Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Belindi]

A far better question is what have humans done wrong to even think there is such an entity without asking where would IT have come from. And to think that even in these times there are still very many who think Jesus is going to save their pathetic, pitiable, moist little souls simply by their belief in Jesus as the son of a non-existent god. The REAL god is the ground you stand on and supports your existence.

The theists' God did not "come from" anywhere or anything. God is uncaused. God is not the only entty thta is uncaused, there is also absolute mind, and existence itself.From what you write you seem to prefer pantheism, and nature,, for the pantheist, is also uncaused.

[Tegularius]

A far better question is what have humans done wrong to even think there is such an entity without asking where would IT have come from. And to think that even in these times there are still very many who think Jesus is going to save their pathetic, pitiable, moist little souls simply by their belief in Jesus as the son of a non-existent god. The REAL god is the ground you stand on and supports your existence.

The theists' God did not "come from" anywhere or anything. God is uncaused. God is not the only entty thta is uncaused, there is also absolute mind, and existence itself.From what you write you seem to prefer pantheism, and nature,, for the pantheist, is also uncaused.

For anything to exist, actually exist or exist in the form it has, never required a cause in the first place. Cause overlaps with intention of which the universe knows nothing, not even itself as having a beginning. Gods and absolute minds are chimeras of an imagination impervious to reality. Absolute mind! No one ever explained what that's supposed to mean. God is definitely not uncaused. Humans throughout history have caused it and that's where it still exists.

[Belindi]

A far better question is what have humans done wrong to even think there is such an entity without asking where would IT have come from. And to think that even in these times there are still very many who think Jesus is going to save their pathetic, pitiable, moist little souls simply by their belief in Jesus as the son of a non-existent god. The REAL god is the ground you stand on and supports your existence.

The theists' God did not "come from" anywhere or anything. God is uncaused. God is not the only entty thta is uncaused, there is also absolute mind, and existence itself.From what you write you seem to prefer pantheism, and nature,, for the pantheist, is also uncaused.

For anything to exist, actually exist or exist in the form it has, never required a cause in the first place. Cause overlaps with intention of which the universe knows nothing, not even itself as having a beginning. Gods and absolute minds are chimeras of an imagination impervious to reality. Absolute mind! No one ever explained what that's supposed to mean. God is definitely not uncaused. Humans throughout history have caused it and that's where it still exists.

We are at cross purposes! I agree with you that humans created God. Within that agreement is the general agreement that what God means ontologically is absolute and uncaused being. Spinoza pointed out that Nature is cause of itself. Theists believe God is cause of itself.

[Tegularius]

A far better question is what have humans done wrong to even think there is such an entity without asking where would IT have come from. And to think that even in these times there are still very many who think Jesus is going to save their pathetic, pitiable, moist little souls simply by their belief in Jesus as the son of a non-existent god. The REAL god is the ground you stand on and supports your existence.

The theists' God did not "come from" anywhere or anything. God is uncaused. God is not the only entty thta is uncaused, there is also absolute mind, and existence itself.From what you write you seem to prefer pantheism, and nature,, for the pantheist, is also uncaused.

For anything to exist, actually exist or exist in the form it has, never required a cause in the first place. Cause overlaps with intention of which the universe knows nothing, not even itself as having a beginning. Gods and absolute minds are chimeras of an imagination impervious to reality. Absolute mind! No one ever explained what that's supposed to mean. God is definitely not uncaused. Humans throughout history have caused it and that's where it still exists.

We are at cross purposes! I agree with you that humans created God. Within that agreement is the general agreement that what God means ontologically is absolute and uncaused being. Spinoza pointed out that Nature is cause of itself. Theists believe God is cause of itself.

I understand what you're saying now and I agree. Sorry to be so dense! Ontologically, god can't have a preceding cause since that would negate our conception of god as absolute and the source of everything without having any source identity itself and therefore uncaused. However, it remains to be said that is merely our Western philosophical conception of what we grandly denote as god rendered historically as a very potent form of qualia or mind interpretation which conceives reality as having been created by a far greater mind.

[Belindi]

The theists' God did not "come from" anywhere or anything. God is uncaused. God is not the only entty thta is uncaused, there is also absolute mind, and existence itself.From what you write you seem to prefer pantheism, and nature,, for the pantheist, is also uncaused.

For anything to exist, actually exist or exist in the form it has, never required a cause in the first place. Cause overlaps with intention of which the universe knows nothing, not even itself as having a beginning. Gods and absolute minds are chimeras of an imagination impervious to reality. Absolute mind! No one ever explained what that's supposed to mean. God is definitely not uncaused. Humans throughout history have caused it and that's where it still exists.

We are at cross purposes! I agree with you that humans created God. Within that agreement is the general agreement that what God means ontologically is absolute and uncaused being. Spinoza pointed out that Nature is cause of itself. Theists believe God is cause of itself.

I understand what you're saying now and I agree. Sorry to be so dense! Ontologically, god can't have a preceding cause since that would negate our conception of god as absolute and the source of everything without having any source identity itself and therefore uncaused. However, it remains to be said that is merely our Western philosophical conception of what we grandly denote as god rendered historically as a very potent form of qualia or mind interpretation which conceives reality as having been created by a far greater mind.

Not sure I understand your meaning.Your key phrase is I gather "a far greater mind". If I may put what I think you said into my own words I'd say it as follows. Many or most theists traditionally think of God as a mind like a man's mind only a lot bigger, disembodied, and infinitely more powerful and benevolent.

The above description of God is not now credible, partly because most people are ontological materialists(physicalists) and so if they want to posit the traditional God they have to also posit a supernatural order of being.

Pantheism does not have to add on any supernatural hypothesis. Neither does absolute idealism.

[Sy Borg]

A far better question is what have humans done wrong ...

There is insufficient server space to for that question to be answered. It would seem easier to ask what humanity has done right, which is a not an easy question.

[Tegularius]

Not sure I understand your meaning.Your key phrase is I gather "a far greater mind". If I may put what I think you said into my own words I'd say it as follows. Many or most theists traditionally think of God as a mind like a man's mind only a lot bigger, disembodied, and infinitely more powerful and benevolent.

That interpretation is not incorrect though I would drop the benevolent association. The biblical OT god often seems deranged, behaving is if in dire need of anger management therapy sessions.

The above description of God is not now credible, partly because most people are ontological materialists(physicalists) and so if they want to posit the traditional God they have to also posit a supernatural order of being.

Theism is still rampant as programmed by scripture and therefore traditional. Philosophical speculations on god which are endless do not serve theists who are bound to its words. For them, god is a fixed entity where any infringement of further speculations usually lead to some form of heresy. In philosophy, god, in contrast, is a theme with a thousand different variations. Affirming a supernatural order of being centered in god denotes theism at its core. In that context it's scripture that is mostly quoted and very little of philosophy; the former is meant to guide while the latter confuses.

It never ceases to amaze that a thorough non-entity, a Nothing, could have such a massive influence on history and how a giant lump of that nothing managed to so toxify the human psyche into breeding baseless, useless and dangerous assumptions.

I am having trouble working out the "benevolent associations" . One would like to include those, and I am told there is an argument for them. I intend to do some more reading.

God is not an entity or an Entity. Even the gods of the classical pantheons were not entities but were forces of nature.

[Tegularius]

A far better question is what have humans done wrong ...

There is insufficient server space to for that question to be answered. It would seem easier to ask what humanity has done right, which is a not an easy question.

Nice way of putting it, as confirmed by our unceasing criminal record on this planet. Nietzsche said remain faithful to the earth, a command which always seemed beneath us and of least value among all the ones ever written. Yet that short, simple, direct statement is worth incomparably more than all the holy books that emerged starting from the day we became Homo Sapien...and also the world's greatest irony considering how it translates. Wisdom offers, without further guidance, the worst kind of retribution by way of conscience when it happens too late. If not avoided, I think it's fair to say the arrow of time insures it.

[Sy Borg]

A far better question is what have humans done wrong ...

There is insufficient server space to for that question to be answered. It would seem easier to ask what humanity has done right, which is a not an easy question.

Nice way of putting it, as confirmed by our unceasing criminal record on this planet. Nietzsche said remain faithful to the earth, a command which always seemed beneath us and of least value among all the ones ever written. Yet that short, simple, direct statement is worth incomparably more than all the holy books that emerged starting from the day we became Homo Sapien...and also the world's greatest irony considering how it translates. Wisdom offers, without further guidance, the worst kind of retribution by way of conscience when it happens too late. If not avoided, I think it's fair to say the arrow of time insures it.

Yes, it comes down to respect. Respect for other organisms' lives, at least within the limits imposed by our animal need to kill and exploit other organisms to live.

Those holy books have done our fellow travellers on Earth no favours, feeding people falsehoods about humanity's so-called divinity. I think we have a fair bit of evidence not that humans are far from divine - just another dominant species. We are special in a way, in that we can perceive the passing of time in a way that other species can't. This is a huge advantage, right up there with trilobites' eyes or dinosaurs' dimensions. However, a novel evolved ability does not confer the right to uncaringly and wastefully barge through the lives and homes of other organisms, especially other intelligent and sensitive ones.

In the hurly-burly of human life it is easy to feel as if all that matters is human opinion, that the rest of nature is a mere backdrop for the human drama. Such anthropocentrism is an immature mindset, a hangover from ancient times when humans meaningfully competed with other species and struggled to assert superiority. One would think we'd have nothing to prove by now and might consider relaxing our stranglehold. To be custodians rather than destroyers. Trouble is, there's so many of us and so many huge consumers that ever more forests and marine environments "must" be desertified.

I could rant about this plenty more, so I'd best leave it now :)

[Steve3007]

We are special in a way, in that we can perceive the passing of time in a way that other species can't. This is a huge advantage, right up there with trilobites' eyes or dinosaurs' dimensions.

On this particular point I'd just like to agree that it is indeed a huge evolutionary advantage but that it is just one aspect of the more general ability to think in terms of abstractions. I think being able to create the abstract notion of time and its passing, from individual real changes, is analogous to our ability to abstract other things. The evolutionary advantage we get from this kind of abstract thought is evident in our success as a species. (Where "success" is measured purely by ability to multiply and spread.)

[Tegularius]

The main problem with intelligence is it can be corrupted by all the wrong motives which those less endowed are incapable of acknowledging. Rhetorically stated, will time be on our side for even half as long as it was for the dumb dinosaurs whose reign only ended by a catastrophic global event. Stupidity, being the obverse or toxic side effect of intelligence, is almost guaranteed to do the job much quicker.

How many civilizations may rank and willful stupidity have dismembered on other planets is a question which deserves much more attention.

[Sy Borg]

We are special in a way, in that we can perceive the passing of time in a way that other species can't. This is a huge advantage, right up there with trilobites' eyes or dinosaurs' dimensions.

On this particular point I'd just like to agree that it is indeed a huge evolutionary advantage but that it is just one aspect of the more general ability to think in terms of abstractions. I think being able to create the abstract notion of time and its passing, from individual real changes, is analogous to our ability to abstract other things. The evolutionary advantage we get from this kind of abstract thought is evident in our success as a species. (Where "success" is measured purely by ability to multiply and spread.)

Being able to perceive the passing of time made abstract mental models possible, which then made complex tool creation and symbolic language possible.

You don't have abstractions without perceiving the passing of time. If you cannot hold the past in your mind or project the future, you cannot construct the abstract mental models needed to plan activities, just simple ones that pertain to the immediate environment (spatially, temporally and emotionally).

Retaining information and using it to project the future is an incredible "expansion pack". Rather than adding a new sense like detecting radiation or whatever, awareness of the passing of time allows for planning, which amplifies the efficacy of all senses (despite dulling sensory perception in the moment with "distractions" from the past and future).

[Belindi]

We are special in a way, in that we can perceive the passing of time in a way that other species can't. This is a huge advantage, right up there with trilobites' eyes or dinosaurs' dimensions.

On this particular point I'd just like to agree that it is indeed a huge evolutionary advantage but that it is just one aspect of the more general ability to think in terms of abstractions. I think being able to create the abstract notion of time and its passing, from individual real changes, is analogous to our ability to abstract other things. The evolutionary advantage we get from this kind of abstract thought is evident in our success as a species. (Where "success" is measured purely by ability to multiply and spread.)

Being able to perceive the passing of time made abstract mental models possible, which then made complex tool creation and symbolic language possible.

You don't have abstractions without perceiving the passing of time. If you cannot hold the past in your mind or project the future, you cannot construct the abstract mental models needed to plan activities, just simple ones that pertain to the immediate environment (spatially, temporally and emotionally).

Retaining information and using it to project the future is an incredible "expansion pack". Rather than adding a new sense like detecting radiation or whatever, awareness of the passing of time allows for planning, which amplifies the efficacy of all senses (despite dulling sensory perception in the moment with "distractions" from the past and future).

Tegularius quoted and commented:

Nietzsche said remain faithful to the earth, a command which always seemed beneath us and of least value among all the ones ever written. Yet that short, simple, direct statement is worth incomparably

Theistic religions value mind as better than matter. Big mistake. Mind is a reification of experience. Abstractions from experience, including time, are usually reifications. "The earth" is shorthand for what is not oneself, without which the subject would not be possible.
'Time' is a reification or a measurement of transience, another word for change or relativity.

[Slavedevice]

Which god are we talking about here? Are we talking about the Abrahamic god? The Abrahamic god has taught man to desecrate the earth. This god has taught man that he is king of the earth and should multiply til man is a scourge on nature!
The Pagan Gods on the other hand teach man to live in harmony with Mother Earth. Pagans don’t believe that we are born evil - we all have good and bad characteristics. We are not withering sheep that must beg the Gods to forgive us. We use the gifts the Gods gave us to make a good world for ourselves. We accept that things Evolve and change and don’t stay the same forever.

[Belindi]

Which god are we talking about here? Are we talking about the Abrahamic god? The Abrahamic god has taught man to desecrate the earth. This god has taught man that he is king of the earth and should multiply til man is a scourge on nature!
The Pagan Gods on the other hand teach man to live in harmony with Mother Earth. Pagans don’t believe that we are born evil - we all have good and bad characteristics. We are not withering sheep that must beg the Gods to forgive us. We use the gifts the Gods gave us to make a good world for ourselves. We accept that things Evolve and change and don’t stay the same forever.

Abrahamic God may be interpreted as placing man in a power hierarchy between the angels and other living creatures. But it's also possible to combine pagan nature gods with an alternative version of the Abrahamic God , which is a creator of man the good shepherd instead of man the despoiler.