Abrahamic "god"?

[Ryika]

No, that is not rude at all. I appreciate us having a nice discussion on a pleasant topic like this. I am not so sure that all feelings are caused by hormones, or lack thereof. What about ambivalency? Or preference? Is my adoration towards, say my favorite director, only really a culmination of all the serotonin rushes I had while watching one of his movies, or is it rather my contemplation of the philosophical implications that the movie proposes?

Even if love was 'just' hormones, that is still a pretty reductive view, no? Hormones flow every second, love, as you propose it, would be a symphony of chemical reactions in your brain that mirror every moment of your life, since obviously the outside world gives us the stimuli to which our brain reacts. That still sounds very romantic to me. Guernica is also "just colours on a canvas"

Whether or not, say "platonic love" really is "just hormones" is a really complex question I don't think any of us can answer convincingly.

No of course it's not just hormones, but it's certainly built on them.

But let's stick with that movie director for a moment: Yes, your adoration towards your favorite director is of course more than just the amount of times he or she made you feel something special. It's also what you make out of those moments, how you combine those moments into a greater picture, what they inspired you to think about, etc. etc. - but without those initial rushes, there just isn't anything. If a creator does not make you feel something special, then you can't "choose" that they are your favorite director. Even if you understand that what they're doing is great, that you have respect for the work, that on an intellectual or practical level they are the best director you know... if their movies for some reason don't connect with you emotionally, you cannot force it.

The same is true for love in my opinion. If hormones never cause you to have that initial feeling of love, the "love sickness" that some people would call it, then you can never arrive at a loving relationship. You simply do not have the "choice" to love somebody if there is no hormonal basis for it.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

The same is true for love in my opinion. If hormones never cause you to have that initial feeling of love, the "love sickness" that some people would call it, then you can never arrive at a loving relationship. You simply do not have the "choice" to love somebody if there is no hormonal basis for it.

Would that, in conclusion, mean that people with a severe hormone deficience (or depression, or something similiar), unable to get regular serotonin rushes in key moments, therefore are unable to feel or experience love?

I understand you now, if I may paraphrase, those initial moments of hormone rush serve as a catalyst for our brain to remember and reflect on important life events. Is it that you were trying to say? If so, that's a really nice pet theory that I could get into.

 

[Birdjaguar]

cant we learn about god by observing existence?

That depends upon how one defines god.

So the Sufis are right!

Of course the Sufis are right!

A Divine Invitation

You have been invited to meet
The Friend
No one can refuse a Divine Invitation.
That narrows all of our choices
To just two:

We can come to God
Dressed for dancing,

Or
Be carried on a stretcher
To God's ward.

There is a candle in your heart...

There is a candle in your heart,
ready to be kindled.
There is a void in your soul,
ready to be filled.
You feel it, don't you?

You feel the separation
from the Beloved.
Invite Him to fill you up,
embrace the fire.
Remind those who tell you otherwise that
Love
comes to you of its own accord,
and the yearning for it
cannot be learned in any school.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

No of course it's not just hormones, but it's certainly built on them.

But let's stick with that movie director for a moment: Yes, your adoration towards your favorite director is of course more than just the amount of times he or she made you feel something special. It's also what you make out of those moments, how you combine those moments into a greater picture, what they inspired you to think about, etc. etc. - but without those initial rushes, there just isn't anything. If a creator does not make you feel something special, then you can't "choose" that they are your favorite director. Even if you understand that what they're doing is great, that you have respect for the work, that on an intellectual or practical level they are the best director you know... if their movies for some reason don't connect with you emotionally, you cannot force it.

The same is true for love in my opinion. If hormones never cause you to have that initial feeling of love, the "love sickness" that some people would call it, then you can never arrive at a loving relationship. You simply do not have the "choice" to love somebody if there is no hormonal basis for it.

Well... feelings clearly come from the brain, not from hormones. Hormones are just an amplifier/facilitator. If you pour the same hormones on a block of cheese it's not going to fall in love with you.

 

[timtofly]

One mistake that is often made when disussing the bible is to assume people back then took it literally.

That is like saying the Titanic never literally sank. It was a figurative story about how a large ship travelling across the Atlantic would fair if it hit an iceburg.

 

[warpus]

The Titanic was obviously just a movie.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

That is like saying the Titanic never literally sank. It was a figurative story about how a large ship travelling across the Atlantic would fair if it hit an iceburg.

