Philosophy Now Forum

thedoc wrote:What makes you think that God, or religion, will obey the human rules of logic?

I would think that any "higher being" or god(s) would be reflected in and by the patterns and dynamics that clearly run through all else... to the smallest and greatest details. Why would humans think there is a single, very different, separate entity? What kind of reasoning leads to that idea? It doesn't fit with anything else. Such thinking almost seems like a resistance to life... because it seeks some sort of bigger and better detachment. ??

Walker wrote:

Lacewing wrote:Okay, what's your logic that you said you would proceed with?

Put words in your own mouth.

Proceed.

Oh...I see. When you said this: "It would be helpful in uncovering the truth to settle this question before proceeding with the logic", I thought you were actually going to offer more, yourself, once I showed the courtesy of answering your question(s). But that's not the case, so I guess I don't need to answer your questions anymore. Good to know.

Yep. Your conclusion will derive from that premise of yours. You've settled it to your satisfaction.

Walker wrote:Yep. Your conclusion will derive from that premise of yours. You've settled it to your satisfaction.

Are you speaking from experience of your own viewpoints?

I'm actually here to discuss ideas... and I don't think anything is ever known or settled. So how about if you not project your own funk on me?

Proceed with your logic. I'm curious to see where it goes.

Walker wrote:Proceed with your logic. I'm curious to see where it goes.

It's clearly already too much for you... so stop acting like you're going to sit back and smoke a pipe with a smirk on your face. Your arrogance doesn't hide your lame-ass, petty interactions.

Lacewing wrote:

Walker wrote:Proceed with your logic. I'm curious to see where it goes.

It's clearly already too much for you... so stop acting like you're going to sit back and smoke a pipe with a smirk on your face. Your arrogance doesn't hide your lame-ass, petty interactions.

Goin nowhere so far.

Walker wrote: Goin nowhere so far.

Nope, you're not. Glad you can admit it. That's the first step.

Lacewing wrote:

Walker wrote: Goin nowhere so far.

Nope, you're not. Glad you can admit it. That's the first step.

I was referring to your use of logic that follows from the premise you've established. Since explaining your premise, you have not proceeded with your reasoning, though I'm sure you will after I'm swatted. Your postings evolved to where they no longer have relevance to the thread topic. Your mind has been distracted. You've dropped the thread of logic as it relates to your topic. Pick it up. I'll watch.

Walker wrote: I was referring to your use of logic that follows from the premise you've established. Since explaining your premise, you have not proceeded with your reasoning, though I'm sure you will after I'm swatted. Your postings evolved to where they no longer have relevance to the thread topic. Your mind has been distracted. You've dropped the thread of logic as it relates to your topic.

Oh, have I not expressed enough to your satisfaction, and in the way you think it needs to be done? I see. Yet, you have contributed nothing. You just want people to answer your questions. Very selfish and self-absorbed. Okay then... communicating with you is a waste of time. Sit and watch all you want.

From hold your horses to hop off your high horse.

I’ll rephrase the question.

If you are only a collection of parts and systems, then losing a part or a system will alter what you are. So is this true?

Since you are asserting that you are not a single, separate entity as you say, that you only are a compounded thing existing in relationship to systems, then altering the parts and the systems alters who you are.

Is this true? If you get a new hip, a new knee, new teeth, glasses, implants, does this alter who you are?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPw-3e_pzqU

Lacewing wrote:

FlashDangerpants wrote: There is a problem in the phrase "everything we are aware of".

In what way? How can we know and compare what we're not aware of?

It's a problem because the structure of your argument requires infinite divisibility (that nothing is one thing and all things are composed of smaller ones) but it is based on a empirical observation (all the things we are presently aware of are...) rather than a logical one (all things must be...).

FlashDangerpants wrote: ...the structure of your argument requires infinite divisibility (that nothing is one thing and all things are composed of smaller ones) but it is based on a empirical observation (all the things we are presently aware of are...) rather than a logical one (all things must be...).

I think I see what you are saying. I'm not trying to define absolutes, but rather look at (and compare) universal patterns we can identify, in order to question how and why it makes sense for us to step outside of that for any idea, including the idea of a god. Whether or not there can be any part that is non-divisible itself, it is the sum of the parts within a system that make it functional for its purpose, right? A god that is not a sum of parts within a system doesn't fit that pattern. If it did, it would be changeable... and perhaps evolving... and perhaps that is why man placed god outside of the system, rather than within... so that man could have something steady to look to. It just goes against everything else we can observe and compare... that's all.

Greta wrote:...the posited God of Abrahamic theology is supposed to be outside of nature, which begs many questions and creates new regression questions. Also, why not multiple gods existing outside of nature? Why not an infinite number? No reason unless we take word of Iron Age people in the middle east over all others.

Yes! I know you are well aware that I think the concept of god is made up... and, indeed, MANY versions have been made up, and the believers of each version are sure that their version is a truth above and beyond all others. As I was recently watching a program that discussed Quantum Mechanics, it occurred to me to approach/explore the question/logic of god from this angle, in order to determine why mankind would think something ultimately significant (and fully complete without parts) exists separately and outside of all else. What is this desire to separate?

In contrast, why would a god not be completely functional and evolving WITHIN the system? How is that not powerful enough? Why do we think being separate is more powerful? Again, it appears to me that framing god in this way reflects a resistance to life/nature... and a desire for detachment from it... and the fantasy of superior control over all.

Having such a god, seems to make one a god themselves.

So that's what's going on. Finally. Mistaking concept for reality, as if concept creates reality.