Concept of God arising in multiple, different cultures

[lightgigantic]

I resist the urge to needlessly take the low road and won't resort to a counter ad hominem as you have used one with your insinuation of blindness or what not, but I will just point it out for the reader that this is a great tendency on your part. I wish the moderators could prevent you from replying to my posts, unless I replied to yours first.

I really can't fathom how disagreeing with your views on reality that uses the exact same language as yourself constitutes an ad hom .... and if you think about how implementing the prerequisite of only being able to respond to something that is first responded to by yours truly would affect a discussion forum, you can probably understand why that won't happen (maybe you should try blogging?)

What you are saying is a strawman, I don't say everything could be empirically evaluated but that the process does work for determining things whereas supernaturalism doesn't. It looks likely that with enough advancement, everything could be evaluated by empiricism while on the other hand it also looks highly likely that nothing supernatural can ever be determined to actually exist other than in thoughts.

This is weird.

You say you don't say something and then in the next sentence you say precisely that.

Now, if you are saying that the supernatural is real in that it is a concept resulting from the thought process, I'll grant that. However, you flapping your arms and flying falls into that category similarly because I can think of you doing it.

dude look at what you are typing.

If you are saying that anything beyond the empirical is "supernatural", and anything supernatural can only exist in the mind, how on earth are you not saying everything that is real is empirical?
IOW what, beside the empirical, exists in reality (aside from the empirical stuff we apparently haven't discovered yet?)

And that's not true about conjecture because pure conjecture means no evidence at all. There is no physical evidence to support the supernatural whereas there is immense amounts of evidence that natural laws determine the operation of everything.

It is conjecture because empiricism, by its very nature, can only deal with tacit terms.

IOW a metonymic scope of investigation by definition is relegated to a small slice of observation between the macro and micro-cosm.

This is why empirically if you try to tell us where you are what is a cup of flour is eventually your discussion trails off into points of no reference

 

[lightgigantic]

But your "subject" is just invented out of thin air! You can't propose a subject that has no identifiable qualities! That's called special pleading.

On the contrary, if you say that its only empiricism that gives rise to identifiable qualities (or to put it another way, that the conglomerate of information arising from empirically identifiable qualities gives rise to the wholeness of experience we call "reality") , that is special pleading.

 

[spidergoat]

On the contrary, if you say that its only empiricism that gives rise to identifiable qualities (or to put it another way, that the conglomerate of information arising from empirically identifiable qualities gives rise to the wholeness of experience we call "reality") , that is special pleading.

It's not possible to experience anything real that is not empirical. That's axiomatic.

 

[lightgigantic]

It's not possible to experience anything real that is not empirical. That's axiomatic.

on the contrary, its not possible to experience anything empirical that is complete.
IOW inasmuch as empiricism is relegated to the metonymic, that is axiomatic.

 

[Write4U]

Do you see what you're seeing with? Do you see your own eyes?

IOW, do you understand your own apparatus by which you arrive at what you call "evidence"?

Obviously, by "eyes" I don't mean just your eyeballs, or your neural system, but also and esp. the cognitive apparatus that you employ to come to conclusions.

I do reach a little further than you give me credit for. I am a big proponent of the mirror neural network or function in living organisms and perhaps even in inanimate matter.

But evidence of "intelligence" and "purpose" in a brainless slimemold, a collection of single celled amoebas can be clearly demonstrated.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=brainless-slime-molds

To me that indicates that sentience is a fundamental property of the universe, but it is a natural state of being. Drop the word supernatural and we will be a lot closer. By what apparatus do you perceive God?

 

[spidergoat]

on the contrary, its not possible to experience anything empirical that is complete.
IOW inasmuch as empiricism is relegated to the metonymic, that is axiomatic.

Being incomplete is better than being a non-existent fantasy. Incomplete knowledge is no excuse for believing nonsense.

 

[Write4U]

Theists are enamored with the notion of a personal connection with an intelligent supernatural being. Kinda like a spiritual SETI. But at the same time theism dismisses the ability of science to eventually arrive at a workable definition of god (if it exists at all).

I find this an example of hubris. Kinda like playing hide and seek. I'll stash god forever out of reach. Then, if science doesn't find god in 10 seconds, they lose.

 

[Write4U]

On the contrary, if you say that its only empiricism that gives rise to identifiable qualities (or to put it another way, that the conglomerate of information arising from empirically identifiable qualities gives rise to the wholeness of experience we call "reality") , that is special pleading.

Empiricism does not give rise to anything. It is a result of identifying certain qualities. Reality is a commonly experienced identifiable quality of the universe. But we know that reality is preceded by Potential. Is Potential a commonly experienced quality of the universe? If not, God cannot be experienced and any claim is a self created experience.

 

[C C]

Do you think that epistemology is something that does not apply on the level of the individual? That Sue can't talk about her epistemology, as there is no such thing as Sue's epistemology?

Surely similar to the problem of "private language". If "my approach to the study of knowledge" can't be expressed to others, or isn't applicable to others, then it's not an interpersonal system to be utilized or explored by a community concerned with that topic. Like solipsism, it may be a possibility for the individual, but not for the group. Ergo, solipsism rejected as a serious doctrine or view by group endeavors; a significant part of the latter still can't even abide indirect realism, even with good evidence in science / naturalism that external experiences are produced by the brain / body starting from specialized tissue stimulations.

I couldn't find the online text from Kant in German that you were referring to. Can you provide it? Did Kant write "ein Gott", "Gott" or even "Götze" in the original? In German, all nouns are written capitalized, so the distinction between "(a) god" and "God" is realized differently than in English (in German, with the appropriate use of the article or without it). I'm sure the translator was aware of that. It's awkward that a published translation would have "a God" in it. "A God" makes as much sense as "a Barack Obama."

One might have to ask Eckart Forster and Michael Rosen why they capitalized it (repeatedly), who should very much still be alive. As this "Opus Postumum", finally intended for public consumption rather than buried under dust, is a recent translation (Kant never completed the scattered material before he died), and not slated to have free availability for decades. At least for download; uncopy-able sections might be displayed somewhere in Google Books (the few quotes I've got stored on computer had to be acquired by time consuming, old-fashioned manual extraction). But dissatisfaction with the eccentricities of Kant's multiple English translators and Kant's own original writings have been rife for ages with his other works, and thus not novel enough to raise a shocked eyebrow over. Any Anglophone rule that "God" as capitalized is forbidden to ever be a type, forbidden to ever be other than a specific entity's personal name, sort of gets tossed out the window, anyway, with perhaps a lot of other "exoteric" standard conventions, when it comes to the "esoteric" nomenclatures philosophers invent for their philosophies (or their translators' conversion of them).

 

[Balerion]

Those are still within the range of extrapolation.

I disagree. Extrapolation suggests attempts at progress or understanding, while the bible is a mish-mash of ideas from disparate sources. That's not extrapolation.

So you can empirically measure them and thus evidence they exist?

Of course. Do you really not think freedom and justice can be measured?

You're just oversimplifying.

You say that, but you don't explain what's wrong with keeping it simple, nor do you provide an alternative understanding. How is this comment supposed to advance the discussion?

That's borderline trolling.

Lol.

You're exemplifying here the problem that several lines of discussion in this thread are concerned with.

Namely, you, along with the other empiricists, posit that things basically are the way you see them; that you are an objective, dispassionate, unbiased observer; that you operate out of direct perception.

I don't know what this has to do with the fact that you have already made up your mind on this subject, but no one here suggests that people who don't believe in the supernatural are without bias. That's what's so great about the scientific method; it removes the subjectivity and presents raw data, and allows for people to disabuse themselves of bad ideas while promoting critical thinking. It rewards objectivity and punishes agenda. It's a wonderful tool, and it's the reason we are having this conversation right now, among many other advances which would have been impossible without it.

You're trying to argue vague ad hominem, making the suggestion that the arguments we put forth are invalid simply because we're emotional and imperfect creatures, because you can't defeat the data. It's really unfortunate that you're opting for this tack, and I wish you'd reconsider, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

I, on the other hand, and I think so does LG, propose that perception is an active, selective, biased, subjective, partly culturally-conditioned process, so that what one actually sees, is one's own perception, not the thing in and of itself. IOW, for the most part, what we usually call perception is actually projection.
Without projection, we couldn't call such a thing that is in this image

an "apple."

Again, this is why the scientific method is so wonderful. Sure, one might be confused by a picture, but there are ways to determine what kind of fruit that is. Unless you're suggesting that there's no way to do that?

The OP poses no question to the effect of "Which religion is the right one?"

Obviously, and that's not what I said. I said that we're having a discussion regarding the legitimacy of these religions, and that's exactly what the OP wants to know: "Does this data suggest that religion is legitimate, or man-made?"

Is this really something you're confused by, or is this more of you attempting to save face by clinging blindly to a losing position?

Superheroes, and gods and God tend to be described using one or more qualifiers such as: beautiful, wealthy, strong, influential, smart, attractive, being able to fly, see through walls, hear distant sounds etc.

Never heard of x-ray vision or super-hearing being attributed to a god. And beauty, strength, and influence are also attributes afforded to celebrities and sports stars, so I don't see how they're in any way godly features.

In truth, the desire to create superheroes probably does come from the same place as god creation, in that they are in many cases the idealization of humanity. But to argue that superheroes as a concept are based on gods is ridiculous. It's much more likely that they're cousins rather than one being a descendant of the other.

 

[elte]

I really can't fathom how disagreeing with your views on reality that uses the exact same language as yourself constitutes an ad hom .... and if you think about how implementing the prerequisite of only being able to respond to something that is first responded to by yours truly would affect a discussion forum, you can probably understand why that won't happen (maybe you should try blogging?)

I never implied blindness on your end and never intended offense to you. As far as the not responding to my posts, that would be as a disciplinary action to bring about separation between us since I can't help concluding that you intend ad homs, while you perceive my normal writing style as offensive (while I always try hard not to be). I naturally write with an uncommonly large number of adjectives and adverbs when I'm trying to carefully explain something; maybe that's it.

This is weird.

You say you don't say something and then in the next sentence you say precisely that.

The first sentence is admitting that we can't observe everything now at our present level of scientific and technological advancement, whereas the second sentence takes a lot of advancement into account.

dude look at what you are typing.

If you are saying that anything beyond the empirical is "supernatural", and anything supernatural can only exist in the mind, how on earth are you not saying everything that is real is empirical?
IOW what, beside the empirical, exists in reality (aside from the empirical stuff we apparently haven't discovered yet?)

Maybe the best way to say it is that thoughts can be real while not being reality. Supernaturality is just a construction of thought (hypothetical).

It is conjecture because empiricism, by its very nature, can only deal with tacit terms.

IOW a metonymic scope of investigation by definition is relegated to a small slice of observation between the macro and micro-cosm.

This is why empirically if you try to tell us where you are what is a cup of flour is eventually your discussion trails off into points of no reference

That bold part is clear to me. I'll comment that I agree it has limitations. Yet, by hard work, doing research, we are expanding that slice.

With that cup of flour, it's at least not too hard to agree that there is a cup of flour. At least we have that, because we can't agree on much else, I guess.

 

[elte]

Would you agree that while the empirical process works for empirical things, the supernaturalist process works for supernatural things?

I can agree with that so long as I add that the supernatural is hypothetical. So we can say it's real but can't say it's reality. Now that doesn't mean I'm saying it isn't reality, just that we can't say. And you know my opinion, though, which is that it very likely isn't reality. The difference between real and reality is based on my understanding of the words, and your understanding might be different, and language interpretation is where so many problems come from.

 

[Write4U]

I agree.
Moreover, it is religion scripture that posits "god created man in his image"..!!

 

[lightgigantic]

Being incomplete is better than being a non-existent fantasy. Incomplete knowledge is no excuse for believing nonsense.

The irony is that you are holding it as a non-existent fantasy due to thinking empiricism in some sort of magical, fantasy-ridden fashion is capable of invalidating an explicit term ... which is certainly no excuse for a weak ego
:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

Empiricism does not give rise to anything. It is a result of identifying certain qualities. Reality is a commonly experienced identifiable quality of the universe. But we know that reality is preceded by Potential. Is Potential a commonly experienced quality of the universe? If not, God cannot be experienced and any claim is a self created experience.

hence problems ensue when you try to use empiricism and its metonymic estimations of potential as some sort of leverage in a discussion revolving around explicit terms
:shrug:

 

[Write4U]

hence problems ensue when you try to use empiricism and its metonymic estimations of potential as some sort of leverage in a discussion revolving around explicit terms
:shrug:

Well, that makes the proposition for Universal Potential at least equal in validity to the proposition of God. And Potential is a well defined term, i.e. Potential expressed as E = Mc^2 is an example of an empirically proven inherent excellence of matter. God has not been empirically proved as an excellence of anything except as an abstract thought in the human mind. God has no definition and miracles, as examples of god's excellence, never happened.

 

[lightgigantic]

I never implied blindness on your end and never intended offense to you. As far as the not responding to my posts, that would be as a disciplinary action to bring about separation between us since I can't help concluding that you intend ad homs, while you perceive my normal writing style as offensive (while I always try hard not to be). I naturally write with an uncommonly large number of adjectives and adverbs when I'm trying to carefully explain something; maybe that's it.

as I said, I can't fathom how that instance of your writing was offensive, or how my reply, which uses the same language as yourself, is either

The first sentence is admitting that we can't observe everything now at our present level of scientific and technological advancement, whereas the second sentence takes a lot of advancement into account.

so as I said, post dated cheques on empiricism or not, you are saying empiricism can somehow call the play on explicit subjects

Maybe the best way to say it is that thoughts can be real while not being reality. Supernaturality is just a construction of thought (hypothetical).

lol - as in people really imagine stuff to be true?
So once again I have to ask, how on earth are you not saying everything that is real is empirical?
Hopefully you can answer by telling us what, aside from the empirical, makes up reality IYHO.

That bold part is clear to me. I'll comment that I agree it has limitations. Yet, by hard work, doing research, we are expanding that slice.

You miss the point.
An expanded slice is still a slice

With that cup of flour, it's at least not too hard to agree that there is a cup of flour.

sure
tacit terminology is handy like that

It only becomes a problem when you start to jump ship with explicit terms

At least we have that, because we can't agree on much else, I guess.

Unless you can give some sort of run down on a cup of flour devoid of tacit terms, I can't see exactly what you have provided to disagree with ...

 

[lightgigantic]

Well, that makes the proposition for Universal Potential at least equal in validity to the proposition of God. And Potential is a well defined term, i.e. Potential expressed as E = Mc^2 is an example of an empirically proven inherent excellence of matter.

So you are saying that E = Mc^2 is an essential definition of a term that can stalwartly evade any further contextualizing or reduction to further components no matter in what shape or form empirical research may take in the future? (IOW it is an absolute irrevocable truth for all times, places and circumstances)
Or are you saying that it is currently at the cutting edge of our attempts to analyze our environment empirically?

God has not been empirically proved as an excellence of anything except as an abstract thought in the human mind. God has no definition and miracles, as examples of god's excellence, never happened.

Once again if you are trying to draw a comparison of God to empirical elements and associated issues of empirical evidence, either you are working with an inferior definition of god or are continuing to fail to understand how empiricism is fatally relegated to tacit discussion and nothing else.

 

[Balerion]

I can agree with that so long as I add that the supernatural is hypothetical. So we can say it's real but can't say it's reality. Now that doesn't mean I'm saying it isn't reality, just that we can't say. And you know my opinion, though, which is that it very likely isn't reality. The difference between real and reality is based on my understanding of the words, and your understanding might be different, and language interpretation is where so many problems come from.

You shouldn't agree with it unless they want to define "supernaturalist process" as "made-up nonsense," because there's no evidence to demonstrate that this process actually works. Nor should you accept LG's ridiculous claim that empiricism "by nature" only deals in tacit terms. Obviously empiricism is only limited by our own limitations, and history has shown that as our limitations decrease, so do those of empiricism. And in any event, his argument is an attempt to revive the God of the Gaps argument; because we can't say what is ultimately in the foundation of existence, therefore we can't discredit him when he says he says it is magical to him as revealed by a magical process. It's bullshit, and it has no place in this discourse.

 

[lightgigantic]

You shouldn't agree with it unless they want to define "supernaturalist process" as "made-up nonsense," because there's no evidence to demonstrate that this process actually works. Nor should you accept LG's ridiculous claim that empiricism "by nature" only deals in tacit terms. Obviously empiricism is only limited by our own limitations, and history has shown that as our limitations decrease, so do those of empiricism. And in any event, his argument is an attempt to revive the God of the Gaps argument; because we can't say what is ultimately in the foundation of existence, therefore we can't discredit him when he says he says it is magical to him as revealed by a magical process. It's bullshit, and it has no place in this discourse.

I have said nothing of the god of the gaps - atm we are still struggling with things like cups of flour etc .... ,

I have simply said that empiricism, no matter how much it expands, can't elucidate anything explicit.

Unless you think that somehow, somewhere, someday empiricism will finally have nothing left to investigate on account of having defeated the barriers of the macro and micro-cosm (which is certainly the argumentative equivalent of pushing shit uphill), you actually agree with me.

The problem is that it doesn't appear you have the intellectual stamina to actually understand the terms under discussion at the moment ... much less understand this salient point.

Next thing you know you will be calling me a christian apologist ..... hey? wait!!!
:shrug: