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

[Reflex]

Greta replied to Reflex on the value of agnosticism:

A person is under no obligation to pretend to know things that they cannot possibly know.

But the existence of the transcendent personal God is not a matter of knowledge but of metaphysics.

Yes, but it is also a personal experience interpreted.

Although one cannot know one can choose. I choose unbelief in the transcendent personal God despite that I cannot know.

Ah, but you made a choice. I can respect that.

I feel disloyal and unloving by so saying. I attribute this feeling to indoctrination by my kindly Presbyterian parents. To be faithful to myself however I need to use reason which was also fostered by my kindly liberal parents.What I am saying is that the god one chooses is a function of who one thinks one is.

Been there. I was raised Mormon but quit for the same reasons.

This conversation lacks definition of "the concept of God". I try to be helpful by defining God as transcendent and personal, which I guess is the popular version of God.

Yes, it is, but "transcendent" precludes the possibility that "personal" here means the same thing as it does in our daily lives. And this is where most of the problem lies: we have been so indoctrinated by the anthropomorphization of God that it is clearly impossible for many persons -- atheists, agnostics and theists alike -- to think of God any other way.

Refles, Greta has voluntarily taken on the responsibilty for waking you up.

What are YOU trying to do for people, Nick???

WAKE THEM UP?????????

I hate to admit it, but Lacewing does have a point here. While I do agree with many of the the things Nick says, "waking up" cannot be imposed, aroused, stimulated or hastened from the outside. Growth is an inside job.

Secularism has a place in the divine order...alot of various religions observe this whether you look at the history of Catholicism or Islam.

I totally agree.

[Belinda]

Reflex wrote:

Yes, it is, but "transcendent" precludes the possibility that "personal" here means the same thing as it does in our daily lives. And this is where most of the problem lies: we have been so indoctrinated by the anthropomorphization of God that it is clearly impossible for many persons -- atheists, agnostics and theists alike -- to think of God any other way.

To say of God that he is or isn't a personal God I understand generally means that God is or is not a being who is a self. My preferred notion of God is not as a self but as an idea; not God as subject of experience but God as idea.

God as idea and not as subject of experience has the disadvantage that I wonder if an idea can be prayed to and I have doubts on this score. Can an idea be prayed to? Is it necessary to pray to anything?

[Nick_A]

As I think you recently said elsewhere, there's a difference between saying something and understanding it. And there's a difference between quoting things and actually doing them. Your own words and behavior demonstrate your inability to distinguish your opinion from knowledge... as well as truth from illusion. So perhaps you need to study it some more.

Do you still study anything, Nick... or do you just polish your platform?

Let's make a deal. Explain to me the relationship and difference between what Plato defined as knowledge and opinion and I'll tell you how I try to deal with it.

So... not only do you polish your platform and worship that which you align yourself with... but you want other people to perform on your small stage too.

If you cannot distinguish between knowledge and opinion you cannot appreciate what I am involved in. If human evolution to you means acquiring more opinions, then you can never understand what I refer to.

[Nick_A]

Reflex

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu May 31, 2018 1:37 pm
Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu May 31, 2018 1:35 pm
Refles, Greta has voluntarily taken on the responsibilty for waking you up.
What are YOU trying to do for people, Nick???

WAKE THEM UP?????????
I hate to admit it, but Lacewing does have a point here. While I do agree with many of the the things Nick says, "waking up" cannot be imposed, aroused, stimulated or hastened from the outside. Growth is an inside job.

Out of curiousity, how have I tried to wake up anyone? Can you provide an example? I've been discussing philosophical ideas. I would agree that ideas expressed by those like Plato and Plotinus can have an awakening effect by inspiring questions concerning the nature of reality and of our own being. I am more concerned with learning the nature of resistance to the great ideas as it takes place on the forum

“The poison of skepticism becomes, like alcoholism, tuberculosis, and some other diseases, much more virulent in a hitherto virgin soil.” ~ Simone Weil

Of course she isn't referring to intellectual doubt she believed to be a necessity but rather to emotional preconceptions which cause emotional skepticism or what I call blind denial. It is very intense on the forum and in order to better understand its power a person must experience it and feel its source. How can we become part of the efforts which keep the ancient awakening ideas alive in society if we crumble in front of hostile blind denial? If Jesus and Socrates were killed for the sake human "being" it seems we can at least understand why and the dynamics of force which sustain the absurdity of the results of the human condition

[Nick_A]

Nick quoted Simone Weil:

"...It is not for man to seek, or even to believe in God. He has only to refuse to believe in everything that is not God.

What makes Nick think that what he calls "secularism" is not of God? Those whom he derides as "secularists" are as knowledgeable about God as anyone else. Nick apparently cannot doubt his own convictions. A man who has complete faith in his own version of truth is an idolater. A man who has complete faith in Simone Weil's ,or any other person's, version of truth is an idolater.

Secularism is a God. it is the God of the Great Beast and quite skilled in defending its kingdom.

Why believe? Why not verify? If what secularism provides satisfies your need for meaning, why bother with philosophy or the essence of religion? They just get in the way of a happy life.

Some have a greater need for the experience of meaning the world cannot provide so are attracted to its source. I support their search while you ridicule them as naive. We have chosen our paths.

[Nick_A]

E

Listen to tell you the truth Nick, and you will hate me for what I am about to say, you are a really bad Christian.

I am not a Christian. I am a pre-Christian. A Christian is one who follows in the precepts of Christ. I am not advanced enough to do so but still have great respect for what it offers so I am a pre-Christian.

"Jesus" brought division, yes, but he also brought reason and healing and discuss things for what they are...you repeat yourself which is fine, but very rarely can elaborate upon it when put to question other than quoting a few obscure sources. This however is not bad. What is bad however is the fact that you seem to be using "Jesus" as a crutch for personal issues you have not resolved and are projecting them on the world. Are the issues you present correct? Yes, but the manner in which you present and argue them does not work because...quite frankly you argue more from emotion than reason. And what do I mean by reason? A simple observation of structure where "A" either causes or correlates with "B".

Of course Jesus brought reason but a quality of reason that is rejected by the world. That is why the inner esoteric part of Christianity must remain hidden for those who need it while the exoteric or outer part of Christianity devolves into sects of Christendom and acceptable to society as a whole.

I argue for recognition of the fallen human condition anyone can verify in themselves. How is that emotional? Yet it is essential for anyone needing to appreciate why as a whole we are closed to objective human meaning and purpose.

It does not take a genius to look at all the bad.

But why call it bad? If a person has a broken leg do you call them bad? The fallen human condition is unfortunate but can be consciously healed. Why call it bad?

In all truth...and this can be viewed as an ad-hominum...I think you and lacewing have a lot of built up sexual tension that needs resolved. You obviously haven't had a woman in a while (and you can't put together you are not missing anything) and lacewing slept with more men than all the women here combined. I think the confusion here has less to do with reason and more with projected sexual dysfunctions of two opposing extremes.

I’m all in favor of good female rump and I do get my share but physical sex and the heart felt human need for objective meaning are not necessarily related. Solomon had more women then you could count but finally questioned if that is all there is.

I agree that questioning the human condition can be insulting and considered an ad hom but at the same time how can anyone seriously value philosophy without the ability to get beyond insult and question the human condition as it manifests within themselves and within our species?

[Reflex]

Reflex

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu May 31, 2018 1:37 pm
Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu May 31, 2018 1:35 pm
Refles, Greta has voluntarily taken on the responsibilty for waking you up.
What are YOU trying to do for people, Nick???

WAKE THEM UP?????????
I hate to admit it, but Lacewing does have a point here. While I do agree with many of the the things Nick says, "waking up" cannot be imposed, aroused, stimulated or hastened from the outside. Growth is an inside job.

Out of curiousity, how have I tried to wake up anyone? Can you provide an example? I've been discussing philosophical ideas.

Yeah, but it's the way in which it is presented.

I would agree that ideas expressed by those like Plato and Plotinus can have an awakening effect by inspiring questions concerning the nature of reality and of our own being.

I wouldn't. A deep dissatisfaction with one's own understanding must take place before higher ideas can be sought and then there follows the gradual development of tools adequate to the task.

I am more concerned with learning the nature of resistance to the great ideas as it takes place on the forum

I'm not. I've said many times that it's not about ideas however necessary they might be.

“The poison of skepticism becomes, like alcoholism, tuberculosis, and some other diseases, much more virulent in a hitherto virgin soil.” ~ Simone Weil

Of course she isn't referring to intellectual doubt she believed to be a necessity but rather to emotional preconceptions which cause emotional skepticism or what I call blind denial. It is very intense on the forum and in order to better understand its power a person must experience it and feel its source. How can we become part of the efforts which keep the ancient awakening ideas alive in society if we crumble in front of hostile blind denial? If Jesus and Socrates were killed for the sake human "being" it seems we can at least understand why and the dynamics of force which sustain the absurdity of the results of the human condition

Blind denial and willful ignorance are certainly there, but why attribute "power" to any of it? If they have power, it is because we confer it on them.

[Eodnhoj7]

Here's what was turning me on...

"Relativity is a process of negation through a continual flux of particulate which manifests further particulate. These particulate exist if and only if their is relation, however the relation itself is equivalent to "movement". In these respect logistic relativity is equivalent to logistic perpetual movement where definition is in a continual state of flux."

Ha ha ha. Do you know what humor is... or do you think you're the center of everything in the Universe?

Whatever you say, justify it how you want...I frankly don't care...it appears at it appears.

A man I was just involved with for a few weeks was someone I initially connected with on several levels... and we hadn't got to sex yet.
Good for you, just make sure it is not Nick...check his e-mails and texts.

I know the guy in person. What are you talking about? Nevermind, don't answer. It doesn't fucking matter because all of your crap is insane.

Just keep digging the hole.

[Reflex]

Reflex wrote:

Yes, it is, but "transcendent" precludes the possibility that "personal" here means the same thing as it does in our daily lives. And this is where most of the problem lies: we have been so indoctrinated by the anthropomorphization of God that it is clearly impossible for many persons -- atheists, agnostics and theists alike -- to think of God any other way.

To say of God that he is or isn't a personal God I understand generally means that God is or is not a being who is a self. My preferred notion of God is not as a self but as an idea; not God as subject of experience but God as idea.

IMV, to say God is personal is only to say that Wholeness is alive in the fullest possible way.

God as idea and not as subject of experience has the disadvantage that I wonder if an idea can be prayed to and I have doubts on this score.

Me too.

Can an idea be prayed to?

Prayer and worship are ways of communing with Wholeness -- our Greater Self. From my perspective, that's a helluva lot more than any any idea.

Is it necessary to pray to anything?

Necessary for whom?

[Greta]

The deeper layer, hiding below the bluster of this "conversation" has been largely about fear. We most hate that which we fear.

Reflex most hates agnostics because he fears their doubt and how it echoes his own doubts fostered by the small amount of rational mind he has left. He fears that his faith is not strong, thus agnostics are much more threatening to him than atheists, whom he feels he can dismiss.

Meanwhile I detest Nick and his like because, as a victim of early life violence, I most fear and despise those incapable of reason. Those who do not embrace reason are untrustworthy and potentially dangerous IMO.

Nick, meanwhile, fears impotence and powerlessness, to be without a voice. So he hates that which drowns out his crazed mind's flatulent output, thus he hates logical and rational "secular" thought.

[Greta]

Yes, it is, but "transcendent" precludes the possibility that "personal" here means the same thing as it does in our daily lives. And this is where most of the problem lies: we have been so indoctrinated by the anthropomorphization of God that it is clearly impossible for many persons -- atheists, agnostics and theists alike -- to think of God any other way.

Typical. Could you, just for once, put aside your little straw men and try to be genuine? Just once?

We had put aside Santa God in the first pages of this overblown thread. When it comes to the anthropomorphism I am 100% atheist. Happy to choose a side there - believing in a Santalike deity in this day and age is as mad as denying evolution, heliocentrism or the Earth's near-spherical shape.

The God that I doubt is the sense of unconditional love and bliss (and things I cannot describe) during my second main peak experience. Was it God? Was it dopamine? Both? A lucky brain glitch? Was it something else altogether? You know these doubts yourself, hence your fear and loathing of agnostics.

Maybe, rather than it being God or the universe, maybe it's the Sun or the Earth itself, or spirits of ancestors in another domain? The latter ideas seem far-fetched, but no more far-fetched than the notions of God being universal or extra-universal. For all we know, the main game of the universe might be super-intelligent interactions between galactic superclusters.

However, when it comes to interpretation, every single time the ancients interpreted a phenomena or sense as coming from God or gods, the posited deity turned out to be an effective black box for unknown scientific phenomena. For instance, do you believe that exorcisms are true or that the ancients interpreted the effects of bacteria and viruses to be evil spirits? Should we disregard modern information and deny the existence of microbes?

Also, almost everyone seems to forget is that science is NOT truth - it's just the closest agreed version so far. By necessity, science must always adopt the very most conservative position in every field - not that which it deems most likely, but that which has been tested and verified repeatedly.

This conservatism provides a reliable baseline on which to build paradigms - but science is not, and has never meant to be, the sole source of one's paradigms. It's just a reliable baseline. The key word here is 'reliable". So it is naive and foolish to play this religion v science game.

If you want to live your life according to someone else's template, you don't live by science unless you are a scientist and enthusiastic geek. You live by the ideas that resonate with you, and this often changes throughout life. Some would call this weakness, others would call it strength and adaptability.

[Nick_A]

Reflex

Yeah, but it's the way in which it is presented.

That is why I quote those like Plato, Einstein, Simone Weil, and Jacob Needleman. If people are offended by them what is the sense of discussing philosophy?

I wouldn't. A deep dissatisfaction with one's own understanding must take place before higher ideas can be sought and then there follows the gradual development of tools adequate to the task.

Very true but why assume some on a philosophy do not have a need to experience meaning? One reason I quote Simone Weil so much is for female lurkers. There have been times when I’ve received PMs from lurkers curious about Simone asking for information and recommendations on books. She brings meaning to “women’s philosophy” ignored in favor of battles over gender rights, abortions, pop psychology, and new age fantasy. A young woman can read on someone of the past considered to be Plato’s spiritual child who was a Christian mystic with a scientific mind living her philosophy. For a young woman with the same talents it is hard to find such women to learn of. Why abandon them just because Greta wants to be Greta. If philosophy is the love of wisdom why deny those who pursue wisdom through through contemplation of ideas?

Which do you prefer: “Better to be slapped with the truth than kissed with a lie” ~ Russian Proverb. Of course this refers to seekers of truth. It’s not a good pickup approach. Why deny the seekers on a philosophy forum just to appear as Mr. wonderful?

I'm not. I've said many times that it's not about ideas however necessary they might be.

As you know there are three primary ways in which our inner world experiences the external world: reason, emotion, and sensation. Why would you want to deny a basic tool for self discovery?

Blind denial and willful ignorance are certainly there, but why attribute "power" to any of it? If they have power, it is because we confer it on them.

“Force is as pitiless to the man who possesses it, or thinks he does, as it is to its victims; the second it crushes, the first it intoxicates. The truth is, nobody really possesses it.” Simone Weil

Life on earth is governed by laws which direct force. When we live by mechanical reaction the power of force determines results. The only antidote is a quality of consciousness we only have in potential but remain closed to its potential. It isn’t that deniers have power but rather they channel force serving cosmic purposes which are often catastrophic.

Perhaps philosophy as the love of wisdom is dead for modern society and its ideas are considered useless for modern Man enchanted with technology. That doesn’t mean I cannot support the minority still open to what philosophy offers human transcendent potential regardless of how the world hates it

[Reflex]

Yes, it is, but "transcendent" precludes the possibility that "personal" here means the same thing as it does in our daily lives. And this is where most of the problem lies: we have been so indoctrinated by the anthropomorphization of God that it is clearly impossible for many persons -- atheists, agnostics and theists alike -- to think of God any other way.

Typical. Could you, just for once, put aside your little straw men and try to be genuine? Just once?

We had put aside Santa God in the first pages of this overblown thread. When it comes to the anthropomorphism I am 100% atheist. Happy to choose a side there - believing in a Santalike deity in this day and age is as mad as denying evolution, heliocentrism or the Earth's near-spherical shape.

The God that I doubt is the sense of unconditional love and bliss (and things I cannot describe) during my second main peak experience. Was it God? Was it dopamine? Both? A lucky brain glitch? Was it something else altogether? You know these doubts yourself, hence your fear and loathing of agnostics.

Maybe, rather than it being God or the universe, maybe it's the Sun or the Earth itself, or spirits of ancestors in another domain? The latter ideas seem far-fetched, but no more far-fetched than the notions of God being universal or extra-universal. For all we know, the main game of the universe might be super-intelligent interactions between galactic superclusters.

However, when it comes to interpretation, every single time the ancients interpreted a phenomena or sense as coming from God or gods, the posited deity turned out to be an effective black box for unknown scientific phenomena. For instance, do you believe that exorcisms are true or that the ancients interpreted the effects of bacteria and viruses to be evil spirits? Should we disregard modern information and deny the existence of microbes?

Also, almost everyone seems to forget is that science is NOT truth - it's just the closest agreed version so far. By necessity, science must always adopt the very most conservative position in every field - not that which it deems most likely, but that which has been tested and verified repeatedly.

This conservatism provides a reliable baseline on which to build paradigms - but science is not, and has never meant to be, the sole source of one's paradigms. It's just a reliable baseline. The key word here is 'reliable". So it is naive and foolish to play this religion v science game.

If you want to live your life according to someone else's template, you don't live by science unless you are a scientist and enthusiastic geek. You live by the ideas that resonate with you, and this often changes throughout life. Some would call this weakness, others would call it strength and adaptability.

That's one long-winded straw man!

[Lacewing]

Here's what was turning me on...

"Relativity is a process of negation through a continual flux of particulate which manifests further particulate. These particulate exist if and only if their is relation, however the relation itself is equivalent to "movement". In these respect logistic relativity is equivalent to logistic perpetual movement where definition is in a continual state of flux."

Ha ha ha. Do you know what humor is... or do you think you're the center of everything in the Universe?

Whatever you say, justify it how you want...I frankly don't care...it appears at it appears.

Well, I guess that's how it appears to YOU. Odd. I don't think most people would make such a ridiculous assumption that I was hitting on them! But you have proven to be full of inaccurate assumptions that you never apologize for. I have told you the truth. But you blow it off as if you know better. Either you misunderstand or willfully ignore that things (and people) are not what YOU think they are. Such rudeness in falsely accusing me of all that you have surely reveals that you are a very toxic person.

[Reflex]

The God that I doubt is the sense of unconditional love and bliss (and things I cannot describe) during my second main peak experience. Was it God? Was it dopamine? Both? A lucky brain glitch? Was it something else altogether?

Maybe you stuck a cotton swab too far into your ear.

Doubt is useful for a while. We must all pass through the garden of Gethsemane. If Christ played with doubt, so must we. If Christ spent an anguished night in prayer, if He burst out from the Cross, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" then surely we are also permitted doubt. But we must move on. To choose doubt as a philosophy of life is akin to choosing immobility as a means of transportation."

Buridan’s Ass

You have all those bales of hay and nothing to eat, Greta.

Maybe, rather than it being God or the universe, maybe it's the Sun or the Earth itself, or spirits of ancestors in another domain? The latter ideas seem far-fetched, but no more far-fetched than the notions of God being universal or extra-universal. For all we know, the main game of the universe might be super-intelligent interactions between galactic superclusters.

Are you saying reason has no place in your determinations?

However, when it comes to interpretation, every single time the ancients interpreted a phenomena or sense as coming from God or gods, the posited deity turned out to be an effective black box for unknown scientific phenomena. For instance, do you believe that exorcisms are true or that the ancients interpreted the effects of bacteria and viruses to be evil spirits? Should we disregard modern information and deny the existence of microbes?

Try using your head for something more than a mere receptacle of information.

Also, almost everyone seems to forget is that science is NOT truth

Yeah -- especially atheists/agnostics.

If you want to live your life according to someone else's template, you don't live by science unless you are a scientist and enthusiastic geek. You live by the ideas that resonate with you, and this often changes throughout life. Some would call this weakness, others would call it strength and adaptability.

Are you still fixated on the misbegotten belief that religion isn't adaptable?