Philosophy Discussion Forums

JackDaydream wrote: ↑April 4th, 2022, 3:36 pm Or is like the way van Daniken and Graham Hamcock saw them as beings who existed in ancient times...

I'm fairly sure von Daniken was exposed as a fake. I was as impressed as anyone when "Chariot of the Gods" was published.

Carl Sagan, in his Foreword to The Space Gods Revealed wrote:That writing as careless as von Däniken's, whose principal thesis is that our ancestors were dummies, should be so popular is a sober commentary on the credulousness and despair of our times. I also hope for the continuing popularity of books like Chariots of the Gods? in high school and college logic courses, as object lessons in sloppy thinking. I know of no recent books so riddled with logical and factual errors as the works of von Däniken.

Hancock I've never heard of, but a very brief scan of his website looks ... suspect to me.

Raymond wrote: ↑April 4th, 2022, 3:19 pm Not sure what you mean by the ongoing philosophical problem. How can gods be a philosophical problem?

Surely anything that can usefully be subjected to serious thought and consideration is a philosophical 'problem'?

JackDaydream wrote: ↑April 4th, 2022, 3:36 pm I am aware that you use the term gods as opposed to the idea of one which is more usual. So, I am interested in what sense do you mean gods? Is it like the way the Hindus or pagans see god? ... So, I am interested in what you mean by gods because it is more common in mythology than philosophy discussions.

I'm sorry, I missed this more, er, toothsome part of your post.

Mythology is a sot of waste bin where Gods that no longer have enough followers to object are discarded. I see no reason at all to believe that Ishtar is in any way inferior to a God known by another name. I side with the Hindus, who believe that any and all 'Gods' are aspects of the one, unfathomable, God. So all Gods are valid, in my belief system, at least.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 5th, 2022, 8:09 am

JackDaydream wrote: ↑April 4th, 2022, 3:36 pm Or is like the way van Daniken and Graham Hamcock saw them as beings who existed in ancient times...

I'm fairly sure von Daniken was exposed as a fake. I was as impressed as anyone when "Chariot of the Gods" was published.

Carl Sagan, in his Foreword to The Space Gods Revealed wrote:That writing as careless as von Däniken's, whose principal thesis is that our ancestors were dummies, should be so popular is a sober commentary on the credulousness and despair of our times. I also hope for the continuing popularity of books like Chariots of the Gods? in high school and college logic courses, as object lessons in sloppy thinking. I know of no recent books so riddled with logical and factual errors as the works of von Däniken.

Hancock I've never heard of, but a very brief scan of his website looks ... suspect to me.

I only looked at von Daniken briefly when I picked it up in the library. I thought about it later when I read Jung's book, 'Flying Saucers', in which Jung critiques this view and the whole idea of human beings seeing aliens as aspects of the mythological imagination. In particular, he sees supposed encounters with aliens as the replacement for angels. Actually, I have met more people who have said they have seen angels than aliens.

But, I have read a number of other books which speak of a different perspective to the conventional creation story or evolution. One key idea is that of the Nephilim race. I don't know if there is any evidence and, as you know, I can get carried away with speculation.

However, I don't rule out such origins of humanity in connection with 'gods'. There may be a lot more to the origins of humanity than realised, especially as it appears that some ancient people were extremely advanced. In particular, the technology of the pyramids is linked to this. I will see if I still have any of the books on this and this interpretation of the gods, and if I can, I will put in an entry later today on it.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 5th, 2022, 8:26 am

JackDaydream wrote: ↑April 4th, 2022, 3:36 pm I am aware that you use the term gods as opposed to the idea of one which is more usual. So, I am interested in what sense do you mean gods? Is it like the way the Hindus or pagans see god? ... So, I am interested in what you mean by gods because it is more common in mythology than philosophy discussions.

I'm sorry, I missed this more, er, toothsome part of your post.

Mythology is a sot of waste bin where Gods that no longer have enough followers to object are discarded. I see no reason at all to believe that Ishtar is in any way inferior to a God known by another name. I side with the Hindus, who believe that any and all 'Gods' are aspects of the one, unfathomable, God. So all Gods are valid, in my belief system, at least.

I see your later entry. The truth of the matter is that I am not certain how to take the idea of gods exactly. Mostly, I see them as mythological, but have moments when I wonder if there is more to it. I have met pagans who definitely believe that there are many deities and even traditions like Celtic Christianity do speak of powers, often interconnected with nature. I keep an open mind and will keep reading.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 5th, 2022, 8:11 am

Raymond wrote: ↑April 4th, 2022, 3:19 pm Not sure what you mean by the ongoing philosophical problem. How can gods be a philosophical problem?

Surely anything that can usefully be subjected to serious thought and consideration is a philosophical 'problem'?

Yes. We can philosophize about the gods. I think there are as many gods as creatures in the universe. As heaven is much bigger than the Earth there has to be life on other planets too.

