Is the concept of "God" necessary, let alone real?

[Greta]

When you think about what stars and planets actually are, especially their scale and layers, and then how especially weird the Earth is compared with everything else we've observed in space - the whole situation is so trippy and mind-boggling that there is no way our little heads can properly wrap around it. Yet human attempts to understand are heroic in their determination against impossible odds, and that persistence has brought us further than our ancestors would have thought possible.

I don't know. With my committment to a weltanschauung, wrapping my head around this is not a problem. Maybe my head is larger and flatter (like a sheet of newspaper.)

But seriously speaking, I don't see a hidden, unseen, undetectable meaning behind all this. I do believe in determinism, which means that each consequent state of the universe is determined by the forces, movements, and motivations of some parts of it, in the previous state.

If you believe that, if you can believe that, then the whole thing congeals philosophically like a well-placed tetris game. No surprises, no gaps to fill in by a god or by any other invisible unknowable.

My system is not perfect; it can't explain the consciousness of biological beings. The pleasure principle. The experiences animals are capable of. I hold, however, a belief that that can be explained very well and will be. Except not just yet.

That's not quite what I meant, -1-. You don't need meaning to be awed by the scale, scope and richness of reality - actual reality that applies to most of the universe, not the perceptions of relative Flatlanders stuck on the surface of a medium sized rocky planet. The actual reality is mostly cold and sterile space, with faint molecular clouds. The next most prominent stuff of the universe is plasma, the stuff of stars. We take stars for granted - either the warm orb in the daytime sky of points of light at night. Yet these things are absolute monsters - the scariest things in the universe! Forget black holes - they are pussycats by comparison. Consider the famed "scary" event horizon, beyond which there is no escape. If the star had not exploded that "zone of no return" would instead be an ocean of lethal roiling nucleated plasma - I'd take my chances with the event horizon, thanks.

I suppose I might be one of the few who finds it weird how the unparalleled thinness of space is so rudely interrupted by such monstrously huge, blazingly intense zones of concentration, because that what they are - they are made of the same stuff as the space around them, just that an incredible amount accumulated and jammed itself into one relative place like cities growing out of wilderness.

Humanity are also getting some adverse press. By contrast, the Earth and galaxy are seen more or less as die - random elements in the game of survival - but they may well be the main players and most blame-worthy

We blame ourselves and others for not getting rid of our stripes like some tigers. WE can't, and that is a natural process. If you want to attach an adjective to human core values, they are unfortunate; but it's not something we can change, because we can't change a dictate not to kill children, not to divide ourselves into who can breed and who can't, and not to stop hoarding.

What worked for us as a species for over a hundred thousand years, is not going to work forever. Blame is useless. It will not solve any problems. Only changing core human values can, and I am skeptical if that is a real possibility.

I'm fine with human values that strike me as far more reasonable than the, at best, childish and spotty morality of other intelligent species. What we need IMO is to be much more efficient in our use of energy. In the medium term I would expect this to come from the increasing integration of humans and AI. The less we eat and the less we excrete, and these strike me as the crux of human sustainability issues rather than morality, which a luxury afforded those whom are not struggling for survival.

[Nick_A]

Dubious

No, I don't assert; that tendency more properly belongs to `you.

Plato defined Man as a being in search of meaning. Philosophy is defined as the love of wisdom. If I cannot assert some kind of structure, a hypothesis for universal purpose, then there can be no objective meaning or the recognition of the interaction of universal laws which can be experienced as the basis of wisdom. If this is true we may as well just argue President Trump and whose momma sucks. So I begin with the logical premise of universal purpose and human purpose within it which responds to the human need for meaning as well as the potential to acquire wisdom.

You prefer to make assertions about people such as Goethe: “His cute little aphorisms of which this is one, generally amounts to cliche;

Not being slaves doesn't amount to being free; if you can't see the obvious difference (which you seemingly can't) then what credibility can you have with everything else you write.

Of course recognition of psychological slavery is the beginning of the path to freedom. You seem to prefer to bask in denial which is easy to do. The trouble with blind denial is it sacrifices the opportunity to feel human purpose as well as the potential for wisdom as an expression of the lawful interaction of universal laws.

Goethe — 'Colors are the deeds/ and sufferings of light.'

Is that observation just a cliché or a profound insight

[Reflex]

You are talking about simply being as fundamental.

I’m talking about what must be in order for what is to be as it is; a kind of “knowingness,” not mere belief. I’m talking about a unique kind of apprehension that cannot be reduced to ordinary intellectual terminology of notions. And this is the paradox of the matter object. The primary fact is the confrontation of the human mind with a Something whose character is usually only gradually learned, but which is from the first felt as a transcendent presence, the beyond even where it is also felt as the within.

[Greta]

You are talking about simply being as fundamental.

I’m talking about what must be in order for what is to be as it is; a kind of “knowingness,” not mere belief. I’m talking about a unique kind of apprehension that cannot be reduced to ordinary intellectual terminology of notions. And this is the paradox of the matter object. The primary fact is the confrontation of the human mind with a Something whose character is usually only gradually learned, but which is from the first felt as a transcendent presence, the beyond even where it is also felt as the within.

The above strikes me as trusting one's intuitions. What is belief if not following one's gut?

I could be mistaken there seems to be an element of panpsychism in your comments about the "matter object".

[Reflex]

The above strikes me as trusting one's intuitions. What is belief if not following one's gut?

I could be mistaken there seems to be an element of panpsychism in your comments about the "matter object".

It’s trusting one’s self enough to have confidence in one’s highest ideals.

No panpsychism. As the First Source and Center, God (or the One) is primal in relation to total reality — unqualifiedly. The primal differentials, the ‘deified’ and the non-deified, are coexistent Absolutes. They interpenetrate, but are distinct.

[Greta]

The above strikes me as trusting one's intuitions. What is belief if not following one's gut?

I could be mistaken there seems to be an element of panpsychism in your comments about the "matter object".

It’s trusting one’s self enough to have confidence in one’s highest ideals.

No panpsychism. As the First Source and Center, God (or the One) is primal in relation to total reality — unqualifiedly. The primal differentials, the ‘deified’ and the non-deified, are coexistent Absolutes. They interpenetrate, but are distinct.

That is simply trusting your gut. How many people in history have trusted themselves and been wrong? Consider what happened to Galileo - a lot of people were sure about geocentrism (not least because it rendered accurate predictions). Also, our perceptions are so easily swayed and influenced by the most oblique things https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... arm-hearts.

In this most abstract and personal of philosophical issues I have no problem with people trusting their gut. Your notions seem to run in parallel to the standard body of knowledge rather than contradicting.

It would seem to me that the "non-deified" parts of reality are not different to the "deified" parts, just still in the process of being awoken. Keep this running for the life of the universe and there may be an Omega Point.

[Dubious]

You seem to prefer to bask in denial which is easy to do.

What specifically am I blindly denying? I have no idea! You make these assertions upon every critique you don't like including your ubiquitous phrase "you are not open to...", etc.; it's funny you say this so often because you haven't once, as noticed by almost everyone, been open to any response which disputes your views in any manner whatsoever; what you present as truth remains fixed and hermetically sealed...meant to be preached, not argued.

Goethe — 'Colors are the deeds/ and sufferings of light.'

Is that observation just a cliché or a profound insight

I don't know! Where's the rest of it? I never heard of light suffering but now it seems that's also true. When light suffers, so must everything; is there no end to misery that even light is afflicted!

Bereft of symbols to a wasteland grown
We pray in temples to an empty throne.

What do you think? I gave you more to work with here than you gave me!
Is it just a cliché; a profound insight or simply an existential fact?

[Belinda]

There is a lot of argument these days regarding the "existence of god", where neither term is defined - or rather, where both are subjective, so that every participant brings their own notion of existence and god. Nothing can be proved, so all points of view are equally valid.

But mere existence isn't the point of a god. The Universal Mind, or Conscious Earth, or some intelligent nebula merely existing wouldn't be any use to us. The Creative Force or whatever set the process in motion is no use to us. It just sits there.
We want gods that work, answering prayer, enforcing rules, allaying fear, providing purpose for our lives, punishing bad action, helping old women conceive, demanding faith, multiplying fishes, smiting rivals, driving out devils, winning football games, making rain, etc. We need gods that we can influence - bribe, entice, romance, beseech, exhort, nag, wheedle - to work for us, and against them.

There used to be another, more direct social function of supernatural entities: to personify aspects of nature and climate, to exemplify human personality traits, to keep our ancestors present and provide a point of contact with our roots. But, as the universe perceived by man grew beyond our comprehension, as our very societies grew beyond personal interaction, those small, intimate deities were subsumed by the idea of a big, distant, all-in-one, top-down god, to whom anyone can talk, but who talks to no-one.

No, he isn't necessary or real, but he's a formidable tool for intimidation.

There is a need for the world society such as it is to have a common meaning. The basis of the meaning is what is the case, and what is the case is obviously led by enlightenment science. Science shows us that our extinction as a species immediately threatens and those of us who love other species are sorry that we are dragging to extinction many of them.
Nobody knows what to do so that our species will be better behaved. The god which might save us and those other species from extinction has the human qualities of humility, uncertainty, reason, kindness, mercy, and top quality knowledge.

I'm aware that my recipe for god is idolatry, that's to say, a projection of myself. There is always going to be culture clash ; as Hegel described that's how we evolve. The United Nations is the church for modern people.

A God that talks to people is to be avoided , as that defines the God which arises from idolatry unrefined by humility.

[Greta]

Science shows us that our extinction as a species immediately threatens and those of us who love other species are sorry that we are dragging to extinction many of them.

Scientists speak much about the Holocene extinction event currently in train but they don't tend to posit human extinction any time soon due to our spread, adaptability and technological advancements.

[Nick_A]

Dubious

What specifically am I blindly denying? I have no idea! You make these assertions upon every critique you don't like including your ubiquitous phrase "you are not open to...", etc.; it's funny you say this so often because you haven't once, as noticed by almost everyone, been open to any response which disputes your views in any manner whatsoever; what you present as truth remains fixed and hermetically sealed...meant to be preached, not argued.

By definition, you like all secularists must assume that the world and our subjective reactions to it is the source of human meaning and purpose and that there is no objective universal meaning and purpose. Secularism violently opposes the mind opening to conscious contemplation of universal meaning and purpose and the Source which provides it. It denies the essential needs of the seed of the soul in favor of appealing to our surface personality. You blindly oppose this potential.

I’m not opposed to denials. But if they defy the essential questions of philosophy including my own concerning objective human meaning and objective wisdom, why accept them as meaningful? Explain to me how secularism explains objective as opposed to subjective human meaning and purpose as well as universal meaning and purpose and I’ll gladly be open to it. But if you insist on ridiculing the idea based on nothing but blind denial, how am I expected to discuss it other than by introducing the universal alternative to secularism.

If you want to argue the world as the source of human meaning, we may as well argue about Trump. If this is the way it has to be I'd rather argue about women. At least it's more fun.

[Reflex]

It would seem to me that the "non-deified" parts of reality are not different to the "deified" parts, just still in the process of being awoken. Keep this running for the life of the universe and there may be an Omega Point.

The “Omega Point” has always been. (Your thinking is conditioned by space and time.)

[Greta]

It would seem to me that the "non-deified" parts of reality are not different to the "deified" parts, just still in the process of being awoken. Keep this running for the life of the universe and there may be an Omega Point.

The “Omega Point” has always been. (Your thinking is conditioned by space and time.)

Maybe, if the holographic time hypothesis turns out to be true.

[Reflex]

It would seem to me that the "non-deified" parts of reality are not different to the "deified" parts, just still in the process of being awoken. Keep this running for the life of the universe and there may be an Omega Point.

The “Omega Point” has always been. (Your thinking is conditioned by space and time.)

Maybe, if the holographic time hypothesis turns out to be true.

Like I said...

[Greta]

The “Omega Point” has always been. (Your thinking is conditioned by space and time.)

Maybe, if the holographic time hypothesis turns out to be true.

Like I said...

Nothing like confidence, eh.

Did you see the holographic time part of the Through the Wormhole episode, "Will Eternity End?"?

[Reflex]

Maybe, if the holographic time hypothesis turns out to be true.

Like I said...

Nothing like confidence, eh.

Did you see the holographic time part of the Through the Wormhole episode, "Will Eternity End?"?

What a stupid title!!! With a title like that, how can any person in their right mind take it seriously? But to answer your question, no.

Eternity is time-transcending, not time everlasting.