Concept of God arising in multiple, different cultures

[spidergoat]

If you use a word, and continually do so, it is only adequate to posit that you have some idea of what that word means or should mean.

When atheists say that they "lack belief in God," we can rightfully assume that they have some idea of what they mean by the word "God."

If you "lack belief in God," surely then you have some idea of what that is that you lack belief in, eh?

Yes, I do have some idea of God, which is the one in western culture, that of a personal God that is interested and involved in the lives of human beings, one who created the universe, that can be petitioned with prayer, and who is perfectly good.

 

[spidergoat]

As a theist and trained professional scientist, I make the following comments:

True science and true religion are two systems of truth that allow humanity to progress, and yes there is 'bad science' as well as 'bad religion'

There is no bad science, and there is no good religion. Religion is the opposite of science, and the enemy of knowledge. It holds faith as a virtue, which robs human beings of their intellectual capacity, which is one of the major things that separate us from other animals.

 

[Write4U]

no, by adaptation.
don't confuse adaption with evolution, it hasn't been shown that one applies to the other.

Hmmm, is this new development in the study of evolution?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Mechanisms

 

[Write4U]

don't confuse adaption with evolution, it hasn't been shown that one applies to the other.

from the wiki link above,

The following definitions are due to Theodosius Dobzhansky.
1.Adaptation is the evolutionary process whereby an organism becomes better able to live in its habitat or habitats.[159]
2.Adaptedness is the state of being adapted: the degree to which an organism is able to live and reproduce in a given set of habitats.[160]
3.An adaptive trait is an aspect of the developmental pattern of the organism which enables or enhances the probability of that organism surviving and reproducing.

 

[Balerion]

other than showing how people envision increasingly complex objects nothing.

So it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Were you just itching to demonstrate your ignorance of evolution in a thread about religion?

it was a simple and direct question.

The phrase "there is something more than man" is opaque. You could mean any number of things by that, so I'm asking what you actually meant. Feel free to duck the question again, though. That seems to be your M.O.

words are cheap.

And none cheaper than yours, to be sure.

no, by adaptation.
don't confuse adaption with evolution, it hasn't been shown that one applies to the other.

Of course it has. But I guess expecting you to have completed a ninth-grade biology course is assuming too much.

 

[Balerion]

There is no bad science, and there is no good religion. Religion is the opposite of science, and the enemy of knowledge. It holds faith as a virtue, which robs human beings of their intellectual capacity, which is one of the major things that separate us from other animals.

Ooh, if only I had access to our good friend's bigot hammer...

 

[wynn]

Yes, I do have some idea of God, which is the one in western culture, that of a personal God that is interested and involved in the lives of human beings, one who created the universe, that can be petitioned with prayer, and who is perfectly good.

So you do work with a definition of "God."

The next step is to look into why you work with one definition of "god," as opposed to some other definition of "God."

 

[leopold]

So it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

i'm sorry, i was just commenting on one of your thoughts.
i didn't mean to confuse you.

carry on !

 

[James R]

wynn:

What do you mean by the "universe" here?

I mean that thing you see when you look out your window.

You don't have to believe in Jehovah to take issue with some of his attributes.

That's not the same as having an axe to grind with him. You can't have an axe to grind with a non-existent being.

The worldly perks of inferior definitions of "God" are many, and both some atheists as well as some theists maintain those inferior definitions.

Taking pride in one's intellectual prowess for having figured out on one's own which religion is the right one or what the truth about God is;
expecting or demanding from other people to give one special respect for being a member of the right religion or for having figured out the truth about God on one's own;
taking pride in one's social, cultural, national, racial, economic background as being decisive for one's membership in the right religion;
deeming oneself better than other people;
- these worldly perks are possible only for someone who operates out of an inferior definition of "God".

In the proper omnimax definition of "God," where "God" is defined as the First Cause, the Creator, Maintainer and Controller of the Universe, so, as far as definitions go, God contextualizes everything that happens in this Universe.
With such a definition of "God," a person considers that their every breath, their every bowel movement, every thought they have, everything they feel, think, say and do, is contextualized by God.

Such a person has no basis to take pride in their intellectual prowess (for they know it is provided by God), cannot demand special respect from others (as they know that everyone is just as much part of God as they are), knows that one cannot take credit for one's social, cultural, national, racial, economic background (as they know it is provided by God), and cannot deem themselves as better than others (as they know that nothing happens without God's will).

Your "omnimax God" seems to be nothing other than a substitute for "the universe". What does your idea of God add to the universe?

When atheists say that they "lack belief in God," we can rightfully assume that they have some idea of what they mean by the word "God."

I think most atheists would be happy to simply things by saying they don't believe in anything supernatural. If your omnimax God is supernatural, then atheists don't believe in him/her/it. If, on the other hand, your omnimax God is really just the natural universe, then you're not using the term "God" in the way that religious people generally use it.

 

[wynn]

I mean that thing you see when you look out your window.

What about the things you see when you look into the room you are in, and also your body, your mind? They are part of the Universe to.
Or do you think that you and your body somehow exist outside, apart from the Universe?

That's not the same as having an axe to grind with him. You can't have an axe to grind with a non-existent being.

We can agree that there is plenty that is ascribed to Jehovah that you take issue with; whether you believe that Jehovah really exists or not, and whether Jehovah really exists or not.

Your "omnimax God" seems to be nothing other than a substitute for "the universe". What does your idea of God add to the universe?

Read again: "God" is defined as the Cause of the Universe, as the one who creates, maintains and controls it. So "God" is a lot more than just the Universe.

What the idea of "God" adds then is the notion that the Universe is something that is created, maintained and controlled (and that as such, that the Universeis not an automatic, self-existent, self-sufficient entity).

 

[James R]

wynn:

What about the things you see when you look into the room you are in, and also your body, your mind? They are part of the Universe to.
Or do you think that you and your body somehow exist outside, apart from the Universe?

My room is not part of the universe. I live in a TARDIS.

My mind is a side-effect of my brain, which does not exist outside the universe (except when it is in my room, obviously).

We can agree that there is plenty that is ascribed to Jehovah that you take issue with; whether you believe that Jehovah really exists or not, and whether Jehovah really exists or not.

That remains to be seen.

Your "omnimax God" seems to be nothing other than a substitute for "the universe". What does your idea of God add to the universe?

Read again: "God" is defined as the Cause of the Universe, as the one who creates, maintains and controls it. So "God" is a lot more than just the Universe.

Read again: What does your idea of God add to the universe? In what way is God more than just the universe? Explain.

What the idea of "God" adds then is the notion that the Universe is something that is created, maintained and controlled (and that as such, that the Universeis not an automatic, self-existent, self-sufficient entity).

Then there seems to be no need for this God.

 

[wynn]

Read again: What does your idea of God add to the universe? In what way is God more than just the universe? Explain.

If you think that adding the notion that the Universe is created, maintained and controlled, adds nothing to the Universe, then there is nothing more I can say at the time.
It's as if you're saying that the cook is irrelevant to the dish.

What the idea of "God" adds then is the notion that the Universe is something that is created, maintained and controlled (and that as such, that the Universeis not an automatic, self-existent, self-sufficient entity).

Then there seems to be no need for this God.

??

My room is not part of the universe. I live in a TARDIS.

Oh well. Suit yourself then.

 

[Write4U]

Seems then that the universe has no need of a god, but it appears that, in order to maintain relevance, theists see the need for a god at a "personal spiritual level", which makes no sense to me.

 

[Write4U]

.

What the idea of "God" adds then is the notion that the Universe is something that is created, maintained and controlled (and that as such, that the Universeis not an automatic, self-existent, self-sufficient entity).

ok, let's consider this for a moment.
It is assumed that God created, maintains, and controls the universe. In order to accomplish this God is assumed to be omnipotent and omni-present throughout the Universe, and is assumed to be a supernatural sentient being with an assumed special interest in humans.

OTOH, we could say that we assume the Universe Evolved from a Beginning Causality, a causality of infinite (zero point) energy.

When Bohm's resonant fields are arranged in a vibrational hierarchy they represent energy in successive states of manifestation from infinitely subtle to the gross physical reality.

The Zero Point Order which Bohm identified as the realm of insight-intelligence bears an unmistakable resemblance to the supreme spiritual realization of Indian metaphysics known as the Brahman, a perfectly inactive, pure noetic plenum realized as Absolute Being. The Brahman is characterized by a complete fusion of Time and Consciousness which is experienced as Timelessness, or undifferentiated Time. In this state Time-energy vibrates at such an intense rate that it appears static and thereby lacking any element of periodicity or denseness. Hence it cannot produce any form or any division of Consciousness-substance into distinct crystallised objects in Space.

 

[lightgigantic]

Seems then that the universe has no need of a god, but it appears that, in order to maintain relevance, theists see the need for a god at a "personal spiritual level", which makes no sense to me.

One could just as easily say that the universe has no need of advanced theoretical ideas of physics that have no physical precedent ... which can also be said to be stated to exist due to a few "personal needs".
:shrug:

 

[Write4U]

One could just as easily say that the universe has no need of advanced theoretical ideas of physics that have no physical precedent ... which can also be said to be stated to exist due to a few "personal needs".
:shrug:

Yes, the need to become gods. We're already at the nano level now. When we feel at home at Planck scale we'll be gods.

 

[lightgigantic]

Yes, the need to become gods. We're already at the nano level now. When we feel at home at Planck scale we'll be gods.

Some people dream, but you have plans ... or so it seems

 

[wynn]

Seems then that the universe has no need of a god, but it appears that, in order to maintain relevance, theists see the need for a god at a "personal spiritual level", which makes no sense to me.

Do androids dream of electric sheep ...

I suppose it can safely be said that rocks have no need for flowers, or God, or for anything else. And if one conceives of oneself as not much different than a rock, then one probably conceives of oneself as ultimately not having any needs, including no need for God.

 

[wynn]

Yes, the need to become gods. We're already at the nano level now. When we feel at home at Planck scale we'll be gods.

Yes, gods who can't even move a finger!

 

[wellwisher]

Seems then that the universe has no need of a god, but it appears that, in order to maintain relevance, theists see the need for a god at a "personal spiritual level", which makes no sense to me.

The most important tool of science is human consciousness. All the machines are dependent on human consciousness, since machines are not intelligent or alive. Yet the intelligent critter looks outside itself for the solution.

The bias of science has to do with the philosophy of science. Only what is outside can be verified and duplicated. Say we assume consciousness is the main tool of science, since it ultimately creates and programs the tools and analyzes all the data. How do you know the consciousness tool is properly calibrated if you can't look inside?

If you were color blind and did not know it, would that bias perception? Say there was no way to see this from the outside and one was in a position of authority could you blind others? Say you are unconsciously projecting chaos, instead of God, so you see it everywhere others don't even see, would you assume the world is chaotic? If you don't look inside and make sure you are in calibration would this bias observations and theories? I would call this another religion.

How does science calibrate the human mind to prevent collective bias, when the mind is inside and not outside where machines can see it? The personal god requires you look inside allowing calibration against a standard.