Philosophy Discussion Forums

Posted: **January 16th, 2019, 8:38 am**

Alias wrote: ↑January 15th, 2019, 8:20 pm
Belindi wrote: ↑January 15th, 2019, 4:35 pm The God concept is needed because of the old question " How should I live my life?"
Anyway, why do you need a god for that?
Here you go:
Try to be happy while making as few as possible of your fellow living things unhappy.

That is a particular application of the often subliminal concept of the Good. A God and gods are popular versions of the Good. These popular and often anthropomorphised versions of the Good are often limited to their historical, economic,and geographical circumstances.

Posted: **January 16th, 2019, 10:01 am**

True. But there are those who believe and those who dont. The statement "For those who believe in God" is merely pointing out that there are humans that believe in God.

Posted: **January 16th, 2019, 1:34 pm**

Belindi wrote: ↑January 15th, 2019, 4:02 pm Fdesilva wrote:

Yes I totally agree with God permits what we call evil. However we can recognise evil/good as such only becouse as thoughts are available in the set of all thoughts (God) to make that distinction
I don't know the philosophy of mathematics.

Existence does include all thoughts and all thinking. Men can know only that truth status which men themselves have allotted to thoughts. Some thoughts are thoughts that don't pertain to objectively real things which have temporal and spatial existence i.e.they cannot be measured. The Form of the Good is one such thought;the Good cannot be measured. Another thing we can say about the Good is that it's detectable only as the lived experience of a man.That lived experience may be reported as current news, painted in a work of art, acted in a play, said or written as a poem, or told as religious myth.

The popular concept of God is a way of explaining the Good. Myth is an idiom like a poem is an idiom.

Men can know only that truth status which men themselves have allotted to thoughts.

This is true if men are free to assign good or evil to a given thought with total freedom. What if thoughts are discovered as stated here
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plat ... thematics/

Platonism about mathematics (or mathematical platonism) is the metaphysical view that there are abstract mathematical objects whose existence is independent of us and our language, thought, and practices. Just as electrons and planets exist independently of us, so do numbers and sets. And just as statements about electrons and planets are made true or false by the objects with which they are concerned and these objects’ perfectly objective properties, so are statements about numbers and sets. Mathematical truths are therefore discovered, not invented.

Now if the thought "Its is evil to kill MR A" is all you can descover and not "It is good to kill Mr A" then yes you can proceed to kill Mr A but you do so knowing its evil.

Posted: **January 16th, 2019, 2:16 pm**

Alias wrote: ↑January 15th, 2019, 4:16 pm No: all the tissues are substance and none of them are reconfigured by a thought. Thoughts have no permanence. New synapses are formed by making connections for learned procedures. Each thought is nowhere to be found.

Yes agree that every thought does not change synapses or create new once. However every thought requires movem of ions in the least. A nerve impulse is a localised change in the potential created by ions moving accross the cell boundry. As such if you look at the distribution of each and every ion/molecule different thought will mean different distributions. Yes the changed distribution does not last permenently but nevetheless it does.

Are you getting tired of answering my question.

Alias wrote: ↑January 15th, 2019, 4:16 pm I'm not clear on their relevance.

Sure I can understand that. I was attempting to share my reasoning step by step.
However if you prefer you can read the whole story here https://philpapers.org/rec/DESCAS
I use quantum mechanics not sure if you are familiar with it. Happy to explain if needed.

Alias wrote: ↑January 15th, 2019, 4:16 pm This gets us no closer to the god concept. Whether its existence is easy of difficult doesn't explain why it's needed at all.

Ok now I understand what you are asking. In philosophy talking about the concept of God has been a topic of interest independent of if God existed or not.
However, I guess what you are asking is what is the practical usefulness of this concept?
Further would I be right in saying that even if God existed you still don't see a usefulness is that correct?

Posted: **January 16th, 2019, 5:38 pm**

phenomenal_graffiti wrote: ↑January 16th, 2019, 10:01 am The statement "For those who believe in God" is merely pointing out that there are humans that believe in God.

