A God We Know Nothing About

[swarm]

That is not the point.

Actually it is the point. Understanding what actually is, is better than just pretending some magic fairy did it. My kids understand this even if they don't understand it all. Understanding it means we at least have a chance of figuring out more and learning how to actually help when things go wrong.

The magic fairy explanation is useless.

It will never mean anything, because it has nothing to do with "love", anymore than planting orange trees have anything to do with the taste of organge-juice.

This is just where irrational explanation leads some one. So you think planting orange trees has nothing to do with the taste of orange juice. I suppose your magic fairy just wills it into existence for you each day.

It is just the absurd (albeit indirect) lengths some will go to show that God does not exist.

There is no need to show God doesn't exist. The manifest absence of any gods speaks for itself. If you think there is a god hiding some where by all means produce your evidence. Until then "god" is just your sick fantasy.

 

[swarm]

The first point is scripture.

Scripture is not a god and it was written by people who had no more god than you or I.

Its just a work of fiction. A collection of myths woven into a loosely historical context with a lot of silly propaganda.

In fact one of my first realizations was nothing as poorly written as the world's "sacred" scriptures could pssibly have anything to do with any actual gods.

 

[swarm]

It is a shame that some people cannot distinguish fantasy from fact.

 

[swarm]

Tell me, we know that orange comes from organge trees, and we know the process of how orange trees come about.

You do not know where gods come from.
You do not know how gods come about.

I can take you to an orange, give you its juice, take its seed and grow a new orange tree, take its oranges, give you their juice.

You cannot give me a taste of god, you cannot show me god, you cannot take god's seed and grow me a new god, you have nothing to offer. No god, no evidence, no understanding, no taste.

Just empty words, empty beliefs, empty faith, empty fantasies.

A taste of orange juice will refresh you. You god is nothing to me.

 

[wynn]

I've read scripture: it's an account of unverifiable origin.
I.e. the supposed source is the god it's claiming to talk about - not helpful.
How does it have any more validity than, say, Lord of the Rings?

For starters, there is one thing we can agree on: Some of the moral principles presented and discussed in the Lord of the Rings are worthy of serious consideration and application (e.g. careful choice of friends, loyalty, companionship, finishing what you started) - even though we see the text (or films) as fictional.

Much of the moral principles that we as humans hold, we have learned with the help of stories that are patently considered fictional (e.g. children's stories, art).

So the fictionality of the context in which a moral principle is presented and discussed
does not necessarily make the moral principle fictional.



So the objection (which you seem to be making, or one similar to it) that 'scriptures are of unverifiable origin, therefore what is written in them cannot be taken seriously'
in not valid,
for the fact is that we take moral principles seriously all the time, even though we have learned them through fictional contexts.

 

[wynn]

Jan Ardena -


You didn't answer Oli's question:

The bible is not the only scripture, maybe you should read others as well.

Others?
Such as?

 

[wynn]

Seems like you have to make up your mind first to accept that god is there before you can hear what he/ she/ it says.

Not at all.

Perfect faith or full knowledge are not required to start on the path of getting to know God.

 

[Oli]

The moral principle in all fiction is based on human experience.
And most fiction doesn't claim to be authority on the source for those morals.
My objection is that the claimed origin of the scriptures is only supported by the scriptures themselves - i.e. "god exists because it says so in the scriptures. And the scriptures are correct because they come from god".
LoTR USES a moral code as a given - a shared common experience.

 

[Oli]

Not at all.

Perfect faith or full knowledge are not required to start on the path of getting to know God.

I didn't say "full and perfect" - but you have to have some faith or belief to start the search, neh?
Would you start a concentrated search for an elephant in the local library without some indication that it was going to be worth your time?

 

[wynn]

But whatever our individual experiences there is something there for us to experience: not so. apparently in the case of god.
Hence the scepticism.

It depends on what we mean by 'God', and also by what we mean 'who' we are. IOW, what our philosophical understanding of these things is.

If our philosophical understanding goes no deeper than 'popular notions', then there isn't much, or anything at all, to experience about God.


That said, there is the suggestion that a deep philosophical understanding is not necessary in order to know God.
However, to teach about God, and to teach about God all sorts of people (from the really smart ones to the really simple-minded ones), a profound philosophical understanding of God is necessary.
And I dare say that Christianity does not offer such an understanding.

That's the problem with such experiences - you cannot know that things wouldn't have gone that without the asking and nascent belief, plus you yourself were thereafter taking a more positive outlook on life - which is a self-reinforcing thing.

And a self-reinforcing thing seems so untrue, right? I occasionally get caught up in such thinking as well - namely, that I have just convinced myself into something, acted accordingly, and then it 'came true' - and that therefore, it isn't 'really true'.

But why should that follow?

The reasoning above assumes that the only way 'true results' come about is if they are completely independent of the person's state of mind and actions. And that if there is any suspicion that the person was 'biased' (in thought and action) toward a particular result, then such a result is due to this bias, but is not true.

To give a practical example of such reasoning:
'If a student passes an exam at school, and he has all along wished to pass it and has studied for it, then this is indicative that the result is due to the student's bias, but has nothing to do with how things really are.
If he passed the exam without wishing to pass it and without studying for it, then passing the exam would be an objective fact.
But if he wishes to pass it and has studied for it, then his passing the exam is not an objective fact, does not reflect how things really are.'

- Which is of course absurd. People normally don't think this way.

Yet the more effort and ingenuity something requires (and this may vary from one person to another), the more 'up in the clouds', the more 'not in line with how things really are' it seems - the more it seems to be merely a self-fulfilling prophecy, and not something that could regularly be brought about by investing effort and ingenuity.

Becoming the second Bill Gates or knowledge of God, for example, are generally seen in this category of things that are merely self-fulfilling prophecies, and not something that could regularly be brought about by investing effort and ingenuity.

IOW, just because something looks like it was brought about as a self-fulfilling prophecy (and therefore isn't 'really true'),
it doesn't mean yet that it is nothing but a self-fulfilling prophecy (and therefore isn't 'really true'). It could be merely a self-fulfilling prophecy, or not.

Really, it's entirely up to one's philosophical scrutiny how soon one is willing to settle for 'Ah, this is nothing but a self-fulfilling prophecy, and nothing more.'

Agreed - but again: at least we can show that there genuinely is something there to be experienced, as opposed to it being an internal individual "delusion".

In a society like ours where personal experience of God is rare, rarely declared and rarely taken seriously , it's no wonder we tend to chalk it all up to 'internal individual delusion'.
Things that are rare in a culture, said culture tends to view as 'less real' or even 'unreal' and 'false'.
A good example are people with rare medical conditions where barely anyone believes their descriptions of their symptoms, and instead accuses them of making things up. Then, a few years later, the condition is medically researched and described, and it turns out it is every bit real.

 

[wynn]

The moral principle in all fiction is based on human experience.

How does that experience come about, where did it start? How come it is the way it is?

And most fiction doesn't claim to be authority on the source for those morals.
My objection is that the claimed origin of the scriptures is only supported by the scriptures themselves - i.e. "god exists because it says so in the scriptures. And the scriptures are correct because they come from god".

It all depends on what we think the scriptures are. Whether we think they are merely man-made, or whether they are divinely inspired, or whether they are even an aspect of God Himself.
And whether we truly know that the origin of the scriptures is only supported by the scriptures themselves, and by no other means at all.

 

[wynn]

I didn't say "full and perfect" - but you have to have some faith or belief to start the search, neh?

Which you do have. You are here, inquring about God, scriptures, the nature of belief etc.

If you would have no faith, you wouldn't be talking about these things.

Would you start a concentrated search for an elephant in the local library without some indication that it was going to be worth your time?

The fact that you are spending time on inquiring about matters of God (which you are doing) testifies that you do think it is worth your time.

Sure, the search so far doesn't seem to have yielded much or any tangible results or satisfaction for you - but that doesn't mean you're not searching.

 

[Oli]

It depends on what we mean by 'God', and also by what we mean 'who' we are. IOW, what our philosophical understanding of these things is.
If our philosophical understanding goes no deeper than 'popular notions', then there isn't much, or anything at all, to experience about God.

That said, there is the suggestion that a deep philosophical understanding is not necessary in order to know God.
However, to teach about God, and to teach about God all sorts of people (from the really smart ones to the really simple-minded ones), a profound philosophical understanding of God is necessary.
And I dare say that Christianity does not offer such an understanding.

A philosophical understanding is one thing: for example water is not actually wet that's just our experience of our interaction with it.
But an understanding of something that cannot be shown to have anything in "reality" to use as a basis for that understanding?
A concept remains a concept.

And a self-reinforcing thing seems so untrue, right? I occasionally get caught up in such thinking as well - namely, that I have just convinced myself into something, acted accordingly, and then it 'came true' - and that therefore, it isn't 'really true'.

Tut tut : granted some good comes out the belief - but when the source has no corroboration then the actuality of god is somewhat tenuous, no?

To give a practical example of such reasoning:
'If a student passes an exam at school, and he has all along wished to pass it and has studied for it, then this is indicative that the result is due to the student's bias, but has nothing to do with how things really are.
If he passed the exam without wishing to pass it and without studying for it, then passing the exam would be an objective fact.
But if he wishes to pass it and has studied for it, then his passing the exam is not an objective fact, does not reflect how things really are.'
- Which is of course absurd. People normally don't think this way.

Result is due to his bias?
What if he desires to pass and doesn't study?
How would his bias affect things then?
It's a result of actions taken on that bias.

Yet the more effort and ingenuity something requires (and this may vary from one person to another), the more 'up in the clouds', the more 'not in line with how things really are' it seems - the more it seems to be merely a self-fulfilling prophecy, and not something that could regularly be brought about by investing effort and ingenuity.

Surely the more "up in the clouds" things are the more effort they require to bring about?

In a society like ours where personal experience of God is rare, rarely declared and rarely taken seriously , it's no wonder we tend to chalk it all up to 'internal individual delusion'.
Things that are rare in a culture, said culture tends to view as 'less real' or even 'unreal' and 'false'.
A good example are people with rare medical conditions where barely anyone believes their descriptions of their symptoms, and instead accuses them of making things up. Then, a few years later, the condition is medically researched and described, and it turns out it is every bit real.

Tch, again.
I put the word delusion in quote marks to indicate some irony.
Maybe I failed.
And yes a medical condition may be the cause of those delusions - but the subject of the delusions has no reality.
If someone persistently sees pink elephants and it is later traced to a mental condition then all that means is that the condition is real - not the elephants.
Belief is real: god has yet to be demonstrated.

 

[wynn]

A philosophical understanding is one thing: for example water is not actually wet that's just our experience of our interaction with it.

And our experience of water is completely inconsequential?

But an understanding of something that cannot be shown to have anything in "reality" to use as a basis for that understanding?

Define 'real'.

It's a result of actions taken on that bias.

But you seem to think the same thing cannot be true about knowledge of God - why?

Surely the more "up in the clouds" things are the more effort they require to bring about?

Sure. But that does not mean they are impossible, nor that they are not real or not worthy.

Belief is real: god has yet to be demonstrated.

What are you willing to do to witness the demonstration?

 

[Oli]

And our experience of water is completely inconsequential?

Of course not.
But water (something that can be understood by everyone to be water) can be shown to exist - regardless of the individual's experience of it.

Define 'real'.

Heh, missed the quote marks again?

But you seem to think the same thing cannot be true about knowledge of God - why?

The bias is based on actuality - exams do exist.
The desire to pass is a personal motivation based on one's perception.
A belief in god has results - the basis for that belief does not exist except for personal subjective experience - and you/ I have already shown that the subject of that experience (the pink elephants) may in fact not exist at all - the elephants have no reality except to that individual.

Sure. But that does not mean they are impossible, nor that they are not real or not worthy.

Agreed - it may be possible to make the case that the harder something is to achieve the more worthwhile it is.
But that doesn't mean that everything one desires and puts effort into will become real.

What are you willing to do to witness the demonstration?

What does it take?
Can it be done from a blank start? i.e. no requirement of initial acceptance.

 

[wynn]

Of course not.
But water (something that can be understood by everyone to be water) can be shown to exist - regardless of the individual's experience of it.

Define 'real' - but, see below:

Heh, missed the quote marks again?

Not at all.

You keep talking about 'actuality', 'reality', 'subjective experience', things to be 'demonstrated'. Hence I am wondering what you mean by 'real'.

A belief in god has results - the basis for that belief does not exist except for personal subjective experience -

One: So?
Two: Is 'subjective personal experience' (implied: 'God does not really exist, objectively') all there is to God?

and you/ I have already shown that the subject of that experience (the pink elephants) may in fact not exist at all - the elephants have no reality except to that individual.

The operational word being 'may'.

Agreed - it may be possible to make the case that the harder something is to achieve the more worthwhile it is.
But that doesn't mean that everything one desires and puts effort into will become real.

Sure. What you are demonstrating is the common risk-aversion that many people have.

What does it take?

That can depend on the individual. But generally, a more or less rigorous training.

Can it be done from a blank start? i.e. no requirement of initial acceptance.

I don't think anything can be done from a blank start; nor do I think anyone is starting from scratch.

As for the requirement of initial acceptance: That may vary too, from one person to another. People have different predispositions, different things they have already accepted and don't find disputable; but also different things that they do find disputable and that they would yet need to accept.

For example, one person may have no problem accepting that man does not control the universe (which includes the workings of his mind and body), but another person may be seriously disturbed by this premise.

On a general note, there is the suggestion that you can start looking for God wherever you currently are, but this does not yet mean that your current levels of ability and knowledge will enable you to get full knowledge of God.

 

[Oli]

Define 'real' - but, see below:
Not at all.
You keep talking about 'actuality', 'reality', 'subjective experience', things to be 'demonstrated'. Hence I am wondering what you mean by 'real'.

How about "something that can be shown to others and is capable of being independent verified".?
And by others I mean all others

Two: Is 'subjective personal experience' (implied: 'God does not really exist, objectively') all there is to God?

God qua god certainly, the belief in god, no.
So far as I can tell.

The operational word being 'may'.

Correct: but the likelihood is...

Sure. What you are demonstrating is the common risk-aversion that many people have.

Risk aversion?
So how much credence should I give to someone who, for example, claims to be inventing a perpetual motion machine? Or something that will give the perfect physique in just seven days with no effort on my part?

That can depend on the individual. But generally, a more or less rigorous training.

Go ahead - I'm all ears (apart from the bits of me that aren't ears of course).

I don't think anything can be done from a blank start; nor do I think anyone is starting from scratch.

When I say blank start I meant total open-mindedness - no prior belief.
For example leaning calculus doesn't (or didn't when I was taught it) require acceptance that it worked (was true) at the start - it was shown to be true as the course progressed.

As for the requirement of initial acceptance: That may vary too, from one person to another. People have different predispositions, different things they have already accepted and don't find disputable; but also different things that they do find disputable and that they would yet need to accept.

See above: I'm an engineer, I don't accept things until I've tested them.

For example, one person may have no problem accepting that man does not control the universe (which includes the workings of his mind and body), but another person may be seriously disturbed by this premise.

I'd class one of those people as "deranged"

On a general note, there is the suggestion that you can start looking for God wherever you currently are, but this does not yet mean that your current levels of ability and knowledge will enable you to get full knowledge of God.

To start looking for already assumes that he exists.
I gave it a shot once out of curiosity and nothing turned up.

 

[swarm]

Define 'real' -

As soon as you have to resort to "Define 'real'" you might as well admit you are chalk full of the brown stuff and give it up.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

Again you've lost me.
I have no experience of an "other within myself".

OK. Would you accept:
1) that we are part of the universe, and...
2) that consciousness is part of the ultimate nature of reality (otherwise we could not be conscious).

If you accept that we are made of the stuff of the universe, our feeling of separation (i.e. we exist 'in here' with the universe 'out there') must be an illusion. We are all part of the same ongoing reality.

Therefore our minds are (in theory) grounded in that ultimate reality. That connected part of ourselves might seem alien ('other'), because our usual awareness of ourselves is so limited (a name with a job living in this body today). People project that otherness onto God as a transcendent 'other' entity, when it is really our common origin in reality. Another name for God is 'The All' or the 'Ground of our being'.

That is the 'other within the self' as I understand it. Because we have consciousness, we can start to become aware of that 'other within the self' that is our ground. I think that is the job of religion.

I did put the word "delusion in quote marks.
Hmmm, maybe they converged on on similar solutions because they're all human and share a (largely) common method of thinking and mental processing. I'd be more surprised if they came up with wildly different methods - humans do things the human way.

They do, but it also means that if there is a similar experience, attainable through roughly similar means, there may be some reality to that experience. Even though it's not as easily attained as the taste of orange juice.

 

[Oli]

OK. Would you accept:
1) that we are part of the universe, and...

Yes.

2) that consciousness is part of the ultimate nature of reality (otherwise we could not be conscious).

No.
It's the nature of part of reality.

If you accept that we are made of the stuff of the universe, our feeling of separation (i.e. we exist 'in here' with the universe 'out there') must be an illusion. We are all part of the same ongoing reality.

An illusion?
We're conscious - rocks aren't (as far as I can tell).

Therefore our minds are (in theory) grounded in that ultimate reality. That connected part of ourselves might seem alien ('other'), because our usual awareness of ourselves is so limited (a name with a job living in this body today). People project that otherness onto God as a transcendent 'other' entity, when it is really our common origin in reality. Another name for God is 'The All' or the 'Ground of our being'.

What "otherness"?

That is the 'other within the self' as I understand it. Because we have consciousness, we can start to become aware of that 'other within the self' that is our ground. I think that is the job of religion.

I have no "otherness" that I'm aware of.

They do, but it also means that if there is a similar experience, attainable through roughly similar means, there may be some reality to that experience.

And that reality would be a common brain structure, etc. dictating thinking processes, no?