The irrelevance of God

[cole grey]

You've got it entirely backwards. Non-theists aren't the ones bogged down in any particular concept of God. (You're also conflating "definition" and "concept" here) ...
...Of course there is. Otherwise the word wouldn't exist, or would be of no use. That isn't to say there aren't different concepts of God, but the term itself at the very least has a general meaning that could be applied to virtually any concept therein, and is virtually always employed in such a way. I mean, what do you think Jan or arfa means by "God?" Sure, they may conceptualize it differently--Jan believes in a version of Yahweh, while arfa might believe as Seattle suggested, in a God-as-consciousness pseudo-pantheistic deity. But in either case, they're talking about the ultimate power, the supreme being, the creator of the universe.

If you can't see vast differences between the definition of god carl Jung or Einstein might use and the definition an orthodox (not a Kabbalist) rabbi would use, you have some serious "muddying" going on yourself.

But then it isn't a real event, it's simply an imagining of the event triggered by fear. Which is the whole point of what I'm saying.
See, this is what I'm talking about. You've decided to change the definition of the word "real" to suit you in this discussion. You can't say you don't know if God is real and then say he's real. That is a contradiction. And this isn't merely a differing of opinions of terms--this is you misusing a word to suit your own purposes. (ie to be able to say that God is real without being held accountable to support that claim) It's transparently superficial, and of no use whatsoever to the conversation. In fact, it brings the conversation to a dead stop, because where is there to go when one party decides to rewrite the dictionary?

Again, using shorthand definitions is not functional for philosophy. There is real fear, a real moon, a real dream, and all can be considered real in a different way. If you would like to pretend the word has one meaning, use the dictionary. Some ideas of god, "god as higher consciousness of man", are actually self-proving via logic, a semantic ideation is hard to disprove - perhaps Sisyphus can become real, I.e. Important and accurate, for you, even though Sisyphus is not actually rolling a stone up a hill somewhere (although many people named something else are effectively living the realness of that myth daily).
The fact that I won't say I know exactly what god is, or how accurate each definition of god is on a physical level or a metaphysical level, doesn't preclude my using a working model, the same way sarkus has proposed the empiricist is able to continue an emotional life, for example, in the face of lacking testable data. That a person can have a spiritual life that is also only, "the best they can do at this time", and is lacking in testable data should be acceptable to anyone who does the same for their emotional life.

It really isn't. God is a myth invented in times when man did not have the tools to find satisfactory explanations for the world around him. The very idea of godhood itself is probably a myth, born from man's tendency to idolize.

because, these days, we have a perfect understanding of consciousness and the universe? No, there are still people looking for "satisfactory explanations".

And what way would that be?

Well, if god is physically real, I think it is fair to assume that god created the world in a way that coincides with our understanding of science. Not to say that we are currently in a higher state of information than what should be implied by having a three hundred year old scientific tradition, because we are not. This just means I assume we are meant to trust what we learn and see, otherwise god would be requiring us to do the improbable if not the impossible. Also, god would be at least somewhat non-interventionist as I think there are too many things to blame god for if god is choosing each day which prayer to answer, and would be holding back "miracles" for purely arbitrary reasons. Therefore we are still responsible for what we do and what happens "down here".
If god is a higher consciousness version 2 (I.e. Metaphysical and partially or fully outside of man), then mine and other versions 1 may just be a misunderstanding of that.
If god is higher consciousness version 3 (I.e. The highest level of human consciousness, shared or personal) then so be it. We still have massive growth to do to be able to say humanity, as a species, is in good relationship to god.
I don't care if someone wants to use a different name for version 3, for example, it is common practice that many people call this god, so that is their right, but not their right to deny another person's definition as such.

It certainly is not. You rely on an incorrect definition of the word "real," so you can comfort yourself by saying "God is real."

Refer to dictionary... available online 24/7.

And you determine the baby to be the concept of God? I don't. I see God as a human invention. I don't see his fingerprints anywhere. I see a reality that exists as if he doesn't.

just like an anti-scientist throws out gene therapy with the abortion issue, some people throw out all definitions of god with their limited definition.

Nonsense. If he had a dream about God, there's nothing in Freud or Jung that supports his acceptance of this as divine premonition. Science has shredded every notion of God any society before us has ever created, and those who want to reconcile their faith today with modern science must push their deity back beyond the boundary of current scientific interest, let alone ability. And sure, you can have your null space. Enjoy it. But don't tell me that I'm not qualified to determine who is delusional and who isn't. The question of the existence of God isn't exactly up in the air. Irrelevant to the topic. Unless you're implying that a dream about God means God is real, in which case you're absolutely wrong.

No you are the one who is having a problem defining real, and the "dream about god" is an actual straw man. The dream about god wouldn't mean god is real, although god may be real and the person has a dream about it. Also, the positive unconscious, would certainly be called real by Freud and Jung, and if you want to ask Jung not to use the word god, you should dig him up.

 

[(Q)]

I don't have to believe God is anything that corresponds to an idea. In particular I don't have to believe what you think God is.

That is entirely irrelevant.

I exist, and I don't need to go around believing I do.

Obviously.

But you exist.

Obviously.

Why do you believe that your existence can't be evidence that God exists?

The same reason why a jar of pickles is not evidence for unicorns, they have nothing to do with one another.

What do you think the problem is with that belief, or with any belief, particularly a belief which is based on absence of evidence, such as the one you subscribe to?

The problem is the cycle of indoctrination that causes people to believe in things that don't exist and then to lie about it.

 

[wegs]

So, is it safe to assume that many people believe that there are two separate realities: a spiritual reality AND an actual reality?

Actual reality is what we can measure, verify, and is tangible. It might not be seen by all, but could be seen by all. Or heard by all. Or tasted by all. Or felt by all. Example, a friend of mine bought a dog recently, and when we speak by phone, I can hear it barking. I have never seen the dog, but there is some evidence that it exists. So, I'm able to verify evidence of the dog, even though I have not physically seen it, yet. With God, there is no such scenario. Someone telling me that God exists, doesn't make God a reality. Someone passing on Biblical 'knowledge,' doesn't make God a reality. Someone sharing the beliefs of another faith, even sharing stories of supposed miracles, etc...does not make God a reality.

Objective reality for it to be so, just is. I don't need to convince someone else, of objective reality or truths. He/she will be able to discover them on his/her own, should they be objective truths. Science, math, etc...are objective truths, and while someone might not be interested in learning about them, they are still available to be explored. God is not a tangible reality, and if someone asserts that he is, then how are you definining reality?

While I think these discussions are very interesting, it seems like they go in circles, because spiritual people/theists don't want to admit that their definition of reality, isn't an objective one. And I have to ask, why is that?

When I was a practicing Christian, I never thought God was an objective truth. Or an objective reality. No two theists can even agree as to who or what God may or may not be. So, to claim that God is an objective reality, tells me that someone either has purposely blurred the lines between actual reality, and subjective/spiritual reality, or just doesn't know the difference between the two. I won't go as far as to say 'God is not real,' because spirtuality can feel like a very real thing, in a person's life.

But, it's still not objective, for if it were, atheists wouldn't need convincing. They would be able to see/feel/understand/hear what theists see/feel/understand/hear. Objective reality can be discovered very plainly, and if God were an objective reality, why is evidence of him such a mystery?

 

[arfa brane]

The same reason why a jar of pickles is not evidence for unicorns, they have nothing to do with one another.

So you see your existence as being as meaningful as a jar of pickles? Since your existence has nothing to do with a jar of . . . pickles.

The problem is the cycle of indoctrination that causes people to believe in things that don't exist and then to lie about it.

And, of course, you can exclude yourself from this indoctrination "cycle".

What I'd like you to tell me is, if you're really sure you know God doesn't exist, why are you asking questions about other people's belief? Is it for laughs? I mean, if you're happy about my "delusion" then that's something, I suppose.

 

[(Q)]

So you see your existence as being as meaningful as a jar of pickles? Since your existence has nothing to do with a jar of . . . pickles.

Sorry, is that your conclusion? :roflmao:

And, of course, you can exclude yourself from this indoctrination "cycle".

Uh yeah, I question everything. Notice that I have yet to post any beliefs? Like none.

What I'd like you to tell me is, if you're really sure you know God doesn't exist, why are you asking questions about other people's belief? Is it for laughs? I mean, if you're happy about my "delusion" then that's something, I suppose.

So, that's it with your argument? Gone as far as you can go with it? Like nowhere.

 

[(Q)]

So, is it safe to assume that many people believe that there are two separate realities: a spiritual reality AND an actual reality?

Yes, believers believe in other realities, even though they haven't a shred of evidence to show those realities actually exist. It's their way of copping out of having to explain anything.

 

[arfa brane]

Uh yeah, I question everything. Notice that I have yet to post any beliefs? Like none.

But you have posted beliefs. You believe that your existence has nothing to do with the existence of God. You believe that people who claim they know what God is are deluded people.
You also believe that it's irrelevant that (I claim) I don't have to believe what you think God is or isn't.

You certainly have posted what you believe, so you're the one who is lying.

 

[wegs]

Yes, believers believe in other realities, even though they haven't a shred of evidence to show those realities actually exist. It's their way of copping out of having to explain anything.

And the question remains, why? I speak from my own experience, and when I was following Christianity, I really didn't view my spirituality as ''objective'' in any way. How could something so personal and private, ever be an objective truth?

I dunno. lol

 

[Seattle]

As was pointed out. If theists are concerned with what definitions are used then they should answer the questions while defining the terms that they are comfortable using rather than making us guess at them before they will answer.

God can be defined in many ways apparently. Any way that defines God as something other than supernatural is a misuse of the term. No faith is necessary for God as a material or real concept or being.

Ultimately it does look like arfa brane is saying that his evidence for God is his own existence and the existence of nature.

No evidence has been given (even using your definitions) for why God is real just because you exist. No reasoning has been given for why you think God created you since the evidence for that is the same as for the pickle jar creating you (so, none).

 

[Seattle]

Until we learn to read eachother's minds, we'll have to clarify definitions first.

Why not just define your words and then offer the explanation based on your definitions?

 

[arfa brane]

No evidence has been given (even using your definitions) for why God is real just because you exist.

But I have evidence, personal evidence. I can't show it to you, and I can't show you what an orange tastes like either. You eat the orange, then you know what oranges taste like. Are oranges 'objective', is the taste of oranges 'objective'?

No reasoning has been given for why you think God created you since the evidence for that is the same as for the pickle jar creating you (so, none).

I have no idea if God 'created' me, no evidence has been forthcoming on that question, and I have not made any such claim in this thread (or any thread, or to anyone).

 

[Seattle]

But I have evidence, personal evidence. I can't show it to you, and I can't show you what an orange tastes like either. You eat the orange, then you know what oranges taste like. Are oranges 'objective', is the taste of oranges 'objective'?I have no idea if God 'created' me, no evidence has been forthcoming on that question, and I have not made any such claim in this thread (or any thread, or to anyone).

You say "But you exist.
Why do you believe that your existence can't be evidence that God exists? What do you think the problem is with that belief, or with any belief, particularly a belief which is based on absence of evidence, such as the one you subscribe to?"

You wouldn't make the same argument for a pickle jar creating you so why even consider it for God unless you have some reason to do so?

Regarding "oranges"...yes, oranges are objective. Their taste is subjective but you can attempt to describe it.

To say that you have experienced God but you can't describe it (or even attempt to describe it) doesn't ring true. Any experience you could have had with "God" would have to be through your senses. You should be able to describe anything derived through your senses even if imperfectly.

 

[(Q)]

But you have posted beliefs. You believe that your existence has nothing to do with the existence of God.

That is not a belief, that is an understanding of evolution.

You believe that people who claim they know what God is are deluded people.

Either that, or they are lying or have mental disorders.

You also believe that it's irrelevant that (I claim) I don't have to believe what you think God is or isn't.

Gods are gods, no matter how you slice them.

You certainly have posted what you believe, so you're the one who is lying.

Sorry, but I have done no such thing.

 

[(Q)]

And the question remains, why?

Indoctrination. It is a powerful tool in the arsenal of religions.

 

[(Q)]

But I have evidence, personal evidence.

No, you don't. You might believe you do, but you don't.

I can't show it to you

Of course, you can't. That is because you have none.

I can't show you what an orange tastes like either.

But, I can eat an orange myself.

You eat the orange, then you know what oranges taste like. Are oranges 'objective', is the taste of oranges 'objective'?

FYI, oranges are real. Didn't you know that?

I have no idea if God 'created' me

You are the result of evolution, like every other living thing on this planet.

 

[arfa brane]

You say "But you exist.
Why do you believe that your existence can't be evidence that God exists? What do you think the problem is with that belief, or with any belief, particularly a belief which is based on absence of evidence, such as the one you subscribe to?"

And your answer is that you think I mean my existence is due to God, that God created me.

You wouldn't make the same argument for a pickle jar creating you so why even consider it for God unless you have some reason to do so?

I said my existence is evidence for the existence of God, you've interpreted this as meaning it's evidence I was created by God. But I didn't say that.

 

[arfa brane]

No, you don't. You might believe you do, but you don't.

I don't have to believe it. I don't have to believe I can see or hear either, because "I just can".
Nonetheless, of course I believe I can see and hear (uneccesarily, or redundantly it seems), I have incontrovertible evidence. I can even prove it, since if I couldn't see, how could I read what you posted or what I'm typing on a keyboard?

You say I don't have evidence I can see God, but have absolutely no way of knowing if you're right. I think that, given the content of this discussion so far, the evidence is that you might believe you can see, but you don't see.

 

[Seattle]

For anyone who has personal evidence of God (of any kind) please describe that evidence or experience to the best of your ability and define any terms you feel need to be defined before answering.

 

[Magical Realist]

"I have evidence God exists but I don't have to believe in it."

"My existence proves God exists but not that he originated me."

"I have an experience of God but can't describe it and don't need to."

Is anyone else getting tired of this ridiculous tapdance? Geez!

 

[cole grey]

Originally Posted by wegs. Actual reality is what we can measure, verify, and is tangible. It might not be seen by all, but could be seen by all. Or heard by all. Or tasted by all. Or felt by all. Example, a friend of mine bought a dog recently, and when we speak by phone, I can hear it barking. I have never seen the dog, but there is some evidence that it exists. So, I'm able to verify evidence of the dog, even though I have not physically seen it, yet. With God, there is no such scenario. Someone telling me that God exists, doesn't make God a reality. Someone passing on Biblical 'knowledge,' doesn't make God a reality. Someone sharing the beliefs of another faith, even sharing stories of supposed miracles, etc...does not make God a reality.

no, you accept the dog although it may just be the tv. Non-verified "reality". You wouldn't blame someone for hearing the tv and believing their friend had a dog, if that is what they were told. Perhaps religion is the tv and not a dog, but i certainly don't know that. If anyone has evidence, that can be verified, that a dog is "kind", and that "all" can agree upon, i would say your point would be made. But it isn't. Philosophy is not a physical science, and is taught in the humanities section of a university, along with religion. I am not sure just how many times that has to be said.

For anyone who has personal evidence of God (of any kind) please describe that evidence or experience to the best of your ability and define any terms you feel need to be defined before answering.

if anyone has evidence that a dog is "kind", rather than just exhibiting instinctual pack behavior, please provide it, so we can all have the same definition of "evidence". I choose to believe my dog is kind, and choose to believe my mother "loves" me, and choose my religious beliefs in exactly the same way, interpretation of non-verifiable data. I am not talking about the obvious knowledge that the dog wags his tail or mother cooks dinner for her babies, i am talking about philosophical ideology, attaching MEANING. Anyone who wants to make a consistent choice about calling everything purely mechanistic, is certainly being fair. Those who arbitrarily pick and choose where the line is drawn between science and philosophy, based on which idea is being discussed, have a problem however.