The fine-tuning problem can be considered as the problem why the coupling constants have the values the have. You can direct this problem into a fictional domain of a string landscape but gods explain this just as well. The problem that arises in string theory is why strings or branes have the tensions they have. The theory offers no recipe for this and poses even bigger problems than a preon model. When the gap is closed there is no more god of the gaps but gods that explain. Particles, spacetime, and the laws describing them can't pull themselves into existence.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 5th, 2022, 8:26 am I side with the Hindus, who believe that any and all 'Gods' are aspects of the one, unfathomable, God.

You could call God a thousand different names, this will not change who God is

So all Gods are valid, in my belief system, at least.

You will never look into the eyes of anyone who does not matter to God. The same God hears all our prayers despite all our differences. We have a duty to care for all of God's creation; and that has to mean caring for each other despite all our differences. At some point, we shall all stand before the same God and give an account of how we looked after his creation.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 5th, 2022, 8:26 am I side with the Hindus, who believe that any and all 'Gods' are aspects of the one, unfathomable, God.

EricPH wrote: ↑April 6th, 2022, 10:17 am You could call God a thousand different names, this will not change who God is

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 6th, 2022, 10:32 am

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 5th, 2022, 8:26 am I side with the Hindus, who believe that any and all 'Gods' are aspects of the one, unfathomable, God.

EricPH wrote: ↑April 6th, 2022, 10:17 am You could call God a thousand different names, this will not change who God is

"I side with the Hindus, who believe that any and all 'Gods' are aspects of the one, unfathomable, God."

This is the equivalent of the one unified omni-superGod of Xenophanes. It has a counterpart idea in science: the existence of one unfathomable reality we can call many names but never be really sure of. Which is a detached idea (detached of people or other creatures). Inhuman, that is. Of course you can value men's attempts to reach for it but basically you say we all are wrong.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 5th, 2022, 8:26 am I side with the Hindus, who believe that any and all 'Gods' are aspects of the one, unfathomable, God.

Raymond wrote: ↑April 6th, 2022, 10:52 am [...]
Of course you can value men's attempts to reach for it but basically you say we all are wrong.

On the contrary, I'm fairly sure I said we're all right.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 6th, 2022, 12:53 pm

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 5th, 2022, 8:26 am I side with the Hindus, who believe that any and all 'Gods' are aspects of the one, unfathomable, God.

Raymond wrote: ↑April 6th, 2022, 10:52 am [...]
Of course you can value men's attempts to reach for it but basically you say we all are wrong.

On the contrary, I'm fairly sure I said we're all right.

That's what I mean. We all have our own reality. Our own oobjective truth.

Raymond wrote: ↑April 6th, 2022, 2:24 pm

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 6th, 2022, 12:53 pm

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 5th, 2022, 8:26 am I side with the Hindus, who believe that any and all 'Gods' are aspects of the one, unfathomable, God.

Raymond wrote: ↑April 6th, 2022, 10:52 am [...]
Of course you can value men's attempts to reach for it but basically you say we all are wrong.

On the contrary, I'm fairly sure I said we're all right.

That's what I mean. We all have our own reality. Our own oobjective truth.

That is where it gets complicated because each of us may believe that our own understanding of reality is the one which is the objective truth. Some dismiss this by saying it is simply subjective, but that may be denying its validity. Some look and see life in terms of a God or gods while others don't. This may be where the question of the existence of God, and what this means may have a phenomenological aspect, as being about perception of truth.

EricPH wrote: ↑April 6th, 2022, 10:17 am

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 5th, 2022, 8:26 am I side with the Hindus, who believe that any and all 'Gods' are aspects of the one, unfathomable, God.

You could call God a thousand different names, this will not change who God is

So all Gods are valid, in my belief system, at least.

You will never look into the eyes of anyone who does not matter to God. The same God hears all our prayers despite all our differences. We have a duty to care for all of God's creation; and that has to mean caring for each other despite all our differences. At some point, we shall all stand before the same God and give an account of how we looked after his creation.

I think that your post points to the 'one', as Plotinus spoke of, as the source beyond the many different pluralities. In some ways, even if some don't call it God at all, it is about the link between human consciousness and everything, including nature and the self.

Raymond wrote: ↑April 6th, 2022, 2:24 pm Our own objective truth.

No, not objective. That's a misuse of the word, in the context of its use on a philosophy forum. But I'm fed up of saying this, and offering explanations as to why. The End.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 6th, 2022, 3:50 pm

Raymond wrote: ↑April 6th, 2022, 2:24 pm Our own objective truth.

No, not objective. That's a misuse of the word, in the context of its use on a philosophy forum. But I'm fed up of saying this, and offering explanations as to why. The End.

Still I consider my model objectively truth, in the philosophical sense. Absolutely true, for everyone. But I don't expect anyone to accept it or think conformingly. The idea that we can't know the absolute truth is unacceptable for me. Precisely because I think I have found it. The holy grail...