Uni for Philosophy & Religious Studies, — Stoic Toad

You shall have to decide whether these are the same subjects or if they're different subjects. If the same why take both? If different, then what is religious studies?

And btw, is that what you really want to got to university for?

They are very different for various reasons. majoring in Phil, minor in Religious Studies. The main reason of difference Religious Studies is a specific school of Philosophy like science or the mathematics, political science or even astronomy. Philosophy & the history & development of thought casts a wide net over many subjects catching all manner of life in the sea. Religious Studies casts a rather small net, & a rather specific one to catch only a small pod of idea & thought.

That is why i really wish to pursue this as my career, because the work is usually teaching the youth about this sort of thing, Government work, or even teaching those who will become great leaders in higher education is possible with this path in Uni. People need to continue the study & discussions that Philosophers old & new have been having, the pushing of new ideas & conversation are needed in society to move forward, especially as a young person to mold morals & ethical compasses to help guide the future.

Again, as I stated in my post, I am looking for thoughts & opinions on my parable, not to be asked about my life choices & goals. To any & all who read please keep this in mind, cheers & hopefully this

Religious Studies casts a rather small net, & a rather specific one to catch only a small pod of idea & thought. — Stoic Toad

I commend this of yours for your remembrance over the next few years and beyond. As to your parable, I don't understand it. Is there something in it to be understood?

A parable is a story illustrating a moral or spiritual lesson. I imagine the lesson you’re going for is something along the lines of: ‘The relationship of mankind to god is like reaching for a hand and hoping for more than a hand’.

You would do well to read Plato - Republic, specifically Book VII.

Extract:
BOOK VII
And now, I said, let me show in a figure how far our nature is enlightened
or unenlightened:–Behold! human beings living in a underground den, which
has a mouth open towards the light and reaching all along the den; here they
have been from their childhood, and have their legs and necks chained so that
they cannot move, and can only see before them, being prevented by the chains
from turning round their heads. Above and behind them a fire is blazing at
a distance, and between the fire and the prisoners there is a raised way; and
you will see, if you look, a low wall built along the way, like the screen which
marionette players have in front of them, over which they show the puppets.

I see.

And do you see, I said, men passing along the wall carrying all sorts of vessels,
and statues and figures of animals made of wood and stone and various
materials, which appear over the wall? Some of them are talking, others silent.

You have shown me a strange image, and they are strange prisoners.

Like ourselves, I replied; and they see only their own shadows, or the shadows
of one another, which the fire throws on the opposite wall of the cave?

True, he said; how could they see anything but the shadows if they were never
allowed to move their heads?

And of the objects which are being carried in like manner they would only see
the shadows?

Yes, he said.

And if they were able to converse with one another, would they not suppose
that they were naming what was actually before them?

Very true.

And suppose further that the prison had an echo which came from the other
side, would they not be sure to fancy when one of the passers-by spoke that the...

... and so on.

Ive read the allegory of the cave at least 4 or 5 times for classes lol. While the wording may sound similar it is in regards to true knowledge & discarding the shadows as reality. I am leading more towards the notion of the guiding hand of god while man slowly gains knowledge, thus losing him; rather than a restriction of mans ability to see the true knowledge then being shoved out the cave into the light

I am leading more towards the notion of the guiding hand of god — Stoic Toad

In order that your efforts, your work, your goals and purposes, and your life be not nonsense,you must have some definition for "god." What is it?

I am leading more towards the notion of the guiding hand of god while man slowly gains knowledge — Stoic Toad

I must say I'm inclined to agree with you. I refer this to being the "voice of reason" in our heads. Sure, we can use that same voice to apply logic and calculus or any other thing we choose, or to convince ourselves that X is true, or X is false but the voice remains the same.

In some respects we could say "... while man slowly gains knowledge" but again, I would say we already have the knowledge, we always have done, it's more a matter of "... while man slowly remembers the truth he deliberately forgot (rebellion against the truth) for whatever reason".

There are times in our lives where all our knowledge comes together (and everything fits) and reason elevates us to a lofty point, but the fear of it makes us afraid and we beg it to stop or run from it. So we can remain in our den, just a little longer, just while we work things out. In effect, buying more time. But the outcome is inevitable because at the very least, we are going to die - that is guaranteed.

Hey All, with the current boredom of isolation rounding out a free semester before transfer to Uni for Philosophy & Religious Studies, I'm writing more! I am trying to add too ongoing pieces Ive done on different opinions & discussions for publication, later down the road ideally as my education continues.

Right now Ive worded as well as I can an ongoing thought which turned into a "Parable of Mans Relationship with God"I plan on expanding on along with other parables geared toward what I have written below. Any feedback is appreciated, critical & supportive. Hope to keep posting as time goes on, until then I leave you with this. P.s. if this is not a parable plz let me know, god I hope I'm using the term correctly.

"Mankind reached blindly for a hand they hoped is there, in the darkness of what is a perceptible world. They grasp it, & at first it was a friend, a lead, a guide in the confusion to be followed & protected by; eventually this hand was the only thing mankind could rely on for stability. Their eyes slowly opened to the sights of perception, their ears listened to reasoning & logic, slowly; they lose their grip on the hand. Once Mankind opened their eyes wide & bright, opened their ears full & clear, they turned their heads hoping to see who it is attached to the hand. Yet in all but an instant, the feeling of the hand was lost, & there was no one standing next to them. Mankind looked & listened to the world around them, seeking that which is perceptible, finding only things of reason & logic. They learned of many great things, wonders which would baffle past imaginations of their blind past. Yet, for all this searching; it was in the name of finding the hand, which guided them through the darkness long ago. " — Stoic Toad

Have you ever read Noah Harrari's "Sapiens". He is an atheist that would agree with you completely. Some would say he is a naturalist.

If you don't want to read the book then watch some of his youtube videos related to his book "Sapiens".

"Mankind reached blindly for a hand they hoped is there, in the darkness of what is a perceptible world. — Stoic Toad

Ancient humans, in a natural world "red in tooth and claw", and animated with spooky invisible forces, probably felt more vulnerable than us sophisticated moderns. Today we are surrounded by human culture, and power tools, that give us some control over nature and over competing humans. But those primitives, like herds of ungulates surrounded by predators, huddled together in small tribes, with brave men to lead them. Even so, sometimes the scary world made even the powerful leaders insecure. So they reached out into the darkness for an even stronger leader, who could control the natural forces that threatened them. And the best science of the day postulated invisible human-like gods running the show with their magical powers.

Ironically, the leverage over nature provided by modern technology has also increased the power of human predators, and is still powerless over invisible natural forces, like the Covid Virus. So, people still feel the need for confident leaders to shield them from evil. Which is why, despite the advantages of science & technology, so many insecure Americans look to self-assured leaders, like Donald Trump, to defend them from scary immigrants, insane liberals, and wild-eyed terrorists. But it's obvious that even Trump, with all the resources at his hand, has little power over the evils of the world. So, in the face of the current plague, they pray to an even more powerful, but invisible, chieftain in the sky to defend them from the imperceptible scourge of implacable Nature. This act of desperation, taking your plea all the way to the top, may not make sense for calm rational people, but for anxious fearful people it's the best plan they can think of.

So, man's relationship to God has always been to the court of last resort. Even supremely confident Trump often passes the buck to others. But the office of all-powerful deity is where the buck stops once and for all. Therefore, it makes emotional sense to appeal to the supreme court, when all other options have failed. After all, "reason is and ought to be the slave of passions". ___David Hume

Hey All, with the current boredom of isolation rounding out a free semester before transfer to Uni for Philosophy & Religious Studies, I'm writing more! I am trying to add too ongoing pieces Ive done on different opinions & discussions for publication, later down the road ideally as my education continues.

Right now Ive worded as well as I can an ongoing thought which turned into a "Parable of Mans Relationship with God"I plan on expanding on along with other parables geared toward what I have written below. Any feedback is appreciated, critical & supportive. Hope to keep posting as time goes on, until then I leave you with this. P.s. if this is not a parable plz let me know, god I hope I'm using the term correctly.

"Mankind reached blindly for a hand they hoped is there, in the darkness of what is a perceptible world. They grasp it, & at first it was a friend, a lead, a guide in the confusion to be followed & protected by; eventually this hand was the only thing mankind could rely on for stability. Their eyes slowly opened to the sights of perception, their ears listened to reasoning & logic, slowly; they lose their grip on the hand. Once Mankind opened their eyes wide & bright, opened their ears full & clear, they turned their heads hoping to see who it is attached to the hand. Yet in all but an instant, the feeling of the hand was lost, & there was no one standing next to them. Mankind looked & listened to the world around them, seeking that which is perceptible, finding only things of reason & logic. They learned of many great things, wonders which would baffle past imaginations of their blind past. Yet, for all this searching; it was in the name of finding the hand, which guided them through the darkness long ago. "

- StoicToad — Stoic Toad

Considering humans are some of the few animals that have complex speach/communication, perhaps religion arose out of understanding death better than other animals and also because we are social we wanted to promote good behavior in these groups of people.

I still believe in a religion because i can't explain feelings/consciessness with out some wierd awkward spiritually sounding explanation.

I still believe in a religion because i can't explain feelings/consciessness with out some wierd awkward spiritually sounding explanation. — christian2017

I again believe in G*D, but not in any particular religion or theology. Because I can "explain feelings/consciousness" with "spiritually sounding explanations" that are grounded in Science. In my thesis, what the ancients called "spirit" and "soul" was what we now call "energy" and "information". So, with that new understanding, I can now track feelings & consciousness back to the Big Bang. But I have no better explanation for the BB, except a mysterious First Cause (Multiverse theory does not explain "feelings/consciousness). Unfortunately, I see no evidence that the FC is a human-like agent actively interfering in human affairs.

So I don't turn to G*D for succor in times of fear & uncertainty, like the current plague of invisible forces inexorably killing masses of people around the world. We have only each-other to lean on in hard times --- even if we have to keep a "social distance". So, I look to G*D as merely a philosophical way of understanding how & why the world works as it does --- including why bad things happen to good people. And it's essentially the same understanding that Plato & Aristotle had, thousands of years ago. The LOGOS is a creative force, but not a Shepherd in the sky, who answers prayers from cowering humans with ravening wolves on all sides. Religions are like flocks of sheep, who band together for a false sense of security, since the shepherd is watching but not interfering in the natural creative process S/he started long ago.

The LOGOS theory does not appeal to fearful emotional Feelers, but to calm rational Thinkers. :cool:

I still believe in a religion because i can't explain feelings/consciessness with out some wierd awkward spiritually sounding explanation.
— christian2017
I again believe in G*D, but not in any particular religion or theology. Because I can "explain feelings/consciousness" with "spiritually sounding explanations" that are grounded in Science. In my thesis, what the ancients called "spirit" and "soul" was what we now call "energy" and "information". So, with that new understanding, I can now track feelings & consciousness back to the Big Bang. But I have no better explanation for the BB, except a mysterious First Cause (Multiverse theory does not explain "feelings/consciousness). Unfortunately, I see no evidence that the FC is a human-like agent actively interfering in human affairs.

So I don't turn to G*D for succor in times of fear & uncertainty, like the current plague of invisible forces inexorably killing masses of people around the world. We have only each-other to lean on in hard times --- even if we have to keep a "social distance". So, I look to G*D as merely a philosophical way of understanding how & why the world works as it does --- including why bad things happen to good people. And it's essentially the same understanding that Plato & Aristotle had, thousands of years ago. The LOGOS is a creative force, but not a Shepherd in the sky, who answers prayers from cowering humans with ravening wolves on all sides. Religions are like flocks of sheep, who band together for a false sense of security, since the shepherd is watching but not interfering in the natural creative process S/he started long ago.

The LOGOS theory does not appeal to fearful emotional Feelers, but to calm rational Thinkers. :cool: — Gnomon

I'm not saying you are wrong but how does spirit and soul equate to energy and information? I understand there is a connection but not a 1 to 1 or even necessarily a linear relationship. Basically what i am saying is i know there is a connection but what is that connection?

