Let's Present Some Evidence ...

[Commoner]

The problem still exists, however, that the concept of god as presented with the "mystic experience" is identical to a psychotic episode, so it basically falls in the same group as delusions. They might not all be happy with that.

 

[Willamena]

Describe hot for me then - interpret it.

That would be describing a descriptor --an interesting exercise in poetry (unfortunately, I'm no skilled poet).

You understand, though, that I couldn't describe "hot" without interpretion? I could interpret it in terms of relative temperature measurement, in terms of measurable effects on a subject that are above its ambient temperature, in terms of measurable quantity or quality output of a particular kind from a source, and each of those can adquately describe it.

 

[Commoner]

That would be describing a descriptor --an interesting exercise in poetry (unfortunately, I'm no skilled poet).

You understand, though, that I couldn't describe "hot" without interpretion? I could interpret it in terms of relative temperature measurement, in terms of measurable effects on a subject that are above its ambient temperature, in terms of measurable quantity or quality output of a particular kind from a source, and each of those can adquately describe it.

I don't think you could describe "hot" at all. Explaining what usually causes the experience of "hot" is not the same thing. I take issue with giving god any non-objective attributes. "hot" isn't omnipotent and it doesn't love us.

 

[Willamena]

The problem still exists, however, that the concept of god as presented with the "mystic experience" is identical to a psychotic episode, so it basically falls in the same group as delusions. They might not all be happy with that.

It is only as identical as one chooses to interpret the description (but now you're just baiting ). For instance, a psychotic episode and a mystic experience might share a loss of subject/object divide, but for the mystic something cannot be truly "lost" that never was --it is simply put in perspective. It is a rational, philosophical structuring of the world.

 

[Commoner]

It is only as identical as one chooses to interpret the description (but now you're just baiting ). For instance, a psychotic episode and a mystic experience might share a loss of subject/object divide, but for the mystic something cannot be truly "lost" that never was --it is simply put in perspective. It is a rational, philosophical structuring of the world.

My interpretation of the description is only as good as the description. I can objectively show every one of those attributes to be present in what we consider to be psychotic episodes and mental illnesses. There is not a single attribute that makes it "something more".

 

[Willamena]

I don't think you could describe "hot" at all. Explaining what usually causes the experience of "hot" is not the same thing.

Well, we can (and do) describe "hot" in terms of interpretation. We do have a book (many of them) that is created specifically to put descriptions (interpretations) together in one handy reference. It's the dictionary.

Explaining what causes the experience of "hot" is usually the best we can do to transmit the idea.

Buddhism, Zen, Hinduism, etc. use a similar method too in the transmission of Dharma. It isn't just handed out --it cannot be --it is described, and redescribed, and undescribed, and redescribed, until a light bulb goes off.

Much the same way all concepts of experience are learned, the world over.

I take issue with giving god any non-objective attributes. "hot" isn't omnipotent and it doesn't love us.

If you experience something "hot", is "hot" an objective attribute given a thing? "Transformative" is similarly objective.

I see omnipotence/omnipresence/omniscience as not so much an attribute of "God" as a recognition of "all things".

 

[Willamena]

My interpretation of the description is only as good as the description. I can objectively show every one of those attributes to be present in what we consider to be psychotic episodes and mental illnesses. There is not a single attribute that makes it "something more".

Except, of course, the experience.

 

[Commoner]

Well, we can (and do) describe "hot" in terms of interpretation. We do have a book (many of them) that is created specifically to put descriptions (interpretations) together in one handy reference. It's the dictionary.

Explaining what cause the experience of "hot" is usually the best we can do to transmit the idea.

No dictionary that I know of tells you what hot is like.

If you experience something "hot", is "hot" an objective attribute given a thing? "Transformative" is similarly objective.

I see omnipotence/omnipresence/omniscience as not so much an attribute of "God" as a recognition of "all things".

No, it's purely subjective. How do you decide when hot ends and cold begins. There's nothing objective about it. (unless you start using "hot" as a convention to describe a certain predefined range of temperature)

 

[Commoner]

There are a couple more problems that I see with the concept of "god":

1. It doesn't seem to be something that we all experience in a relatively consistent way, as we do "hot". In fact, it would seem we might not all experience it at all.
2. The term "god" is most commonly used to describe something quite different than purely a concept, so it should come with a disclaimer.
3. Since there's much confusion over the concept of "god", and no clear definition as we have for other concepts, I suggest that this concept might be more of a misinterpretation than an actual interpretation. (Purely speculation, of course)

 

[Willamena]

No dictionary that I know of tells you what hot is like.

Me either. Or any concept.

 

[Commoner]

Me either. Or any concept.

Exactly, but there seem to be a lot of books, each explaining in detail what "god" is like. Takes "god" more in the realm of "Santa" than "hot" - the imaginary realm - where attributes are plentiful and limitless.

 

[Willamena]

Exactly, but there seem to be a lot of books, each explaining in detail what "god" is like. Takes "god" more in the realm of "Santa" than "hot" - the imaginary realm - where attributes are plentiful and limitless.

