We are ALL God.

[empeebee]

Occam's razor has two flaws

I'd argue it has three flaws. The two you mentioned as well as human motivation. As soon as you add a human into the mix, with their unknown motivations, emotions and agendas Occam's principle goes straight out the window.

an ignorance of the other schools

'Ignorance' is a bit harsh maybe. One may not be ignorant of other schools of thought, one may simply place less credence in one school over another.

 

[Foreigner]

I'd argue it has three flaws. The two you mentioned as well as human motivation. As soon as you add a human into the mix, with their unknown motivations, emotions and agendas Occam's principle goes straight out the window.

I hear what you're saying. I think what you wrote is covered under the first two, in that it requires the observer to decide what is simple vs. complex, and for that you require human bias. The way Occam's razor is employed by those who favour rationality is usually agenda based. They see their conclusion as the most logical and most simple but they don't see bias in rationality itself. Rationalists tend to unfavourably conflate the raw data gathered from the senses with the interpretation of the data. One is objective (i.e. the sky is blue to most of us, in common reality), whereas the other is interpretive (i.e. the sky is blue because of X, Y and Z).

'Ignorance' is a bit harsh maybe. One may not be ignorant of other schools of thought, one may simply place less credence in one school over another.

That's true. In my experience over the years of debating with rationalists is that they haven't explored many schools contrarian to theirs. They just assume their school is the right one, mostly because the hegemonic world view right now is the school of rationality, i.e. science. In other words, rational views are valid as a given, while all others must prove themselves valid to the school of rationality. There was a time when the school of rationality was on the defensive and had to prove itself to the hegemonic institution of the time, which was the Church. The Church's view was a given, and others had to validate their views according to Church orthodoxy or suffer.

 

[empeebee]

the hegemonic world view right now is the school of rationality

Which in itself is irrational, simply because the entities deciding what is, or isn't, rational is the most irrational species ever to have walked the planet. Oh well...Agree with you on both counts above, though I'm not convinced that what I wrote is covered by the first two. Perhaps a nuance or subdivision of the 'observer' status.

 

[Foreigner]

Which in itself is irrational, simply because the entities deciding what is, or isn't, rational is the most irrational species ever to have walked the planet. Oh well...Agree with you on both counts above, though I'm not convinced that what I wrote is covered by the first two. Perhaps a nuance or subdivision of the 'observer' status.

You could add another subdivision, or not. No need to split hairs

I love the school of rationality, and the historical basis of its formation in Europe... mostly in response to the Church. The Enlightenment era concerned itself with the search for supreme truth. That's when the colonial powers used theories like social darwinism to organize human "races" into more and less civilized, and then concerned themselves with trying to better the world by civilizing the less civilized places. Conveniently, the European powers put themselves at the top of the hierarchy... how rational of them.

Then came the post-enlightenment period when pluralism entered the scene and people believed there were many possible simultaneous truths, yet each truth could be explained rationally.

I feel that some rationalists hearken back to the enlightenment period, when people believed there was only one kind of rationality and one truth, and all others were illogical. Like... you can't believe in God and be a scientist, even though in the Victorian era that was pretty common. Then there are plural rationalists who are open to many different views as long as they can be explained somehow, on some terms, even other forms of logic.

Now we have post-modern rationalism which concerns itself with how rationality is constructed, especially as it concerns personal narratives and relationships. Kind of like how we've gone from there being one God to acknowledging that each person worships their own God.

 

[empeebee]

Being a rationalist, I like to think there is only one 'truth', we just can't always figure it out. Your example of believing in God and being a scientist is a great example. While the Bible is most probably not an accurate or factual record of creation (Genesis chapters 1 & 2), it does oddly mimic what science has learned about the formation of our universe/solar system/life on Earth. It just needs to be interpreted in a certain way.

I think there are a few religions who would argue your "there being one God" statement

 

[Xorkoth]

God is a spiritual deity. Like I've said ad nauseam at this point, you can redefine words to fit whatever narrative you want, you can believe that the word means something other than its actual definition but that doesn't make it so.

Purely semantics. Address the point, not the words. I agree using the word "god" is not the best choice of word. It's just a word that we have, that people jump to, when they're trying to talk about this sort of thing. "god" is not an exclusive word to the monotheistic/Christian god. Many cultures have defined numerous gods, and call them gods.

 

[empeebee]

Purely semantics. Address the point, not the words. I agree using the word "god" is not the best choice of word. It's just a word that we have, that people jump to, when they're trying to talk about this sort of thing. "god" is not an exclusive word to the monotheistic/Christian god. Many cultures have defined numerous gods, and call them gods.

In the interests in clearing up semantics, shall we agree?
a. God with an upper-case G = The Catholic/Protestant/Evangelist/etc. name for the 'supreme being/grand architect' as discussed by the Bible
b. god with a lower-case g = an entity, spiritual or otherwise, not affiliated to or to be confused with God (see a. above) which may include for e.g. Mayan Itzamna, Aztec Huitzilopochtli, Norse Odin, Hebrew Jehovah, Roman Jupiter, Greek Zeus, Hindu Brahma, Muslim Allah, Chinese Pangu, Aboriginal Adnoartina, etc.), preferably referred to directly by name

Many thanks.

 

[Gormur]

In the interests in clearing up semantics, shall we agree?
a. God with an upper-case G = The Catholic/Protestant/Evangelist/etc. name for the 'supreme being/grand architect' as discussed by the Bible
b. god with a lower-case g = an entity, spiritual or otherwise, not affiliated to or to be confused with God (see a. above) which may include for e.g. Mayan Itzamna, Aztec Huitzilopochtli, Norse Odin, Hebrew Jehovah, Roman Jupiter, Greek Zeus, Hindu Brahma, Muslim Allah, Chinese Pangu, Aboriginal Adnoartina, etc.), preferably referred to directly by name

Many thanks.

In anthropology, I recall reading that god or goddess with lower-case g was done, so that it could differentiate deities that could be represented by idols. Whereas an Ambrahamic deity (God) can't be idolized

Obviously anthrologists aren't linguists, but it's the best theory I've heard

 

[empeebee]

In anthropology, I recall reading that god or goddess with lower-case g was done, so that it could differentiate deities that could be represented by idols. Whereas an Ambrahamic deity (God) can't be idolized

Obviously anthrologists aren't linguists, but it's the best theory I've heard

Thanks Gormur, but are we agreed on God and god? @Xorkoth. agreed? @Foreigner ?

 

[Xorkoth]

In the interests in clearing up semantics, shall we agree?
a. God with an upper-case G = The Catholic/Protestant/Evangelist/etc. name for the 'supreme being/grand architect' as discussed by the Bible
b. god with a lower-case g = an entity, spiritual or otherwise, not affiliated to or to be confused with God (see a. above) which may include for e.g. Mayan Itzamna, Aztec Huitzilopochtli, Norse Odin, Hebrew Jehovah, Roman Jupiter, Greek Zeus, Hindu Brahma, Muslim Allah, Chinese Pangu, Aboriginal Adnoartina, etc.), preferably referred to directly by name

Many thanks.

Yes, this is exactly why I never capitalize god. The capuitalization clearly indicates the monotheistic bearded man in the sky from christianity.

 

[kush407smoke]

As said by the greatest

 

[Gormur]

Thanks Gormur, but are we agreed on God and god? @Xorkoth. agreed? @Foreigner ?

Oh, you mean the thread title. In that case yes it's fine

 

[empeebee]

So effectively the question is...

Are we all God, in the Catholic/Presbyterian/Protestant/ Evangelist term... No, would be my answer.

Or the question could be...

Are we all god in the sense that we have given names and are architects of our realities and destinies and that others believe in us, though not in a worshipful way. Answer = yes.

Or the question could mean that the combined consciousness of all living things = God. Answer = maybe.

May the Force be with you.

 

[Gormur]

I see differing meanings too. The thread title could also be We are ALL encompassing, or even We are ALL there is which would be a humanist atheism title

 

[empeebee]

We are ALL there is

...when we are no longer, to us, there is nothing else of us...

 

[CrowLives]

Every single human, animal or insect on this planet is all part of God.

LIFE is God.

Consciousness is God.

God is omnipresent and God is everywhere, everything and everyone.

God has no name and our simple monkey brains cannot comprehend what he/she is.

Prove me wrong.

*sips my coffee mug*

Are you familiar with Chaos Majik?



(y)