Are there more plausible dogmas for a "God" than those posited by major religions?
good to consider how Akhenaton consider the sun as the cult of one god rather than humanized characters. I guess Egyptian culture is the closer to always had more plausible god to understand universe and nature. — javi2541997
Frustratingly, I don't believe science alone will ever discovery an universal principle that explains all of reality as science is but one discipline and one dogma in the sphere of human means to understand the universe — Benj96
star-stuff.... it's exactly as meaningful as you make it. Star stuff is just atoms. We glorious humans are made of it and so is our excrement once it leaves our glorious god-image bodies. WTF is an image of the universe and is that made of something more special?Could we really indeed be made in the image of the universe?
So what ought be the dogma of an" acceptable God?" One that everyone could get behind. — Benj96
Or perhaps, there is already a dogma for such a God, — Benj96
and it is human flaw that continually prevents it from being fully and unanimously realised. — Benj96
Every possible combination has been tried and none have unlocked the room where God resides ... peacefully. — Agent Smith
I understand your point, but why do you get frustrated? Don’t you think is better to always have debates and questions? The nature of universe looks endless and it is one of the most beautiful and sublime acts inside philosophy. — javi2541997
Yeah, we're congenital magical thinkers. Up to about a third of us are quite susceptible to the placebo / nocebo effect.Is it innate to us to consider such an entity when given no prior exposure to the concept? — Benj96
I don't think so.And if so, does that itself have any implications on the argument for or against such an entity?
star-stuff.... it's exactly as meaningful as you make it. Star stuff is just atoms. We glorious humans are made of it and so is our excrement once it leaves our glorious god-image bodies. WTF is an image of the universe and is that made of something more special — Vera Mont
he's just too remote to relate to. He becomes ineffable, unreachable, unthinkable -- and useless. — Vera Mont
Dogma is a very poor way to present a deity. He needs to be personal, plausible, adaptable and available. — Vera Mont
Which is more blameworthy, the one who made it all, or the one who peeked behind the curtain? — Vera Mont
Any god bigger than that will juts make a colossal ass of itself. — Vera Mont
Yeah, we're congenital magical thinkers. Up to about a third of us are quite susceptible to the placebo / nocebo effect. — 180 Proof
If civilization progresses in similar ways, aliens, no doubt, will also conceive of god(s). The point is we have different conceptions of god and that speaks volumes as to how we've been so faithful and yet remain unacknowledged for it — Agent Smith
haha that's as good an action as any I guess. *shrug* — Benj96
I guess my frustration would come from the same source as it does for many, a constant curiosity/desire to know something better. To understand deeper. To demonstrate a higher level of knowledge and wisdom. And then recognising that I'm just as confused and unsure, as limited in resources and tools to discover as the next person. — Benj96
Does wisdom help to reach happinness? I think yes — javi2541997
I don't really see how supernatural concepts that can't be evaluated for their truth value can contribute anything to our Wisdom or our Epistemology. — Nickolasgaspar
I am not sure how questions about the supernatural can ever by part of Philosophy — Nickolasgaspar
What burden? Who invented it? Whose concepts are blame and merit? Gods, if they existed, would not be answerable; would not even deign to contemplate such a question. "I Am That I Am. I Do As I Do." In this, gods are as innocent and sacrosanct as black holes and earthworms.I do wonder, does the existence of multiple sentient beings with their own agency, take the burden off a universal God? Would such a phenomenon be an act of sharing the culpability/blame and merit alike? — Benj96
They were good enough at it to cure me of cancer, which prayers notoriously fail to do.The revealing of its [the universe] nature, how it works, its rules, its laws, how all things relate to eachother. Something that physics, chemistry and biology are very good at elucidating. — Benj96
The questions: who are we, why are we here, when did we arrive, when will we leave, how are we made and from what are we made, where are we from, where are we now, where will we be in the future? — Benj96
than post-civilized ones, which are more about power, obedience and hierarchy, and that is why civilizations wiped out all the indigenous cultures they could reach.The Piaroa, who live on the south bank of the Orinoco and speak a language of the Sáliva-Piaroan family, believe that everything was created by the powers of imagination. In the beginning, they say, there was nothing at all. The first thing to appear was the sky, and then the air and the wind. With the wind, words of song were born. The words of song are the creative powers that produce thoughts and visions. Out of nothing they imagined and created Buoko, the first being, who developed in the words of song.
Inca myth of the creation of the world
The Andean god Viracocha decided to give rise to a world in darkness where giants lived.
The giants disobeyed Viracocha who decided to disappear his creation causing a torrential rain.
Then Viracocha created man in his likeness. In addition, he created the moon, the sun and the stars so that men could appreciate his creation through light.
Viracocha sent the world to Viracochan, his son who taught men to live in harmony, to cultivate the land, to harvest and to govern themselves with wisdom.
Some men disobeyed Viracochan and that’s why they turned them into stone. Then he went to a fertile valley he called Cusco. There I create a person called Alcaviza.
“After Alcaviza, the Incas orejones will arrive. My wish is that they be respected, “said Viraconchan at the time of creating Cusco.
Tenets, rules and principles are necessary. But once a science (or any discipline) becomes dogmatic, it stops evolving and soon gets left behind, like leeches (though actually they've made a comeback) and alchemy. Even more so, the story of humanity needs to keep flowing or it stagnates, ceases to serve its original purpose, becomes absurd as all orthodoxies do.But everything we do has a dogma (a principle or guide to follow). Science has its own dogma. It is rigid and inflexible about exactly how a proof must come about. — Benj96
In science, what we understand as "supernatural" is a phenomenon that either ignores or breaks natural laws by displaying non regular characteristics or allows the emergence of high level features without being contingent to fundamental low level mechanisms.What do we mean by supernatural? — Benj96
Natural phenomena are contingent to Natural processes and they don't go against rules of Nature.What's the definition of something supernatural verses natural. Are all things that occur in nature natural? — Benj96
No. Invisibility is an irrelevant property. Energy is an abstract concept that describes the ability of Natural phenomena have to produce work. Different types of energy are observable and quantifiable and we don't have to register their characteristics by processing the visible spectrum of light(visible).Is energy supernatural because it is invinsible/indestructible for example? — Benj96
-Actually all those things allow us to Philosophize. What most people forget is that Philosophy has a goal which is defined by the word itself (Philo-Sophia). Our love to gain wisdom is what drives us to Philosophize in the first place. In order to produce Wisdom we need to reflect our thoughts upon our current accepted knowledge. We can not accept a claim as "wise" without knowing its truth value. Wisdom and Knowledge go hand in hand (Science and Philosophy).Philosophy is about thought, thinking, reasoning and defining, ideas and concepts. — Benj96
-I can agree with that statement. By using the knowledge we get from science or any other empirical and methodical study we can philosophize on any subject....but that doesn't help us learn something about the truth value of a religious claim. Religious claims come without any verified epistemology so our starting point is arbitrary , product of our superstition at best. We don't have a solid epistemic platform to begin our philosophical quest.That can be applied to literally anything; be it art, psychology, history, economics, maths, science and of course spirituality, religion and consciousness. — Benj96
Yes it has...but that shouldn't be used as an excuse to introduce pseudo philosophy in the discipline. A topic excludes itself from Philosophy when it is unable to tick the three basic steps of a Philosophical inquire (defined by Aristotle).Philosophy has the largest scope of any discipline. The minute you restrict or exclude topics from philosophy you already presuppose too much and cut yourself off at the knees. — Benj96
In order to explore their nature you will need to do Science , not Philosophy. If we have zero epistemology to compare, then the discussions can never be philosophical.Of course they can be. We can explore whether they are indeed intangible, or supernatural, we can do comparative discussions. We can ask why people ask the question in the first place. We can define the elements of a question. Offer possible conclusions. Philosophy does not prohibit. — Benj96
Philosophy has done that for many centuries. The failure to gain any epistemology on the subject is what fueled Natural Philosophy, Methodological Naturalism and Science.Without any epistemology in hand there is nothing there to say on the subject that could elevate it to a philosophical level.We can define the elements of a question. Offer possible conclusions. Philosophy does not prohibit. — Benj96
What burden? Who invented it? Whose concepts are blame and merit? Gods, if they existed, would not be answerable; would not even deign to contemplate such a question. "I Am That I Am. I Do As I Do." In this, gods are as innocent and sacrosanct as black holes and earthworms. — Vera Mont
They were good enough at it to cure me of cancer, which prayers notoriously fail to do. — Vera Mont
than post-civilized ones, which are more about power, obedience and hierarchy, and that is why civilizations wiped out all the indigenous cultures they could reach. — Vera Mont
. Even more so, the story of humanity needs to keep flowing or it stagnates, ceases to serve its original purpose, becomes absurd as all orthodoxies do. — Vera Mont
Some people (not me particularly I'm just spit balling different viewpoints here), would say that a benevolent god, or the benevolent side of an ambivalent one, works through those existants that propagate that - the scientists, organisations and corporations that make it possible to treat diseases etc. — Benj96
Some would pray for a treatment, receive it and then take that to conclude that their positive health outcome is the work of good people, good conditions/circumstances etc - a subset of the manifestation of the good in the universe. — Benj96
[dogma-stagnation] That's quite an interesting view. I'd like if you could elaborate more on it (if you have the time or interest of course). How does the story evolve, or perhaps more importantly how ought it evolve in your opinion? — Benj96
in a concept of God I'm not referring to some bug bearded fellow floating in the clouds — Benj96
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.