Hence the device of "myth," which is metaphor, and other analogous tools used to describe that for which literal interpretations must fail.

Even in describing an experience of "hot" to someone who has never defined the experience, you'd run up against having to use non-literal methods to get the idea across.

Myths-Dreams-Symbols

 

[Commoner]

You know, we could have simply avoided the last 50 pages. No atheist denies that god is a concept. :areyoucra

 

[themadhair]

I love my signature at times like this….

 

[Willamena]

You know, we could have simply avoided the last 50 pages. No atheist denies that god is a concept. :areyoucra

"God" is a concept, just as much as "reality" is a concept. :yes:

 

[Kilgore Trout]

"God" is a concept, just as much as "reality" is a concept. :yes:

But reality is something other than just a concept.

 

[ellenjanuary]

Now then, if you two are quite through.

Ah, I can't say nuffink. I myself love to argue just because...

k then. God exists, at least at the level that numbers exist; so the first point goes to Purex.

The second point I'll take credit for (don't mind if I do, thanks) but if science wants to justify 40 years of expense and aggravation in the search for "dark matter" because it is "the best scientific hypothesis for an unexplained phenomenon," then I am certainly enough of a scientist to take the first point (god currently exists as an idea) and used the currently accepted level of scientific understanding (my little monkey story) to show "a scientific basis for god."

That leaves point number three, and man; I came prepared. Gwyneth Paltrow is god. Gwyneth Paltrow exists. Ergo...

Theists win. Atheists go home, go cry in yer beer... ah, no. That ain't it at all. What is evidence? Not the definition. Anybody can C&P the Wiki for a quick victory. Thing I'm looking for is the common conception. Anybody else come in here, thinking, court of law? Anybody else come in here, thinking, god's on trial?

Regardless of belief, does anybody really think we can pin the rap on god?

So, what's really going on? Are we, or are we not, gathered here today to attack religious people for their beliefs? Come on, now; be honest... we're all here looking for some fluffy to stroll on in, with a poorly defined belief system, so that We, the Rational, can strike a righteous blow against ignorance; and why the hell not? Rational people don't throw a girl into a river to see if she can swim; to "prove" that she's a witch, so we can burn her. Rational people don't say a single, misused and abused text is the source of all true knowledge. Rational people don't say "god did it," for the beautifully simple fact that god is an extraneous variable, and; by definition, beyond definition. Creationism, really... don't you just wanna hit somebody? I know I do.

Unfortunately, I'm only good for one thing. Loving Gwynnie. Seemed like perfect illogic to me, make a "religion based upon my love of Gwynnie;" so that I could show that even when right, religion is wrong. I mean, who can say anything about god? Gwyneth exists... if I do not "demonstrate my love to the best of my abilities at all times," I'm not doing the job. I really don't know what Christians think about Jesus, as for keeping them on an even keel every single day; but if I get an e-mail from Gwyneth Paltrow saying I've done her wrong - I'm 99.9% sure I am done. Period.

So, what do I really know? Dark Matter... come on. Talk about swinging from one's own petard. Let me try to explain it with ancient wisdom - Superman, I think it was...

With great power comes great responsibility.

Science has all the power. You know it, I know it, they know it (and if they don't, they soon will) but, unfortunately; that means science has all the responsibility. It ain't fair, but it is what it is. Part of taking that responsibility is knowing one's limitations. Religion does things that science cannot. For instance, I cannot stand creationism, at all; but I can back away, look at Gwynnie, return to balance. Science ain't gonna figure out death any time soon, and science sure ain't got nothing on love. Did I mention being insane? Officially, "unspecified psychosis;" but unofficially - nobody - can explain my love for this poor girl. Do I have a scientifically valid religion? I don't know. Such things may not even be knowable...

But, I've done the research; I've apprehended the guilty party... (science introduced an extraneous variable with dark matter instead of challenging it's own dogma. I thought I knew, so I went and found verification from a source who works in the field -we do not know- what gravity is) The problem with religious nonsense is that everybody is guilty of nonsense, and we do it religiously. That has got to stop. We all must figure out how to work together... or we're all just gonna fall apart.

That said... I don't know about the old god; but there's a new god in town... try to put my Gwynnies on trial; you're not gonna get away with a bunch of religious nonsense.
(Angelina Jolie... man, not even a year old; I gotta start burning heretics)

 

[Commoner]

"God" is a concept, just as much as "reality" is a concept. :yes:

What ATS said. :sarcastic

God is just a concept, reality is also a concept.

 

[autonomous1one1]

Wow! Blink and you folks are off to the races, writing faster than one can read.

Actually, there are international visitors here in town and house guests that are going to draw my time. However, please keep a subscription to this thread so you will spot my return to address each and every point that Willamena has not already slain. Thank you, Willamena, keep it up.

Regards,
a..1

 

[Willamena]

But reality is something other than just a concept.

That's the certainty of knowing what's going on in Schrödinger's box, yes. :yes: