on discussing god and religion

Of course the necessary ingredients here are the actual ingredients one either has access to or does not. You either have bread to eat in the end or you do not.

And, yes, there are folks who can then make that leap from bread that you bake in an actual oven with actual ingredients to the “bread of life” where the ingredients become baked “in your head”. Speculative ingredients that allow you to feel what you have come to connote as a “spiritual” frame of mind.

But since the “bread of life” is basically just a subjective point of view, it is all but futile trying to refute it. If for no other reason that you are not able to experience it yourself. After all, in order to experience it you would have to have lived the life of one who does.

All you can do here is to point this out to the “true believer” and ask him the extent to which he is then able to demonstrate beyond what he believes to be true “in his head” is in fact true.

I think this is a fairly reasonable way in which to imagine one possible future for religion. But [of necessity] it is conveyed in a rather abstract manner. It notes the role that political economy plays in shaping and molding our existential narratives down here in “the real world” – but it is not able to actually prescribe any practical remedies.

I merely suggest then that there are two possible reasons for this: dasein and conflicting goods.

It seems to me that [at best] we can agree only to disagree about the stuff that can never be resolved objectively – other than in a world in which one or another God does choose to reveal Himself such that even the most devout atheist has to admit to His existence.

And then He can finally lay down the law regarding what either is or is not a Sin.

And then we can either agree to behave accordingly or not. Assuming someone is able to explain how human autonomy is reconcilable with a God that is said to be omniscient. Assuming that any actual existing God is.

This is basically the point I keep coming back to.

We can discuss and debate the meaning of words like “God”, “religion”, “soul” and “spirit”. We can try [to the best of our abilities] to relate to others what these words have come to mean to us in the context of the life that we have lived.

That, in my view, is the “in my head” part. That’s the part where some folks are comforted and consoled by the manner in which they have come to react to these words in a particular way out in a particular word.

But that is basically where many stop. They simply will not or cannot broach the implications of this when behaviors come into conflict over value judgments. In other words, how do they factor what these words have come to mean to them into their reaction to moral and political conflicts?

For example, are they arguing that those on either side of the abortion conflict who believe in God, the soul, a spiritual or religious narrative etc., are all justified in behaving in accordance with their belief?

Are they suggesting that the particular God they believe in will not judge those who are either for or against abortion – as long as their faith/belief in Him is genuine?

As always, it is the relationship between “in my head” and “out in the world with others”, between “down here” and “up there”, that most intrigues me. So, I wonder, why doesn’t it also seem to intrigue them?

How in the world can someone [anyone] challange it? Basically what the poster is arguing is that “in his head” he has defined “a God” to be this and “the God” to be that.

Now, he either believes this to be true or he does not. But how does he go about demonstrating that what he believes is true “intellectually”, “theoretically” etc., is so other than in insisting that others must believe it in their heads too.

The whole argument is completely insubstantial…relying soley on what someone claims is true if you share his premises. That is the font of his “objectivity”.

Thus a “good” or a “poor” argument revolves wholly around figuring out a way to get others to share your deductions regarding the “act” of defining God.

And, really, what does any of that have to so with the lives that we live “out in the world” with others?

Sorry imb, I could not kept my promise.

Nothing. I was merely continuing with my explanation of the approximation of the language.

That is true. But, that happens precisely the explanation that i gave in the last post. They can understand each other because they have same experience of the subject. That fills the gap of approximation.

That is true again. And, that is so because their experience and process of deriving moral conclusions is not the same.

It is no more the issue of the language when they differ in their perception. Approximation of the language is a very subtle issue and does not come into play every time, but only when we see it from the lens of precision. Otherwise, language works fine.

Nothing again. I mentioned that in the last post too. If you go back to the old posts, you will find that i have not said that in the reply of morality. I was merely explaining my pov of the working of the language.

Let us keep that for the other thread; otherwise you will again complain that i am not focusing on the issue of God.

As i said above, let us keep the subjects of two threads different, otherwise it will become messy. Leave objective/subjective discussion to the other thread.

To be honest, that was neither my intention nor i tried any such thing.

You did not realize but actually it is you who pushed me into the discussion of various related premises. This is what you said in our second post-

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=186929#p2500893

I would have gone straight to the proof of the God, but before i would have said anything about the subject, you raised the issue of in the head and out there in the world. And, i had no choice but to reply.

You are blaming me that i am putting some preconditions before addressing to the actual subject, but have you not done the same by saying the whatever i would say, it would be in my head only. Then, how can you expect me to leave that and move on?

By the way, agreeing on certain basic premises is not a bad thing either. That is why I did not object. Is it not better to discuss arithmetic before discussing Algebra?

Though, this was also the extension of explanation of the approximation of language but it actually has a lot to do with the lives that actually live, even far more than you can assume.

This was/is the only issue with the religions so far. Had religious scriptures came with lexicons, this world would have been quite different from what it is now. Merely one Jesus or Buddha would have been enough to transform the world.

Firstly, I do not consider myself scholar either, as this term is generally understood now. I am more an Empiricist than a scholar or commentator. I learned the game by playing on the ground in person, not from what other players has been said about their gaming experiences in the past. I do not need Bible, Quran or Gita to have faith in either of their respective religions. Most of the scholars would not be able to say that but I can.

Secondly, how you concluded that what i am saying or will say will have nothing to do with our lives, and that also without knowing what I would say! Should you not wait a little longer to form an opinion? That is not expected from a subjectivist, at least.

I have no problem or hesitation in joining you down there at any issue that you want. But, keep that for the other thread otherwise both of your threads will lose the direction and will go nowhere.

That is true. That is why am asking you again and again not to presume much.

I would have done that, had you not raised issues like in your head and out there in the world.

Once again, i am not expecting any particular answer from you. All i want is such an answer from which i can draw any meaning. After all, what could be any other purpose of answering? I am even ready to accept i do not know. But, you says that you know yet not say anything.

That is not the point.

Complexity does not entail confusion.. Either go for any option or say that i am not sure either way. Do not hang in between. That does not serve any purpose.

If you are confused or unable to decide, let others take the decision. And, when they do that, do not raise the issue of in your head. Now, do not question their process of decision making by saying that it is their subjective decision. Yes, once they are done with that, you can raise objection again if you find anything objectionable. Then, let your head collides and see what happens.

Do not hamper the evolution of decision. Allow it to take its own natural course.

Once again, you are missing the point altogether.

First of all, i am neither from that breed of serious philosophers nor want to be included in that list. I have nothing like RM in my sleeve, though i consider it logical and useful.

Secondly, i am literally taking you up to the hills because you want proof and there is no other way i can give you that. But, you are asking me whether i really have seen the snowfall or it is merely my illusion (in my head), standing right there in the desert? You are not ready to follow my argument till the end. On the contrary, you are questioning my methodology even before i say anything.

This is what you are doing. Are you not asking me again and again how this is related to the proof of the God? How can you know or decide what is pertinent or not, given that you are not aware of what i am going to say? Leave that to me, at least for now. You will again get the chance to raise objections, when i would be done with that. But, not now.

imb, you are not the only one who is making this mistake. Most of the people do that. Unless and until, you are not ready to listen to anyone keeping your bias aside, you will never able to truly understand what the other person is saying. One has to leave his previous perception aside to grasp the essence of the other person’s perception. You have to make some room for something new, otherwise it will bounce back instead of coming in.

listen like a student but question like a master.

You would not have that issue with me at all. I will do that by all means.

imb, do not bring other people into discussion. Otherwise, that will do nothing but cause more distraction.
But, as i said above, i will connect the dots from up there to right up to down here.

It is very pertinent with how i ought to live. Nothing is useless. A mere 0 can enhance or reduce the value of any figure by ten times. The same is with the language. If one is not aware of the context, intention of the narrator and the targeted audience, he can easily confuse rope with snake and vice-verse.

I would like you give an example here. Below is the English translation of some verses of Quran from [u]Al-Baqarah Chapter 2 :

Verse 67 - And remember when Moses said to his people: ‘Allah commands you to slaughter a cow,’ They said, “Do you make fun of us?” He said, “I take Allah’s Refuge from being among Al-Jahilun (the ignorants or the foolish).”

Verse 68 - They said, “Call upon your Lord for us that He may make plain to us what it is!” He said, “He says, ‘Verily, it is a cow neither too old nor too young, but (it is) between the two conditions’, so do what you are commanded.”
Verse 69 - They said, “Call upon your Lord for us to make plain to us its colour.” He said, "He says, ‘It is a yellow cow, bright in its colour, pleasing to the beholders.’ "
Verse 70 - They said, “Call upon your Lord for us to make plain to us what it is. Verily to us all cows are alike, And surely, if Allah wills, we will be guided.”
Verse 71 - He [Musa (Moses)] said, "He says, ‘It is a cow neither trained to till the soil nor water the fields, sound, having no other colour except bright yellow.’ " They said, “Now you have brought the truth.” So they slaughtered it though they were near to not doing it.

Now, may I ask what you can make of these verses?

Any literate person would say that The God is asking Muslims to sacrifice the cows in his name. But, Musa was not talking about the cows at all. He used cow as metaphor for human intellect.

This is still an issue in India because Hindus worship cows and Muslims want to sacrifice them. That often leads to conflicts and communal riots, though not much now. But, this has affected or even killed enumerable people so far. See, how the approximation of the language affects the lives down here.

I can give you enumerable examples of that.

I know that and have been acknowledged that too manytimes in both threads. I am sure that you have been noticed that too. But, you insisted repetition of that tells me that you may have not got the same response from the other objectivists. Perhaps, they would have said that they have concluded all pure objectively. But, i am not going to commit the same mistake.

Why? Why are you choosy? And, how you decide that any moment is appropriate for considering anything truly objective? Do you have any other benchmark other than your dasein? Are you not committing the same mistake, for which you accuse objectivists?

I would not say mindlessly but you do not realize that you tend to use it far more than it is required and justified. And, others take offence to that too.

Let me give you an example how it looks from the other side.

You passed many judgments at the James. Right. Say, i pick anyone of those, and start debating you that you are wrong about him and all this is nothing but in your head. How will you respond? Firstly, you will try to convince me, but if i keep repeating the same line for every explanation coming from your side, what would you do? And, also remember, i would not be wrong either saying that because all that would be actually coming from your head!

But, you did not use the same benchmark for N’s WTP! You seem to be pleading for that it actually exists out there in the world.

Secondly, does almost the whole of the philosophy not exist merely in our heads instead of out there?
Are you also aware of the fact that the same argument of yours is now given by the majority of scientists that all this intellectual philosophy is nothing but an illusion, which is merely in the heads of some people, not out there in the real world?

Do you agree with that? If not, how would you like to defend philosophy?

Thirdly, i would like to extend that argument a bit and apply it on thoughts and emotions. You and i know that we have thoughts and emotions. We would not argue on their existence, whether either of us have any proof or not. But, if an android or an alien would ask us to prove the existence of thoughts or emotions on the ground, how would we be able to do that?

imb, there are three levels of verifications. First party, Second party and Third party.

Religions deal in First party verifications, philosophy in Second party and science purely on Third party. Philosophical verifications are of the nature of Second party only. It is mutual between two such parties, who are at par in the terms of experience. Do not expect philosophy (as of now) to bring third party verifications. I can guarantee you that he whole of philosophy would fail at this very issue.

A hardcore scientist would simply keep repeating that all that is in the head of the philosophers, not in the real world out there. And, no one would be able to counter that either. Out there are only third party evidences, neither second nor the first ones.

imb, you response surprised me this time. I am just fail to understand how do not see this pertinent with daily lives of the people and religions.

I explained you the difference between knowledge ( Empirical knowledge) and information (Bookish knowledge).
And, i also explained above to you how the lives of many people was/is affected by the slight misunderstanding caused by no having actual knowledge but mere information.

imb, i hate to do that kind of philosophy. Secondly, my English is not good enough for that either. I cannot use those heavy words.

No. In my last post, i very clearly asked from you, not any other individual.

So, you again chose not to an answer but wrote a whole para instead! By the way, are you not doing the same, for which you just accused Lyssa, writing para after para but not addressing how one ought to live? Is if fair on your part?

imb, you are avoiding answer not because you are unable to decide, but because that would challenge your subjective mindset. Nevertheless, the job is done because that is all what i wanted.

It has nothing to do with my satisfaction. I was merely trying to show you that one does not need the God all the time to answer the moral questions, as you suggested. And, i am sure that the message has been conveyed.

Though, there is nothing wrong in that either but i have not done anything such intentionally. Such things come and go in long discussions. I do not see it very big deal either.

I can give you exact idea, not to say about any rough clue. But, for that, you need to focus on the issue and stop side stepping. You tend to bring many other people, your past experiences and thus derived conclusions on them, and i have no option but to respond.

Let us shift to the other thread and use it as a test case to test objectivity/subjectivity.

For now, as a principle, the capital punishment depends on the state of culprit, not much on the crime. If there is any scope of improvement, capital punishment should be avoided, no matter how serious the crime may be. But, if the culprit has been gone beyond cure and the crime are very serious too, capital punishment may be awarded.

So, it depends on the case. In principle, there should be provision for the capital punishment in the law.

By provoking the accumulated knowledge, that mankind has been earned so far. That is best option that we have.

That is true. So what? How that does come in the way of making any decision? On the contrary, are they not a test case for us? Does our courts do not recite and consider their past judgments while deciding the new ones?

That may be true in some cases. But, we have to stick that very methodology because that is the best option that we have for now. You can suggest if you have any better one. Otherwise, follow what is best choice for you.

Shift this also to the other thread.

Lastly, if you want to discuss only the proof of the God, focus merely on that. If you want to discuss morality and how one ought to live, stay on that. Do not conflate between both threads. Or, it is also fine to me if you want to have just general discussion. It is up to you to decide, not me. I am merely responding to what you are saying.

with love,
sanjay

I wish, however, that you would examine this distinction that I make with respect to any particular individual’s belief in God or in embracing one rather than another conflicting good.

No, they can understand each other objectively because with respect to human biology something either is or is not objectively true. They may also have the “same experience” in having to choose whether to argue that abortion is moral or immoral. But how is that distinct from discussing abortion as a medical procedure? In fact, here their experiences are rooted far more in the subjective narratives derived from dasein.

With abortion as a medical procedure “language works fine” because it was invented to be applicable to the actual biological parts embedded in a woman’s reproductive system. With abortion as a moral issue it works fine only to the extent that you embrace the premises rooted in the arguments from both sides. But one side is not able to make the premises of the other side go away. One side argues that the unborn have the right to live. But that does not make the argument that women should not be forced to give birth go away. Right?

I’ll try, but please note:

Generally, when someone tells me that they believe in God, they are telling me that they have found a font [an omniscient, omnipotent font] that enables them to ground their moral values in an objective source. So, sooner or later they have to connect this dot themselves. Otherwise, what does the discussion have to do with dasein and conflicting goods?

And this, after all, is my own main focus in discussions of this sort.

And, as you noted recently to James:

To me, it is as though you wish to make a distinction that really cannot be made with respect to the lives that we actually live. At least if we choose to live/interact with others.

Yes, I understand your point but I can only note my own many experiences with religionists and moral objectivists in venues such as this. They seem willing to come “down here” only after I go “up there” and agree with them regarding which definitions and deductions are the starting point for discussing the existence of God and/or human morality. Again, if I cannot grasp how they think about these things theoretically “in their heads” how can I possibly understand how they think about something like abortion or homosexuality “down here”? And that part is invariably “later”. Only later always seems to revolve around me agreeing with them with respect to the discussion “here and now”.

All I can do is imagine others reading this and then wondering: What does this have to do with my own belief in God, with my own value judgments? From my own experience, it is one thing to go around and around regarding definitions and deductions…and another thing regarding the relationship between our value judgments, our behaviors and the actual existential consequences of those behaviors. After all, what are the consequences of dueling definitions and deductions here?

The complexity of logic is related to the complexity of human interactions in conflict. Sure. But what are the limitations of language in resolving those conflicts? Similarly, in my view, the complexities of definitions and deductions pertaining to the arguments one is able to give regarding the existence of God theoretically is not the same as actually demonstrating the existence of this God. Or not to me.

Or, perhaps, you are missing my point altogether.

But: What is it that you do have…something which might be able to nudge nonbelievers into examining God from the direction you wish them to go? And you seem to acknowledge that the hills and the snow are part and parcel of some intellectual contraption that you have deduced in your head. As though the hills and the snow here are just a rhetorical device to move the discussion along.

Perhaps you should just ignore the manner in which I strive to bring the discussion here down to earth. Perhaps you should just continue on to examining “whether something exists beyond our limit of physical approach or not”. But: It is coming up now on two months since you first broached that. And I still have no idea how this is related [substantively] to a God, the God, your God.

But, sure, that may [largely] be my own doing. And yet from my point of view you are just as culpable in ignoring the direction that I wish the discussion to go. No doubt, bringing us back to the manner in which we may well be in two separate discussions here. Discussions predicated on two very different sets of assumptions/premises. And, yes, that may well lead to its unraveling.

Again, the assumption is that I am biased, not you. And yet, with respect to these relationships, I start with the assumption that we can only exchange subjective points of view derived [at least in part] from the limitations of language. And logic. And definitions and deductions] in exploring them.

I seek to suggest here that this is beyond the capability of philosophers. Unless, of course, that are able to make that leap to God. Their God then becoming their font for deducing objective morality. Just as Kant did here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=174111&p=2192848&hilit=Christine+Korsgaard#p2192848

Well, some [myself included] have argued that, historically, in a particular place and time, a particular human community came to believe in the existence of this God. A God, the God of Moses and Abraham. And then, historically, Christianity, Islam and Judaism were derived from different renditions of what it means to believe in and to worship this God. And thus how one reacts to the verses above will be predicated on which particular denominational rendition of this God one subscribes to.

That’s what I make of them. First and foremost anyway. That is how these beliefs are rooted historically, existentially “out in the world”. Out in a particular world at a particular time.

Here, though, you seem to be setting yourself up as, what, an authority on that which is being conveyed here? Thus, if others do not agree with you they are perforce wrong?

Are you suggesting that?

Yes, and all of this “down here” is predicated on how one does connect the dots between cows and God. The cows do in fact exist though. But what about God? Let alone that how one human community connects the dots there is entirely at odds with how another community will. Then what? How, given the manner in which you consture the existence of God, should one go about discussing this with those communities embattled regarding what are clearly conflicting goods? The fact is that in India, people have been slaughtering each other now for centuries over what is deemed to be objectively moral. And how that is then related to God. And not just with respect to cows.

I don’t know how to explain it better than I already have. There either is an existing God or there is not. You are either able to demonstrate his existence or you are not. You are either able to connect the dots between your belief in this God and your value judgments pertaining to behaviors such as homosexuality or you are not.

This as opposed to what [to me] is the objective reality of this exchange we are in fact having here and now. Sure, you and I [and this exchange] may well exist only in the mind of someone who is dreaming all of this into existence. Or we can go down deep into the technical arguments of Descartes and the solipsists and the Platonist [with their reality in and out of the cave] and reduce the exchange down to definitions and deductions.

Me, I’ll take a leap to the actual objective existence of the exchange. But I won’t do the same regarding the alleged objective existence of God or objective morality. I will need a more persuasive argument than the one that you have provided me so far.

Again, as with dasein, I use it when I deem it is appropriate to use it. And, with respect to identity, value judgments, God and relegion, that is quite a lot. Why? Because many folks will assert many things about them without examining in depth the extent to
which they are able to conflate what they believe “in their head” and that which all rational men and women must believe.

How do they actually go about demonstrating the distinction between what can shown to be true objectively for all of us [math, science, empircal facts, logic etc,] and what is instead only presumed to be true “in their heads” based on the assumptions they make.

As for James, is it or is it not true that he refuses to connect the dots between the abstract, theoretical claims he makes in the threads relating to RM and the Real God, and the moral and political narratives he espouses on other forums?

The question I then raise here is this: Is this not also true regarding yourself?

I honestly do not follow your train of thought here. WTP is merely Nietzsche’s own subjective rendition of how one might [or ought to] explain human interaction out in the world. But, as I recently noted on another thread, did or did not Nietzsche himself largely live in a “world of words”? After all, what sort of actual power did Nietzsche wield out in the world with others? Instead, he seemed ever plagued with one or another psycho-somatic ailment and eventually went insane.

Indeed, there are any number of folks from KTS here who embrace one or another rendition of WTP. But how do they go about making the distinction between objective truths and subjective points of view? Are they not as well abstractionists by and large.

As I noted above:

In fact, this is precisely the sort “dueling deduction” approach to philosophy that we come across on threads like Lys’s “Performance Ontology”. Paragraph after paragraph after paragraph of these dense, scholastic, autodidactic abstractions. The stuff of pedants more often than not. In my view, this is precisely what makes “serious philosophy” today increasingly irrelevant to the lives we live.

Now, to what extent are you be able to transcend this yourself in our exhange here? Below you note how you don’t do this sort of thing yourself. How you “hate this kind of philosophy”.

And yet it is to both of you that I would still ask [over and again]: Where is the beef? The existential beef? I see a distinction here that you do not.

Yes, but many scientists root this in determinism. In the immutable laws of matter. Or they argue that with respect to morality, science has no business being involved at all because the tools of science function only in regard to those things that can be reduced down to either/or. At least with respect to the macro-world of human interaction.

Here though I root my own indeterminancy [philosophically] in my “dasein dilemma”.

Again, I can only note to others how abstract this is. What particular thoughts and what particulat emotions relating to what particular God or value judgment…pertaining to what particular self embodying them? And in what particular context?

When Jim justifies condeming Jane’s abortion as immoral per his faith in God, how is first, second and third party “verifications” then brought into the discussion? Or can that only come later – after we nail down theoretically how [logically, epistimologically, linguistically etc.] this distinction must be made?

But: You do not think of identity from the perspective of dasein. As I do. So, in choosing a city in which the distinction revolves around one set of values as opposed to another, “I” can only respond from within the existential context of my actual life. And not from within the context of what an alleged rational man or woman would be said to choose if they wish to be thought of as a rational human being. And, even though you deny it below, that seems to be more your own rendition of “choosing” here. At least to me. As though to suggest that if I don’t choose the “right” city, then I am not thinking about the question as a rational man would.

To wit:

No, the answer I gave revolves around that manner in which I think of questions like this – as revolving largely around subjective points of view rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. In a world sans God. And, in turn, from the point of view that there are limitations beyond which language and logic cannot go. Or, rather, in the manner in which I construe these relationships here and now.

You say that you can. But first comes this:

Yes, but I don’t make these distinctions as you do. To discuss God and/or morality without bringing the world that we live in into it right from the start is the route that most abstractionists seem to prefer. First, they tell me, let me show you the only rational and logically manner in which to think about these things. And then after you agree with me about that, we can begin to illustrate the text. You keep pointing out that this is not your intention here at all and yet you still refuse to offer anything other than those definitions and deductions. Or so it seems to me. Why can’t/don’t/won’t you at least nudge me in the direction of how you link your existential views on homosexuality and and your views on God and philosophy? If I could begin to understand that more clearly it would certainly pique my interest further.

You suggest instead that we can focus more on that over at the other thread. Okay, I’ll wait and see what you have to say there. But, again, for me, identity, values, ethics, philosophy, religion, God etc., are either integrated “out in the world” through our arguments here or they are not. It just doesn’t make much sense [to me] to say “first one, than the other”. As an existentialist, I just don’t think like that. At least not with respect to the relationship between identity, values, political economy and the limitations of language.

But that can still only be reflected from [or condensed down into] a particular point of view. Google capital punishment: google.com/search?sourceid= … punishment

Thousands upon thousands of particular sites you can go to dispensing thousands upon thousands of particular points of view rooted in thousands upon thousands of particular historical, cultural and experientiental contexts.

And, in the end, we are still left with conflicting goods that no philosophical argument that I have ever come across is able to resolve. Instead, folks embrace a particular set of assumptions and take their existential/political leaps. Just like you and I do.

And: with or without God.

So: one’s “best option”. How far removed is that from the “objective truth”? And how is this factored into one’s belief in God and religion?

So [u][b]what[/u][/b]?!!! Boy, does [u][b]that[/u][/b] speak volumes regarding the gap between us. At least from my point of view.

Throughout the ages historically, and across the globe culturally, different folks [enacting different laws] have come to view everything from abortion and slavery to gender roles and capital punishment from every imaginable point of view. But one thing that the philosophers/ethicists have never managed to accomplish is to delineate the most rational argument so as to resolve these conflicts once and for all.

But, sure, here too one can insert a “so what?” And then argue that theoretically the one objective truth does exist and some day we will find it. With or without God. But then most moral objectivists are quick to add that when they finally do find it, it will coincide precisely with what they think is true right now. Just as, when God finally does choose to reveal Himself, it will be their God.

Go ahead, ask them.

Well, I certainly concede that.

And I concern myself less with any particular conception of God and more with the extent to which one who believes in this concept of God is able to demonstrate, in turn, the extent to which it can lead to a proof of the actual existence of a God, the God, my God.

Or the extent to which God’s existence actually is an “existential” phenomenon at all; or, instead, is rooted more in an essential state of “being” – one that might well be beyond the capacity of mere mortals to grasp at all.

And this, in my view, is the one many religionists embrace. They are then relieved of the responsibility of “proving” the existence of God at all. Why? Because the very nature of God’s existence lies precisely in those “mysterious ways” attributed to Him. And these can be grappled with “out in the world” only when God chooses to reveal Himself. As with, say, the Second Coming of Christ.

That way any particular individual religionist is free to believe in any particular conception of God in any particular way that [u][b]works[/u][/b] for him or her “in their head”.

In fact, some are even willing to concede this by accepting the fact that a “faith in God” may well be as far as it can ever go for mere mortals. At least on this side of the grave.

What the atheists believe is that the theists have yet to convince them of the existence of any particular God beyond how they have defined or deduced this God into existence.

In their heads, for example.

In fact with some theists it is almost as though God has nothing whatsoever to do with the lives that we actually live. He is basically just an intellectual contraption. Or, for others, a psychological defense mechanism.

This argument seems perinent only with respect to the possible existence of a God. But most religionists go beyond that and claim a faith/belief in the God, their God.

And then [generally] it is the existence of this God that becomes crucial because it is this God that will judge us. It is pertaining to the existence of this God that immortality and salvation are at stake.

That is why I am always [by far] most curious about the really crucial gap between the existence of a God – a God in which arguments like this [ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_ … nce_of_God ] seem aimed, and the existence of the only God that counts: the alleged Creator Himself.

And it is this gap that the religionist are least able to close.

Or so it seems to me.

I suppose this does bring us a bit closer to how the definitionist “thinks” God into existence. But again, that would only seem to be applicable to a God.

How does he then close the gap between a God and the God, my God?

After all, if we are up on the top of a skyscrapper and someone pushes us over one by one, it’s not like the manner in which we define gravity will determine our fate. Gravity does not just exist “in our head” – in the manner in which we define it’s meaning “out in the world”. Similarly, is it really the manner in which we define “God” in our head that will determine our fate if we pray to him on the way down?

I truly do try to grasp how the objectivist qua abstractionist mind works here. But I keep coming back to the speculation that it is all somehow connected psychologically to his need to invent [define/deduce] a “reality” such that in his head he is able to find comfort and consolation. A “reality” able to provide him [mentally and emotionally] with a wholistic foundation upon which he can anchor “I”.

What is the alternative – some sort of mental affliction?

On the other hand, if he were able to take these definitions and decductions out of his head and anchor them instead to something more in the way of, say, hard evidence, his narrative would certainly acquire more…substance. But instead he always seems to shift the burden to the atheist – it is up to them to prove that his definitions and deductions are wrong.

I think that you misunderstood James’ post.

The universe is simply a moving uneven distribution of energy. When we think, we draw boundaries around clumps of energy and we label them. We do the same kind of labeling with respect to patterns of movement of energy. These labels only exist in our minds. We define objects into existence.
Although there is energy outside of ourselves, the objects ‘I’, ‘skyscraper’ and the pattern ‘gravity’ are only our thoughts. And yes … death at the bottom of the skyscraper is also only a thought.

When James defines ‘God’, he is identifying an energy pattern and labeling it. He is not doing anything different than what is commonly done. Yet it appears extraordinary to some.

James is writing about step one -definitions. Substantive interactions on the ground is step two of the discussion.

With respect to God, that’s easy to do. After all, in order to truly understand him you have to be inside his head. You have to understand the meaning of the words he uses as he does. You have to grasp the manner in which he defines and defends these words with still more words.

Okay, suppose all of this is true objectively. How is it then made relevant to the [demonstrable] existence of the God? the Real God? And what in the world does that have to do with conflicting value judgments “down here”? And how do we differentiate right from wrong behavior so as to be viewed favorably by the Real God on Judgment Day? Isn’t that the part where the discussion shifts to immortality and salvation?

Again, maybe. But then there have been dozens of folks right here at ILP who have concocted all manner of intellectual contraptions “in their heads” to explain “reality”. The “number” guys for example. The WTP fanatics from KTS. The political extremists from both the left and the right.

Yes, I know how that works. I can only get to “step 2” with him after I am willing to accept his premises pertaining to “step 1”.

Yet he seems to have no problems espousing all manner of “step 2” moral and political prescriptions on other threads. Most of them rather conservastive. If not reactionary. Just don’t ask him to connect the dots between step 1 and step 2 “substantively”.

Isn’t it true though that the fundamentalists are asking the very same question of those who refuse to [or are unable to] see God as they do?

To wit: jesus-is-savior.com/False%20 … calism.htm

So, how do we settle it?

And at least the fundamentalists will actually link their assessment of God to actual behaviors that are deemed obligatory if one wants to attain immortality and salvation.

The advocates of ecumenicalism [on the other hand] are often very, very vague about that. God just sort of pats you on the back as long as you profess to be a genuinely “spiritual” person.

Right?

Now this I can understand. It is far more realistic [to me] than complaining about fundamentalists.

To take a leap of faith to God would seem to be the only sensible option until God [if there is one] chooses to reveal Himself. Again, through something like the Second Coming of Christ. Which, ironically, is the schtick of the evangelicals.

But I am still waiting to hear the Christian argument that reconciles free will and an omniscient God. How can we freely take our leap to God when the all-knowing God must know from the very beginning that we either will or we will not. Otherwise, what does it mean to be omniscient?

As for those who argue that it is possible to “reason” to God, I am still waiting for them to demonstrate how this might be done much beyond agreeing with or not agreeing with the internal logic of their very own definitions and deductions.

On the other hand…

Had to Google The Cloud of Unknowing: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cloud_of_Unknowing

Let’s start with the obvious. For some many most practically all of us the abyss connotes eternal nothingness. We die and that is it. All that we know and love is obliterated “for all time to come”. Or so it seems.

And, so, unless we want to die, we either find a “frame of mind” able to obviate this or we do indeed fall into that abyss forever and ever and ever.

And thus Gods were invented. But, true, theological renditions of God are just not enough for some. It’s all that “intellectual” stuff leading inevitably to “dueling deductions” and “dueling definitions” in places like this.

So the leap here is considerably more subjunctive. It is rooted instead in a deep-seated emotional and psychological stirring “in the heart” that is then ascribed to the “spirit” or to the “soul”.

[The irony here being that this God is really just a mental state that you were somehow able to create “in your head”]

And yet for atheists like me who are searching for a path away from the abyss, it is of no use pursuing these anecdotal tales because the only way their particular God makes any sense is if you are able to actually be inside their head with them and think and feel as they do.

And a “leap of faith” necessarily precludes providing anything substantial regarding the relationship between God, Sin, immortality and salvation.

It’s all basically just the vague mush of “feelings”.

At least with folks like zinnat there is the attempt to connect the dots between leaps and logic. I just can’t seem to figure out how he then connects this dot to the world we actually live in from day to day – a world veritably bursting at the seams with conflicting value judgments.

Conflicts that many religionists then link to Judgment Day.

The abyss is not death. The leap of faith and the cloud of unknowing are not about death.

You’re writing about something completely different. :confused:

Right. For the overwhelming preponderance of mere mortals the “abyss” is really just an intellectual contraption that they are trying to pin down philosophically, ontologically, epistemologically, theologically.

Death and oblivion? Why they really have almost nothing at all to do with it!

Oh, and when are you going to respond to the points I raised above? These:

[b]

[/b]

Never.
You gave your opinion on something that James wrote. I think that you misunderstood and I tried to explain what I think James is trying to say.
That’s it for me. No need to add anything.
I’m not interested in discussing immortality, salvation and judgement day. I can sum up but it’s not what you want to read. :smiley:

So, you’re just going to let “the objective truth” here fall over into the abyss with you? :astonished:

Okay, fine. It’s just that, from my experience, most believers [from leapers to evangelicals] seem to link God and religion [u][b]to[/u][/b] those things. I guess they’ve got a lot to learn about theology.

Well, you can discuss it with them and maybe teach them. Enjoy. :smiley: