My grandfather Paul Tillich, the unbelieving theologian

Nature of God and Existence

• Several comments unpack Tillich’s “God does not exist” as: existence is a property of finite things within the universe, so calling God a “being” alongside squirrels and rocks is a category mistake.
• This is linked to classical negative theology: God as beyond space, time, and predicates; known more by what God is not than by what God is.
• Comparisons are drawn to traditional views that God is “Being itself” rather than one being among others.
• Some see continuity with orthodox Christianity; others find Tillich’s formulation new‑age‑ish or dangerously vague.

Faith, Evidence, and Experience

• Sharp disagreement over whether humans “need faith.”
• One side defines religious faith as belief without evidence and rejects it as harmful or intellectually dishonest.
• Others argue:
  • Everyone relies on trust/“faith” in practice (e.g., in science, institutions, bridges).
  • Religious faith can be based on personal experience plus philosophical and historical arguments (especially around the Gospels and resurrection).
  • Faith in scripture is described by some as confidence that motivates action, not mere assent without evidence.
• Skeptics question historical and philosophical “proofs of God,” seeing them as time‑bound or fallacious; proponents insist they are debated but not debunked.

Ambiguity, Language, and Theology

• One thread argues Tillich’s ambiguity is morally dangerous: it’s easy to co‑opt vague God‑language to avoid ethical demands.
• Others counter that all complex discourse (including physics and programming specs) contains ambiguity; some is even deliberate and useful.
• Debate over whether any theology or text can truly be “less ambiguous” than another.

Morality, Purpose, and Meaning

• Long exchange on whether moral claims (“slavery is wrong,” “we ought to reproduce”) are objective truths or subjective values rooted in biology and culture.
• One side defends moral realism: moral “oughts” are truths not reducible to feelings or evolutionary facts.
• The other side sees morality as value‑laden, contingent, and closer to shared practice than to scientific fact.
• Separately, “purpose” is discussed: some tie it biologically to reproduction; others insist that facts about evolution cannot by themselves dictate what we ought to do.

Simulation, Metaphysics, and Limits of Science

• The simulation hypothesis is used as a secular analog of “God”: an undetectable perfect simulation is logically indistinguishable from a universe sustained by a hidden deity.
• Some embrace this as pushing toward agnosticism; others criticize it as an unfalsifiable, scientifically worthless hypothesis.
• Side debates touch on falsifiability, axioms in math, and whether science can address ultimate questions.

Institutions and Power

• A quoted view portrays all institutions (including churches) as inherently prone to corruption and self‑preservation, often betraying their stated ideals.
• Commenters agree institutions are necessary yet dangerous; they must be both used and seen clearly.