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

[Dubious]

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.

It's been explained many times yet you keep asking as if it were never the case and because you don't like the answer you continuously preach your own and resume the same questions. If only ONE thing is seamlessly evident in your posts, it's that. You've been on that gig since you starting posting here...the preacher on pedestal paradigm.

The brain must remain flexible, not hammered into conformity by any presumption of inviolable doctrines; a precondition to thinking which has prevented your Pilgrim's Progress toward enlightenment offering instead the illusion of it.

Think as you like; it has no effect anywhere except as a philosophy forum topic. Keep on hammering away and preach your principles; what could have been an interesting and even timely topic you've eroded into a meaningless and boring one.

Btw, science has by magnitudes a far greater potential to state what is objectively universal than anything Plato, Plotinus, et al., had to say including your own pathetic pleadings of the heart for universal values. What is revealed by discovery - a human imperative by any definition - is more boundless in scope not only in what is revealed but in our desire for it.

So, how should priorities apply? The echoes of the past (not to be disregarded)...or current and future revelations of our existence in a Cosmos where even that can be one of many! For me, that's not even a question worthy of response! What is revealed from the outside-in is the real source of transformation, our minds merely emissaries that await the visitations.

The external agencies of transformation cut deeper than any we supply on our own the latter staged to react to its inducements or in short, from the top-down expanding the mind with each new insight. Call it a form of induction that by degrees leads to greater synthesis, penultimate to what we qualify as Universal.

There are Universal values and personal ones; yours are mostly the latter as adopted and adapted from your quoted gurus.
Your "values" contravene the meaning of Universal. This kind of programming - more reminiscent of Medieval minds - leads to neither universality or enlightenment, only to the "self-serving" function of thinking it's already accomplished...another dead-end delusion of which there are thousands.

[Greta]

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.

Settle, fella, that straw is needed to scare the birds off the fields! it was just a provocative title, like Krauss's "universe from nothing".

The segment I referred to starts around 18:30 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FVfYxI-2c0#t=18m30s. Is it true or partially true? I don't know and don't mind - it's possible and it's interesting.

[Nick_A]

Obviously the God concept lacks any significance for those like Dubious. It is a misleading annoyance which gets in the way of science to reveal human meaning and purpose and prove once and for all the foolishness of what those like Plato and Plotinus have written.

What is revealed from the outside-in is the real source of transformation, our minds merely emissaries that await the visitations.

The external agencies of transformation cut deeper than any we supply on our own the latter staged to react to its inducements or in short, from the top-down expanding the mind with each new insight. Call it a form of induction that by degrees leads to greater synthesis, penultimate to what we qualify as Universal.

But what is coming in from the outside? Does it further human being or just accelerating the way down into oblivion? Dubious is right to say that we are being exposed to all sorts of influences. But perhaps the important influences are being denied due to dominant secular influences

Dear reader compare what Dubious has written to this excerpt from Jacob Needleman’s book: “The American Soul.” He describes the absence of relevant ideas and its effect on the human psych. Is Dubious right with his attacks on ideas introduced by Plato and Plotinus or is Prof, Needleman right to assert that their secular rejection in favor of secular beliefs and modern cultural expressions are increasingly turning humanity towards materialism

“Our world, so we see and hear on all sides, is drowning in materialism, commercialism, consumerism. But the problem is not really there. What we ordinarily speak of as materialism is a result, not a cause. The root of materialism is a poverty of ideas about the inner and outer world. Less and less does our contemporary culture have, or even seek, commerce with great ideas, and it is the lack that is weakening the human spirit. This is the essence of materialism. Materialism is a disease of the mind starved for ideas.

Throughout history ideas of a certain kind have been disseminated into the life of humanity in order to help human beings understand and feel the possibility of the deep inner change that would enable them to serve the purpose for which they were created, namely, to act in the world as conscious individual instruments of God, and the ultimate principle of reality and value. Ideas of this kind are formulated in order to have a specific range of action on the human psych: to touch the heart as well as the intellect; to shock us into questioning our present understanding; to point us to the greatness around us in nature and the universe, and the potential greatness slumbering within ourselves; to open our eyes to the real needs of our neighbor; to confront us with our own profound ignorance and our criminal fears and egoism; to show us that we are not here for ourselves alone, but as necessary particles of divine love.

These are the contours of the ancient wisdom, considered as ideas embodied in religious and philosophical doctrines, works of sacred art, literature and music and, in a very fundamental way, an indication of practical methods by which a man or woman can work, as is said, to become what he or she really is. Without feeling the full range of such ideas, or sensing even a modest, but pure, trace of them, we are bound to turn for meaning.

[Reflex]

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.

Settle, fella, that straw is needed to scare the birds off the fields! it was just a provocative title, like Krauss's "universe from nothing".

The segment I referred to starts around 18:30 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FVfYxI-2c0#t=18m30s. Is it true or partially true? I don't know and don't mind - it's possible and it's interesting.

Sorry, Greta. It’s an interesting video, but contains nothing new. It also irrelevant to what I’m talking about.

