Not to hijack your thread--hopefully lots of people will comment on just what you want to talk about--but it's frustrating to me that there are so many religious threads here. Apparently religion/spirituality/etc. is a very major concern for quite lot of people, but I have little interest in it. — Terrapin Station
Time, by itself does not have volition or so most of us think. — Thinker
The answer to your dilemma is simple: don't post on the threads you are not interested in. Look for threads, here or elsewhere, that you are interested in, but if you can't find threads you are interested in, then either change your interests or stop posting. In any case, stop whinging. — John
change occurs physically (which is also a metaphysical truth about it--ontology being metaphysics). Changes occur in experience, too, of course, and experience is physical as well — Terrapin Station
How would you know that you're in a state of changelessness? — Terrapin Station
Good! It's a lot better than doing what you don't want to do; and then there's also no cause for complaint.
4 minutes ago ReplyShareFlag — John
Knowledge in what way? — Noble Dust
These problems can be resolved to our satisfaction if we have the nerve to stand up and say, "This doesn't make sense!" Clarify god as you wish, then prepare to be crucified. — Bitter Crank
However, I intuit a very nicely formed universe. Things are very nicely and well put together – too well for it to be a coincidence. — Thinker
in addition, we have this great facility called consciousness. Very convenient to have consciousness — Thinker
... consciousnes - and - emotion... — Thinker
There is a divine hand – somewhere. I tell you – after I have had a prolonged still mind – I feel the presence of God. Can I prove God exists – NO — Thinker
I am now ready to be crucified. — Thinker
Ignosticism is the view that any religious term or theological concept presented must be accompanied by a coherent definition. Without a clear definition such terms cannot be meaningfully discussed. Such terms or concepts must also be falsifiable. Lacking this, an ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the existence or nature of the terms presented (and all matters of debate) is meaningless. For example, if the term "God" does not refer to anything reasonably defined then there is no conceivable method to test against the existence of god. Therefore, the term "God" has no literal significance and need not be debated or discussed.]
As a general comment, I had been quite attracted to ignosticism for a long time because it almost perfectly summed up my irritation with arguments for and against the existence of God, especially those found on the Internet. Despite my profound disagreement with his politics, I found myself in agreement with Chomsky when he says "...if you ask me whether or not I'm an atheist, I wouldn't even answer. I would first want an explanation of what it is that I'm supposed not to believe in, and I've never seen an explanation." Schopenhauer says something similar in his later manuscripts: "As soon as anyone speaks of God, I do not know what he is talking about" (italics his).
Speaking anecdotally, I find that most people tend to employ the word God, whether in ordinary conversation or even in an academic setting, as if it were utterly translucent in meaning. If one were to ask the average person today to define the word "God," certain patterns to their answers might emerge, but one would still be left with as many vague, obscure, and possibly bizarre definitions as there were people whom one asked. As for the patterns that do tend to emerge when people are formally polled, sociologists have summarized them as amounting to a kind of moralistic therapeutic deism, which has very little to do with classical conceptions of God.
I now tend to view ignosticism more as a method than a fixed position with respect to all "God-talk." In other words, it's an invitation to employ and encourage Voltaire's famous dictum to define one's terms before a debate. It might be that some definitions of God are incoherent, but it doesn't follow that because some of them are incoherent, or that because those one has hitherto come across are incoherent, that they are all are incoherent. Moreover, it could be that the charge of incoherency is made to hide an unwillingness or inability to try and understand certain conceptions presented. Difficulty of understanding does not equate to incoherence. Take Schopenhauer on this point, for example. Outside of reading a bit of Augustine and selections from Francisco Suarez, he never made any serious attempt to acquaint himself with the philosopher-theologians associated with classical theism of the ancient and medieval periods. It's one thing to dismiss the muddled beliefs of the masses with respect to God but quite another to ignore how the most philosophically sophisticated theists have conceived of the term, all the while pretending that one's exasperation about the term's apparent meaninglessness applies to all attempts that have been made to explain it.
I prefer the general terms Divine, Source, Creator/Creation, etc. I usually try to avoid the "G" word so as to sidestep self-contradiction
— 0 thru 9
I don't find that these terms are any more helpful or less vague than the term God. — Thorongil
BTW, what do you think happened to god at the time of the incarnation? — Bitter Crank
Most religion is not spirituality - it is a confidence game to get your allegiance and then your money. — Thinker
God does not need us – quite the contrary – we need God. Or perhaps I should say we desire God. We are almost nothing to God – a speck of dust. — Thinker
Were the earliest religions a scheme to get money? — Noble Dust
God's revelation to man is the first half of the equation; divine revelation by nature is existential; it involves a human subject: the recipient of revelation, and that's where the Divine-Human link exists. God's revelation to man needs to be consummated by man's revelation to God. — Noble Dust
↪0 thru 9 We can define and discuss the divine with precision as long as two conditions are met:
First that we are defining the real gods of our own creation (which are all the real gods there are) and
second, that we are informed and think carefully about these gods
Such gods that we did not make up, can not see, hear, touch, smell, taste, or know anything about--those gods are entirely beyond our reach.
You want the Aged Patriarch? Hairy thunderer? Cosmic muffin? Take your pick -- but make it consistent.
The reason the real, made up gods can be discussed and understood is that they are our own creation, and the reason we need to be informed and think carefully is that our made up gods have significant flaws. For instance, a god described as omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent is not really understandable. We made it up, but we can't understand our own creation. The god that is all good but allows evil to occur is another problematic matter. Why would an all good god allow truly appalling evil to exist? That is just another example of how we have not worked through the logic of our own creation. What happened to god when he became incarnate in Jesus? Did he leave heaven? Did some of him leave heaven? Did he stay in heaven? But then, how could he be Jesus here and god in heaven at the same time?
These problems can be resolved to our satisfaction if we have the nerve to stand up and say, "This doesn't make sense!" Clarify god as you wish, then prepare to be crucified.
As for the other gods -- the ones we know nothing about and didn't create -- I agree with you 100%. There is nothing we can say about them because we know nothing about them. — Bitter Crank
As soon as humans began to speak we asked questions of our origin. Also of importance is to recognize who asked the ontological questions? The first person to ask – where do we come from – set the stage for religion. The next person to answer that question was a sage – priest – shaman – philosopher. — Thinker
Ok, so back in the cave, who was the most important person? I would answer the biggest, strongest dude. He could protect and hunt the best; also he could kick your ass. Who was the second most important person? I would say the shaman because he could chase the boogeyman away. Over time these people really did become leaders with a privileged position in society. In time, as the saying goes, absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is where the quid pro quo comes in. It never seems to fail in the human experience – give a man an inch and he will take a mile. — Thinker
Who has the greater need here – Man or God? — Thinker
I'm always hesitant about these reconstructions of what things were like within human consciousness (presumably) at the dawn of history (as opposed to pre-history). Consciousness "evolves" (that's a metaphor) in a way where we need to try to place ourselves in the state of consciousness that those people might have been in at the time, rather than to assume they were asking the same questions we ask now (where do we come from? etc). — Noble Dust
Who has the greater need here – Man or God?
— Thinker
I don't see this as an important question, because I don't feel the need to question the hierarchy of God over man. — Noble Dust
I do not think it is realistic or honest for humans to define God. I think we can speculate – hypothesize – imagine – but in the final analysis – we do not know. I think God is beyond our ken. — Thinker
Putting valuable objects and decorations speaks to a ritual. A ritual, especially in relation to the dead, speaks to a religion. We do not know specifically what the religion was; but these burials point to an after-life. — Thinker
50 to 60 thousand years ago we begin to see art. Art tells us about abstract thought. — Thinker
If we can see them saying – they are going to an after-life – can’t we assume there is also a place before life? — Thinker
I have to think they are talking metaphysics. — Thinker
Does man need God?... – absolutely. — Thinker
Now God, the scientist, is taking notes. — Thinker
I think I posed this question the wrong way. It should be two separate questions. Does man need God? Does God need man? The answer to the first question is – absolutely. The answer to the second question is – maybe. Let’s assume for a moment that God created man as a kind of experiment. It wants to see if we can evolve into something worthy. It sets the stage, primes the pump and off we go into the wild blue yonder. Now God, the scientist, is taking notes. Do you think this scientist has just one experiment - us? Like Carl Sagan said – billions and billions – seems more like it. How important does that make us to God?
I do not think it is realistic or honest for humans to define God. I think we can speculate – hypothesize – imagine – but in the final analysis – we do not know. I think God is beyond our ken. I cannot take any religious bibles seriously. I find them insulting, disingenuous, fallacious and most importantly coercive. — Thinker
First I don't think it makes sense to refer to something at all if you're not prepared to attempt to define it. You admit that we can "speculate-hypothesize-imagine"; it is obvious that we do not know (or at least know that we know), but do you allow that we are able to form more or less reasonable judgements concerning the quality of our various imaginings, speculations and hypotheses?
Even in saying that God is completely beyond our ken, you are claiming to know, or at least have good reason to believe, something about him. — John
He might be beyond your ken, but how could you know that he is beyond the ken of others? — John
This is still a projection of how we see these concepts. — Noble Dust
I would say abstract thought begins in Greek philosophy, especially Aristotle. I don't think of art as being the birth of abstract thought. It's more like the birth of representational thought. — Noble Dust
If we can see them saying – they are going to an after-life – can’t we assume there is also a place before life?
— Thinker
I'm not sure what you mean. — Noble Dust
I have to think they are talking metaphysics.
— Thinker
No they're not because the concept of metaphysics didn't exist. — Noble Dust
Does man need God?... – absolutely.
— Thinker
Why? If we're an experiment, why not say "fuck you, God"? I'd rather not exist than be God's pet experiment. — Noble Dust
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.