As a philosopher how do you reconcile these two seemingly contradictory notions of being given existence but only for a limited time? Does it not sometimes make one feel powerless or at worst nihilistic in the face of it? — invicta

From an evolutionary point of view, we think of ourselves as separate and distinct from the universe. After all, if I don’t see myself as separate from the tiger, I may end up as lunch. But we also see the Earth as flat and at rest. Moral: what we perceive may not be the truth.

If we see ourselves as a temporary manifestation of the universe, then things are different. If I play Hamlet, when the play is over, I still exist. I don’t mourn the fact that my Hamlet no longer exists. If I see myself as a temporary manifestation of the universe, I don’t mourn when the temporary manifestation ends.

Of course, it’s easier said than done.

it is self-inconsistent (i.e. impossible) for any natural event, force or agent to cause any fundamental constant of nature to change — 180 Proof

I don't see the relevance of this remark to what I've said.

So my point is, in sum, that we know enough today about what is the case in order for us to have known and, even if only in principle, what can and cannot be known (though not, of course, what we will learn). — 180 Proof

We don't. For 2 or 3 centuries Newtonian Mechanics was accepted as true; warping of space and time appeared "obviously" impossible and outside the realm of natural law.

Also, the metaphor of the soccer match and TV's also doesn't end up addressing entanglement. There's really a soccer match. And the TV's (also real!) receive a local signal. No mystery there. — Andrew M

The two TVs represent the two measurements. The reality is the soccer match. Obviously, the images on the two TVs have to correlate as they represent two views of a single reality. I think the point he is making is that there's a deeper reality than the physical world and therefore it's no surprise if two measurements correspond.

they could easily have had predefined values. No big deal. — Andrew M

Isn't it the case that we know they do not have predefined values (unless we accept the pilot wave, Bohmian Mechanics interpretation)?

Do you like the following metaphor better than the game metaphor?

Suppose we have two spinning coins, separated by light years. Suppose if Alice causes her coin to stop spinning (analogous to doing a measurement) and it lands heads, that Bob causes his coin to stop spinning and it lands tails. Suppose Bob's coin always lands on the reverse side as Alice's coin. This is my metaphor for quantum entanglement as I understand it. Comments?

I claimed that believing in God is no more preposterous than quantum mechanics. — T Clark

On a superficial level, I agree. If we just look at claims about God and about QM, the claims themselves may see equally preposterous. BUT when we look at the evidence, things are different. No need to even go to QM. The Earth is a globe. On the other side of the Earth, people and oceans are hanging upside down. Preposterous. And the Earth and me along with it are spinning at about 1,000 miles/hour. Absurd. But there is evidence for both claims.

Now, let's turn to God. Which God? The "evidence" for the Christian God is in a book that begins with a talking serpent. Later in the book, "God" impregnates a woman who is not his wife, so that their baby son can grow up to be tortured to death. Why? To pay a debt that humanity owes to his father, and that the father won't forgive otherwise. Some other Gods have similar problems.

I think that to observe a change in nature which – within the constraints of the 'laws of nature' – could not be caused, even in principle, by any natural event, force, or agent, this would imply that that causal "something" is inconsistent with – not constrained by – the 'laws of nature'. — 180 Proof

The point of the OP is that we do not know what "could not be caused, even in principle, by any natural event, force, or agent". For example, a thousand years ago, lightening was something that could not be caused, even in principle, by any KNOWN natural event, force, or agent. The OP says we cannot with confidence declare anything supernatural until we know the full extent of what is possible in the natural world. We don't have that knowledge now, and may never.

Pretend you believe t — Vera Mont

I didn't mean atheists should pretend. There are people, myself included, who believe something that deserves to be called God exists, and that religions include tall tales which don't always reflect well on God.

There's no reason, in principle, why anecdotal evidence can't confirm a supernatural theory. — RogueAI

We have better than anecdotal evidence for lightening; we have eye-witness testimony. I've even seen it myself. For centuries, lightening was thought to be supernatural. "A History of the Warfare of Science With Theology in Christendom" by Andrew D. White (you can find it online) has an account of how preachers condemned Ben Franklin's lightening rod as trying to frustrate the artillery of heaven. They couldn't explain it so they dubbed it "supernatural."

Google "frogs rain from the sky". Another natural event someone might dub "supernatural."

We just don't know everything that's possible. Walk on water? Change water into wine? Raise the dead? These all may be natural events that we haven't discovered how to do yet.

My point is that when enough anecdotal evidence piles up, it's OK to conclude something strange is going on. — RogueAI

Look at the original post. What was done to Thor could be done to his entire tribe, a wireless doorbell camera in each hut. And then there's the well-known scenario where someone knows a eclipse is about to occur, waves his hands, and the primitive tribe sees the sun go dark. A few minutes later, another wave of the hand restores the sun. In the mind of the tribe, the man has clearly demonstrated "supernatural" power.

Well, what do you think of my criterion for "proof" of the supernatural in my previous post just before yours, Art? — 180 Proof

Do you mean presently-known laws of nature or known and unknown laws of nature. In the original post, Thor experiences something beyond the laws of nature his culture knows. Bylaw makes a similar point.

Are you saying that every thing and every phenomenon is therefore squarely within the laws of Nature? — Bret Bernhoft

Not at all. If I did, I'd have a burden of proof. But if someone claims something thing or event is supernatural, then the burden of proof is on them. The point of the OP is that I don't believe that burden could be met.

Are you saying that every thing and every phenomenon is therefore squarely within the laws of Nature? — Bret Bernhoft

I am saying that when someone says something is supernatural, the burden of proof is on them AND that the burden is impossible to meet. Example: if someone says supernatural pixies cause earthquakes, the burden of proof is on them and the burden is impossible to meet.

unenlightened: the natural world can be defined without reference to any Gods.

I think "beyond" is too vague; more precisely, 'any X that contradicts, or is inconsistent with, the laws of nature' is what I understand by "supernatural". — 180 Proof

Agree

There's something comical about presuming to give lessons of this kind on YouTube. — Ciceronianus

Where would you consider more appropriate?

I don't find it "blah". It's reasonable to ask, So what?
Some religions build off of the thought that spacetime is a facade and define the real thing as God.
The task for the believer then is to try to see God in everyday life.
For example,
Why is the World False? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwcft4auszA
Seeing the eternal in daily life not just in samadhi - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wqw84fkHhk8&t=253s
So, the thoughts can have consequences if taken far enough.

Okay. Then what? What is the conclusion to this observation? Surely you don't mean this to be the conclusion. — L'éléphant

As I understand it, the soccer metaphor is meant to explain entanglement. The two entangles particles are analogous to the two views of the soccer game. The game itself is some higher or deeper reality that is somehow outside of space and time. Thus, in some sense, the two entangles particles naturally correspond because they are two different views of one thing.

Donald Hoffman has a similar view. He argues that space and time aren't ultimate; that they are somehow appearances of a deeper reality outside spacetime, that spacetime is part of our interface to reality.

Note: I'm not arguing these ideas are true. But I think they are interesting and may be true, which is why I posted.

niki wonto,

This is from a book I’m working on. Current draft copy available upon request.

Self-Transcendence
Suppose I am entirely physical. Suppose I am matter and only matter, matter that somehow is conscious and intelligent. Suppose my destiny as an individual is annihilation. When I die, I cease to exist. The biosphere absorbs my body’s atoms. My emotions, mind, and consciousness simply cease to be. This idea may seem unwelcome, threatening, and frightening. But considered deeply, it can lead to self-transcendence. And self-transcendence can be viewed as a type of salvation, salvation from fear of death.

As we’ve seen, if I’m merely matter, matter which lacks a soul, then it’s plain that I didn’t come into the universe; I came out of it. My body emerged from the universe. I emerged from the universe. I am not separate from the universe but a part of it. The universe gave me birth. It is my parent. Something which is ancient and vast beyond imagination has given me birth. I am a person on a planet with billions of other people, a planet that is a microscopic speck of dust in an almost infinite universe.

I am a small speck. Yet, I can contemplate the vast and ancient universe. I feel my small presence in the infinite universe and the feeling is an odd mixture: one part realizing my own smallness and insignificance; one part feeling a part of a vast, magnificent universe, no matter if only an infinitesimal small part. The universe has created me. I am not the universe but the universe is me, just as the wave is not the ocean but the ocean is the wave. Something ancient and vast has become me.

The God’s Script by Jorge Luis Borges tells the story of Tzinacán, an Aztec priest imprisoned and tortured by the Spaniards. After decades in prison, Tzinacán has a vision; he believes certain words of power will destroy his stone prison, evict the Spaniards, reconstruct his nation, and make him immortal. But he knows he never shall utter the words, because “Whoever has seen the universe, whoever has beheld the fiery designs of the universe, cannot think in terms of one man, or that man’s trivial fortunes or misfortunes, though he be that very man.”

Tzinacán has achieved salvation, salvation from ego concerns, a type unlike the ego salvation of Old Theology religions.

We live in an unimaginably vast and ancient universe. Yet, our concerns often revolve about ourselves. Ego issues dominate: “I want to go to heaven. I want to be reincarnated. I. Me. I.” Ego concerns are understandable; they help us survive. But the person who can self-transcend, who can rise above ego; the person who can say to the Real, “You exist. And that’s enough for me. What does it matter if this finite, flawed human being lives for eternity, or is snuffed out like a candle?”—that person has a faith and a love for God far above those who practice religion out of fear of hell, hope of heaven, or a better reincarnation.

A person who achieves that perspective while still in the body has achieved some degree of self-transcendence. That person finds their “I” in the Real rather than in the ego and its transitory selves. Mystic slogans such as “Die before you die” and “The art of dying” take on a real, literal meaning. Self-transcendence utterly defeats death. For if I die to my transitory selves before the death of my body, then there is nothing that death can take.

MojaveMan: “my own grandmother is close to passing and she is a devout Christian, and I can tell she is absolutely terrified of the end”
It’s not surprising that a religion which teaches the possibility of eternal torture would have followers who are afraid of dying. I don’t mean to say your grandmother has committed any great sins. But Christian denominations have different, contradictory views on how to be saved. Suppose I’m Catholic. Some Baptists say Catholics aren’t saved. Suppose they are right? That would certainly lead to fear of dying.

Moreover, it’s easy to accept what you’re told if it helps you get along in life. Ancient Greeks believed in Zeus. Ancient Aztecs believed in Quetzalcoatl. But death is real and accepts no bullsh*t. Maybe doubts about her religion are surfacing and she’s beginning to suspect what she believes about death and heaven may be untrue. Thus, death would be an unknown and fear of the unknown is understandable.

MojaveMan: “But it's the only thing we can really expect, so why not spend ones entire life preparing for what is certain?”
I agree but would express it differently. Death is real; bullsh*t beliefs aren’t. So, one preparation for death would be to try and really confront and understand reality, without the comfort of religion’s spoon-fed answers. If anticipation and/or fear of death motivates someone to search for the Real, I say that was a good thing.

The OP seems confused — Janus
It looks that way to me. — Fooloso4

One reason I like to post here is to see criticism of what I think. Would the OP have been clearer if I said that "substance" is like Kant's "think in itself" in that we never directly experience substance? Rather we experience properties. So, substance is a theoretical construct; it's something we assume to exist as the bearer of properties. But we don't directly experience substance.

Of course, we don't directly experience protons, quarks, etc. either so maybe the phrase "just a word" is unjustified.

Thanks everyone for the comments so far.

Thus, in conclusion, I don't think personal gods are so silly afterall. They simply make the universe a little bit more relatable and accesible to human minds. There is usually a kernel of truth in everything. — Benj96

I agree there are uses for person Gods. If that were not true, there wouldn't be so many of them. But I find it difficult to take them seriously. That easy to see (for me, at least) for the elephant and monkey Gods of India. I find Christian stories a bit more believable but not much.

The word "substance" means something and is useful. — T Clark

All words mean something and may be useful.
A word can refer to an objective reality (ex, water) or not (ex. unicorn).
The OP discusses if "substance" refers to an objective reality of not.

I don’t question the facts: that Chinese spy balloons were shot down over the U.S. I question all the attention the story is getting. It seems to me to be the usual scare-mongering meant to keep MAGA people (and maybe the rest of us) on edge and worried, to divert attention from genuine issues and threats to well-being—for example, the lack of universal healthcare in the U.S. to name one issue; the price of some prescription drugs is another.

OK, thanks for letting me know.

This is the situation we should expect if God does not really exist: different civilizations making up different stories about God — Art48

Quick question. If God doesn't exist, why is it such a persistent archetype of human existence throughout our history as a species? — Benj96

The entire paragraph is as follows:
This is the situation we should expect if God does not really exist: different civilizations making up different stories about God. But it’s also the situation we should expect if God wants to be discovered fresh, by each person: religion gets us started on the path, but eventually we realize it’s fictional. At that point, we arrive at a fork in the road: atheism lies on one side, a personal search for genuine knowledge and experience of God lies on the other.

To answer your question more directly, I think that something which deserves to be called "God" does exist but that our pictures of God are inaccurate, perhaps inevitably due to human limitations. 2,000 years ago Jesus taught disease was the result of sin and demons, a primitive, incorrect teaching. Today, we understand disease better but not completely. We are still progressing. Maybe it's the same with God - except that primitive "scriptures" hinder the search, in that if someone is already convinced they have the truth (for example, that sin and demons really do cause disease) then they are less like to find truth than someone who is searching.


:

P.S. Of course, an allegorical and/or symbolic interpretation may contain much wisdom. But the wisdom is not from the book; it is from the writer.

Here's my own analogy.

Popeye says "I am what I am and that's all that I am." I can interpret this to mean that we should always be without pretense. Pretense and lies and "fake news" seems to rule the media today. Lord Popeye wants us to avoid pretense and lies. He wants us to simply be what we truly are.

So, Popeye is a wise, spiritual sage? Me thinks not. :lol:

He taught that the Bible had multiple levels of meaning and that it should be interpreted allegorically as well as literally. He believed that the literal meaning of scripture was the surface level, but that beneath that there were deeper spiritual truths that could be understood through allegory and symbolism. — Wayfarer

The problem with allegorical and symbolic interpretations is that they can make a writing mean anything at all. Sam Harris makes the point better than I could in his recipe analogy.

You can google "Sam Harris recipe" for many links which mention it.. Below is a cut and paste from one link for convenience.

Harris walks into a bookstore (Barnes & Noble), and with his eyes closed, randomly grabbed a book and opened it at random. The book was called “A taste of Hawaii: New Cooking from the Crossroads of the Pacific.”

Here’s what Harris wrote in the end-note.

“And therein I discovered it as yet uncelebrated mystical treatise. While it appears to be a recipe for seared fish and shrimp cakes with tomato relish, we need only study list of ingredients to know we are in the presence of unrivaled spiritual intelligence. Then I list the ingredients: One snapper fillet cubed, three teaspoons of chopped scallions, salt and freshly ground pepper… there’s a long list of ingredients.

Then I go through with a mystical interpretation of this recipe. The snapper fillet is the individual himself. You and I, awash in the sea of existence, and here we find it cubed which is to say that our situation must be remedied in all three dimensions of body, mind, and in spirit. They have three teaspoons of chopped scallions, this further partakes of the cubic symmetry suggesting that that which we need add to each level of our being by way of antidote comes likewise in equal proportions. The import of the passage is clear: the body, mind, spirit need to be tended with the same care. Salt and freshly ground black pepper; here we have the perennial invocation of opposites. The white and black aspects of our nature. Both good and evil must be understood if we would fulfil the recipe of spiritual life. Nothing after all can be excluded from the human experience. This seems to be a tantric text. What is more, salt and pepper come to us in the form of grains which is to say that the good and bad qualities are born at the tiniest actions and thus we’re not in good or evil in general but only by virtue of innumerable moments which color the stream of our being by force of repetition. Then this dash of cayenne pepper: clearly a being of such robust color and flavour signifies the spiritual influence of an enlightened adept. I go on and on and this is all bullshit because it’s meant to be bullshit.”

If the Bible says Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, but the Quran says God neither begets nor is begotten, then, at best, followers have no choice but to agree to disagree. At worse, they can have a war to decide who is right. — Art48

Why is their disagreement cause for such alarm? — Hanover

The very first sentence in your first post in this thread mentions alarm, which does not appear in the original post. I'm happy to defend WHAT I POSTED. If you disagree with something in the original post, please cite the specific sentence(s) and we can proceed from there. If not, then I'll agree to disagree and move on.

In any event, if you're going to post an OP, it would seem reasonable that you defend it and not just simply try to declare a truce. — Hanover

I'm happy to defend what I posted. If you disagree with something in the original post, please cite the specific sentence(s) and we can proceed from there.If you have multiple disagreements, let's do one at a time to avoid confusion. Deal?

Let's just agree to disagree, shall we?

You are arguing an immutability of religious views — Hanover

As I mentioned, religions can and do change their teachings, by reinterpreting or ignoring scripture but not by repudiating scriptural verses. If you disagree, can you provide an instance where a religion admitted a scriptural verse was wrong?

Your comments only point to your lack of knowledge of those denominations that do allow for the complete rejection of certain religious tenants — Hanover

What denominations reject scriptural passages? Witches and slavery demonstrate certain scriptural passages can be ignored. But that's not the same as saying the passages are morally wrong and not from God.

It is very clear that the Bible has nothing kind to say about homosexuality — Hanover

It is quite clear to whom? The following verses are from Leviticus:
"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." Chapter 18 verse 22
"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." Chapter 20 verse 13

You are arguing an immutability of religious views — Hanover

I clearly say views are mutable (as in the case of slavery and witches).
I'm beginning to feel our exchanges are a waste of time..

You are also arguing that there is this monolithic structure called "Religion" that each and every organization under that category must meet in order for it to be a religion. This leads to an impossible effort on your part to explain how Fundamentalist Baptists, for example, are similar to Reform Jews to the extent they both hold to the same interpretative systems. — Hanover

Wow. Another view I do not hold. Let's just agree to disagree, shall we?

Hanover,

Physicists can say Newton was wrong. Can you cite a similar instance in religion?
Of course, religions change. But do they ever repudiate scriptural teachings? No.

Christianity no longer kills "witches". But has it ever said "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (Ex 22:18) is wrong and not of God? Of course, not. It can't because of its epistemological method.

Has it repudiated the chapters of Exodus which give rules for enslaving? No.

Revelation's first chapter (as I noted above) has a false prophecy. Can Christianity acknowledge that? No.

Some Christians take Genesis literally. Others in interpret it metaphorically. None that I'm aware of reject it.

I once made a list of some of the ways scripture is massaged to make it say what is desired. Here it is.

To properly understand the Bible, one must: 1) not read too superficially 2) not read too literally, 3) understand the overall context, 4) refer to the meaning of the original ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words, 5) understand the meaning of the words in their ancient linguistic/grammatical context, i.e., proper exegesis, 6) understand verses in their larger historical and literary context, i.e., proper hermeneutics, 7) be led by spirit not by mere words (“for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life” 2 Corinthians 3:6)

But saying scripture is just plain wrong is not in the list.

" According to your argument, that hospital ought not to exist, and nobody working there could describe themselves as Christian, yet it does, and they do."
According to your straw-manning of my argument.

My argument is that religions cannot repudiate their sacred texts because of their childish epistemological method. But then can, and do, in cases ignore the writings. That's why the hospital treated your wife with skilled surgeons and nurses, not casting out demons and forgiving her sins.

Here's another case in point. The first page of Revelation describes things which must "soon come too pass". It then describes the Second Coming.
The Second Coming has not come "soon". Revelation is wrong.
But what Christian preacher can admit that simple, obvious fact?

Wayfarer,

I have no problem with the idea “they are descriptions of different manifestations of the Ultimate”. But “and as such they do not conflict with one another” is obviously wrong. Either Jesus is God or he isn’t. Either heaven/hell awaits us, or reincarnation. Etc.

But this is all besides the point, which is that once a religion accepts certain writings as scripture, then the writings cannot be repudiated. For centuries, physicists believed Newtonian Mechanics was accurate and true. But science’s epistemological method allowed them to change their minds and accept Einstein’s theories. Have any Christians repudiated any teachings of Jesus as wrong? Not likely. Why? Because religion uses a childish “a special person said/wrote this so it must be true" epistemology.

Google “child dies because parents religious beliefs” Even today, Jesus’ nonsense description of disease as caused by sin and demons, and his cure of prayer and fasting, is still accepted by Christians. Can any of them say Jesus was wrong? It would save the lives of children. But they can’t say it and remain a Christian.

Hanover,
And you need to learn how to read a post and respond to what the post actually says.

Hanover,

You write: Why is their disagreement cause for such alarm?
You write: you can't then say that the theology that follows is not subject to criticism and debate within the particular ideology.
You write: you're rejecting religions that insist there is one simple reading of a particular sacred work and that it is not subject to debate or interpretation

I never said any of those things. Try re-reading the original post.

You write: If you want to criticize those religions that do that, have at it, but that would be a criticism of certain religions and not of religion generally. That leaves open the possibility of accepting religion, but denying the very simple criticisms you assert in the OP.

The fundamental criticism of the OP is religions’ faulty, childish epistemological method. If you know of a religion which is not based on purported “sacred” writings, then let me know what it is. It’s certainly not Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, or the various Hindu religions.

You had originally written "Religions do not agree but their prophets do."
I took that to mean that the sayings and/or writings of prophets agree with each other, which I don't believe.

But if you mean they experience the same reality, that's a different issue.
So, maybe you and I can agree that all "genuine" prophets experience the same Reality, but they express their experience differently, and so sometimes may disagree.

Many people wonder what happens after death.
If prophets agree about what happens after death, please enlighten us as to what they agree on.
(You can't do it.) — Art48
You ask me to show you something and then you say "(You can't do it.)".
I'll not bother arguing with someone who has completely made up their mind. — TheMadMan

Why not do it for the benefit of others who will read your post?
You can't do it because "prophets" disagree, about what happens after death and other things.

I've seen the idea that all religions (if followed far enough) eventually lead to the same place (God) because at some point, the person begins to follow God, not the religion. This is the "personal search for genuine knowledge and experience of God" referenced in the original post.

In this sense, it can be said that all religions ultimately agree, or ultimately lead to the same place.
But that's quite different than saying all prophets agree.

Another view, would be all "genuine" prophets experience the same Reality, but they express their experience differently, and so sometimes may disagree. However, "genuine" makes this statement tautological.

Religions do not agree but their prophets do. — TheMadMan

Many people wonder what happens after death.
If prophets agree about what happens after death, please enlighten us as to what they agree on.
(You can't do it.)

What God? You yourself said, correctly, that "religions do not, and cannot, agree", which means that the concept of "God" differs among them. And you confirm this later, by saying "different civilizations making up different stories about God." — Alkis Piskas

The idea is that there is a reality that deserves to be called "God" and the human civilizations have made several childish, erroneous attempts to describe that reality.

I wonder how much you've really thought through these statements. You don't elaborate much about it, so you end up with cliche: science good/true/real, religion bad/false/fictional. — Mikie

I've thought about them a great deal. Something I'm currently working on.
https://adamford.com/NTheo/NewTheology.epub
https://adamford.com/NTheo/NewTheology.pdf

Dr. Mengele and his colleagues have already shown us what it would look like if science were to "appropriate the fields of ethics and ultimate values for itself." — T Clark

One case doesn't prove anything. Christianity for centuries endorsed killing women for the "crime" of witchcraft and said slavery was A-OK. And then there was the Catholic Church's habit of transferring child-raping priests so then could rape again and again. If science is disqualified from speaking about ethics and ultimate values, then so is religion.

P.S. I didn't mean to condemn Luther entirely. In fact, there was a Catholic bishop (I forget who) who echoed his view. And, of course, the case of Galileo is well-known. The point was merely astronomy was once in the domain of religion but today is not.