I did realize that. I'm pointing out that, for those people, neither proofs of God nor the question of how to live their lives is a current issue, as both have been settled by their faith.

Posted: **January 16th, 2019, 5:54 pm**

Fdesilva wrote: ↑January 16th, 2019, 2:16 pm ... Yes the changed distribution does not last permenently but nevetheless it does.

Fine. So how do you go about counting the thoughts?

I was attempting to share my reasoning step by step.

But minute changes in brain configuration wouldn't affect the totality of all possible thoughts, since that includes the thoughts that haven't happened yet and might never happen, and those don't leave any physical imprint.
The whole brain exercise seem like a side issue - at best.

I use quantum mechanics not sure if you are familiar with it. Happy to explain if needed.

No thanks!

Ok now I understand what you are asking. In philosophy talking about the concept of God has been a topic of interest independent of if God existed or not.

I don't see where it's been independent of its own existence. The questions have been : Do they/does it/can such things exist, and if so, what is it/their nature and how do they relate to us? Since it's impossible to investigate or prove, most of the wiffle-waffle has been over finding new names and natures for the putative deity. Maybe it's the whole universe. Maybe it's consciousness. Maybe it's the Prime Mover. These are just ways of saying God can exist without any effect on us whatsoever.
I feel to see an reachable objective in that line of argument.

However, I guess what you are asking is what is the practical usefulness of this concept?

The usefulness of your god concept, yes. I understand the usefulness of many other god concepts.

Further would I be right in saying that even if God existed you still don't see a usefulness is that correct?

Not in a god that exists unknowably, no.
The impression I have is that you have already matched your definition to your own criteria, and that's all you will do.

Posted: **January 17th, 2019, 8:14 am**

Fdesilva wrote;

This is true if men are free to assign good or evil to a given thought with total freedom. What if thoughts are discovered as stated here
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plat ... thematics/

If we are authentic and sincere we have to act as if we are free to assign good or evil to a given thought.This is because we cannot know the future. If there were a benign Providence it would ensure that we cannot know the future so that we have opportunity to be free to act good or evil.

I can't study philosophy of mathematics. However I concede that there may be mathematical truths which are eternally true. Eternal truths, if such there be, can be experienced by mystics or so mystics claim. I'm not a mystic and can only struggle along empirically as well or badly as I do.

Moreover if there be eternal truths of mathematics that would not be evidence for eternal moral truths.

Posted: **January 17th, 2019, 11:59 pm**

Alias wrote: ↑January 16th, 2019, 5:54 pm
Ok now I understand what you are asking. In philosophy talking about the concept of God has been a topic of interest independent of if God existed or not.
I don't see where it's been independent of its own existence. The questions have been : Do they/does it/can such things exist, and if so, what is it/their nature and how do they relate to us? Since it's impossible to investigate or prove, most of the wiffle-waffle has been over finding new names and natures for the putative deity. Maybe it's the whole universe. Maybe it's consciousness. Maybe it's the Prime Mover. These are just ways of saying God can exist without any effect on us whatsoever.
I feel to see an reachable objective in that line of argument.
However, I guess what you are asking is what is the practical usefulness of this concept?
The usefulness of your god concept, yes. I understand the usefulness of many other god concepts.
Further would I be right in saying that even if God existed you still don't see a usefulness is that correct?
Not in a god that exists unknowably, no.

This is how I see it. From Philosophy you can get to know that God exist. (At least that's my claim). however Philosophy does not give you the means to communicate with God. That is what Religion brings to the table. Religion makes this communication explicit.
So you have many people who claim they have spoken to God etc. However everybody (including you) despite not knowing it, is in constant communication with God. (that again is my claim ). I am sure you have heard the saying Money makes the world go round. I put it to you, its Love that makes the world go round. You will spend money or work for money only because it gives you the means to do the things you love. If the things you love don't need money you will have no interest in it. There are many things in the world that we are attracted to love. However if we come to realise that we must give priority to love other people and life above inanimate things, I think we are on the best track God has provided.

Alias wrote: ↑January 16th, 2019, 5:54 pm The impression I have is that you have already matched your definition to your own criteria, and that's all you will do.

The definition is not mine. I am only trying to see if the set of all thoughts will match an accepted definition.
In regards to the brain activity what that can provide is a realisation that if you believe that everything is made from atoms/molecules alone, then what proceeds any change is identical to a thought. Just before it rains a cloud would be the thought that produces the rain. Just as your thoughts control your body, these thoughts in the universe control the universe from instant to instant. So that is a summary what the brain activity analysis will lead into. Happy to elaborate if it interest you.

Posted: **January 18th, 2019, 12:03 am**

Belindi wrote: ↑January 17th, 2019, 8:14 am Fdesilva wrote;

This is true if men are free to assign good or evil to a given thought with total freedom. What if thoughts are discovered as stated here
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plat ... thematics/
If we are authentic and sincere we have to act as if we are free to assign good or evil to a given thought.This is because we cannot know the future. If there were a benign Providence it would ensure that we cannot know the future so that we have opportunity to be free to act good or evil.

I can't study philosophy of mathematics. However I concede that there may be mathematical truths which are eternally true. Eternal truths, if such there be, can be experienced by mystics or so mystics claim. I'm not a mystic and can only struggle along empirically as well or badly as I do.

Moreover if there be eternal truths of mathematics that would not be evidence for eternal moral truths.

In regards to "Moreover if there be eternal truths of mathematics that would not be evidence for eternal moral truths."
If thoughts are mathematical objects then moral truths will also be eternal truths. Don't you think?

Posted: **January 18th, 2019, 2:42 am**

Fdesilva wrote: ↑January 17th, 2019, 11:59 pm This is how I see it. From Philosophy you can get to know that God exist. (At least that's my claim).

I got that that is your claim.
I also got that you made a connection between one archaic philosophy and your notion of all thoughts and claim that that connection corresponds with a god-concept which fits those two ideas.

however Philosophy does not give you the means to communicate with God.

Nor does it require that there should be any. I mean, Philosophy as discipline doesn't; some individual philosophers insist on it. Descartes was just covering his ass, Kierkegaard was sort of kidding, but I'm pretty sure Aquinas was sincere.

So you have many people who claim they have spoken to God etc. However everybody (including you) despite not knowing it, is in constant communication with God.

Very cute. Religion snuck in through a basement window, wearing a hoodie with a Plato+Math logo on it.

I am sure you have heard the saying Money makes the world go round. I put it to you, its Love that makes the world go round.

Neither. Gravity makes the world go around.

However if we come to realise that we must give priority to love other people and life above inanimate things, I think we are on the best track God has provided.

All this riding on math?
[The impression I have is that you have already matched your definition to your own criteria, and that's all you will do.]

The definition is not mine.

Well then, where did you get it? In the OP, you sure gave the impression that these were your definitions.

I am only trying to see if the set of all thoughts will match an accepted definition.

Which accepted definition? Accepted by whom? Definitions of God are fluid and contentious.

In regards to the brain activity what that can provide is a realisation that if you believe that everything is made from atoms/molecules alone, then what proceeds any change is identical to a thought.

Why? What proceeds can be repair to a membrane, replication of a glial cell, building of myelin or routine care and feeding of tissue.

Just before it rains a cloud would be the thought that produces the rain.

Only about 8% of clouds produce rain. The rest float overhead serenely, forming pictures of ducks, dragons and galleons.

Just as your thoughts control your body,

They don't. Most bodily functions are autonomic, bypassing the higher neural centers. Very few conscious thoughts have any physiological expression.

these thoughts in the universe control the universe from instant to instant.

If there were thoughts in the universe, they would still no more control the universe than human thoughts control human bodies. And who says they would be loving thoughts, anyway, rather than spiteful and mean ones? Maybe we can harness some for faster-than-light propulsion!
But there is no evidence whatever of the existence of thoughts in the universe.

Happy to elaborate if it interest you.

No. My interest ends here. I finally got your message.

Posted: **January 18th, 2019, 9:05 am**

Fdesilva wrote: ↑January 18th, 2019, 12:03 am
Belindi wrote: ↑January 17th, 2019, 8:14 am Fdesilva wrote;

If we are authentic and sincere we have to act as if we are free to assign good or evil to a given thought.This is because we cannot know the future. If there were a benign Providence it would ensure that we cannot know the future so that we have opportunity to be free to act good or evil.

I can't study philosophy of mathematics. However I concede that there may be mathematical truths which are eternally true. Eternal truths, if such there be, can be experienced by mystics or so mystics claim. I'm not a mystic and can only struggle along empirically as well or badly as I do.

Moreover if there be eternal truths of mathematics that would not be evidence for eternal moral truths.
In regards to "Moreover if there be eternal truths of mathematics that would not be evidence for eternal moral truths."
If thoughts are mathematical objects then moral truths will also be eternal truths. Don't you think?

a) Some dogs are spaniels and that is not evidence that all dogs are spaniels.(A small example of my contention)

b) Eternity is all-inclusive such that nothing is excluded from eternity. ( Your contention and mine).

a) is the perspective from this relative world.

b) is the perspective from eternity.

Posted: **January 18th, 2019, 4:08 pm**

Belindi wrote: ↑January 18th, 2019, 9:05 am
Fdesilva wrote: ↑January 18th, 2019, 12:03 am
In regards to "Moreover if there be eternal truths of mathematics that would not be evidence for eternal moral truths."
If thoughts are mathematical objects then moral truths will also be eternal truths. Don't you think?

Belindi wrote: ↑January 18th, 2019, 9:05 am a) Some dogs are spaniels and that is not evidence that all dogs are spaniels.(A small example of my contention)
By this do you mean that some thoughts are maths objects but it does not follow all thoughts are maths objects? If so I agree.
Belindi wrote: ↑January 18th, 2019, 9:05 am b) Eternity is all-inclusive such that nothing is excluded from eternity. ( Your contention and mine).
Yes, the problem is most see eternity only as a concept. Not as something that exist. Concepts don't exist so most feel.

Belindi wrote: ↑January 18th, 2019, 9:05 am a) is the perspective from this relative world.

b) is the perspective from eternity.
yes

Posted: **January 19th, 2019, 7:32 am**

Fdesilva, I see that we agree so far.

I like pantheism to which eternity is as real as eternity is real for theism.

Posted: **January 19th, 2019, 5:19 pm**

Belindi wrote: ↑January 19th, 2019, 7:32 am Fdesilva, I see that we agree so far.

I like pantheism to which eternity is as real as eternity is real for theism.

Yes a person is free to believe that atoms/molecules create spirits (consciouness) but to do so is pantheism

Posted: **January 19th, 2019, 7:17 pm**

Fdesilva wrote: ↑January 19th, 2019, 5:19 pm
Belindi wrote: ↑January 19th, 2019, 7:32 am Fdesilva, I see that we agree so far.

I like pantheism to which eternity is as real as eternity is real for theism.
Yes a person is free to believe that atoms/molecules create spirits (consciouness) but to do so is pantheism

No, it isn't.

Philosophy Discussion Forums

"Thoughts" and The concept of God

Re: "Thoughts" and The concept of God

Re: "Thoughts" and The concept of God

Re: "Thoughts" and The concept of God

Re: "Thoughts" and The concept of God

Re: "Thoughts" and The concept of God

Re: "Thoughts" and The concept of God

Re: "Thoughts" and The concept of God

Re: "Thoughts" and The concept of God

Re: "Thoughts" and The concept of God

Re: "Thoughts" and The concept of God

Re: "Thoughts" and The concept of God

Re: "Thoughts" and The concept of God

Re: "Thoughts" and The concept of God

Re: "Thoughts" and The concept of God

Re: "Thoughts" and The concept of God