Philosophy Now Forum

You've given me a buffet of comments here, Auk... and I will get to them as time permits, thank you.

But I'd like to ask you a question: "What's the first that comes to mind when you hear the word "god"?

mtmynd1 wrote:Close, A.uk. Nobody really knows if there is a "god" or not, but plenty of people worldwide believe in (a) god or gods and have been of this belief ever since hu'manity began. That's one hell of a lot of people that feel something that is beyond logic and feel strongly about it. Why else would mankind erect edifices in the name of 'god' or any other god-like entity, even tho nobody can prove beyond a doubt that this 'god' exists?

Arising_uk wrote:Because science hadn't been invented and death is a scary thing.

Your statement puts science in a category of an invention rather than a speculative theory based upon the discoveries within the natural world. But anyhow, science is on a definite path that some can presume is to disprove in the existence of an god(s) while on the other side of the scientific fence one will find the believers that feel science will eventually find “god”.

The reason I had asked what comes to your mind when you personally hear that word, “god” is legitimate and worthy of an answer. Ask ten people that question and you’ll receive ten different opinions on what or how they perceive their “god.” Now ask an atheist what their belief is and they will say they disbelieve or deny the existence of God or gods, period. That is a cop out. Without knowing what they comprehend “god(s)” to be and deny in their existence is illogical, akin to not believing in global warming but not reading a word about it. Now an agnostic is more honest by saying they don’t know or are skeptical of any god(s). This gives them a leeway should a good argument lean more to believing there IS a god rather than not. Time will tell for them perhaps or they may carry that belief to their grave. Afterall in the end the beliefs of the believer in a god or the agnostic and the atheist is, at it’s core, an acceptance based upon their perceptive ability to fully comprehend what that word , “god” truly infers.

mtmynd wrote:Could it be that this 'god' is beyond our logical ability to fully comprehend? Sure. Not all truths are provable. Take "love"... have we seen love or just a reaction to it? Many were taught the adage "God is Love" as at least an equal if not the same. However, ask anyone to prove that love exists and see what you get.

Arising_uk wrote:There are plenty of logical arguments proving the existence of 'god/s', it's empirically that it's a problem.

By definition, to prove empirically in the existence of a ‘god’ demands proof by means of observation or experiment. Is it any wonder why people (such as yourself) belong to the “atheist belief” when nobody to date has shown any concrete evidence (none for love, either)? Is it incomprehensible to believe in something (some thing) without form? And what is the purpose of proving that indefinable to anyone but oneself?

Love can be shown thru expression but what is it that triggers that response within our senses? Can it be proven to exist? Methinks not. The only proof (and that is debatable) is thru our expressions upon the object of our love.

That I am a "spinozan", A.uk, is your assumption, certainly not mine.

Arising_uk wrote:Fair enough it just sounded like it. So what are you? A theist? A pantheist? etc, etc.

Presently, I am a hu'man being in progress.

mtmynd wrote:When you write "'it'' has to obey what Wittgenstein pointed out with respect to logic and propositions" I reject this 'has to obey' as an untruth. This is purely theoretical and has no basis being referred to as a "truth"in any way.

Arising_uk wrote:If you understand logic and language and reason then it's exactly a truth but only if there is a 'god' and it has a language and had a hand in creating ours.

A_uk, tell me what’s the origin of this logic, reasoning and language you speak of? Don’t tell me the brain for that is a mass that contains information, but rather where do these subjects begin their journey into the brain? No, not the electronic pulse sending this information but the origin of the information called “logic, reason and language”… from where does it originate before being sent to brain?

To demand logic as the sole judge in whether there is a "god" or not is absurd.

Arising_uk wrote:Not what i said, what i said was that if there is a 'god' then it has to obey the rules of logic.

So you are under the belief that any god “has to obey the rules of logic”? Why would you place this responsibility upon your concept of what a god is? Perhaps your concept is foolish in the eyes of this ‘god’ you perceive… what then? Would your god no longer be valid in the pantheon of gods?

Logic was created by man thru the observation of Nature and the natural world as it was known.

Arising_uk wrote:Nope, Logic was developed from our observation of our language and how we reason.

As you began your comment, “Nope”, our language was not the prime observer that manifested this logic or reasoning. The world that gives us life, the world and it’s wonders, the world and the stars in the night sky, the world’s oceans and living forms within … all the different plants, animals and insects that populate our world… these are what was initially observed before a construct began of logic and reasoning and the development of language to communicate these things to our families and tribes.

As our knowledge increases, so do the definitions we have used to understand our world.

Arising_uk wrote:And this has what relation to logic?

Logic develops as does our knowledge of the world we live in… the more we assimilate the greater our logic must grow in order to understand. We couldn’t fathom a universe that Hubble has opened up to us… nor could we possibly begin to logically understand the cyber-world into which most of us are part of.

Some are of the belief that mankind walked the earth in the age of the dinosaurs… they use the logic they have gained to preach this to those who have the ability to put this into their logical limitations.

mtmynd wrote:Not hardly, I say. Man is under the belief that we are the ultimate form of life and hence have all the answers without acknowledging that what we do know is infinitesimal to all that the universe encompasses. We know nothing compared to all there is to know, my friend. Don't be disillusioned by those who proclaim to know there is nothing beyond what our hu'man mind can comprehend.

Arising_uk wrote:Who says such things? I like philosophy and as such I understand that if we cannot comprehend something then we cannot know it. I also know that this "We know nothing compared to all there is to know" is just meaningless with respect to epistemology.

A_uk, is not epistemology a study that bases it’s opinions/findings upon changing notions that we find in our ever growing basket of knowledge? Of course it is! What any science learns today is but a stepping stone to tomorrow… it has to be in order for the sciences to be credible.

There you go again, A-uk... I can say it and mean it. ...

Arising_uk wrote:You may well mean it but this doesn't mean that it has sense.

If you are unable to understand any of what I wrote in the above quote, should I backtrack on any of it... or should you open your own mind to the possibility this is not only logical but borders on truth? Our mind is simply a tool in our arsenal of understanding. Far too many are somehow convinced mind is what we are. A limiting proposition and one that needs to be discarded in order to progress into alternative realities beyond mind and it's insistence to stay within the borders of intellect. We are more than that.

Arising_uk wrote:I know, we are body in an external world but pray tell what we are that is more than this?

We are more than yesterday and less than tomorrow should we continue growing and assimilating knowledge and know-how to our satisfaction.

I've long spoken of hu'manity as learning machines. From our earliest known beginnings up through and including the current 21st Century we have shown a great ability to not only survive on the planet but even threaten much of life we shared with before we entered the 20th Century. Knowledge has been gained from our necessity and desire to make our survival longer lasting. Whether we fail at accomplishing this is a debate that we seem to be just starting...

jinx wrote:We are all born theist. We are all born intuitively knowing there is a designer behind the design. Evo indoctrination at school readily takes care of that though.

It's obvious, you either have no children, or never paid any real attention to them. Babies are in fact a blank slate, with no such questions or answers on their minds, I know because I was one, and had 3, and paid attention, but more importantly, I'm honest.

mtmynd1 wrote:But I'd like to ask you a question: "What's the first that comes to mind when you hear the word "god"?

"Waste of time"

mtmynd1 wrote:Your statement puts science in a category of an invention rather than a speculative theory based upon the discoveries within the natural world. ...

I suppose but from the philosophical point of view it was an invention by Descartes to doubt that led to the development of science by a group of metaphysicians.

But anyhow, science is on a definite path that some can presume is to disprove in the existence of an god(s) while on the other side of the scientific fence one will find the believers that feel science will eventually find “god”.

Both are just wishful thinking as science has no interest in either, just how things work. If that conflicts with religious explanations then I think the religious will come of worse the wear, which is pretty much whats happening with respect to how things work.

The reason I had asked what comes to your mind when you personally hear that word, “god” is legitimate and worthy of an answer. Ask ten people that question and you’ll receive ten different opinions on what or how they perceive their “god.” Now ask an atheist what their belief is and they will say they disbelieve or deny the existence of God or gods, period. That is a cop out. Without knowing what they comprehend “god(s)” to be and deny in their existence is illogical, akin to not believing in global warming but not reading a word about it.

Not really, as the atheist is clear in saying "I disbelieve or deny what you say about your 'god' otherwise I have nothing to say about a non-existent entity.

Now an agnostic is more honest by saying they don’t know or are skeptical of any god(s). This gives them a leeway should a good argument lean more to believing there IS a god rather than not. Time will tell for them perhaps or they may carry that belief to their grave. Afterall in the end the beliefs of the believer in a god or the agnostic and the atheist is, at it’s core, an acceptance based upon their perceptive ability to fully comprehend what that word , “god” truly infers.

Not really, its about comprehending what the other says the word truly infers.

Agnostics are essentially atheists but say there is no discussion to be had in either case. Of course if the theist can produce one then I assume both would change their minds.

mtmynd wrote:Could it be that this 'god' is beyond our logical ability to fully comprehend? Sure. Not all truths are provable. Take "love"... have we seen love or just a reaction to it? Many were taught the adage "God is Love" as at least an equal if not the same. However, ask anyone to prove that love exists and see what you get.

Logic doesn't prove truths, apart from the tautologies and contradictions but they have no relation to the world other than being absolutely true or false, empirical evidence proves or disproves things. Logic just allows one to deduce truth from truths with certainty.

You keep reifying 'love'? Because I can see people in love does not mean that there is a thing called love existing somewhere, just like because I can see people believing in a 'god' does not mean it exists as a thing.

By definition, to prove empirically in the existence of a ‘god’ demands proof by means of observation or experiment. Is it any wonder why people (such as yourself) belong to the “atheist belief” when nobody to date has shown any concrete evidence (none for love, either)? Is it incomprehensible to believe in something (some thing) without form? And what is the purpose of proving that indefinable to anyone but oneself?

It's inconceivable to declare it true to others that it exists in the sense of concretely existing when one cannot show it. People can believe what they like for themselves but when they then wish to claim truth for them they need to show what they are talking about if they wish to be believed. It's why, I think, such things are taught to children before they can truly reason.

Love can be shown thru expression but what is it that triggers that response within our senses? Can it be proven to exist? Methinks not. The only proof (and that is debatable) is thru our expressions upon the object of our love.

Hormones.

Presently, I am a hu'man being in progress.

Not an answer.

A_uk, tell me what’s the origin of this logic, reasoning and language you speak of? Don’t tell me the brain for that is a mass that contains information, but rather where do these subjects begin their journey into the brain? No, not the electronic pulse sending this information but the origin of the information called “logic, reason and language”… from where does it originate before being sent to brain?

You are assuming what you are arguing for. Reasoning appears to reside in the having of a particular Body with senses in an external world. Language appears to arise when there are two of those that can recognise each other. Logic is the structure of reasoning through language.

So you are under the belief that any god “has to obey the rules of logic”? Why would you place this responsibility upon your concept of what a god is? Perhaps your concept is foolish in the eyes of this ‘god’ you perceive… what then? Would your god no longer be valid in the pantheon of gods?

So definitely pantheist then. It matters not what concept of 'god' is held. If it contains an entity that exists and reasons and acts then logic applies to it.

As you began your comment, “Nope”, our language was not the prime observer that manifested this logic or reasoning. The world that gives us life, the world and it’s wonders, the world and the stars in the night sky, the world’s oceans and living forms within … all the different plants, animals and insects that populate our world… these are what was initially observed before a construct began of logic and reasoning and the development of language to communicate these things to our families and tribes.

Depends what difference you have between consciousness and self-consciousness? I don't disagree that one has to be a body with senses in an external world for reason and logic to arise and it's the external world that provided the impetus for the evolution of language.

Logic develops as does our knowledge of the world we live in… the more we assimilate the greater our logic must grow in order to understand. We couldn’t fathom a universe that Hubble has opened up to us… nor could we possibly begin to logically understand the cyber-world into which most of us are part of.

We must be talking about two different things when we refer to the term 'Logic'.

A_uk, is not epistemology a study that bases it’s opinions/findings upon changing notions that we find in our ever growing basket of knowledge? Of course it is! What any science learns today is but a stepping stone to tomorrow… it has to be in order for the sciences to be credible.

Science can say what it likes but if you say we can comprehend without knowing about it then I'll stick with philosophy.

We are more than yesterday and less than tomorrow should we continue growing and assimilating knowledge and know-how to our satisfaction.

And yet we can be less today than we were before and things can be forgotten in the future. As such what stays is the being of Body with senses in an external world.

I've long spoken of hu'manity as learning machines. From our earliest known beginnings up through and including the current 21st Century we have shown a great ability to not only survive on the planet but even threaten much of life we shared with before we entered the 20th Century. Knowledge has been gained from our necessity and desire to make our survival longer lasting. Whether we fail at accomplishing this is a debate that we seem to be just starting...

People can talk about it all day long but, barring catastrophes, what will make or break it will be the technologies and advances of science.

Man has been exterminating the other animals and changing the environment since they learned to reason and co-operate, long before the 20th century.

Kayla wrote:

marmelada wrote: you want an answer that has words in it.

An answer that has words in it and answer that has logic are 2 absolutely different things to me.

I'm enjoying the back and forth you are having, but at least answer thEse few questions without questions. Do you believe in a god or gods? if so which one(s)? and why not a conflicting god(s)? I want honest answers. for example, "I am a pantheist... or deist... or polytheist.. or Christian.. Muslim, etc." "because..." (optional):"not[insert mainstream deity of choice] because" We are all born without a belief, bacause belief is an active "thing", for lack of a better term. Were you raised in a specific religion or find your religion latter in life?

Why is it important? Whether you believe in God or not and whether you are born believing or not?

because PeoPle act on belief. and because I've not gotten anyone to sneer it. This is a forum where topics are discussed, questions are asked, and in the real world people answer questions. And because I have adopted the goal, from Matt Dillahunty, to know as many true things as possible. and the fact that religion has infiltrated the US government, Education system, and military, is not only unconstitutional, its down right ignorant and immoral.

Telling a child that if they don't behave they will be deprived of love, liberty, and be tortured is child abuse, yet religion gets away with it because pelople say that their god(s) are in touchable.

The fact that the Torah, the bible, and the Koran are the top three holy books in the world and they are inaccurate, self-contradictory, and immoral and for some reason people continue to cherry pick and ignore the evidence that their holy book is a garbage tool that has Bern used to keep women down and justify slavery.

if you these holy books are the infallable inerent word of god, then you've never read them, you've only read bumper stickers or facebook posts.

atheosalio wrote:because PeoPle act on belief. and because I've not gotten anyone to sneer it. This is a forum where topics are discussed, questions are asked, and in the real world people answer questions. And because I have adopted the goal, from Matt Dillahunty, to know as many true things as possible. and the fact that religion has infiltrated the US government, Education system, and military, is not only unconstitutional, its down right ignorant and immoral.

Telling a child that if they don't behave they will be deprived of love, liberty, and be tortured is child abuse, yet religion gets away with it because pelople say that their god(s) are in touchable.

The fact that the Torah, the bible, and the Koran are the top three holy books in the world and they are inaccurate, self-contradictory, and immoral and for some reason people continue to cherry pick and ignore the evidence that their holy book is a garbage tool that has Bern used to keep women down and justify slavery.

if you these holy books are the infallable inerent word of god, then you've never read them, you've only read bumper stickers or facebook posts.

hmm, yes, that is the atheist party line.

Evil is such an easy thing to deal with when you can blame it all on something or someone.

Actions are important, probably more important than beliefs.

The atheist party line? what is that even supposed to mean?

And "evil" is only a conceptual label that is given to actions or ideas that are relative. To many people I am evil because I am atheist. I am evil because I am an American Veteran. I am evil because I laugh when someone gets hit in the groin by a line drive.

So dealing with "evil" isn't a concern of mine, or many secular humanists, althougjt the term is used in a colloquial sense from time to time because so many people react strongly to that word. What we are concernce with is the morallity of actions and beliefs. It is evolutionarily beneficial to oneself to act morally, although sometimes a social or cultural standard may not be moral.

And yes morality can arise without a god. Our closests relatives, the apes, have an understanding of morality and have their own moral system.

Lark wrote:hmm, yes, that is the atheist party line.

Where can I join this party?

Evil is such an easy thing to deal with when you can blame it all on something or someone.

Not easy at all but loads more easy than blaming it upon non-existent entities like 'Satan' or 'The Devil'.

Actions are important, probably more important than beliefs.

Sometimes, it depends if you wish to change someone's actions.

Consciosness is what the true identity of the observer is.all other identity relates oneway or another to the event that the observer is part of .so there for we have an absolute identity which is consience and an event identity as in the name of or tribe of the observer.we are all a mix of both of these to identitys as in dual nature.jesus parable of the good samariton explains this.its the consciousness or conscience identity of the samariton which over rides the event identity it being samitriton .which then collapses the field event.as in quantum physics to a singularitty.the holy spirit is there for consciousness as a singular state as in the consciousnesses effect on the dual nature of light.this fits the phycological model of ego super ego and id.the id being the event identity of the ego or observer.consciousness is the super ego.ego is the feeling of life that that the observer is born with and takes on an event identity or id.which leads to the dual nature of knowing good and evil in the event.consciosness is then known or unknown by the observer .the holyspirt.

atheosalio wrote:the second part of the question should have been clearer, the first part is rhetorical. if someone believes in any god(s) then they should want me to believe, if not then why do they believe in the first place. to clarify the second part, why should I believe in your god(s) over someone else's god(s)

Let me suggest an answer. 99.9... % of all knowlege any individual has is obtained through outside sources like history, schooling, news, books, magazines, personal communication, and so on. The individual does not live long enough to experience everything. It is therefore of primary importance that one learns to differentiate between the quality of the information that is passed on to you from others, and to discern the quality of the source itself. Now, information flow is hierarchical, has a pyramid shape, with the top quality coming from fewer qualified sources of greater veracity and capability from the top part of the pyramid. For example, would your top quality source be a supreme court justice who has decided that abortion is an OK procedure, a president who has decided that homosexual marriage is equivalent to faith based marriage, a philosopher who has not made an iota of effort to search for a personal God in his/her life? Now, as far as my life experience and research has shown me, based on public and private moral teaching, the pinnacle of the information pyramid is occupied by Jesus Christ and his teaching, there simply is no other room there. If you can show me a president, a supreme court justice, a wise man, a news pundit, a senator, a judge, an expert scientist, philosopher, common man or woman who can, e.g., turn water into wine, heal instantaneously, raise from the dead, walk on water teach equivalently to the Sermon on the Mount, and gives his life for my and your sake, then point them out to me and I will consider if I'll take my onformation from them and perhaps effect changes in my life based on their teaching.

You immediately see the difficulty for youself in this (valid) approach, don't you? The easiest way out of the argument I am presenting (which is firmly embedded with me because of my life experience) for you will be to deny or question the historical accuracy of the historical person, Jesus Christ. You have to do that because, if you don't, then, like me, you have to change your life, your outlook on life, your actions and interactions, etc. to conform to the best information available to you, which comes from Christ's teaching. However, you, and many others, can't do that because it is simply too inconvenient and does not fit in with your life style, ambitions, spare time activities and it seems to place undue and undesireable demands on you. For example, make an effort to try and discover god in your life and the lifes of those around you. Get up every Sunday mornings and attend mass, or a service. Pray the rosary, or pray at all, as a Catholic, go to confession, at all times act in a way that attempts to bring about Christ's kingdom in the world around you and within yourself. Too inconvenient, yes? That is what prevents most people who were not raised in faith from pursuing a faith, namely, the inconvenient God.

So dealing with "evil" isn't a concern of mine, or many secular humanists, althougjt the term is used in a colloquial sense from time to time because so many people react strongly to that word. What we are concernce with is the morallity of actions and beliefs. It is evolutionarily beneficial to oneself to act morally, although sometimes a social or cultural standard may not be moral.

Let me see if I can understand what you are saying. "Moral" means "that which is evolutionarily beneficial." So if killing mentally-handicapped babies improves the gene pool, then killing mentally-handicapped babies is evolutionarily beneficial, and hence "moral"? Or would that be one of those "social or cultural standards" that "may not be moral"? But if so, then why? And from whence comes this higher morality that is capable of showing us which societies are making "moral" demands, and which ones are not, since as a humanist you must believe that morality comes from humanity itself?

And yes morality can arise without a god. Our closests relatives, the apes, have an understanding of morality and have their own moral system.

Oh good -- a completely spurious claim: I love those. Let's see what proof you offer for that one.