A God We Know Nothing About

[EndLightEnd]

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.

Indeed.

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

You do not think consciousness exists on all levels of reality at some level or another? What has made you reach this conclusion?

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

It would not appear that rocks are conscious, but again as quantum mechanics seems to suggest matter is aware of observation. In fact it is the observation which collapses the wave function.

How can matter do this if it too is not conscious to some degree?

 

[Oli]

You do not think consciousness exists on all levels of reality at some level or another? What has made you reach this conclusion?

No evidence.

It would not appear that rocks are conscious, but again as quantum mechanics seems to suggest matter is aware of observation. In fact it is the observation which collapses the wave function.

Not keeping up on QM? Tut.
In fact it isn't, necessarily.
That's an interpretation, there are many others, including the simple one that QM effects can only take place up to a certain size and that sufficient aggregation of material prevents the weird stuff.

How can matter do this if it too is not conscious to some degree?

Supposition.

 

[wynn]

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.

Mkay!

 

[wynn]

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

Does this 'all others' include the people with Down syndrome, those with ADHD, people in a coma, infants, those with advanced Alzheimer's, those with PTSD, math teachers, the French president, the British queen, GWB, those poor starving children in Africa somewhere, the millions of newly unemployed Americans, cancer patients, prisoners, prisoners on death row, people who are about to rob a bank, people planning an assassination on some political leader, Joseph Fritzl, the woman who has just had an abortion, the man who found out his wife is cheating on him with someone who has AIDS, owners of shops with sports accessoires, burger flippers .......................... and so on.

IOW, who are 'all others', and how willing and how able are they to know what 'reality' is?

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

So far as you can tell.

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?

Well, why would you like to know about God?

Do you wish to demonstrate that all those who profess to believe in God are wrong or 'deranged'?

Or because you hope that by knowledge of God your life might go better for you?

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

Well, for starters, you could make a list of all the religions you know of, discuss that list with people who are professionals in the field of religion to suggest to you any that you might have missed.
Then devote some time to seriously study each of the religions, one at a time, see what they are about, what practices they suggest, get in contact with the people practicing those religions - and then do that religious practice for some time (say, six months or one year), while keeping an open mind that what that religion says might actually be true.

If you want empiry - that is the way to go. But I don't think you'll find much that is testable about God while discussing stuff at Sciforums.

When I say blank start I meant total open-mindedness - no prior belief.

Can there be such a thing at all??

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.

For one, children in school learn things because they have to, because they wish to please their parents, because they feel they are subject to the authority of the teacher or something along those lines. This aspect of learning at school should not be forgotten.

For two, religious scriptures promise a realization of God as well.

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

Sure.

To start looking for already assumes that he exists.

Not necessarily.

I gave it a shot once out of curiosity and nothing turned up.

Where were you looking, what were you looking for, what did you do?

 

[Oli]

Does this 'all others' include the people with Down syndrome, those with ADHD, people in a coma, infants, those with advanced Alzheimer's, those with PTSD, math teachers, the French president, the British queen, GWB, those poor starving children in Africa somewhere, the millions of newly unemployed Americans, cancer patients, prisoners, prisoners on death row, people who are about to rob a bank, people planning an assassination on some political leader, Joseph Fritzl, the woman who has just had an abortion, the man who found out his wife is cheating on him with someone who has AIDS, owners of shops with sports accessoires, burger flippers .......................... and so on.
IOW, who are 'all others', and how willing and how able are they to know what 'reality' is?

Oops, somebody snapped and went over the top, didn't they?
Anyone conscious and self-aware (and sane).

So far as you can tell.

That's what we're talking about, no?
I haven't seen any evidence.

Well, why would you like to know about God?

Because I want to know about everything.
It's that simple.

Do you wish to demonstrate that all those who profess to believe in God are wrong or 'deranged'?

"Deranged"?
Nope, I want to find out if the object of belief has any actual basis.
It would be, um, fascinating, to say the least.

Or because you hope that by knowledge of God your life might go better for you?

I don't like not knowing things.

Well, for starters, you could make a list of all the religions you know of, discuss that list with people who are professionals in the field of religion to suggest to you any that you might have missed.
Then devote some time to seriously study each of the religions, one at a time, see what they are about, what practices they suggest, get in contact with the people practicing those religions - and then do that religious practice for some time (say, six months or one year), while keeping an open mind that what that religion says might actually be true.

Oh dear: we're back to "god exists because the book says so and the book is correct because god dictated it".
That's not empiricism.
And following the practises will do what?
Improve my hymn singing?

If you want empiry - that is the way to go. But I don't think you'll find much that is testable about God while discussing stuff at Sciforums.

So far I haven't.

Can there be such a thing at all??[/quote]
Hyperbole.
Mea culpa.

For one, children in school learn things because they have to, because they wish to please their parents, because they feel they are subject to the authority of the teacher or something along those lines. This aspect of learning at school should not be forgotten.

Some children, admittedly.

For two, religious scriptures promise a realization of God as well.

The book with no corroboration you mean?

Not necessarily.

Why look for something when there's no indication that it exists?

Where were you looking, what were you looking for, what did you do?

I read the bible, looked at other religions, talked to a lot priests etc
And believers.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

If gods wanted Oli to know about them, they'd tell him.

 

[Jan Ardena]

P.E.,

Have I stated otherwise? No

Did I state belief equals confirmation? No.

I said perhaps Jan. I have no faith that it will ever happen if that suits you better.

Your statement was so bizzare, it's blatent that you used perhaps as a
get-out clause.
If you have no faith in your brand of science to find what you regard as my God, as defined in all scriptures, why mention it?

In your case Jan , you have to believe in many things to justify your theism.

I've told you why I believe in God, accept it and move on.

Could you believe in God without religion and all it entails

Belief in God comes first.

Belief is not a step towards knowing anything.

If a child does not believe in the authority of the teachers, what are its chances of gaining the knowledge being taught to them?

You can't believe and know at the same time.

Knowledge does not come all at once, it grows as we grow. Belief in the
authority of knowledge is the factor that keeps us seriously interested.
We may also believe that becoming qualified in something, can help us to live
a certain lifestyle, so we hang on in there.

For theism to have taken root, the first step was to fabricate the truth.

Utter nonsense. Theism, as is atheism can be considered natural human conditions, the fabrication of truth is when the agenda turns to force.

All known truths about God should be exactly the same from religion to religion but there are several different versions.

All known truths are the same, God is the supreme cause of all causes.

A real person yes, a god no.

Obviously you'd think that, you're atheist. Duh!

a) You cannot possibly know something about an entity that cannot be proven.

Why can't God be proven?

Believe in God all you want, there is nothing else you can honestly do in good conscience once that decision is made.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

swarm,

Actually it is the point. Understanding what actually is, is better than just pretending some magic fairy did it.

Keep your fanatasism in check.
Teaching a child that love in a series of chemical reactions, is a non-sense, not only to the child, but to anyone who has experienced love.

My kids understand this even if they don't understand it all.

It's not love though, that's the point. It is a poor explanation to ultimately
remove God from the picture. You're in-doc-tri-nat-ing them with your agenda.

Understanding it means we at least have a chance of figuring out more and learning how to actually help when things go wrong.

Oh give me a break!
You're subjecting you're kids to nonsense.

So you think planting orange trees has nothing to do with the taste of orange juice

So, I go out into the garden with some seeds, plant them....
So what does my action have to do with the taste of orange juice?

The magic fairy explanation is useless.

I agree, but it's better than the chemical reaction bs.

jan.

 

[lightgigantic]

For what seems like the hundredth time this thread I will once again state that at no point have I said God is not real. I have steadfastly maintained that I cannot entirely rule out the possibility of a god existing. I have admitted to knowing nothing about a god that many people claim exists.

if that's the case, its not clear what authority you are calling upon to deride the means that determine god's existence (like "there's no means to prove god" for example).

For instance if I was a babe in the woods in regards to astronomy, I am certainly not in a position to slander the practices or claims of astronomy

I have asked you to relate to us that what you know about this god yet you are reluctant to do so.

I have however indicated that not even you are in a position of absolute ignorance on the subject, since you manages to post this in the religion forum

Maybe you can provide us with this frame of reference you speak of in order to help me and those like me along here. Show us something about the god you say is real. How hard can it be?

Depends on how staunchly you are prepared to deride the means of referencing god.

If you wouldn't expect a terribly rich scientific discourse between an astronomer and a person who says "that's a load of crap" to anything that comes within 10ft of astronomy, its not clear why you hold that god can be discussed in a similar context.

That's why I suggest a good way to initiate the discussion is to call upon your (qualitative model of) knowledge that you have already called upon to post this in the religious forum.

So perhaps you can tell us why you chose this particular forum to post the OP in, and not, say, the mathematics one?

 

[lightgigantic]

There isn't a why.

I agree

but there is certainly a "why" behind your ascertainments of something to be real ... or conversely when you make the assertion that god isn't .... so spill the beans big guy.

 

[wynn]

Anyone conscious and self-aware.

Conscious of what? What is 'self-awareness'? What is 'self'?

Because I want to know about everything.

