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

[Nick_A]

Belinda

If you care to carry on the seagoing metaphor the rudder for what you call " secularists" is reason and knowledge. That of God-believers is God's word. The compass bearing is shared by believers and unbelievers of good will and is an analogue of the good.

You have missed the most important part of the metaphor. You are not alone. Education in general has missed it which is why it produces the harm that it does. It lacks the purpose of the North Star.

https://www.space.com/5849-navigating-stars.html

As the late Henry Neeley, a popular lecturer at New York's Hayden Planetarium during the 1950s once noted: "The navigational use of the stars will continue to be a valuable asset for many years to come. In spite of all the scientific aids that have been developed to do the navigating by robot science, the ancient stars will still be a 'must' for navigator or pilot." Indeed, celestial navigation is still an important part of a navigator's formal training and while we might immediately think of sailors in this regard, the pilot of an aircraft can also sight on the stars in an emergency (and often with an advantage over sailors, being high above any obscuring clouds). [By day, ancient mariners used sundials to navigate.]

The North Star provides guidance for the captain of the ship. Without it ancient ships just turned in circles. Our inner north star can align our being. As we are, our inner being is in a state of chaos and we turn in circles. Our inner north star can turn chaos into organization. Secularism denies the value of our inner north star so struggles against ways of inner alignment preferring instead blind indoctrination for providing human meaning and purpose. Without inner alignment we cannot know where we are going assuring that we cannot end up as human beings.

[Nick_A]

Funny how any thread that's supposed to be about God ends up being about Nick.

I claim to be the wretched man. Lacewing thinks me part of the divine. Greta assumes that people arguing about God must discuss me. I truly must be the man of the hour, the tower of power, too sweet to be sour, the reflection of perfection. and the number one selection. Who else could be described in so many ways?

[Nick_A]

Lacewing

Because your writing and preaching usually makes my eyes roll back in my head from tedious boredom. Plus, I don't think YOU demonstrate conscious listening skills, yourself... so that hurts your credibility.

A good example of a preconditioned response. Listening skills are necessary IRL. Reading skills that enable a person to read without preconditioned attitudes are both necessary and rare.

How valuable is your advocating when it's all just talk here? Do you actually go out and talk to schools and to lawmakers or anyone else who could change things within the current system? Or do you only harp on it on online philosophy forums, accusing all of us of being part of the problem -- and what would be the real agenda behind doing something as inactive as that?

Arguing about education with schools and lawmakers is just part of the problem. The reality is that public education isn’t concerned with education but only with indoctrination. That is why I support private schools which have not thrown the kids to the wolves.

But the things you make up about people are false (you've been told this many times)... and therefore your conclusions cannot be accurate either.

What have I made up about people; give me an example? You have claimed that I am preaching which is clearly made up. What have I made up about you?

[Nick_A]

Dubious

With your constant repeats of the same words and phrases, including all the quotes you programmed yourself with, you often come across (to me at least) as an AI algorithm attempting to converse with humans...with little success as it seems. It's genuinely useless dealing with those whose obsessions are so entrenched; with minds so sequestered by their assumed superiority, no debate is possible...period!

How, in your opinion, does the purpose of philosophy as opposed to the egoistic joy of debate serve to answer the question if the concept of God is necessary?

[Lacewing]

Because your writing and preaching usually makes my eyes roll back in my head from tedious boredom. Plus, I don't think YOU demonstrate conscious listening skills, yourself... so that hurts your credibility.

A good example of a preconditioned response.

Your statement seems more of a preconditioned response than my authentic description of being affected by tedious boredom.

Arguing about education with schools and lawmakers is just part of the problem. The reality is that public education isn’t concerned with education but only with indoctrination.

So, why are you doing it HERE... especially when you keep telling us that we're part of the problem? And why have you been doing it for years on Philosophy forums? Please explain how this makes more sense than going somewhere that ISN'T part of the problem. Oh, is there NOWHERE like that? So, are you the only one who doesn't see the preaching game you're playing?

[Nick_A]

Lacewing

our statement seems more of a preconditioned response than my authentic description of being affected by tedious boredom..

As the saying goes: “Only the boring are bored.”

So, why are you doing it HERE... especially when you keep telling us that we're part of the problem? And why have you been doing it for years on Philosophy forums? Please explain how this makes more sense than going somewhere that ISN'T part of the problem. Oh, is there NOWHERE like that? So, are you the only one who doesn't see the preaching game you're playing?

Hopefully this philosophy forum is not dominated by lawmakers and teachers who have become psychological slaves of the system. Hopefully there are those more concerned for the human education of the young than the secular progressive agenda driven sellouts willing to destroy the souls, hearts and minds of the young for their precious thirty pieces of silver.

Why discuss where there is complete agreement? Only when both sides are obvious can an impartial person come to witness the horrors the human condition inflicts upon people and oppose the modern satisfaction from spirit killing. These people have inwardly profited by the awakening ideas of philosophy and oppose attempts to cheapen them. These people will understand at the depth of their being why the God concept is necessary to heal the human condition.

[Greta]

I truly must be the man of the hour, the tower of power, too sweet to be sour, the reflection of perfection. and the number one selection. Who else could be described in so many ways?

We have noticed

[-1-]

I wish to make an unofficial contest of likening Nick_A to famous personalities, real or imagined, presently alive or dead, etc.

Best done with literary quotes, but not necessarily.

Perhaps with song titles or movie titles.

"Jumpin' Jack Flash... (it's a gas, gas, gas.)"

"Mucius Scevola, the Legend."

[Lacewing]

“Only the boring are bored.”

You and your collection of sayings... while you completely miss the point.

Blah, blah, blah...

You didn't answer any of my questions... just launched right into your usual spasm of blab.

How much success have you had presenting your agenda on Philosophy forums for years and years? Where have you seen the most change and improvement as a result of your efforts?

[Nick_A]

“Only the boring are bored.”

You and your collection of sayings... while you completely miss the point.

Blah, blah, blah...

You didn't answer any of my questions... just launched right into your usual spasm of blab.

How much success have you had presenting your agenda on Philosophy forums for years and years? Where have you seen the most change and improvement as a result of your efforts?

Lacewing

How much success have you had presenting your agenda on Philosophy forums for years and years? Where have you seen the most change and improvement as a result of your efforts?

Not much. Over the years I have made some friends and actually helped two young women in college impressed with Simone use Simone Weil in college papers.

My success has largely been personal. I’ve learned about the nature of emotional resistance to what should be normal for the human psych. Is there any way to intellectually deal with the emotional negativity directed at recognition of the human condition? Simone Weil said it is necessary to “annoy the Great Beast” But her powers of annoyance were far greater than mine are now. I now understand why Socrates had to be executed:

“Meletus, a poet, initiated the prosecution against Socrates, although most scholars consider him to a "puppet" of the best-known and most influential of the three accusers, Anytus. The affidavit sworn out by Meletus made two related charges against Socrates: "refusing to acknowledge the gods recognized by the State and of introducing new and different gods" and "corrupting the youth."

So there is nothing new about the hatred for ideas I write. I refuse to acknowledge the supremacy of the gods of the state and support what philosophy calls remembrance of what has been forgotten and what the essence of religion calls awakening to a human perspective. The state has its own means for spirit killing and corrupting efforts at indoctrination. It cannot tolerate influences the state believes to be opposing its efforts for “corrupting the youth.”

So I know my ideas drawn from the greats of the past must be hated by the majority and as such little can be gained through discussion. But that “little” is important. I do believe the great ideas of the past which serve both as awakening and remembrance influences are essential for any sort of conscious evolution in the world. I consider anything that furthers it even in the slightest to be a success.

[-1-]

Dear Nick_A, although my one previous post was written with tongue-in-cheek, and it reveals irreverence, I assure you I do have tremendous respect for you.

This respect is due to your resilience. I still maintain that your arguments are lame, and ineffective, irrelevant and nonsensical. I admire you nevertheless for your staying power.

Practically the entire forum is stabbing you (myself included in the throng of stabbers), and you do not bend, you do not break, you withstand the barrage of attacks. I can't say you withstand it with dignity or with manning up... it may seem to you that way, but to an outside observer it sure does not look like that. HOWEVER, that does NOT take away from the effect of your incredible resilience.

I can't possibly describe how much that awes me. I would have begged out of the site for much less of a barrage and continual attacks against my views, and against me, than how we are attacking your views, and in frustration how we are attacking you.

Let me assure you that my respect for your strength is sincere. This should not, however, make you interpret that I agree with any of your views.

[Dubious]

Practically the entire forum is stabbing you (myself included in the throng of stabbers), and you do not bend, you do not break, you withstand the barrage of attacks.

That's precisely what the desperate attention seeker depends on. This type understands better than most the ironic and perverse fact that where debate is excluded that's when most of it occurs. On any philosophy forum, when has any REAL DEBATE lasted for thousands of posts? Whenever that happens there resides the ulterior motive, its true agenda. Note how Nick always keeps "seeding" his arguments re-processing what has already been processed many times over, hooking what has been hooked repeatedly only to be thrown back for more of the same.

The question becomes, who are the real idiots, the singularity or the plurality; a rhetorical question which requires no further validation.

[Lacewing]

How much success have you had presenting your agenda on Philosophy forums for years and years? Where have you seen the most change and improvement as a result of your efforts?

Not much. Over the years I have made some friends and actually helped two young women in college impressed with Simone use Simone Weil in college papers.

Thanks for answering (honestly), Nick.

My success has largely been personal. I’ve learned about the nature of emotional resistance to what should be normal for the human psych.

Notice how you haven't learned anything that DOESN'T fit what you already thought. I think the purpose of your conclusions is to fit and support your ideas/agenda. But regardless of that, what have you DONE with what you think you've learned? Is it simply for strengthening your argument?

So there is nothing new about the hatred for ideas I write.

Are you here to be a martyr? Or are you concocting justification to express your own rage?

It just seems to me that if someone truly feels committed to accomplishing something, they find the places and ways to do it for the maximum amount of value... and they keep evolving and expanding to be as broadly effective as possible. They naturally seek the most efficient strategies, with passion for what they want to accomplish, as well as for respect of their energy and the energy of others. It's all precious stuff.

So I know my ideas drawn from the greats of the past must be hated by the majority and as such little can be gained through discussion. But that “little” is important.

I think the "little" is acceptable because your greatest reward comes from the "comfortable" routine and script you've established. You don't have to go out and actualize anything. You can stay put, fine-tuning your script and your tricks of discourse as you discover the arguments against it... and you can use the forum as a platform from which to judge others against your script. It's for your pleasure. You're not doing anything else with it. Is this accurate?

I don't think people hate you, Nick -- but they've been seeing your dance for a very long time -- and there's nothing more significant about it than any other person's dance. So when you start repeating it again, people toy with it because that's the most fun. Does that make sense? Then you claim that they hate you or the ideas... again to make it fit your story. The reality for myself (and I'm guessing others too) is much different than your conclusions.

[Greta]

Practically the entire forum is stabbing you (myself included in the throng of stabbers), and you do not bend, you do not break, you withstand the barrage of attacks.

That's precisely what the desperate attention seeker depends on. This type understands better than most the ironic and perverse fact that where debate is excluded that's when most of it occurs. On any philosophy forum, when has any REAL DEBATE lasted for thousands of posts? Whenever that happens there resides the ulterior motive, its true agenda. Note how Nick always keeps "seeding" his arguments re-processing what has already been processed many times over, hooking what has been hooked repeatedly only to be thrown back for more of the same.

The question becomes, who are the real idiots, the singularity or the plurality; a rhetorical question which requires no further validation.

That rings true. He adores this - it takes no resilience for him at all. What would wound him most is to be ignored.

It might be time to choose the ignore button. It was one thing for him to be trying to dominate the forum with his threads but now he's hijacked my darn thread to the point where the initial question is entirely lost - it's just about Nick again. The way he does it is by trying to turn the debate into a competition of morals - who's the most moral?

Thus, after he has implied that x others are deficient humans, lacking in critical human faculties - then his nastiness and hypocrisy make gigantic targets for those who have been so denigrated by him. At that point Nick's troll heaven commences ... time to bring on the ignore button (I think I've already read most of his Needleman and Weil quotes by now).

[Greta]

Ok, that done, is anyone up for a (relatively) Nickless thread reboot?

From the OP:

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, given the limitation of an inside-out perspective? Blending a modern conception with ancient mythology can only serve to muddy the waters of inquiry, and that is certainly what has happened. Even an attempt to define "God" is fraught because no one agrees - and chaotic results in any given observation or experiment suggest a negative signal.

The missing link, in hindsight, is the personal side.

It would seem to be conditioning that makes the idea of asking an imaginary other (or meta-self, or whatever) less weird than to asking the impersonal and uncaring universe for help with courage, calm, wisdom, energy etc.