The mystics of every religious tradition, and some of no tradition whatsoever, have inspired me beyond words. — 0 thru 9

I agree and they still inspire us Like krishnamurti and the Dalai Lama. However, the Holy Roman Inquisition lasted 1200 years and killed over 100 million people. Many in the most horrible way.

Doctrinal orthodoxies are built up over very long periods and under the influence of many great minds. Of course there is no guarantee that political influences are absent in any orthodoxy. Most adherents of a religion simply believe the orthodoxy of that religion; that is why they are called' adherents'.

Sometimes it may be a matter of people being too stupid, lazy or afraid to think for themselves, but when you consider what consensus has been reached by more than two millennia of speculative reasoning by the greatest, boldest minds, you can hardly blame many intelligent people for settling for received wisdom. People nowadays do that as much with science as they do with religion.

So, basically I think your attitude is an unwarranted, simplistic generalization, that probably arises more out of your own fears than it does out of any nuanced rational inquiry. — John

I do not think the Christian church has had the greatest minds. As a matter of fact the “church” has had the greatest negative effect on science, philosophy, education, social development, cosmology, art, music and on and on. The church is made up of intellectual bullies. The church oppresses the best minds throughout history. Even today stem cell research is hindered in the US because of the church. No abortion, no contraception. Let’s talk about the churches ideas on evolution. We are still living under the Scopes Monkey trials. I think somebodies view is simplistic.

You're entitled to those opinions; though many Christians would not share them. However, Muslims would agree, they honour Jesus as a great prophet, but consider attribution of divinity to him to be blasphemous, so you are in fine company. — John

Most Christians and Muslims are just sheep. They don’t know what they think – they wait to be told what to think. The reason is because most people are intellectual cowards. A sad state of affairs – unfortunately – one we continue to live with. The upshot of this circumstance is that Islam is very proactive in increasing its reach and dominion. It will not end well for any of us.

Yes, the thing is that for many who call themselves 'Christian' the belief that Jesus was the unique Son of God is central, and this would seem to necessarily distinguish Christianity form all other religions. Can Jesus' divinity be considered to be a "literal historical fact", though? What could that mean? That it was a fact that He was resurrected?

On the other side, the idea of Jesus' divinity as mystic or poetic truth can be understood to symbolize the divinity of humanity. In this view we are all sons and daughters of God, we are God-as-Son, one part of the Trinity. — John

I believe that Jesus was a son of God – so am I a son of God. Neither of us is God in totality – we are men. We are parts of God – we don’t define creation – we are mostly defined by it - all human beings – past and present. I think Jesus was a great man – a genius, but most of all I think he was a man. I think a lot of what was said about him was fabrication, after the fact, in order to deify him. I do not think he would approve.

I like Ignosticism because I think it demands more rigor in trying to establish ones views. It is kind of like a court that says – guilty until proven innocent. Or - If you can’t put up – shut up. It’s hard for all of us “theists” to substantial God. Not an easy fellow to snuggle up to. It is much more difficult for theists to prove God – if – you are going to use any bible verse. The reason is because all bibles are so poorly written and contradictory.

When ones faith is called on the carpet people become defensive and many times hostile. I do understand why – things that we hold dear are called into question. Not an easy thing. However, we must have courage and try and prove our point. Not everyone has courage. Look above in this thread and you can see a few instances.

If you would like to somehow relate Islam to the topic at hand, that would be most welcome and could lead to a fascinating discussion. The topic of this particular thread is "A Case for Ignosticism". Sound good? Thanks!!! (L) (L) (L) — 0 thru 9

Definition according to Google:


“Ignosticism is the view that any religious term or theological concept presented must be accompanied by a coherent definition. Without a clear definition such terms cannot be meaningfully discussed. Such terms or concepts must also be falsifiable.”


The key words here are theological concept – clear definition – falsifiable. God is the theological concept. The tricky part is the clear definition. We were given many ideas that people related as a type of definition like - Time Without Change – changelessness - still mind - Nikolai Berdyaev, a Russian existentialist - uncarved block - Star Wars – anthropomorphized - scriptural passages – and a few others. There are pros and cons against all of them – so they meet the criteria of – falsifiable. The ignostic thesis is very strong in that it admonishes us to be careful in defining God. I think this is pointed out very well in another definition from Mr. Google:


“Ignosticism or igtheism is the idea that every theological position assumes too much about the concept of God and other theological concepts; including (but not limited to) concepts of faith, spirituality, heaven, hell, afterlife, damnation, salvation, sin and the soul.”


