speaking for himself. Faith is mostly in God? I can have faith in you too. Indeed, some may have more faith in you than in God.

Still, faith, even a “leap of faith” - is not ignoring truth - that’s denial.

How do you define God? God is defined in countless ways - hundreds in just the Bible. Most atheists seem to borrow from the most insane definitions from the Old Testament because like a straw man, they’re easier to dispute.

So how do YOU, personally define God? Do you go along with theist or atheist dogma in your definition? Bandwagon logical fallacy is another common error on both sides. Who dares think for themself - or even consider someone else who thinks outside the box, like Paul Tillech? Tillech suggested god as more based on what a person worshipped or prioritized in PRACTICE... their “ultimate concern.” Makes more sense than a tyrannical grandpa in the sky. Though belief tends to have “true influence” because it colors all we perceive. So, what do you prioritize? Car, work, family? And what would be best for you to prioritize, ideally?

God is a theological term. I would not mention 'God' unless in connection with religious existence. Who is Paul Tillech? He is probably speaking metaphorically or proverbially when he said we worship the ultimate concern. Most of us don't. We aspire to our ultimate concern, and that is it. More likely, we worship idols, and superstar.

[gad-fly]

How do you define God? God is defined in countless ways - hundreds in just the Bible. Most atheists seem to borrow from the most insane definitions from the Old Testament because like a straw man, they’re easier to dispute.

Different religions have God defined differently. Atheist definition: God does not exist to earn a definition. The Bible? In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The Bible defines God as the creator. What follows after that definition is description (not definition) of what God has done. In this respect, there are no such thing as "insane definitions in the Bible", but only interesting stories.

There is no need for Atheists to dispute religious stories. Strictly speaking, no one can dispute a story which claims to be factual history. Atheist position is simple on the Bible: No, I do not not believe God 's creation. Thus it is very easy to become an atheist, not that I am recommending you to.

[Sy Borg]

Thus it is very easy to become an atheist, not that I am recommending you to.

I find it easier to agnostic to the most general claims of creation, given that we cannot even be sure that our perspective of reality prioritises the most important things.

Medium-sized mammals clinging to the surface of a planet in a vast cosmos, evolved to only notice or care about that which aids successful procreation, and utterly bound by the world's gravity and chemistry, are perhaps not in an ideal position to objectively comprehend the ultimate nature of reality.

[Sculptor1]

“God is Dead.” is a widely-quoted statement by Friedrich Nietzsche to express his idea that the Enlightenment has eliminated the possibility of the existence of God. After Mark Twain’s obituary was mistakenly published, he sent a cable from London stating “The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated”. Put the two together, and substitute Twain by God, we could have “The reports of God’s death are greatly exaggerated”, but for the sake that God has not cabled back from London. Once aroused by Nietzsche, debates and reports on God’s death have continued and are likely to continue into the foreseeable future.

I am not here to bury God, or to praise him. When we humans first emerged on Earth, God’s angry super-power is everywhere, in thunderstorm, solar eclipse, earthquake, and volcanic eruption. On the good side, we would show our genuine appreciation after a good harvest, with animal and sometimes even with human sacrifice. Not today, though. Some of us after winning the jackpot would not even say thank you, let alone donating to the church. It is apparent that God’s presence has been vastly reduced, from say over 50% to lower than 1%. From this historical perspective, it should be fair to suggest that he is dying.

Assuming that he can continue to die away, when will he be dead? It cannot be ruled out that he may outlive the human race. Or should we issue his dead certificate only when his presence is dropped to below 0.01%?

40% of Americans think that the story of Noah's Ark is literally true.
God cannot die, because a thing that never lived cannot die.
Ideas do not live, but fester like viruses to pop up again and again.

[gad-fly]

I find it easier to agnostic to the most general claims of creation, given that we cannot even be sure that our perspective of reality prioritises the most important things.

Medium-sized mammals clinging to the surface of a planet in a vast cosmos, evolved to only notice or care about that which aids successful procreation, and utterly bound by the world's gravity and chemistry, are perhaps not in an ideal position to objectively comprehend the ultimate nature of reality.

A rational being would prioritize his perspective of reality, unless he is in denial. It is possible for a few in society to be in denial, but almost impossible for the majority. In this respect, that a society's priority does not accord with one's own can only be traced to the difference in the perspective, namely, one's does not accord with that of the majority.

We may not be in a position to comprehend "the ultimate nature of reality", but we have no Plan B. We have to comprehend reality even if it may not be ultimate.

Will God be dead? First you have to confront the perspective: Is he alive? As an idea, he is. Whether you like the idea or not is another question.

[Angel Trismegistus]

“God is Dead.” is a widely-quoted statement by Friedrich Nietzsche to express his idea that the Enlightenment has eliminated the possibility of the existence of God....

It is apparent that God’s presence has been vastly reduced, from say over 50% to lower than 1%. From this historical perspective, it should be fair to suggest that he is dying.

Assuming that he can continue to die away, when will he be dead? It cannot be ruled out that he may outlive the human race. Or should we issue his dead certificate only when his presence is dropped to below 0.01%?

God exists or God does not exist irrespective of the belief or disbelief of Mankind.
Mankind's belief or disbelief in God does not in any way determine the actual existence or non-existence of God.
"God is dead" can only sensibly express a proposition about belief, not about God.

If no one on earth believed in the existence of God, or if everyone on earth disbelieved in the existence of God, or indeed even if everyone on earth believed in the existence of God, still would God's existence remain an open question.

[gad-fly]

God exists or God does not exist irrespective of the belief or disbelief of Mankind.
Mankind's belief or disbelief in God does not in any way determine the actual existence or non-existence of God.
"God is dead" can only sensibly express a proposition about belief, not about God.

That the first two sentences hold is self-evident.

On the third sentence, "God is dead" is a proposition about God. "Does God exists?" is a question about God. "God exists" is a belief about God. All three are about God.

[Angel Trismegistus]

God exists or God does not exist irrespective of the belief or disbelief of Mankind.
Mankind's belief or disbelief in God does not in any way determine the actual existence or non-existence of God.
"God is dead" can only sensibly express a proposition about belief, not about God.

That the first two sentences hold is self-evident.

On the third sentence, "God is dead" is a proposition about God. "Does God exists?" is a question about God. "God exists" is a belief about God. All three are about God.

God is the grammatical subject of all three sentences, yes, and in that grammatical sense "all three are about God." But God is no more "dead" than God was "alive." These are figures of speech expressing beliefs about God, or the currency of belief in God, not properties of God. At any rate so it seems to me.

[Sculptor1]

Nothing can "be" dead.
BOB died.
Bob is dead.
All good.
But being is the converse of non being, and dead is non being.
So God cannot be. Is possible.
But god cannot be dead.

[gad-fly]

But God is no more "dead" than God was "alive." These are figures of speech expressing beliefs about God, or the currency of belief in God, not properties of God. At any rate so it seems to me.

"God is dead or alive" is about his status, not about his property, but the title of this thread "Will he be dead?" is about his property. The former may involve belief, but the latter does not.

[Angel Trismegistus]

But God is no more "dead" than God was "alive." These are figures of speech expressing beliefs about God, or the currency of belief in God, not properties of God. At any rate so it seems to me.

"God is dead or alive" is about his status, not about his property, but the title of this thread "Will he be dead?" is about his property. The former may involve belief, but the latter does not.

If "God is dead or alive" is about the status of God in the minds and hearts of men -- i.e., about the incidence of belief in God among men -- and that was precisely my point -- then by what rationale does "dead" become a property of God? If you recognize that these figures of speech express status, whereby does "dead" then become a property? And what does it mean as a property of God?

[gad-fly]

"God is dead or alive" is about his status, not about his property, but the title of this thread "Will he be dead?" is about his property. The former may involve belief, but the latter does not.

then by what rationale does "dead" become a property of God? If you recognize that these figures of speech express status, whereby does "dead" then become a property? And what does it mean as a property of God?

It appears you agree with what I have said: God is dead is about his status, not about his property. Being "dead" is not a property.