Philosophy Discussion Forums

Ormond wrote:

You are affirming God but denying that God is a being.

If God is everything everywhere (a single unified reality), then God would exist, but not as a "being" ie. something separate and distinct.

So why call it "God" someone is probably about to ask? Indeed. Why call it anything, because any word we might use will imply separation and division, such is the nature of nouns. Even the definition "everything" suggests a collection of things.

All such discussions are built upon the highly speculative almost laughable unproven assumption that the highly imperfect reasoning powers of a single half insane species only recently living in caves on one little planet in one of billions of galaxies are adequate to analyze and discuss the most fundamental nature of all reality, the scope of God proposals.

It's not this or that conclusion within the God debate that is irrational.

It's the debate itself.

Until our esteemed fellow members get that, they will be condemned to travel endlessly round and round the same little circle to no useful effect.

Given that most members here are pretty intelligent, and that this has been explained about 1,000 times and never been refuted, we can come to a new theory.

We aren't actually interested in the God subject at all. We're interested in the experience of nerdy head butting. If that is true, that would help explain why we never make any progress on the topic itself. We aren't interested in the topic, and don't want to make any progress on it, because progress might threaten the head butting game.

BINGO!! You get it! But then, I knew you would.

-- Updated December 29th, 2016, 1:20 pm to add the following --

In Post #240 I said some things that are important to understand if the critic is ever to get what I'm saying. I'm pretty sure you understand what was said even if you do not agree; I'm equally certain that others here are too fixated on their own preconceptions to even try to get it.

Gertie:

It's also almost certainly right we don't understand much at all in the scheme of things, maybe we aren't even capable of more than a distorted perception or understanding of a tiny fraction of reality. And as critters with a need for understanding, for a meaningful and coherent model or narrative, we make stuff up which feels right, satisfies less tangible needs, our existential angst. Materialism does a good practical job of making the world manageable, religious faith fulfils a need to make the world more psychologically manageable.

Precisely, agreed .

Religious faith appears to fulfil an emotional need in many that is not provided by any other school of thought. It directly deals with our existential angst (almost academically) and offers something to be hopeful for in the aspect of life, that as far as we know is the absolute end of it.

Ormond:

All such discussions are built upon the highly speculative almost laughable unproven assumption that the highly imperfect reasoning powers of a single half insane species only recently living in caves on one little planet in one of billions of galaxies are adequate to analyze and discuss the most fundamental nature of all reality, the scope of God proposals.

And that is why atheism, that is, skepticism with regard to theistic and transcendent claims, is the only rational option. Note, this form of atheism differs from those that are the obverse of positive theistic and transcendent claims. It does not claim that theistic and transcendent claims are false, but only that they cannot be determined to be true.

We aren't actually interested in the God subject at all. We're interested in the experience of nerdy head butting.

While I think it true that we all enjoy this form of sparring, I also think there is more to it. We do not raise questions and state beliefs about the most fundamental nature of all reality simply in order to butt heads ( I will leave aside the problem of buttheads). The Socratic philosophical tradition is one in which such ideas are examined and evaluated. Although the tendency is to double-down and hold fast to whatever one claims, I have seen over time changes in the way some here think about these things.

If God is everything everywhere (a single unified reality), then God would exist, but not as a "being" ie. something separate and distinct.

Why is this not a highly speculative almost laughable unproven assumption? If, as you say, and I think you are right, we are limited and thus inadequately suited to analyze and discuss the most fundamental nature of all reality, then we should refrain from making claims such as the ones you made above that God is everything everywhere, God is a single unified reality, and those made by Dark Matter that God is an infinite, self-referential system.

To be clear, there is a difference between the most fundamental nature of all reality and claims about the most fundamental nature of all reality, and thus, even though we are ill-suited to analyze and discuss that reality, we are well suited to analyze claims and assumptions about it. We can, for example, ask about the basis on which such claims are made and why we should accept these claims as true rather than others. We can determine whether such claims are pistic, epistemic, and/or ontological.

Dark Matter wrote:

Dclements wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

Your argument is both a hasty generalization fallacy and a straw man argument: it is a given that not ALL atheist think the way that that you accuse them of so it is also a given that you are misrepresenting their beliefs in order to undermine an argument that is easier to attack than the one they actually believe.

While it is true that SOME atheists may think the way your accusing them of (there is likely enough of us that one or two my be misguided enough to think that way) and there might SOME (again even one or two of us) that make similar hasty generalization fallacies and a straw man arguments as you have, such issues do not give you an excuse to fill your own argument with such fallacies yourself.

