Philosophy Now Forum

Harbal wrote:

thedoc wrote: Sorry, but I was going by what I thought you were saying. Why don't you tell me what label, if any, you would prefer.

It seems a bit like putting a label on an empty bottle telling you what's not in it. I think my original point was that I usually base my beliefs on experience and I have no experience of anything that requires belief in God to explain it.

BTW, I consider myself a non-traditional Christian, and I will explain in more detail if you like.

OK.

Usually an empty bottle at least has air in it, unless it's a sealed vacuum.

bobevenson wrote:

thedoc wrote:I consider myself a non-traditional Christian, and I will explain in more detail if you like.

I certainly would like you to explain in more detail.

Nothing to see here, keep moving.

thedoc wrote:
Usually an empty bottle at least has air in it, unless it's a sealed vacuum.

Enough about what's not in my bottle. What about your non traditional Christianity?

Wait, I want to know how doc feels and thinks about Santa!

thedoc wrote:

bobevenson wrote:

thedoc wrote:I consider myself a non-traditional Christian, and I will explain in more detail if you like.

I certainly would like you to explain in more detail.

Nothing to see here, keep moving.

The coy Mr. Doc offers to explain and then reneges.

Harbal wrote:

thedoc wrote:
Usually an empty bottle at least has air in it, unless it's a sealed vacuum.

Enough about what's not in my bottle. What about your non traditional Christianity?

I believe, on evidence, that God exists, beyond that I have faith that God is good and will do what is good for me. The Bible is mythology written by men, for a violent bronze age people and must be reinterpreted for modern people. Like any myth, parable or fable, there is truth in the story but not in the details of the story, that is where so many critics make their mistake, criticizing the details, and not understanding the true lesson of the story. I do not accept the literal interpretation of the Bible, but I don't say that out loud in my church, there are a few literalists, and I don't want to upset them.

BTW, this post is not for Bob's eyes.

Lacewing wrote:Wait, I want to know how doc feels and thinks about Santa!

I believe in the spirit of Santa Clause that is alive and well in the world, except for a few Scrooge's among us. As far as a real live Santa that lives at the North Pole? I don't know, I have never seen him, so I can't say one way or the other. My grandson did see Santa, driving a pickup truck, several summers ago.

BTW, Santa works at the local Home Depot in the off season, and I spoke to him about it on at least one occasion, he's a real nice guy.

thedoc wrote:

Lacewing wrote:Wait, I want to know how doc feels and thinks about Santa!

I believe in the spirit of Santa Clause that is alive and well in the world, except for a few Scrooge's among us. As far as a real live Santa that lives at the North Pole? I don't know, I have never seen him, so I can't say one way or the other. My grandson did see Santa, driving a pickup truck, several summers ago.

BTW, Santa works at the local Home Depot in the off season, and I spoke to him about it on at least one occasion, he's a real nice guy.

Hmm... so you see Santa in all sorts of places... and you believe him to be a man of human characteristics... and you speak to him. This all sounds very familiar... and this wasn't a direction I would have anticipated that my questioning would go.

Thanks for playing along -- you're a good sport!

thedoc wrote: I believe, on evidence, that God exists,

I can accept that view, just as I assume you accept mine.

beyond that I have faith that God is good and will do what is good for me.

On what do you base that faith? Where do you get your information about the nature of God from?

The Bible is mythology written by men, for a violent bronze age people and must be reinterpreted for modern people.

Is there any point in reinterpreting material created under these circumstances? Unless there is reason to think that these people had first hand, genuine, direct experience of God, why is what they wrote down worth anything at all.

Like any myth, parable or fable, there is truth in the story but not in the details of the story,

Is there always truth in the story? Some stories are based on historical events but, quite often, only very loosely and some stories are completely fictitious.

criticizing the details, and not understanding the true lesson of the story.

Why do you think that people whose knowledge and beliefs were primitive, in relation to our's, had anything to teach us?

Harbal wrote: I can accept that view, just as I assume you accept mine.

On what do you base that faith? Where do you get your information about the nature of God from?

Is there any point in reinterpreting material created under these circumstances? Unless there is reason to think that these people had first hand, genuine, direct experience of God, why is what they wrote down worth anything at all.
Is there always truth in the story? Some stories are based on historical events but, quite often, only very loosely and some stories are completely fictitious.
Why do you think that people whose knowledge and beliefs were primitive, in relation to our's, had anything to teach us?

I have no problem with your views, as far as I understand them, but I must admit that I haven't read everything that you may have posted, so I am working from a limited source of knowledge.

Any idea that I have about the nature of God is based on an assumption about that nature, and not on real knowledge. In that light, I have no reason to believe that God is malevolent.

Primitive people certainly have little to teach us about technology, (with the exceptions of the things we can't explain) but there might be a lot to learn about human relationships and society. I believe that humans are much like our primitive ancestors, more so than many would like to think. Humans are not so evolved as some would have us believe.

thedoc wrote:Primitive people certainly have little to teach us about technology, (with the exceptions of the things we can't explain) but there might be a lot to learn about human relationships and society. I believe that humans are much like our primitive ancestors, more so than many would like to think. Humans are not so evolved as some would have us believe.

Yes, all generations have something to teach others because they experienced life differently. The same can be said of individuals - everyone knows things that you don't. So it becomes a matter of emphasis. That's why I see no point in giving an Iron Age religion primacy over modern rational thought. When it comes to objective reality, I'll give primacy to modern science over the ancients, while taking into account the ancients' better ideas.

I think the lessons we can learn from ancient religions are already clear, if we would notice them. Subjectivity is important. Emotions are important. Morality is important. Imagination is important. These are the lessons we need not to forget as we progress further into the Information Age.

Lacewing wrote:Okay, I’m not a scientist, so it’s hard for me to put some concepts into the proper words, but I will do my best to describe this... as I’d like to explore it if anyone is willing.

Are these statements true:
From the smallest scale to the largest scale, everything we are aware of is a collective of parts.
These collective parts interact and operate as systems within systems.
There is no single thing that is isolated, nor operating independently from a system.

If these statements are true, wouldn’t it suggest that no SINGLE THING is required or logical to be external to (or separate from) all of the parts and systems which naturally function, grow, and regulate as a collective?

And a “thinking” and “functioning” god with awareness would naturally have to be a collective of parts and systems too? Therefore, there can be no single, independent, separate god... only a COLLECTIVE.

Yes? No?

You are affirming the consequent in much of your syllogism (or attempt at a syllogism).

Your "givens" are merely assumptions. Thus an assumption proves nothing.

And "everything we are aware of" is argumentum populum AND hasty generalization.

Seems like you and Protagoras in ancient Athens would have gotten along really well.

yiostheoy wrote: You are affirming the consequent in much of your syllogism (or attempt at a syllogism).

Your "givens" are merely assumptions. Thus an assumption proves nothing.

And "everything we are aware of" is argumentum populum AND hasty generalization.

Seems like you and Protagoras in ancient Athens would have gotten along really well.

Okay, fine. Do you think there is or is not logic for a single, separate god... and why?

Lacewing wrote:

yiostheoy wrote: You are affirming the consequent in much of your syllogism (or attempt at a syllogism).

Your "givens" are merely assumptions. Thus an assumption proves nothing.

And "everything we are aware of" is argumentum populum AND hasty generalization.

Seems like you and Protagoras in ancient Athens would have gotten along really well.

Okay, fine. Do you think there is or is not logic for a single, separate god... and why?

If you get a chance to read any actual Philosophy you will encounter Aristotle and his "Prime Mover" argument, which results when you observe the heavenly bodies of the Sun, Moon, planets, comets, and meteors in motion (or in apparent motion). This in addition to Aquinas's additional "First Cause" argument, and two more subsequent more modern "Artistic Artificer" and "Purposeful Designer" arguments are all powerful Deist explanations. If you want to update this concept to modern times, you can also add the Earth in motion around the Sun as the Sun plies it way around the center of the Milky Way Galaxy -- although Aristotle did not know this.

These are philosophical arguments.

As philosophical arguments, they have validity. Without them you run into precursor paradoxes. With them you run into infinity paradoxes.

Do I myself think this logic supports the existence for a single separate God?

Yes, it supports the existence of at least ONE God if not more.

In Hinduism there is an entire Pantheon of Gods. A Pantheon would make more sense to me.

The Christian Father, Son, and Holy Spirit make more sense to me as well -- this would indicate a single separate God who is just beginning to replicate other Gods. This would be the Deist view.

Otherwise you run into a wall with the paradox of first creation.

But even with the concept of Deism and Deity you still run into the paradox of infinity.

This is what Philosophy tells us.

Philosophy is a logical speculative endeavor. Philosophy attempts deductively to determine truth or most likely truth.

Philosophy is not science although it takes scientific observations into account.

Philosophy is not religion. There is no faith element in Philosophy, only pure rational thought.

Harbal wrote:

thedoc wrote:
I mean exactly what I have posted, nothing more or less, you have an opinion about the existence of God, and that is all that I am saying. You and others may label is as you see fit, and I agree there is no point in arguing about it, but expressing the idea can be instructive.

I've got opinions about the subject of God but I don't think I've got any about God. Have I expressed an opinion about God? If I have, I can't remember what it was.

Is this a thread about Philosophy or is it a thread about Religion?

Which do you see it as?

When the subject of God comes up, is that automatically Religion or can it be Philosophy?

Loaded question, I know. The answer is that there is also a concept within Philosophy of the Philosophy God -- God-ness.

Aristotle formally introduced it although it was always there with Socrates and Plato as well. Socrates and Plato were idealists who believed in an ontological sort of God-ness similar to Descartes and Anselm.

You yourself don't need to believe anything however Philosophically you should be able to deal with the God-ness arguments one way or the other -- but philosophically not religiously.