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

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.

Time, by itself does not have volition or so most of us think. — Thinker

What is the context for that comment? Was someone saying that change has volition?

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

I probably do what I do because that's what I want to do.

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

Ok that clarifies it, I see how that makes sense from a physicalist position. That wasnt clear to me before. I disagree, but it makes sense.

How would you know that you're in a state of changelessness? — Terrapin Station

Knowledge in what way? Something like meditation is a direct, primary form of experience that's ontologically before analysis. The way to have knowledge about it is to experience it. We can analyze our experience after the fact, but in this context analysis without prior experience is ontologically fallacious.

Good! It's a lot better than doing what you don't want to do; and then there's also no cause for complaint.

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.

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

You can want to complain, obviously.

Knowledge in what way? — Noble Dust

Knowledge by acquaintance, not propositional knowledge.

If you're familiar with Shoemaker's "Time Without Change" paper you'd have the same dilemma as inhabitants of Shoemaker's fictional world when a freeze occurs.

The description I made of meditation could pretty well be described as knowledge of acquaintance. An experience of momentary changlessness, then, fits within that.

I'm not familiar.

Time without Change

The section I'm talking about starts on the page marked 369. The paragraph begins with the word "Consider"

There's a difference between doing what you want and doing everything you want. ;)

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

I find this to be a pretty bold statement. I will tell you how God is clarified to me. God sets the stage for the universe. First and foremost it does not consult me. I am not sure if it has any buddies and/or friends. It does not communicate to me its existence directly. However, I intuit a very nicely formed universe. Things are very nicely and well put together – too well for it to be a coincidence. A nice planet, atmosphere, shinning sun, plenty of water – although it is getting a little foul in places and we are running out of fish that we want to eat. Is the water and fish God’s fault? No – anyway, in addition, we have this great facility called consciousness. Very convenient to have consciousness - and - to go along with it we have another great facility called emotion. Emotion seems to give us a degree of freedom to choose. Most things around us constrain our choices, but emotions allow a degree of choice. The greatest of emotions is of course love. What would be the point of living without love? My clarification of God is that all these things – given – are not coincidence. 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 – but I can feel it. I am now ready to be crucified.

I'm at work on my phone, I'll read through it when i can. This is pretty tangential to the op topic, though.

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

How many universes have you experienced? Only one? Same here. Of course it's "nicely and well put together", but not too well or not too nice for it to be a coincidence. It just is what it is, and as long as we feel good, it seems nice. When we get sick and start to die, however, it is the same universe but then we experience more of its features--like dying and death.

in addition, we have this great facility called consciousness. Very convenient to have consciousness — Thinker

... consciousnes - and - emotion... — Thinker

I like consciousness and emotion -- great stuff, they are. But many animals aside from us animals have emotions, and a few (so very few) have consciousness. Were it a blessing, wouldn't it be more broadly distributed?

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 have no desire to rattle the stillness of your mind. If you feel the presence of god after stilling your mind for a prolonged period of time, fine. But it could be that the presence you feel is the consequence of a thoroughly and deeply stilled mind.

I am now ready to be crucified. — Thinker

You are not!

For one thing, you haven't stated anything that is likely to get you crucified -- not around here, anyway. You have to threaten the powers that be, to start with, you know -- shake the foundations. And make people very uncomfortable. Plus you need more than the average charisma.

BTW, what do you think happened to god in the incarnation?

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.]

Meno asked Socrates if virtue can be taught and Socrates asked Meno 'what is virtue' then Meno asked Socrates, if you don't know what something is how do you expect to know it, even if you do stumble across it? Socrates did not like this argument, it stunned him as much as he had stunned Meno. Socrates then pulled a transcendental magic trick, the first instantization of an innate idea in history.

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

Thank you very much for your thoughtful reply. You covered many aspects that I've been thinking about, but didn't get to in the OP. Such as your approach to ignosticism as a method more than a fixed position. Agree, good point. Because if it were simply another fixed position, it could turn into just be a belief wrestling match with others. A method, a tool of examination, now that is helpful! Just in my own mind, considering this or that belief, some way of even approaching spiritual or religious topics without feeling even more confused. And, as you mentioned, on internet forums it is almost a necessity to explain the terms one uses, and why. I still think attempts to pin down "G-d" are generally counterproductive. But if one can be transparent in their language, realistic in their ambitions, and ready for at least a little skepticism, then perhaps the subject can be carefully broached. Perhaps not unlike the fact that deep sea diving is possible, for example. But only with certain conditions and equipment. All of this is fine-print opinion of course. I definitely would not wish to impinge on someone's right to free speech or religious expression in the least.

About my use of "Divine, Source, etc"- lol! I know! I don't feel comfortable with any of them. I was actually trying to use somewhat vague terms that were still in the ballpark. The word "G-d" to some people might seem referential to a specific religious tradition. Or so it seems to me. Theory is still under construction. What do i know anyway? But one thing i know for sure... the first and second rules of Fight Club are: You Do Not. Talk. About. Fight Club! :D

BTW, what do you think happened to god at the time of the incarnation? — Bitter Crank

If you are referring to Jesus - I don't think he knew more about God than other holy men. God does not talk to humans directly in my view - ever. All bibles are man-made. Most religion is not spirituality - it is a confidence game to get your allegiance and then your money. If you are spiritual you do not need a church or someone else’s thoughts to represent yours. Spirituality is an experience and can happen anywhere or time – to anyone. Anytime someone tells you they have talked to God – escape quietly – less they attack you with their delusional righteousness. 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. If our sun blows up – I doubt we will be missed. What is our consequence in the scheme of things? There are probably billions of other beings much more advanced than us. Do you think we are one of God’s favorites? People wish for heaven because they are not satisfied how they have lived this life. Heaven is here – now – don’t miss the boat. I don’t know much about God – what ethics and morals it has – I cannot say – other than to say I like the laws of physics. I know the ethics and morals of man – it is not always very pretty – many times sad.

Thank you very much for your response, it is appreciated. — 0 thru 9

Thanks!

[I'm]Definitely not intentionally dismissing, denying, or downgrading them. — 0 thru 9

For sure, I wasn't saying anything along those lines. I agree with your thoughts.

Most religion is not spirituality - it is a confidence game to get your allegiance and then your money. — Thinker

Were the earliest religions a scheme to get money? Sounds more like a description of a tendency seen in some forms of modern Christianity more than anything. Religion may require allegiance, but religion isn't an entity with motives like "get your allegiance" or "get your money". There is, maybe, a sort of hive or gang mentality; a lowest-common-denominator social pressure to conform. This is just the necessary tension between the subjective nature of a spiritual experience on the one hand, and the unity or "one-ness" that so many spiritual revelations call for or are imbued with, on the other. Spiritual revelation generally calls for something that brings people together, but the very attempt of those people to bring themselves together after the fact is what leads to the failures of religion. This tension never gets resolved, or hasn't yet been resolved within history. Per my own view, I don't see that as enough evidence to say that the divine doesn't communicate with humanity. I view the relationship as Divine-Human. This leads me to your comments here:

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

Nikolai Berdyaev, a Russian existentialist/Christian/mystic/other Philosopher suggested that God has a need for man; the inverse of man's need for God. 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. Without getting too deep into Berdyaev's philosophy, my own interpretation is that everything, including spiritual experience, is what John would call intersubjective, because man's revelation to God is a revelation of human creativity which is generated by the divine; for instance, the "indwelling of the holy spirit". Man doesn't become God, but God is birthed through man. Man isn't deified by himself (as in the most literal or extreme versions of humanism or transhumanism), but rather God deifies man, and man deifies God; the one is interdependent upon the other. It's an expression of agape that sounds very heretical if you were raised in the church, for instance. But this idea doesn't set God and man at equal terms. The key here is that man needs to fully embrace the scope of his freedom; conceptions of God that categorize man as "unessisary" (because God has no need of man) are nihilistic because they literally eliminate man from the equation; God having no need for man renders life meaningless and human life valueless. Atheism is a more proper view than that view of God. If God exists, man must have a purpose, and if man has a purpose, then God has need of that purpose, and so God has a need for man. God's need for man is, then, expressed through man's potential to embrace freedom through creativity, because this is the existential act that fulfills the need for God to be "birthed" in man. That's the fulfillment of God's need for man. This is a view that's pretty deeply intertwined with a teleological view, which I know a lot of people here are not interested in.

Were the earliest religions a scheme to get money? — Noble Dust

When we talk about the earliest religions, I think we have to go back to the cave. What I mean is – why do we ask ourselves religious questions? We ask ourselves ontological questions because we are insecure. 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. This is the earliest church and there was probably not any quid pro quo. The motivation to answer the question of how we got here, was, and is to calm our fears – reduce our jitters.

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.

I don’t think all religions are corrupt and I do believe religion has a function. The boogeyman still exists and we need a legislative body to propagate our morality and ethics. I think all people are philosophers, but only a very few actually realize that they are and then only a very few of those few – practice it. Most people are sheep and need a shepherd for their flock. That’s why churches persist and flourish. Even Russia and China have churches of a kind – the state and other institutions. Religion will never leave us – hopefully it will evolve.

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

In the Jewish Mystic Kabbalah there is a concept that God is not perfect. It is the idea that we must help God to perfect the universe – Tikkun Olam. I have always liked this idea because it gives us a purpose/function. In the Abrahamic religions God talked to certain people. Who were these people? They were dessert sheep herders. Were their ideas very sophisticated? No, they were not and I doubt any of them talked to God. Did Joseph Smith of the Mormons talk to God? I don’t think so. Does God need a purpose? I don’t know – it is not responding to my emails – yet I am still hopeful. Who has the greater need here – Man or God?

↪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

Thanks BC for the insights. That added much to the discussion. (Y) Who said "G-d created Man in His image. Man returned the favor."? I googled it to no clear answer. Maybe Twain, GB Shaw, or possibly Rousseau, who lived first. Anyway, i get what you are saying about defining things are are totally beyond our reach, and i agree. It is not necessarily foolish, evil, wrong, misguided etc. to try. But one best not fool themself.

One can imagine prehistoric people's conception of what the moon was. What was probably more critical and important to our ancestors was something along the lines of "what does Miss Moon (or whatever name they had for it!) mean. What is she saying? Why isn't she so large and bright tonight? Probably they completely anthropomorphized the moon and projected their thoughts onto it. But if such practices balanced their lives and culture, then who could object? (In this imagined scenario where I'm projecting my thoughts!). There is truth vs untruth, fact vs fiction. But there is also "what works" vs "what doesn't work". The Taoist ideas of the uncarved block signifying pure potential may be relevant. What can we make of our block? One would be thought quite dull if they said a piece of wood can only be that, or a violin is no different than a block of wood. (btw, fwiw: That is the origin of the term "blockhead". I read it on Wackypedia! ;) or maybe not.)

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

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). It's better to try to situate ourselves in their state of consciousness rather than to project backwards our own. But it's of course no less difficult, maybe more difficult. Studying language is probably the starting point. If we try to interpret mythology and ancient religions, we need to do it through the lens of how language was forming and shaping the reality that those people existed in, the same way that we can do that today (philology is a lost art, though).

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

That being said, this seems reasonable.

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. When I talk about the deification of man by God, it's something akin to salvation, for instance. Just a way of explaining it that puts man in a higher position than just "lowly sinner saved by grace". There's some scripture about man being "a little lower than the angels". That's about where I see him, but Christianity as a whole, for instance, certainly doesn't see man there. It sees man one conscious decision away from burning in Hell eternally. That's more of what I'm getting at. So as far as who has a greater need of the other, that question is only important if you're questioning the hierarchy of beings here, and I feel no need to do so. The intensity of need could be equal for all I know, or something that doesn't even translate; need for God could mean something else than what need for man is, in the same way that two people in a relationship have different needs.

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

I agree it is hard to know exactly what our ancient ancestors were thinking. Although, we do have some great clues that speak to our ancient ancestors intentions. The biggest clues are burials. The earliest undisputed human burial dates back 100,000 years. In the Skhul cave at Qafzeh, Israel - skeletal remains stained with red ochre were discovered and a variety of grave goods, including the mandible of a wild boar in the arms of one of the skeletons. 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. 50 to 60 thousand years ago we begin to see art. Art tells us about abstract thought. It may be primitive, but it is a symbolic abstraction. If we can see them saying – they are going to an after-life – can’t we assume there is also a place before life? Language is also starting in this same time frame. I have to think they are talking metaphysics.

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 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.

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

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. He might be beyond your ken, but how could you know that he is beyond the ken of others?

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

This is still a projection of how we see these concepts. Imagine you lived 50,000 years ago. Are you telling your neighbors, "we need to do this as a ritual! It's because I believe there's an afterlife!" Concepts like "ritual" and "afterlife" exist for us now because of the genealogy of these concepts, sifted through countless sub-disciplines like linguistics, philology, philosophy of religion, history of religion, archaeology, ad absurdum; all modern disciplines. These archaeological finds say as much about our own pre-conceived notions and our own perceptions as they do about the artifacts themselves. Think about it this way: what actually tells us more about the past: a knife we uncovered in the desert, or our study of the language used by the people who used the knife? Or, what kinds of things does the knife tell us, and what kinds of things does the language tell us?

50 to 60 thousand years ago we begin to see art. Art tells us about abstract thought. — Thinker

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.

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.

I have to think they are talking metaphysics. — Thinker

No they're not because the concept of metaphysics didn't exist.

