A "building" doesn't exist naturally. Much less the empire State building. There is no natural concept of "building" or of "tree" inherent in nature. These concepts arise from human categorization. Thus the question "does God exist" is a perfectly yes/no question. The empire State building is a concept not dependent on our definition of atoms. If the empire State building is transported back in time to ancient Rome the ancient Romans would still say it exists despite knowing nothing about atoms. The empire State building is a name for a certain configuration of shapes, sizes and materials so yes it exists even if it is 99.999% empty space. Similarly god is defined as a sentient being with omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience (usually) so whether or not such an entity exists is a yes or no question.

So maybe what you're engaged in, is a kind of 'reimagining' of what the original intuition was before it became encoded in the cultural tropes of what we now see as 'religion' (as I myself have devoted a lot of time to.) — Wayfarer

That's a good one sentence summary of what I'd hoped to accomplish.

However, I must admit that such a hope is illogical given that there is no market for reimagining such ancient constructs. From Nobel prize winners down to stoned college sophomores everyone is comfortable with the rules of the God debate game as it is currently configured. Nobody really cares that those rules are built upon nothing but air, they just want to play the game. Theists will keep chanting their stuff, atheists will keep chanting theirs, and everyone is happy with this pattern as it is.

Although that pattern seems a hopelessly repetitive and fatally boring process to this reader, it does have it's own logic given that life is short, thus fun is good, and the God debate game in it's currently illogical configuration has been proven to be fun for many.

Challenging the God debate on a philosophy forum might be compared to challenging the divinity of Jesus on a Jehovah's Witness forum. Yes, a clever person might be able to present devastating logical arguments, but the effort itself is not logical because it will accomplish nothing other than stir up pointless unproductive controversy, or just bore the audience to sleep. The logical thing to do in such a circumstance would be to simply leave the Jehovah's Witnesses in peace to do what they find necessary.

An example...

Consider the avant garde jazz musician who is reimagining the musical scale and chord structure. Such a reinventing of the musical wheel is fascinating to the musician, but....

What the audience wants are songs they already know, tunes they can sing along with.

The illogical jazz musician tries to shove his new form of music down the audience's throat, and winds up working as a door greeter at Walmart.

The logical jazz musician covers the same old classic American standards every jazz band covers and perhaps some Beatles tunes. Now the audience is happy and the musician can make a living playing music.

Most people, theist and atheist, have little real interest in thinking such topics through for themselves. And should they have such an interest they probably don't have the ability. And so, by and large, generally speaking, people on all sides of such questions typically develop "their" position by reference to some trusted authority. Theists will reference their religious traditions, atheists will reference science or perhaps popular speakers such as Christopher Hitchens, and so on. Having absorbed some collection of concepts from the larger culture the person will then typically rebrand the ideas they've inherited as "my position".

This process might raise the question, how does one become an authority that others reference? And the answer is simple. Just like the jazz musician above, one becomes an authority by giving some sizable number of folks whatever it is they want.

The Catholic Church is 2,000 years old, is a trusted authority for many, because it excels at giving large numbers of people what they seek. Christopher Hitchens was a popular speaker because he too delivered a product that many in the public wished to consume.

In the end it is the audience who determines who the authorities are, and...

The audience isn't actually all that interested in the issue.

everyone is happy with this pattern as it is. — Jake

A lot of people but not everyone.

And I write jazz, myself. Jazz is continually being reinvented and reimagined. Avantgarde has always been a minority movement in a minority art form. And one becomes a jazz musician by - well, you have to have some talent - but also by loving the art, and by living it. Those who created the art form in the first place aren’t necessarily ‘authorities’ so much as archetypes.

And why so negative? What’s point of starting a thread like this if it only turns out to be sour grapes? :angry:

Similarly god is defined as a sentient being with omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience (usually) so whether or not such an entity exists is a yes or no question. — khaled

But it can be argued it is weighted towards 'no' because the 3Os seem unlikely (so inductive evidence against the proposition is built into the proposition).