I'm not saying you are wrong but how does spirit and soul equate to energy and information? — christian2017

For a more complete understanding of that analogy you'd have to be familiar with my Enformationism worldview. Ultimately, everything in this world is a form of universal Information (patterns, meanings, potential), which exists in both physical (material) and metaphysical (mental) phases. For example, Physicists have concluded that raw data (information) in computer memory can be transformed into useful energy.

Ancient people saw unexplainable events --- such as a tree suddenly falling over --- and without any concept of gravity, assumed that some "agent" pushed it over. Eventually, those invisible causal agents were called "spirits", or "chi", or "prana". Almost all cultures have some notion of disembodied spirits or ghosts or souls causing otherwise unexplainable motions, lights, or sounds. Today, most of us understand that Energy is an invisible-but-mundane causal force. But some still imagine ghosts or supernatural agents which cause events that can't be immediately explained by scientists.

In my thesis, I trace the existence of material objects back to the insubstantial but potential creative energy that emerged in the Big Bang. But what caused the Bang? Evolution is a series of transformations from essentially nothing to everything, including matter & mind. So, I propose a theory to explain how mental phenomena can be produced by sufficiently organized (enformed) matter, such as human brains. Long story short, I track everything in the world back to a First Cause (the Enformer, G*D) with the power to create both Matter & Mind.

Thus, just as Energy equates to Spirit, and Information equates to Mind, then Evolution equates to Creation. And my axiomatic Creator is what I call G*D, because it equates to all the god-models in all human cultures. But, all I know about that eternal Potential is by inference from the actual world. So I don't know how many arms & legs G*D has, or what H/er intentions are for H/er creatures. "G*D" is merely a placeholder name for something transcendent & ineffable. And since the myriad of conflicting scriptures of the world can't all be right, I simply accept the fact that this world was created, without pretending to know by whom, or for what purpose. Hence, my relationship with G*D is ambiguous. :cool:


Energy is Information : https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/the-basis-of-the-universe-may-not-be-energy-or-matter-but-information

Information to Energy : https://physicsworld.com/a/information-converted-to-energy/

Enformationism : http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/

I'm not saying you are wrong but how does spirit and soul equate to energy and information?
— christian2017
For a more complete understanding of that analogy you'd have to be familiar with my Enformationism worldview. Ultimately, everything in this world is a form of universal Information (patterns, meanings, potential), which exists in both physical (material) and metaphysical (mental) phases. For example, Physicists have concluded that raw data (information) in computer memory can be transformed into useful energy.

Ancient people saw unexplainable events --- such as a tree suddenly falling over --- and without any concept of gravity, assumed that some "agent" pushed it over. Eventually, those invisible causal agents were called "spirits", or "chi", or "prana". Almost all cultures have some notion of disembodied spirits or ghosts or souls causing otherwise unexplainable motions, lights, or sounds. Today, most of us understand that Energy is an invisible-but-mundane causal force. But some still imagine ghosts or supernatural agents which cause events that can't be immediately explained by scientists.

In my thesis, I trace the existence of material objects back to the insubstantial but potential creative energy that emerged in the Big Bang. But what caused the Bang? Evolution is a series of transformations from essentially nothing to everything, including matter & mind. So, I propose a theory to explain how mental phenomena can be produced by sufficiently organized (enformed) matter, such as human brains. Long story short, I track everything in the world back to a First Cause (the Enformer, G*D) with the power to create both Matter & Mind.

Thus, just as Energy equates to Spirit, and Information equates to Mind, then Evolution equates to Creation. And my axiomatic Creator is what I call G*D, because it equates to all the god-models in all human cultures. But, all I know about that eternal Potential is by inference from the actual world. So I don't know how many arms & legs G*D has, or what H/er intentions are for H/er creatures. "G*D" is merely a placeholder name for something transcendent & ineffable. And since the myriad of conflicting scriptures of the world can't all be right, I simply accept the fact that this world was created, without pretending to know by whom, or for what purpose. Hence, my relationship with G*D is ambiguous. :cool:


Energy is Information : https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/the-basis-of-the-universe-may-not-be-energy-or-matter-but-information

Information to Energy : https://physicsworld.com/a/information-converted-to-energy/

Enformationism : http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/ — Gnomon

So feeling/conscienceness is atleast somewhat related to this G-d you were talking about in your post?

So feeling/conscienceness is atleast somewhat related to this G-d you were talking about in your post? — christian2017

Of course. Where else would they come from? And I can only assume that G*D is conscious in some sense, since "feeling/consciousness" exists in He/r creation. Raw Information (similar to mathematics) is the root (potential) of consciousness. But I don't know how "feelings" would work for an eternal BEING without a physical body to generate emotions. So I prefer to avoid anthro-metric characterizations of a transcendent entity. [note : "He/r" is intentionally ambiguous]

However, I understand that ancient people, with no idea of Information or Energy, imagined their deities in the best way they knew how : comparing them to human kings and tribal leaders. So, emotional non-philosophers needed relatable metaphors (e.g. idols) in order to understand the concept of an invisible god. But rational philosophers, among their peers, used more abstract descriptions of the transcendent deity. Perhaps the best example of the popular vs professional god-models is the dual definitions of Brama (one of a trinity of polytheistic gods) and Brahman (absolute abstract unitary creator) in Hinduism.

Likewise, the ancient Hebrews imagined their tribal god as a warrior king whose special power was control of the weather, including lightning (equivalent to Greek Zeus). But as their priests & scribes became more sophisticated in philosophy and knowledge of how the world works, their professional understanding of God became more remote and abstract (similar to Brahman). Unfortunately, in their scriptures, these dual definitions were used interchangeably. The confusing result is that Christians inherited a Bible with depictions of a humanoid God walking in the Garden of Eden, and of a transcendent creative principle that had no human form. The late Jewish notion of God was so abstract and remote, that the myth of a human son was proposed in an effort to re-humanize the deity with feelings & human consciousness.

Consequently, I have abandoned the notion of a creator who made his creatures in his own likeness, with upright posture and two legs. Instead, I imagine G*D as an unimaginable cosmic principle. I attribute my own personal feelings to the emergence of metaphysical Mind from eons of physical evolution. I call that creative process EnFormAction. But it's too abstract & philosophical to be the basis for a popular religion. :nerd:


G*D : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

BEING : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

Brahma : https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/deities/brahma.shtml

EnFormAction : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

Raw Information (similar to mathematics) is the root (potential) of consciousness — Gnomon

assuming i understand that what you wrote in paranthesis, this is what i'm getting at. We can't for sure equate the cause of feeling/consciessness to information. I'm not saying you are wrong but like you said equating it to the G-d you mentioned is actually more sensible at this point in the conversation.

So feeling/conscienceness is atleast somewhat related to this G-d you were talking about in your post?
— christian2017
Of course. Where else would they come from? And I can only assume that G*D is conscious in some sense, since "feeling/consciousness" exists in He/r creation. Raw Information (similar to mathematics) is the root (potential) of consciousness. But I don't know how "feelings" would work for an eternal BEING without a physical body to generate emotions. So I prefer to avoid anthro-metric characterizations of a transcendent entity. [note : "He/r" is intentionally ambiguous]

However, I understand that ancient people, with no idea of Information or Energy, imagined their deities in the best way they knew how : comparing them to human kings and tribal leaders. So, emotional non-philosophers needed relatable metaphors in order to understand the god concept. But rational philosophers, among their peers, used more abstract descriptions of the transcendent deity. Perhaps the best example of the common vs expert god-models is the dual definitions of Brama (one of a trinity of polytheistic gods) and Brahman (absolute abstract unitary creator) in Hinduism.

Likewise, the ancient Hebrews imagined their tribal god as a warrior king whose special power was control of the weather, including lightning (equivalent to Greek Zeus). But as their priests & scribes became more sophisticated in philosophy and knowledge of how the world works, their professional understanding of God became more remote and abstract (similar to Brahma). Unfortunately, in their scriptures, these dual definitions were used interchangeably. The confusing result is that Christians inherited a Bible with depictions of a humanoid God walking in the Garden of Eden, and of a transcendent creative principle that had no human form. The late Jewish notion of God was so abstract and remote, that the myth of a human son was proposed in an effort to re-humanize the deity with feelings & human consciousness.

Consequently, I have abandoned the notion of a creator who made his creatures in his own likeness, with upright posture and two legs. Instead, I imagine G*D as an unimaginable cosmic principle. I attribute my own personal feelings to the emergence of metaphysical Mind from eons of physical evolution. I call that creative process EnFormAction. But it's too abstract & philosophical to be the basis for a popular religion. :nerd:


G*D : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

BEING : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

Brahma : https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/deities/brahma.shtml

EnFormAction : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html — Gnomon

thats fair. I'll add your articles to my journal and read them later.

We can't for sure equate the cause of feeling/consciessness to information. — christian2017

What else can you equate it with? If you accept the scientific consensus of evolution over billions of years, from pure Energy to Matter to Mind, how can you explain the emergence of Consciousness?

However, if you accept the religious doctrine of divine intervention to add an immortal Soul to a mortal body, you will have to take that on Faith. And quit trying to be a philosopher, using Reason to discover Truth.

The EnFormAction link above may give some idea of how I envision the emergence of Soul/Self with no need for magical intervention into the evolutionary process of Creation. :nerd:

We can't for sure equate the cause of feeling/consciessness to information.
— christian2017
What else can you equate it with? If you accept the scientific consensus of evolution over billions of years, from pure Energy to Matter to Mind, how can you explain the emergence of Consciousness?

However, if you accept the religious doctrine of divine intervention to add an immortal Soul to a mortal body, you will have to take that on Faith. And quit trying to be a philosopher, using Reason to discover Truth.

The EnFormAction link above may give some idea of how I envision the emergence of Soul/Self with no need for magical intervention into the evolutionary process of Creation. :nerd: — Gnomon

lol. Uhhhhhh. When you use G-d (which is a jewish way of saying God), and then you go on and on about G-d being a creator but also not a creator, and then the fact that this whole philosophy/science thing your explaining is your idea................ and your accusing me of acting on faith? Any time you've concieved of an idea and have yet to prove your idea, to some extent you can be accused of acting on faith.

I'll read those articles later and i've added the links to my journal. I'm not sure you've proven that i'm the only one acting on faith.

I was reading the third article and this is a quote from it, and perhaps i'm taking it out of context: "Some AI enthusiasts even envision the ultimate evolution of a Cosmic Mind, informed by all lower level phases."

I read what you said about this top mind not being a creator and i can kind of see why this top mind wouldn't have to be a creator, but why is it a stretch to say primitive people who believed in religion weren't in some sense (some sense) refering to this top mind or cosmic mind?

this may sound stupid and i knew this day would come but i'm at 666 and i would like to move to 668 for superstitious reasons (mentions). Help a buddy out lol. Have you ever seen the movie Pi (same guy who made "Requiem for a dream")?

lol. Uhhhhhh. When you use G-d (which is a jewish way of saying God), and then you go on and on about G-d being a creator but also not a creator, and then the fact that this whole philosophy/science thing your explaining is your idea................ and your accusing me of acting on faith? Any time you've concieved of an idea and have yet to prove your idea, to some extent you can be accused of acting on faith. — christian2017

I coined the term "G*D" for a completely different reason from that of the Jews. They were afraid of offending their tyrannical God by using his personal name "Yahweh", instead of the obsequious "your Lordship". My G*D has no personal name, and is unlikely to be offended by such effrontery. I added the asterisk merely to indicate that I was talking about a different god-model from that of traditional religions.

Where did you get the idea that I was ambiguous about G*D being the creator of the universe? I sometimes use other terms, such as "Programmer". But creation is the essential function of the "First Cause" in my thesis. The only alternative I'm aware of is an eternal Multiverse, which must be self-existent --- like a god.

When did I "accuse" you of acting on faith? We all act on faith for things we take for granted without bothering to look for proof. Even scientists take some things for granted. They're called Axioms. I refer to my G*D theory, not as a proven fact, but as an Axiom from which I developed a worldview that explains aspects of reality that are excluded from the materialistic paradigms.

The Enformationism idea, that I "conceived", is a theory, not a doctrine. It's the result of reasoning from modern evidence, not taken on faith in ancient revelations. Enformationism is a philosophical thesis, not a scientific paradigm. So it's supported by arguments, not experiments. The website and blog are extensive arguments that present the reasoning process for coming to the conclusion that the Big Bang was an act of creation. And that Information is the "single substance" of reality. Four centuries ago, Spinoza reached a similar conclusion, but he had no concept of Information in the Shannon sense, or of thinking machines that process information. So I have just updated his philosophy.

FWIW, my god-model is not appropriate for religious faith. Instead, it's equivalent to the "god of the philosophers", based on reasoning and skepticism. :nerd:


Spinoza single substance : https://www.iep.utm.edu/spinoz-m/

Effrontery : insolent or impertinent behavior.

Axiom : a statement or proposition which is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true. [i.e. not based on physical evidence]

God of the Philosophers : "The God of the philosophers, Pascal remarked, is not the God of Abraham and Isaac" [His argument was directed toward the Deists of his day]
https://maritain.nd.edu/jmc/etext/AAP04.htm

I read what you said about this top mind not being a creator and i can kind of see why thistop mind wouldn't have to be a creator, but why is it a stretch to say primitive people who believed in religion weren't in some sense (some sense) refering to this top mind or cosmic mind? — christian2017

The universal mind imagined by AI enthusiasts is a creation of the universe, not the creator of it. They assume that the physical universe itself is eternal, and operates via inherent logic. Some religious people do indeed accept that the whole world is gradually becoming conscious.

Omega Point : The Omega Point is the belief that everything in the universe is fated to spiral towards a final point of unification.[1] The term was coined by the French Jesuit Catholic priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin . . . [Chardin sometimes referred to the Omega Point as "The Cosmic Christ". But this is not a biblical exegesis]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_Point

this may sound stupid and i knew this day would come buti'm at 666 and i would like to move to 668 for superstitious reasons (mentions). Help a buddy out lol. Have you ever seen the movie Pi (same guy who made "Requiem for a dream")? — christian2017

If you are already at "666" then there's no hope for you. The devil's gonna get you. But then, PI is an endless string of numbers, so maybe all you have to do is move-on to the next digit in your imagination.

Yes, I saw the movie. And it's based on Jewish numerology. But you should avoid getting ensnared in such Kabbalistic nonsense. It could make you as crazy as the protagonist (lit. one torn by inner conflict). :cool:

PI : Max Cohen is a number theorist who believes everything in nature can be understood through numbers.

brb i'm in the middle of something.

ol. Uhhhhhh. When you use G-d (which is a jewish way of saying God), and then you go on and on about G-d being a creator but also not a creator, and then the fact that this whole philosophy/science thing your explaining is your idea................ and your accusing me of acting on faith? Any time you've concieved of an idea and have yet to prove your idea, to some extent you can be accused of acting on faith.
— christian2017
I coined the term "G*D" for a completely different reason from that of the Jews. They were afraid of offending their tyrannical God by using his personal name "Yahweh", instead of the obsequious "your Lordship". My G*D has no personal name, and is unlikely to be offended by such effrontery. I added the asterisk merely to indicate that I was talking about a different god-model from that of traditional religions.

Where did you get the idea that I was ambiguous about G*D being the creator of the universe? I sometimes use other terms, such as "Programmer". But creation is the essential function of the "First Cause" in my thesis. The only alternative I'm aware of is an eternal Multiverse, which must be self-existent --- like a god.

When did I "accuse" you of acting on faith? We all act on faith for things we take for granted without bothering to look for proof. Even scientists take some things for granted. They're call Axioms. I refer to my G*D theory, not as a proven fact, but as a Axiom from which I developed a worldview that explains aspects of reality that are excluded from the materialistic paradigms.

The Enformationism idea, that I "conceived", is a theory, not a doctrine. It's the result of reasoning from modern evidence, not taken on faith in ancient revelations. Enformationism is a philosophical thesis, not a scientific paradigm. So it's supported by arguments, not experiments. The website and blog are extensive arguments that present the reasoning process for coming to the conclusion that the Big Bang was an act of creation. And that Information is the "single substance" of reality. Four centuries ago, Spinoza reached a similar conclusion, but he had no concept of Information in the Shannon sense, or of thinking machines that process information. So I have just updated his philosophy.

FWIW, my god-model is not appropriate for religious faith. Instead, its equivalent to the "god of the philosophers", based on reasoning and skepticism. :nerd:


Spinoza single substance : https://www.iep.utm.edu/spinoz-m/

Effrontery : insolent or impertinent behavior.

Axiom : a statement or proposition which is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true. [i.e. not based on physical evidence]

God of the Philosophers : "The God of the philosophers, Pascal remarked, is not the God of Abraham and Isaac" [His argument was directed toward the Deists of his day]
https://maritain.nd.edu/jmc/etext/AAP04.htm — Gnomon

So perhaps with "god of philosophers", the main god intended philosophers and/or people to discover him through deep thought? Jacob's name was changed to Israel. Israel means "one who wrestles with the divine", (Jacob literally wrestled either an angel or the god of the Bible himself) wrestling and even combat does have some similarities to mental anguish related to abstract or deep thought. As to the rest of what you said, i don't entirely disagree.

I read what you said about this top mind not being a creator and i can kind of see why thistop mind wouldn't have to be a creator, but why is it a stretch to say primitive people who believed in religion weren't in some sense (some sense) refering to this top mind or cosmic mind?
— christian2017
The universal mind imagined by AI enthusiasts is a creation of the universe, not the creator of it. They assume that the physical universe itself is eternal, and operates via inherent logic. Some religious people do indeed accept that the whole world is gradually becoming conscious.

Omega Point : The Omega Point is the belief that everything in the universe is fated to spiral towards a final point of unification.[1] The term was coined by the French Jesuit Catholic priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin . . . [Chardin sometimes referred to the Omega Point as "The Cosmic Christ". But this is not a biblical exegesis] — Gnomon

Based on this post of yours, could someone go far as to say with the creation of the universe it was inevitable that a being that has feeling and/or consciessness would come to exist? Or is that a stretch?

this may sound stupid and i knew this day would come buti'm at 666 and i would like to move to 668 for superstitious reasons (mentions). Help a buddy out lol. Have you ever seen the movie Pi (same guy who made "Requiem for a dream")?
— christian2017
If you are already at "666" then there's no hope for you. The devil's gonna get you. But then, PI is an endless string of numbers, so maybe all you have to do is move-on to the next digit in your imagination.

Yes, I saw the movie. And it's based on Jewish numerology. But you should avoid getting ensnared in such Kabbalistic nonsense. It could make you as crazy as the protagonist (lit. one torn by inner conflict). :cool:

PI : Max Cohen is a number theorist who believes everything in nature can be understood through numbers. — Gnomon

I actually didn't know you didn't like the Kabbalah, i don't like the Kabbalah either. I don't like the talmud but i didn't want to bore you with that right now. It deals with the way it is worded in relation to the old testament.

I find the movie Pi entertaining though.

I did eventually move to 668 and beyond so i guess i'll be alright. lol.

So perhaps with "god of philosophers", the main god intended philosophers and/or people to discover him through deep thought? — christian2017

As a rule, philosophers such as Spinoza, don't make any attempt to read the mind of G*D. They merely assume the existence of an intentional creator of the world as an Axiom, upon which they build a worldview. But they are still free to try to interpret the intentions of the creator from the way the world works.

For example, evolution seems to be causing the physical world to change in the direction of increasing complexity and intelligence. This was not apparent to the ancient priests & prophets, before the advent of scientific investigation. So the concept of Evolution or progressive change would not have occurred to them. Yet now we can look back at the Big Bang and follow the emergence of organization from energetic atoms to living organisms, and eventually to thinking beings. And some of those thinkers may conclude that their personal interpretation of divine intentions is the true Will of G*D. But I am not that confident in my sign-reading abilities. So my relationship to G*D is not a personal friendship, but more like developing a rapport with Nature, that makes my life more meaningful. :cool:


Rapport : relation; connection, especially harmonious or sympathetic relation: