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.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
Let’s start with the obvious. For somemanymost 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.
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:
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.
So, you’re just going to let “the objective truth” here fall over into the abyss with you?
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.
Look, folks are either willing to discuss God and religion with respect to morality and death and Judgment Day or they are not. If God and religion don’t ultimately revolve around “how ought I to live” on this side of the grave, how is it not just one more rendition of mental masturbation that some “intellectuals” are so keen on pursuing.
I say fuck philosophy if all it is going to revolve around is the sort of scholastic shit that Will Durant’s “epistemologists” seem to crave: the dueling definitions and deductions.
That’s just not my own “thing” here.
Though, sure: for better and for worse. In other words, I’m not trying to argue here that my way is better.
The theists maintain a belief in [or faith in] one or another God. It is therefore incumbent upon them to demonstrate the extent to which this belief/faith is something they can then take “out of their head” and substantiate “out in the world” with others.
They either can or they cannot. Putting the onus on the atheist to demonstrate that a God, the God, their God does not exist is [in my view] preposterous.
And that is before all the theists embracing all the different Gods are able to demonstrate to each other why their God is the God.
Indeed, that’s why so many religionists [here for example] prefer the “ecumenical” or “pantheistic” approach to God and religion.
That way they can just focus the beam on their “spirituality” and not have to deal at all with the relationship [“down here”] between their moral values, their behaviors and Judgment Day.
And, come on, Judgment Day is really what [existentially] religion will always be about. And that’s because this is the part that revolves around immortality and salvation.
And not all the intellectual bullshit that is largely derived from the “definitional logic” of deduction.
A “God” is merely a measuring concept and extends infinitely in opposing directions. Anything can be measured using a “God”…There is no such physical thing as a “God”… A “God” is merely a concept of direction, much like saying “Right and Left”. There is no physical “right” “God”.
John Lennon once suggested that “God” is a concept by which we measure our pain. That sounds about right. At least “out in the world” with others. Or around the time we come eyeball to eyeball with death and oblivion.
On the other hand, “in my head” God can be practically anything at all. And measure practically anything at all. And [best of all] all you have to do is to believe it!
I am not sure what you mean by that and how it is related to my reply.
Not at all. They do not have the same experience of the moral side of the abortion in their heads. That is why they differ on its morality only, not biology.
Your try needs to push itself a lot in that sense. You keep bringing others on and one in spite of my many reminders.
Imb, i cannot answer for others but only for me. It is useless to complain me about others. You better sort it out with them. I will not say a single word about others so is useless to bring those again and again.
Let us talk about what we are discussing or saying to each other only.
Not necessarily, particularly in my case. As i said before many times, i would not use the premise of God to decide morality. I do not see any need of that either.
Yes, the dots can be connected but morality does not entail that.
imb, whether the God actually exists or not and whether his premise serves any purpose or affects the life of a common man or not, are two entirely different issues. And, they have to be addressed differently. Do not conflate the two.
You are entitled to remained focus of what you want. That is fine. But, you try to use others as a shield to say what you cannot say to me directly. Point out directly what you find objectionable/unreasonable/illogical in me. I would not mind that at all but do not use any proxy.
You are quoting me out of the context. I tried to explain him my focus and how got involved in philosophy, but all that has nothing to do with what we are discussing here.
Imb, you are accepting my argument of arithmetic/algebra yet again asking for discussing algebra and skipping arithmetic!
How can you will be ever able to understand what they are saying unless you do not go in their heads?
Both of their heads and your head should be in synchronization. That can be possible only in two ways, either they come to your head or you go to their head. But, if either party would refuse to do the same, the discussion would not reach anywhere.
One will talk about the east and other one is about west.
Forget about what others think. Why should you or me worry about that here?
It is very much related with you, your belief and your value judgments. That is why i asked that. But, you again prefer to question my question instead of giving an answer.
Your experience is absolutely right. I agree that is there is no purpose in moving in circles behind definitions and deductions.
But, are you not doing the same when you refused to give me such an answer that i can understand, and gave me a para of confusing sentences? You expect all honesty and clarity from me in one go, but refuse to own that responsibility even to some extent? Is it fair?
Imb, you should not presume the result in the middle of an unknown event.
May be. But, in that case, it is your duty to explain my mistake in the way i explained yours.
Yes, i accept that, even if it an allegation from you or you consider it a mistake. That is what i am certainly trying to do. Because, that is the only possible way in which i can make them understand (not believe ) what i am saying. After my explanation, they will be free to judge whether that was enough/justified or not. I will leave it to them to conclude.
And, this is precisely that analogy of desert/hill was. If you want to see the snowfall, you have to come to the hills. I cannot make snow falling from the sky in the desert. You have to at least once follow my argument till the end before questioning.
As you mentioned before in either of these threads, you are striving for this answer since long. So, i can assume that you also can bear some time more. If you are a true seeker, you will certainly do that.
Secondly, as far as i am able to understand your mindset from our conservation, you are settled for a position where no rule stands. Most of the modern nihilists see this as an ultimate destination where the mankind will ultimately found itself. But, for some reasons (your intelligence/wisdom is one of them), it frightens you (rightfully so) and you look for some refuge in other alternatives. But, your impatience and waywardness fails you then.
You are complaining that i have not brought the discussion down to the earth till now. But, you have not paid any attention to my request that do not bring your past encounters with others into the discussion. I repeat it many times in every post but did you listen to that? You keep bringing others.
Thirdly, as soon as i try to go on with the line of my argument, you instantly put up a question; how it is pertinent with the God? And, instead of going on with the actual subject, we become engaged in discussing how the pertinence should be decided.
That is precisely what is happening.
Imb, you need to understand a very simple fact. There is no way in which I can make you understand the existence of the God, in which way you want me to do that. That is simply impossible. The way has to be mine and you do not any intellectual right to question that way either. Yes, you can question but only the conclusion.
Yes, it is.
Now, you said it what i just mentioned above.
Imb, you need to understand that is precisely your mistake.
Who is trying to proof the existence of the God, you or me?
Who will decide the direction of the discussion, you or me?
Imb, if you want to have a general discussion about religions, god or related subjects, it is going fine. But, in that case, you should not complain that discussion is not reaching anywhere and your months have been wasted. If you want it to reach anywhere, stop questioning in the middle of the argument about its pertinence and validity.
.
That usually happens in long and time taking discussions. Involved parties lose the focus from the issue and hand and tend to side step again and again. Though, I do not see it as a big issue.
I hope so.
At this point, you are misunderstanding me from the very beginning of our discussion. Let me clear my perceptive.
The term bias needs to understood carefully. There is a slight difference between being biased and having a particular subjective perception. A biased person is not such who owns his subjective POV. That is a philosophical position and nothing wrong with that too. But, when such a person is not ready to listen arguments coming from the other side honestly, he becomes biased.
It looks to me that i should not have used the term biased in my reply above. Perception would have served the purpose better.
All i wanted to say that one should listen carefully and completely to the other person before making any judgment. Means, i am not an exception and also have a bias/perception just as you have. And, there is nothing wrong in that either. But, as we are having a discussion, which would be certainly influenced by our own bias/perception, thus, there is a fair chance that we may miss/misunderstand each other’s POV. And, to avoid that situation, it is necessary for both of us to put our subjective perceptions aside, when we are listening. Let us use our bias/perception only when we are making other listen.
You can see the difference what you are interpreting of me and what i was trying to say.
That is why i said this-
Listen like a student/child but question like a master/adult.
That sums up what my intention was.
Now, in which definition one can fit that assertion of you! You said that it is your assumption. How is it different from your perception? Are you sure about this or not? And, if you are sure, how are you different from any objectivist?
It is certainly within the capability of philosophers and philosophy. But yes, most of philosophers use/used the premise of God to settle down the moral issues. But, that does not mean that it cannot be done without that.
All that was not required. I was merely asking what sense you were getting from those verses about killing the cows. That is all.
Not at all. It was not my interpretation by any means, but most of the Islamic scholars, though I agree with that. But, unfortunately, they have gone in the background and some shrewd clerics and leaders, having vested interests, have usurped the position of sole representatives of Islam. And, it suits them to keep the issue of conflicts alive.
The fact of the matter is that interpreting cow as metaphor was/is well established in the Islamic countries, from where Islam was originated. But, Muslim invaders/rulers interpreted it verbatim in the past as a cow intentionally to kill cows here, because it was a cheap and easily available source of meat and it proved their dominance over Hindus also.
Imb, you are forgetting that i gave this example of cow in the reply of your assertion how language affects our daily lives. Remember this-
So, whether the approximation of the language affects our daily lives or not? Are you agreeing?
I am not sure what are you asking and in which context. If i start addressing each question that you raised, it may need a separate post. Like, how and why people killed each other in India itself a complex issue and requires the details of history.
imb, try to stick to the particular context. Do not generalize everything every time. That will keep discussion focused, pertinent and succinct.
That does not answer my allegation of you being objective/subjective at your will. Though, I can very well understand your problem in explaining your position.
You said this in this very thread-
Look, how sure you are about the behavior of some people! What make you so sure or anything what is in their head only?
But, remember, I am not saying whether you are right or wrong in your judgment. That is a different issue altogether. I am only pointing out your certainty about anything. When it comes to judge others, you tend to discard your premise of subjectivity and become as objective as any other true objectivist may be. Here, you are forgetting that your so called first and foremost thing is nothing but exists in your head only.
imb, when, even being a subjectivist, you can be so sure or things, why others cannot? What is the difference between you and objectivist here?
Let us try to probe this issue of subjectivity/objectivity a bit deeper.
imb, the fact of the matter is that, very deep down there at the root level, from where the thoughts are originated, subjectivity gives way to objectivity. Forget about the judgment, you cannot even think of anything without being objective. That is just impossible.
The very process of the thinking entails objectivity. How we use to think? We come across to any observation and tend to feel/think something about it. Later, over the time, these feelings/thoughts take the shape of perception. Right?
But, as soon as you feel/think about anything, objectivity comes into play, even if you are not sure about anything.
is also an objective statement.
You may not realize that but you are as objective as any other objectivist. You have to be. There is no other option either. The only difference between you and others is that they think their subjective opinion is the final/objective one but you do not commit the same mistake and think that others may have their different subjective opinions about the same thing.
The difference between an objectivist and a subjectivist arises at the last stage only, when an objectivist says that either his judgment is an ultimate decision or there can be at least one, and subjectivist says there cannot be any such. But, if you look carefully, this statement of a subjectivist is also an objective decision, because he is sure of the uncertainty.
I have not given any yet. We are roaming only in periphery only till now.
But, what criteria you have for that other than your head? Tell me if you have any other!
So, if is fine when you judge and pass objective comments on others using what is your head, but you hold others guilty when they do the same! Why? What is the difference?
Again, you are impying here that you are rational but others not. How you concluded that?
Again, it is not something that could be in your head only!
I will address this later in this post with the verification issue.
Yes, it is true for you. Means, you can think of me in that way unless i would not convey what is in my head to your head.
This is again the same issue of different degrees of verification, about which i talked in the last post.
Not only N but that will happen to anyone who will pursue this premise of moral nihilism beyond a certain point. But, i was not referring to that. My point was whether you give some importance to such philosophical premises or not, or these are useless as they exist only in some heads? After all, we do not have real evidence of such things like science.
May be. But, i will not comment on others.
You are forgetting that i gave to examples of my threads where i only discussed about real social issues. Please have a look to those threads before passing any judgment. The links are in my last post. And, you will also recognize that i have not taken the shield of God even once there.
Secondly, i usually do not do this kind and tone of discussion, which i am having with you right now. I prefer to focus on real issues of the people, whether religious, mental (meditation) and social. You can check it from my posts and threads, if you want.
But, during my tenure of philosophical forums since last three years, somehow i got the impression that, most of the intellectuals see religious persons like me as a fool or at least incapable of having that level intellectual discussion, which philosophy entails. They think that a religious person must be blindfolded by his faith and cannot be rational ever.
The fact of the matter is that i am following your style of discussion. You are showing the way. It is not me but you, because i realized in the very beginning that is what you tend to do. Remember, It is not an allegation from my end. I am fine what that too. I am following this because that is only way i can make you understand what is my head as you can read my head only through your head only.
That does not answer my query-
Do you agree with that? If not, how would you like to defend philosophy? Or, you agree with the science that philosophy is nothing but some confusing and vague manifestations of some fertile heads?
I am not talking about only morality here but the whole of philosophy.
I am well aware of that by now.
Yes, it is. But, you neither realized its importance not try to address it. Actually, it is the answer to many of your qestions, especially what you keep raising again and again of connecting dots between up there to down here.
Secondly, this is also pertinent what you asked above-
That three levels of the verifications are the actual distintions. You cannot conflate between those. Let me explain.
Suppose, there is a woman and she beomes mother. Now, she is very pleased for having that baby. She is taking care of him 24/7, even the expence of her own comfort. But, why?
The only answer is because she loves her child. Now, the second question arises why she loves and cares that much for her child? There is no answer for it except because he is her child. But, from the pure logic, it is circular reasoning.
Now, from the POV of a computer, she must be insane, becuase firstly she suffered a lot during nine months of pragnency and giving birth, and now again she is suffering day and night for him. Is it insanity or not? Yes, we know that she is doing the right thing, but how can we explain this to a computer? Can you? Try any argument and i will nullify it from the computer’s POV.
imb, every premise has its own realm and fits only there too. As soon as you try it to bring to other realm, it would lose both of its purpose and meaning.
Make no mistake, i can tell you the ways to verify the empirical existence of the God/supernatural on your own, but odds are in the favor of that you would not be able to do that. You need evidence in the front of your eyes right now but that is not possible.
The same is between the relation of science/philosophy and philosophy/religion. If philosophy cannot provide scientific evidences for its premises, how it can expect religions to do that? Is it fair?
But, where i am restricting you to do that?
You may assume what you want in your head. But, that is not my intention to declayer to rational or irrational. I just want you to choose and give the reasons for your decision. That is all.
But, you are not ready to do that. You accused many other members of doing highly intellectual philosophy which has no relation to common people, but are you not doing the same here? In every reply to this simple question of mine, you write some come confusing lines but do not give any clear answer. Is this the way you address the day to day issues of a common man?
The same thing here. A lot of words but no answer.
Then, do not say that you are thriving for having the proof of the God and do have not anything after two months.
First of all, everyone has the right to have his own set of preferences, including you and me. You should not object that, though i am okay with your preferences.
Secondly, as i said before, whether the God actually exists or not, and where his premise serves any purpose or not, are two entirely different issues. You neither can canflate nor discuss those at a time. You can choose anyone but you have to take one at a time.
That is not a bad thing to do, and you accepted that too in the last post. Perceptions take time to traven from one head to other head, thus, the slower, the better.
That depends on you, not me. I would be able do that only when you allow me to do so by stopping side stepping.
See, that is the precisely the problem. You just asked me give my views about homosexuality, philosophy and the God too in a same breath! Then, you complain that i am not focussed enought. Is it practically possible to discuss all those three in a single thread?
imb, choose one subject of your liking and stick to that, if you want to go in the deatils.
But, it makes a perfect sense to me. Why we make so many different books to teach different subjects to our children? Provoding them a thick book containing all would be enough. And, why we appoint different teachers for different subjects?
I am not saying that these things are not interlinked. Of course, they are. But, for practical reasons, we cannot take up all in one go.
Having different opinion is not a problem. On the contrary, it is good thing because that shows that the society is intellectually still awaken and chopping and churning is going on. Ultimate Objectivity is as much a process as a goal. We do not know how far we are. The more important thing to keep moving in that direction always.
We are what our history made us that will be the same ever. We learn fro history and present and add something to it. I do not see any gap in this. You are doing the same as i do, neither you are an exception nor me.
Yes, that is true. But, can you say that we are the same what we were in the Iron Age? Have we made progress from that or not?
Yes.
That may be or not may be true. What anyone think is true or may be proved true one day, is on the table to discuss. Everyone else has the right to question that.
If anyone can prove that in such a way that others can see that too, other would have to concede, whether they like it or not.
I will certainly do that. Would you not?
