Philosophy Now Forum

attofishpi wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:

attofishpi wrote:
Because you will never answer the ultimate cause otherwise.

No, because you will never be able to explain who your God is.

At this stage old mate - its not WHO its WHAT.

Very well, what is your God?

sthitapragya wrote:
As more things got explained a lot of things had to be changed.

Just like I AM DOING, i.e., changing what I do not like, which is what is wrong.

sthitapragya wrote:Now the only thing that remains unexplained is how life and the universe came into existence.

That is two VERY strong beliefs you have here. It could even be argued that they are 'religious' beliefs, in of themselves.

sthitapragya wrote:Till we can explain these mysteries, this particular God is here to stay.

They are NOT "mysteries" anymore, to some of us.

sthitapragya wrote:You will notice that all the Gods believed in today, are just out of the reach of science.

Not all of them.

sthitapragya wrote:

attofishpi wrote:

sthitapragya wrote: No, because you will never be able to explain who your God is.

At this stage old mate - its not WHO its WHAT.

Very well, what is your God?

My analysis is still in progress.

sthitapragya wrote:

ken wrote:

sthitapragya wrote: Yeah, but not with you.

But I find 'arguing', logical reasoning, with you enjoyable, enlightening and rewarding. But if you do not find it that, then fair enough.

Very well then. Let us give it another try. By God, I mean whatever God you believe in, because there are just so many of them and everyone believes in some God and laughs at the others belief.

You said, "... everyone believes in some God..., so what God do you believe in? And, do not assume I believe in God. i do NOT believe in some God.

That is why I asked you what is this God you talk about. It appears you believe very strongly that there is no kind of God. I was asking you to define God so that I knew exactly what you did not want me to believe in.

I would think whoever is the first person, believer or non-believer, to write of or mention the word 'God' should be the who defines 'It' first.

However, because you wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:So if you believe in any kind of a conscious creator of any kind whatsoever, that is the God I am talking about. But if you believe in one, and you plan to argue about it, you will need to define your God exactly before we continue.

You thankfully already gave 'your' definition of God first so now I can proceed.

I will forget about the 'believe in' part as I have already announced I neither believe nor disbelieve (in) anything, except in the ability of the Self to be able to do, create and achieve whatever It truly wants to do, create and achieve.

If, by 'God', you are talking about any kind of a conscious creator of any kind whatsoever, then that is a great place to start.

A 'conscious creator', would by definition imply a thing that is 'conscious', aware, that it is a 'creator', which could do, create and achieve whatever it truly wants to do, create and achieve.

I believe in a 'conscious creator', a self-aware creator, and I plan to 'argue', logically reason, about it, so I will define "this" God (it is not 'my' God) exactly before we continue.

The 'I', in the question 'Who am I?' is thee Self, which can create anything. 'I', 'Me', the One who is writing here is the conscious Creator. If 'I' happened to be called God or Spiritual Enlightenment or any of the many other names, then so be it.

But in order to define God exactly before we continue, 'God' IS 'I', Thee Self, the One, who will reply to you from now on in this post.

Now, before you dismiss this wholeheartedly, let us begin with some questions from that inquiring Mind.

sthitapragya wrote: We are talking about a time when lightening was attributed to the God of thunder. There was actually very little science known then and superstition obviously ran rampant as too many things were unknown, extremely powerful and bewildering. And someone realized how that could be used to his or her advantage and ran with the idea. It is no coincidence that religion has evolved with science. As more things got explained a lot of things had to be changed. Now the only thing that remains unexplained is how life and the universe came into existence. That is why we don't believe in the God of thunder anymore but believe in the 'unknowable' God ( a cop out if there ever was one). Till we can explain these mysteries, this particular God is here to stay. You will notice that all the Gods believed in today, are just out of the reach of science. And that is how it has always been. The only difference is that in the earlier days, there was less science so there were more physical Gods one could believe in.

"God" though was likely just a useful variable as an 'X' is to math or logic. The extended idea is that this 'X' is also something with a preferred value ('good' for most traditions and the very etymology of the term, 'god'). But this presumption begs that our existence has some default 'favor' to nature itself. So even using the term "God" today lacks substance. We use "Universe", "Cosmos", or "Totality" as non-emotionally laden terms to stand in for the 'X' as a question we are trying to solve. To discover whichever is the truth about reality, we can't grant it a specific or constant value. This would be like questioning what 'X' is but demanding that the DOMAIN of X is {1} only. This would mean that using X as though it appears to be an unknown is just deceptive. For the example of this domain of X, X = 1 ALWAYS. Thus it is redundant to treat or use X because it is NOT VARIABLE but FIXED (CONSTANT).

Would you agree with this or are you proposing some other significance to require using "God" as a term for inquiry? It appears that it has too much baggage connected to it.

ken wrote: A 'conscious creator', would by definition imply a thing that is 'conscious', aware, that it is a 'creator', which could do, create and achieve whatever it truly wants to do, create and achieve.

I believe in a 'conscious creator', a self-aware creator, and I plan to 'argue', logically reason, about it, so I will define "this" God (it is not 'my' God) exactly before we continue.

The 'I', in the question 'Who am I?' is thee Self, which can create anything. 'I', 'Me', the One who is writing here is the conscious Creator. If 'I' happened to be called God or Spiritual Enlightenment or any of the many other names, then so be it.

But in order to define God exactly before we continue, 'God' IS 'I', Thee Self, the One, who will reply to you from now on in this post.

Now, before you dismiss this wholeheartedly, let us begin with some questions from that inquiring Mind.

what you wrote above is very confusing. You need to be more concise. Also if you don't believe in this God ( since you say it is not your God) why are we discussing this at all? If it is someone else's God, it is someone else's problem, isn't it? Why are we discussing it?

Oh and to clarify. I reject all Gods of any kind whatsoever. Even the ones that have not been thought of yet.

sthitapragya wrote:There is no denying the fact that belief in God probably kick-started the scientific thought process. Putting aside the superstitions, the philosophies that belief in God started, what is the meaning of life, purpose of life, etc, somehow seem to have lead to the development of science. We owe a lot to the belief in God. I will accept that. But just as you cannot keep your finger on the ignition button once the car has started, one cannot keep believing in God once the scientific process has started. The car is moving. Let your finger off the ignition button. It is harming the car. Now, let the process take care of itself.

First science must conclude this dialogue and adequately answer the question: Where did you come from and where are you going? btw: your notion that knowledge of God is a belief is rooted in ignorance and/or projection.

Obvious Leo: It was you that brought up the subject of god, not me. What the fuck has god got to do with philosophy?

Walker: Philosophically and rationally,

You do not give life to yourself.

Whatever does, is God.

sthitapragya wrote:

ken wrote: A 'conscious creator', would by definition imply a thing that is 'conscious', aware, that it is a 'creator', which could do, create and achieve whatever it truly wants to do, create and achieve.

I believe in a 'conscious creator', a self-aware creator, and I plan to 'argue', logically reason, about it, so I will define "this" God (it is not 'my' God) exactly before we continue.

The 'I', in the question 'Who am I?' is thee Self, which can create anything. 'I', 'Me', the One who is writing here is the conscious Creator. If 'I' happened to be called God or Spiritual Enlightenment or any of the many other names, then so be it.

But in order to define God exactly before we continue, 'God' IS 'I', Thee Self, the One, who will reply to you from now on in this post.

Now, before you dismiss this wholeheartedly, let us begin with some questions from that inquiring Mind.

what you wrote above is very confusing. You need to be more concise. Also if you don't believe in this God ( since you say it is not your God) why are we discussing this at all? If it is someone else's God, it is someone else's problem, isn't it? Why are we discussing it?

Oh and to clarify. I reject all Gods of any kind whatsoever. Even the ones that have not been thought of yet.

'I', am God. Is that concise enough?

But because of your three beliefs I think this is not going anywhere.

You believe there are no God/s of any kind whatsoever so you will not be able to argue with Me nor you will even try to challenge Me.

ken wrote:
'I', am God. Is that concise enough?

But because of your three beliefs I think this is not going anywhere.

You believe there are no God/s of any kind whatsoever so you will not be able to argue with Me nor you will even try to challenge Me.

Why would I challenge you? I know a guy who says he is Donald Duck. Another thinks he is Jesus. They are more unique than you. I know of a lot of guys who say they are God. You are just one more. Why should I argue about that?

What three beliefs are you talking about.

Scott Mayers wrote:

sthitapragya wrote: We are talking about a time when lightening was attributed to the God of thunder. There was actually very little science known then and superstition obviously ran rampant as too many things were unknown, extremely powerful and bewildering. And someone realized how that could be used to his or her advantage and ran with the idea. It is no coincidence that religion has evolved with science. As more things got explained a lot of things had to be changed. Now the only thing that remains unexplained is how life and the universe came into existence. That is why we don't believe in the God of thunder anymore but believe in the 'unknowable' God ( a cop out if there ever was one). Till we can explain these mysteries, this particular God is here to stay. You will notice that all the Gods believed in today, are just out of the reach of science. And that is how it has always been. The only difference is that in the earlier days, there was less science so there were more physical Gods one could believe in.

"God" though was likely just a useful variable as an 'X' is to math or logic. The extended idea is that this 'X' is also something with a preferred value ('good' for most traditions and the very etymology of the term, 'god'). But this presumption begs that our existence has some default 'favor' to nature itself. So even using the term "God" today lacks substance. We use "Universe", "Cosmos", or "Totality" as non-emotionally laden terms to stand in for the 'X' as a question we are trying to solve. To discover whichever is the truth about reality, we can't grant it a specific or constant value. This would be like questioning what 'X' is but demanding that the DOMAIN of X is {1} only. This would mean that using X as though it appears to be an unknown is just deceptive. For the example of this domain of X, X = 1 ALWAYS. Thus it is redundant to treat or use X because it is NOT VARIABLE but FIXED (CONSTANT).

Would you agree with this or are you proposing some other significance to require using "God" as a term for inquiry? It appears that it has too much baggage connected to it.

I think you have misunderstood. God is not a term of inquiry. God is a final and absolute conclusion. It is the end of reason. Why do we exist? Because God. Don't bother looking for answers. How did the universe come into existence? God did it. It is final. Don't bother thinking about it or looking for answers. God is a brake on thought processes. He is a conclusion reached when 'I don't know. Let me look for an answer' would be the better option. No one has seen him. No one knows what he looks like but they know from their higher consciousness that he exists. So stop looking for answers. Please. God is the conclusion. I today's age at least thought processes should be mature enough to agree that God is just another hypothesis. It is ridiculous for thinking people to reach a conclusion with nothing to back it. We have people here discussing the futility of reason!

We have people who want intelligent design included in schools. In India every single school has prayers before school. This kind of brainwashing and primitive thinking is holding us back.

sthitapragya wrote:

Scott Mayers wrote:

sthitapragya wrote: We are talking about a time when lightening was attributed to the God of thunder. There was actually very little science known then and superstition obviously ran rampant as too many things were unknown, extremely powerful and bewildering. And someone realized how that could be used to his or her advantage and ran with the idea. It is no coincidence that religion has evolved with science. As more things got explained a lot of things had to be changed. Now the only thing that remains unexplained is how life and the universe came into existence. That is why we don't believe in the God of thunder anymore but believe in the 'unknowable' God ( a cop out if there ever was one). Till we can explain these mysteries, this particular God is here to stay. You will notice that all the Gods believed in today, are just out of the reach of science. And that is how it has always been. The only difference is that in the earlier days, there was less science so there were more physical Gods one could believe in.

"God" though was likely just a useful variable as an 'X' is to math or logic. The extended idea is that this 'X' is also something with a preferred value ('good' for most traditions and the very etymology of the term, 'god'). But this presumption begs that our existence has some default 'favor' to nature itself. So even using the term "God" today lacks substance. We use "Universe", "Cosmos", or "Totality" as non-emotionally laden terms to stand in for the 'X' as a question we are trying to solve. To discover whichever is the truth about reality, we can't grant it a specific or constant value. This would be like questioning what 'X' is but demanding that the DOMAIN of X is {1} only. This would mean that using X as though it appears to be an unknown is just deceptive. For the example of this domain of X, X = 1 ALWAYS. Thus it is redundant to treat or use X because it is NOT VARIABLE but FIXED (CONSTANT).

Would you agree with this or are you proposing some other significance to require using "God" as a term for inquiry? It appears that it has too much baggage connected to it.