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.

Now God, the scientist, is taking notes. — Thinker

..who?..

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

Hello. :) Thank you very much for your numerous contributions. I think you get the central idea of the original post, and your replies reflect that. Even though my OP may be perhaps a somewhat clumsy attempt to make sense of the sheer ocean of the words written about "ultimate realities", so to speak. I would think that most have their own methodology in doing so. Atheists might just toss everything that mentions a Divine source into the trash, or attack it relentlessly. A firm Catholic believer might read and accept only Church-approved doctrine. Others may be more eclectic, which is quite common owing to the "world at your fingertips" nature of the internet.

Even if I might question a particular wording of yours, such as your statement that Man needs G-d "absolutely" (and please feel free to exand on that), you seem to keep your statements open and flexible, imho. This to me is the welcome opposite of dogmatism, and to some it may seem watered-down or wavering. I would counter by suggesting that although humans often seek certain knowledge, "Dogma" of most varieties generally attracts the emotionally wounded, the less intellectually curious, and perhaps the careerist looking for converts/customers. And that is the brighter side of Dogma. During periods of upheaval (like now) it can become reactionary, simplistic, violent, and abandoning of any openness it previously had. That much seems clear. No openness at all equals no growth. No growth equals stagnation, which leads to decay and dissolution. Perhaps beliefs and ideas have a "circle of life" similar to living organisms, and have periods of growth, propagation, and eventual decline. That remains to be demonstrated. But who wants to build their house under an enormous rotting tree? It makes a house built on sand look like beachfront property.

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

I think we constantly do define God – we cannot help ourselves. In fact I believe we are neurotically obsessed with defining God – all of us. My point is that we need to observe ourselves doing it – and – realize how silly it is. I am not saying we should not do it – just be aware of our projection. For example – you refer to God as “him”. If God is omnipotent – don’t you think God can be a female? If I were God I would want to experience giving birth, death – moving around the Earth as a worm. Why not?

I know about God because I can feel it. I know about fire because I can feel it; but do I really know what fire is? I can talk about chemistry, physics and my experience; but there are limitations to my knowing. I can talk about you, John, but do I really know you? I think you are intelligent, respectful, inquisitive being, but I do not really know you. I am saying – know your limitations. I try to refer to God as “it”; however, I am sure I say “him” somewhere in my dialog. This is my cultural programing coming out. As a philosopher, I am trying to overcome my own limitations and try for a better grasp. I want a more satisfactory, comfortable knowing. This is the best I can do and be honest. If I am going to be true to myself – I must not bend my logic to fit a popular notion. I must be consistent, honest; even if it hurts – even if it is limiting. I want my ideas to go through the crucible of fire – I want the best steel of thought.

He might be beyond your ken, but how could you know that he is beyond the ken of others? — John

I think this is a very good point; one I do not disagree with. However, if someone tells me that Trump is a great president – I look at Trump and then I look at them. When I reconcile the two – things don’t add up for me. The same is true when someone tells me God is a certain way because of the bible. For example, I look at the bible and see things like the following:

Deuteronomy 21:18-21King James Version (KJV)

18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

I cannot take this thinking seriously – it sounds like Trump talking to me. There are a lot of great things in many bibles, but all of them have an abundance of not so great things. Am I supposed to cherry pick and ignore the fallacies and falsehoods? I cannot do that and be true to myself. I feel forced to conclude it is not a divine inspiration.

I feel the same way when the man on the street comes up to me and says – “God talked to me and told me the end is near”. Immediately I am on guard. People have an agenda like - David Koresh – Jim Jones – Muhammad – Jesus – me - and you. I feel obligated to take each person, including myself, on a case by case basis. In reality I have to take each statement I make on a case by case basis. I can never be certain that I am not bending the truth. If I am honest, and I want to be, I have seem myself change the facts to fit the fiction on more than one occasion.

My definitive explanation of what is God is beyond my ken. However, my definitive experience and feeling of God is not. I know fire exists and I will not be told otherwise – I feel the same way about God.

This is still a projection of how we see these concepts. — Noble Dust

This is very true - that's what science does - project based upon data.

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 you look at the cave painting of half human - half animal - I would say this is abstract. There is a 40,000 year old sculpture in mammoth ivory, 6 feet tall, with a lion head and human body.

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

If they are thinking about an after-life, there must be some conception of what happens before life begins.

I have to think they are talking metaphysics.
— Thinker

No they're not because the concept of metaphysics didn't exist. — Noble Dust

The idea of an after-life is a metaphysical thought.

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

I am sorry you feel angry - that is not what I was hoping for.