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

[Greta]

Greta wrote

Then there is the widening schism, exemplified by Nick's prejudice and aggressive ideology that drives his reckless, unethical approach - bare knuckle discussion. It is the mindset of war - and many today are preparing mentally already. This "angry tribe" cannot countenance conciliation because that would be seen to them as weakness, surrender. This is a worldview that sees others more as threats than opportunities.

So we have increasing political divisions being oddly coupled with increasing metaphysical agreement, a situation where the ostensibly pious become increasingly profane and the ostensibly secular become increasingly Spinozan.

What is the basis of the unethical thought I further which had been introduced and hated virtually from the beginning? Of course there have always been men of science who were men of being at the same time. Nothing new here. Greta is right that this unethical thought has been so insulting that it has often led to war rather than contemplation. This unethical thought begins with the question: “What is man?”

The Greta mind is only concerned with politics.

No, that was exactly my point about you! I am interested in what is real. You just fight.

Why do you fight? Because you believe that "secularists" are inherently wicked and destructive and thus must be overcome. Yours is the footing of war, of politics. You are the only one talking politics here - the rest of us are trying to talk about what is. This thread is not about politics, but you brought in your usual anti-"secularist" bigotry and irrelevant content.

In short, you lack the maturity and knowledge set to engage productively in philosophical conversations - so please just go away and leave the adults to talk.

A reminder: this thread is about what models of reality that might occur to us if the God concept was not so huge and ingrained, and the difficulty of conceiving alternative models when ideas are so ingrained.

I regret the word "necessary". Huge mistake. Theists are routinely interpreting this as being necessary for happiness, success, enlightenment or whatever. That was not my intent. I am thinking in terms of variant ways of modelling reality, and the distracting pervasive God model, not about how to be happy little Vegemites.

I should have focused on the idea of alternative models rather than the pervasive one and may need to start a new thread as this one is miles away from the questions of interest that prompted this OP. It is now beset with the pointless clichés that infect most threads with the word "God" in them. The relentless circularity, day after day, years after years, the same repetitions over and over is becoming excruciating in its boring toxicity. Mindless repetition of personal mantras seems to take taken the place of creativity and exploration in forums.

[Nick_A]

Reflex

Taking things out of context like that is unbecoming. I also made the point that ideas are less important than a ideals.

uwot wrote: ↑Would it not be enough to all think that people should be free to believe what they choose?

Not without a common core.

You’ve made an essential point. What objective value do ideas and ideals have in the context of the conscious potential for human being without a common core? Without this common core or recognition of our inner north star which brings balance to the human condition ideals will be based on imagination and ideas will become rationalizations which justify imagination.

The first step towards the common core IMO is acquiring the experiential humility to admit that we are the wretched man as described by St. Paul. As we’ve seen this is a most hated idea. When Socrates said “I know nothing” he had to be killed. But for those acquiring the humility to admit the human condition as it exists in them, then ideas of a certain quality further awakening to the reality of higher ideals. But if we insist on living in denial and self justification, then we can only turn in circles.

“Just as the power of the sun is the only force in the natural universe that causes a plant to grow against gravity, so the grace of God is the only force in the spiritual universe that causes a person to grow against the gravity of their own ego” ~ Simone Weil

Without the awakening help of grace we cannot experience the inner direction leading to the common core so as a whole society cannot advance consciously. Progress is limited to technology.

[-1-]

1.

“Just as the power of the sun is the only force in the natural universe that causes a plant to grow against gravity,

2.

so the grace of God is the only force in the spiritual universe that causes a person to grow against the gravity of their own ego” ~ Simone Weil

1. is counter-factual. The power of the sun is not the only force in the natural universe that causes a plant to grow against gravity. A lightning causes this, too, in the night sky when there is no Sun around. A lighting-bug's light makes a plant grow against gravity. A burning forest's light makes the surrounding plants that are not afire grow.

Since 1. is counter-factual, we can relax and rest easy that 2. is also counter factual.

A most obvious example of how a person can't grow against his own ego despite he receives the grace of god is Nick_A himself.

Boy, Nick_A, if you could step outside of yourself and see yourself as others see you, you'd readily admit that your ego is HUGE. I'd venture to say yours is bigger than mine even, although mine wasn't born yesterday, either.

[uwot]

My point exactly. If everyone agrees with any idolatry, everyone [within that group] is happy. What makes yours better than any other?

The fact that there is no group.

Is it just you?

There is the perception that all of us have the same origin, nature and destiny no matter what our individual beliefs may be ...

I was with you up to this point, but you lost me here:

...that whatsoever we do, we do unto our greater Self.

What do you mean by "greater Self"?

[Nick_A]

Greta

No, that was exactly my point about you! I am interested in what is real. You just fight.

You define reality by what can be measured by the senses. This is classic secularism. Is it surprising how easily the negativity it exudes leads to spirit killing and metaphysical repression? Those who appreciate the wisdom of Plato's divided line and spiritual people in general have awakened to the awareness that the greater reality Man's being is drawn to functions beyond the limitations of our senses. It is an awareness you have decided for whatever reason to fight against with all the negativity you can muster.

[-1-]

What do you mean by "greater Self"?

Each day we weigh more and our volume is bigger than the previous day. The self is getting greater and greater.

[uwot]

The first step towards the common core IMO is acquiring the experiential humility to admit that we are the wretched man as described by St. Paul.

Good grief. You must really loathe yourself to do that.

[-1-]

What do you mean by "greater Self"?

Each day we weigh more and our volume is bigger than the previous day. The self is getting greater and greater.

Theoretically, since at one point we disintegrate via decomposing, there is a point in time where we achieve our greatest self. This follows from the first fundamental theorem of Calculus.

(Calculus (b. fifth century BC -- d. 438 AD) was a Roman Centurion, a direct descendant of Jupiter, a believer in Plato's teachings, and practicing Stoicism.)

[Lacewing]

Amazing. Some people would rather make themselves look foolish than admit they misunderstood something.

It's also amazing when people describe their own behavior (as you just did) and don't seem to recognize it.

How do you manage to do something amazing like that?

[Greta]

Folks, the Punch and Judy show never ends! Returning for yet another comeback tour - despite popular demand!

No, that was exactly my point about you! I am interested in what is real. You just fight.

You define reality by what can be measured by the senses.

Wrong. You seemingly have no idea how I view reality. Your replies make clear that you don't read my posts. Rather, you appear to find the first key word or phrase and start typing ...

This is classic secularism.

Do you ever get bored with this relentless, mindless, repetition? You have decried secularists and atheists on this and other forums every day for - how long? - five years? Have you been diagnosed with OCD and, if not, why not?

Is it surprising how easily the negativity it exudes leads to spirit killing and metaphysical repression?

I too dislike the narrow-minded denial of original ways of looking at the world. At this stage I have not found my "secularism", ie. absence of religious faith, an impediment to my spiritual life. Rather, not ascribing to ancient superstitions opens me up. Without the metaphysical repression of theism, once is free to consider all things in all ways.

I can see the logic of locking oneself into one role or another for work or personal development purposes. However, if one doesn't care about that shit and is simply curious to better know and understand nature, then locking into ideologies is fatal.

Everything is on the table for me because - why not? There's a thousand professionals engaging in actual philosophy in a disciplined and informed manner. The pros have those bases covered so I can brainstorm freely without concern for professional reputation. So, for instance, at present I am reading The Akashic Experience, which is full of stuff that you'd lap like a cat with cream. Lots of beautiful ideas in there too, many familiar but still satisfyingly articulated. So far I could do without conjecture presented as fact, but otherwise interesting. Now let's imagine you reading The Selfish Gene with any but a jaundiced eye.

So Hail Tribesman Nick! Ever staunch and loyal to his side (and his side only), fighting to the bitter end in the eternal struggle against The Terrible Secularists (not a bad name for an 80s band).

Returning to Planet Earth, it is actually institutionalisation that is "spirit killing", not atheism or theism; your claims are, as usual, transparently biased and tribal. If we don't buy into the agendas of any sides and simply consider the claims and counter claims, then our minds are as free as is possible within our inherent and conditioned limits, the latter being the concern of the OP.

[Nick_A]

1.

“Just as the power of the sun is the only force in the natural universe that causes a plant to grow against gravity,

2.

so the grace of God is the only force in the spiritual universe that causes a person to grow against the gravity of their own ego” ~ Simone Weil

1. is counter-factual. The power of the sun is not the only force in the natural universe that causes a plant to grow against gravity. A lightning causes this, too, in the night sky when there is no Sun around. A lighting-bug's light makes a plant grow against gravity. A burning forest's light makes the surrounding plants that are not afire grow.

Since 1. is counter-factual, we can relax and rest easy that 2. is also counter factual.

A most obvious example of how a person can't grow against his own ego despite he receives the grace of god is Nick_A himself.

Boy, Nick_A, if you could step outside of yourself and see yourself as others see you, you'd readily admit that your ego is HUGE. I'd venture to say yours is bigger than mine even, although mine wasn't born yesterday, either.

The world is a living machine. Of course a plant is aided in its growth by earthly qualities like water. However, the sun is not a part of the earth which receives its energy. We are like this. The Source is not a part of the earth yet we receive its influences through grace attracting us to return to the source much like a moth is attracted to the light.

My ego is considered bigger because I admit that I am the wretched man. Oprah will explain this somehow

[Lacewing]

(From the opening post...)

People speak about God as if the notion is obvious. In truth, we could readily dispense with the notion of God altogether and, in terms of understanding reality, nothing would be lost. We could simply consider what is without running it through the distorting filters of mythology.

Even if the universe is an all-infusive meta-mind, why associate it with a deity who started out as a childishly absurd anthropomorphism? Why not start with a fresh slate? The universe - a speculatively emergent meta-mind. Why isn't that that enough...

It's an interesting thing to contemplate, Greta.

Any absolute framework that is applied seems based on agenda... and human agendas are naturally limited and faulty.

How can any human, existing in a brief period of time with limited experience and sight, and structuring their beliefs based on the beliefs of humans with likely even less experience and sight, realistically identify any kind of absolute framework in an ever-expanding realized-world of potential and awareness? Such a thing surely seems agenda-driven. Condensed down to one's immediate cares. So why not just admit that? You know how children can pretend while remaining aware that they're pretending and that they don't really know? The "play" is still fun and valuable to them.

Why do adults need to think that their own imaginings are solidly real and infinitely important?

[Nick_A]

Greta,

You say you are interested in reality but do not mention how it can be verified or if you can verify it. If you don’t know what it means to verify reality, reality can only be defined in relation to your ego.

Is the concept of God necessary for a dog? I say no. A dog is a creature of the earth. Its involution and evolution is restricted to serving the purpose of organic life on earth in general.

If Plato was right to assert the existence of the human essence as having higher and lower parts, perhaps we are dual natured. If true, God is not necessary for our lower animal parts which dominate our lives. Higher influences which serve to awaken our higher parts we initially feel as objective conscience, become secularized and interpreted as morals. They have both beneficial and detrimental effects on society since they are creations of society.

Returning to Planet Earth, it is actually institutionalisation that is "spirit killing", not atheism or theism; your claims are, as usual, transparently biased and tribal. If we don't buy into the agendas of any sides and simply consider the claims and counter claims, then our minds are as free as is possible within our inherent and conditioned limits, the latter being the concern of the OP.

No! Institutionalism is an effect, not a cause. It is you who are fighting windmills. The cause is the human condition which secularists deny with a passion.

Uwot wrote:

Nick_A wrote: ↑
Sat May 05, 2018 11:50 pm
The first step towards the common core IMO is acquiring the experiential humility to admit that we are the wretched man as described by St. Paul.

Good grief. You must really loathe yourself to do that.

Somehow the secular mind has become indoctrinated to believe that admitting oneself to be the wretched man is really condemning oneself as something bad and requires personal loathing to admit it. Why? If we are victim of a condition which affects our sight or hearing do we call ourselves bad? No we seek help to fix the condition so we can see and hear again. Does the person have to loath themselves to go to a doctor?

You are intolerant of recognition of the human condition which causes imagination to take the place of reality you say attracts you.

“Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." ~ Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace

Typical offensive Simone. She admits that we live in a state of inner opposition sustained by imagination but with the potential for a quality of being we cannot experience as we are.

Our animal parts don’t need God nor does our capacity for imagination. Only our higher parts need the awakening God influence that comes to us through grace. I seek to further becoming capable of opening to it while you seek to eliminate it so people can better argue about Trump and institutionalism.

Representative of the truly ancient struggle between the sacred and the secular.

[uwot]

The first step towards the common core IMO is acquiring the experiential humility to admit that we are the wretched man as described by St. Paul.

Good grief. You must really loathe yourself to do that.

Somehow the secular mind has become indoctrinated to believe that admitting oneself to be the wretched man is really condemning oneself as something bad and requires personal loathing to admit it.

On the contrary. Only a mind indoctrinated by a profoundly dysfunctional religion could claim that "admitting oneself to be the wretched man" is not something bad.

Why? If we are victim of a condition which affects our sight or hearing do we call ourselves bad? No we seek help to fix the condition so we can see and hear again. Does the person have to loath themselves to go to a doctor?

There's a difference. A doctor can test whether your sight or hearing is in fact impaired. The wretchedness you feel is subjective; I am sorry for you that you feel it, but it is entirely self inflicted.

You are intolerant of recognition of the human condition which causes imagination to take the place of reality you say attracts you.

You don't know the difference between disagreement and intolerance. As a result, it is you that is intolerant of anyone who disagrees with you.

[Nick_A]

Uwot

On the contrary. Only a mind indoctrinated by a profoundly dysfunctional religion could claim that "admitting oneself to be the wretched man" is not something bad.

Romans 7 describes a quality of psychology of a depth exceeding what we know as psychology. It is the psychology of human being as opposed to human behavior

Read how St. Paul describes himself as the wretched man. Is there anything bad about it or is this slavery just an unfortunate condition anyone willing to impartially look inside can verify?

Where doctors can tell us what is wrong with our hearing or sight, we have to verify the human condition ourselves. But this suggestion is scorned by secularism insisting that its experts together with our fears make verification unnecessary so just concentrate on what to do rather than what you are.

How can you disagree with what you don’t understand? If you label an unfortunate condition as bad, how can you be open to impartial conscious verification of the human condition St. Paul describes? Lack of understanding must lead to intolerance.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!

So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature[d] a slave to the law of sin.

I am given a choice of slavery. So you thought the wretched man idea was worthy of scorn; this tops it. But yet for the person who has looked inside and verified their inner slavery, the God concept and the help of grace is very necessary to become consciously human.