What is God?

[TMA_1]

You place yourself on rocky ground when you use the arguments Thomas Aquinas used to prove God's existance. My favorite argument for the existance of God is the concept of the seed of religion, that man is naturally a religious being, and naturally is inclined to believe in an Absolute. It cant just be some long existing Meme.

[Acriku]

You place yourself on rocky ground when you use the arguments Thomas Aquinas used to prove God's existance. My favorite argument for the existance of God is the concept of the seed of religion, that man is naturally a religious being, and naturally is inclined to believe in an Absolute. It cant just be some long existing Meme.

No, not some long existing meme. I would say several long existing memes. By the way, what do you mean naturally religious? You didn't say naturally theist, which I think was for a reason.

[Dude_Doc]

No, not some long existing meme. I would say several long existing memes.

But from what? What made humans place dieties in places of the sea, air, the thunder and so on?

[Egeides]

But from what? What made humans place dieties in places of the sea, air, the thunder and so on?

Something is common to a sea and another sea. Something is common to air and thunder and the rest. The question comes: what is it that is common and links all this? And gods enter, and God follows.

Science tries to get more of this in other ways as well, although it tends to restrain itself more with our material environment.

[Acriku]

But from what? What made humans place dieties in places of the sea, air, the thunder and so on?

What easier explanation is there for creatures of low knowledge of the universe than to make every phenomenon the product of all-mighty beings? Man knows his limits, and would often dream of going beyond those limits. That's probably a reason why anthropomorphism was the dominant method of describing gods - they were men with very few limits. Now, naturally like animals would, men would give these super-men domains or territories. Give a super-man named Poseidon the domain of the vast ocean. When your ship flips over or is torn apart by the ravages of the deep sea, it is the wrath of Poseidon. When you are winning the land wars, you praise Ares for his grace. Now, there must be a leader or ruler as is the case in any society primitive or advanced. Bring in Zeus, and his reigning queen Hera. How these gods are said to have came about is dictated by imagination and folklore. This is how I understand these things, anyway.

[Egeides]

We have a "best explanation" for gravity, although we know it seems to glitch in certain cases.

They had a "best explanation" for falling rocks, although they knew it seemed to glitch in certain cases.

Sounds similar? It seems like a matter of degree with anthropomorphism/else not really put aside, but just by degree to not throw the baby with the bath's water.

How these gods are said to have came about is dictated by imagination and folklore.

"Dictated"? Do you believe that "moderns" are the first to be free?

From our view on human/nature, we started from different aspects. "Aspects" mix with "nature"/"What is God":

Possibility 1 (whole): People search truth "for some reason" (circular? TMA's "nature"?).

Possibility 2 (self): Or reasons to "fit nicely with"/bring socio-psychological pleasure.

Possibility 3 (nothing): It's not for some "reason". As long as it fits, people go on. They'd be dictated by anything around, like folklore. It looks survivalist.

Possibility 4 (exterior): Or we're robots and some "God" up there decides.

Which is consequence of which?

Better: is "ideal" as "pragmatic" then... all of it? ;)

[spazelord]

As for this spaze guy:

It seems to me that most important thing you must address is this:

What are the defining features of the God of which you speak. Compare this to the defining features of the God which others here speak, and you will probably find that you are not speaking about the same thing.

It seems you're trying to say that scientists believe that all is dictated by the laws of science while others believe that all is dictated by the laws of God and that actually God and science are the same and that all is simply dictated by laws which some call God and some call science.

However, theists define God as more than just laws, they define him as being sentient for which thing, which an abstract thing such as law cannot be.

Actually that is not what I

[Dude_Doc]

That's probably a reason why anthropomorphism was the dominant method of describing gods - they were men with very few limits. Now, naturally like animals would, men would give these super-men domains or territories. Give a super-man named Poseidon the domain of the vast ocean.

But this essentially means that if you put a "man in a box" (well, room then), he will naturally develop a thought for the supernatural, since no one is there to teach him anything? The question is still what makes people think of super-men, why not just "the sky flashes sometimes"? Or the sea "rumbles"? Why create super-men, which besides they never meet, to be gods of all the elements? I mean, how exactly does the sea, or the air, resemble a human?

Actually that is not what I

[Egeides]

How is it the same with religion and science? Science base it's findings on that the universe is created by materialistic conditions, or to put it this way, a huge mindless machine of physics.

There isn't one ideological "science base". Einstein is not Newton is not G

[Acriku]

But this essentially means that if you put a "man in a box" (well, room then), he will naturally develop a thought for the supernatural, since no one is there to teach him anything? The question is still what makes people think of super-men, why not just "the sky flashes sometimes"? Or the sea "rumbles"? Why create super-men, which besides they never meet, to be gods of all the elements? I mean, how exactly does the sea, or the air, resemble a human?

If you put a man in a box, likely he will not think in terms of gods in the skies because he would not witness the phenomena on Earth that makes man so easy to fall into theology. If you give him wonders of the world with little knowledge of them, he's going to jump to conclusions and exaggerate a bit as his best explanation. Or perhaps what he wishes to be the explanation. I'm not enough of a psychologist to determine why the early men of our species eventually began to develop religions, but I gave what I think makes sense. Of course the sea/air does not resemble a human, that was not what I was saying. I was saying that men would probably give super-men that they wonder about in their minds domains or territories. These would be the sea, the air, the underground, clothes, food, wine, etc.

But then why create anything? If we are connected already, why create a universe? Or planets, galaxies, or countries for that matter? That only creates the problems you speak of: war, hate, the thought of separation and difference...

How is it the same with religion and science? Science base it's findings on that the universe is created by materialistic conditions, or to put it this way, a huge mindless machine of physics.

Why create the universe? You got me. Like somebody said, if aliens have never existed then that is a big waste of space out there. I think it was Contact.

Aren't these feelings and imaginations precisely the cause for war and unhealthy lifestyles? Through these imaginations we have created different religions, different countries, hell even different races which fight between each other. Nazism wouldn't exist if it were not for the imagination of Adolph Hitler, right?

I would agree. Where are you getting with this?

Egeides, free from what?

[Egeides]

dictated by imagination and folklore

Free from dictation. Modern as "first free minds"?

You would agree that emotions = road to Nazism? ???

[Acriku]

Well by dictate I meant for men to speak of it for others to remember it, via imagination and folklore. Does that clear anything?

[Egeides]

It does. I thought you meant some deterministic "dictate". So it's emotions leading to Nazism, erm?..

[Dude_Doc]

Science never bases its findings on whether the world is all material or not.

Maybe it does not, but the "scientific mainstream" clearly states that there are no supernatural things out there, most likely because of the lack of evidence, but I would also argue the lack of interest into, for example, parapsychology and such.

Actually, the Nazis are used as the perfect example of not using emotions. The SS were to work like perfect war-machines in some mechanism, ignoring any kind of human affection or pity. Instead, toughness or ruthlessness were promoted. Or love of the leader and his goals.

I'm not talking about the methods of the Nazi regime, but of it's creation. Hitler (among others) had a strong feeling of hate against Jews, Communists, homosexuals and so on - so he had feelings in one way or another. Hitler (among others) also had an imagination - how else would they come up with something like the Holocaust? Or race-laws? Without the feelings of hate and the imagination of how to "solve the problems of Germany", Nazism would most likely not exist - neither would many other political thoughts. If humans were "empty" bodies, I don't think we would even got out of the caves we lived in.

I would agree. Where are you getting with this?

I was replying to a quote of spazelord, in which he argues that our imagination and feelings are a positive thing, created by what he calls god. I pointed out that feelings and imagination also are the basis for our many conflicts throughout history.

[Acriku]

I would say that rather than a lack of interest, a lack of evidence or proper argument for things like parapsychology is more likely the case for scientists to not bother with "supernatural" things. But it does seem weird to say supernatural, when all that exists is referred to as natural. For something to be supernatural, it would be put into the category of not existing.

[Egeides]

Maybe it does not, but the "scientific mainstream" clearly states that there are no supernatural things out there, most likely because of the lack of evidence, but I would also argue the lack of interest into, for example, parapsychology and such.

It's just hard to demonstrate by scientific method that the other guy isn't just a material shell. Or anything following this line further.

I'm not talking about the methods of the Nazi regime, but of it's creation.

Agreed then.

[TMA_1]

It is really impossible to prove the existance of God. When you live within a system, it is extremely difficult to comprehend what is outside the system, or how the system works as a whole. It is hard to fathom what different spectrums of light would look like to us if our eyes could percieve them. It all depends on revelatory knowledge and faith. Kierkegaard was surprisingly correct in my book... It is hard for a rational man or woman to accept God, especially The Christ, because it takes a seemingly foolish leap to fall into faith. Once you do have faith though, you know it is true... But to someone who has no faith, this seems like foolishness. it takes a lot of guts to do something so brash, and many folks around you will mock you for it.

[Dude_Doc]

I would say that rather than a lack of interest, a lack of evidence or proper argument for things like parapsychology is more likely the case for scientists to not bother with "supernatural" things.

Well, sure. I also point out the lack of results within the supernatural. UFOs are a good example - many people see strange objects every day in the sky - many of those are natural objects, or man made things - but there are still things seemingly without any explanation at all (the Foo Fighters of WW2, for example). We can see these things, but the lack of results in that area may also be a reason as to why not continue research. Or ghosts - they don't help us with medical research, or space research, or even why these "people" are still here for that matter (if you believe in ghosts).

On the other hand, there are still people researching the "unknown", for the better or worse...

It's just hard to demonstrate by scientific method that the other guy isn't just a material shell. Or anything following this line further.

True, but one can also theorise as of the nature of humans. We haven't found any reason for the soul to exist.

Kierkegaard was surprisingly correct in my book... It is hard for a rational man or woman to accept God, especially The Christ, because it takes a seemingly foolish leap to fall into faith. Once you do have faith though, you know it is true... But to someone who has no faith, this seems like foolishness. it takes a lot of guts to do something so brash, and many folks around you will mock you for it.

But this applies to just about anything that is "supernatural" - werevolves, aliens, the new world order...

[Egeides]

True, but one can also theorise as of the nature of humans. We haven't found any reason for the soul to exist.

Not sure about what you mean by soul but.. You can prove lots about the material world, but you can't prove your own existence? :D

But this applies to just about anything that is "supernatural" - werevolves, aliens, the new world order...

...or love...

(that might not be Kierkegaard though)

[Acriku]

It is really impossible to prove the existance of God. When you live within a system, it is extremely difficult to comprehend what is outside the system, or how the system works as a whole. It is hard to fathom what different spectrums of light would look like to us if our eyes could percieve them. It all depends on revelatory knowledge and faith. Kierkegaard was surprisingly correct in my book... It is hard for a rational man or woman to accept God, especially The Christ, because it takes a seemingly foolish leap to fall into faith. Once you do have faith though, you know it is true... But to someone who has no faith, this seems like foolishness. it takes a lot of guts to do something so brash, and many folks around you will mock you for it.

Well, mocking is found everywhere. Everyone mocks the crazy cults (see, even I am) that sprung up in Oklahoma leading to multiple suicides and murders, while it took the same leap of faith that took a lot of guts to do. My point here being that just because it takes guts to do, or is hard to do, doesn't mean it is worth noting to do. I'm sure it also takes a lot of guts to take a real leap from a high point. Either way, you fall down.

[Egeides]

I'm sure it also takes a lot of guts to take a real leap from a high point. Either way, you fall down.

...or love...

[Andrew]

June Callwood interview

She is asked if she believed in God. She says no, that there is nothing after death. Believes in kindness. "What you get is a life... live it to the fullest".

Very good interview. Last one she did shortly before she died of cancer. 10 minute runtime.

The death/god part starts around 7 minute mark.

There is also a link to the uncut 16 minute interview.

[Dude_Doc]

Not sure about what you mean by soul but..

The thing that is "the person", the induvidual of the person.

You can prove lots about the material world, but you can't prove your own existence?

Maybe not, but we can make seemingly accurate theories of existance, based on the study of other people. That is, no one can survive in extreme heat or cold, everybody must drink water and eat food, people are not that different from each other.

...or love...

Well, not really. Love in our world is the distant story we hear as young children, how the prince rescued the princess from the evil, uh, thing and then they lived happily ever after. At first one may call it love, sure, but later it mostly becomes responsibility.

[TMA_1]

Well, mocking is found everywhere. Everyone mocks the crazy cults (see, even I am) that sprung up in Oklahoma leading to multiple suicides and murders, while it took the same leap of faith that took a lot of guts to do. My point here being that just because it takes guts to do, or is hard to do, doesn't mean it is worth noting to do. I'm sure it also takes a lot of guts to take a real leap from a high point. Either way, you fall down.

You are quite right, it takes more than guts. I was being a bit dramatic there. It has to be a serious choice. I am still confused as to what I believe man. Just because I talk about this stuff doesnt mean I have serious doubts all the time. If you only knew how many times I thought of all the inconsistencies, even inconsistencies that people never talk about. Like, how could I believe in a faith whose people believed that the human heart was the seat of thinking? How could I believe when the evolutionary time table makes so much sense? How could I believe when there is no defining fact that directly or indirectly proves the existence of God?

i am not a terribly stupid person, and sometimes I wade through my own over-analytical brain way too much. But something calls me, and I cannot let it go. There is a God, and I cannot tell you or anybody why. It isnt necessarily a fear of letting go, or of going against all that I have ever lived for. There is something more, and right now, that is all that I can say.

[SWsi]

In the begining there was nothing. Limbo. Very slowly this limbo began to regard itself much as a pool of water might regard its own reflection.

After an (almost) infinity of time (or no time at all) this burgening self awareness of the nothing exploded as a Satori - the Big Bang. Nobody can say what "energy" is. Nobody can say what the Universe is. Everybody, every animal and every living thing on countless worlds throughout the cosmos, are all parts of god, and all ask the same questions, as does God -  Who (and what) Am I? How did i get here? Is there anything more? Is there a purpose? Through Eons of growth and suffering, evolution and reincarnation , the parts of God evolve in form and in mind, to higher levels of understanding, awareness and compassion.

God seeks to know itself.