I think you are trying to say that my focus on the Bible is a blind spot because it’s not the only belief system about god that is out there. Focusing only on this one religion means I am just as invested in it as the people who accept it as being true. It’s not completely wrong. I have definitely put more time and focus on Christianity than any other religion. I have read the Bible several times in my life, studied its history from both a Christian and secular perspective. Its history and the history of the western world are intertwined. It’s definitely a topic I can drone on about. That said, I still stand behind what I said. The biblical god is too basic and obviously contrived to be true. Basically I am bored by any attempts at anthropomorphizing reality. However as you broaden your definition of “god’ to something more like the pantheistic ‘god’ of Spinoza/ Einstein I open up to the idea of ‘God’ being real. The Taoist religion is also closer to what I believe although I only have a rudimentary understanding of it. If you get to know some of my personal philosophy you will find that I think of the universe itself to be “god” but I reject the term god and I define ‘universe’ differently than most people since I think of it as the totality of all things, not just the space time continuum that is theorized to have started with the Big Bang. I speculate that the universe is conscious but in a way you and I will never understand. I also think of the universe as a bucket of sand. I often describe myself as an Agnostic Atheist with a conflict between pantheism and nihilism. These days I am more pantheist than nihilist but the two don’t really conflict so I can be both.
It is curious, that you seem to base your concept of God, or at least your use of that word, on the images used by various religions. The two questions-- does any God Force exist, and are the Gods of any established religion genuine-- are completely independent of one another. If you believe the universe is conscious, that meets the definition of God, so you are, in truth, no Atheist, or not really Agnostic, either. I've been a Pantheist, of various incarnations, for about 35 years; I've never met another true Pantheist. I am old school, though. The modern version thinks of the universe as God, but probably would not call it "conscious." From what little I've read, I might describe it more like a Universalist Existentialism, if that makes any sense. Sounds like there should be interesting discussions, ahead. Unfortunately, I'm beat now, and have to sign off.
“Conscious in a way you and I will never understand”. I don’t believe in God, there is not provably any such thing nor any reason to believe such a thing. There is only a reality, the totality of everything and it’s not sitting around waiting for you to ask it to help win the next hockey game or find your missing car keys. It’s not even an it. Everything just is and we are part of everything. We are conscious so the totality of everything includes consciousness. There is no giant brain storing memories and making decisions. Evolution is a form of consciousness. The change that is evolution doesn’t even really exist except as a trick of the human brain being limited to experiencing the 4th dimension in tiny blips because we are only three dimensional. Everything that will happen has already happened. We don’t even truly know what consciousness even is, just what we think it is. I’m sleepy. I’m going back to sleep.
Or think of it this way. If there were a god then it would be separate from us since it is its own person. That means this god would be a part of the totality of everything and therefore smaller than the totality of everything and subject to the rules of the totality of everything. That would make it not omniscient, not omnipresent and not omnipotent.
You really don't see the simple truth. Religions/Gods were formed at the beginning because early man did not understand the world around him and ascribed everything to a 'god'. The Aztecs had 'gods' for virtually every aspect of nature, their body and even their emotions and other religions similarly, though not so comprehensive. If early man had been born with the knowledge we have today of the world and the Universe, would he have formed gods/religions to account for everything. You fall into the trap of basing your arguments on TODAYS world and knowledge. The early man was simple - without the knowledge we have today. He needed to attribute everything around him to 'something/someone'. We don't. What we have yet to learn about the world is gradually unfolding by scientific discovery etc. Bible students have this problem of interpreting the Bible in terms of todays mindset instead of thinking as someone of the time. Take yourself back 50,000 years and think as a caveman.
RE: God's Gender SUBTOPIC: View Alternative ※→ et al, Why should anyone believe that the Creator, a Supreme Being, and First Cause, which existed before the universe, has a gender? The essence and characteristics of the Creator, Supreme Being, and First Cause, → if there is such a deity, → are unknown. While such a being might be able to assume human form through the use of the Three Principle Powers [Omnipotence (Power), Omniscience (Knowledge), Omnipresence (Presence)] why should such a being do so? If the First Cause is everywhere then it could appear as one gender in one place and a different gender in another place. We do not understand how such a Supreme Being operates. Most Respectfully, R
I don't remember him saying anything about "benefits". That's not the point of the talk. As an atheist I would DEFINITELY accept claims that believing in a god has benefits. If you believe Jesus loves you and you are headed for heaven, that could help you. But, that has nothing to do with whether there is a god. The issue of that talk is whether God is a good theory - an explanation. Yes, in talking about this topic, Carroll finds it important to set the ground rules concerning his topic. He's speaking to a strongly academic audience where foundation matters. Many would simply claim that a theory involving god ISN'T a theory - so he has to point out why it's fine to have god's existence as a theory. When was the last time you heard a serious physicist accept that god can be proposed as a theory? I think it's worth listening to this podcast, as it is from a well known, highly respected physicist addressing this question in a way that science would address it. The directions taken aren't the cheap and easy directions one usually sees in message boards.
Since that caveat applies to everything, concerning God, it is understood and automatically assumed, without needing to be stated; IOW, it is a meaningless addition, so far as changing the meaning of one's statement about God. If one meant to say there was some aspect of an omnipresent consciousness that humans could fully understand, then that would be where the clarifying phrase would be required. This is a limiting concept, of what "God" must be. As I've already suggested, there can be a God, and it can, at the same time, bear no resemblance to anything that man has ever conceived of, in his religious mind, as God's image. I'll repeat: saying that all the religion's ideas of God are utterly false, in no way, impacts upon the question "is there a God." At least not, in my mind. You seem to be adding to that question, is there a God, as has been identified in human religion. Personally-- though as I posted about, earlier (not addressing you), I see religious texts as twinings of multiple strands, so not so simply categorized as any single thing-- I feel that most sacred texts depict not "God," but some extraterrestrial presence. But that does not mean that God doesn't exist. In fact, it doesn't even mean that some of the ideas, surrounding these mistaken gods, could not possibly reflect some truth, regarding the real One. But this idea, is its own post, that I have been intending to write. Have you read Spinoza (who you elsewhere cite)? I have not, but my understanding is that he would not think of these various forms of consciousness, existing within the universe, as distinctly different things. IOW, my impression was that Spinoza viewed the Universe as a single, whole. That matches my original Pantheist model, of God as being the BODY of Creation. So your pointing to distinct forms of consciousness, to my mind, is akin to your identifying "intelligence," as it manifests in a body's immune system, while denying the "Being," within which that system operates.
If there is no "god force", then your next issue is dead. So, there is a dependency. As per the Carroll piece I cited, there isn't justification for believing there is a "god force".
That is a faulty analysis. It is, in fact, you who don't see this simple fact: nothing that you say about man's early beliefs about God, disproves the existence of God, as a reality; you are only calling into question, those beliefs, which need not match the reality, for there to still be a Divine Reality. Again, the fact that we learn things about the physical functioning of our world and universe, does not point to the conclusion that, therefore, there must be no God. That is false logic. You are, like our threadmate, Dirty Rotten Imbecile, restricting your idea of God, to those defined in religious texts. There is no reason, that these two things need match. All of our established ideas about God, can be wrong, without that meaning that, therefore the reality of God cannot exist. Your thinking is almost akin to saying that, because earlier people believed that the sun revolved around the Earth, which was not based in fact, that proves that the sun is not real.
I disagree with you on just about everything you have said. The idea of god comes from religion so reasoning that the religious ideas describing that god are incorrect does impact the question of whether or not that god exists. Sure there could be a different god that is different from that religion’s description. There could be a tea pot in orbit right now between earth and Mars too. I can’t prove it’s not there. It’s pretty reasonable to continue on as though there is not however. Ultimately there is no reason to assume any god exists. I have read a bit of Spinoza but I would not consider myself an expert by any means. I just know that his definition of god is less objectionable than most other definitions of god. I really do find the term god objectionable regardless. It’s a silly term to me. But yeah there is no doubt in my mind that the totality of existence includes consciousness because I see it everywhere. I just can’t tell you that there is a single overarching consciousness since there is no data to suggest that. I sometimes like to pretend that the totality of existence is evolving toward a single overarching consciousness but we are only at its rudimentary beginnings right now.
You have watched the presentation. You recommend the presentation. Yet you cannot give a fingernail sketch, or any highlights, of the presentation? In my mind, I cannot give much weight, to any such recommendation. Is someone's telling you that a given movie is good, or even that it is great, sufficient for you to go see the movie; or will you want at least a few details, to see how well the recommender's impressions, are likely to match your own? I was not complaining that there were "directions," as a prologue to the discussion; I was saying that they were indicative that it would not be a brief discussion. Hence, I want to hear your book jacket description first, before I commit to reading the whole novel. I take it, in his appraisal of "the God theory," he is going to compare it to other theories, that is, other mental frameworks. That comparison, is what I'd been referring to as a "benefits analysis." He is going to evaluate the differences between looking at things, through different lenses, no? And he will point out advantages and disadvantages, between the two? (I don't why there seems to be such semantic confusion, on your side of our conversations.) What sorts of "problems" will he be looking at, through these different lenses? Will they be strictly scientific matters? If so, I do not know how that would apply, in the least, to one's personal beliefs. I am not advocating that anyone accept the proposition that any physical phenomena is explained by merely the idea that "God willed it." So if that is what your presenter shows to be an inferior way of looking at certain things, then there is no obvious benefit I stand to gain, by watching this presentation. Is that not a plainly understandable explanation, of why I would like more information, from the person who is telling me that this is "worth listening to?"
Once more, this is a plainly false analogy. I agree with you, that a teapot in space-- as many questions as that might raise-- is not, of itself, of great consequence to me, or to my world view. Yet, to say the same thing, about whether or not there is a Creator & Sustainer God Consciousness, infusing Creation, is obviously ridiculous. (That's all I have time for, now).
I haven't said anything about man's early beliefs. As for that next point, I'm not calling into question any specific belief. I'm pointing out the justification for not accepting the idea that there is a "god force" as you once termed it. Yes, religion can be based on stuff that isn't reality. I would say that has gone on in a MASSIVE way for various serious reasons. I haven't ever meant to imply that the fact that we continue to learn is the root of any issue related to god. People in the past (any time in the past) did the best they could. However, a theory of god needs to be helpful in learning about this universe. That's what theories have to do. In the vid I posted, Dr. Carroll points out this and other issues.
No foolin'. I don't need watch a podcast, for that. As per my own posts: Believing in a God-- an act of Faith; Believing that the reality of God is unknowable-- an attitude of Reason; Believing that God could only be a human invention-- the epitome of Hubris. I point out that (even if Carroll does not show this) it is just as true that "there isn't justification for" ruling out the possibility that "there is a 'God force. ' " Which makes any atheist's pointing out the lack of proof, to a God believer, the sheerest of hypocrisies.
That can be explained by the fact that you are quoting my reply to trevorw2539. I am glad to have you read all my ideas, but try to note to whom each is addressed, or at least that they are not all meant specifically for you, to avoid such confusion as, in this case, you'd experienced.
DEFinning is busier than a one armed paper hanger in this thread. Good job keeping up with everyone, sir!
I didn't say it did disprove the existence of a god. What I said was that if man had known what we know now he would not have needed to ascribe anything to a god. The idea of the existence of a god - even the word 'god' - would not exist. I suppose you will tell me that does not exclude the possibility of a god. What does show is that the idea of a god comes from the mind of man. Reality ; the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them:a thing that exists in fact, having previously only existed in one's mind: God is not a reality - he is an idealistic or notional idea.
God could be a Flying Spaghetti Monster so even if you disprove the myriad concepts of god it could still be something no one ever thought of before. It’s a bit like saying that even if you prove that 2+2=4, one day we might prove that it equals 5 so you can’t rule out that possibility. I disagree with the stance because if there were some undefined god that actually exists then it wouldn’t be god since it fits a different definition. Just like a horse is not an envelope and a cow is not a guitar, a god that does not fit the definition of god is not a god. It’s a brilliant strategy somewhat like the god of the gaps. As long as we can come up with different definitions of god then you cannot disprove the concept.
Not being able to prove that no god exists isn't a foundation of any argument. The god concept is totally supernatural, so no method of questioning exists. To be something that is meaningful in ones life, there has to be actual evidence of existence and evidence of intent in some direction. Without that, how could it possibly have a bearing on decisions being made? As that vid points out, there really isn't evidence that such a god exists or is in any way necessary for this existence. I point this out in the sense of stating what is meaningful to me. There is NOTHING hypocritical about that. I don't assault other people's religious beliefs. I do comment when there is conflict with honest secular direction, such as science, the constitution, etc.
Exactly. No argument from me, there. Is your difficulty, then, merely with the logical follow through-- that not only can God's existence not be proven, but that the nonexistence of God, also, cannot be proven? The only, provable conclusion, is that we cannot know, one way or the other. Saying that we cannot know, just to re-emphasize, means not just knowing, about the positive case, but about the negative case, as well. Can you explain that bolded line? AFAIK, the difference between those two, is that one, in accordance with the truth, acknowledges that it is impossible to be certain of anything, regarding a God, including whether or not it really exists. The other, presumes that, in the preceding sentence, it is the "not." So how is one's making an unprovable assumption, superior to acknowledging the truth? And why is that honesty with oneself, "crap?" What "bearing" on your own decisions, is effectuated by your being sure that God does not exist, as opposed to the crap of being unsure? That is not the sum total "use," of one's belief in immaterial, conceptual things. What is the use, for you, in knowing how the universe came into existence? Or knowing the structure of creation: if it is a multiverse; how one might depict that, visually (String theorists, for example, have referred to a loaf of sliced bread, in their analogies); what are all the fundamental particles, and what roles do they play; is a unified field theory possible? These are all meaningless to your "decisions;" yet are you not, nevertheless, interested-- simply out of a desire to know the truth? Many such theoretical scientific answers, from a practical standpoint, have no direct impact on the decisions of even those who devote their lives, to considering them. IOW, I do not agree that what you stipulate, is the sole "purpose" of having any given belief: to be the deciding information, in some specific choice, between various of life's options.
I've said this over and over again, including on this thread!! Could you remember this for next time please? First, there is no difference in behavior between an agnostic and an atheist. Neither recognizes supernatural guidance. Second, if some evidence of a god DID appear, atheists and agnostics would be equally interested. Those two points are why I see "agnosticism" as a philosophical nicety at best. I'm an atheist. ??? What the heck do you want from me??? As per the vid, NO theory of god is helpful in furthering science. I'm not going to try to duplicate the argument in text in this thread. Sorry. You're the one who refused to watch the answer. OK, I give the following with trust that you will see that it is not a factor in my atheism, but a comment on science: "God did it" is the END of science. It stops science cold. How can you go on when you have such a comprehensive answer as that??? Everything done after that is second guessing GOD!!! Why would one propose such heresy as second guessing god??? What does god think of those who second guess him? If you want to be a scientist, you HAVE to believe that god is NOT playing in your investigations. There are plenty of Christians, Hindus, Muslims, etc., in science. They KNOW this.
This is a false argument. As you know, there is not only 1, highly specific definition for God. Hence, in this discussion/debate, it only seems reasonable to use the most general, basic definition. I am saying that some "Being" could absolutely meet that definition-- be the Source of Everything, for example-- and yet not have been nailed down, in the descriptions of man's religions. Your case seems to be an expressing of such great confidence in human religions (at which you simultaneously scoff) that you deem it beyond possibility-- if there were an All Powerful Presence, in our universe, undergirding our very existence-- that humans would not have accurately depicted It, in one of their religions. I do not share your same, glowing appraisal of human insight, which, in all honesty, seems highly contradictory: so the stuff in the Bible is a just silly hokum, but that's only because no God exists; OTOH, if God did exist, there is no doubt, "I Am," or whatever It's name was, would be understood & described just as well as their fake Gods are. Is that really your argument?
None of your irate sounding reply, addressed my question. You had previously said: WillReadmore said: ↑ can call me an agnostic if you want. I think agnosticism is crap Yet you consider yourself an atheist. I will not go over, again, the conceptual difference between the two, but it seems reasonable, to wonder why you could possibly see agnosticism in so much poorer a light, than you do, atheism. You have not explained that, AFAIK-- including in your answer to my question, here: What is there, for me to remember? All you did was contradict yourself, by saying, "there is no difference in behavior between an agnostic and an atheist." Nevertheless, you choose one of these paths, as your own, and the other is "crap." Can you not see the apparent discrepancy? If they are, essentially the same, according to your (erroneous) argument, why could you not instead, be an Agnostic, calling Atheism "crap?" Saying that one is like the other, does not explain your partiality, for atheism. Only according to you: Your irritation, with me, is misplaced.
