Concept of God arising in multiple, different cultures

[Balerion]

The idea that vast numbers of people will burn in hell for all eternity strikes you as something that the omnibenevolent entity would do?

How would I know one way or the other? If we're assuming the existence of an omnimax god, my personal definition of "benevolence" is irrelevant. The god could define "omnibenevolent" as being any action it takes. Actually, that's how many Christians define "goodness;" as being no more or less than whatever God does, since he is the creator and ultimate authority.

Not all people who consider themselves Christians (or of whichever theistic religion) hold the same beliefs, the same definitions.
So, for example, there are people who claim to be Christians and who believe in eternal damnation, and there are people who call themselves Christians but who don't believe in eternal damnation.

Neither of those beliefs would make their interpretation of God lesser or greater than any other, from what I can tell. Again, it's only true if you subscribe to the false premise that an omnimax god's definitions of righteousness and justice align with your own. I mean, talk about an ego trip! Who even says an omnimax God is the ultimate potentiality? On what grounds do you claim benevolence to be a superior quality to malevolence?

First of all, the phrase "an omnimax god" is nonsensical. There can be only one omnimax entity.

There only being room for one omnimax entity does not make the phrase "an omnimax God" nonsensical. I'm not referring to a pantheon of omnimax gods, I'm referring to the concept of an omnimax god as opposed to the concept of other kinds of gods.

You shouldn't nitpick such a trivial point, but if you do, you should make sure that you're right first.

If God is defined as the First Cause, the Creator, Maintainer and Controller of the Universe, then, 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, is contextualized by God.

You're just describing what faith might entail for a believer in this being, not why belief is inescapable. You'd still have to accept that such a being exists. (And to reiterate a point you keep ignoring, most people already believe in this type of god, and their lives are demonstrably not contextualized by it. Definitionally doing something and practically doing something are two different ideas) So I ask again: How is it that the concept of an omnimax god makes belief inescapable?

What you're missing here? I think you're not acknowledging the worldly perks that inferior definitions of "God" bring along.

There was a grand opportunity to enlighten me to what those perks are, and you squandered it. Do you need an invitation to be specific or helpful in your posts? Fine:

Dearest Wynn,
You are cordially invited to the enlightenment of BALERION on the matter of WORLDLY PERKS BROUGHT ALONG BY INFERIOR CONCEPTS OF GOD.​

Keep in mind, however, that you still haven't demonstrated why your omnimax god is superior, nor why other gods are inferior.

 

[gmilam]

The idea that vast numbers of people will burn in hell for all eternity strikes you as something that the omnibenevolent entity would do?

I don't know. Who am I to judge god? If it exists, it is what it is.

 

[spidergoat]

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."

Because it's the one most people in my part of the world accept, so it's the one that is most important to refute. I can't address every possible definition, and a personal benevolent god is the only kind that would really matter. Non-personal gods don't require worship. Non-benevolent gods are evil no matter what I do.

 

[Write4U]

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.

Bees have need for flowers, as flowers have need for bees to propagate. Man has no need for flowers, as is obvious in the arctic. Perhaps god provides the aurora borealis for man in the arctic?

To assume that god has provided anything in the universe for man's pleasure is the height of hubris and even more presumptive than assuming we are fledgeling gods.

 

[Write4U]

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.

What solution? Seems to me that man just makes up stories to stroke his personal ego (another inside job).

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?

So, we invent a god to calibrate ourselves? Calibrate for what? Survival? How about looking around to see our relationship with the universe. This automatically will force us to look inside.

If you were color blind and did not know it, would that bias perception?

We are colorblind except for a narrow range of wavelengths. There are insects which far outstrip our ability to see other spectra.

Say there was no way to see this from the outside and one was in a position of authority could you blind others?

But this is precisely what religion does, it invents false (symbolic) images of all sorts and then tells another religion it is false.

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?

Who says God is not chaos?

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.[/QUOTE]

I understand the need for a standardized moral compass, but religion has clearly failed in its purpose to offer emotional comfort to all humans. Moreover religion allows the exercise of violence and chaos to calibrate the inner mind to accept the religion of the day. "slay the infidel"? does not sound like a proper and peaceful calibration of the human mind.

 

[wellwisher]

I understand the need for a standardized moral compass, but religion has clearly failed in its purpose to offer emotional comfort to all humans. Moreover religion allows the exercise of violence and chaos to calibrate the inner mind to accept the religion of the day. "slay the infidel"? does not sound like a proper and peaceful calibration of the human mind.

Science does not help, because it still looks outside itself for the source of consciousness. This is due to the philosophy of science. There are no experiments based on scientists looking inside their own minds to plot out the firmware. They look at consciousness in the third person; test subject. The interpretation is a projection, based on the internal phenomena.

Christ would say, people can see the speck in the other person's eye, but not the log in their own. They project outward but do not see that the source of this negativity, is inside in their own mind. Who in atheism points this out to the atheist flock?

Atheism allows unnatural behavior, as inferred by the needed artificial mops needed to clean up. Natural does not use or need mops. This socially acceptable, but subjective unnatural behavior will create an internal potential with natural instinct. If you go into denial this will be projected outward. The source of this projection is connected to the unnatural behavior and not to religion, since religion does not teach this. It is not a rational overlay to blame religion for your woes. If you look inside and realize natural does not need mops and accept that unnatural will cause a potential, then you are closer to consciousness.

If you did internal mind research, there are many layers as you go deeper and deeper. Near the surface is a layer called the shadow, which follows us around like your shadow follows you in the sun. The brighter the sun light the darker the shadow. The shadow has a connection to all that you think is inferior. The shadow is the most common source of hostile projection, creating the impression the other person or side has all the shadow features, and you are clean and pure. Once you accept your own shadow; speck in your own eye, and get past it, then you enter the collective unconscious, where there is the hope of higher human potential. This is the positive projection source that most people in religion like their religion for. The baby Jesus is not about destroying cities.

If you look at Muslim terrorists, the reality data says only a small fraction of Muslims are this way. The shadow projection will see all or not and will try to stereo-type everyone, with the same shadow projection. A stereo-type is a shadow litmus test. Science does not help when it slants interpretation of consciousness based on the smallest fraction of the available data. Denies inside data.

 

[elte]

Science does not help...

How is it that something that is made up, but treated as though it isn't made up, without cost and damaging effects that end up needing to be remedied? One of the costs is conflict that arises between beliefs when they can't be supported by evidence.

An example of the bad effect from making up stuff and treating it as fact would be Protestants vs. Catholics, or Catholics vs. Jews, Muslims vs. Hindus, etc.. Differences in religious beliefs cause a lot of damage, and there isn't any way to determine who is right to settle disputes. It is highly likely that none of them are right.

 

[wynn]

How is it that something that is made up, but treated as though it isn't made up, without cost and damaging effects that end up needing to be remedied? One of the costs is conflict that arises between beliefs when they can't be supported by evidence.

An example of the bad effect from making up stuff and treating it as fact would be Protestants vs. Catholics, or Catholics vs. Jews, Muslims vs. Hindus, etc.. Differences in religious beliefs cause a lot of damage, and there isn't any way to determine who is right to settle disputes. It is highly likely that none of them are right.

How do you know that religious doctrines are merely made up?

I think the most that religious doctrines could be accused of is extrapolation, interpolation, inference, as opposed to being totally and completely revealed by God.
That is, a lot in religious doctrines seems to be the consequence of extrapolating, interpolating and inferring from basic premises, and the results of this sometimes seem off.

The cognitive processes of extrapolation etc. can indeed seem no different than making things up, but they are not the same as making things up.

 

[Balerion]

How do you know that religious doctrines are merely made up?

That's what the evidence suggests.

I think the most that religious doctrines could be accused of is extrapolation, interpolation, inference, as opposed to being totally and completely revealed by God.
That is, a lot in religious doctrines seems to be the consequence of extrapolating, interpolating and inferring from basic premises, and the results of this sometimes seem off.

Which religious doctrines have you read, exactly? How much do you know of the lineage of these texts? I ask because I can't fathom how "extrapolating, interpolating, and inferring from basic premises" could be a legitimate inference made from the actual data. And what exactly do they "sometimes seem off" from?

The cognitive processes of extrapolation etc. can indeed seem no different than making things up,

If that were the case, then how have you arrived at the conclusion that they are merely extrapolations etc. of a basic idea provided by a real god? You must have access to data that doesn't have the appearance of things being made up. For example, I would say the doctrines are fictitious because they are often contradictory and seem to share no common denominator in most cases. (Obviously Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are branches of the same tree) The fact that many of these traditions are motley collections of other faiths speaks against their legitimacy as well. And the fact that so many of the laws and rules are based on superstition and cultural biases. And the fact that man could easily invent the concept of godhood if no gods existed, just as it invented the concept of superheroes in spite of any actual superheroes existing.

What leads you to believe the contrary?

 

[Write4U]

Science does not help, because it still looks outside itself for the source of consciousness. This is due to the philosophy of science. There are no experiments based on scientists looking inside their own minds to plot out the firmware. They look at consciousness in the third person; test subject. The interpretation is a projection, based on the internal phenomena.

Of course science looks at consciousness in the third person. Only then can one make an "objective" interpretation of the projection of reality.

Christ would say, people can see the speck in the other person's eye, but not the log in their own. They project outward but do not see that the source of this negativity, is inside in their own mind. Who in atheism points this out to the atheist flock?

Precisely, this is why science works in the third person with test subjects. I am not sure what you mean by "this negativity inside one's own mind".
There is no atheist flock and atheists are perfectly capable of "objective" conclusions about subjective experiences.

Atheism allows unnatural behavior, as inferred by the needed artificial mops needed to clean up. Natural does not use or need mops. This socially acceptable, but subjective unnatural behavior will create an internal potential with natural instinct. If you go into denial this will be projected outward. The source of this projection is connected to the unnatural behavior and not to religion, since religion does not teach this. It is not a rational overlay to blame religion for your woes. If you look inside and realize natural does not need mops and accept that unnatural will cause a potential, then you are closer to consciousness.

Again tyou have lost me here, animals give no second thought to a god at all. Does that lead to unnatural behavior in animals?
In fact that statement fits theists. Religion seems to need mops to clean up all the unnatural assumptions and garbage left by the "teachings" of supernatural interference.

If you did internal mind research, there are many layers as you go deeper and deeper. Near the surface is a layer called the shadow, which follows us around like your shadow follows you in the sun. The brighter the sun light the darker the shadow. The shadow has a connection to all that you think is inferior. The shadow is the most common source of hostile projection, creating the impression the other person or side has all the shadow features, and you are clean and pure. Once you accept your own shadow; speck in your own eye, and get past it, then you enter the collective unconscious, where there is the hope of higher human potential. This is the positive projection source that most people in religion like their religion for. The baby Jesus is not about destroying cities.

Yes, religion believes that man cannot achieve greatness except through accepting christ . "Only through me" is in direct conflict with your proposal for "only through yourself".
Baby jesus????? How about the intractable blaming of the Jews for crucifying christ. What about the Crusades, Jihads, Fatwahs, Sharia law, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (Inquisition). What about the church sanctioned murders of "witches and heretics" (people who dared look beyond scripture.)
It is so easy to forget the objective lessons learned from history.

If you look at Muslim terrorists, the reality data says only a small fraction of Muslims are this way. The shadow projection will see all or not and will try to stereo-type everyone, with the same shadow projection. A stereo-type is a shadow litmus test. Science does not help when it slants interpretation of consciousness based on the smallest fraction of the available data. Denies inside data.

Atheists do not stereo-type anyone. It is religions and zealots who stereotype individuals as sinners.

I am sorry, I am trying but you are going far too far out on a limb here. Any religion which imposes itself on an individual prevents this individual to actually look inside. Abrahamic religions are the same message with just different flavors. As long as religions speak of spiritual punishment and holy war they corrupt the mind.

What you seem to be describing is not found in Abrahamic religions but in the various deistic philosophies. This is why Bohm's "Wholeness and the Implicate" is the unbiased path to examination of the Universal Holomovement.

 

[Write4U]

How do you know that religious doctrines are merely made up?

I think the most that religious doctrines could be accused of is extrapolation, interpolation, inference, as opposed to being totally and completely revealed by God.
That is, a lot in religious doctrines seems to be the consequence of extrapolating, interpolating and inferring from basic premises, and the results of this sometimes seem off.

The cognitive processes of extrapolation etc. can indeed seem no different than making things up, but they are not the same as making things up.

Yes they are if the extrapolations are made where the original premise is false or not falsifiable.

 

[lightgigantic]

How is it that something that is made up, but treated as though it isn't made up, without cost and damaging effects that end up needing to be remedied?

how is it that you came tot he conclusion that it is "made up"?

One of the costs is conflict that arises between beliefs when they can't be supported by evidence.

as noted several times with several posters already, its a common folly of atheists to banter on about ontological issues (eg what is real or what constitutes evidence or even what are the parameters of evidence for empiricism) without having the necessary intellectual stamina to address these issues.

An example of the bad effect from making up stuff and treating it as fact would be Protestants vs. Catholics, or Catholics vs. Jews, Muslims vs. Hindus, etc.. Differences in religious beliefs cause a lot of damage, and there isn't any way to determine who is right to settle disputes. It is highly likely that none of them are right.

As he said, science will not help .... since the moment you add a bit of anything ideological/cultural/political to science, the same difficulty in homogenizing differing opinions occurs.

IOW anyone who declares science as the valid tool for surmounting ideological diversity is simply playing that card for their own ideological agenda.

 

[spidergoat]

Is this proof of God

or

proof that God and religion are man-made conceptions?



Discuss.

It's proof that if you are ignorant about almost everything, creating a super intelligent agent that explains everything is a popular idea.

 

[Write4U]

how is it that you came tot he conclusion that it is "made up"?

as noted several times with several posters already, its a common folly of atheists to banter on about ontological issues (eg what is real or what constitutes evidence or even what are the parameters of evidence for empiricism) without having the necessary intellectual stamina to address these issues.

As he said, science will not help .... since the moment you add a bit of anything ideological/cultural/political to science, the same difficulty in homogenizing differing opinions occurs.

IOW anyone who declares science as the valid tool for surmounting ideological diversity is simply playing that card for their own ideological agenda.

What ideological agenda does science espouse other than only verifiable data is admissible for consideration?

This is not an ideological problem. Religion creates a subjective perceptual problem, while claiming scientific validity in scripture. This is false.

If the Universe has a consciousness it can be scientifically equated. All scientific equations identify aspects of the greater wholeness.
The religious equations amount to nothing more than "God is love and together with angels dwells in heaven", "Satan is hate and together with demons dwells in hell".

It has also be demonstrated that many religions of "one sort or another" were completely wrong in their attempts to surmount ideological diversity. Why have so many gods died and been replaced by new gods. If the original premise was true, why the need for change and evolution of religion?

The main difference is that science claims truth only when there is sufficient information to warrant such a claim. Religion claims truth without any evidence of any kind.

Perhaps the Universal Wholeness or Holomovement exhibits a form of intelligence, but that has nothing to do with ideology.

Ideology is only formed as mirror reflection of man assuming moral responsibility for his actions, a responsibility not shared by animals (children of a lesser god).

 

[elte]

How do you know that religious doctrines are merely made up?

I think the most that religious doctrines could be accused of is extrapolation, interpolation, inference, as opposed to being totally and completely revealed by God.
That is, a lot in religious doctrines seems to be the consequence of extrapolating, interpolating and inferring from basic premises, and the results of this sometimes seem off.

The cognitive processes of extrapolation etc. can indeed seem no different than making things up, but they are not the same as making things up.

I see what you mean and a better word that doesn't carry the connotation of intentional fabrication might be fantasy, or an even milder way of putting it could be inaccurate guessing that appears to be completely wrong. I appreciate the understanding what I meant, though I should say that those various processes (like inferring and the others) being used for finding revelation appear totally inaccurate in outcome. Made up doesn't sound so harsh, in a way, and fantasy is more accurate in the sense of pipe dream or delusion. In other words, they really screw it up.

 

[lightgigantic]

What ideological agenda does science espouse other than only verifiable data is admissible for consideration?

just look at your own posts about the so-called scientific basis for discounting religion as a good example

This is not an ideological problem. Religion creates a subjective perceptual problem, while claiming scientific validity in scripture. This is false.

scientific validity?
what do you mean by that?

If the Universe has a consciousness it can be scientifically equated. All scientific equations identify aspects of the greater wholeness.

On the contrary, you can't take a single scientific notion beyond the tacit

The religious equations amount to nothing more than "God is love and together with angels dwells in heaven", "Satan is hate and together with demons dwells in hell".

one can render a similar caricature of science (just to clear , where E=2r ...lol)

It has also be demonstrated that many religions of "one sort or another" were completely wrong in their attempts to surmount ideological diversity. Why have so many gods died and been replaced by new gods. If the original premise was true, why the need for change and evolution of religion?

On the contrary, I can't fathom how one could possibly tackle absolutely any issue of ideological diversity without a refinement/changing of ideas

The main difference is that science claims truth only when there is sufficient information to warrant such a claim. Religion claims truth without any evidence of any kind.

and thats fine ... except of course when people borrow from the established authority of science in an attempt to lend weight to their (ideological) claims which really have nothing to do with science.

Perhaps the Universal Wholeness or Holomovement exhibits a form of intelligence, but that has nothing to do with ideology.

Ideology is only formed as mirror reflection of man assuming moral responsibility for his actions, a responsibility not shared by animals (children of a lesser god).

not sure what this has to do with painting whatever you say in the name of science as somehow devoid of any ideological involvemnet

 

[lightgigantic]

It's proof that if you are ignorant about almost everything, creating a super intelligent agent that explains everything is a popular idea.

so is sticking to a reductionist world view for the sake of supporting a weak ego
:shrug:

 

[elte]

how is it that you came tot he conclusion that it is "made up"?

I see what you are saying. A more accurate term is fantasized with the result being a pipe dream or delusion, by all appearances. Made up sounds nicer in a way.

as noted several times with several posters already, its a common folly of atheists to banter on about ontological issues (eg what is real or what constitutes evidence or even what are the parameters of evidence for empiricism) without having the necessary intellectual stamina to address these issues.

It ought to be able to be put in a few clear words or who all can it really help or what use is it really?

As he said, science will not help .... since the moment you add a bit of anything ideological/cultural/political to science, the same difficulty in homogenizing differing opinions occurs.

Science in it's proper sense has none of those things attached to it.

IOW anyone who declares science as the valid tool for surmounting ideological diversity is simply playing that card for their own ideological agenda.

One could say that's not science then but politics.

With the mention of idealogical, I tangentially wonder about people's tendency to think of ideals as being real things.

 

[Write4U]

lightgigantic;

Originally Posted by Write4U

What ideological agenda does science espouse other than only verifiable data is admissible for consideration?

just look at your own posts about the so-called scientific basis for discounting religion as a good example

Example?

W4U
This is not an ideological problem. Religion creates a subjective perceptual problem, while claiming scientific validity in scripture. This is false.

scientific validity? What do you mean by that?

From wiki,

The goal of science is to construct theories and gather data to back up these theories that maximizes both internal and external validity. The scientific method is an attempt to limit and control the number of threats to validity an experiment faces. Cogent application of statistics and good experimental design can greatly increase validity. The meticulous design, method and analysis of science is what separates it out from many pseudosciences that attempt to claim some form of validity. Proponents of pseudoscience, woo, and quackery either ignore threats to validity or use them to generate false data to back up their crazy claims

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Threats_to_scientific_validity

W4U
If the Universe has a consciousness it can be scientifically equated. All scientific equations identify aspects of the greater wholeness.

On the contrary, you can't take a single scientific notion beyond the tacit

I really urge you the read David Bohm in depth.

W4U
The religious equations amount to nothing more than "God is love and together with angels dwells in heaven", "Satan is hate and together with demons dwells in hell".

one can render a similar caricature of science (just to clear , where E=2r ...lol)

Funny clip.
But the equation E = Mc^2 as an expression of Potential has been demonstrated to be true. The scientific and philosophical concept of Potential is "a latent excellence", IOW an aspect of the theist concept of god's abilities and power.

W4U
It has also be demonstrated that many religions of "one sort or another" were completely wrong in their attempts to surmount ideological diversity. Why have so many gods died and been replaced by new gods. If the original premise was true, why the need for change and evolution of religion?

On the contrary, I can't fathom how one could possibly tackle absolutely any issue of ideological diversity without a refinement/changing of ideas

Religion was forced to make such concessions. The pope's admission and acceptance of universal evolution rendered an entire section of the OT useless, yet it is still in the bible without at least a sidenote.
If a ideological concept is too diverse in meaning and application it is no longer a reliable ideology. To say "God is the creator of everything" has no meaning without demonstrable proof of a divine supernatural intervention, rather than a natural potential.

W4U
The main difference is that science claims truth only when there is sufficient information to warrant such a claim. Religion claims truth without any evidence of any kind.

and thats fine ... except of course when people borrow from the established authority of science in an attempt to lend weight to their (ideological) claims which really have nothing to do with science.

Oh I see, religion gets to use science as proof of god, but science cannot be used to disprove the concept of a PARTICULAR god, say Thor, the god that used to make thunder.

W4U
Perhaps the Universal Wholeness or Holomovement exhibits a form of intelligence, but that has nothing to do with ideology.

Ideology is only formed as mirror reflection of man assuming moral responsibility for his actions, a responsibility not shared by animals (children of a lesser god).

not sure what this has to do with painting whatever you say in the name of science as somehow devoid of any ideological involvemnet

I am not sure in what context you are using the term ideology.
From Wiki,

An ideology is a set of ideas that constitute one's goals, expectations, and actions. An ideology is a comprehensive vision, a way of looking at things (compare worldview) as in several philosophical tendencies (see political ideologies), or a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society (a "received consciousness" or product of socialization).

Ideologies are systems of abstract thought applied to public matters and thus make this concept central to politics. Implicitly every political or economic tendency entails an ideology whether or not it is propounded as an explicit system of thought.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology

The only ideology associated with Science is that to 'earn" the title of theory, a proposition must be consistent with scientifically acceptable proofs.

Theology claims truth but does not require proof, hence lacks the only qualifiying ideology of science, VALIDITY.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Is this proof of God

or

proof that God and religion are man-made conceptions?



Discuss.

It's more proof than not.
It's proof that God isn't a man-made conception?

jan.