Existence of God (split from old thread)

[AmtrakQuebec]

That's 'cause Pigs are cool. Also, given that these religions were written around or near the desert, pigs take up waaay to much food and water compared to other animals.

As Mr. Bean would say, I like Pigs.

 

[Ryika]

First, no he isn't. It was written primarily by the scholars of the day.

Well, if we want to be that exact then we actually don't know who wrote most of the bible. But of course, technically it is true and necessary that they were written down (often after being spread by word of mouth), or fabricated by scholars.

Second, what is wrong with peasants?

Nothing, but they're usually not the people you ask the difficult questions about our world.
That's especially true for Ancient Peasants, because education simply wasn't available for them... and the Internet didn't exist yet either.

 

[timtofly]

Well, if we want to be that exact then we actually don't know who wrote most of the bible. But of course, technically it is true and necessary that they were written down (often after being spread by word of mouth), or fabricated by scholars.


Nothing, but they're usually not the people you ask the difficult questions about our world.
That's especially true for Ancient Peasants, because education simply wasn't available for them... and the Internet didn't exist yet either.

Perhaps education is not the key, especially when it comes to figuring out God.

Education is the tool of materialistic humans in a materialistic universe. God tends to be direct revelation, not exactly other humans. However humans tend to be the only God some humans can see.

 

[Gigaz]

If it is so then it is curious that apparently, education is needed to perpetuate the belief in God.

 

[timtofly]

Not really. It perpetuates religious dogma, and theology, but not a belief system, or even that there is a God.

 

[Ryika]

Perhaps education is not the key, especially when it comes to figuring out God.

But nobody was talking about figuring out God.
My argument was that stories that were spread by Ancient Peasants are a really bad source.

Education is the tool of materialistic humans in a materialistic universe. God tends to be direct revelation, not exactly other humans. However humans tend to be the only God some humans can see.

I mean, if you want to believe that, fine with me. If you have some philosophical argument, yeah... go ahead. Not my cup of tea, but if you enjoy it, sure.

Problems arise when you try to explain why the there must totally be a God because <something in the natural world requires it>. Those arguments directly collide with our scientific understanding of the world.

 

[Gigaz]

Not really. It perpetuates religious dogma, and theology, but not a belief system, or even that there is a God.

I'm not buying it. Someone who was raised without a religion will very rarely turn religious as an adult.

 

[timtofly]

But nobody was talking about figuring out God.
My argument was that stories that were spread by Ancient Peasants are a really bad source.


I mean, if you want to believe that, fine with me. If you have some philosophical argument, yeah... go ahead. Not my cup of tea, but if you enjoy it, sure.

Problems arise when you try to explain why the there must totally be a God because <something in the natural world requires it>. Those arguments directly collide with our scientific understanding of the world.

The point is trying to figure God out is or may be the wrong approach, and education is the tool used to figure things out.

God is not limited by any particular source of
revelation. As humans we tend to think any authority on a subject is necessary. I should think that a misleading notion.

I'm not buying it. Someone who was raised without a religion will very rarely turn religious as an adult.

Why is God limited to religion? That is the most deceptive human tool in the book. First convince humans only religion can reveal God, and then convince them that education is the only way to be truly religious. Besides education does not make any one anything. It just opens up more information about existence, that one human in a lifetime has the ability to figure out on their own.

 

[Gigaz]

Why is God limited to religion? That is the most deceptive human tool in the book. First convince humans only religion can reveal God, and then convince them that education is the only way to be truly religious. Besides education does not make any one anything. It just opens up more information about existence, that one human in a lifetime has the ability to figure out on their own.

Noone's trying to deceive anyone, ok? I don't see why anyone would even want to be religious, or get some sort of otherworldly revelation. That sounds creepy. If I gain some new knowledge and understanding I'd very much like to know where it is coming from, anything else sounds like a pipedream.

 

[timtofly]

Noone's trying to deceive anyone, ok? I don't see why anyone would even want to be religious, or get some sort of otherworldly revelation. That sounds creepy. If I gain some new knowledge and understanding I'd very much like to know where it is coming from, anything else sounds like a pipedream.

I never said any one was trying to deceive. Humanity deceives itself, when they limit God to a religious experience, even if it is not intended.

If any knowledge is a pipedream why label it knowledge at all?

 

[Gigaz]

I never said any one was trying to deceive. Humanity deceives itself, when they limit God to a religious experience, even if it is not intended.

If any knowledge is a pipedream why label it knowledge at all?

What would you say if I claim that you're deceiving yourself when you think that God can be thought outside of a religious context? I think that's kind of rude.
Knowlege to me means that for the things I learned, I can get a confirmation. By means of an experiment, for example.

 

[timtofly]

What would you say if I claim that you're deceiving yourself when you think that God can be thought outside of a religious context? I think that's kind of rude.
Knowlege to me means that for the things I learned, I can get a confirmation. By means of an experiment, for example.

Rude to God, humans, or your perceptions? The point is limiting any experience. Why place limits on knowledge? Being rude to other humans would be a natural occurence. Why is there a concept of rudeness to begin with? It would seem that rudeness, is an attempt to level the playing field if a person thinks they know something another person is lacking.

I agree that science is the concept of having objective confirmation. However limiting truth to just the objective, means that you may be tempted to disregard the subjective. Both are real aspects of existence. Some may hold to only the subjective, and disregard the objective. Others may hold only to the objective, and disregard the subjective. Are you claiming we have to choose one way or the other? Is that not placing a needless limit on the human experience? The same is true about setting up an absolute confirmation. Seems needless in reference to God, unless God directly specified to you there is such a need.

 

[Gigaz]

Rude to God, humans, or your perceptions? The point is limiting any experience. Why place limits on knowledge? Being rude to other humans would be a natural occurence. Why is there a concept of rudeness to begin with? It would seem that rudeness, is an attempt to level the playing field if a person thinks they know something another person is lacking.

I agree that science is the concept of having objective confirmation. However limiting truth to just the objective, means that you may be tempted to disregard the subjective. Both are real aspects of existence. Some may hold to only the subjective, and disregard the objective. Others may hold only to the objective, and disregard the subjective. Are you claiming we have to choose one way or the other? Is that not placing a needless limit on the human experience? The same is true about setting up an absolute confirmation. Seems needless in reference to God, unless God directly specified to you there is such a need.

Rude to humans, apparently.
I don't think there is something like a subjective truth, except maybe for Kellyanne Conway. We're limiting our experiences for good reasons. We don't listen to people whom we know to be liars. We don't suddenly choose to believe random pieces of information. Isn't that also limiting our experience? By definition, if you think something is true, you must be able to provide reasons.

 

[Ryika]

I agree that science is the concept of having objective confirmation. However limiting truth to just the objective, means that you may be tempted to disregard the subjective. Both are real aspects of existence.

I was once touched by God, but the police officer didn't believe me when I reported it as sexual assault, and told me to go home.
Apparently, that police officer didn't believe in subjective truth either.

Joking aside though, truth is never subjective, it is by definition objective, because it describes what is in accordance with reality. Whether we as humans actually have access to the "facts of reality" is another question, after all, we don't actually observe reality itself, we observe a warped version of reality that is filtered by our senses. So in a way, how we perceive reality, "our personal reality", is subjective. That doesn't mean that there's different versions of reality though, it just means that our perception and interpretation of reality are often incorrect. Scientific work is the attempt to filter out our fallibility to perceive reality as it is.

I agree that science is the concept of having objective confirmation. However limiting truth to just the objective, means that you may be tempted to disregard the subjective. Both are real aspects of existence. Some may hold to only the subjective, and disregard the objective. Others may hold only to the objective, and disregard the subjective. Are you claiming we have to choose one way or the other? Is that not placing a needless limit on the human experience? The same is true about setting up an absolute confirmation. Seems needless in reference to God, unless God directly specified to you there is such a need.

