In Search of God

Jacob-B

My doubts about Theism. aa

Some time ago I read a well-argued article against atheism. The author pointed out that one cannot disprove the physical existence of God. To do that one would need to search throughout the whole fabric of spacetime, past, present, and future to establish the absence of God. That argument can, of course, extend to any mythical creature; gryphons, unicorns .., but let's ignore that for the moment. Such search is only meaningful if one assumes the existence of God as some sort physical entity and I am ready to accept that the argument demolishes the certainty about the non-existence of God. One could, of course, argue about the relevance to mankind of a God whose existence requires such a search but lets ignore that too.

I think that many theists would dismiss the purpose of the search for God as a physical entity, pointing out to his existence in a realm beyond the physical. However, such a search cannot be dismissed by the Abrahamic faiths. All three of them ask us op believe in miracles. Miracles require the use of some physical mechanism to impact on the physical world. Parting the sea, Resurrection, curing of diseases and . of course, Creation itself requires God to step into the physical world and use physical processes. By implication, whenever a miracle happened God is present in the physical realm and has to acts in accordance with the laws of nature.

In summary: miracles require physical acts by a physical entity. The alternative is God the Conjurer. Consequently, the search for God in the physical realm might not be as absurd as it sounds.

Mariner

the search for God in the physical realm might not be as absurd as it sounds. — Jacob-B

It would be better phrased as, "the search for God's influence [or, effects] in the physical realm might not be as absurd as it sounds." Since the God of the Abrahamic faiths is, by definition, spirit (i.e., not a body), hence, not to be found in the physical realm.

It is important to note that the Abrahamic advance (over polytheism) is the principle that God is not to be confused with any physical manifestation (the Sun, warlust, sex, etc. were typical examples of divine manifestations). The Elijah sequence (1 Kings 19:11-13) is the most succinct presentation of that principle. And the epistemological result of that principle is that God is to be found within the soul of the seeker, rather than elsewhere.

The common arguments about "physical evidence for God" assume a model of the human being that is neatly divided between subject and object, between observation/inference and creativity. But the issue is not so simple -- and that is the most cogent answer to any argument about physical evidence. Concepts such as "evidence", "information", "data", "meaning", are not as simple as they sound.

Frank Apisa

It is important to note that the Abrahamic advance (over polytheism) is the principle that... — Mariner

Two questions, if I may:

One...why do you consider the Abrahamic tradition (which you apparently see to be monotheism) to be an "advance" over polytheism...

...and two...why do you consider the "Abrahamic" tradition to be monotheistic.

For the record, I see no reason to suppose monotheism to be an advancement over polytheism...and I cannot see any reason to suppose the "Abrahamic" tradition is monotheistic.

Louco

One could, of course, argue about the relevance to mankind of a God whose existence requires such a search but lets ignore that too. — Jacob-B

I think you threw the baby with the bath water here. Perhaps more important than knowing the truth about the existence of god, we should ask ourselves what is the right way of living.

If there is nothing beyond materialism, we should live according to the material limits of our existence. In other words, religion would be a waste of our time.

If there is a spirit, and it doesn't miraculously manifest itself regularly (so that we may deduce its existance whenever we doubt), then it wants us to work things out as if it didn't exist. What better way to do such a thing then to simply not waste time with religion?

If there is a spirit, and it doesn't manifest, and it wants us live religiously despite the lack of evidence, then such a spirit has created a prison of the mind. One would have to imagine the spirit and believe in one's imagination. In such case we should rebel against the warden, and what better way than ignoring religion?

However I see it, not having religion seems to me the right way to live.

Gnostic Christian Bishop

the search for God in the physical realm might not be as absurd as it sounds. — Jacob-B

When one does seek god in the physical realm, --- the verdict must be against god's existence, if we view all the evidence for and against.

God id said to be Omni-present. I am looking about and he or she is not here and thus that is a small piece of evidence against god's existence and that small evidence for non-existence is more than what theists have come up with for their side.

Regards
DL

Gnostic Christian Bishop

However I see it, not having religion seems to me the right way to live. — Louco

I cannot agree due to the fact that I see religions as tribal groups that take advantage of our tribal instincts that crave fellowship.

Even atheists are recognizing this fact and are opening atheist churches so as to appease this instinct in their children and give their children an alternative to the supernatural idiotic thinking of the mainstream religions.

Statism is all many need for their tribal thinking but many want the fellowship of local churches for the more direct fellowship and basically, a place to be buried in the traditional family plots.

Regards
DL

Louco

I cannot agree — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Yeah, you are right. I should have written that having no religion is the right way for a man of knowledge, but of course there are the unwashed masses who need shiny trinkets.

I stand corrected. Thank you!

Gnostic Christian Bishop

Yeah, you are right. I should have written that having no religion is the right way for a man of knowledge, but of course there are the unwashed masses who need shiny trinkets. — Louco

Oops.
What I put on tribalism fellowship and our instincts went right over your head.

Perhaps my favorite social scientist can educate you where I failed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T64_El2s7FU

Regards
DL

Louco

Perhaps my favorite social scientist can educate you where I failed. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Sorry, I couldn't get past the halfway mark on that video, because it is very constructive in its style, and I am uninterested on its theme.

Genes and natural selection are relevant for the evolution of the species, sure, but I don't think they are relevant for the pursuits of the man of knowledge.

The man of knowledge searches for wisdom relentlessly, and language and its memes are just another layer upon which he reflects on the nature of being.

So I get it that memes (and even more basally, instincts) might enslave the masses, but we men of knowledge are above that in the sense that we know about and consider questions about such constraints.

Gnostic Christian Bishop

Wisdom is based on knowledge, and one cannot reach his height of wisdom if he ignore verifiable knowledge.

Instincts guide us from birth on. They create our love and hate biases.

To not consider instincts, especially the tribal instincts that religions use to enslave the gullible, when dithering things out about religions, is not a good idea. You would be ignoring a key piece of the puzzle.

A piece that has good people idol worshiping vile and immoral gods.

Regards
DL

Louco

Wisdom is based on knowledge, and one cannot reach his height of wisdom if he ignore verifiable knowledge. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

One century ago, people didn't know about a ton of verifiable knowledge we now know, and that did not impede them to attain wisdom.

Instincts guide us from birth on. They create our love and hate biases. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

You are creating a psychology there. Would you say that thought is a substrate upon which instincts are built, or the other way around?

Gnostic Christian Bishop

You are creating a psychology there. — Louco

No sir. Just reporting the facts, as described in this link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LIb22-5Lwg

Would you say that thought is a substrate upon which instincts are built, or the other way around? — Louco

I think that our instincts are (written) in our genes. I guess that our thinking is involves as situations and our responses, positive or negative, must be evaluated before our minds tell our bodies what to do.

Regards
DL

Louco

I think that our instincts are (written) in our genes. I guess that our thinking is involves as situations and our responses, positive or negative, must be evaluated before our minds tell our bodies what to do. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Your writing is incomprehensible. Perhaps you meant "our thinking is involved, as situations and our responses, positive or negative, must be evaluated before our minds tell our bodies what to do."

So would it be fair to say that you think the mind is a instinct interpretation machine? If so, what is the role of imagination in your psychology?

leo

Your writing is incomprehensible. Perhaps you meant "our thinking is involved, as situations and our responses, positive or negative, must be evaluated before our minds tell our bodies what to do." — Louco

To be fair to him, you only changed one letter and added a comma.

My atheist church is known colloquially as the pub. Instead of the body and blood of Christ, they have beer and crisps. Actually, come to think of it, they have the blood of Christ, too. Bottles and bottles of the stuff.

To be fair to him, you only changed one letter and added a comma. — leo

:rofl:

Gnostic Christian Bishop

If so, what is the role of imagination in your psychology? — Louco

I guess that it's role is to try to dither out, before choosing a love or hate bias, what the various options are so as to select the one most likely to give the best possible end.

As that link posits, our selfish gene's map is just a rough sketch and our imaginations seem to try to fill in more accurate paths.

I have yet to see any study of a child's imagination so take the above as pure speculation.

Regards
DL

Gnostic Christian Bishop

To be fair to him, you only changed one letter and added a comma. — leo

I noticed that.

I am French and am not surprised when criticised for my English.

Regards
DL

Louco

I guess that it's role is to try to dither out, before choosing a love or hate bias, what the various options are so as to select the one most likely to give the best possible end. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

That makes sense for a set of activities: decisions. But the intellectual life is full of thoughts, images, desires, inopportune thoughts, beliefs, memories, half-remembered faces, in summary, the mind is a tornado of mental things and the imagination is the stem through which many of these things go through.

To relegate imagination to a "filler of options" role is to lack imagination.

Gnostic Christian Bishop

Louco — Louco

I see it as showing a lot of imagination. Selecting the best scenario out of what is imagined.

You do not like my reply or answer yet do not posit anything better.

Have you heard of Freud and Jung's Father complex?

I think that that is where our basic instincts are stored and evaluated by our minds.

Regards
DL

How's the search going?

Nothing yet? That's what I thought. But keep searching. Maybe if you search hard enough you'll deceive yourself into thinking you've discovered God, the angels, and the heavens above. I discovered that I was in fact a billionaire with looks that would put Brad Pitt to shame at his peak that way.

Gnostic Christian Bishop

Nothing yet? — S

That is not correct.

We do not define god the same way.

Stevan Davies. The savior is not a celestial being brought to earth; the savior is a capacity of the mind, and the savior’s journey from above is actually one’s own journey from within.

John Lennon. It seems to me that the only true Christians were the Gnostics, who believed in self-knowledge, I.E. becoming Gods themselves, reaching the Christ within, the light is the truth. Turn on the light. All the better to see you my dear.

Regards
DL

whollyrolling

Okay, two things. The first is that God has in every case been described, either as a physical thing or series of physical things or as something that exists in all things, and God has yet to describe itself. The second is that something that has no physical manifestation doesn't need to be evidenced until it has manifested--until then, it's a puff of "aether" with no impact on reality.

Banno

If God existed, its existence would presumably be omnipresent - apparent and undeniable.

And yet, its existence is denied.

Jacob-B

↪Mariner

What you described is the enlightened vision of God. But, it is not the established view of the monotheistic religions (not to mention their folkloristic versions) Think of the plethora of angles, the Host, demons, saints, and miracles. That makes God look like a commander in chief, taking an active part in the fortunes of individuals and humankind as a whole, actually; micromanaging our planet. If God exists in that capacity he has to be found somewhere in the physical realm.

Jacob-B

What you described is the enlightened vision of God. But, it is not the established view of the monotheistic religions (not to mention their folkloristic versions) Think of the plethora of angles, the Host, demons, saints, and miracles. That makes God look like a commander in chief, taking an active part in the fortunes of individuals and humankind as a whole, actually; micromanaging our planet. If God exists in that capacity he has to be found somewhere in the physical realm.

Louco

↪Jacob-B

What if god micromanages only irrelevant stuff, like the number of folds a curtain has when being softly blown by the wind, how many pigeons coo at a specific time near your window, the shape of clouds, the pixelization of your screen when the tv transmissions bugs out, in summary, only idiotic things. Then even though there is a layer of divine controlling everything, it strives to remain hidden. Like if the secular world was a masquerade, and guessing out the divine behind the mask was the first significative step towards a religious awakening.
Well then it would be the case that there is a hyperactive god but it won't be found in the physical realm: it covers its tracks.
Also, reality may be like a TiVo to the deities: they pause and rewind and replay at will, and can tinker with the frames when they think its cool. Since they keep their miracles to the times while reality is not running, we don't experience them.

Mariner

↪Jacob-B

No, I described the established Christian view. If you disagree, you should give some sources.

Note, the "plethora of angels, demons, the Host (?), saints, miracles" does not contradict what I presented. And if you believe they do, elaborate on the reasons why you think that.

Finally, your objection is unrelated to the original concern of the OP (whether God can be discerned through examinations of the physical realm). The question is independent of the reality of angels, demons, saints, or miracles.

That is not correct.

We do not define god the same way.

Stevan Davies. The savior is not a celestial being brought to earth; the savior is a capacity of the mind, and the savior’s journey from above is actually one’s own journey from within.

John Lennon. It seems to me that the only true Christians were the Gnostics, who believed in self-knowledge, I.E. becoming Gods themselves, reaching the Christ within, the light is the truth. Turn on the light. All the better to see you my dear.

Regards
DL — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Where did my "toaster" comment go? There was nothing wrong with it.

The point was that my only objection to that would be that it misses the point. The point is what people argue over, and they don't argue over the capacity of the mind, they argue over the celestial being. You're just redefining religious terms from the way that they're more commonly understood to a way that's agreeable to an atheist, so as to cling on to them, whereas I reject that.

The toaster comment was just a way of making that clear. It's not good to declare that you've discovered God, and then have small print saying that, "Oh, by the way, by 'God', I don't mean what you think I mean, but rather something uncontroversial you'll readily accept, in spite of your atheism".

Gnostic Christian Bishop

It's not good to declare that you've discovered God, — S

So say the unenlightened.

Regards
DL

Gnostic Christian Bishop

it's a puff of "aether" with no impact on reality. — whollyrolling

If only that were true. Unfortunately, the sheeple insure an impact on reality by preaching their homophobic and misogynous ways and creating a lot of harm for women and gays in the real world.

Regards
DL

In Search of God

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions