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

[MEGA] God

Status
Not open for further replies.
Using the vocabulary of L Ron Hubbard can help you avoid stress and express yourself. It gives you solid inclusive definitions and a taste of managable Linguistic study.
 
I feel that the word God means "All that Is"...we are children of God and God also. That is the truth i feel inside
 
G-D to me is simply put, two things: Ominpotence and One. Religion is humankind's inability to deal with G-D on G-D's terms. That said, the best route to G-D , to me, is the religion of Judasim.
 
I am a Christian and I believe that YHWH is all the energy in the universe.... or something.

This means I can say "I BELIEVE IN GOD!" and that my consciousness will continue to exist forever...... (ah the sweet relief of denial for my weak, fearful mind...)

NOT.



the further science and logic go towards demonstrating the redundancy and improbability of God,
the more ridiculous the meanings people ascribe to the word.

I often say to people:
"So, you do not believe in God;
you believe in 'all the energy in the universe'..."

I see the ripples of a moment's horrified doubt disturb the tranquil, shallow pools of their dull, blinkered eyes,
before they awkwardly change the subject.
 
The_Idler said:
I am a Christian and I believe that YHWH is all the energy in the universe.... or something.

This means I can say "I BELIEVE IN GOD!" and that my consciousness will continue to exist forever...... (ah the sweet relief of denial for my weak, fearful mind...)

NOT.



the further science and logic go towards demonstrating the redundancy and improbability of God,
the more ridiculous the meanings people ascribe to the word.

I often say to people:
"So, you do not believe in God;
you believe in 'all the energy in the universe'..."

I see the ripples of a moment's horrified doubt disturb the tranquil, shallow pools of their dull, blinkered eyes,
before they awkwardly change the subject.
Click to expand...

Exactly which field of science and system of logic has 'demonstrated' that the concept of God is 'redundant and improbable'? What is your desire for condensension towards people whose reason presents to them a different perspective than your own?
 
i meant tends towards, one cannot prove anything absolutely.


And I have no problem with people who have developed different logical interpretations of their conscious experiences in this universe.

I think it is pitiable when someone, who can see things in exactly the way I do,
understanding the systematic extrapolation of fundamental concepts, systems and interactions,
leading to the implication and elucidation of logical explanations, of relative probabilities, for different situations,
clings to the psychological comfort of never dying and having greater purpose than simply serving to most effectively propagate tiny strings of chemicals in their cells,
thus necessitating the embarrassing outright rejection of obvious logical possibilities,
manifested in that intellectually abhorrent, self-inflicted wall of ignorance,
often known as denial.
 
The_Idler said:
i meant tends towards, one cannot prove anything absolutely.
Click to expand...

The reason for which I used the term 'demonstrate'. I shall state my question again:

Which fields of science and systems of logic, 'demonstrate' that the concept of God is "improbable and redudant"?

And I have no problem with people who have developed different logical interpretations of their conscious experiences in this universe.
Click to expand...

I have specific philosophical or intellectual issues with certain 'logical interpretations' of conscious experiences.

I think it is pitiable when someone, who can see things in exactly the way I do,
understanding the systematic extrapolation of fundamental concepts, systems and interactions,
Click to expand...

What are you 'systematically extrapolating fundamental concepts, systems and interactions' from? What does that have to do with the improbability and redudancy of God?

leading to the implication and elucidation of logical explanations, of relative probabilities, for different situations,
clings to the psychological comfort of never dying and having greater purpose than simply serving to most effectively propagate tiny strings of chemicals in their cells,
thus necessitating the embarrassing outright rejection of obvious logical possibilities,
manifested in that intellectually abhorrent, self-inflicted wall of ignorance,
often known as denial.
Click to expand...

This is what is known as 'incoherent' and 'unintelligable'. Are you even in a science field?

Reason ultimately leads one towards the logical conclusion of agnosticism; that is to say, one cannot prove the nonexistence of God any more than one can prove the existence of God, therefore, either method employs a "God of the Gaps" or an "Athiesm of the Gaps", as empirical reason possesses no epistemological value in matters not concering material reality.

It is no more reasonable to deny the existence of God than it is to believe in God, as each requires faith (not in the traditional conception of the word).

One can presuppose a material consciousness, a property of the physical brain and still maintain a metaphysical belief about what happens when material consciousness ceases to exist.
 
Alan Watts sums it up pretty good for me:

The religious idea of God cannot do full duty for the metaphysical infinity.

The difficulty for most of us in the modern world is that the old-fashioned idea of God has become incredible or implausible. When we look through our telescopes and microscopes, or when we just look at nature, we have a problem. Somehow the idea of God we get from the holy scriptures doesn't seem to fit the world around us, just as you wouldn't ascribe a composition by Stravinsky to Bach. The style of God venerated in the church, mosque, or synagogue seems completely different from the style of the natural universe. It's hard to conceive of the author of one as the author of the other.

You don't look out there for God, something in the sky, you look in you.
 
" Which fields of science and systems of logic, 'demonstrate' that the concept of God is "improbable and redudant"? "

Occam's Razor.

Oh and science shows time and time again complexity emerging over time through basic laws and interactions, not complexity as an alpha point.
 
Psychedelic Gleam said:
" Which fields of science and systems of logic, 'demonstrate' that the concept of God is "improbable and redudant"? "

Occam's Razor.
Click to expand...

The Razor only concerns itself with matters of empiricism; it cannot penetrate into epistemological realms to which reason has gained no access. It does not necessarily follow that the simplest explanation is the best one. It is only relevant if all things being equal, the simplest explanation is the best one! However, one should not merely assume that the simple, less correct explanation should be preferred over the complex, more correct explanation.

While I would certainly agree that material consciousness is an emergent property of the physical brain and that its architecture generates and sustains consciousness so long as there exists something to be conscious of; it is a non-sequitur to posit this empirical theory as proof that the material reality that we experience is the only true existence.

Oh and science shows time and time again complexity emerging over time through basic laws and interactions, not complexity as an alpha point.
Click to expand...

I fail to understand how an emerging complexity of physical reality over time, through precise natural laws, demonstrates anything other than the notion that complexity emerges over time through basic laws and interactions.

Empirical science only concerns itself with what can be experienced, observed, measured, tested and falsified - material reality.
 
Psychedelic Gleam said:
Alan Watts sums it up pretty good for me:

The religious idea of God cannot do full duty for the metaphysical infinity.

The difficulty for most of us in the modern world is that the old-fashioned idea of God has become incredible or implausible. When we look through our telescopes and microscopes, or when we just look at nature, we have a problem. Somehow the idea of God we get from the holy scriptures doesn't seem to fit the world around us, just as you wouldn't ascribe a composition by Stravinsky to Bach. The style of God venerated in the church, mosque, or synagogue seems completely different from the style of the natural universe. It's hard to conceive of the author of one as the author of the other.

You don't look out there for God, something in the sky, you look in you.
Click to expand...

Good post.

That said, complexPHILOSOPHY has a good point too. I think most people who've intellectually plumbed the depths of the question of God have come out ultimately admitting they're not sure, and probably won't ever be 100% sure.

I've run into some great ideas about what an ultimate being could be like, that nothing ultimately rules out. But from a purely rational standpoint, I'll admit it's perfectly possible that these ideas are wrong, and that I don't have a whole lot of firsthand experience to weigh in. I'll readily admit that entertaining theism is just something I feel naturally built to do. I figure it's my life to live -- why not have a little hope and a little imagination?

I have a lot of respect for agnostics, because they're intellectually honest -- 'God' is not one of those things that lies within the bounds of logic. I respect both theists and atheists who have a very 'live and let live' attitude towards me. What I'm not so fond of are both theists and atheists who won't tolerate my presence until they can squeeze an admission from me that they're right.
 
MyDoorsAreOpen said:
Good post.

That said, complexPHILOSOPHY has a good point too. I think most people who've intellectually plumbed the depths of the question of God have come out ultimately admitting they're not sure, and probably won't ever be 100% sure.

I've run into some great ideas about what an ultimate being could be like, that nothing ultimately rules out. But from a purely rational standpoint, I'll admit it's perfectly possible that these ideas are wrong, and that I don't have a whole lot of firsthand experience to weigh in. I'll readily admit that entertaining theism is just something I feel naturally built to do. I figure it's my life to live -- why not have a little hope and a little imagination?

I have a lot of respect for agnostics, because they're intellectually honest -- 'God' is not one of those things that lies within the bounds of logic. I respect both theists and atheists who have a very 'live and let live' attitude towards me. What I'm not so fond of are both theists and atheists who won't tolerate my presence until they can squeeze an admission from me that they're right.
Click to expand...

Agnosticism is the position of pure reason, to which, one can never truly know and therefore, should not concern itself with such matters.

The Atheist and the Theist both, employ faith in determining their position regarding God because neither proposition is within the realm of reason. The Laws of Causality do not necessarily apply to that which transcends empirical epistemology, and I would assert that a 'theological hypothesis' of God should be consistent with empirical epistemology.

Therefore, I reject the premise that rational beings cannot posit the existence of God. I can accept the premise that reason cannot lend itself to proving such matters and that one must employ faith.

(None of that was directed to you MDAO other than the first comment).
 
If God is defined as a meme, then reason would lead us to a different conclusion.
 
^ Indeed. The study of god as a concept, an idea, a yearning even, has been the subject of a lot of theological discourse lately, especially, I've noticed, among more liberal Jewish thinkers.

The idea of the ultimate entity is tantalizing. Even if this entity is by definition beyond the scope of human knowledge or understanding, that sure doesn't stop people from attempting to draw analogies and grasp at an understanding of it, because that's just what our curious minds are apt to do!

I remember being in a science museum as a kid, and seeing a display of impossible-to-solve mathematical puzzles. Despite the literature plainly saying 'you will not solve this', sure enough, a small crowd was gathered, some with pen and paper in hand, having a crack at some of the puzzles on display. :)
 
PsYcHoAcTiViSt said:
I tried to answer but I erased it because I don't know if it was what I really believe. I struggle with this too much. there are just too many possibilites. I can tell you some of the things I DONT believe. Like for instance I certainly DONT believe that the earth was created in 7 days. I have too many thoughts. There is no way I would ever be able to confine myself to one particular belief. It would just change 5 minutes later.
Click to expand...

Exactly how I feel. I flip flop all the time on what exactly I believe in.
 
Occam's Razor.
Click to expand...

Occam's razor is not justified by logic.
(oops...redundant with CP's post)
...
As an agnostic (agnostic about his agnostiticm: someday, I might be surprised by strong empirical support for God), I find the question of what is God more interesting than that of his existence. For me, something like pantheism/non-duality functions the most usefully...of the Buddhist sort, no the Spinozan kind.

ebola
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top