on discussing god and religion

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby Dan~ » Tue Aug 13, 2019 11:35 pm

iambiguous wrote:But: I do not believe in God. And while recognizing how much more comforting and consoling it would be if, once again, I did believe in Him, that doesn't make the arguments I propose [as a moral nihilist] go away in the absence of actual proof that God exist.


Don't believe in God?
How about gods? Aliens? Angels? Ascended beings?

You'll need disproof for each of these things.

"Actual proof" is an inversion.
First we reject a proof, then we say what actual truth is supposed to be, instead of what it is.

"Proof" is a dirty word.
So is "Faith".

People use these words often with mal-content.
I like http://www.accuradio.com , internet radio.
https://dannerz.itch.io/ -- a new and minimal webside now hosting two of my free game projects.
User avatar
Dan~
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10063
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 8:14 am
Location: May the loving spirit of papa hitler watch over and bless you all.

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Wed Aug 14, 2019 12:00 am

Dan~ wrote:
iambiguous wrote:But: I do not believe in God. And while recognizing how much more comforting and consoling it would be if, once again, I did believe in Him, that doesn't make the arguments I propose [as a moral nihilist] go away in the absence of actual proof that God exist.


Don't believe in God?
How about gods? Aliens? Angels? Ascended beings?

You'll need disproof for each of these things.

"Actual proof" is an inversion.
First we reject a proof, then we say what actual truth is supposed to be, instead of what it is.

"Proof" is a dirty word.
So is "Faith".

People use these words often with mal-content.


Huh?

Why do people believe in God? Because, through God, they are on the path [the only path] to immortality, salvation and divine justice.

At least this is so "in their head" as long as they are able to believe it.

Only, as this thread seeks to explore, the dots must be connected between the behaviors one chooses on this side of the grave in order to be judged by God with regard to their fate on the other side of it.

The actual existential stakes here could not possibly be more extraordinary! Or higher!!

Though, sure, you can dismiss the part about actual proof that a God, the God, my God is the one.

You can choose instead a set of behaviors and simply have faith that He is the one.

So, tell me, how does it work for you?

After all, in my view, the part about needing proof is no less an existential contraption rooted in dasein.

Some need it more than others. Some insist that needing it is more important than others.

But there is either what one can demonstrate is true for all rational people here or what one cannot.

Shrug that part off if you must but that doesn't make the stakes go away.

Right?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 31489
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby Dan~ » Wed Aug 14, 2019 12:50 am

Why do people believe in God?

God is an extreme idea.
gods is an idea of higher beings that can often die or change and reproduce, etc.

We know there is life on other planets and realms.
Well, i know there is, anyway.
That is just a fact that people often cannot face.

God is a huge difference compared to gods.
I like http://www.accuradio.com , internet radio.
https://dannerz.itch.io/ -- a new and minimal webside now hosting two of my free game projects.
User avatar
Dan~
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10063
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 8:14 am
Location: May the loving spirit of papa hitler watch over and bless you all.

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Fri Aug 16, 2019 7:29 pm

Dan~ wrote:
Why do people believe in God?

God is an extreme idea.


Quite the contrary in my view. For those able to ask questions like, "why am I here?" "what does it mean to be here?" "what is the purpose of my life?" "how ought I to live?" "what happens when I die?" etc., coming to the part we call God is just common sense. The singularity that explains everything.

Dan~ wrote: gods is an idea of higher beings that can often die or change and reproduce, etc.


Exactly. Dogs and turtles and earthworms are not likely to factor a Creator into the lives they live from day to day.

Dan~ wrote: We know there is life on other planets and realms.
Well, i know there is, anyway.
That is just a fact that people often cannot face.


You know there is? Okay, how would you go about demonstrating that this is so to those like me who speculate that while it is likely that life exists on other planets, we have not been able to determine that definitively. God or No God.

Dan~ wrote: God is a huge difference compared to gods.


Yes, but from my frame of mind, it is the thing they share in common that precipitated this thread. In other words, the fact that down through the ages both "the Gods" and "a God, the God, my God" are used by mere mortals on this planet to connect the dots between what is chosen on this side of the grave and what is hoped for on the other side of grave.

The rest is embedded historically, culturally and individually in dasein.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 31489
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby Meno_ » Fri Aug 16, 2019 7:51 pm

Yes, but such an embededness may indicate a toss up between biases, symmetries, reductive and productive processes, the last of which seem to indicate more syntactical inclusion , bearing down negatively on positivity to deal with approach to a singularity we have discussed before.
It is inconceivable that a reductio ad absurdum be sustained within the modus of Russell-Wittgenstein-Ayer.

The trend toward less symbolic symbolism through signs and signals proves insufficient and inconclusive even at the present time.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5062
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Sun Aug 18, 2019 3:19 am

"Can We Be Good without God?"
William Lane Craig from the Reasonable Faith website

The objective worthlessness of human beings on a naturalistic world view is underscored by two implications of that world view: materialism and determinism. Naturalists are typically materialists or physicalists, who regard man as a purely animal organism. But if man has no immaterial aspect to his being (call it soul or mind or what have you), then he is not qualitatively different from other animal species. For him to regard human morality as objective is to fall into the trap of specie-ism.

On a materialistic anthropology there is no reason to think that human beings are objectively more valuable than rats.


All clearly reasonable in my view if you take God out of the equation that is existence itself. Descriptions and evaluations of worth become the consequence of matter evolving into minds able to think up the idea of worth and attributing it to particular things. But then having access to no transcending font able to judge any conflicting descriptions and evaluations.

Still, this will never stop most of us from insisting that the existence of God has absolutely nothing to do with the clearly superior worth of human beings over rats.

But, again, how on earth could that possibly be demonstrated as true necessarily? Scientifically? Philosophically?

In other words, other than [in the end] by insisting that "I just know it".

Secondly, if there is no mind distinct from the brain, then everything we think and do is determined by the input of our five senses and our genetic make-up. There is no personal agent who freely decides to do something. But without freedom, none of our choices is morally significant. They are like the jerks of a puppet’s limbs, controlled by the strings of sensory input and physical constitution. And what moral value does a puppet or its movements have?


Which is why God is embraced by so many as the fundamental factor here. The one explanation for how the laws of nature somehow reconfigured matter into mind able to freely decide for itself whether it is able to freely decide for itself. This is as a result of human beings being in possession of souls. And souls don't just grow on trees. They are planted in us by God.

Then it all comes down to having faith in this. And in concocting arguments that somehow reconcile an omniscient God with human autonomy.

Arguments like this one:
https://www.exploregod.com/sovereignty-and-free-will
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 31489
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby phyllo » Sun Aug 18, 2019 8:06 am

The objective worthlessness of human beings on a naturalistic world view is underscored by two implications of that world view: materialism and determinism. Naturalists are typically materialists or physicalists, who regard man as a purely animal organism. But if man has no immaterial aspect to his being (call it soul or mind or what have you), then he is not qualitatively different from other animal species. For him to regard human morality as objective is to fall into the trap of specie-ism.

On a materialistic anthropology there is no reason to think that human beings are objectively more valuable than rats.
Humans are more valuable than animals to other humans. Rats can see themselves as more valuable than humans. Nothing wrong with that.

All animals are valuable. All play a role in forming the whole of nature. Therefore, none are "worthless".
Secondly, if there is no mind distinct from the brain, then everything we think and do is determined by the input of our five senses and our genetic make-up. There is no personal agent who freely decides to do something.
The personal agent is the collection of genetic material and experiences.
But without freedom, none of our choices is morally significant.
As if it makes no moral difference if you play ball with a child or beat the child to death with a baseball bat.
They are like the jerks of a puppet’s limbs, controlled by the strings of sensory input and physical constitution.
And the alternative of being controlled by "sensory input and physical constitution and mind/soul" is somehow different? The mind/soul has some sort of characteristics just as the "physical constitution". Therefore, the addition of mind/soul just adds one more layer of complexity but it doesn't add any sort of extra ability to evade causes. If you think of yourself as a puppet without a mind/soul, then logically you should also think of yourself as a puppet with a mind/soul.

In any case, it's Miller time. :banana-dance:
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11235
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby Meno_ » Sun Aug 18, 2019 8:47 am

phyllo wrote:
The objective worthlessness of human beings on a naturalistic world view is underscored by two implications of that world view: materialism and determinism. Naturalists are typically materialists or physicalists, who regard man as a purely animal organism. But if man has no immaterial aspect to his being (call it soul or mind or what have you), then he is not qualitatively different from other animal species. For him to regard human morality as objective is to fall into the trap of specie-ism.

On a materialistic anthropology there is no reason to think that human beings are objectively more valuable than rats.
Humans are more valuable than animals to other humans. Rats can see themselves as more valuable than humans. Nothing wrong with that.

All animals are valuable. All play a role in forming the whole of nature. Therefore, none are "worthless".
Secondly, if there is no mind distinct from the brain, then everything we think and do is determined by the input of our five senses and our genetic make-up. There is no personal agent who freely decides to do something.
The personal agent is the collection of genetic material and experiences.
But without freedom, none of our choices is morally significant.
As if it makes no moral difference if you play ball with a child or beat the child to death with a baseball bat.
They are like the jerks of a puppet’s limbs, controlled by the strings of sensory input and physical constitution.
And the alternative of being controlled by "sensory input and physical constitution and mind/soul" is somehow different? The mind/soul has some sort of characteristics just as the "physical constitution". Therefore, the addition of mind/soul just adds one more layer of complexity but it doesn't add any sort of extra ability to evade causes. If you think of yourself as a puppet without a mind/soul, then logically you should also think of yourself as a puppet with a mind/soul.

In any case, it's Miller time. :banana-dance:



Skol! But then the purpose of evolution is ? But without a purpose, evolution would not happen. Reason is one purpose. Others are manifold.

Or, if it just happens, beings want to better themselves, will to power over other beasts, but even then there may be an implicit design

Unless the will to become their own creators, which is even more preposterous.

The most probable take is that evolutionary approach to the absolute de-differentiated indigenous and extrinsic causes of formation, where Macau and growth behave similarly, wherein decay will cause new generations of newly formed types
Decay is a necessary step in this process of ever processing.

God may be a changing name appropriate for changes of phenotype .
Perhaps such has always and eternally been embedded in memory, and the big question is how has it been so?

Ecmondu's idea of the left over before the limit being the free will, is pretty right on, except the question of the spational temporal gap being imperceptible makes it a temp is concept. How can our choices be free if they are near absolute. Perhaps there is a relative relation between the conceivable and the inconceivable.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5062
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Sun Aug 18, 2019 9:23 pm

phyllo wrote: Humans are more valuable than animals to other humans. Rats can see themselves as more valuable than humans. Nothing wrong with that.

All animals are valuable. All play a role in forming the whole of nature. Therefore, none are "worthless".


So, we are expected to believe that because he believes this is true -- an advocate of "specism" as described above? -- that is all the proof we need to make it true. This is the only rational -- necessary -- conclusion that philosophers and scientists can come to. And, of course, many religionists have already weighed in on it. They merely quote from the Bible:

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

Well, if this God is his God.

Secondly, if there is no mind distinct from the brain, then everything we think and do is determined by the input of our five senses and our genetic make-up. There is no personal agent who freely decides to do something.


phyllo wrote: The personal agent is the collection of genetic material and experiences.


No, the personal agent here is encompassed only in the manner in which he insist that others must encompass it in turn: as he does.

Maybe, in crucial respects, the genetic material of women may be different from the genetic material of men. And maybe the experiences of a particular pregnant woman burdened with an unwanted pregnancy might have been vastly different from the experiences of the man who raped her.

But the "personal agent" here is still only as he sees it.

Linked somehow "in his head" to God.

But without freedom, none of our choices is morally significant.


phyllo wrote: As if it makes no moral difference if you play ball with a child or beat the child to death with a baseball bat.


Huh? The argument is that "without freedom", the two behaviors are interchangeable. Why? Because without actual free-will there is no actual personal responsibility involved in either context. If you could not have opted to not play ball with the child or could not have opted to not beat the child to death with the baseball bat, where does a "personal agent" fit in?

AGAIN: Unless he is making a very good point here that I keep missing. I do not deny that possibility.

As for this...

They are like the jerks of a puppet’s limbs, controlled by the strings of sensory input and physical constitution.


phyllo wrote: And the alternative of being controlled by "sensory input and physical constitution and mind/soul" is somehow different? The mind/soul has some sort of characteristics just as the "physical constitution". Therefore, the addition of mind/soul just adds one more layer of complexity but it doesn't add any sort of extra ability to evade causes. If you think of yourself as a puppet without a mind/soul, then logically you should also think of yourself as a puppet with a mind/soul.


...he'll have to bring this particular intellectual contraption down to earth and explain to us how it would be applicable to him were he to come into contact with a child and a ball and baseball bat.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 31489
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Tue Aug 20, 2019 6:53 pm

All things are subject to nature and physics.


This has always fascinated me with respect to God and religion.

In other words, does this include God?

Forget about proving the existence of God for a moment and start with the assumption that He does in fact exist. And, sure, let's make it your God.

Now imagine Albert Einstein is up in Heaven and he asks God why He chose to create space-time as modern physicists have come to understand it today. God then corrects Albert and explains to him the true nature of space-time.

Which, Albert then points out, just begs the question: "Why did You choose natural laws as they are rather than some other way? Are You Yourself able only to be in sync with the laws of physics?"

What might the answer to that be?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 31489
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Previous

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]