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
everyone is happy with this pattern as it is. — Jake
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
A lot of people but not everyone. — Wayfarer
And why so negative? What’s point of starting a thread like this if it only turns out to be sour grapes? — 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. — Jake
There are many interesting people and centres and schools exploring this space. — Wayfarer
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
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
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
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
..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
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
Can you think of a way that God could communicate to us (assuming non-omnipresence)? — Devans
- 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.
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
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
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
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 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
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
Age of universe:
https://www.space.com/24054-how-old-is-the-universe.html
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
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
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.