Your theory misrepresents the identity (definition) of who/what God(s) are. In religions, God(s) were not created or invented by humans. In religions, God(s) are participants in the religious narratives just like the humans. So, just like humans, there's nothing preventing God(s) from existing before corresponding religions.

But with God(s), the general implication is that they should have been discovered or that their presence should be known in conjunction with the religion that they represent, in spite of the fact that no one actually does know if God(s) exist. — Maureen

This is your own conjecture, it does not become fact or determine the way of doing things.

To put it simply, if no humans knew that ducks existed, but then someone was the first person to see a duck and showed it to a bunch of other people and they took pictures of it and so on, — Maureen

And suppose he gave no evidence, merely just stated his observation and left. Wouldn't the duck still exist?

In terms of God(s), however, the God of any particular religion did not exist as far as any human knows until the onset of their respective religion, — Maureen

So it's not about existence, it's about human knowledge/awareness of that existence. And since we can act on information regardless of proof, it settles the matter because people can choose to use the information however they wish including using it to create a new reference point for their activities, mental, moral, social, etc, call it belief or whatever.
Humans are not breaking any code of conduct/integrity just by believing, it is when the actions born of that belief become improper that we lose our fundamental bearing as humans who should be masters of their own faculties of consciousness and corresponding activities, instead of being ensnared by them into committing atrocities against fellow life or against the balance of nature/reality.

When we don't know, we just don't know, whether it's about the existence of God(s) before our knowledge of them. And we should be willing to admit that too.

i agree with this. People don't like to be told they are wrong. I certainly don't like to be told i'm wrong. — christian2017

True enough. Though quite surprising when it's just about a philosophical argument.

...I do not do believing. — Frank Apisa

So you say.

I do guessing and estimating and supposing and things like that. — Frank Apisa

which are 'obviously' worlds apart from the processes of belief... hmm, very curious :chin:

If you cannot accept it...that is a problem you must deal with. — Frank Apisa

It certainly seems so.

Well, I shall question no longer. I accept.

If a person is making a blind guess that there are no gods...and says "I believe there are no gods" rather than "It is my blind guess that there are no gods"...ya gotta wonder why they are doing it. — Frank Apisa

This is a play at semantics. It's about the mode of expression instead of implied meaning. Also, the blind guess is still predicated by the law of "what goes in, is what comes out", input=output. This means the mind can only give an outcome based on the corresponding inputs. A sub-conscious process of mind is no less valid or meaningful than the conscious processes. For example, a person may choose to believe/disbelieve in god(s) for no other reason than they made a choice having been given that opportunity (no matter the name the process is designated by), and it would still be valid, meaningful and within his/her purview since he/she has such capabilities. I'm not arguing about the quality in how belief is achieved (low/high quality 'stuff' is still 'stuff'), I'm investigating what belief is and why people choose one instead of others.

A person saying, "I believe X"...is a person doing "believing."

A person saying, "It is my blind guess that X" is a person doing "blind guessing.

If you do not understand that...not much I can do to help you.

I do not do "believing."

I really do not understand why this is causing some of you so much trouble? — Frank Apisa

First, I'm not troubled, I find it quite interesting to see where this particular rabbit hole leads to.
Secondly, a person doing "X" and calling it "Y" is very suspicious, hence my interest.

Definition of belief (Merriam-Webster)
1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing.
2 : something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion : something believed.
3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence.

This are the common meanings expressed by term 'belief' and also what I'm referring to. So, either none of them refers to what you understand by belief implying that you have you own reference other than these, in which case, we are not talking about the same thing.

Brian...what do I have to do to spell this out for you? — Frank Apisa

What's in a name?
A rose by any other name...

Not solely, no. But it is dependent on it in the sense that you won't get very far at all without it. You'll inevitably encounter a premise which requires empiricism in order to be true, or to be known to be true. — S

Then it's our own understanding which necessitates the use of empiricism as crutches when we are unable to walk the path of logic without such assistance... right?

It's not a property of all propositions. But it's a property that only propositions have. It's not a property of something else. — Terrapin Station

Then we're back to truth being limited to humanity (in concepts, ideas, etc) which I refute. Because, again I ask, wasn't there truth before the rise of humans?

But we don't designate the relative as the absolute manifest within.
— BrianW

What in the world is that? I haven't the faintest idea what that's saying. — Terrapin Station

We don't define relativity by the absolute which manifests them. Whether it's an atom, a human, planet, solar system, etc, neither is the whole of reality. Each is just an expression of reality, albeit a limited one in one way or other.

What I was asking in this second part is how it would make sense to say that something i a "fundamental of reality" but not a state of affairs. — Terrapin Station

In a matter of speaking, we could say that "truth expresses the state of affairs of reality". However, that state of affairs is different from any other state of affairs because it is absolute compared to others which would be relative. That, to me, is the difference between truth and fact.

Re this, falsehood is a property of propositions, too. "Truth is a property of propositions" isn't saying that all propositions are true. It's instead similar to "11th chords are a property of music." We're not saying all music has an 11th chord. — Terrapin Station

Therefore, truth(s) isn't always a property of propositions. So, what relation between truth and propositions are you expressing?

Re this: "I agree that facts are states of affairs but truth is the expression of the fundamental(s) of reality." "Fundamental(s) of reality" that somehow aren't states of affairs? — Terrapin Station

Truth(s) is a part of reality and of everything. But we don't designate the relative as the absolute manifest within. Therefore a fact by its limitation is distinctly different from a truth even though facts (and everything else) are limited expressions of truth(s) in some manner.

I agree that facts are states of affairs but truth is the expression of the fundamental(s) of reality. Truth, for me, is not a property of propositions, firstly because propositions could lack truth(s) without losing their identity. Truth(s) can/cannot be expressed in propositions.

The key to truth(s) is that they don't change. States of affairs change but truth(s) are constant.

Isn't the absoluteness of reality a truth that has been present even prior to the existence of humans and their thoughts?

Perception vs knowledge... I LOVE IT!!! :up:

Mine would be that belief is the power of thought to express infinite possibility. — Merkwurdichliebe

This may be a good working theory though I don't know if human beliefs which are relative and limited, can be used to relate to or express an absolute such as "infinite possibility".

I agree.

I do not disguise those things by calling them my "beliefs." — Frank Apisa

What is belief other than those convictions and frames of reference in consciousness?

For instance, if one says, "I 'believe' (in) God"...is one not actually just saying, "It is my guess that at least one god exists in the REALITY of existence?"

If one says, "I believe there are no gods"...is one not actually just saying, "It is my guess that no gods exist in the REALITY of existence?" — Frank Apisa

Belief is not absolute. Human understanding is not perfect therefore their beliefs cannot be measured by the absolute standard of truth. Our convictions can fail us; our frames of reference can be inadequate - yet they distinctly retain those identities and applications. That's why I said they should be worked on just as we work on scientific knowledge or any other aspect of our faculty of consciousness.

How close is thought to belief? — Merkwurdichliebe

My hypothesis would be that thought approaches belief as its [perceived] resultant outcome approaches certainty.

I think that the issue arises from an unnecessary segregation of things in to the categories of 'scientific' and 'magical'. A segregation that exploits the herd instinct.

As Arthur Clarke points out, such a segregation is based on misunderstanding. — Shamshir

Yes, I think so too.

I do not do "believing." — Frank Apisa

Don't you have any convictions, however simple or complex they are?
Don't you have a frame of reference for your information, perception, conception, knowledge and understanding?

The reason I ask is because even before we assert belief in the fantastic and preposterous, there is also a level of belief that is decent and natural in its application. What I'm saying is that, belief isn't necessarily something to do away with, rather it should be worked upon the way we would any other part of our faculty of consciousness.

What was anything before we discovered it? What were atoms before we discovered them? Why should God(s) or anything else be any different?

Isn't that what stage magicians do? I thought this was common knowledge. — TheMadFool

But how many people believe in that kind of 'magic'. To most people it's always a setup especially considering the other stuff that accompany such 'magic'. Anyway, one of my points is that, if humans are natural, then they cannot perform supernatural activities. Is there anything perceived by humans that is actually beyond the purview of nature? And, by what means would those people have acquired such information considering they are bound within the limits of the laws of nature?

My point is to challenge human belief because it seems we often misrepresent ourselves when we represent our beliefs.

I agree with you (the story in the OP is just to serve as an example of how people work against inconvenient realities and such). Most people fight for their beliefs not because they understand them or on the merit of the belief's integrity but because they hope to convince themselves that they are right to believe. For most people beliefs have to be ultimate and incontrovertible even when they consider themselves fallible humans. These people, when they believe, they enslave themselves to those beliefs. Weirdly enough, being fallible should be one of the best things to happen to anyone. Because, they can undo and redo things. In some interesting way, being fallible means there are no real limits because they are temporary and soon to be undone.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!

where you ask or propose something political in philosophical terms, or one of the moderators (our valkyries) will be circling over head about to claim that your post wasn't "philosophical". — Bitter Crank

I think there are several questions in it,

Where do I turn when nowhere near is any nearer to better?
How do I dream when all I can hope for is a little clean water? — Robert Peters

Perhaps they serve as propositions.

Ouch! It hits the heart, where it really hurts.
Thanks, in such pain the flames of the soul's plight awaken, ablaze. :fire:
And for a moment, in prayer, in thought, in sentiment, as one we embrace. :heart: :pray:

With out consciessness truth can't be figured out. I believe truth should be built off simple concepts and simple concepts are added together to form complex concepts. — christian2017

So, for you truth is a mental construct and is limited within our minds?

In other words, you don't accept that either are defined by thought, and you're positing some sort of abstract, extramental existent instead. — Terrapin Station

Yes. Otherwise there would be no truth beyond people's thoughts and the truth we assert would have their limit of existence as the birth and death of humanity.

I personally don't think we should discount something just because we can't guarantee it as absolute truth. — christian2017

Is truth something we determine so as to give others an assurance or guarantee? We are limited in every way possible in comparison to the ideal of absoluteness, so how, or why would we be the measure of truth? Isn't it supposed to be vice-versa, that truth determines our measure? But first, we must know that truth or some truth, before we can realize the measure that the truth has bestowed upon us, right...?

Logic is the way that we think--specifically an abstracted way of thinking about certain kinds of relations. — Terrapin Station

And when our thinking is wrong or deficient in some manner, is it still logic or logical? I think what you are defining is reason. To me, logic is an expression of the application of the laws/principles which govern phenomena in reality. That way, when our mental capacities can't grasp the workings of those laws/principles then it implies a lack of logic.

Truth, by the way, is a judgment about the relation of propositions to something else, such as states of affairs. — Terrapin Station

But judgements can be misleading, and states of affairs can change. Can truth be either? So far, I don't think so. For me, truth is something absolute. Perhaps the term 'fact' can better describe a state of affairs and, even then, tenuous at best.

In regards to the second quote, we can only hold ourselves accountable to our own notions of reality and in addition to that we should hold dear what we have been taught from our youth. — christian2017

Is truth subjective, objective or perhaps even absolute. If truth was subjective then it would correspond to personal judgements. If truth is objective then it would correspond with the governing rules, regulations, practices, and rationale of the collective. However, if truth is absolute, then it exists whether there are life-forms or not, whether it is appreciated or not.

Truth should be based on reoccurring incidents. — christian2017

This takes us back to truth being based on experience. Personally, I think the truths we assert should be based on perception or conception. Experience does mould the representation of truth in our awareness but we always understand that it existed even before that experience.

We can't hold ourselves accountable for what we haven't found to be true based on reoccurring events and also we should regard what is told to us to some extent. — christian2017

I'm not questioning accountability or regard, my aim is to discover how we uncover truth whether it is by our own efforts or acquired from others. How do we determine truth? What is the mark or character that defines or determines truth? And before that, how do we define truth? Or what is truth?

Isn't a movie a type of simulated consciousness?

I mean, sure, they involve real people. But, the characters are not the actors themselves. The characters which relay consciousness to us are made up. Computers also do that, with animations. All humans do is provide sound, and mobility patterns.

I think the better question would be, what is consciousness that it could be relayed in such ways?

I believe if the following are answered then we stand a chance of uncovering the truth about power and motivation.

1. Why do people (or a person) look to others for anything?

2. Is the ideal interdependence an association of dependency or of independency?

3. How much do we fear death/loss, or the solitude of individuality, or the shame we reflexively dispense to others to divert from our inadequacies and which shame we mask with layers of pride? Could we escape from the non-conformity to the ways of lusts and greed with which most fraternities are built upon?

23. What is spirit?

=> "The intelligent principle of the universe."


24. Is spirit synonymous with intelligence?

=> "Intelligence is an essential attribute of spirit, but both merge in a unitary principle, so that, for you, they may be said to be the same thing."


25. Is spirit independent of matter, or is it only one of the pro properties of matter, as colours are a property of light, and as sound is a property of the air?

=> "Spirit and matter are distinct from one another; but the union of spirit and matter is necessary to give intelligent activity to matter."


- Is this union equally necessary to the manifestation of spirit? (We refer, in this question, to the principle of intelligence, abstractly considered, without reference to the individualities designated by that term.)

=> "It is necessary for you, because you are not organised for perceiving spirit apart from matter. Your senses are not formed for that order of perception."


26. Can spirit be conceived of without matter, and matter without spirit?

=> "Undoubtedly, as objects of thought."

THE SPIRITS' BOOK (By Allan Kardec), 1857.

There aren't many books out there that surpass the aforementioned book in its exposition of spiritual phenomena. So maybe it can help with this discussion.
For example, when it says,

It is necessary for you, because you are not organised for perceiving spirit apart from matter. Your senses are not formed for that order of perception.

I realise just how precise it is even scientifically. Because everything we infer and refer to through the meaning of intelligence, from consciousness to mind, is arrived at through interaction with matter. So, even intelligence itself is derivative, often as a product of deduction. So, unless we're speaking the same language (terminology and articulation not tongue) there's bound to be misunderstanding.

There's no coincidence in a life-supporting universe or world. Not when everything is well organised, the resources and mechanisms are operated by laws (of nature), the specific circumstances are wrought from well prepared, properly nurtured and far-reaching influences. If there was just one human being, just one animal, just one plant, then we could speak of coincidence. When there are mechanisms of propagating life existing for billions of years then we call it purpose.

It is clear that militaries continually develop new technologies. It is in their interests to withhold the use of advanced weaponry so that they have the upper hand in any potential conflict. How far does this knowledge stretch? — Jonmel

If you've seen how much information can be gathered about a place and at a time, e.g. google maps, and that for public use, could you imagine what the military capabilities are? Also, the fact that any communication device is potentially a listening device, and the whole world is enmeshed by radio waves, this makes me think that if we really wanted to cut back on crime, if we really wanted to hunt down each and every terrorist, the resources are already there for use. So, why don't we? It's simple, I'll explain it with an analogy - the oil and automobile industries are notorious for involving themselves in research about alternative energy sources, however, their motive is not just to switch to better and cleaner energy, but to wait until the better, cleaner energy is more profitable than what they currently have, as well as to be able to monopolize their ownership when discovered. If not for such greed the whole world would have already gone green.

Could it be possible that the fundamental nature of reality is understood, of consciousness and the meaning of life. — Jonmel

It depends on whether you're ready and/or willing to accept the answer. Personally I believe the answer is in spiritual teachings, but you have to be able to discern the truth yourself.

It seems the state of balance between the major political powers is dependent on their nuclear deterrent. Could it be that a more advanced race of people is maintaining this state of affairs so that human civilisation does not self destruct. — Jonmel

I think we get the consequences of our actions. Human actions = Human consequences. If there's an advanced race, don't they have their own business to attend to? And if we're part of their business, then they are a part of ours and they don't get to be an advanced race to us, more like a momentary advanced stage, and which we're all heading towards. For me, such are the Platos, Newtons, Buddhas, basically all men of incredible forethought, insight, intuition, etc. If not for such inspiring ideals generated and propagated by such distinguished men, the 'lesser' men motivated by selfish goals and by 'virtue' of their ignorance would have already led us to nuclear wars.

There are two possible universes: Those where there are intelligent creatures who ask questions about the universe, and those where there are no such creatures. — Purple Pond

Does that make any sense to you? Am I missing or misunderstanding anything? — Purple Pond

Simplicity. Our earth is conducive to both intelligent creatures who ask questions about the universe and also maintains where there are no such creatures. Couldn't there also be just one universe with multiple capacities and potentialities?


Also, I don't believe in randomness/chance because I believe reality works in intelligent mechanisms. For me, intelligence is definite and therefore negates randomness/chance. Also, if this were a random universe, it would lack the constancy of the laws of nature.

Although the specfics of how it is described are still being debated, psychologists recognize addiction as a mental illness in its own right. — NKBJ

That makes it interesting. Now I'm wondering, can addiction be used as an excuse for ill behaviour? I mean in the sense that, could addiction overcome one's impulses such that judgement (intellectual) is completely beyond the capabilities of the addict? The reason I'm asking is because mental illness could obscure judgement in favour of more instinctive behaviours or responses.

If equality is about similarity, conformity, adaptability, intelligence, etc, etc then we're not equal. If it's about "belonging" then we all have an equal claim to life and reality. Perhaps that's what equality refers to.

Addiction (depending on the influence) could be a consequence of, and also result in mental illness or abnormalities. I think the difference is addiction implies the capacity to still be in control of one's mental faculties.