Concept of God arising in multiple, different cultures

[Balerion]

Did I miss something? Did empiricism ever demonstrate the non-existence of god (or, if we want to be kinder, did empiricism ever demonstrate something explicit?)

Apparently, you've missed quite a bit.

so you believe that because empiricism can demonstrate some things, it can demonstrate all things?

I never said any such thing. I simply said it can demonstrate things, as opposed to henological arguments demonstrate nothing.

Its only debased when you expect or demand that it be capable of in/validating explicit terms

Empiricism validates and invalidates explicit items all the time. Gravity exists. Empiricism wins!

it most certainly is I'm afraid

It really isn't. It's a question rooted in the physical world. We can reconstruct the path religion took through empirical evidence and say with confidence that the gods you're worshiping aren't real. If you want to push your god back to the god of deism, fine. You can have that position--at least for now. But that god isn't worth thinking about, because there's nothing to suggest it even exists.

feel free to show it, although most intelligent atheists tend from refrain from asserting absolute negatives

Regarding the broadest, most deistic concept of a god, sure. I refrain from asserting that absolute negative as well. But your God? The one from the desert, who lit a bush on fire and floated down to Moses on a cloud? That's all BS.

not sure how you could tie down unicorns to explicit terminology (without offering a facsimile of the FSM et al of course)

Evade, evade, evade...

 

[Balerion]

Indeed ... why is your apparent experience totally ineffective in undermining the (reliable) way in which people determine who their (biological) parents are?

Very nice baseless claim, LG. I'm getting used to you saying things without making any effort whatsoever to support them. Can I try it your way? Okay, here goes: "It is that way because I say so!"

Hm. Disappointing. Even though I've made the statement definitively, I still somehow feel hollow. Jeez...is this what you go through every time? I don't know how you do it, man. At some point, I feel like some effort to support your claims needs to be made. At least for me. Here, let me try it my way again.

"Because it shows that the formula of "I live here" plus "They're raising me" does not necessarily equal "They conceived and birthed me." Who raises you might be your biological parent, but that alone isn't enough to make that determination."

Wow. See there? Now I feel better. You really should try it sometime.

Did I mention anything about the status quo between foster and biological parents?

Maybe you should try sticking to the topic, trollface ...
:shrug:

Holy crap, I almost let you get away with that. In reply to spidergoat's challenge to name one thing ever discovered to be reliably true without empiricism. You said:

Your acceptance of particular people as your parents despite not having witnessed their copulation

So, clearly you're not talking about foster parents. You are explicitly referring to biological parents.

#TrollFail
#ShrugginWithLG

 

[rodereve]

So we've come to this.

The burden of proof lies with the theist. The theist must prove that his/her God exists. The atheist does not have to prove that a God does not exist, or that a leprechaun does not exist, or that unicorns don't exist; it is just the default position after the theist fails to have sufficient proof that God exists.

LG bypasses this by saying: natural empiricism cannot prove anything supernatural. This is somewhat more agnostic than theistic, but if this is the case, what is stopping you from believing in all of the religions? What would help you determine which is truth from false, if you have no natural means of empirically evaluating their validity.

Some people require evidence to believe. but Others believe because there cannot be evidence?

 

[The Marquis]

Nobody actually knows if the concept of god arose in different cultures at all.

There isn't even a consensus on human evolution.... Out of Africa? Multi-Regional? There are more.
Until you decide on one, then your premise is flawed... a premise, which relies upon a premise, which relies upon a premise.
And if you're a god botherer, then you've already come to the conclusion that humans were created, but kind of forgot about god for a while until they got smart enough to remember. Either that, or they thought he was an antelope.

Basically, though, if you have a thing for evolution, and you subscribe to the "Out of Africa" theory, then it's quite possible god was envisaged in Africa, and simply taken around the world and modified a bit. Which blows your theory out of the water.

So, you know, if you're going to go with this "multiple cultures" bit, then at least clarify your position with a few more details.

 

[wynn]

That entity is called me.

So you think you're God, huh?

And yet if you tell your hair not to grow, it doesn't stop growing.
Your own will counts for little or nothing in these things.

Why say causation is the same as maintenance? So the dog breeder who developed the German Shepherd is still alive and keeping his breed alive?

You are applying limited material analogies to universal scenarios. This is a mistake.

As LG noted earlier in reply to you:

actually I was trying to understand what makes you say that, with the hint that I suspect you are simply extrapolating your conditioned existence (ie someone who is not omnimax) to the situation of someone who is claimed to be omnimax

In your example, what exactly did the dog breeder who developed the German Shepherd cause? He didn't cause the existence of dogs, he merely matched already existing entities (which were provided by someone else); he didn't exactly breed them either, he relied on the reproductive system of the dogs.

IOW, when talking about God, we need to keep in mind the omnimax entity, and not unduly extrapolate from limited material examples.

A child has taken over rule of a country that was ruled by a parent who was more effective than the child. The devil could have taken over if God were not perfect, and I'm not saying God is or was, if God even ever existed in the first place. A less able competitor can beat a more skilled one, depending on circumstances, maybe even by what we call luck.

That is so in a Mormon-kind of cosmogony, in which the Universe preexists /G/od. But this Mormon concept is not one of the omnimax God.

 

[wynn]

You'd have a hard time explaining why this same God was so capricious as to give different cultures completely different rules of behaviour, ritual, instructions on how to live and worship, different images of what God is like or even how many gods there are. You'd have to imagine a God who really just wanted to play around with humanity. Certainly you couldn't ascribe the word "Good" to such a God, or "loving" or "concerned about humanity".

One would have a hard time explaining such variety only if one believes in eternal damnation; or believes that life is basically a matter of humans trying to prevail against the dark forces of a hostile or indifferent universe; or another similar belief.

Those beliefs are likely held tacitly, but they are the basis for the bad faith from which many people operate.

Tell me: What's stopping you from entertaining the idea that God is a magnanimous being?

Which one do you think is right, and why?

I don't have this concern.

There's abundant evidence, from historical writings and inscriptions and anthropological studies to archaeological evidence. It's not hard to find.

You're missing the point.

Where is the evidence that religions were (progressively) invented for the purpose of explaining natural phenomena?

There is no such evidence, other than tacitly in the minds of some people who interpret old scriptures and other artifacts in such a way.
IOW, it's simply the projection of some people that religions were (progressively) invented for the purpose of explaining natural phenomena.

A universe that would function automatically would have to be unconditioned, uncaused, self-existent, or it couldn't function automatically.

Why?

This is a truism, a logical conclusion.

Why?

Same as above.

Congratulations. You've discovered the second law of thermodynamics!

Is there a problem here?

There is, when people use limited material analogies (such as those of wound up clocks), and based on those extrapolate about universal, absolute phenomena, presuming that such extrapolations are correct.

There's no problem there. Empiricism doesn't have to defeat the "notion of God". It is useful enough if it can say with confidence that the particular gods that people claim to exist are unevidenced. That being the case, there's no rational reason to believe in them.

There is also no evidence that all humans are equal. That being the case, then, per you, there is no rational reason to believe all humans are equal - and we might as well do away with the Declaration of Human Rights, since it's not evidence-based.

 

[wynn]

The burden of proof lies with the theist.

No. The burden of proof is on the one who wants to shoulder it, who wishes to believe.

The theist must prove that his/her God exists.

Why?
Can you actually explain why someone would need to prove the validity of one's stance to another? Other than in a court of law or similar judicial situation?

LG bypasses this by saying: natural empiricism cannot prove anything supernatural. This is somewhat more agnostic than theistic, but if this is the case, what is stopping you from believing in all of the religions? What would help you determine which is truth from false, if you have no natural means of empirically evaluating their validity.

Some people require evidence to believe. but Others believe because there cannot be evidence?

It comes down to why one wishes to believe, or why one thinks one should believe, or not believe.

What do you hope to accomplish by having certainty about a particular religion or God?

 

[elte]

You are applying limited material analogies to universal scenarios. This is a mistake.

As LG noted earlier in reply to you:

In this limited, material world, God is, by all appearances, absent. People commonly use magical thinking to support claiming otherwise. You and everyone else saying there is another hypothetical spiritual universe out there doesn't matter in my life other than you and theists making a big deal about it. With or without this thinking, if we don't take care of ourselves and each other, no spiritual being is going to. What would happen if we were out in the vacuum of space all by ourselves, floating and physically unreachable? Then God would matter the most to you and me, I'm sure, and all the observers down there on earth watching with telescopes could do is watch us die, at which time you believe a new life of some sort starts for you, and I think it doesn't.

In your example, what exactly did the dog breeder who developed the German Shepherd cause? He didn't cause the existence of dogs, he merely matched already existing entities (which were provided by someone else); he didn't exactly breed them either, he relied on the reproductive system of the dogs.

That is right, he made a new breed of dog by using what already was there. And the universe likely came from stuff that already existed also by means of natural processes. If God did it, it's as irrelevant to our day to day survival as the unknown dog breeder.

IOW, when talking about God, we need to keep in mind the omnimax entity, and not unduly extrapolate from limited material examples.

Omnipotence in a being is a manmade doctrine that appears to not have relevance to human life other than it has an appeal for the purpose of quelling our deepest fears. Limited material examples are all I have, and they're all you have other than manmade ideas about spirituality.

That is so in a Mormon-kind of cosmogony, in which the Universe preexists /G/od. But this Mormon concept is not one of the omnimax God.

A way to describe it all is idle speculation. When people like Mormons got more free time from their struggles as civilization became more accommodating to their physical needs, they had time to dream things up like that. Now we have advanced far enough technically that we can replace the speculation with observably supportable knowledge.

 

[spidergoat]

So you think you're God, huh?

No, because that's a nonsensical idea. It's my body doing these things, and it doesn't depend on some "entity" (other than me, and of course my parents, and plants, and the sun).

And yet if you tell your hair not to grow, it doesn't stop growing.
Your own will counts for little or nothing in these things.

So what? Most of what my body does isn't under my direct control. That doesn't mean it's under someone else's control!

 

[spidergoat]

Your acceptance of particular people as your parents despite not having witnessed their copulation

Information that I gathered through my senses.

The last thing I want to say is something I've said before. Without the senses, you can never know if there is anything beyond the senses, so your idea that empiricism is limited is necessarily an idea without evidence.

 

[lightgigantic]

Information that I gathered through my senses.

I think its time for you to re-visit your understanding of what empiricism actually is and isn't

The last thing I want to say is something I've said before. Without the senses, you can never know if there is anything beyond the senses, so your idea that empiricism is limited is necessarily an idea without evidence.

the problem at the moment is that you are not talking about empiricism.

Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation.[1] Empirical evidence is information that justifies a belief in the truth or falsity of an empirical claim. In the empiricist view, one can only claim to have knowledge when one has a true belief based on empirical evidence. This stands in contrast to the rationalist view under which reason or reflection alone is considered to be evidence for the truth or falsity of some propositions.[2] The senses are the primary source of empirical evidence. Although other sources of evidence, such as memory, and the testimony of others ultimately trace back to some sensory experience, they are considered to be secondary, or indirect.

That aside, its not my idea that empiricism is limited.
Its simply a given fact that empirical investigation is thoroughly relegated to the metonymic.

 

[Balerion]

How is the material world "limited?" Because it can't reach into Godville and pluck a hair from the creator's nose? That's like calling me handicapped because I can't fly. First you must demonstrate the existence of this immaterial realm before we go around saying that we're somehow missing tools.

 

[lightgigantic]

How is the material world "limited?" Because it can't reach into Godville and pluck a hair from the creator's nose? That's like calling me handicapped because I can't fly. First you must demonstrate the existence of this immaterial realm before we go around saying that we're somehow missing tools.

are we talking about empiricism or the material world?

 

[lightgigantic]

Very nice baseless claim, LG. I'm getting used to you saying things without making any effort whatsoever to support them. Can I try it your way? Okay, here goes: "It is that way because I say so!"

Hm. Disappointing. Even though I've made the statement definitively, I still somehow feel hollow. Jeez...is this what you go through every time? I don't know how you do it, man. At some point, I feel like some effort to support your claims needs to be made. At least for me. Here, let me try it my way again.

"Because it shows that the formula of "I live here" plus "They're raising me" does not necessarily equal "They conceived and birthed me." Who raises you might be your biological parent, but that alone isn't enough to make that determination."

Wow. See there? Now I feel better. You really should try it sometime.

You have still failed to explain why your apparent experience fails to undermine the (reliable) manner people discern who their parents are

Holy crap, I almost let you get away with that. In reply to spidergoat's challenge to name one thing ever discovered to be reliably true without empiricism. You said:



So, clearly you're not talking about foster parents. You are explicitly referring to biological parents.

#TrollFail
#ShrugginWithLG

so given that you can actually read what I am talking about, I've got to ask yet again, Did I mention anything about the status quo between foster and biological parents?
:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

In this limited, material world, God is, by all appearances, absent. People commonly use magical thinking to support claiming otherwise.

On the contrary, philosophical language is used to support why god is necessarily absent from epirical investigation and even why empiricism is necessarily incapable of in/validating any one of a number of explicit articles.

You and everyone else saying there is another hypothetical spiritual universe out there doesn't matter in my life other than you and theists making a big deal about it.

On the contrary, it is often stated that an empiricist is simply ignorant of it ... which in no way renders them unaffected by it

With or without this thinking, if we don't take care of ourselves and each other, no spiritual being is going to.

The point is that conditioned existence, whether we are talking about the metonymic scope of empiricism or the ability to protect/maintain ourselves either collectively or individually, is limited

What would happen if we were out in the vacuum of space all by ourselves, floating and physically unreachable?

you would still have the mind and body and its concomitant problems of maintenance within a greater paradigm that tends to more or less operate out of suffering

Then God would matter the most to you and me, I'm sure, and all the observers down there on earth watching with telescopes could do is watch us die, at which time you believe a new life of some sort starts for you, and I think it doesn't.

Death is as much a given as old age and disease and birth.

IOW the notion that god will protect me from these things is, at best, a very neophyte (and unsustainable) level of impetus for spiritual life

Omnipotence in a being is a manmade doctrine that appears to not have relevance to human life other than it has an appeal for the purpose of quelling our deepest fears. Limited material examples are all I have, and they're all you have other than manmade ideas about spirituality.

On the contrary, I would argue that atheism functions in that capacity, since a personality with divinity automatically delivers a state of subservience to all others

 

[lightgigantic]

So we've come to this.

The burden of proof lies with the theist. The theist must prove that his/her God exists.

If you can't come to grips with precisely how empiricism does and doesn't function and how it is limited, yet simultaneously insist that empiricism has an exclusive monopoly on all knowable claims (even up to the point of explicit terms), this is simply not possible for you.

The atheist does not have to prove that a God does not exist, or that a leprechaun does not exist, or that unicorns don't exist; it is just the default position after the theist fails to have sufficient proof that God exists.

If they are basing their presumptions on the notion that empiricism can in/validate explicit terms, they certainly do have quite a bit to prove ... albeit it will be as fruitful as proving round triangles or married bachelors and the like

LG bypasses this by saying: natural empiricism cannot prove anything supernatural

.
Noted that you can't even re-iterate the argument without pasting in words I did not use.

I said it can't in/validate explicit terms ... which includes a helluva lot more than the mere "supernatural".

It means that it only has scope to tacit terms fixed between a certain threshold of the macro/micro-cosm.

So for instance in an empiricists explanation of what is the universe, where they are, what is a cup of flour (as well as what is god/spiritual world) etc all disappears at a certain point of discussion

For

This is somewhat more agnostic than theistic, but if this is the case, what is stopping you from believing in all of the religions? What would help you determine which is truth from false, if you have no natural means of empirically evaluating their validity.

well there are literally millions of people older than you on the planet yet I assume you didn't launch a thorough investigative program of inquiry on them all to determine who your parents are

Some people require evidence to believe. but Others believe because there cannot be evidence?

Some people also believe empiricism has a monopoly on all knowable claims ... which is ironic, since that in itself proves that it doesn't
:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

Apparently, you've missed quite a bit.

all you can do is talk about how empiricism invalidates god without ever, like as in ever at all, not in a single post, explaining how.

I never said any such thing. I simply said it can demonstrate things, as opposed to henological arguments demonstrate nothing.

and I said henological debate also runs with the notion that versions of god are contrived, culturally developed etc without ever spilling into atheism.

If you want to talk about how things are demonstarted etc however, I suggest you pay a bit more attention to how empiricism does and doesn't function before you proceed

Empiricism validates and invalidates explicit items all the time. Gravity exists. Empiricism wins!

Obviously you don't know the difference between a tacit and explicit term.

Feel free to ask me and I will explain it to you.
Alternatively you can try and throw something else in as an example.

The choice is yours

It really isn't. It's a question rooted in the physical world. We can reconstruct the path religion took through empirical evidence and say with confidence that the gods you're worshiping aren't real. If you want to push your god back to the god of deism, fine. You can have that position--at least for now. But that god isn't worth thinking about, because there's nothing to suggest it even exists.

and alternatively one can also discuss the same historical information you draw on to present the exact opposite hypothesis. One of the good things about tentative arguments is that the opposition doesn't have to do much research for a refutation since the premises are so flexible.

Regarding the broadest, most deistic concept of a god, sure. I refrain from asserting that absolute negative as well. But your God? The one from the desert, who lit a bush on fire and floated down to Moses on a cloud? That's all BS.

I think its becoming clear you don't know what henology is ... much less who "my" god is ... but that aside, if you want to focus on god as presented through christian teachings, all you can do is present an argument for god being false that relies exclusively on controversial premises that don't draw a consensus from academics in the field.

Evade, evade, evade...

still waiting for you to try tie down unicorns to explicit terminolgy (extra brownie points for not doing a "FSM" number).

Hint: before you try it, you might want to understand what is meant by explicit and tacit terms as they relate to empiricism and an investigation of the macro/micro-cosm

 

[lightgigantic]

No, because that's a nonsensical idea. It's my body doing these things, and it doesn't depend on some "entity" (other than me, and of course my parents, and plants, and the sun).


So what? Most of what my body does isn't under my direct control. That doesn't mean it's under someone else's control!

It means you are not a controller of any significant capacity, so it doesn't behoove yourself to make assertions of independence that you clearly don't possess ... particularly if you are trying to say your assertions are empirically based.

 

[Balerion]

You have still failed to explain why your apparent experience fails to undermine the (reliable) manner people discern who their parents are

My experience doesn't fail to undermine the so-called "reliable" manner by which people discern who their parents are.

so given that you can actually read what I am talking about, I've got to ask yet again, Did I mention anything about the status quo between foster and biological parents?
:shrug:

What do you mean by that? I assumed it to mean that you were saying you never intended to define "parent" as biological parent, but it's such a clunky sentence I admit it was a guess. Try phrasing it more clearly.

 

[lightgigantic]

My experience doesn't fail to undermine the so-called "reliable" manner by which people discern who their parents are.

It certainly does.
Its not like your experience has catalyzed a dramatic change in how people in general reliably ascertain who their parents are, is it?

What do you mean by that? I assumed it to mean that you were saying you never intended to define "parent" as biological parent, but it's such a clunky sentence I admit it was a guess. Try phrasing it more clearly.

Why would one be interested in witnessing one's foster parent's copulating?