Contrast that to the question 'was the universe created?' - this is a true 50/50 proposition. The less demands you place on God, the more likely his existence is I think.

A lot of people but not everyone. — Wayfarer

Ok, fair enough, so introduce me to those who are challenging the foundations of the God debate. You're clearly more broadly educated on such subjects than I, so I welcome your input.

And why so negative? What’s point of starting a thread like this if it only turns out to be sour grapes? — Wayfarer

Is the above commentary negative? Or is it just inconveniently accurate?

That said, there never was a point to starting a thread like this, and I knew that before doing so, so any disappointment I might experience is entirely my own problem. Seriously.

I'm a typoholic, and I'm compelled beyond reason to type such things somewhere. If you can help me find a more appropriate place to type them, I'm all ears.

That said, the most rational thing I could probably do is to just let all this go. Working on that, making little bits of progress here and there.

Ok, fair enough, so introduce me to those who are challenging the foundations of the God debate. You're clearly more broadly educated on such subjects than I, so I welcome your input. — Jake

Well, that’s what we’re doing here. I thought the videos you posted made some good points. I hope you looked at the John Hick article. There are many interesting people and centres and schools exploring this space. I agree that there are many people that fall into one side or another but no need walk away, just take a breather from time to time and let things percolate.

Thank you for your encouragement, as I clearly need it from time to time.

There are many interesting people and centres and schools exploring this space. — Wayfarer

------------

Ok, so one direction we might explore is...

If we wipe theism and atheism off the table, who is left?

------------

Another issue of interest here is the structure of authority. Is it true that authority is assigned by merit, or is it more true that authority is more a product of a competitive cultural marketplace, where whoever does the best job of giving the audience whatever it is they want is rewarded with authority?

Let's imagine some hypothetical expert who for convenience sake I will name "The Genius". Let's imagine that The Genius understands these topics far better than any of us, me and you included. Let's imagine for the sake of this thought experiment that The Genius has indeed arrived at the truth of the matter.

Under what conditions would the The Genius be assigned authority? To be less "negative" I'll use myself as an example.

Like many of us here, I'm pretty emotionally attached to my pet ideas. So, does The Genius validate anything I've been publicly stating? If he/she doesn't, will I be interested? What if what the Genius reveals demonstrates in a convincing manner that nothing I've been saying for years has any value and my posts have all been a big waste of time, fueled primarily by my ego, a not unreasonable theory. What then? Will I surrender everything I've spent a lifetime building and embrace The Genius?

If I am truly interested in the topic I would so surrender. But am I truly interested in the topic, or only in "my position" on the topic?

If The Genius can't or won't deliver what the audience wants to hear, will they become an authority? Or will cultural authorities, like successful businessmen, always be those who excel at satisfying the customer?

Wayfarer
7.2k

I would phrase it that most of the time we don't think things through for ourselves but rather reference some authority, typically some slice of the group consensus. — Jake


I went through a strong rejection phase against any form of organised religion and what I saw as 'consensus reality'. But my views have softened, because I have begun to appreciate the vast diversity and depth of the Christian tradition. It encompasses all kinds of perspectives, some dogmatic and brutal, others refined and nuanced.

Second, and I'm certainly not claiming any attainments, I have had epiphanies of sorts at various times of my life. Of course the implications of these are extremely hard to communicate, and I find that when I try to do so, I'm often completely misunderstood. But I make the point because I think such episodes have opened up perspectives about these questions which cast them in a new light.

A somewhat tongue-in-cheek illustration: imagine if you were from a world where there was no sound. Everything was communicated visually. You mount an interstellar mission and land on earth, and happen to fetch up in a concert theatre, where an orchestra is playing. What in heaven are these people doing? you would wonder. What are those things they're holding, what purpose do they serve? If you were an anthropologist, you could even come up with an ornate theory about the visual meaning of their actions - look how well synchronised their movements are! But of course without understanding the nature of sound, you would have no idea.

So, interpreting the 'nature of religious experience' is analogous to this. Often when you read of such things, what you're encountering is a second-hand account of an epiphany. But the person who has that epiphany might see something or understand something quite outside ordinary experience - another dimension of experience altogether. 'What "dimension"?', you might demand. But without an inkling of that experiential dimension, you can only conjecture. 'Oh well, she's making it up', is quite an understandable reaction.

You could argue that a great deal of what is put under the umbrella term of 'religion' are the records of just such 'encounters with the numinous'. But then when they're encoded in symbolic form, they become like a two-dimensional depiction of a three-dimensional object. So something becomes lost. And now, with the incredibly rapid transformation of culture and society - we are living through the greatest rate of change that the planet has ever seen - the original intent or meaning of these symbolic forms is now almost entirely lost. So maybe what you're engaged in, is a kind of 'reimagining' of what the original intuition was before it became encoded in the cultural tropes of what we now see as 'religion' (as I myself have devoted a lot of time to.)

To which end, have a read of John Hick's 'who or what is God?'

There are numerous extensive and intensive methods of observing reality and describing its contents and its laws, yet no god or grand cause has ever been demonstrated. — whollyrolling


What you're not seeing here, is that the 'extensive and intensive methods' you're referring to, are those of modern science, which was defined in such a way as to specifically exclude any ideas of first, final or formal causes. The whole point of modern scientific method is to proceed wholly in terms of what can be empirically observed, quantified and explained in line with current physico-mathematical hypotheses. So while it may be true that Devans99 exhibits confirmation bias in his arguments, this is no less the case for yourself, who is essentially arguing from the general perspective of positivism. — Wayfarer

A question, if I may:

If a GOD exists...especially one that sought to "reveal" itself to an ancient, relatively unsophisticated, unknowledgeable, relatively superstitious people...

...why would the GOD continue to make it so difficult to KNOW its existence to people who are relatively sophisticated, relatively knowledgeable, less superstitious now?

If the GOD exists...and wants humans to KNOW of its existence...

...why not "reveal" itself in a totally unambiguous way?

Why should people have to go through what you went through to derive this communication?

Why the need for an epiphany...when absolute certainty could easily be given by the GOD?

You deny concepts that come naturally to us. Existence/nonexistence is a very basic concept and how it applies in a situation determines our worldview, essentially everything that constitutes a person. Imagine how the drastically the world would change if someone ever proved that God exists or not: Would believers abandon morality and run amock on the streets now that the only thing, God, holding them in check doesn't exist? This is a question to ask I think.

But I must agree with you that reality is probably not as obvious as science hitherto claimed. Empirical demonstration or proof is a reasonable demand because otherwise we'll be exorcising demons rather than giving antibiotics to a man suffering from cholera which would have fatal results. That said we only have to realize that once radiowaves were not empirically demonstrable and yet they existed.

We have two options:

1. Believe that reality is not bound or limited in any way by what we call empiricism. Ghosts and demons may exist.

2. We need to develop our empirical tools further and maybe, in the future, it could be possible to detect evidence of the supernatural and, strangely, then it wouldn't be supernatural anymore.

Yes, there are extreme examples that are obvious, but I'm talking about the more subtle examples that aren't so clearly weird. On the other hand, attributing ordinary language to a matter of common sense puts too much emphasis on subjectivity. I am asking what criterion we can use, which will account for the subtle examples that lie in the grey area between ordinary and weird, yet, while reigning in the arbitrary subjective determinations. — Merkwurdichliebe

Give an example.

why would the GOD continue to make it so difficult to KNOW its existence to people who are relatively sophisticated, relatively knowledgeable, less superstitious now? — Frank Apisa

Wayfarer
7.2k

why would the GOD continue to make it so difficult to KNOW its existence to people who are relatively sophisticated, relatively knowledgeable, less superstitious now? — Frank Apisa — Wayfarer

I hope you eventually answer my question.

Sorry, but I very seldom view videos posted to me.

why would the GOD continue to make it so difficult to KNOW its existence to people who are relatively sophisticated, relatively knowledgeable, less superstitious now? — Frank Apisa

Hide and Seek.

..why would the GOD continue to make it so difficult to KNOW its existence to people who are relatively sophisticated, relatively knowledgeable, less superstitious now? — Frank Apisa

God has no way of communicating his existence to us - the universe is billions of light years in size - how could we expect God to possibly communicate to us?

Can you think of a way that God could communicate to us (assuming non-omnipresence)?

- Messages in the sky look different from different angles, would be destroyed in the BB in any case
- Messages encoded in the standard model might upset a delicate balance

God is aware that life exists in the universe but not aware of our presence on earth in any specific sense IMO.

Devans99
1.6k

..why would the GOD continue to make it so difficult to KNOW its existence to people who are relatively sophisticated, relatively knowledgeable, less superstitious now? — Frank Apisa


God has no way of communicating his existence to us - the universe is billions of light years in size - how could we expect God to possibly communicate to us? — Devans99

You are suggesting a God who could create the planet Earth, the other planets in the Solar System, the Sun, the 200+ billion stars in our galaxy...and the 300+ billions of other galaxies we know of...

...and it cannot do something as simple as contact us????

C'mon.

Can you think of a way that God could communicate to us (assuming non-omnipresence)? — Devans

Yes.

- Messages in the sky look different from different angles, would be destroyed in the BB in any case
- Messages encoded in the standard model might upset a delicate balance

God is aware that life exists in the universe but not aware of our presence on earth in any specific sense IMO.

Are you thinking the only way would be by writing a message in the sky?

You are suggesting a God who could create the planet Earth, the other planets in the Solar System, the Sun, the 200+ billion stars in our galaxy...and the 300+ billions of other galaxies we know of...

...and it cannot do something as simple as contact us???? — Frank Apisa

I'm saying I cannot think how. For starters, how would God ever find us amongst the 2*10^23 stars in the observable universe?

If you can think how, please tell...

Devans99
1.6k

You are suggesting a God who could create the planet Earth, the other planets in the Solar System, the Sun, the 200+ billion stars in our galaxy...and the 300+ billions of other galaxies we know of...

...and it cannot do something as simple as contact us???? — Frank Apisa


I'm saying I cannot think how. For starters, how would God ever find us amongst the 2*10^23 stars in the observable universe?

If you can think how, please tell... — Devans99

If there is a being that could create the entire of what we puny humans call "the universe"...which may well be just a tiny part of a much, much greater "verse"...it could find us the way we can find our car keys in the morning.

Look in the refrigerator.

The being just initiated the Big Bang rather than hand creating the universe.

The universe has only been around for 14 billion years - you cannot search 2*10^23 star systems in 14 billion years - no where near enough time - so there is no way God could have found us.

Devans99
1.6k
↪Frank Apisa
The being just initiated the Big Bang rather than hand creating the universe.

The universe has only been around for 14 billion years - you cannot search 2*10^23 star systems in 14 billion years - no where near enough time - so there is no way God could have found us. — Devans99

Devans...step away from the edge.

We do not even know if there are any gods...let alone that particular being you are calling God.

And you are assuming an entity that can create EVERYTHING...and then limiting its ability to find us.

Stop! You are going to fall off.

Its just basic math:

number of stars in universe / number of years universe is old = number of stars God must search a year
2*10^23 / 1.4*10^10 = 1.4*10^13

So God must search 1.4*10^13 stars a year in order to find us. That is plain not possible.

Devans99
1.6k
↪Frank Apisa


Its just basic math:

number of stars in universe / number of years universe is old = number of stars God must search a year
2*10^23 / 1.4*10^10 = 1.4*10^13

So God must search 1.4*10^13 stars a year in order to find us. That is plain not possible.
an hour ago
Reply
Options — Devans99

You are being a jerk here, Devans.

If the god could actually make all of that...it could easily search the whole thing in 10 humans seconds.

And stop with the phony statistics...and pretense at "basic math."

You do not know the number of stars in the universe...you do not know how many years old the universe is...so it is all bullshit.

God made a single large 'explosion' - the Big Bang - he did not individually go and make each star and planet.

You do not know the number of stars in the universe...you do not know how many years old the universe is...so it is all bullshit. — Frank Apisa

Number of stars in observable universe:

https://www.space.com/26078-how-many-stars-are-there.html

Age of universe:

https://www.space.com/24054-how-old-is-the-universe.html

Devans99
1.6k
↪Frank Apisa
God made a single large 'explosion' - the Big Bang - he did not individually go and make each star and planet.

You do not know the number of stars in the universe...you do not know how many years old the universe is...so it is all bullshit. — Frank Apisa


Number of stars in observable universe:

https://www.space.com/26078-how-many-stars-are-there.html
— Devans99

I said you do not know how many stars there are...and I stand by it.

Neither does anyone else alive...or who has ever lived.

As for your link...notice how many times the word "estimated" is used...and what it means. It is being revised as we speak.

Age of universe:

https://www.space.com/24054-how-old-is-the-universe.html

There was breaking news last week of a major revision of the age of the universe.

Also keep in mind that prior to the early 20th century...scientists supposed they knew the extent of the universe...and found that they had missed the mark by a factor of gazillions.

You should either refrain from statistics...

...or learn to use qualifiers. And the qualifiers should not include "it is basic math."

How about:

You want herpes.

Or

The empire state building does not exist on the moon.

So God can't find us? He has the ability to search for us but not enough time to find us. That's almost comical.
As a matter of fact he might not even know we're here.
He'd better not find out, or else he's going to be really pissed.

A question, if I may:

If a GOD exists...especially one that sought to "reveal" itself to an ancient, relatively unsophisticated, unknowledgeable, relatively superstitious people... — Frank Apisa

The reason I didn't answer is that it is (pardon me) condescending in the extreme. Us moderns sit on our comfy perch, convinced that all the benighted, backwards people of 'earlier times' were primitive superstitious fools who thought that the Gods made thunder. Maybe if we're nice about them, we can understand some sliver of something that they might just have understood. Maybe.

There are radically different ways of understanding this whole question. Earlier in life I discovered the writings of some of the bona fide Indian sages (as distinct from the many hoodoo gurus that came along later). They had a wholly different kind of spirituality about them than what I understood as 'religion'. The key insight of those teachers was the idea of 'God realisation'. To cut to the chase, this is the teaching that God is not 'something that exists', but is the only real existent. All of what us deluded mortals take to be real are ephemera - shadows on the cave wall, in Platonic terminology. We're so full of ourselves, our ideas, our pursuits and pleasures, and then it all comes to a crashing halt after four-score years and ten; we don't actually understand or see what is real. And that process of 'seeing what is real' *is* the aim of any religious or spiritual practice (yoga, in their lexicon).

Teachers of that style were designated 'Advaita Vedanta', and they're radical and non-conformist by Hindu standards - counter-cultural, in a sense. But their kinds of teachings, as well as the teachings of the Sufis (Idres Shah) and other Eastern and Western mystics convey a radically different sensibility to what we normally understand as religion.

If I am truly interested in the topic I would so surrender. But am I truly interested in the topic, or only in "my position" on the topic? — Jake

That's something for you to think about! I agree the whole subject of authority is vexed especially in regard to religion. I think that's part of what I regard as the shadow cast by religion in Western history - the sense of the God-father-figure sternly judging and consigning unrepentant sheep into hell. Looms large in the whole debate.

If only it was so simple as looking at the track record of religion and weighing pro against con.

But if we were doing it correctly = Utopia because God = exists. And because I don't understand anything God = exists.