Concept of God arising in multiple, different cultures

[Write4U]

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?

I understand that Newton's limited understanding of the potential of Gravity rendered his work incomplete. GR later completed the unfinished work of Newton. I believe that Gravity has now been Empirically proven. It is a universal constant. As is c (SOL).
Cause/Effect, Momentum, Conservation of Energy are all Empirically proven Universal constants.

These constants are expressions of the Potential of the Universal Wholeness and if you want to introduce pseudo intelligence, a Holomovement.

Theism has identified this Potential as God, then proceeded to assign false claims in support of the proposition. Is it wonder that metaphysicists are somewhat confused. Current metaphysics gets really very close to the philosophical concepts of a Brahman.
The problem is that the Abrahamic religions are too afraid or too entrenched to straighten the record and persist in fostering dogma and the formation of exclusivity and religious conflict.

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 constitutionally relegated to tacit discussion and nothing else.

I am making the equation that GOD = POTENTIAL and POTENTIAL = GOD The difference is that theists attach a motivated loving sentient and intentional supernatural intelligence to an already (almost) complete understanding of our relationship to the Greater Whole. Why all those bells and whistles? It poisons the fruit it bears, it has confounded the languages, it has opened Pandora's Box and released all the possible POTENTIAL
consequences of being wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandora's_box

IMO, the philosophy of Religion should emphasize caution in evoking spiritual claims, when dealing with such Potentially harmful consequences.

hmmm, I have just made a moral proposition based solely on the theoretical scientific concept of (metaphysical) Cosmological Potential.

 

[James R]

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

By which you mean that empiricism can't elucidate the only thing that you regard as "explicit", which is God. This is a circular argument: empiricism can't find God. Why? Because God isn't "explicit". How do we know God isn't explicit? Because empiricism can't find God. All you're doing here is redefining the word "explicit" to mean "God".

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.

What are these barriers you speak of? You're assuming there is a God at the base of everything. But there's no evidence of any such substructure or superstructure in the universe. Oh, but that's because it's "explicit" and not "tacit", you say, and we can't actually find evidence of explicit things.

In fact, we do have a reasonable understanding of both the small-scale and large-scale structure of our universe. Science doesn't claim to have all the answers. There will always be things we don't know. But there's nothing that suggests that an invocation of God is necessary at any point to explain anything.

 

[The Marquis]

And you're trolling. This will be my last reply to you on this subject (and likely on any other).

*Sigh*... trolling. One of the most over used words on the internet today. No, Balerion, I am not a troll.
You would do yourself a favour by ceasing to blindly follow current trends and use words as they were meant to be used. And as for you not replying to me any more... *snort*. You started this, you want to run, then run, little pup. A few parting yips isn't going to change anyone's opinion. Well, not mine anyway. I shouldn't speak for anyone else. I'm fairly certain, however, you'd have worked out by now I have a sort of bemused frown on my face when I'm reading you, so I can only assume you're speaking for the wider audience... you know, trying to make some sort of impression.

Saying that the concept of God is merely a logical progression of the ability to conceptualize is, first and foremost, a nonsensical statement. That is like saying the hot dog is a logical progression of the ability to conceptualize hot dogs.

Yes, yes, I understood what you were trying to say the first time.
You dismiss some primitive form of religion having been taken out of Africa when the initial migration started, and you prefer to believe that it kind of appeared all over the world like Minerva from the head of Zeus, somehow. If I'm misrepresenting you here, then perhaps you should sit back contemplate that for a while. It's certainly what you're trying to do to me.

That you disagree, in itself, is not the problem. The problem is that, both being only theories and largely unprovable, you're banging on like a two bob watch.
And as for it being a nonsensical statement... it isn't. Period.

In this passage, you define the "single, ideological concept" of God as "the capability of the human mind to envisage that agency to begin with," and you're simply trying to equivocate now that you've been called on it. (this would be like saying the hot dog is the ability to conceptualize the hot dog) It's understandable; you've jumped into the deep end without realizing, and you're embarrassed. It happens.

Actually, it was you who took this argument up with me... let's not forget that.

The words you've added in there "of god" are not mine. They're yours.
Think about that, Balerion. See if you can figure out where your problem lies.

Yes, that would also count as "nonsensical." It was a mistake on my part. See how easy that was? When I say something silly or stupid or incorrect, I own it. Something you should consider.

Oh dear. Another common and very, very worn out tactic, Balerion. Owning to a small mistake, and then claiming that your ownership of it is evidence that you'd own to a larger one.
Phhht.

If you're having this much trouble keeping up, I suggest reconsidering your participation in this discussion. Saying things like "A thing is the same as its ability to conceptualize it," might win over the dull minds at Pokerstars, but it's probably not going to fly here.

Probably wouldn't. Only.... it isn't what I said. You know that, and you're choosing to ignore it.

And for the record... if you're having philosophical conversations on Stars, you're doing it wrong. What's the matter, sunshine... tried it once or twice, got your ass kicked and now they're all "dull minds" over there? Heh. No doubt many of them are. But Stars isn't exactly a philsophical discussion site and your words here sound more than a little bitter, don't they?
How's your ROI? Mine's positive, thanks for asking, and no, I'm not going to tell you my username.

I dole out these little tidbits from time to time, Balerion, to see if and how others will attempt to use them. You're becoming less interesting with every post you make... and, incidentally, it smacks of desperation and a desire to hurt.
You think you're losing, in spite of your vociferous objections. Don't you.

To answer your question, yes, that was one of the nonsensical things you've said. The others are referenced above. God can be a concept that naturally evolves from superstition, but it can't a natural evolution of the ability to conceptualize God. That would be a nonsensical statement. You would be saying that God is not just a concept but an ability.

You keep saying it can't, but you've yet to say anything beyond that other than repeating over and over "it's nonsensical". Do better.
And, I might be wrong, but I thought that last part as you saying that.... oh look. never mind, I'm becoming quite bored with you. I can't even be bothered going back a couple of pages to look it up.

It's semantics in the sense that I'm explaining to you why the words you use are resulting in nonsensical and contradictory claims. I'm sorry if that troubles you, or you find it unfair that I can only go by what you say as opposed (perhaps) to what you really mean, but I'm not a mind-reader. However, if you can't understand the very basic problems with what you've said, then I again suggest you maybe find a new hobby.

I suggest you look in a mirror.
Your misrepresentations, continued even in spite of replies indicating otherwise, aren't fooling me. again, I can't speak for anyone else, but frankly you sound like someone who isn't even bothering to read replies. You've got something stuck in your head... and you're going to run it into the ground if you have to, out of sheer stubbornness.
Here's a little clue for your future: Having typed the last words on a page does not mean you've won the argument. It can mean one of several different things, and you claiming one or another is only that; a claim.

The original argument ran something along the lines of the idea the multiple cultures having a concept of god seemingly independent of one another proves the existence of god.
My initial responses were not to you, but addressing that argument. So what the fuck are you trying to prove? why are you arguing with me?

If you were trying to have a one-on-one conversation with another poster, you should have replied via PM. However, since you posted to a public forum, you can't really gripe when people other than the person you replied to respond. And I'm arguing with you because you said something incredibly stupid. I was trying to point out the error in your thinking, but you're either incapable of understanding it, or too stubborn/proud/grouchy to admit it.

And again, it was you who replied to me, Balerion. It was You who started this.
I wasn't attempting to have a one on one with another poster, I merely posted a general observation. Since then, it's been all you.

Can you cite me a source that supports this (almost certainly fictitious) claim? You'll have to forgive me if I don't take your word for it. What works have you read, for example?

Years ago, I don't remember now. Someone else here also brought up the language issue, which is another thing evidencing the nature of the human brain... but I'm sure you won't bother to look that up either. You want everyone else to do your work for you. I'm not going to.
Fact is, if you're not going to bother checking on it, or that other point from someone else which can be found in much the same source materials, that's your loss. Not mine.

And just so we're clear, even if it were true that that feral children don't generally understand the concept of God, it doesn't discount the notion that the concept of God arises independently. It might require generations of superstitious behavior to give rise to the fundamental concept of agency. It doesn't have to arise wholecloth in every human's mind, and to suggest that it should only displays how little of this subject you actually grasp.

I only said, Balerion, that feral children not being able to understand the concept of god (religion in general) only gives evidence toward religion being an invention of man, and that it might be evidence that the concept of god is not something which springs into being randomly across different cultures. That was, after all, what the OP was about.

Not only that, but if you added something like "coupled with cultural interaction" to those last two sentences and you've just repeated what I've been saying all along. Again.
I will ask you one more time: What the fuck are you trying to argue with me about? Or maybe.... the whole point of this is that you just want to argue with me.

Of course they do. History isn't one unbroken line from the dawn of civilization until now. That's why some places have certain technologies and then they don't, and why other concepts--like the pyramid--exist thousands of miles and centuries apart completely independently of each other. And if ideas don't die, what were the Dark Ages? Your claim simply doesn't have legs.

Where did you get this idea I ever claimed history was an unbroken line?
There was actually significantly more advancement during the dark ages than most people realise. If you see them as a time when all advancement simply stopped, or stagnated, then I would suggest it is in fact you who needs to go back and gain a sense of perspective. And as for the pyramids... there are similarities between cultures separated by oceans and thousands of miles, but there is absolutely no reason to believe they arose independantly from one another without cultural contact somewhere along the way.

You're trying to claim this is evidence that they somehow think of these things separately. I'm more inclined to believe that some form of contact between different cultures at some point led to those similarities.
And once more, you have no more proof of your conjecture than I do. I'm the one who has been saying all along that there is no proof either way... and yet you carry on.

That doesn't follow. Increased sophistication where cultures meet (which isn't even demonstrably true; what you can point to is an overlap of ideas, such as the way Jesus Christ is an amalgamation of pagan gods. He isn't any more complex than them, nor is his religion) would only suggest that religion, like any idea, grows and changes as it is introduced to more people with different ideas. It doesn't suggest that the concept of godhood itself is therefore spread; in fact, it suggest the opposite.

Jeez... look, I'm going to swear at this point. That's what I said you fucking moron. Except the last sentence, of course.
And if you're going to start denying now that sophistication increases with cultural contact, then you're even more an idiot than I realised.

And it's also implausible to suggest that one concept was carried out of Africa and survived until these cultures all met again. That's a ludicrous assumption with literally nothing to support it, except for you asinine claim above, which I just showed you was incorrect.

You're not showing me or anyone else a damned thing. You can use words like "implausible", "nonsensical" or what have you all you like, but unless you have a reason for doing so other than "This is what I think" coupled with "this is what I'm going to try to make everyone believe you said" then it means nothing.
I was going to write a summary of what I've actually been trying to say, as opposed to what you're claiming I have... but you're an idiot, and frankly I can't be fucked.

You're less bright than I first supposed, and now you're boring me.
Look, I'm not even going to bother with the rest.

You know, I'm beginning to fathom something here.
You're trying very hard to be me, aren't you. Is that what all this is really about?
That would be flattering, if you were at all competent about it.

 

[Write4U]

By which you mean that empiricism can't elucidate the only thing that you regard as "explicit", which is God. This is a circular argument: empiricism can't find God. Why? Because God isn't "explicit". How do we know God isn't explicit? Because empiricism can't find God. All you're doing here is redefining the word "explicit" to mean "God".

According to Bohm, the Explicate is the physical reality of the Implicate. By that standard theists concept of God should be modified to "the Implicate".

What are these barriers you speak of? You're assuming there is a God at the base of everything. But there's no evidence of any such substructure or superstructure in the universe. Oh, but that's because it's "explicit" and not "tacit", you say, and we can't actually find evidence of explicit things.

In fact, we do have a reasonable understanding of both the small-scale and large-scale structure of our universe. Science doesn't claim to have all the answers. There will always be things we don't know. But there's nothing that suggests that an invocation of God is necessary at any point to explain anything.

The voice of reason. I agree.

 

[Balerion]

*Sigh*... trolling. One of the most over used words on the internet today. No, Balerion, I am not a troll.
You would do yourself a favour by ceasing to blindly follow current trends and use words as they were meant to be used. And as for you not replying to me any more... *snort*. You started this, you want to run, then run, little pup. A few parting yips isn't going to change anyone's opinion. Well, not mine anyway. I shouldn't speak for anyone else. I'm fairly certain, however, you'd have worked out by now I have a sort of bemused frown on my face when I'm reading you, so I can only assume you're speaking for the wider audience... you know, trying to make some sort of impression.

What makes you a troll is that you're only posting for reaction. You've long ago realized that your ill-considered leap into the intellectual deep-end was a mistake, and since then you've been trying to win a semantic argument so as not to admit you were talking out of your ass all along. And I'm guilty for taking the bait, but I have a weakness for frauds who feign boredom at opposing arguments as an intellectual defense mechanism. I like to watch them expend energy as they desperately try to act like the whole thing is beneath them.

You dismiss some primitive form of religion having been taken out of Africa when the initial migration started, and you prefer to believe that it kind of appeared all over the world like Minerva from the head of Zeus, somehow. If I'm misrepresenting you here, then perhaps you should sit back contemplate that for a while. It's certainly what you're trying to do to me.

That you disagree, in itself, is not the problem. The problem is that, both being only theories and largely unprovable, you're banging on like a two bob watch.

Again, I'm not banging on about being right. I've already stated that it's a matter of probability, not fact, and I happen to think this particular scenario has a better chance of being true. What I'm "banging on" about is your nonsensical argument.

And as for it being a nonsensical statement... it isn't. Period.

As much as I respect the power of "Because I said so," it doesn't really have any authority here. But good try!

Actually, it was you who took this argument up with me... let's not forget that.

The relevance of that being what, exactly? Did I ask you for your opinion, or did you post it here without being prompted?

The words you've added in there "of god" are not mine. They're yours.
Think about that, Balerion. See if you can figure out where your problem lies.

You refer to it as a "single, ideological concept." Now you're trying to say that you weren't talking about God? What exactly were you referring to, then? I mean, you could have just told me here, enlightened me to my error, but you chose not to. I can't think of a case in a debate/discussion where brevity was anything less than a stalling tactic. Do you need more time to plan your escape?

Oh dear. Another common and very, very worn out tactic, Balerion. Owning to a small mistake, and then claiming that your ownership of it is evidence that you'd own to a larger one.
Phhht.

That's true, I shouldn't have acted as if my mistake in phrasing was anywhere near as large as the mistake you've made here. My apologies.

Probably wouldn't. Only.... it isn't what I said. You know that, and you're choosing to ignore it.

That's exactly what you said, which is why you have yet to offer an alternative. (which would be, by the way, simply that you were referring to the ability to conceptualize god as being a "single, ideological concept," which makes no more sense than equating God to the ability to conceive of one)

And for the record... if you're having philosophical conversations on Stars, you're doing it wrong. What's the matter, sunshine... tried it once or twice, got your ass kicked and now they're all "dull minds" over there? Heh. No doubt many of them are. But Stars isn't exactly a philsophical discussion site and your words here sound more than a little bitter, don't they?
How's your ROI? Mine's positive, thanks for asking, and no, I'm not going to tell you my username.

Your penchant for spelling out your actions (ie *snort*) and insistence on letting me know just how little you give a shit is quite reminiscent of the forums and chat rooms I used to haunt in my youth. You know, the whole "I'm too cool for this" routine which was, ironically, only ever employed by the most sensitive whine-asses in the whole place. It's what people do when their arguments have no strategic depth, but they don't have the integrity to admit it or the intelligence to correct it. And you mentioned you spend a lot of time at Pokerstars, so I simply assumed that's where you do most of your philosophizing. I'm not wrong, am I? Hence the need to defend the place, and (inexplicably) tell me that your ROI is positive...whatever that means. But yeah, sure, you don't care at all.

I dole out these little tidbits from time to time, Balerion, to see if and how others will attempt to use them. You're becoming less interesting with every post you make... and, incidentally, it smacks of desperation and a desire to hurt.
You think you're losing, in spite of your vociferous objections. Don't you.

Case in point.

You keep saying it can't, but you've yet to say anything beyond that other than repeating over and over "it's nonsensical". Do better.

I've gone as far as explaining to you why it's nonsensical. There's no better to do, friend. Unless you're asking me to make your "real" argument for you...? My goodness, that's what you want me to do, isn't it?

And, I might be wrong, but I thought that last part as you saying that.... oh look. never mind, I'm becoming quite bored with you. I can't even be bothered going back a couple of pages to look it up.

Just like you can't be bothered to cite any sources? Boy, this boredom thing really does benefit you. It means you don't actually have to support your claims with anything but more claims! I really have to try that sometime.

I suggest you look in a mirror.

I would, but you've stolen them all so as to perfect your bemused smile.

Your misrepresentations, continued even in spite of replies indicating otherwise, aren't fooling me.

All you've done is say I've misrepresented you. You haven't explained how, or what you really meant.

again, I can't speak for anyone else, but frankly you sound like someone who isn't even bothering to read replies. You've got something stuck in your head... and you're going to run it into the ground if you have to, out of sheer stubbornness.
Here's a little clue for your future: Having typed the last words on a page does not mean you've won the argument. It can mean one of several different things, and you claiming one or another is only that; a claim.

...is this a mirror thing?

And again, it was you who replied to me, Balerion. It was You who started this.
I wasn't attempting to have a one on one with another poster, I merely posted a general observation. Since then, it's been all you.

You posted an unsupported claim, and have failed to support it with anything other than more unsupported claims ever since. No wonder you weren't looking for a one-on-one exchange! But let's not forget, I merely gave you the reasoning for my opinion. You responded incredulously, as if I had just said the most ridiculous thing you'd ever heard, so let's stop pretending that I sucker-punched you, or something. You didn't realize you were getting into it with someone who knew what they were talking about. A common mistake, but one you're compounding by lying and generally making a fool of yourself.

Years ago, I don't remember now. Someone else here also brought up the language issue, which is another thing evidencing the nature of the human brain... but I'm sure you won't bother to look that up either. You want everyone else to do your work for you. I'm not going to.
Fact is, if you're not going to bother checking on it, or that other point from someone else which can be found in much the same source materials, that's your loss. Not mine.

You mean you can't support one of your claims? Shocking.

I only said, Balerion, that feral children not being able to understand the concept of god (religion in general) only gives evidence toward religion being an invention of man, and that it might be evidence that the concept of god is not something which springs into being randomly across different cultures. That was, after all, what the OP was about.

That's not what you said. You said it was evidence of such a scenario, and that it wasn't possible to believe what I believe based on what we know. You're playing the diplomat now, but your posts tell a different story. But, again, that's not unusual for someone like you.

Not only that, but if you added something like "coupled with cultural interaction" to those last two sentences and you've just repeated what I've been saying all along. Again.

That's not at all what you said. You said the concept of god derives from a single source; I said it does not. Adding "it also evolves through social interaction" to my position does not make it agree with yours. I do find it odd that you keep alternating between my argument being preposterous and my argument being almost exactly the same as yours. That's an odd tactic, again probably derived from Poker chat rooms.

Where did you get this idea I ever claimed history was an unbroken line?

From the suggestion that the concept of god is derived from one source. If that is true, then it must have survived without being lost (hence "unbroken line") since its inception. Perhaps I'm giving you too much credit for assuming that you'd be aware of the implications of your claim?

There was actually significantly more advancement during the dark ages than most people realise. If you see them as a time when all advancement simply stopped, or stagnated, then I would suggest it is in fact you who needs to go back and gain a sense of perspective. And as for the pyramids... there are similarities between cultures separated by oceans and thousands of miles, but there is absolutely no reason to believe they arose independantly from one another without cultural contact somewhere along the way.

The point of bringing up the dark ages was to show that there are times in our history where we lost information, tradition, technology, only to regain it (or reimagine it) later.

You're trying to claim this is evidence that they somehow think of these things separately. I'm more inclined to believe that some form of contact between different cultures at some point led to those similarities.
And once more, you have no more proof of your conjecture than I do. I'm the one who has been saying all along that there is no proof either way... and yet you carry on.

This whole "you're carrying on" shtick isn't fooling anyone. You've dedicated quite a few words to this conversation, so you needn't pretend this is only going one way.

To your actual point (such as it is) I can only say that nothing you've posited to this point suggests a common origin. We see superstitions arise all the time in society, and they are based on coincidence and misunderstanding of natural phenomena. It's not a leap to go from, say, misunderstanding why the sun shines on your crops sometimes and then other times it doesn't, to imagining agency behind it. In other words, it's very obvious that the concept of god does not require a single source, so suggesting that there is one is counter-intuitive. Then you get into probabilities, such as the concept surviving thousands of years without every being lost, while basically every other concept has at one point, to one people or another, failed to show up. But never agency.

Jeez... look, I'm going to swear at this point. That's what I said you fucking moron. Except the last sentence, of course.
And if you're going to start denying now that sophistication increases with cultural contact, then you're even more an idiot than I realised.

And there it is. I'm honestly surprised it took this long. Your arguments dried up in your second post, when you made the asinine claim that the concept was the ability, so it was only a matter of time before you resorted to insults.

You're not showing me or anyone else a damned thing. You can use words like "implausible", "nonsensical" or what have you all you like, but unless you have a reason for doing so other than "This is what I think"

I've told you why I think what I think, and it's logical and reasonable, as opposed to nonsensical, which is the best you could muster to support your position. I'd say that gives me the stronger argument.

coupled with "this is what I'm going to try to make everyone believe you said" then it means nothing.

Dude, your words are there for everyone to see. I don't have to convince anyone of anything.

I was going to write a summary of what I've actually been trying to say, as opposed to what you're claiming I have... but you're an idiot, and frankly I can't be fucked.

What a shock!

Here, I'll go ahead and summarize your argument to this point:

"CLAIM! To support it, here's ANOTHER CLAIM! I'd support them both with some evidence, but I can't, so I won't."

You're less bright than I first supposed, and now you're boring me.
Look, I'm not even going to bother with the rest.

I'm stunned. No, seriously. Okay, maybe not so much.

You know, I'm beginning to fathom something here.
You're trying very hard to be me, aren't you. Is that what all this is really about?
That would be flattering, if you were at all competent about it.

Witty. No, seriously. Okay, maybe not so much. But I bet PokerBoner32 wouldn't have been able to recover from such a stinging barb, so don't sweat it: you're still the king of the poker chat rooms.

 

[wynn]

I really can't fathom how disagreeing with your views on reality that uses the exact same language as yourself constitutes an ad hom ....

I think the two of you are not actually using the same language; and even when you do use the same language, you are using it with quite different degrees of comfort and agility.
Hence the tension.

 

[lightgigantic]

By which you mean that empiricism can't elucidate the only thing that you regard as "explicit", which is God.

well no.

If you read my posts you can understand that even a cup of flour has explicit qualities that evade empirical investigation

This is a circular argument: empiricism can't find God. Why? Because God isn't "explicit".

Either you made a typo or you are muddled up

I am quite certain I never said "God isn't explicit".

How do we know God isn't explicit? Because empiricism can't find God.

I guess it wasn't a typo.

You are simply being inattentive.

I suggest you go back and try to understand what the words "tacit" and "explicit" mean.

Actually however, I was working with standard non-controversial definitions of god for establishing god as explicit (summum bonum, cause of all causes, and active principle in the creation, maintenance and annihilation of the phenomenal world, etc etc). If you want to introduce a sub-standard definition of god for the sake of your argument I guess that is your prerogative but you should understand at the onset it doesn't lend any strengths to your argument (eg : "god has to be tacit otherwise there is no way we can bring that which is naught nor ought to be so exalted on the face of gods great earth as that prince of disciplines ... Empiricism! ... to the investigation).

All you're doing here is redefining the word "explicit" to mean "God".

Once again, understanding that various posters here have numerous problems with the concept of god, I introduced a mere cup of flour to explain how even this simple thing evades empiric investigation due to its inherent explicit nature. As I recall, it was you who was having difficulty justifying a world view composed solely of tacit terms.

What are these barriers you speak of?

I already explained them to you before in this thread and you dropped out of the discussion.

If you want I can re-link them to jog your memory

You're assuming there is a God at the base of everything.

On the contrary its not my assumption. Its the standard definition of god.

But there's no evidence of any such substructure or superstructure in the universe.

Empirically speaking, there is no evidence of any substructure to the universe.
This is why even a cup of flour evades empirical investigation at a certain level.

Oh, but that's because it's "explicit" and not "tacit", you say, and we can't actually find evidence of explicit things.

fancy that eh?
Why do you suppose a metonymic investigation of reality struggles to come to such conclusions?

And why, given the inherent limitations of metonymic investigation, do people try and play it as capable of in/validating an explicit term?

In fact, we do have a reasonable understanding of both the small-scale and large-scale structure of our universe.

A network of tacit terms still remains tacit.
Adding more tacit understanding doesn't change this fact anymore than division of any whole number by two is capable of providing the answer of zero.

Science doesn't claim to have all the answers.

Of course it doesn't.

Yet this fact doesn't stop a certain class of person from trying to borrow from science's established authority to hijack philosophical questions for which it has no precedent.

There will always be things we don't know. But there's nothing that suggests that an invocation of God is necessary at any point to explain anything.

Thats because there is nothing in empiricism to suggest that it could ever come to the point of coming to that necessity ..... even if the subject in question is simply a cup of flour.
Empiricism is perennially affected by holes in its presentation of "reality". If the length and breadth of its investigation is tacit and metonymic, no amount of hard work is going to get around this ... just like no amount of hard work by constantly dividing 10 by 2 is going to give the answer of zero.

For this reason, saying "there is no empirical evidence for god" in order to try and shadow the notion of his existence in doubt is just like saying "there is no evidence of influenza in carpentry."
:shrug:


The real question here is what prevents people from simply saying : "Empiricism is not a valid tool for disseminating this subject."
:shrug:

 

[wynn]

The real question here is what prevents people from simply saying : "Empiricism is not a valid tool for disseminating this subject."

Seems like esp. due to lack of education; lack of agility of thought; being unaware that one is working with inferior definitions of "God."


But essentially, this isn't something limited to matters of "God."
The many problems with empiricism have been discussed in the philosophy of science, in ways that don't even remotely have anything to do with theism.

For many people who are into science, the philosophy of science is a field they refuse to explore.

 

[wynn]

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.

That's the sort of thing that proud, but uneducated people tend to say about things they don't have education about.
Whether it's about God, or nuclear physics, or French cuisine.

 

[wynn]

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.

You're certainly not a big proponent of the philosophy of science.

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.

I find "supernatural" to be a loaded term, and use it rarely.

By what apparatus do you perceive God?

I never said I perceive God.

Theists are enamored with the notion of a personal connection with an intelligent supernatural being.

Some people put much stock in personal connections as such to begin with. It comes naturally to them to try to extend this sense of personal connection to every being, including God.

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).

Theism has identified this Potential as God, then proceeded to assign false claims in support of the proposition.

You seem to be working out of the assumption that the process of theistic religion is on principle the same as that of empiricism: observe, hypothesize, test, conclude.

If you pay attention to actual theists, especially the traditional ones, they generally never say that this is how they have arrived at their knowledge about God.

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.

Lol. Maybe you're just jealous or sourgraping.

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.

That's something a naive realist would say.

 

[lightgigantic]

I understand that Newton's limited understanding of the potential of Gravity rendered his work incomplete. GR later completed the unfinished work of Newton. I believe that Gravity has now been Empirically proven. It is a universal constant. As is c (SOL).
Cause/Effect, Momentum, Conservation of Energy are all Empirically proven Universal constants.

So you are trying to argue that universal constants are absolute, irrevocable truths for all times, places and circumstances?
Or do you think they represent the cutting edge of our attempts to analyze our environment empirically?

These constants are expressions of the Potential of the Universal Wholeness and if you want to introduce pseudo intelligence, a Holomovement.

Theism has identified this Potential as God, then proceeded to assign false claims in support of the proposition. Is it wonder that metaphysicists are somewhat confused. Current metaphysics gets really very close to the philosophical concepts of a Brahman.
The problem is that the Abrahamic religions are too afraid or too entrenched to straighten the record and persist in fostering dogma and the formation of exclusivity and religious conflict.

You are not making sense.
Theism has not identified the sum total of physical constants as god ... and in fact even goes to some length to explain how god exists independently from such constants

There are philosophical concepts of even Brahman being a contingent quality of god, much like the sunlight is a contingent property of the sun.

I am making the equation that GOD = POTENTIAL and POTENTIAL = GOD The difference is that theists attach a motivated loving sentient and intentional supernatural intelligence to an already (almost) complete understanding of our relationship to the Greater Whole. Why all those bells and whistles? It poisons the fruit it bears, it has confounded the languages, it has opened Pandora's Box and released all the possible POTENTIAL

Again you are not making sense.
Generally people who declare personal existence to be diametrically opposed to perfect existence are simply extrapolating their own conditioned existence to an omnimax level (which of course necessarily paints a morbid picture of individuality)

consequences of being wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandora's_box

IMO, the philosophy of Religion should emphasize caution in evoking spiritual claims, when dealing with such Potentially harmful consequences.

hmmm, I have just made a moral proposition based solely on the theoretical scientific concept of (metaphysical) Cosmological Potential.

You are not really being clear about many things.
Namely what is a spiritual claim and how it interacts with Potentially harmful consequences (especially in a world view where there is no individual existence of any great importance or noteworthiness ... I mean who is it that is getting harmed by Potential - the sum total of universal constants???

Generally the problem of advocating a world view that offers no higher truth than Brahman is that any discussion of benefit or harm or reward (or even value or goal) becomes entirely meaningless, since ultimately there is no issue of personhood.
:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

Seems like esp. due to lack of education; lack of agility of thought; being unaware that one is working with inferior definitions of "God."


But essentially, this isn't something limited to matters of "God."
The many problems with empiricism have been discussed in the philosophy of science, in ways that don't even remotely have anything to do with theism.

For many people who are into science, the philosophy of science is a field they refuse to explore.

I guess the problem is that science is a philosophy but philosophy is not science.

IOW it doesn't appear that they find it becoming to be contextualized.

 

[James R]

Half time in the Balerion vs. The Marquis match

:itold:

So, the dispute, minus most of the chest thumping, amounts to this:

Frankly, I can't see how you could possibly think it's more likely that the concept of god arose in multiple places independently of one another. It doesn't stack up.
Unless, of course, you happen to be religious. If that's the case, there isn't any point in arguing about it.

Of course it adds up. It's the only theory that does. Unless you think it's more likely that one idea from a single source permeated every single culture on the planet and survives to this very day. I mean, by your logic, every concept came from the same place. .... I mean, it's laughable that you could hold such an opinion.

As an unbiased observer, it seems to me that either hypothesis could be correct. It is possible that the concept of gods or spirits or what-have-you arose in Africa before human beings distributed themselves across the planet. On the other hand, it may be that human beings evolved some mental capacity which predisposed us to believing in such things and then we went on to develop particular concepts independently.

Balerion has it right that the "concept of god" is an idea, while the ability to conceptualise god is a mental capacity. But The Marquis is right that the mental capacity most probably evolved before the concept became embedded in a culture or cultures, and he may also be right in his hypothesis that a cultural concept was transmitted out of Africa to all other cultures.

It seems to be an overstretch to claim that the idea that different concepts of God arose independently "doesn't stack up", and equally an overstretch to claim that this is "the only theory that does [stack up]".

Certainly, there is nothing nonsensical about either hypothesis.

In the absence of any evidence provided by Balerion or The Marquis, there's really nowhere further this argument can be taken. The rest is just chest thumping.

At this half-time point in the match, I'd give a slight edge to The Marquis on the basis of honest argument. Essentially, he has conceded all of the above points already, while Balerion continues to thrash about making the empty claim that everything The Marquis has said is nonsense.

Let's see how the second half goes, assuming both combatants have the will to continue...

 

[Write4U]

You're certainly not a big proponent of the philosophy of science.

How did you come to that assumption about me? Detailed example please.

I find "supernatural" to be a loaded term, and use it rarely.

But you don't get to pick god's qualities other than the known definitions, ALL OF THEM! That is the point of the diversity of religions in different regions. You cannot tell me now that all interpretations of God may be wrong but God is beyond all this and not subject to investigation to see if the assigned godly attributes are really godly and if so, which ones so that we can study and absorb that wisdom into our own gestalt.

from Bing

god, gods (plural)

1. supernatural being: one of a group of supernatural male beings in some religions, each of which is worshiped as the personification or controller of some aspect of the universe
"Thor, the Norse god of thunder"
2. figure or image: a representation of a god, used as an object of worship
"the little bronze god standing in a niche above the altar"
3. something that dominates: something that is so important that it takes over somebody's life ( informal )
"worshiping the false god of fame"
4. somebody admired: a man who is widely admired or imitated ( informal )
"He was one of the rock music gods of the early Seventies."
PLURAL NOUN
1. fate: the entire group of supernatural beings viewed as deciding human fate

http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+god&qpvt=god+definition&FORM=DTPDIA

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

If you are defending the concept of God, you are defending all the garbage that is attached to the commonly accepted properties of god. If you don't accept all that garbage then speak up man! Distill for me your concept of God or what you believe to be Truth.

I never said I perceive God.

Then how can one extrapolate anything. You are talking about the Creative Force, but don't even know what you are looking for?
I have cited David Bohm as my qualified intellectual guide into metaphysics. Whatever weakness or naivite you are presuming about me, you are also directing at Bohm. Good luck.

Some people put much stock in personal connections as such to begin with. It comes naturally to them to try to extend this sense of personal connection to every being, including God.=

This is getting annoying, In order to analyze the question posed by OP, we are trying establish the commonly held beliefs about God. But everytime something is shown as commonly held but opposing beliefs, the answer always is, "well it is not exactly like that, science is just trying to disprove something which is disprovable. Tiresome. Take a position and defend it on the known merits, not some concoctions of vague attributes and verbal sparring, which are meaningless.

You seem to be working out of the assumption that the process of theistic religion is on principle the same as that of empiricism: observe, hypothesize, test, conclude.

Yes, and that is the only way it can be done. You think that an early hominid sat down one day and received the revealed word from god? Give me a break. He heard thunder all about and saw no other living thing making that sound and he was afraid, He saw lightning coming from the sky and he stood in awe, He felt the water that made him wet and was angry at the thing that was throwing this water at him and was making him wet. A few tens of thousands years later this unseen Power was named Thor. There is the process of assumptions from ignorance, which became assumptions from authority and now has become assumptions from Divine Authority. I prefer to name it the "Wholeness" or "Cosmic Singularity", and it's properties are Energy and it contains unlimited potential for expression in commonly experienced reality.

That's the sort of thing that proud, but uneducated people tend to say about things they don't have education about.
Whether it's about God, or nuclear physics, or French cuisine. .

Impress me with your arguments from authority.

That's something a naive realist would say.

You have again presumed to label my viewpoints. By way of comparison, can you provide me with your "defined" position?

 

[elte]

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



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


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.






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


sure
tacit terminology is handy like that

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


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 ...

Apologies; I just can't understand what you are saying, and you, I, it seems. It's like we live in different universes with the way things work being different between the two, with much different dialects of English, too.

 

[Write4U]

[quote wynn,

Some people put much stock in personal connections as such to begin with. It comes naturally to them to try to extend this sense of personal connection to every being, including God.= ........{/quote]

The equation is God = Potential

If that seems superficial to you, you better study the implications contained in the term Potential. If you want to discuss the relative importance of the term potential as a metaphysical causal force in the hierarchy of expressions of reality lets start a new thread. I admit it is only tangently related to the topic of discussion.

 

[wynn]

Generally people who declare personal existence to be diametrically opposed to perfect existence are simply extrapolating their own conditioned existence to an omnimax level (which of course necessarily paints a morbid picture of individuality)

I think it is about more than just individuality - it is also about the communal, the social. Being an individual only becomes really relevant, really shows, really comes into play when interacting with other people (and other living beings). Probably the majority of the problems that people experience, are related to difficulties in interacting with others. (Succinctly summarized in Sartre's "Hell is other people.")

So it's not just about extrapolating one's own conditioned - and unsatisfactory - individuality, but also extrapolating one's own conditioned - and unsatisfactory - ways of interacting and experiences with other people (and other living beings) to the omnimax level. So this results not just in a morbid picture of individuality, but also in a morbid picture of interacting with other beings.

Monism then seems appealing because it does away both with individuality, as well as with the social. - No man, no problem; no woman, no cry; no other people, no hell.

I guess the problem is that science is a philosophy but philosophy is not science.

IOW it doesn't appear that they find it becoming to be contextualized.

Contextualization requires admission of dependence on an authority, and as such, also an admission of one's own inferiority and insufficiency.
For many people, this makes for too much of a blow to their ego to allow for contextualization.
The reluctance to contextualize is understandable, though; if one is to acknowledge one's dependence and insufficiency, at least it should be to someone who is able to take care of one and who is worthy of being submitted to.

 

[elte]

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 mean real like in the sense that all thoughts are real, but that the things in the thoughts fall onto a scale ranging from totally real to totally unreal. This clarification was important; you were right to say something. For example, a dream is real, but during the dream, the speeding car that stops at an outstretched hand isn't real. I should amend my view of the relationship between real and reality, too: reality is the domain where the real exists.

Also, I'm glad that you've summarized those things about the god of the gaps.

 

[wynn]

doubly posted

 

[wynn]

How did you come to that assumption about me? Detailed example please.

I've been following your discussion with LG.

But you don't get to pick god's qualities other than the known definitions, ALL OF THEM!

So?
My point is that each person can introspect and check what particular definition of "God" they are working with, and why.

That is the point of the diversity of religions in different regions. You cannot tell me now that all interpretations of God may be wrong but God is beyond all this and not subject to investigation to see if the assigned godly attributes are really godly and if so, which ones so that we can study and absorb that wisdom into our own gestalt.

I'm not telling you any such things. For the purposes of discussion, I'm merely interested in the particular definition of "God" that you now choose to work with.

If you are defending the concept of God, you are defending all the garbage that is attached to the commonly accepted properties of god.

??

If you don't accept all that garbage then speak up man! Distill for me your concept of God or what you believe to be Truth.

Already done more than once in this thread.

Then how can one extrapolate anything.

Apparently, one just can; as long as one has a somewhat functioning brain and body.

Whatever word you hear, or anything you see, hear, taste, smell or touch - some association will appear in your mind. On principle, this is how extrapolation works.

I have cited David Bohm as my qualified intellectual guide into metaphysics. Whatever weakness or naivite you are presuming about me, you are also directing at Bohm. Good luck.

As long as Mr. Bohm doesn't personally participate in this discussion, you are the one I am talking to.

This is getting annoying, In order to analyze the question posed by OP, we are trying establish the commonly held beliefs about God. But everytime something is shown as commonly held but opposing beliefs, the answer always is, "well it is not exactly like that, science is just trying to disprove something which is disprovable. Tiresome. Take a position and defend it on the known merits, not some concoctions of vague attributes and verbal sparring, which are meaningless.

Or you're just not being precise enough.

You seem to be working out of the assumption that the process of theistic religion is on principle the same as that of empiricism: observe, hypothesize, test, conclude.

Yes, and that is the only way it can be done.

Then you've missed out on quite a few things.

Like I suggested earlier: It may be revealing to interview actual theists from various denominations at various levels of expertise, and hear how they say they have come to their knowledge of God.
But that's your homework, nobody can do it for you.

You think that an early hominid sat down one day and received the revealed word from god? Give me a break. He heard thunder all about and saw no other living thing making that sound and he was afraid, He saw lightning coming from the sky and he stood in awe, He felt the water that made him wet and was angry at the thing that was throwing this water at him and was making him wet. A few tens of thousands years later this unseen Power was named Thor. There is the process of assumptions from ignorance, which became assumptions from authority and now has become assumptions from Divine Authority.

At this point, this is just projective conjecture, with no means to evidence it.

Impress me with your arguments from authority.

I'm quite sure you don't want to be impressed.

You have again presumed to label my viewpoints. By way of comparison, can you provide me with your "defined" position?

On what exactly?