Philosophy Now Forum

uwot wrote:There is no arguing with someone who is prepared to make any rationalisation to protect a belief they will defend at all costs.

Or, as I put it, someone living comfortably in a make-believe world has neither reason nor desire to escape. (I think Russell said something like that, too.)

Reflex wrote:

Greta wrote: Maybe being per se is God?

Dare I count the number of times I've said that only to be promptly put down by atheists?

Let's see how it goes, then. If I am not put down for the comment, the question would then be why you and not me ...

Reflex wrote:

Greta wrote:This concept of God is probably most close to the Omega Point. In time, life is expected to become more "godlike".

Sounds a bit like Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.

That's who first introduced the concept. As a priest he focused on the endgame, although that's most speculative. It certainly appears that, failing serious disruptions, life does tend to become more information-rich and its expressions become ever more detailed and subtle.

So this "being" approach logically can include the possibility that God does not exist at present but will do in the future. Or that God exists in immature form and is still early on in the process of development.

However, why call it "God"? Because of some relatively primitive people in the middle east during the Bronze Age? The Spinozan view suggests that "God" is only a label that could be interchanged with the less anthropomorphised "nature".

Reflex wrote:

uwot wrote:There is no arguing with someone who is prepared to make any rationalisation to protect a belief they will defend at all costs.

Or, as I put it, someone living comfortably in a make-believe world has neither reason nor desire to escape. (I think Russell said something like that, too.)

It's called heaven.

Greta wrote: So this "being" approach logically can include the possibility that God does not exist at present but will do in the future. Or that God exists in immature form and is still early on in the process of development.

It could, but I can think of more likely alternatives. For example, the illustration on the cover of A God Without Parts shows a white light shining through a prism and the spectrum. I think this is an excellent analogy of God-as-he-is-within-himself and the spectrum in which we live, move and have our being.

However, why call it "God"? Because of some relatively primitive people in the middle east during the Bronze Age? The Spinozan view suggests that "God" is only a label that could be interchanged with the less anthropomorphised "nature".

Why not? The name is unimportant. Look, I do not know what, how or why God is; only that he is. It follows that whatever I say about God is speculation, but that does not prevent me from formulating understanding concepts that provide me with a frame in which to think and, more importantly, relate to the world. God may not be a person in the sense we are persons, but it is not logical to imagine he could be anything less. At the very least, he achieves the status of personhood by becoming the "Father" of personalities dwelling in space and time.

The only thing I've seen from atheists is, "I don't know but not that." I can get that much from a cockroach.

Reflex, notice in the following biblical passage that God is not mentioned. Jesus refers to a direction, a great chain of being that consciously connects humanity born from below with man born from above. Is there any way this point of contact could be felt without the necessity of a source for this ladder of consciousness? I don’t see how. There is no such thing as conscious fantasy. They are mutually exclusive. States of fantasy preclude consciousness That is why for me a person’s inner experience of this psychological direction is personal proof of a source of consciousness since without it there can be no inner attraction or potential to be born from above.

Matthew 11: 11 Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

Reflex wrote:

Greta wrote: So this "being" approach logically can include the possibility that God does not exist at present but will do in the future. Or that God exists in immature form and is still early on in the process of development.

It could, but I can think of more likely alternatives. For example, the illustration on the cover of A God Without Parts shows a white light shining through a prism and the spectrum. I think this is an excellent analogy of God-as-he-is-within-himself and the spectrum in which we live, move and have our being.

Sounds like the Dark Side of the Moon cover. They are not competing speculations. I am looking at possible noumena developing over time, you are considering a noumenon in the moment.

Numerous NDE reports seem to involve initially falling into a void before being drawn towards a bright white light that is not blinding as would be expected, and this light was somehow emanating extraordinary love. From a medical standpoint, these are the lucky results of a dying brain providing a last-ditch defensive release of endorphins.

I had a taste of that sense of unconditional love and bliss during a peak experience and, whatever the cause, to just be aware that such a level of understanding and unconditional love is potentially possible was an eye-opener. I realised that I didn't have to be an asshole to survive in this world; that I can still get everything I need done and be (somewhat) nice.

Reflex wrote:

Greta wrote:However, why call it "God"? Because of some relatively primitive people in the middle east during the Bronze Age? The Spinozan view suggests that "God" is only a label that could be interchanged with the less anthropomorphised "nature".

Why not? The name is unimportant. Look, I do not know what, how or why God is; only that he is. It follows that whatever I say about God is speculation, but that does not prevent me from formulating understanding concepts that provide me with a frame in which to think and, more importantly, relate to the world. God may not be a person in the sense we are persons, but it is not logical to imagine he could be anything less. At the very least, he achieves the status of personhood by becoming the "Father" of personalities dwelling in space and time.

The only thing I've seen from atheists is, "I don't know but not that." I can get that much from a cockroach.

In answer to your "Why not?" question, because the muddled semantics and endless speculations around "God" render the word almost meaningless to me. Further, the religious connotations of cruelty, war, intolerance, prejudice, superstition, irrationality, ignorance, arrogance, hubris and treachery don't help.

There probably is no adequate word. "Nature" is also unsuitable because the semantic around the word excludes humanity due to "natural" being an antonym for "artificial".

"Universe" captures the grandeur of totality, but it also conjures up images of mindless cosmic objects - and we know for sure that at least some matter is not mindless. Also the idea is semantically diminished by the possibility of a multiverse. "Reality" is maybe the best single word to describe "all there is" but it's way bigger and more abstract than "the light".

Meanwhile, I cannot accept the "father" image. Reality is male, female and neuter. To posit God as male is to attribute a pointless limitation to God, seemingly stemming from the patriarchal societies from which religions grew, where any association with femaleness would be seen as lesser, even shameful. The personification aspect is also jarring. If such superintelligence exists such thinking would be akin to a microbe imagining God in terms of His limitless Nucleus, super-powered Mitochondria, and an ability to perform endless mitosis.

In the end, given that we are primates not long down from the trees in evolutionary time scales, I can't imagine how we can possibly be sure about any questions that extend beyond the Earth - and there's still much we don't understand about the Earth's geology and biology.

Greta wrote: Sounds like the Dark Side of the Moon cover. They are not competing speculations. I am looking at possible noumena developing over time, you are considering a noumenon in the moment.

The covers are very similar. But you're right, they are not competing speculations. Just to clarify: I am considering both -- a noumenon in the moment and noumena developing over time. That is to say, the existential and the experiential coexisting.

Greta:

Having reviewed your post, I thought you might be interested in the Integrated Theory of Inteligence.

Nick_A wrote:I remember when I used to ask why the New Testament seems so mysterious? If something needs to be said just say it. I never really understood the purpose of the New Testament. It seemed to be a historical document with the purpose of gaining followers. I was lucky to learn and verify that the New Testament is a psychological document serving the purpose of awakening and the conscious transition from the old man into the New Man: "Re birth." Then it became clear that words and ideas had to contain levels of meaning and each level had to correspond with the level of awareness of the reader. I know when I experienced even the beginning levels, they made me aware of my ignorance in expecting that the New Testament could be written like a text book catering duality.

Parables for example are a means to bypass the dual mind that wants to classify everything. When it becomes impossible to classify, the mind opens and a person can experience the depth of a parable. I could be sent to Siberia for reeducation for this but I believe that the psychology within the new Testament exceeds anything we call psychology now. It serves the purpose of art of a higher order.

Very well put Nick....things ultimately resolve to a singular position as the mainstay of the New Testament, an extremely important position.

uwot wrote:Atto: how could god logically exist? Well, since I have not been party to the experiences that have informed your beliefs, I had to make something up, based on the objective evidence. I told my children that once upon a 13.78 billion years ago, there was a tiny thought. It was everywhere, it knew everything and it could do anything. But there was nowhere to go, no one to know and nothing to do, so the tiny thought blew itself up into the universe. As for your soul, well whatever the universe is made of, we are made of the same stuff and by some miracle, our consciousness is a product of it. I really don't know how consciousness works, but I do know that every example I have ever witnessed, has been associated with the electromagnetic activity of a brain. It is conceivable that consciousness is the field, in the way that light is the field associated with a light bulb. It is therefore logically possible that consciousness survives the death of the brain, much as there are stars you can see that went out aeons ago. I could easily believe that. I just happen not to.

I like *: )

attofishpi wrote:I like *: )

Thank you.