There is a huge difference between believing some ship sank because it hit an iceberg (fairly believable, no) and believing that a all-powerful entity ****** up the pharaoh by sending locusts out of nowhere and making it rain frogs bro

I'm also pretty sure people back then did not take the flood myth as literal, they were familiar with natural disasters and probably did not literally think Noah took one of every species on his ark.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

The religious and scientific process, forces one to believe if they get the proof they are looking for. Some of us just accept life the way we see it. The spiritual part is that it is not the human who is doing the convincing. That would be God.

I spent five years in chemistry labs during my school years. Not once did I require "God" to convince me of the results I got.

Coming back to this interesting question:

Somehow it would make more sense to reverse the polarity of the neutron flow and eject the warp core. Oh, and don't forget to cross-circuit to "B." That's a crucial step.

The point may be that "God" is something to strive for, but how does one strive for that which cannot be known?

I don't think I want to strive to be a genocidal maniac who demands human sacrifices and self-glorification.

cant we learn about god by observing existence?

Only if you were already told about the concept of god. If nobody told you, you'd go through life, observing existence, and would have some other worldview.

That is like saying the Titanic never literally sank. It was a figurative story about how a large ship travelling across the Atlantic would fair if it hit an iceburg.

There's a bit of a difference. We know the Titanic sank. People survived to tell others - particularly the news services, and there were cameras back then.

And then there's that thing called archaeological evidence, which we have for the Titanic and we don't for a whole lot of stuff in the bible.

I'm also pretty sure people back then did not take the flood myth as literal, they were familiar with natural disasters and probably did not literally think Noah took one of every species on his ark.

The problem with this is that most people never took basic biology/zoology or geography in school (if they could read at all, which most people couldn't back then). So where would they have learned about the concept of "species", let alone be able to figure out that there were weird animals on the other side of the world (another concept most wouldn't have thought of back then) who somehow made their way to the Middle East, got on the Ark, spent a year there without dying of starvation from lack of their proper food sources, and then went back home and repopulated their species?

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Somehow it would make more sense to reverse the polarity of the neutron flow and eject the warp core. Oh, and don't forget to cross-circuit to "B." That's a crucial step.

Not when you are dealing with human psychology...

 

[timtofly]

There is a huge difference between believing some ship sank because it hit an iceberg (fairly believable, no) and believing that a all-powerful entity ****** up the pharaoh by sending locusts out of nowhere and making it rain frogs bro

I'm also pretty sure people back then did not take the flood myth as literal, they were familiar with natural disasters and probably did not literally think Noah took one of every species on his ark.

I think it would depend on living through the experience or being able to refute the interpretation of the experience. Recent hurricane Irma was not figurative in it's actuality. Why it happened is open to interpretation. The mistake it would seem to me, is the reality is based on the interpretation and not that it actually happened. How can we say it did or did not happen merely on the believability factor?

The point is that it was documented, and it had nothing to do with being figurative while it was being experienced. What is the point of stating it was just a figurative story even 500 years after the fact? The account says that Moses had them writing down the events for future generations.

We can see in the New Testament that the events of Moses time were stated as figurative or similiar patterns as what was then currently happening, and at the same time, they indicated that they had actually happened. Humans seem to have no trouble in figuring out fact from fiction, yet we seem to think those in the past were not capable of doing so. We should be able to distinguish between the fact and fiction of the Titanic, and do so a thousand or even two thousand years from now. We cannot claim that it did not happen, based solely on the fact there is a fictional movie as evidence. We do not have proof the Old Testament is a fictional account.

 

[Berzerker]

Only if you were already told about the concept of god. If nobody told you, you'd go through life, observing existence, and would have some other worldview.

if nobody told you, wouldn't you still assign responsibility for existence to someone else?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I think it would depend on living through the experience or being able to refute the interpretation of the experience. Recent hurricane Irma was not figurative in it's actuality. Why it happened is open to interpretation. The mistake it would seem to me, is the reality is based on the interpretation and not that it actually happened. How can we say it did or did not happen merely on the believability factor?

I'm pretty sure nobody is saying Hurricane Irma didn't happen.

The point is that it was documented, and it had nothing to do with being figurative while it was being experienced. What is the point of stating it was just a figurative story even 500 years after the fact? The account says that Moses had them writing down the events for future generations.

So now you're claiming that the flood was documented as it happened? WHAT?

You should apply for a job with the NHL - you're so good at moving goalposts.

I'm reasonably sure that Moses did not tell Noah to "write down the events for future generations." That would require Moses to possess a time machine, unless now you're going to claim that the flood and the events of the book of Exodus happened at the same time.

[/quote]We can see in the New Testament that the events of Moses time were stated as figurative or similiar patterns as what was then currently happening, and at the same time, they indicated that they had actually happened. Humans seem to have no trouble in figuring out fact from fiction, yet we seem to think those in the past were not capable of doing so. We should be able to distinguish between the fact and fiction of the Titanic, and do so a thousand or even two thousand years from now. We cannot claim that it did not happen, based solely on the fact there is a fictional movie as evidence. We do not have proof the Old Testament is a fictional account.[/QUOTE]
Ohforpetessake!

It's quite obvious that some humans have considerable trouble in figuring out fact from fiction, or at least fact from rampant, unsubstantiated speculation.

You are aware that the Titanic movie is just a movie, and not a documentary, right? Are you also aware that marine archaeologists have visited the real Titanic, documented an incredible number of artifacts and remains of drowned people?

As for the Old Testament... as always, show me the evidence.

if nobody told you, wouldn't you still assign responsibility for existence to someone else?

Sure. My parents. Even though my mother gave me the cabbage patch story and her mother gave me some crazy version of the stork story.

Thank goodness I went to a public school where they didn't go in for any nonsense like that, or even supernatural stuff.

 

[Berzerker]

You'd credit your parents with creating existence?

So you'd assign creation a creator...

 

[Synobun]

You'd credit your parents with creating existence?

So you'd assign creation a creator...

Unless you've got some footage of God schtupping a ball of primordial goo, I'm not sure this equivalency argument is going to go the way you hope it will. The act of reproduction in humans is quite documented.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

You'd credit your parents with creating existence?

So you'd assign creation a creator...

I credit them with creating my existence.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Certainly the capability of ancient peoples to document actual events was more limited than the options we have today. The most common form was an oral tradition. In 3000 years the story of the Titanic or Hurricanes Harvey & Irma might exist in a very different way than they do now and tell a very different story to those partaking of them. What we demand as evidence now was not what was demanded in the past. "Pics or it didn't happen." cannot be applied to the ancient world. Word of mouth was the most common form of evidence and that would sometimes get written down or carved into wood or stone. Now the gap between Biblical "events" and their writing down is certainly less than thousands of years and more likely a few hundred, but for an oral tradition a few hundred years is along time.

A nice reference point is the US constitution. It was written down just over 200 years ago and we argue over what it means and what the intent of the writers were. Everyone keeps showing evidence to support what they think it means. The whole question about evidence is a modern problem that did not exist for those in the past. We impose the evidence rules devised in recent times on all of history. We use those rules to shape a version of history more to our liking.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Certainly the capability of ancient peoples to document actual events was more limited than the options we have today. The most common form was an oral tradition. In 3000 years the story of the Titanic or Hurricanes Harvey & Irma might exist in a very different way than they do now and tell a very different story to those partaking of them. What we demand as evidence now was not what was demanded in the past. "Pics or it didn't happen." cannot be applied to the ancient world. Word of mouth was the most common form of evidence and that would sometimes get written down or carved into wood or stone. Now the gap between Biblical "events" and their writing down is certainly less than thousands of years and more likely a few hundred, but for an oral tradition a few hundred years is along time.

Can you give me an accurate oral account of last night's newscast?

Neither can I.

So you're going to have to forgive me for being skeptical that an accurate account of history can be preserved over 3000 years using nothing but oral tradition.

The recent hurricanes are already being treated very differently, depending on if you're a climate change-denier, a real climatologist, or a religious fundamentalist or Ann Coulter-type troll who insists God sent the hurricanes because there are too many gay/lesbian/transgender people and if there weren't so many of these people, there wouldn't be so many hurricanes.

When have I ever said "pics or it didn't happen" regarding the ancient world? I've said "archaeological evidence, geological evidence, climatological evidence, or fossil evidence or it's probably going to be hard to convince me it happened." And even then, it's got to pass the common sense test that tells me that an ancient person can write that the sun/earth stood still (however the story in Joshua goes), but common sense - not to mention basic astronomy and physics - tells me that's impossible.

Oral tradition alone, particularly when so much of it claims things that can't possibly have happened, just isn't good enough.

 

[Berzerker]

Unless you've got some footage of God schtupping a ball of primordial goo, I'm not sure this equivalency argument is going to go the way you hope it will. The act of reproduction in humans is quite documented.

I credit them with creating my existence.

We're not talking about your existence or human reproduction

cant we learn about god by observing existence?

See... existence. If nobody told you about god, you'd observe existence and not consider a creator as its source? Okay, we've had that debate before. You've had time to observe existence, are there 'rules'? Is there a design? Can we see the design, understand it? Who said science was looking into the mind of God?

Now the gap between Biblical "events" and their writing down is certainly less than thousands of years and more likely a few hundred, but for an oral tradition a few hundred years is along time.

So you're going to have to forgive me for being skeptical that an accurate account of history can be preserved over 3000 years using nothing but oral tradition.

I've said "archaeological evidence, geological evidence, climatological evidence, or fossil evidence or it's probably going to be hard to convince me it happened.

I cant find the link but I saw a recent article about Pacific Coast Indians using archaeological discoveries on coastal islands in court to confirm their ancient ancestry... and their oral traditions going back into the ice age. They believe the big freeze drove their ancestors from their inland homes to the coast before the great flood. A geographical oddity called a hinge kept sea level relatively stable during the big meltdown in that region - basically land under and near ice sheets rise when ice melts and in some rare places that rise was more or less matched by sea level rise. People were there over 14 kya, sea level rise didn't cover their homes like it did with so many other peoples - and they still have a flood myth. They were there while seas were rising ~400 ft nearby.

Anyway, I'd argue the biblical myth of Eve is evidence of an oral tradition going back >100ky to our very beginning.

Unto the woman He said, `Multiplying I multiply thy sorrow and thy conception, in sorrow dost thou bear children'

Her hominid ancestors didn't suffer as much pain in child birth, thats why Eve's pain was multiplied - God was comparing her pain to theirs... And what was Adam before the knowledge of good and evil? Innocent, unclothed, unashamed, he was so 'primitive' God even sought for him a 'helpmate' from among the other animals, but none was found suitable. Sounds to me like an oral tradition was written into the bible describing events that happened over 100,000 years ago when 'modern man' was born. Hell, even the MtDNA Eve was dated to about 200,000 years ago. I wonder if DNA studies on the apes show a similar age or if they go much further back.

Its a human paradox

 

[Valka D'Ur]

We're not talking about your existence or human reproduction

You were on about "existence". We all perceive "existence" from our own unique perspective. If I'd never been born, I wouldn't be here to contemplate "existence" and we wouldn't be having these arguments.

So my parents are responsible for my existence. You can credit whoever or whatever you want for yours, although if you trot out some sort of supernatural reason, I have to seriously question whether you ever took a biology class.

See... existence. If nobody told you about god, you'd observe existence and not consider a creator as its source? Okay, we've had that debate before. You've had time to observe existence, are there 'rules'? Is there a design? Can we see the design, understand it? Who said science was looking into the mind of God?

Why should I? When I was old enough to start thinking about such things, the idea that there was a creator that created everything never occurred to me. It was my aunt and a bunch of doorknockers who couldn't wrap their minds around the idea that a kid could live on a rural acreage, not attend church, and live a moral life. So of course my aunt nagged my mother into sending me to Sunday school, and the JWs kept leaving pamphlets and other nonsensical stuff.

I cant find the link but I saw a recent article about Pacific Coast Indians using archaeological discoveries on coastal islands in court to confirm their ancient ancestry... and their oral traditions going back into the ice age. They believe the big freeze drove their ancestors from their inland homes to the coast before the great flood. A geographical oddity called a hinge kept sea level relatively stable during the big meltdown in that region - basically land under and near ice sheets rise when ice melts and in some rare places that rise was more or less matched by sea level rise. People were there over 14 kya, sea level rise didn't cover their homes like it did with so many other peoples - and they still have a flood myth. They were there while seas were rising ~400 ft nearby.

Anyway, I'd argue the biblical myth of Eve is evidence of an oral tradition going back >100ky to our very beginning.

You're going to have to provide the chapter and verse in the bible where the Pacific Coast Indians are mentioned. I don't remember seeing them anywhere.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I credit them with creating my existence.

I see I thought it was the genius of Michelangelo who created David but I guess it was actually the genius of his hammer and chisel who had done that. One can learn something new everyday....

https://cs.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soubor:Michelangelos_David.jpg