Creating the Creator..

[lightgigantic]

So you require people to believe certain aspects of your ideology (i.e. "work within the ideology") in order for you to explain how those certain aspects of your ideology are correct... which rather makes your explaination moot to those people... since they already believe.

no
read it again

terms remain valid within the context of an ideology

for instance, "x" means something in algebra, means something else on pirate treasure maps and repeated three times means something else entirely in the porno industry.

If we want to understand what x means, it worth paying attention to the context that frames it

And to those who don't believe you, you cry foul of them not "working within the ideology"...

its more when they use the terms out of context when offering a critique

And yet you still deny your's to be a case of "believe to believe". :shrug:

To put you at ease, LG, I can categorically confirm that if I believed what you do... if I "worked within the ideology"... then I would certainly believe in God and everything else you do.
The point, LG, is that many here simply don't believe what you do, and your efforts at explaining seem to require one to already believe... "believe to believe". Hey ho.

calm down and take a pill

I am just talking about theoretical understanding, which is kind of a precursor to any sort of philosophical discussion (regardless whether it is for or against)

And your criticism seems to be solely that this other world-view does not need/require a realisation of god... i.e. you're saying: "you're wrong because it doesn't allow for god".

I'm saying the critique is wrong.

And yet throughout all of this you also seem utterly unable to also do what you criticise these others of: you seem incapable of working within the ideology they speak from.

usually I criticize gross materialism in that it results in nothing more than a mouth full of rotting molars.

Since they also don't deny the temporary nature of their perceived world view, their disagreement with me is of a different nature

Like all your examples they seem entirely based on the "material" realm. Hardly conducive for persuading that there is anything else?

If an analogy could work out of drawing on something unknown to make a parallel, I don't think it would really work. Do you?

 

[Yazata]

As far as archeological and other human records go, about 40,000 years, there is evidence that people believed in a creator.

There is evidence that can be interpreted to suggest that stone-age people had some kind of religiosity. Cave paintings and 'venus' figurines suggest that. In fact human religiosity may actually predate the appearance of anatomically modern humans. There's evidence that Neanderthals may have practiced ritual burials and even Homo erectus seems to have collected human skulls on occasion. (It's hard to know what the motivation was for that.)

Paleolithic people apparently had religious-style ideas about human fertility, about death (and perhaps an afterlife), and probably practiced some kind of hunting magic. There may have been a very early idea that some kind of power resided in human heads (or maybe people just wanted to look bad-ass). Old stone age people may very well have believed in spirit beings, and may have given them names and told traditional stories about them. I expect that they probably did. But we don't know that for a fact.

But all of that doesn't necessarily imply that these people believed in something we might call "a creator". We can't be certain how they explained the origin of everything around them, or whether the need for a universal explanation even occurred to them. We certainly don't know any of the details, such as whether they attributed it all to one single personal being.

 

[Sarkus]

terms remain valid within the context of an ideology

And yet when you can't explain your ideology without the person needing to believe in your ideology... where then are you left?

its more when they use the terms out of context when offering a critique

Unfortunately your "context" appears to be the a priori assumption of god's existence... which hardly makes a compelling argument to use the terms in your context.
It therefore boils down to your "context" needing the person to believe in god. "Believe to believe".

I am just talking about theoretical understanding, which is kind of a precursor to any sort of philosophical discussion (regardless whether it is for or against)

They may have a theoretical understanding but do not accept the theory. You then revert to their failure to put the theoretical into practice... and then use "lack of context".

I'm saying the critique is wrong.

... because it doesn't allow for a god... and that is unacceptable to you. :shrug:

usually I criticize gross materialism in that it results in nothing more than a mouth full of rotting molars.

And this is unacceptable to you because you believe in something else. It is not, however, evidence for what you believe, and you therefore seem to be arguing from consequences and personal incredulity. :shrug:

Since they also don't deny the temporary nature of their perceived world view, their disagreement with me is of a different nature

Yep - lack of evidence for your view.

If an analogy could work out of drawing on something unknown to make a parallel, I don't think it would really work. Do you?

Currently isn't working as it is... so maybe you should consider a different tack entirely?

 

[SciWriter]

signal, how could you and why would you possibly think that the church (the bride of christ) is a religious organization? :confused

True, the church is just a building—and also a very good place to doze off.

Aren't nuns the brides of Christ? (No, for he wasn't Morman and could only have one, or nun.)

We created God, so that makes us GOD.

 

[lightgigantic]

And yet when you can't explain your ideology without the person needing to believe in your ideology... where then are you left?

At this stage the only belief required is enough to entertain the contexts for the terms.

For instance if you run the risk of going off on a tangent about pirates treasure during algebra because on a radical absence of disbelief about what "x" signifies, then yes, you would have problems .....

Unfortunately your "context" appears to be the a priori assumption of god's existence... which hardly makes a compelling argument to use the terms in your context.

lol
In case you haven't noticed, the list of things that can be discussed or analyzed theoretically without a priori assumptions is quite small .....

It therefore boils down to your "context" needing the person to believe in god. "Believe to believe".

If you are not speaking in a context, nobody knows whether you are talking about algebra, pirates treasure, or porn when you speak of "X"

They may have a theoretical understanding but do not accept the theory.

Regardless of what they do or don't accept, they are obedient to context

You then revert to their failure to put the theoretical into practice... and then use "lack of context".

thats only the case when they question the issue of proof (since the question of proof is always tied to the question of application)

Its my experience that often the case here is an atheist doesn't know whether they are offering an argument of logic ("God doesn't make sense") and when they are making an argument of proof ("God doesn't exist").

PS - sometimes they try to cover both bases with "God doesn't exist because he doesn't make sense", but that's really just an argument of logic

... because it doesn't allow for a god... and that is unacceptable to you. :shrug:

no
I am saying that the critique is wrong because it uses terms outside of their context ... much like the problems plagued by looking for pirates treasure in am algebra text book

And this is unacceptable to you because you believe in something else. It is not, however, evidence for what you believe, and you therefore seem to be arguing from consequences and personal incredulity. :shrug:

are you paying attention?

I wasn't talking about evidence of what I believe.

I was talking about my ability to work within the context of others ideology.

In this instance I was talking about how gross materialism as a world view doesn't culminate in anything more than a mouth full of rotting molars.

Given that atheistic gross materialists also view existence as temporary, its not a critique that violates the context of terms (unlike the critique : "god is cruel because we can't have an enjoyable life with a mouth full of rotting molars)

Yep - lack of evidence for your view.

... which happens to be an argument around problems of application (which will always be difficult for those tied up in knots at the point of theory)

Currently isn't working as it is... so maybe you should consider a different tack entirely?

er .... Criticizing an analogy for calling upon something you already know in order to make a parallel (to something you don't) doesn't even come close to a strong argument .....

 

[SnakeLord]

"God doesn't exist because he doesn't make sense", but that's really just an argument of logic

Yes, the 'god' concept is thoroughly illogical and indeed incoherent. I am unsure of the value of "but it's just an argument from logic!" Kindly fill me in.

 

[lightgigantic]

Yes, the 'god' concept is thoroughly illogical and indeed incoherent. I am unsure of the value of "but it's just an argument from logic!" Kindly fill me in.

I would love to but unfortunately I have never heard a sound argument for god being illogical so really don't know how to begin

 

[wynn]

signal, how could you and why would you possibly think that the church (the bride of christ) is a religious organization?

On principle, the church is one of the conducive elements between an individual and God.

the process of reconnecting oneself with god occurs via the spirit,

This is a specific Christian idea.

 

[wynn]

kind of like saying that every instance of medical application has a specific theoretical basis and that there is no way to categorize varying applications into some sort of schematic outlook (so when you get every bone broken in your body in a car crash, you land in an epistemological muddle since you could potentially go to an acupuncturist, a masseur or the X-Ray and plastering department of a conventional hospital)

I do not see how this analogy applies to theism -??

 

[wynn]

It would be megalomania to presume one is omniscient, or that one's particular theistic bias is the right one.

Philosophy is the medium through which such problems are resolved, and it doesn't require omniscience or megalomania

Perhaps in a Universe where God is really really interested in individual living beings, and where theists really really care about those they talk to ...

 

[wynn]

political is about the (pertinacious) power relationships between a group of people (usually to meet some temporal end) and religion is about one's relationship with god (usually to meet some eternal end).

If we talk about the two not being mutually exclusive, its because the instances happen to stand outside the guidelines given in parentheses

Just to be clear: could you provide some examples of such instances of conflict?

that's generally what is done already in the NOD and other texts (Madhurya kadumbini, etc)

I disagree.
What those texts say can only be applied after one has done what the links provided earlier classify as "cultist", "mind control".

As such, the justification "they are in maya"etc can be deemed as valid or invalid according to the circumstances it is used in(much like the justification of using an armored division in war can be deemed as valid or invalid).

Could you give some examples of where "They are in maya/karmis/not advanced enough" is a valid justification for conflict?

 

[lightgigantic]

Perhaps in a Universe where God is really really interested in individual living beings, and where theists really really care about those they talk to ...

actually philosophy doesn't depend on those things, even if you are assessing that someone is indifferent to you or whatever

 

[wynn]

actually philosophy doesn't depend on those things, even if you are assessing that someone is indifferent to you or whatever

How appreciative/indifferent the people are to eachother tends to be the deciding factor in how much conversation they will have to begin with (whether this conversation is philosophical or not) ...

 

[lightgigantic]

Just to be clear: could you provide some examples of such instances of conflict?

politics is about getting someone to do what you want
religion is about doing what god wants

I disagree.
What those texts say can only be applied after one has done what the links provided earlier classify as "cultist", "mind control".

well if you are going to suggest that any working definition for a devotee requires an authority outside of the body of work then its a moot argument ... I mean its not like its unacceptable for minority groups to insist on being defined on their own terms, is it?

Could you give some examples of where "They are in maya/karmis/not advanced enough" is a valid justification for conflict?

when making an assessment of benefit - for instance ignoring the nature of consciousness, one could say its beneficial to have an abortion

 

[lightgigantic]

How appreciative/indifferent the people are to eachother tends to be the deciding factor in how much conversation they will have to begin with (whether this conversation is philosophical or not) ...

making that assessment is using from philosophy from the onset

 

[Sarkus]

In case you haven't noticed, the list of things that can be discussed or analyzed theoretically without a priori assumptions is quite small .....

So basically, if we assume god exists, and use the terms such as consciousness in the way you require us to (that are dependent/contingent upon the existence of god) then we can conclude that god exists.
Woohoo. Thanks.
Now - assume that god does not exist and start from there.

I am saying that the critique is wrong because it uses terms outside of their context ...

So you require people to work in the context of an existing god in order to discuss matters of whether god exists... again I'll go with "Woohoo".
Your arguments of such matters beg the question due to the "context" you require others to work in.

I wasn't talking about evidence of what I believe.
I was talking about my ability to work within the context of others ideology.
In this instance I was talking about how gross materialism as a world view doesn't culminate in anything more than a mouth full of rotting molars.

Sure - but you do not work within the context that this ideology comes from a lack of evidence of an alternative. So you reject the worldview, just as those who understand and work within your ideology reject it based on lack of evidence, and as a result do not use the terms as you do that require an a priori assumption of the tenets of that ideology.

Given that atheistic gross materialists also view existence as temporary...

But you don't view existence as temporary... you believe in reincarnation and the eternal life of the soul do you not?
Again, seems like evidence of your hypocritical inability to work within the context (despite your claims to the contrary) of others' ideology. :shrug:

er .... Criticizing an analogy for calling upon something you already know in order to make a parallel (to something you don't) doesn't even come close to a strong argument .....

You're getting close to understanding the point... well done. Give it a bit more thought and you may be there.

 

[wynn]

politics is about getting someone to do what you want
religion is about doing what god wants

Yes, this is so in logic and theory.

But in practice, it is theists who tell people (both in general as well as specific situations) what it is that God wants them to do.
In effect, disagreeing with a theist is counted as disagreeing with God Himself.

"Do as I tell you, or you will burn in hell!"
"Chant like this, or you are chanting wrongly."
Etc.

In practice, it is one person against the other. Except that one uses the supreme religious philosophy as a leverage against the other.

So religion is, in effect, about what theists want people to do.

religion is about doing what god wants

I do not know what God wants, and see no way to find out.

well if you are going to suggest that any working definition for a devotee requires an authority outside of the body of work then its a moot argument ... I mean its not like its unacceptable for minority groups to insist on being defined on their own terms, is it?

My point is that there seems to be no channel or way to smoothly, gradually go from non-member to member, from non-devotee to devotee.
An immense leap of faith is required, an instant acceptance of all tenets - or nothing. Even the smallest instance of application requires that one (implicitly) accept the whole system.
I do not think this is fair.

Could you give some examples of where "They are in maya/karmis/not advanced enough" is a valid justification for conflict?

when making an assessment of benefit - for instance ignoring the nature of consciousness, one could say its beneficial to have an abortion

How about
"I wish to take this gradually, without blind faith."
-?
Does this count for conflict and for "You're in maya"?

 

[wynn]

making that assessment is using from philosophy from the onset

Well, I wouldn't think of it like philosophy ...


And I still have the question from before -

kind of like saying that every instance of medical application has a specific theoretical basis and that there is no way to categorize varying applications into some sort of schematic outlook (so when you get every bone broken in your body in a car crash, you land in an epistemological muddle since you could potentially go to an acupuncturist, a masseur or the X-Ray and plastering department of a conventional hospital)

I do not see how this analogy applies to theism -??

 

[Lori_7]

On principle, the church is one of the conducive elements between an individual and God.

the church or a church? the church is a group of people who have been born again via the spirit. a church is one of many religious institutions, which depending on the person attending and their motives, and the motives and doctrine of the institution could actually be a hindrance to a relationship with god.

This is a specific Christian idea.

and yet it works for anyone.

 

[SnakeLord]

I would love to but unfortunately I have never heard a sound argument for god being illogical so really don't know how to begin

1. You obviously don't get around much.
2. It shouldn't prevent or hinder you from explaining to me the manner in which you attempted to dismiss something because it's "just an argument from logic", as if logic is something that has no value. That's all I'm interested in. Don't tell me you're still the same old lightgigantic that never answers straight questions?
3. Of course, although given that it's you I am somewhat put off wasting my time, we could get into a discussion concerning the illogical, indeed incoherent, claims concerning the 'god' concept but it would first require that you actually explain what 'god' is - something theists never manage to do.