I think you have misunderstood. God is not a term of inquiry. God is a final and absolute conclusion. It is the end of reason. Why do we exist? Because God. Don't bother looking for answers. How did the universe come into existence? God did it. It is final. Don't bother thinking about it or looking for answers. God is a brake on thought processes. He is a conclusion reached when 'I don't know. Let me look for an answer' would be the better option. No one has seen him. No one knows what he looks like but they know from their higher consciousness that he exists. So stop looking for answers. Please. God is the conclusion. I today's age at least thought processes should be mature enough to agree that God is just another hypothesis. It is ridiculous for thinking people to reach a conclusion with nothing to back it. We have people here discussing the futility of reason!

We have people who want intelligent design included in schools. In India every single school has prayers before school. This kind of brainwashing and primitive thinking is holding us back.

Sometimes I think I'm speaking a complete different language than everyone.

I don't disagree with you here. And in fact, what you just said merely agrees with my take on this. I said that to either you or another that the term 'God' and its meaning is an idea that has deceptively become what used to be a likely a sincere VARIABLE that has turned into a CONSTANT, meaning that the thinkers of the past originally treated Totality (or the Cosmos or the Universe) as an unknown intending to question it but latter peoples reinterpreted this to BE a fixed and certain constant (your apparent choice word for this is, "conclusion").

So yes, the error of people is to assume that reality as a whole is what 'God' is. To see how this has evolved, refer to Anselm's transference of this in his Ontological Argument for the existence of God. In that link, Anselm interpreted what we call the Cosmos/Universe/Reality as a whole as the very definition of "God" in error.

Anselm begins with a stipulative definition of “God” as “a being than which no greater
being can be conceived.”

As such, this definition falsely takes what was the question of the whole and merely transferred the question into a conclusion. This makes what was a variable (that which has some set of many possible answers yet to be determined) into a constant (one unique particular answer of all possibilities). But this is just a trick because it is like Ken here begging the definition of "God" to mean "I", then assert that "I" exists; Therefore, the meaning of "I" must exist, that being "God". Its the same kind of irrationality that goes on in many areas by Equivocating some selective label to two distinct meanings.

Let "X" stand for "All things"
Let "Y" stand for "All things and more"
"X" exists
Therefore "Y" exists.

The transference con here is that we generally use "Universe" to be "X" while the religious person uses "God" to be "Y". But the error is the "...and more" part to which they also have their extended meaning of "God" to mean something like, "that caring creator of all things who will reward or punish you in the end if you don't believe or behave in some specific way". So it is intended to trick some into believing that if the SYMBOL stands for more than one definition, the SYMBOL when used in fact DOES mean all different definitions at once.

The logic, while clear as I spell it out, is as equally an easy one that we ALL accidentally make. All humor, for instance, is about using this trick.

Example: "How did they find out that the girl who got killed in Jaws had dandruff?"

"They found her Head and Shoulders on the beach."

We laugh at this because we define "Head and Shoulders" as both

(1) one's literal body parts called a 'head' and a 'shoulder'

and

(2) the brand name of a dandruff shampoo and general body product named, "Head and Shoulders".

The two definitions listed are distinct and have different meanings. But the irrationality of it still emotionally affects us for the dumb animals we are. If this wasn't true, you wouldn't find anything funny either. (Any, incidentally why logical people tend to be less emotional!)

sthitapragya wrote:

ken wrote:
'I', am God. Is that concise enough?

But because of your three beliefs I think this is not going anywhere.

You believe there are no God/s of any kind whatsoever so you will not be able to argue with Me nor you will even try to challenge Me.

Why would I challenge you? I know a guy who says he is Donald Duck. Another thinks he is Jesus. They are more unique than you. I know of a lot of guys who say they are God. You are just one more.

You have completely misconstrued what I have said or you are confused. I have never said 'a guy' is or even could be God. God is certainly NOT a guy. The 'I' IS God, i.e., the 'I' in the question who am 'I'. This 'I' is absolutely NOT separated from any other thing, ever. Therefore, 'I', God am NOT a guy. Have you ever tried to challenge them or argue with them? I can not see any reason for NOT doing so.

Why would you challenge Me is to prove Me wrong. You would LOVE to prove that 'you', your beliefs are absolutely true, right, and correct, once and for all, am I right?

I know you will be very surprised with what the Truth actually IS.

sthitapragya wrote:Why should I argue about that?

Because Truth appears and is revealed through 'arguing', logical reasoning.

If you argued the point with others, then you just might be able to formulate a sound, valid argument or one would appear that you could then use as proof to show and reveal to others that there really is NO god whatsoever. But, I suppose, the opposite could actually just happen, also. We will never know until you argue with Me and/or challenge Me.

sthitapragya wrote:What three beliefs are you talking about.

You believe:
1. Life and the Universe came into existence (began).
2. How Life and the Universe came into existence is still unexplained.
3. There are no God/s of any kind whatsoever.

Scott Mayers wrote: Sometimes I think I'm speaking a complete different language than everyone.

That's what you get when you quote mathematical equations to dumb people.

ken wrote:
You have completely misconstrued what I have said or you are confused. I have never said 'a guy' is or even could be God. God is certainly NOT a guy. The 'I' IS God, i.e., the 'I' in the question who am 'I'. This 'I' is absolutely NOT separated from any other thing, ever. Therefore, 'I', God am NOT a guy. Have you ever tried to challenge them or argue with them? I can not see any reason for NOT doing so.

Anyone can say that. How do I argue with that? The guy is not the God but the 'I' is God. Okay. To me they are one and the same thing.

ken wrote:Why would you challenge Me is to prove Me wrong. You would LOVE to prove that 'you', your beliefs are absolutely true, right, and correct, once and for all, am I right?

Not really. Either I would be proved right or I would be proved wrong. If I am proved wrong, I would come away learning something. There is no shame is being wrong. Everyone is wrong most of the time. Why should I be any different?

ken wrote:Because Truth appears and is revealed through 'arguing', logical reasoning.

I don't know what you mean by Truth. But if you mean knowledge beyond the known, I think it is a load of crap, if people think that meditating or thinking or whatever is going to get them there. It is not. There is no such thing. Studying and reading and researching is going to get us towards some level of knowledge. But no one knows the Truth of Everything. Not Buddha, not Jesus. No one.

ken wrote:If you argued the point with others, then you just might be able to formulate a sound, valid argument or one would appear that you could then use as proof to show and reveal to others that there really is NO god whatsoever. But, I suppose, the opposite could actually just happen, also. We will never know until you argue with Me and/or challenge Me.

I have never argued that there is no God whatever. That would be a conclusion. I am rejecting all Gods because Gods are taken to be foregone conclusions. I have always maintained that God is a hypothesis, a possibility among many others. God could be the answer or the answer could be different. I have a problem with the conclusion people reach about God. They never call it a hypothesis. A conclusion needs proof. A hypothesis does not because it is still to be proved. A hypothesis cannot be disproved because it has not been proved. A conclusion can be disproved if it is wrong otherwise it is right.

ken wrote:
You believe:
1. Life and the Universe came into existence (began).
2. How Life and the Universe came into existence is still unexplained.
3. There are no God/s of any kind whatsoever.

No. 1 and 2 are correct. Three is not. I believe any kind of God is a hypothesis. If you say that any kind of a God is a conclusion, i reject it in the absence of proof because conclusions must have proof to back them. If you say, it is my hypothesis that 'I' am God but I still have to prove it, I have no problem with that. I have nothing to prove or disprove. I have nothing to believe or disbelieve.

If however you say I am God, I will ask for proof. In the absence of proof, I will reject your God.

Have you ever heard anyone say, " Since we don't know how the universe came into existence. we might need to consider the possibility that there is a being which created the universe." ? No. What you here is, " God created the universe". No proof, nothing. A blanket statement which you MUST believe to be true. I cannot accept that. Give me proof if it is such a firm conclusion.

Ken, read my responses. I actually understand where you may be coming from given the evolution of history. Note that "Jesus Christ" was an ancient literal translation of "I am" and "A king" (Christ is derived from the same roots as 'Caesar' and both are forms of asserting that nature or 'god', by many, has granted formal authority of a person to rule. There formal process back then was by 'anointing', as pouring libations, like our cheers, to commemorate the new leader.)

But this interpretation even derived earlier in Egypt too. "Isis" is a transliteration meaning "I am" or "I am the same as". In Greece, "Zeus" meant "same as" from the similar roots as he had asserted being the newly anointed 'king' of gods following the Titans (Chaos, Kronos, etc.) [Chaos = gas, fluidity, as in the air and water; Kronos = chronos = time.]