Okay. But you don't seem to have the appropriate attitude to learn about everything.

And following the practises will do what?
Improve my hymn singing?

You apparently have not done much of it ...

Why look for something when there's no indication that it exists?

What are you doing here then, discussing matters that somehow or other pertain to God?

I read the bible, looked at other religions, talked to a lot priests etc
And believers.

Please list the religions you have looked into. I see you have some experience with Christianity. What else?

 

[Oli]

Conscious of what? What is 'self-awareness'? What is 'self'?

An interesting topic - but hardly relevant, I think.

Okay. But you don't seem to have the appropriate attitude to learn about everything.

Really?

You apparently have not done much of it ...

I have an absolutely awful singing voice.
And why follow meaningless (to me) rituals?

What are you doing here then, discussing matters that somehow or other pertain to God?

I wouldn't know, since I don't have the "appropriate attitude to learn".
Because "god" is part of life today (or at least the belief in him).
I'm interested in why.

Please list the religions you have looked into. I see you have some experience with Christianity. What else?

Frankly, does it matter which?
They all assume god's existence as a given and move on from there: I'm after some evidence.
Some chain that starts with the "real" (yes, okay) and then leads up to god, not "god exists, therefore...".

 

[wynn]

An interesting topic - but hardly relevant, I think.

It is every bit relevant. We started off by your saying:

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

And I questioned who these 'all others' are.

You wish that God be "something that can be shown to others and is capable of being independently verified" - and I am asking you who this reference group actually is. Because this reference group of yours seems to be mostly merely an ideal, and not actual people (except for some people at this forum and the likes).

Really?

If you have the appropriate attidue, then I take it you wouldn't be sitting here in front of the computer, but instead busily investigating stuff, out in the field.

I have an absolutely awful singing voice.

Singing teachers tend to say that anyone with a relatively healthy vocal apparatus can learn to sing at least moderately well, with proper training.
And besides, singing isn't the only religious activity.

And why follow meaningless (to me) rituals?

Push-ups are meaningless, per se - but we have faith that if we do enough of them, our physical strength will improve.

Because "god" is part of life today (or at least the belief in him).
I'm interested in why.

Then ask this question, and look for the answer(s) to it!

Frankly, does it matter which?

Yes. Because different religions propose different training regimens. While one training regimen might work for some people, it doesn't necessarily work for all. That's one reason why there are so many religious denominations.

They all assume god's existence as a given and move on from there: I'm after some evidence.

Sure.
But trying to see evidence of God without any reference to a religious doctrine
is like trying to se evidence of what temperature is without any knowledge of physics.

Some chain that starts with the "real" (yes, okay) and then leads up to god, not "god exists, therefore...".

No, not 'okay'. If you refrain from defining 'real', the whole issue becomes moot.

 

[Oli]

It is every bit relevant. We started off by your saying:

So let's forget all the questions about god and everything else and work on defining real/ conscious/ and self-aware.
Having got those out of the way maybe we can move up.
Is the "generally accepted" meaning not enough?
If not, why not?

And I questioned who these 'all others' are.

Again: "generally accepted" is insufficient?

You wish that God be "something that can be shown to others and is capable of being independently verified" - and I am asking you who this reference group actually is. Because this reference group of yours seems to be mostly merely an ideal, and not actual people (except for some people at this forum and the likes).

How about "the average man in the street"?

If you have the appropriate attidue, then I take it you wouldn't be sitting here in front of the computer, but instead busily investigating stuff, out in the field.

I have the whole world at my fingertips here...

Singing teachers tend to say that anyone with a relatively healthy vocal apparatus can learn to sing at least moderately well, with proper training.

Correct: and a good singing voice is a proven and oft-demonstrated fact.
As is coaching - that coaching being based on an observable phenomenon - people have voices.
It's matter of of working with something that demonstrably exists.

And besides, singing isn't the only religious activity.

Yep, but those activities assume god exists from the start.

Push-ups are meaningless, per se - but we have faith that if we do enough of them, our physical strength will improve.

Because they work on existing material - the muscles that have an observable existence.

Then ask this question, and look for the answer(s) to it!

Is not questioning those who believe about the object of their beliefs one way of doing this?

Yes. Because different religions propose different training regimens. While one training regimen might work for some people, it doesn't necessarily work for all. That's one reason why there are so many religious denominations.

And they ALL assume that god exists from the start - but none can show it.
Can you give any evidence that religious training is not a form of indoctrination?
Tell a man something often enough for long enough and he'll come to to accept it.
(Within limits, possibly).

Sure.
But trying to see evidence of God without any reference to a religious doctrine is like trying to se evidence of what temperature is without any knowledge of physics.

Um, not quite since temperature can be shown to have observable effects that can be accounted for by simple explanations not requiring any particularly deep knowledge.
Effects that are accounted for only by the physics of heat.
And those simple explanations can be used to form predictions.
"If you heat this up enough it will melt, if you let it cool it will solidify" etc.

No, not 'okay'. If you refrain from defining 'real', the whole issue becomes moot.

Then we're in entirely the wrong forum and conversation.
I await a thread - but I guarantee it'll end up going nowhere.
Unless we settle for: "generally accepted" meaning.
Otherwise we end up with not much more than cogito ergo...
And I don't like arguing with myself

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

No. It's (consciousness) the nature of part of reality.

...yes, if you like. My point is that reality must include some property of consciousness, otherwise our physical brains could not exhibit consciousness. Consciousness is not reducible to a physical function, so our brains don't 'make' consciousness any more than a clock 'makes' time.

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

I'm saying that the Cartesian divide of subject-object is an illusion. We are the universe experiencing itself from a certain perspective. That wall we build around what is 'me' to exclude the 'not me' is boundary we can transcend. I think that process is what goes on in religion, where people pray to a God who is 'other', but who can change reality or reconcile us to our experience. Peace of mind, forgiveness etc...

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

The 'other' that we think is 'out there' - that appears totally independent and separate from us. Maybe it's another person who we judge as X. I'm asserting that the property of X we judge as in the other, is co-created by us both and arises from the relationship between us.

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

Yes, to some extent, just as our experience of the orange juice is dictated in part by our brain structure etc. But the fact that we both (and others) can experience orange juice is sufficient justification for a realist to call it 'real'. I'm using the same criteria therefore for experiences that are termed 'mystical' or religious.

 

[Oli]

...yes, if you like. My point is that reality must include some property of consciousness, otherwise our physical brains could not exhibit consciousness. Consciousness is not reducible to a physical function, so our brains don't 'make' consciousness any more than a clock 'makes' time.

Reality must include?
Selected parts do include - us.
But anything else?
Not demonstrated.

I'm saying that the Cartesian divide of subject-object is an illusion. We are the universe experiencing itself from a certain perspective. That wall we build around what is 'me' to exclude the 'not me' is boundary we can transcend. I think that process is what goes on in religion, where people pray to a God who is 'other', but who can change reality or reconcile us to our experience. Peace of mind, forgiveness etc...

That's an "opinion", surely?
It's one perspective.
Not mine.

The 'other' that we think is 'out there' - that appears totally independent and separate from us. Maybe it's another person who we judge as X. I'm asserting that the property of X we judge as in the other, is co-created by us both and arises from the relationship between us.

Totally independent?
So you're not sticking with

That connected part of ourselves might seem alien ('other'),

Connected?
Oh, okay, you claim that we're all part of the same thing.

Yes, to some extent, just as our experience of the orange juice is dictated in part by our brain structure etc. But the fact that we both (and others) can experience orange juice is sufficient justification for a realist to call it 'real'. I'm using the same criteria therefore for experiences that are termed 'mystical' or religious.

Yup, but an orange can be handed round for each to experience - it "exists".
God? :shrug:
Can "god" be shown to be anything other than a psychological quirk?
A variation on the pink elephant with no more actual reality than those elephants?

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

Reality must include?
Selected parts do include - us.

So, where do you think our consciousness comes from?
How does one or several million neurones create the taste of orange juice?

Oh, okay, you claim that we're all part of the same thing.

Yes. However our problem is that we don't feel like we are. We appear to be separate.

Yup, but an orange can be handed round for each to experience - it "exists".

If we agree that your first clause is evidence for the second ("it exists")...

God? :shrug:
Can "god" be shown to be anything other than a psychological quirk?
A variation on the pink elephant with no more actual reality than those elephants?

...following your previous logic if 'God/Brahman/Allah/Jahweh/Tao/Zarathustra/The One' has been experienced by many people, from diverse cultures and times, using broadly similar methodologies, then isn't that evidence for existence worth taking seriously? Before Columbus, when ships were returning saying there was a land West of 'Tierra del Fuego' (the 'End of the Earth'), would you dismiss them because existing maps did not show it?

Or are you saying that only things we can actually see, hear, touch ourselves are real? If so, why is reality limited to only what humans can sense or measure? Is dark energy real? What about branes or Superstrings?

Why shouldn't something psychological be real?
Freud's 'unconscious' is a good explanation of our behaviour, is that real?

What makes something 'real' that rules out religious experience? :shrug:

 

[Oli]

So, where do you think our consciousness comes from?

Comes "from"?
Does it come from anywhere or is it something that happens?

How does one or several million neurones create the taste of orange juice?

Good question: as yet unanswered, AFAIK.

Yes. However our problem is that we don't feel like we are. We appear to be separate.

And why doe you think we aren't separate?

If we agree that your first clause is evidence for the second ("it exists")...

Okay.

...following your previous logic if 'God/Brahman/Allah/Jahweh/Tao/Zarathustra/The One' has been experienced by many people, from diverse cultures and times, using broadly similar methodologies, then isn't that evidence for existence worth taking seriously?

Surely it's just evidence that the brain follows similar thought patterns due to structure etc that more than outweigh geographic/ cultural differences?

Before Columbus, when ships were returning saying there was a land West of 'Tierra del Fuego' (the 'End of the Earth'), would you dismiss them because existing maps did not show it?

Nope: because the ships could return with artefacts and other evidence. possibly.
Plus of course finding new territories is not a claim outside of the "norm".

Or are you saying that only things we can actually see, hear, touch ourselves are real? If so, why is reality limited to only what humans can sense or measure? Is dark energy real? What about branes or Superstrings?

Not at all.
And branes/ superstrings etc are not necessarily real : but they provide an explanation.
One which can be (in a limited fashion at the moment) explain other things.
But they came of out requirement.

Why shouldn't something psychological be real?
Freud's 'unconscious' is a good explanation of our behaviour, is that real?

Does Freud's unconscious apply to all humans or just certain ones?
If it doesn't apply to all then I'd suggest it's not real/ is only a partial explanation.
A pink elephant, now matter how convinced the individual is of its reality, is no more than a "malfunction" of the brain.
A totally internal thing.

[quote[What makes something 'real' that rules out religious experience? :shrug:[/QUOTE]
The experience is real - to the individual experiencing.
But is the cause "god" or merely an internal thing?

 

[wynn]

So let's forget all the questions about god and everything else and work on defining real/ conscious/ and self-aware.
Having got those out of the way maybe we can move up.
Is the "generally accepted" meaning not enough?
If not, why not?

What is 'generally accepted'? Where, when, by whom? What is 'generally accepted' in, say, today's Ireland, isn't necessarily 'generally accepted' in Australia 200 years ago. And so on - all depending on who, when, where, how, why.

How about "the average man in the street"?

But there is no such thing. There is just a specific person - with all their specific problems, interests, abilities etc. etc.

I have the whole world at my fingertips here...

It's matter of of working with something that demonstrably exists.

Again: demonstrable to whom, under what conditions?

Yep, but those activities assume god exists from the start.

No, they don't.

Is not questioning those who believe about the object of their beliefs one way of doing this?

Sure. But you seem to want an answer on your terms.
It's as if you wish that believers would make you believe, would convince you.

And they ALL assume that god exists from the start - but none can show it.

God cannot be seen by the ignorant and unwilling.

Can you give any evidence that religious training is not a form of indoctrination?

What is not a 'form of indoctrination'?

Tell a man something often enough for long enough and he'll come to to accept it.
(Within limits, possibly).

Sure. But then there are things a man can learn that way that will save him from the cycle of suffering. Isn't that a good thing?

Um, not quite since temperature can be shown to have observable effects that can be accounted for by simple explanations not requiring any particularly deep knowledge.

We're just so used to the phenomenon of temperature that we think it doesn't require any particularly deep knowledge.

Effects that are accounted for only by the physics of heat.

? And where do all those objects that have temperature come from? Physics does not account for that.

Then we're in entirely the wrong forum and conversation.
I await a thread - but I guarantee it'll end up going nowhere.

Not necessarily. But I won't do your homework for you.

Unless we settle for: "generally accepted" meaning.

Like I said in the beginning: 'Generally accepted' is a vague term. And also, people have been working with 'generally accepted' for millenia, without coming to a solution to the problems that befall us all: aging, illness and death in all their forms, and the suffering related to them.

 

[wynn]

What makes something 'real' that rules out religious experience?

The experience is real - to the individual experiencing.
But is the cause "god" or merely an internal thing?

What exactly is the problem here?

Are you afraid that if you had seriously taken up a religious practice and have faith in God, this would earn you the scorn of your friends and relatives, or cause you trouble at work or society in general - and you don't want to risk that?

Or are you afraid that if you had seriously taken up a religious practice and have faith in God, you would have a million voices in your head demanding you to justify that choice for God - and you couldn't pacify them, so you just avoid faith in God altogether?

Or something other?

You keep coming back to the point that there is 'no evidence' of God, that God is 'not demonstrable'. Why does it matter to you if there is 'no evidence' of God, or that God is 'not demonstrable'?