Years ago I came to see the universe as an interference pattern created by the past and it’s echo from the future intersecting. The material universe is therefore little more than a shadow of the Real.

[Belinda]

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.

But we are not adapting soon enough or well enough. True, Australia is going to do something to protect the Great Barrier Reef as of yesterday or very recently anyway. I hope the intervention will be in time. Meanwhile the Pacific is killing its livestock due to plastics pollution. The world's soils are overburdened due to out eating habits. I could go on in this way but finish with mention of our death-dealing social structures.

The end of faith happened and old time faiths are used now by the superstitious seeking solace, or by some power elites that use faith or its analogue for crowd control. There is no global god which has appeared in place of the old tribal gods.

Humanism, and the United Nations, lack symbols, ritual, and myth.

[Nick_A]

Dubious wrote:

Think as you like; it has no effect anywhere except as a philosophy forum topic. Keep on hammering away and preach your principles; what could have been an interesting and even timely topic you've eroded into a meaningless and boring one.

No. the topic is boring for you because your mind is closed to the expanse of the question. The secular progressive mind has eroded it even to the extent of refusing to discuss what Nietzsche meant by “God is dead” and the implications of this attitude. Is it really possible for Man to be responsible for living by higher values? Nietzsche suggested the probability of societal nihilism to compensate for the death of God. If it becomes agreed that there is no objective meaning and purpose, what can be more natural than nihilism? Nietzsche wrote in the Will To Power:

"What I relate is the history of the next two centuries. I describe what is coming, what can no longer come differently: the advent of nihilism... For some time now our whole European culture has been moving as toward a catastrophe."

It is politically incorrect for secular progressive advocates to admit the futility of their beliefs. Nietzsche speculated that the Overman could be an inspiration but where do you find them? They are only possibilities for the distant future.

So the question of God is now only academic. God is dead and there is nothing admitted much less proven to be able to replace God. Nihilism and the struggle for prestige must lead to catastrophe.

Belinda suggested the global God. This is the God of the Great Beast who uses its subjects to serve its selfish ends and continues business as usual. No help there.

I’ve introduced the transcendent God and the universe as the body of God explaining human meaning and purpose within the body as opposed to blind nihilism. But this idea is very new in public and rejected both by advocates of blind belief and blind denial. As such only a minority will profit from understanding universalism. So in short, our position is virtually hopeless. We are a queen down in a lost position. It seems humanity will have to hit bottom before it can begin to right itself. We have killed God and nothing has taken its place

"even if we can't prevent the forces of tyranny from prevailing, we can at least "understand the force by which we are crushed." Simone Weil

Simone offers partial compensation. At least we can understand why we must hit bottom and allow the forces of tyranny to prevail. We have killed God and declared the concept unnecessary as well as unreal. We invent our own meaning and purpose denying the potential for human freedom leading either to tyranny or chaos. The triumph of progressive education and its skills at metaphysical repression.

[Belinda]

Nick wrote:

We invent our own meaning----

Who would you have inventing meaning?

[Dubious]

No. the topic is boring for you because your mind is closed...

Again...

"your mind is closed", "your mind is closed", "your mind is closed", "your mind is closed", "your mind is closed", etc., etc., etc.!

How tiresome!

You made a total mess of a worthwhile subject and continue blaming others. As I said, think as you like and keep preaching if you seriously think anyone gives a hoot!

Honest debate can be interesting but your endless sermonizing wears one out.

Btw, by the time Nietzsche wrote "God is dead", it was hardly news to anyone. He just made it more melodramatic.

[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.

But we are not adapting soon enough or well enough. True, Australia is going to do something to protect the Great Barrier Reef as of yesterday or very recently anyway. I hope the intervention will be in time. Meanwhile the Pacific is killing its livestock due to plastics pollution. The world's soils are overburdened due to out eating habits. I could go on in this way but finish with mention of our death-dealing social structures.

The end of faith happened and old time faiths are used now by the superstitious seeking solace, or by some power elites that use faith or its analogue for crowd control. There is no global god which has appeared in place of the old tribal gods.

Humanism, and the United Nations, lack symbols, ritual, and myth.

You are only talking about the masses. What chance that Donald Trump or Xi Jinping and their cohorts and descendants will face danger? Less than anyone else, hence the relaxed attitude towards climate change by those in power. I'm alright, Jack!". Humanity is splitting, with the perils for the many not being shared by the few, and with the aid of AI that gulf will widen.

[Greta]

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.

Settle, fella, that straw is needed to scare the birds off the fields! it was just a provocative title, like Krauss's "universe from nothing".

The segment I referred to starts around 18:30 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FVfYxI-2c0#t=18m30s. Is it true or partially true? I don't know and don't mind - it's possible and it's interesting.

Sorry, Greta. It’s an interesting video, but contains nothing new. It also irrelevant to what I’m talking about.

Years ago I came to see the universe as an interference pattern created by the past and it’s echo from the future intersecting. The material universe is therefore little more than a shadow of the Real.

If you are starting with The All that is the final destination, then the Stroninger idea is very much relevant to your idea! Otherwise the future has shown itself to only have echoes at quantum scales.

I'm not much keen on a hierarchic notion of reality, as though some levels are superior or "more real" to others. If there is another reality, it is only going to be another aspect of the one thing, not some superior, more fundamentally real aspect.

[Nick_A]

No. the topic is boring for you because your mind is closed...

Again...

"your mind is closed", "your mind is closed", "your mind is closed", "your mind is closed", "your mind is closed", etc., etc., etc.!

How tiresome!

You made a total mess of a worthwhile subject and continue blaming others. As I said, think as you like and keep preaching if you seriously think anyone gives a hoot!

Honest debate can be interesting but your endless sermonizing wears one out.

Btw, by the time Nietzsche wrote "God is dead", it was hardly news to anyone. He just made it more melodramatic.

As a dedicated secularist you are convinced That Man left to its own devices will be an improvement over basic religious morality. You are not open to Nietzsche's doubt if we are capable of this improvement . This is basic philosophy. You will call anyone doubting the supremacy of secularism guilty of sermonizing. It is not acceptable to question the supremacy of the Great Beast. God is dead and has been replaced by educated secular experts who will tell you what to do.

"The very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world. Lies will pass into history." George Orwell

Now that the God concept and its relationship to objective truth is considered obsolete, will secular beliefs and their obsession with politically correct lies eventually lead to world peace now that God is dead? Of course it is a question motivated by sermonizing and too insulting to be discussed so it is better to argue about Trump. It is the modern way and blind denial is a sure indication of human evolution. Who can argue with genuine secular experts and their BS degrees?

[Reflex]

If you are starting with The All that is the final destination, then the Stroninger idea is very much relevant to your idea! Otherwise the future has shown itself to only have echoes at quantum scales.

I'm not much keen on a hierarchic notion of reality, as though some levels are superior or "more real" to others. If there is another reality, it is only going to be another aspect of the one thing, not some superior, more fundamentally real aspect.

The facts don't care whether you're "keen" on a hierarchical notion of reality. Like it or not, it appears throughout nature.

The material universe as an interference pattern at the intersection of the past and it’s echo from the future. It is therefore little more than a shadow of the Real. Space and time are emergent properties: our mapping of the shadow is comprised of measurements of discrete stop-moments in a dynamic continuum of relations. The Real cannot be adequately comprehended by an examination of its shadow. Shadows should be interpreted in terms of the true substance.

Science has understood for decades now that there are nothing but averages in Nature, that everything that is defined is an average of relations. The details that we can measure or observe, the details that we can define, are always the average of dynamic fluctuations. This average is the set of classical “laws.”

[Dubious]

As a dedicated secularist you are convinced That Man left to its own devices will be an improvement over basic religious morality. You are not open to Nietzsche's doubt if we are capable of this improvement . This is basic philosophy. You will call anyone doubting the supremacy of secularism guilty of sermonizing. It is not acceptable to question the supremacy of the Great Beast. God is dead and has been replaced by educated secular experts who will tell you what to do.

You do ramble on with all the secularism and Great Beast nonsense! I never thought of myself as a secularist because, for one thing, I don’t know to whom it’s supposed to specifically apply, secularism being so diverse in its views. Don’t even know for sure if there is such a thing as a purely secular being; if there is, they must be rare. What I am certain of is that I’m not a theist; also that Nietzsche was a first rate analyzer (though not in all cases) of the human condition, his prose style as well being among the best in all of literature. Wagner should have noticed! Instead, he kept on talking about Schopenhauer.

Now that the God concept and its relationship to objective truth is considered obsolete...

Mind explaining how a “concept”, being conceptual or hypothetical, can have a relationship to objective truth?

...will secular beliefs and their obsession with politically correct lies eventually lead to world peace now that God is dead?

Was there ever peace when the Old Gent was alive and kicking? Have you read how gruesome religious wars actually were all parties certain THEY had the politically correct god on "their" side!

Of course it is a question motivated by sermonizing and too insulting to be discussed so it is better to argue about Trump.

I’d prefer not arguing about Trump and as far as I know, I haven’t and won't.

Who can argue with genuine secular experts and their BS degrees?

I now wish I had been one of those experts. Unfortunately, I never worked toward a BS degree thinking there's enough of it supplied in the world already...a degree not always being a requirement.

[Dubious]

The material universe as an interference pattern at the intersection of the past and it’s echo from the future. It is therefore little more than a shadow of the Real.

An interesting thought is, if one combines Plato's cave analogy with the credence given to the universe being a 3D hologram projected from a 2D surface, then it's the shadows on the wall which are real and not the 3D manifestations behind the shadows...an inverse version of the cave.

[Belinda]

Greta wrote:

I'm not much keen on a hierarchic notion of reality, as though some levels are superior or "more real" to others. If there is another reality, it is only going to be another aspect of the one thing, not some superior, more fundamentally real aspect.

Are hallucinations or delusions not less real than sane or concepts?