In the end these are a lot of words to basically say: "Do we really have to check whether our beliefs actually match reality? Can't we just believe whatever we want?"

I mean yeah, of course you can. You just can't expect your words to matter much for other people if you're basing them on things that they can't test for.
If you think your God wants you to believe something purely on faith and/or what you think is revelation, then go for it.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

And how is that a good thing? It's a hypothesis coming from times when humanity was basically scientifically illiterate by today's standards. We've looked at like... 99.83% of the things it attempts to explain and found the natural explanations behind all of those things.

I am afraid that you may be confusing different things. When a scripture says God has created something in a such and such way its quite clearly a figurative statement. Its put in the place to bridge the gulf of our ignorance to the reality which lies beyond it. The fact that physical science has the means of describing natural physical processes in minute detail is admirable no doubt and on the top of that it did help us to be liberated from the grossest religious misconceptions but to claim that this is the method which can illumine us on the whole of our existence is as much illusory as the dogmatic interpretation of a scripture.
To put it otherwise the detailed knowledge of physical processes is as much figurative to the totality of existence as the descriptions in the holy text are to a common sense.


.

 

[Ryika]

I am afraid that you may be confusing different things. When a scripture says God has created something in a such and such way its quite clearly a figurative statement.

That's funny, because before we had scientific explanations for these things, people didn't seem to think they're figurative statements. It was only when our knowledge increased, and God as an explanation of how things came to be was replaced with more likely, internally-consistent versions that didn't match the things that were written in the bible, that people started saying that the things that are very clearly not written in a way that makes them seem like figurative statements, are actually figurative statements.

And I mean, even today a sub-group of your fellow Christians disagree with rationalizing things away as figurative statements, there are more than enough young earth creationists who believe the world has been created in 7 days, 6000 years ago.

I'm glad you don't take these things as literal accounts of what happened, but to say that they're quite clearly figurative statements as if they had not been believed to be accurate accounts of what happened by large parts of the christian population for most of its history, is just historical revisionism.

Its put in the place to bridge the gulf of our ignorance to the reality which lies beyond it. The fact that physical science has the means of describing natural physical processes in minute detail is admirable no doubt and on the top of that it did help us to be liberated from the grossest religious misconceptions but to claim that this is the method which can illumine us on the whole of our existence is as much illusory as the dogmatic interpretation of a scripture.
To put it otherwise the detailed knowledge of physical processes is as much figurative to the totality of existence as the descriptions in the holy text are to a common sense.

I have not claimed that science can "illumine us on the whole of our existence". I believe quite the opposite, I have no doubt that there are mysteries that will stay mysteries forever. There are things we will probably never know, and there are likely things that are unknowable from where we are.

However, these things are not in the scope of what the Bible and similar creation myths lay claim on.
That's the problem with basing ones religion on ancient books, science has advanced the borders of our knowledge so far that the territory we're pushing into that wasn't even visible to the people of old.

"God hypothesis has been around for thousands of years" could only be a positive thing if it had actually stood the test of time in its initial form. But it didn't, it has been changed and revised to fit current scientific knowledge whenever science proved it wrong, and the original hypothesis is clearly utter nonsense from today's perspective. It has moved from being a hypothesis that tries to explain things, to a hypothesis that tries to not be explained away.

Or in other words, the "God hypothesis" is still going because whenever science pushes into territory previously held by God, people start moving the goal posts so they're once again in unknown territory. I have no doubt that the moment for example String Theory manages to overcome its current problem of not being able to make falsifiable predictions, and establishes itself as a working theory for the layers that are currently a mystery, people will start saying that God is actually a 9-dimensional being because <reasons that have been conjured out of thin air without any evidence but can currently not be disproved>.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

That's funny, because before we had scientific explanations for these things, people didn't seem to think they're figurative statements. It was only when our knowledge increased, and God as an explanation of how things came to be was replaced with more likely, internally-consistent versions that didn't match the things that were written in the bible, that people started saying that the things that are very clearly not written in a way that makes them seem like figurative statements, are actually figurative statements.

This what happens always when knowledge increases. Say in 1000 years from now what the scientist describe today to the best of their ability without intention to mislead is going to become half-truth or only its shadow. The same goes for sholars and theologians and their view points as long as it deals with physical intellect. The difference is if the statements are done in mystical/ poetic or other more sublime manner using intuitive or some other less materialistic faculty in which case comparing these to the findings of physical science doesnt make much sense just like reduce those methaphores to their literal meaning in physical reality.

And I mean, even today a sub-group of your fellow Christians disagree with rationalizing things away as figurative statements, there are more than enough young earth creationists who believe the world has been created in 7 days, 6000 years ago.

I'm glad you don't take these things as literal accounts of what happened, but to say that they're quite clearly figurative statements as if they had not been believed to be accurate accounts of what happened by large parts of the christian population for most of its history, is just historical revisionism.

On one side you may have some intuitive insights of some ancient mystics and on the other the misunderstanding of ignorant masses through centuries. Is there anything new? Its still happening.

I have not claimed that science can "illumine us on the whole of our existence". I believe quite the opposite, I have no doubt that there are mysteries that will stay mysteries forever. There are things we will probably never know, and there are likely things that are unknowable from where we are.

My belief is that everything is knowable only not necessarily all through intellect. There seem to be higher faculties above physical mind allowing for more direct and comprehensive understanding of reality.

However, these things are not in the scope of what the Bible and similar creation myths lay claim on.
That's the problem with basing ones religion on ancient books, science has advanced the borders of our knowledge so far that the territory we're pushing into that wasn't even visible to the people of old.

I think it goes both ways. There are some fields of knowledge which may be totaly forgoten by us becouse of our exclusive concentration on material existence.

"God hypothesis has been around for thousands of years" could only be a positive thing if it had actually stood the test of time in its initial form. But it didn't, it has been changed and revised to fit current scientific knowledge whenever science proved it wrong, and the original hypothesis is clearly utter nonsense from today's perspective. It has moved from being a hypothesis that tries to explain things, to a hypothesis that tries to not be explained away.

Religions are not based on hypothesis becouse they arent primarily intelectual endeavors. Religion is based on religious/psychic experience and the philosophical part of it is to allow for practical use of that experience in everyday life. That of course like anything else is a subject to corruption and misuse. Besides you are not expecting scientific knowledge to stand the test of time in its initial form, do you?

Or in other words, the "God hypothesis" is still going because whenever science pushes into territory previously held by God, people start moving the goal posts so they're once again in unknown territory. I have no doubt that the moment for example String Theory manages to overcome its current problem of not being able to make falsifiable predictions, and establishes itself as a working theory for the layers that are currently a mystery, people will start saying that God is actually a 9-dimensional being because <reasons that have been conjured out of thin air without any evidence but can currently not be disproved>.

My personal goal post is that God is an absolute. I dont have to move my goal posts no matter what radical discovery science makes...

 

[onejayhawk]

That's funny, because before we had scientific explanations for these things, people didn't seem to think they're figurative statements.

Some still don't. Consider how a firsthand account of creation would look. First, it passes through centuries of oral tradition before being transcribed into some early form of writing, then transcribed again when modern Hebrew was invented about 3500 years ago. Throw in a couple conquerors and some temple desecrations. It's a wonder we still it at all.

J

 

[Perfection]

Define "multiverse".

Wait I do that for you. Unlimited beginningless and endless reality capable of self-limitation and self-manifestation? Thats God right there.

A multiverse doesn't seem to have the sort of psychological aspects you discussed in our line of conversation.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

A multiverse doesn't seem to have the sort of psychological aspects you discussed in our line of conversation.

I dont think it does but consciousness can be a vastly different matter.