• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

[MEGA] God v.2

alasdairm said:
i think i am missing something. the stone says "God does (does not) exist"?

that statement in itself makes very little sense to me. even if the stone said either "god exists" or "god does not exist", why would i have any reason to believe what was written there? it could have been carved by anybody and placed there 20 minutes ago...

alasdair
Click to expand...

the stone thing is irrelevant and misleading. I think the idea of the thought experiment is to determine whether you would want to discover whether or not god exists, once and for all. and without a concrete definition of god, I think that is a meaningless question.
 
is god a being or an idea?

i'm interested in peoples' perspectives on this. mind you, i'm not a religious person, never have been, likely never will be. that said, i've always considered myself to be agnostic (or at least what i've come to know as agnostic) as i don't necessarily believe in god, but i don't rule out the possibility that there is a greater power.

i was thinking today "do people think of god as a person or being that we can't see/hear/etc. or do they see god as an idea which they, themselves, maintain where god is basically a symbol for their moral standards?
 
An idea. Some people can't deal with not knowing, not having an explanation that covers ALL the bases. god does that for them.
Personally, I'm perfectly fine with "I don't know"
 
I see god as the totality of existence; the entire universe, and the underlying algorithm that unites it as one system. I am a part of god and so are you. :) At least that's what I believe.

I'm not sure what label you could apply to me. I'm certainly not a theist, and I don't think I'm a deist either. But I guess that I do believe in some sort of "supreme being" now that I think about it, but I don't believe it is elusive in any way-- its everywhere around us, inside us, outside us, far away, close by, over here, over there, and everywhere. It just Is. :)
 
I agree with Pillthrill, God is an idea. It's a way to fill in the numerous anomalies and unanswered questions we have about life and the universe.

At this point in my life, I can't accept religion and I can't accept ideas like God is all around us, because as organisms and energies we are constantly feeding on other organisms and energies which in my mind doesn't add up to some cohesive all inclusive 'powerful being.' I personally think that all inclusive viewpoint has some subconscious meaning to it, (like an archetype) but I don't dare to try and dissect it and make sense of it.

I really don't even understand why this question is pondered so much.

Once we get to other planets, near other star's planets, and other galaxies, then maybe we can truly make suppositions about some ultimate diety. Til then I think at most the idea of something like Gaia 'Earth Mind' is the only thing i feel worth trying to figure out.

I also imagine if we encountered other alien organisms it may put a different perspective on things.
 
Last edited:
I was born Christian and raised as such but once I could really think independently I wouldn't consider myself anything I think spirituality is different for everyone I think major religion is for people who can't think independently who need answers to things unexplained if I called myself something I'd say ignorantism I don't care how we got here why were here I'd rather not know it doesn't mean anything to me I just try to focus on my self am I being what I would consider moral and just I'm a grown boy who doesn't need someone or some ideal to tell me what's right or wrong or how to be
 
both, an idea of being rather than an idea of just happening. namaste (i bow to the god inside you).
 
As I see it, entities and ideas interpenetrate, the dialectic of 'being' 'creating'/'eliciting' knowledge and experience of 'being' but conditioning a material aspect of itself (an entity), which causally launches and shapes such knowledge, embodying this knowledge via matter, forming an entity to which ideas point.

We'll find that only God as encompassing all 'being' will be expansive enough to anchor a god-concept adhering to precepts of the omni-conditions (eg, omniscience, omnipresence, etc.).

Therefore, god is both and neither. ;)
 
Some people can't deal with not knowing, not having an explanation that covers ALL the bases. god does that for them.
Personally, I'm perfectly fine with "I don't know"
Click to expand...

hehe...this could describe me, amirite? ;)
As to the usefulness of our pursuits, well, utility toward what end? Our good in itself is that conceptual map that constitutes the fundamentals of what reality is. Now, this goal isn't necessarily (or even empirically) superior to any other particular pursuit, but it's what matters to 'us'. :)

ebola
 
Ok, this is going nowhere good. I expected the discussion going another direction.

The whole point was to compare the "existence/non-existence" to the "belief/disbelief" in God, not rambling about the stone. The stone was just a metaphor for the epistemic justification of your belief or disbelief in God. My question therefore was: "Does this epistemic justification change anything for your (non-)religious attitude, or is only the (non-)relation to God that is relevant for you? How important is the epistemic justification of a God these days for people, or does it have no relevance at all anymore?"

malakaix: Saying you're God because you experienced so during an awesome psychedelic experience doesn't prove a thing. You just 'believe' that experience was valid, you don't have an epistemic ground for that. If I rub my eye I can 'believe' there really are black circles in front of me as well.
 
No, I wouldn't.

I'm quite certain no entity comparable to a deity exists within our universe (with reservations and wiggle room), and so have no need of reaffirming that.

Aside from that, the stone wouldn't prove the [non]existence of any entity named "God" to anyone but myself, as only I would have a priori knowledge of the stone's validity, thus rendering it useless as a tool to inform the masses. You specifically stated that I have a priori knowledge, and so my answer is based on that single stipulation: only I know of the stone, and of it's validity.

BTW- which "God" are we referring to?




Sweet P said:
There is no way I could know a priori that a stone saying "god does (or doesn't) exist" is valid. There is no logic to validate it.
Click to expand...

The question is hypothetical, and thus doesn't require a justification. It operates outside the realm of our reality, and thus certain allowances must be made. Obviously, sandy vagrants don't know of the existence of random pebbles with scribbling on them (which are, in fact, buried in the middle of some desert), nor would they somehow be able to completely verify the validity of this pebble's claim without ever even viewing it.
But that's our world. A hypothetical question doesn't obey those rules, and is posed in such a way as to be obviously hypothetical (usually).

Where is the imagination?


And hey! This is the PHILOSOPHY AND SPIRITUALITY forum. Of COURSE they are going to be hypothetical situations posed!
 
Last edited:
It is an idea until you prove (rather, provide evidence*) that it is a being.

Problem solved.






*Which would then have to be reviewed (and subsequently validated), of course . . .
 
^yup

and taking the matter the other way, since we are genetically programmed to conserve our energy (even to our own fatty detriment), it wouldn't be wise for a "god" to make herself too evident to us.
 
The God I talk to is the embodiment of the strongest person I could be, the person I talk to when I need to be heard, but don't want to turn to anyone. I "know" that he's not really there, as I am an atheist, but all of my energy gets directed to him, so he's as real as I need him to be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top