Is God a Mystery that Will Never be Solved?

[james bond]

For epistemic reasons, there's very little you can say with certainly about god -- although that fact does not satisfy many people, so they simply assert certainty without adequate grounds for it.

Like this answer, but I would say this of evolution.

For epistemic reasons, there's very little you can say with certainly about evolution -- although that fact does not satisfy many people, so they simply assert certainty without adequate grounds for it.

Evolution is what people made up to explain God.

 

[Aiviu]

It seems to me that, mainly for epistemic reasons, god is a mystery which will never be solved, although -- given human nature -- many people will endlessly seek to arrive at firm convictions about god.

Comments?

BONUS QUESTION: Are there benefits to being uncertain about god?

How would you protect God from the worldly logic? You hold Him for an unsolvable mystery to the world.

There is nothing which needes to be solved. There is no need to have a conviction. Probably to debate it is useful to have one. But nothing else than consent would prove a convicition as truth to all. But they never will match 100%. Probably because sharing of convicitions is more of an, inspirirational approximation towards spirituality. Its not the approval of ones individual conviction.

If you compare: "What is God's life made of? VS. "What is your life made of?". What is it? Is it Fear or is it Love? Are both probably only a personal perception of the same? Hmm, we will see.

But no, i dont think there are any riddles to solve but only for those who dont believe.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It seems to me that, mainly for epistemic reasons, god is a mystery which will never be solved, although -- given human nature -- many people will endlessly seek to arrive at firm convictions about god. Comments?

For me, the mystery is why there is something rather than nothing.

If any gods exist, they must surely be confounded by the same mystery - "Why are we here?"

And of course, this is the same question that religion is said to answer. Perhaps such gods invent religions of their own to account for their existence, purpose, and relationship to reality.

Given human nature, we are all interested in the question; why are we here? And so people will always try to arrive at one conviction or the other

Not always. I'm content with my agnosticism. If an answer is unavailable, one can choose to just pick one, or to recognize that one doesn't know and leave it at that:

• "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle

The atheist position is very easy to defend and argue.

The atheist's position is that he doesn't accept any god claims or hold any god beliefs. That needs no defense. Unless he is actually a theist misrepresenting how he feels, he is correct.

Perhaps you mean the position that nothing should be believed without adequate support (skepticism) and that there is not presently adequate reason to accept that a god or gods exist. That's pretty easy to defend given the enormous success of skepticism and the paucity of evidence for gods.

If you really want a challenge try arguing in favor of the theist position. That's the challenge!

This says something to me. Positions that are easily defended and which stand in contrast to those that are difficult or impossible to defend are more likely to be correct. Try defending a flat earth hypothesis and its counterpart. One will be easy, the other difficult.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

For epistemic reasons, there's very little you can say with certainly about evolution

Except that evolution is an observable fact. We can say with certainty that live is evolving. We are less certain about what happened in the past, but have a high degree of confidence that all life on earth evolved from a single ancient ancestral population, an idea that can be overturned by findding a previously undiscovered and radically different form of life here that could not be related to the rest.

This is a good example of two conflicting positions, one easy to defend, the other not so much, which fact can help us decide which is the sounder idea. I can defend the scientific theory just by pointing to its great predictive and explanatory capability (it offers a mechanism), as well as its utility in medicine, and agriculture, for example. Then contrast that with an idea that explains nothing (no mechanism, just "God did it"), predicts nothing, and can be used for nothing legitimate.

If those kinds of distinctions are meaningful to one, he can use them to decide which ideas to accept and which to reject.

although that fact does not satisfy many people, so they simply assert certainty without adequate grounds for it.

No, the reason and evidence based thinker is seldom certain, He accepts that most beliefs are tentative. In the context of naturalistic evolution versus creationism, we have to admit that however unlikely it seems, it remains logically possible that life on earth was created last Thursday exactly as we find it now, complete with memories of a past that never occurred, and light apparently from distant stars put there as well to help with the illusion that billions of years have passed.

Certitude is more characteristic of the theist, especially the kind I'm most used to.

The OP asked if there were any benefits to uncertainty (agnosticism). Here's one now. Certitude closes the mind to other possibilities that have not been ruled out. If you've dropped a viable candidate hypothesis from your list of possibilities that may in fact be correct, and attached certitude to the choice, you can never get back on track. If you are wrong, there is no path left open to you to return to being right.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Not always. I'm content with my agnosticism. If an answer is unavailable, one can choose to just pick one, or to recognize that one doesn't know and leave it at that:

So you don't believe in a materialist/ naturalistic explanation for life, the universe and everything?

 

[Quintessence]

It seems to me that, mainly for epistemic reasons, god is a mystery which will never be solved, although -- given human nature -- many people will endlessly seek to arrive at firm convictions about god.

I suppose I don't agree. I can see how people coming from a predominantly Abrahamic background might view things this way as their god-concept seems almost intentionally obtuse, but it holds little traction for someone like me. I don't view gods as a mystery to be solved - they are persons to develop relationships with. That relationship expresses itself in many ways: through studying the gods, experiencing the gods, giving thanks to the gods... all sorts of things. Having "firm convictions" about the gods is not only unnecessary, but missing the point of building and recognizing relationships. What I "believe" about the gods doesn't matter anywhere near as much how I relate to them.

 

[Jumi]

For me, the mystery is why there is something rather than nothing.

If any gods exist, they must surely be confounded by the same mystery - "Why are we here?"

If they were like us, that would be the case. My view on God is that it's nothing like us.

And of course, this is the same question that religion is said to answer. Perhaps such gods invent religions of their own to account for their existence, purpose, and relationship to reality.

Interesting idea. That would work as motivation for some kind of "creator"... creating other independent minds to brainstorm for them. Though I don't subscribe to such a thought, it's one of the better ones I've heard in favor of creator gods.

There are of course religions and people that don't say they hold this answer, but are humble in face of "why are we here" instead. I personally don't know why were here, and it's not really important to me to think about such things.

This says something to me. Positions that are easily defended and which stand in contrast to those that are difficult or impossible to defend are more likely to be correct. Try defending a flat earth hypothesis and its counterpart. One will be easy, the other difficult.

Having a theistic position isn't necessarily hard to defend, it's all kinds of extra baggage that needs all kinds of mental gymnastics that is hard to defend against realistic positions.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

So you don't believe in a materialist/ naturalistic explanation for life, the universe and everything?

Is an individual required to hold a specific view on that topic? Why isn't "I don't know" as the sum-total of one's stance (or level of care) about the origins of the universe simply "good enough?" Who has the authority to say that it isn't "good enough?" Even if He exists... not even God has that authority.

 

[Thief]

It seems to me that, mainly for epistemic reasons, god is a mystery which will never be solved, although -- given human nature -- many people will endlessly seek to arrive at firm convictions about god.

Comments?

BONUS QUESTION: Are there benefits to being uncertain about god?

the only mystery I cannot resolve......how did God say....I AM!
as He was surrounded only by a perfect void

benefits?
if all goes well (my own development as a proper spirit)
I won't suffer in the next life

I do suspect....a spirit of lesser grace will suffer alongside similar kind
and further suspect....the suffering is allowed in the last hope of correction
mind and heart

without God.....only non-existence will end the suffering

 

[Thief]

but let's say there never was a God....

then Man (your existence and mine) is a complete mystery
with no resolve
and only the grave awaits us

 

[Thief]

but let's say there never was a God....

then Man (your existence and mine) is a complete mystery
with no resolve
and only the grave awaits us

 

[Thief]

but let's say there never was a God....

then Man (your existence and mine) is a complete mystery
with no resolve
and only the grave awaits us

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

but let's say there never was a God....

then Man (your existence and mine) is a complete mystery
with no resolve
and only the grave awaits us

What end up being the problems with this? Can you think of any that don't involve someone's bruised emotions or ego? Probably not.

And then flip it... if God exists, and He provides "solutions" to whatever you consider the "problems" with the scenario you laid out above, then that means that God cares about your emotions or ego - enough to develop a solution for humanity's big "problem" - which is ONLY a problem because "humanity doesn't like it". Does that sound realistic either?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Is an individual required to hold a specific view on that topic? Why isn't "I don't know" as the sum-total of one's stance (or level of care) about the origins of the universe simply "good enough?" Who has the authority to say that it isn't "good enough?" Even if He exists... not even God has that authority.

I acknowledge my belief, faith, as such certainly, . how about you?

So let me ask you a hypothetical-

you have a billion$ of Trump's money to bet

You can bet on red (some sort of naturalistic/materialistic explanation) or black (some sort of intelligent agent) ( no green!) and you can split the bet any way you like

anything you win goes to your favorite charity, anything you lose or don't bet is burned


How do you split your bet?

50/50? no preference?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So you don't believe in a materialist/ naturalistic explanation for life, the universe and everything?

I acknowledge every logical possibility, although I don't consider them all equally likely.

My complete candidate hypotheses list for the tree of life from first life to present:

[1] naturalistic, Darwinian evolution
[2] theistic guided evolution
[3] guided evolution be extraterrestrials
[4] no evolution, just the appearance of such by a deceptive creator (includes ideas like last Thursdayism, matrix, brain in a vat, etc..)

We can do the same for the origin of life in the universe

[1] naturalistic abiogenesis
[2] creationism

We can refine that further for the origin of life on earth

[1] naturalistic abiogenesis on earth
[2] remote naturalistic abiogenesis followed by panspermia
[3] remote naturalistic abiogenesis followed by remote evolution of a race of extraterrestrials that came to earth to create life
[4] creation on earth by an intelligent designer that did not arise in this universe(lets call this a supernatural creator)
[5] remote supernaturalistic creation followed by panspermia
[6] remote supernaturalistic creation followed by remote evolution of a race of extraterrestrials that came to earth to create life*

* Obviously, it doesn't matter how far-fetched or unparsimonious an idea may be to make these lists, as long as it is logically possible. Also, one could subdivide this further by breaking evolution, whether terrestrial or extraterrestrial, into naturalistic and guided, which makes this list 8 elements long.

And for the origin of the universe, we have this:

[1] Our universe came into being uncaused.
[2] Our universe has always existed and only appears to have had a first moment.
[3] Our universe is the product of a multiverse (any unconscious source) that itself came into existence uncaused.
[4] Our universe is the product of a multiverse that has always existed.
[5] Our universe is the product of a god (any conscious source) that itself came into existence uncaused.
[6] Our universe is the product of a god that has always existed.

Regarding materialism, we should remain agnostic there as well until we can rule in or out any of the candidate hypotheses:

[1] material monism
[2] idealistic monism
[3] neutral monism
[4] mind-matter dualism

As I implied, I know of no way to rule any of the elements of any of these lists in or out, and so I don't. I have no need to just guess, and find no value in it.

 

[Thief]

What end up being the problems with this? Can you think of any that don't involve someone's bruised emotions or ego? Probably not.

And then flip it... if God exists, and He provides "solutions" to whatever you consider the "problems" with the scenario you laid out above, then that means that God cares about your emotions or ego - enough to develop a solution for humanity's big "problem" - which is ONLY a problem because "humanity doesn't like it". Does that sound realistic either?

been blind seven days.....did not stop 'seeing'
arms cold and unresponsive......did not stop 'feeling'

and having suffered surgery......pretty sure my awareness cannot be affected by chemistry
but not destroyed

I suspect....
our relationship to this life is chemical
but that does not define who.....or what.....we are

the body produces a unique spirit on each occasion
I believe that is why Man was created

but I do not believe each of us continue after the last breath

some go on to 'work things out'
I hope that can happen

but some.....will fail altogether
it is written.....
Fear not anyone who would harm the flesh
rather you should fear .....He who is able to rend the soul

we are assembled.....body, mind and heart

the body will fail

 

[Kapalika]

It seems to me that, mainly for epistemic reasons, god is a mystery which will never be solved, although -- given human nature -- many people will endlessly seek to arrive at firm convictions about god.

Comments?

Although different schools of Hinduism will vary on the details of the underlying nature of reality what we do all mostly agree on is the nature of deities.

The qualities, domains, likes and dislikes of the variious deities are well known and agreed upon. Kali's nature is of time and death, and Shiva's is of destruction ect. We might disagree to an extent on some of those domains (ie Shiva as creator and preserver) but that's a rather minor point in the scheme of things since he's primarily a destroyer and a lot of those disagreements come down to how one relates to the deity.

I could see your question though, as making sense from the context of a Abrahamic-centric background. But the question is just a little silly out of that context. Most religions don't assign all these logically inconsistent attributes and then try to make their god(s) every single thing under the sun in a monotheistic model.

That kind of dualistic, strictly monotheistic mode with a single all-powerful, all-knowing e ct god doesn't really work under scrutiny, and it's why I can confidently say that Christianity and Islam are false.

If that were the case, it would be pretty wonky for someone to make God the centre of one’s life.

I agree, most people are reasonably certain of what they believe about god(s) if they are religious.

The likes of Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta Maharaj, Ramakrishna ,H.W.Poona and their testimony in recent times shows that the mystery can be unravelled.

Many throughout the ages have tasted Moksha, liberation ect. It is no mystery that the nature of the self and of god is both knowable and can be experienced, given adequate study, practice and meditation, either in this life or many lives.

I suppose I don't agree. I can see how people coming from a predominantly Abrahamic background might view things this way as their god-concept seems almost intentionally obtuse, but it holds little traction for someone like me. I don't view gods as a mystery to be solved - they are persons to develop relationships with. That relationship expresses itself in many ways: through studying the gods, experiencing the gods, giving thanks to the gods... all sorts of things. Having "firm convictions" about the gods is not only unnecessary, but missing the point of building and recognizing relationships. What I "believe" about the gods doesn't matter anywhere near as much how I relate to them.

This is well said, but I have a minor difference of nuance on it. I suppose there are mysteries of what "really seeing" the nature of divinity is, but that's the difference of "can know intellectually" and "can know it directly". The former is much easier, the latter is the mystery to those who've not experienced it.

I touched on relating to deities earlier in my post, and I don't know to what degree it's like this for neo-pagans but for me as a Hindu deities are a personality, a face of divinity. Not the truth itself, if that makes sense. That might be a little Yogic of me; the deities are a very real intermediary through which we relate with.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I acknowledge every logical possibility, although I don't consider them all equally likely.

My complete candidate hypotheses list for the tree of life from first life to present:

[1] naturalistic, Darwinian evolution
[2] theistic guided evolution
[3] guided evolution be extraterrestrials
[4] no evolution, just the appearance of such by a deceptive creator (includes ideas like last Thursdayism, matrix, brain in a vat, etc..)

We can do the same for the origin of life in the universe

[1] naturalistic abiogenesis
[2] creationism

We can refine that further for the origin of life on earth

[1] naturalistic abiogenesis on earth
[2] remote naturalistic abiogenesis followed by panspermia
[3] remote naturalistic abiogenesis followed by remote evolution of a race of extraterrestrials that came to earth to create life
[4] creation on earth by an intelligent designer that did not arise in this universe(lets call this a supernatural creator)
[5] remote supernaturalistic creation followed by panspermia
[6] remote supernaturalistic creation followed by remote evolution of a race of extraterrestrials that came to earth to create life*

* Obviously, it doesn't matter how far-fetched or unparsimonious an idea may be to make these lists, as long as it is logically possible. Also, one could subdivide this further by breaking evolution, whether terrestrial or extraterrestrial, into naturalistic and guided, which makes this list 8 elements long.

And for the origin of the universe, we have this:

[1] Our universe came into being uncaused.
[2] Our universe has always existed and only appears to have had a first moment.
[3] Our universe is the product of a multiverse (any unconscious source) that itself came into existence uncaused.
[4] Our universe is the product of a multiverse that has always existed.
[5] Our universe is the product of a god (any conscious source) that itself came into existence uncaused.
[6] Our universe is the product of a god that has always existed.

Regarding materialism, we should remain agnostic there as well until we can rule in or out any of the candidate hypotheses:

[1] material monism
[2] idealistic monism
[3] neutral monism
[4] mind-matter dualism

As I implied, I know of no way to rule any of the elements of any of these lists in or out, and so I don't. I have no need to just guess, and find no value in it.

Okay, so as above:

you have a billion$ of Trump's money to bet

red= atheism

black = God.

anything you don't bet goes back to him to fund his evil cat juggling houses


How do you split your bet?

50/50?

You don't have the slightest leaning either way whatsoever?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I acknowledge my belief, faith, as such certainly, . how about you?

So let me ask you a hypothetical-

you have a billion$ of Trump's money to bet

You can bet on red (some sort of naturalistic/materialistic explanation) or black (some sort of intelligent agent) ( no green!) and you can split the bet any way you like

anything you win goes to your favorite charity, anything you lose or don't bet is burned


How do you split your bet?

50/50? no preference?

If forced to place I bet, I'd personally bet it all on red. No question. Doesn't mean I know the outcome before I have the evidence in front of me. And I am completely willing to acknowledge that I don't.

But I wasn't talking about either you or I, was I? I was talking about the person who cares so little about the bet in the first place that they let all the money burn. It's a perfectly valid state of mind.

 

[Kapalika]

For epistemic reasons, there's very little you can say with certainly about god -- although that fact does not satisfy many people, so they simply assert certainty without adequate grounds for it.

Touching on my last post (#57) this answer to his question isn't valid in all instances, for example it ignores the very adequate grounds accumulated from thousands of years of study of Hindu and Indian Philosophy.
https://www.religiousforums.com/thr...ll-never-be-solved.204446/page-3#post-5457416
To say that this is not a valid view because it doesn't conform to western expectations of philosophy (which came largely from the Greeks) would be a good example of ethnocentrism. @Quintessence touched on that in other terms but I think it bears emphasis that religions and cultures outside of Abrahamic-centric ones have very different axioms/assumptions/ect and ideas on the nature of reality and 'truth'.

I recall a few times @Politesse had touched on cultural relativism of logic, and he seems to know more about it than me so perhaps if he would be willing he could explain better what I'm trying to get at.