Pot...kettle.

I think you are either misunderstanding many atheists position, misrepresenting your own position or both. However again just in your last paragraph you are making another hasty generalization fallacy since it is a given that not ALL atheist think the way that you believe that they think.

Any example of atheists thinking differently?

I know this is asking a lot but in the future try not to accuse ALL people in a very large group of thinking in a certain way since it is next to impossible for you to really know what they are thinking. In fact even knowing what a single individual forum member is really thinking is likely beyond your capabilities (since it is out of reach of most forum members), so it is best to be careful if you try doing that. Doing this would be for your own good more than mine since it would help make your position more logical/rational in future arguments.

How about yu not misrepresenting what I said by omitting the word "here"?

Or in other words you are saying it is a given that Christians are 'right' and atheists are 'wrong' which of course is a non sequitur fallacy. An easy counter to your argument is that there are other religions and systems of beliefs that are just as 'good' as Christianity, even if such religions and systems of belief do NOT include believing and worshiping 'God'.

And of course this argument continues with your hasty generalization fallacies you made earlier. While it isn't a perfect way of looking at it, knowing that there are so many theist and so many atheist (or atheistic yet still religious people) that as a rule of thumb there has to be some 'good' and 'bad' people in each group so what religion or system of beliefs I person subscribes to do not make it a given that they are 'good' and 'bad' person; it is the 'additional beliefs' that a person has that determines that.

Is that what I said? Or are you projecting?

Or in other words one must give up not only almost all material possessions but a great deal of sanity and personal perseverance to be a true 'believer' and knight of faith' that Kierkegaard is talking about. But the catch to this is that most Christians are either unable and/or unwilling to do this themselves, while even people who do NOT believe in any Abrahamic religion or even 'God' can become 'knights of faith' for other causes other than 'God'. In short, this whole monopoly Christianity has on 'faith' and 'knights of faith'(aka. extreme 'faith') is a farce since it can be done through other religions and systems of belief. Or as they put it in Taoism 'there is always more than one path for one to find THE WAY'; which is one of the reasons I really like studying eastern religion/philosophy.

I've read about a dozen translations of the Tao Te Ching and none of them said anything like 'there is always more than one path for one to find THE WAY.' Are you referring instead to what has been called 'the pathless land'?

According to Kierkegaard, what is a human being? Do you know, or do you want me to tell you?

I now realize I was mistaken to expect a real conversation. In cases like this all I can say is 'whatever' and find better uses for my time.

Ya know...it really is amusing to watch skeptics rationalize their prejudices, presuppositions and misperceptions.

That being said, Foolso4 was right when he said, "We should refrain from making claims such as the ones you made above that God is everything everywhere, God is a single unified reality, and those made by Dark Matter that God is an infinite, self-referential system." Hell, that's the whole point! But then he goes on to say, "We can, for example, ask about the basis on which such claims are made and why we should accept these claims," which misses the point.

Ormond wrote:Until our esteemed fellow members get that, they will be condemned to travel endlessly round and round the same little circle to no useful effect.

Given that most members here are pretty intelligent, and that this has been explained about 1,000 times and never been refuted, we can come to a new theory.

We aren't actually interested in the God subject at all. We're interested in the experience of nerdy head butting. If that is true, that would help explain why we never make any progress on the topic itself. We aren't interested in the topic, and don't want to make any progress on it, because progress might threaten the head butting game.

Only a few of us have actually addressed the actual OP. I don't mind threads digressing, but not if there is growing antipathy such as DM's last contemptuous comment. One more like that and the thread is locked.

Dark Matter:

That being said, Foolso4 was right when he said, "We should refrain from making claims such as the ones you made above that God is everything everywhere, God is a single unified reality, and those made by Dark Matter that God is an infinite, self-referential system." Hell, that's the whole point!

The whole point is that you should not be making the claims that you are making?

But then he goes on to say, "We can, for example, ask about the basis on which such claims are made and why we should accept these claims," which misses the point

.

What point do you think I am missing if I ask about the basis on which you make claims about God and why anyone should accept those claims? Are they based on knowledge? Plotinus would answer in the affirmative, but can you? Have you had the transcendent experience that he claimed he had? Have you achieved unification?

As I was about to post this I saw Greta’s latest post. In an attempt to steer this thread back on track I will point out that your claim is not so different than that of an atheist who denies the existence of God. You claim that God exists but does not do anything wrong because God does not do anything, while the atheist says God does not do anything because God does not exist.

Fooloso4 wrote:To be clear, there is a difference between the most fundamental nature of all reality and claims about the most fundamental nature of all reality, and thus, even though we are ill-suited to analyze and discuss that reality, we are well suited to analyze claims and assumptions about it.

My wife raises squirrels in her office and they sit on her lap with her while she surfs the web. The squirrels have seen the Internet on her computer screen. Are those squirrels well suited to discuss the nature of the Internet?

Every species on Earth would seem to be in the same position as those squirrels in relation to data from outside of their niche. The most reasonable assumption is that we too are in that position in relation to the very largest questions. Just a bunch of squirrels chattering on a branch.

This is a useful theory, because if it's true it opens the door to a new way of exploring these topics. The squirrels, and every other species on Earth, have no intellectual understanding of the Sun, but...

They can still experience the Sun.

I think the primary obstacle to this investigation is what I'd call "tool bias". We're a bunch of overthinking nerds, and so we insist the investigation must take place in the medium we are most comfortable in. It's the tool we care about, not the task at hand.

Fooloso4 wrote:We can, for example, ask about the basis on which such claims are made and why we should accept these claims as true rather than others. We can determine whether such claims are pistic, epistemic, and/or ontological.

We can do this only if we have a system of analysis which has been proven to be capable of meaningfully addressing the questions under investigation. Atheists rarely bother to even suggest any such proof. We are supposed to blindly believe in the infinite power (capable of addressing the largest of questions) of human reason, just as they do. That's fundamentally no different than those who start threads about "The Lord" upon the assumption that of course there is a Lord to be discussed.

Fooloso4 wrote:Dark Matter:

That being said, Foolso4 was right when he said, "We should refrain from making claims such as the ones you made above that God is everything everywhere, God is a single unified reality, and those made by Dark Matter that God is an infinite, self-referential system." Hell, that's the whole point!

The whole point is that you should not be making the claims that you are making?

Yup.

But then he goes on to say, "We can, for example, ask about the basis on which such claims are made and why we should accept these claims," which misses the point

What point do you think I am missing if I ask about the basis on which you make claims about God and why anyone should accept those claims? Are they based on knowledge? Plotinus would answer in the affirmative, but can you? Have you had the transcendent experience that he claimed he had? Have you achieved unification?

The point you're missing is that reality is not a concept; truth is found not in thought, but realized in relating. And how does one achieve something that has always been and cannot be otherwise?

As I was about to post this I saw Greta’s latest post. In an attempt to steer this thread back on track I will point out that your claim is not so different than that of an atheist who denies the existence of God. You claim that God exists but does not do anything wrong because God does not do anything, while the atheist says God does not do anything because God does not exist.

By saying "God does not do anything because God does not exist," you are in effect denying your own existence. But, hey, whatever floats your boat, man.

-- Updated December 29th, 2016, 7:15 pm to add the following --

Greta wrote:

Ormond wrote:Until our esteemed fellow members get that, they will be condemned to travel endlessly round and round the same little circle to no useful effect.

Given that most members here are pretty intelligent, and that this has been explained about 1,000 times and never been refuted, we can come to a new theory.

We aren't actually interested in the God subject at all. We're interested in the experience of nerdy head butting. If that is true, that would help explain why we never make any progress on the topic itself. We aren't interested in the topic, and don't want to make any progress on it, because progress might threaten the head butting game.

Only a few of us have actually addressed the actual OP. I don't mind threads digressing, but not if there is growing antipathy such as DM's last contemptuous comment. One more like that and the thread is locked.

Does that go for you to contemptuously dismissing what theists say a superstition, or are you exempt?

Dark Matter:

The point you're missing is that reality is not a concept; truth is found not in thought, but realized in relating.

It is not reality but the conceptual construct you call reality that is in question.

And how does one achieve something that has always been and cannot be otherwise?

I thought you would be familiar with Plotinus’ unification. It is something to be realized and is not realized by holding to the concept of henosis, but achieved in transcendent experience. It is deification through the practice of theurgy that ends in reunification. It is absolutely something that is to be achieved. It is the only thing to be achieved. All the rest is just words.

By saying "God does not do anything because God does not exist," you are in effect denying your own existence. But, hey, whatever floats your boat,man

First, as I have said to you many times, I make no claims about the existence of God. Second, those who do make this claim are simply denying what you hold to be true. Third, since you are denying the existence of the God of Whitedragon and the majority of Christians hold, they might say the same to you, that you are in effect denying your own existence.

Dark Matter wrote:By saying "God does not do anything because God does not exist," you are in effect denying your own existence. But, hey, whatever floats your boat,man

Hm. If denying god's existence is equivalent to denying my own existence, then I'm god.

Let's assume you're right, Dark Matter, in this.

If you are right, then these things are necessarily true:

Since I am god, I know all the attributes of god that I am capable of knowing.

For starters, god is not omnipotent. Neither is he omniscient.

For continuation, god likes to satisfy himself in a most adult way while looking at scantily dressed women's pictures on the Internet. ("Whatever floats his boat," as you were so aptly read to have said, Dark Matter.)

Finally, god does not believe he exists. In fact, god has a certain diminutiative opinion for all creatures that believe that a god or any god or gods exist. God simply thinks they are successful at self-deluding, and at nothing else. That's the first reason they need to run and hang on to self-delusion like a crying little boy to his mother's apron.
------
Please observe that whatever I said above comes as a direct logical consequence of your claim.

-- Updated December 29th, 2016, 10:17 pm to add the following --

Dark Matter wrote:"We can, for example, ask about the basis on which such claims are made and why we should accept these claims," which misses the point.

In my humble opinion, it was you who missed the point, Dark Matter. The point being that a new point has been introduced.

You can't always revolve around the same one point. Even if that's the only point that floats your boat, so to speak.

Dark Matter wrote:Does that go for you to contemptuously dismissing what theists say a superstition, or are you exempt?

Of course religion is superstitious.

Superstition:
1. a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like.
2. a system or collection of such beliefs.
3. a custom or act based on such a belief.
4. irrational fear of what is unknown or mysterious, especially in connection with religion.
5. any blindly accepted belief or notion.

Are you saying that Christianity is not based on middle eastern Iron Age myths?

Note that superstitions may even be correct, but it's belief "not based on reason or knowledge" that characterises superstitious thought.

So you, as a believer in God, believe that reality is perfect, could imagine a better world? Might we we able to actually address the thread topic or are we to once again running around the faulty circles Ormond is pointing out?

Every time I open a thread, I hope to have my mind expanded. It's just a little bit soul crushing to arrive at a thread and just find bickering with not a single new or unique thought or idea.

Greta said,

It's just a little bit soul crushing to arrive at a thread and just find bickering with not a single new or unique thought or idea.

This is very true and soul crushing indeed. To take one example, some members opt for impossibility of understanding, while it should not take a genius to arrive to some basic conclusions. Instead of trying to understand the universe or the Lord himself, just try to understand the message, despite its allegorical genre.

The genre itself puts the impossible into a frame of understanding, where it empowers us to deal with these difficult issues. By questioning the genre, we lose the advantage of confining the issue and then have to deal with it in its raw form. Within the genre, we find solutions as myth often provides; the truths we gain from myth is more important than the myth, itself, being true.

When historians set history in a model, as they do in works, like the Bible, it really takes nothing else, but patience to unravel it to reach the true intent. Therefore, by taking myth, we see the Lord has done nothing wrong, we have; and how much worse it would be if he completely rejected humankind, instead of enduring by providing the law and sacrificing his Son. He had no need to do so and could easily have left us to our own devices.

By believing in myth, we do not believe in the myth itself, but the veracity of its message. Remaining stuck on the former, robs us from the latter; because to say there is no truth in myth is to oppose the very definition of myth. Lastly, no myth can persuade if its message is true, but it is just a story. Then it is about as affective as Humpty Dumpty is. In addition, as said, myth is a genre, and a genre alone does not determine whether the account is true or not, but the content of the account. Just because something is set in myth, does not mean that the content is fictional in itself.

Dark Matter wrote:

By saying "God does not do anything because God does not exist," you are in effect denying your own existence.

Implies that god or God is : that there is being or Being beyond what some puny brainmind is thinking. I like this as feels like ordinary common sense. However one's liking an idea is a matter of faith not reason or empirical investigation. I support faith insofar as faith lights the way ahead which tends the most to minimise suffering.

Greta wrote:Note that superstitions may even be correct, but it's belief "not based on reason or knowledge" that characterises superstitious thought.

Where is your evidence, reason or knowledge that the mental abilities of human beings are capable of meaningfully analyzing the very largest questions?

I've asked this about 10,000 times in too many threads to count, and none of our atheist friends have provided anything close to a credible answer, in fact, rarely even trying to do so.

The supposed so often declared huge difference between religious believers and atheist ideologues is a simply an ego inflating fantasy, and nothing more. Each side is using the other as a prop in the ego inflating exercise. Except for me of course, because I am vastly superior to everyone else in every way possible.