What I like about this definition of Ignosticism or igtheism is the idea – “assumes too much”. We do assume too much – all of us – both for and against the concept of God. What I think Ignosticism really says is that we are ignorant. So, what do we do – just go home and shut up? Well, I am already home and I don’t want to shut up. I want to struggle and try and know myself and others as well.

It is through talking with others that we can draw a picture of what we think. You, 0 thru 9, referred us to 2 threads that are great in talking about God. What I keep hearing in all the threads (including this one) is concepts like – communities – psychology – politics – ethics – morality – theology, etc. All these ideas play into our understanding (or not) of God. It is not a simple – single issue.

When we talk about biblical scripture it rings a bell for most people. Tempers can get hot on both sides of the aisle. I think we have seen evidence of that in this thread and others. For me biblical scripture is not the way I define God. I think Ignosticism agrees with me because it doesn’t or does meet the test of - falsifiable. However, great and worthy insight can be gained from the bible (Matthew 22:36-40).

The bibles of Islam speak volumes about God and falsifiable in relation to our discussion. We cannot take God and religion out of the cultural and political milieu in which it has developed. If we are really going to parse, understand Ignosticism in relation to God. We must be willing to go where the logic leads us. This is an interesting link which speaks to my point:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/pakistan-man-given-death-penalty-infor-blaspheming-social-media-n770721

Found a few similar threads with some interesting posts, for those who may be interested.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1242/do-you-want-god-to-exist/p1

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/336/page/p1#OP — 0 thru 9

So - you want to talk about these concepts of God - but not about Islam? Very interesting and open minded of you.

Also, I think that scriptural passages, for example as to how to treat "transgressors", should be interpreted in light of historical and cultural understanding and not taken as absolute or eternal prescriptions. — John

It is important to understand what we are dealing with in relation to bibles. They are the cultural and spiritual expressions of our ancestors. They speak to the truth as they understood it in their time. It is a bridge for us today to see what they were thinking. Humans are a fragile group clinging to our speck of dust in the vastness of space and time. Of course we need explanations to give us a sense of who we are. It is the job of philosophers today to interpret the past and combine it with what we know now; in order to create a picture of what tomorrow will be.

Who are the leaders of civilization? The answer is artists. Why because artists have the courage and vision to see what tomorrow will be. Artists see what is and what can be. It is a symbolic work and also an abstraction. A philosopher is an artist. A philosopher deals in the art of ideas – the basis of all art. It is important for ourselves to see the universe and explain it; but more importantly it is essential for civilization. Civilization depends upon philosophers for the road map of tomorrow.

I think Jesus was a genius. When Jesus was asked which is the greatest commandment – he said:



Matthew 22:36-40New International Version (NIV)

36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”



If you look at this statement it reveals a fundamental truth to me – in one concept. Love God – who is God? God is everything. Love your neighbor who is part of God and realize you are part of God too. The one concept is love everything because it is all God. This concept is the golden rule. End of story – I do not need to know anything else to live my life. Simple – follow the golden rule. What else do I need to know in any bible – nothing – absolutely nothing? Follow the principle of KISS – keep it simple stupid.

It is getting away from the principle of KISS that is getting us into trouble - now. Do you realize that we are in a crisis today that is unprecedented in human history? We are in an ideological battle that has never been as consequential as it is today. Yesterday in the US there were "March Against Sharia" rallies in 20 cities. This is a fight against the growing influence of Islam. Do you realize that Islam represents 25% of all human beings and growing? There were counter protests that were actually larger than the original. The following picture tells a story of more than a thousand words:



This picture shows the true face of Islam today. In the center is a woman holding a sign which says “My Sharia knows no hate”. Is this a true statement? No, Islam is exceedingly opposed to other religions. The woman is wearing a head scarf. What does this mean? It means men decide how women dress. Why? – Because women are considered sexual objects. Why? – Because Islam is equally a political movement as much as it is a religion. Controlling women sexually is why Islam is so successful and growing. The thing in this picture which is most disturbing is the other signs in support of this counter protest. The other Christians, Buddhists and/or whomever holding signs of support don’t realize they are cutting their own throats. Islam is here to take over – and – they are doing a good job.

The problem with Islam is Muhammad. Muhammad is a pedophile, murderer, slave dealer, illiterate psychopathic and morally bankrupt prophet with a sword? Muhammad is touted as the ideal man. The fact is he is quite the opposite.

It is our job, as philosopher, to bring the truth to light. We have a responsibility to civilization. When something is not right; we need to stand up and say so. We need to give an honest, clear vision of what is happening. Islam is taking over the entire world – this is not a joke – it is a fact. Keep it simple, but don’t be stupid in missing this point.

What we do here is test our metal. If you do not extend your ideas for examination; you have no idea how strong they are. Of course there will be people to harass you – did you come here thinking otherwise? That would be naive, stupid or both. People attack other people for a variety of reasons, but mostly because their domain is threatened. When I posit an idea I expect to step on somebodies toes. At least I hope I do. However, I also have the expectation my opposition will be intelligent and somewhat honorable. Philosophers are a tough bunch, which is not easily intimidated. There is also a kind of policing system in place.

Even if I might question a particular wording of yours, such as your statement that Man needs G-d "absolutely" (and please feel free to exand on that) — 0 thru 9

I believe man is insecure from the moment of birth - to the moment of death. We walk with it everyday. It is a disability, but if you are aware of it - it can be an asset too. It is just the design of the beast.

you seem to keep your statements open and flexible, imho. This to me is the welcome opposite of dogmatism, and to some it may seem watered-down or wavering. — 0 thru 9

I am just trying to be honest with myself - and - I do not always find it easy to do. I do not want to claim more intellectual territory than I can logically hold onto.

This is still a projection of how we see these concepts. — Noble Dust

This is very true - that's what science does - project based upon data.

I would say abstract thought begins in Greek philosophy, especially Aristotle. I don't think of art as being the birth of abstract thought. It's more like the birth of representational thought. — Noble Dust

If you look at the cave painting of half human - half animal - I would say this is abstract. There is a 40,000 year old sculpture in mammoth ivory, 6 feet tall, with a lion head and human body.

If we can see them saying – they are going to an after-life – can’t we assume there is also a place before life?
— Thinker

I'm not sure what you mean. — Noble Dust

If they are thinking about an after-life, there must be some conception of what happens before life begins.

I have to think they are talking metaphysics.
— Thinker

No they're not because the concept of metaphysics didn't exist. — Noble Dust

The idea of an after-life is a metaphysical thought.

Does man need God?... – absolutely.
— Thinker

Why? If we're an experiment, why not say "fuck you, God"? I'd rather not exist than be God's pet experiment. — Noble Dust

I am sorry you feel angry - that is not what I was hoping for.

First I don't think it makes sense to refer to something at all if you're not prepared to attempt to define it. You admit that we can "speculate-hypothesize-imagine"; it is obvious that we do not know (or at least know that we know), but do you allow that we are able to form more or less reasonable judgements concerning the quality of our various imaginings, speculations and hypotheses?

Even in saying that God is completely beyond our ken, you are claiming to know, or at least have good reason to believe, something about him. — John

I think we constantly do define God – we cannot help ourselves. In fact I believe we are neurotically obsessed with defining God – all of us. My point is that we need to observe ourselves doing it – and – realize how silly it is. I am not saying we should not do it – just be aware of our projection. For example – you refer to God as “him”. If God is omnipotent – don’t you think God can be a female? If I were God I would want to experience giving birth, death – moving around the Earth as a worm. Why not?

I know about God because I can feel it. I know about fire because I can feel it; but do I really know what fire is? I can talk about chemistry, physics and my experience; but there are limitations to my knowing. I can talk about you, John, but do I really know you? I think you are intelligent, respectful, inquisitive being, but I do not really know you. I am saying – know your limitations. I try to refer to God as “it”; however, I am sure I say “him” somewhere in my dialog. This is my cultural programing coming out. As a philosopher, I am trying to overcome my own limitations and try for a better grasp. I want a more satisfactory, comfortable knowing. This is the best I can do and be honest. If I am going to be true to myself – I must not bend my logic to fit a popular notion. I must be consistent, honest; even if it hurts – even if it is limiting. I want my ideas to go through the crucible of fire – I want the best steel of thought.

He might be beyond your ken, but how could you know that he is beyond the ken of others? — John

I think this is a very good point; one I do not disagree with. However, if someone tells me that Trump is a great president – I look at Trump and then I look at them. When I reconcile the two – things don’t add up for me. The same is true when someone tells me God is a certain way because of the bible. For example, I look at the bible and see things like the following:

Deuteronomy 21:18-21King James Version (KJV)

18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

I cannot take this thinking seriously – it sounds like Trump talking to me. There are a lot of great things in many bibles, but all of them have an abundance of not so great things. Am I supposed to cherry pick and ignore the fallacies and falsehoods? I cannot do that and be true to myself. I feel forced to conclude it is not a divine inspiration.

I feel the same way when the man on the street comes up to me and says – “God talked to me and told me the end is near”. Immediately I am on guard. People have an agenda like - David Koresh – Jim Jones – Muhammad – Jesus – me - and you. I feel obligated to take each person, including myself, on a case by case basis. In reality I have to take each statement I make on a case by case basis. I can never be certain that I am not bending the truth. If I am honest, and I want to be, I have seem myself change the facts to fit the fiction on more than one occasion.

My definitive explanation of what is God is beyond my ken. However, my definitive experience and feeling of God is not. I know fire exists and I will not be told otherwise – I feel the same way about God.

I'm always hesitant about these reconstructions of what things were like within human consciousness (presumably) at the dawn of history (as opposed to pre-history). Consciousness "evolves" (that's a metaphor) in a way where we need to try to place ourselves in the state of consciousness that those people might have been in at the time, rather than to assume they were asking the same questions we ask now (where do we come from? etc). — Noble Dust

I agree it is hard to know exactly what our ancient ancestors were thinking. Although, we do have some great clues that speak to our ancient ancestors intentions. The biggest clues are burials. The earliest undisputed human burial dates back 100,000 years. In the Skhul cave at Qafzeh, Israel - skeletal remains stained with red ochre were discovered and a variety of grave goods, including the mandible of a wild boar in the arms of one of the skeletons. Putting valuable objects and decorations speaks to a ritual. A ritual, especially in relation to the dead, speaks to a religion. We do not know specifically what the religion was; but these burials point to an after-life. 50 to 60 thousand years ago we begin to see art. Art tells us about abstract thought. It may be primitive, but it is a symbolic abstraction. If we can see them saying – they are going to an after-life – can’t we assume there is also a place before life? Language is also starting in this same time frame. I have to think they are talking metaphysics.

Who has the greater need here – Man or God?
— Thinker

I don't see this as an important question, because I don't feel the need to question the hierarchy of God over man. — Noble Dust

I think I posed this question the wrong way. It should be two separate questions. Does man need God? Does God need man? The answer to the first question is – absolutely. The answer to the second question is – maybe. Let’s assume for a moment that God created man as a kind of experiment. It wants to see if we can evolve into something worthy. It sets the stage, primes the pump and off we go into the wild blue yonder. Now God, the scientist, is taking notes. Do you think this scientist has just one experiment - us? Like Carl Sagan said – billions and billions – seems more like it. How important does that make us to God?

I do not think it is realistic or honest for humans to define God. I think we can speculate – hypothesize – imagine – but in the final analysis – we do not know. I think God is beyond our ken. I cannot take any religious bibles seriously. I find them insulting, disingenuous, fallacious and most importantly coercive.

Were the earliest religions a scheme to get money? — Noble Dust

When we talk about the earliest religions, I think we have to go back to the cave. What I mean is – why do we ask ourselves religious questions? We ask ourselves ontological questions because we are insecure. As soon as humans began to speak we asked questions of our origin. Also of importance is to recognize who asked the ontological questions? The first person to ask – where do we come from – set the stage for religion. The next person to answer that question was a sage – priest – shaman – philosopher. This is the earliest church and there was probably not any quid pro quo. The motivation to answer the question of how we got here, was, and is to calm our fears – reduce our jitters.

Ok, so back in the cave, who was the most important person? I would answer the biggest, strongest dude. He could protect and hunt the best; also he could kick your ass. Who was the second most important person? I would say the shaman because he could chase the boogeyman away. Over time these people really did become leaders with a privileged position in society. In time, as the saying goes, absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is where the quid pro quo comes in. It never seems to fail in the human experience – give a man an inch and he will take a mile.

I don’t think all religions are corrupt and I do believe religion has a function. The boogeyman still exists and we need a legislative body to propagate our morality and ethics. I think all people are philosophers, but only a very few actually realize that they are and then only a very few of those few – practice it. Most people are sheep and need a shepherd for their flock. That’s why churches persist and flourish. Even Russia and China have churches of a kind – the state and other institutions. Religion will never leave us – hopefully it will evolve.

God's revelation to man is the first half of the equation; divine revelation by nature is existential; it involves a human subject: the recipient of revelation, and that's where the Divine-Human link exists. God's revelation to man needs to be consummated by man's revelation to God. — Noble Dust

In the Jewish Mystic Kabbalah there is a concept that God is not perfect. It is the idea that we must help God to perfect the universe – Tikkun Olam. I have always liked this idea because it gives us a purpose/function. In the Abrahamic religions God talked to certain people. Who were these people? They were dessert sheep herders. Were their ideas very sophisticated? No, they were not and I doubt any of them talked to God. Did Joseph Smith of the Mormons talk to God? I don’t think so. Does God need a purpose? I don’t know – it is not responding to my emails – yet I am still hopeful. Who has the greater need here – Man or God?

BTW, what do you think happened to god at the time of the incarnation? — Bitter Crank

If you are referring to Jesus - I don't think he knew more about God than other holy men. God does not talk to humans directly in my view - ever. All bibles are man-made. Most religion is not spirituality - it is a confidence game to get your allegiance and then your money. If you are spiritual you do not need a church or someone else’s thoughts to represent yours. Spirituality is an experience and can happen anywhere or time – to anyone. Anytime someone tells you they have talked to God – escape quietly – less they attack you with their delusional righteousness. God does not need us – quite the contrary – we need God. Or perhaps I should say we desire God. We are almost nothing to God – a speck of dust. If our sun blows up – I doubt we will be missed. What is our consequence in the scheme of things? There are probably billions of other beings much more advanced than us. Do you think we are one of God’s favorites? People wish for heaven because they are not satisfied how they have lived this life. Heaven is here – now – don’t miss the boat. I don’t know much about God – what ethics and morals it has – I cannot say – other than to say I like the laws of physics. I know the ethics and morals of man – it is not always very pretty – many times sad.

These problems can be resolved to our satisfaction if we have the nerve to stand up and say, "This doesn't make sense!" Clarify god as you wish, then prepare to be crucified. — Bitter Crank

I find this to be a pretty bold statement. I will tell you how God is clarified to me. God sets the stage for the universe. First and foremost it does not consult me. I am not sure if it has any buddies and/or friends. It does not communicate to me its existence directly. However, I intuit a very nicely formed universe. Things are very nicely and well put together – too well for it to be a coincidence. A nice planet, atmosphere, shinning sun, plenty of water – although it is getting a little foul in places and we are running out of fish that we want to eat. Is the water and fish God’s fault? No – anyway, in addition, we have this great facility called consciousness. Very convenient to have consciousness - and - to go along with it we have another great facility called emotion. Emotion seems to give us a degree of freedom to choose. Most things around us constrain our choices, but emotions allow a degree of choice. The greatest of emotions is of course love. What would be the point of living without love? My clarification of God is that all these things – given – are not coincidence. There is a divine hand – somewhere. I tell you – after I have had a prolonged still mind – I feel the presence of God. Can I prove God exists – NO – but I can feel it. I am now ready to be crucified.

What does talking about something that no one knows about have to do with what I was talking about though? — Terrapin Station

Ok – I am done having the dog walk me………….

I like the moniker of Noble Dust. It seems like a person that calls itself a small being in relation to the universe, but noble. However, I think of our entire planet as Noble Dust in relation to everything else – and noble - just a thought.

Time, by itself does not have volition or so most of us think. Change that happens coincidentally with time does not have volition – presumably for most change. Both are just things that happen everywhere. However, change which happens in relation to us may have volition connected with it. It is connected through our perception and/or initiation of action. So, change is a multidimensional thing. However time is still just time or so it seems.

However, what if change and time are initiated by God? Then our understanding becomes a bit more complex. Change and time are very handy phenomenon’s that have been placed in play. I don’t think we can definitively answer whether change and time are initiated by God or not. The puzzle, though, still remains before us. So, as philosophers what are we to do? I think the best rule of thumb is to work from what we know.

Did my dog walk me or vice versa? It is a matter of perspective – is it not? When I say - “do you want to go for a walk?” My dog says – ruff – ruff and wags her tail. I imagine she is thinking – “Oh, I going to take this guy on a long hard walk”. I get the leash and off we go, both of us content we are leading the adventure. I think both of us are right. Our phenomenology may be different, but both are valid respectively. My dog has great consciousness and intelligence – many times greater than mine. Should I lecture my dog that there is no God or that there is a God? What’s the point? I know I love my dog and that she loves me – I don’t care if she believes in God or not.

Answer my question and I'll answer yours — Noble Dust

I missed your question? My bad - I thought I was replying to Terrapin Station. Please answer both because I am not sure where we are going?

I have to walk my dog...............

Why "that no one knows about"? — Terrapin Station

The tree is symbolic of the vast number of things happening in the universe of which we are unaware. Things that change over time which in relation to us is almost everything. What is the significance of these changes that we are not aware of ?

The issue is the subject matter, not the perspective. — Terrapin Station

So tell me about the tree falling in the forest that nobody knows about? What is the significance of this tree?

Yeah, when you think about change in your life, but don't be so self-centered. Not everything is about you, or about people in general. — Terrapin Station

From whose perspective do you want me to think from? Yours – the rock. I cannot get out of my skin. This is the only place I have to think.

You can know about something like a rock, say,. The rock isn't you. How you know about it--your perception, etc., isn't the same thing as what you know about (the rock.). — Terrapin Station

Sorry - I am not clear about what you are saying.

No, change is just things in motion/in process, etc. That would obtain whether there were any creatures to do any observing. — Terrapin Station

I know when a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to see it – the tree still falls. However when I think of change in my life – it is things I observe.

?? I don't think we're at all talking about the same thing. You can know about things that aren't you. That's not the same as how you know about them. — Terrapin Station

Sorry - I am not clear about what you are saying.

I think if time were simply change, neither of us would be as interested in it as we are. Indeed, you've given a remarkably uninteresting account of it. Fair enough. If you'd like to elaborate, I'd like to consider. I think the concept includes something extra that is inextricably to do with us. — Roke

Time by itself does not seem to have awareness. However change implies a perceiver – a watcher.

I don't know why that would be, unless you're conflating what you know about with how you know it. — Terrapin Station

I don’t think it is a conflation because I can think about my thinking. Or I can think about not thinking which would be to me – not thinking. Not thinking is a still mind, however I am aware. I am conscious. I am aware of not having thoughts. I just am. I have never experienced – not being – or at least I am not aware of it. Perhaps I have been at some time in my life, but I am not aware of it. By definition it seems I should not be able to be aware of nothing.

But again, I mean independent of us. Imagine we don't exist at all. I don't think it's the case that everything necessarily has a cause in that situation. — Terrapin Station

I find this “image” to be beyond my ability. Unless you mean something like what Noble Dust and I were talking about a still mind – outside of time. We don’t know about a lot of things and we certainly know nothing about – “nothing”.

The part you're not saying anything about is the interesting part - the extent to which time is something about us. To me, that's more or less the distinction between time and change. Time is a specific category of change; changes we notice. How this mechanism of 'noticing' works, its thresholds, its limitations in either direction, seems like the key to understanding, and perhaps manipulating, time's "speed". — Roke

I find this to be a very good inquiry.

Not at all. It's just that I don't buy that there is necessarily a cause for everything. I don't think there's any good reason to believe that. — Terrapin Station

I think that is a fair assessment, because most of the universe exists independent of our knowledge of how it got here. However, I think it is incumbent upon us to ask as much as we are able – and to continue to ask.

I've had experiences that involve the perception of not experiencing change. — Noble Dust

I have had this experience too - I call it a still mind.

Where does it come from? The fact that things aren't static. There's no reason to believe that something caused that in my opinion. It's just the way things are. It's a brute fact about the world — Terrapin Station

Ok – time is change – no argument from me. It just is, the universe just is – is your argument that we should not ask why it is? In philosophy we ask incessantly – why? Or sometimes we ask – why not? Are you trying to say we should not ask why time exists? Or why things change? We always seem to be plagued with questions of ontology. I like the questions – I like the dance. The questions and answers give us pause and sometimes enrichment. The original thread is about Ignosticism. To quote:

“Ignosticism or igtheism is the idea that every theological position assumes too much about the concept of God and other theological concepts; including (but not limited to) concepts of faith, spirituality, heaven, hell, afterlife, damnation, salvation, sin and the soul.
Ignosticism is the view that any religious term or theological concept presented must be accompanied by a coherent definition.”

I think we should add your idea about time and change to this mix. However, Ignosticism insists that “any religious term or theological concept presented must be accompanied by a coherent definition.” And I would add and/or – explanation. So we are trying to explain or define a theology and/or anti-theology. So we are back to talking about God or anti-God.

Anyway, re time, which is something I'm much more interested in, it's identical to change on my view, so it's incoherent to say that one can have a timeless experience. To have an experience you must be aware of or think this, then that, etc., and those are changes, that is time. — Terrapin Station

I had to reread your first post in this thread to get a sense of what you are talking about - my bad. I think time and change go hand in hand; but the question arises - what is time - where does it come from? Who, what, when caused time – where does it come from? This seems like an ontological question. If it is ontological; are we not talking about God again? So, perhaps you do have an interest in God?

I'm not primarily saying something about us. — Terrapin Station

OK - what are you saying?

I explained everything you need to know already. — Terrapin Station

I guess I missed something - can you explain what it was?

Now here's a sermon i can't quibble with... — 0 thru 9

A great video clip!

Obviously I want to post. I enjoy philosophy discussions on the Internet. I just keep hoping that (a) we could be more (inter)active, and (b) we could talk about a much wider variety of topics. — Terrapin Station

I guess I am confused. You say you want to talk philosophy and yet you come into a discussion about Ignosticism and say you don’t want to talk about it. Are there not enough other subjects that you can dance with? You also have the prerogative to start another thread on anything you wish. Do you want to censor our discussion of Ignosticism? Or do you want to change the focus to “talk about a much wider variety of topics”? I have broadened the focus some on the idea of insecurity as it relates to God – human beings – life. Are you being insecure? Why do you think we talk about God too much?

But in all honesty, it seems like most of them are permanently camped out on very thin ice. — 0 thru 9

I think this statement gets to the heart of the matter. It begs the question of why we are on the ice. It seems the human intellect has a preoccupation with the divine. Whether you are for – against – or just don’t care; is not the point. The point is why do we think about it at all? We think about it because we are insecure. Then we formulate and/or adhere to a formulation that addresses our insecurity. Well, why are we insecure? We are insecure, quite simply, because we do not know very much. What we do know is being bombarded by questions and accusations from every quarter. We even question ourselves – constantly – or we reassure ourselves - constantly. Hence, we are insecure by nature, circumstance, conditioning and disposition. The human intellect seems jittery or nervous about many things.

So the safe thing to do is to analyze it and come up with theology. Rules, ways of thinking about the experience in ways that define and categorize. But this process kills the life of the spirit. Or rather, it kills our perception of that life. — Noble Dust

I think this is a very fine point – well taken. Even if you are an atheist, you have expended a lot of energy developing an “anti-theology” to defend how you feel. The time and energy is very revealing. Is there anybody who never thinks about God – pro or con? I do not know, I have not run across such a person. The human intellect is consumed with organizing, classifying and defining itself – to itself – and then to others. We want to know who we are – and we don’t. Then, when we get a sense that we don’t know what we are telling ourselves is valid – we begin a dialog with others in an attempt to convince ourselves. Isn’t this what I am doing right now?

Apparently religion/spirituality/etc. is a very major concern for quite lot of people, but I have little interest in it. — Terrapin Station

It seems you spend a lot of time and energy on something that you have little interest in?

Yes, that is an excellent description of the delicacy of the situation, imho. The molten lava of the experience cools and turns into rock, becomes the ground, or even an entire island. Which is natural and useful. We can build our hut and our village upon it, and share a common understanding and foundation with our neighbors. Meanwhile, the shaman remembers the powerful volcano, even though it looks like just a sleepy peaceful mountain. — 0 thru 9

No one wants to be homeless. We all seek shelter from the "storms" of life. The weather is constantly changing, just like our thoughts. We build intellectual edifices to shelter us from our own thought storms. Isn’t that why we are here now - talking?

So...to maximise our chances for everlasting happiness, should we spend our lives chasing money at all cost or do some other stuff? What do you think? — AXF

Follow your bliss.................