The Debate of God.

[Heathen Hammer]

Polytheism is self-defeating, due to my understanding of the word 'god'.

then your definition is incomplete, or incorrect.

 

[godnotgod]

I say that rocks and trees are objects, not actions.

How does one "tree"? Have you ever thought, "Look at the way that guy is treeing"? I know I haven't.

Well, perhaps YOU don't 'tree', but the universe obviously does; not only does it 'tree', it 'stars' and 'galaxies' and 'black holes' as well. And, oh yes, it also peoples, like you, for example. You emerged from the universe in the same way that an orange emerges from an orange tree. You are an action of the universe, just as rocks and trees are. Rocks and trees are not static 'objects', but always in movement. That movement may be imperceptible to you, but they are in movement nonetheless. Is a wave an object, or an action? How about a 'glacier'?

'Object' and 'thing' are merely convenient concepts. There are no such objects or things.

Sounds to me like you are saying, "These are all pretty and beautiful things, therefore the universe is an entity."

No, I am saying that they are all interrelated and interdependent actions of the universe, and constitute a dance, for no other reason than to dance.

Oh, and you also mentioned that Humans are a way the universe expresses itself. Does it have feelings and thoughts it needs to express?

Do YOU have thoughts and feelings you express via dance? Are you not the universe itself? The universe is not an object; it is inside you and outside you. It is your very next breath. It's not just alive, it's intelligent.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I think Godnotgod is conflating exposition with description

taking a poetic exposition as literal explanation

 

[godnotgod]

I think Godnotgod is conflating exposition with description

taking a poetic exposition as literal explanation

"Thus when the dead man talks, he gives us the facts; he tells
all and says nothing. But when the living man talks, he gives
us poetry and myth. That is to say, he gives us a word from the
unconscious not from the psychoanalytical garbage^can, but
from the living world which is not to be remembered, of which
no trace can be found in history, in the record of facts, because
it is not yet dead. The world of myth is past, is "once upon a
time*', in a symbolic sense only in the sense that it is behind us,
not as time past is behind us, but as the brain which cannot
be seen is behind the eyes which see, as behind memory is that
which remembers and cannot be remembered. Thus poetry
and myth are accounts of the real world which is, as distinct
from the dead world which was, and therefore will be. The
form of myth is magical and wonderful because the real world
is magical and wonderful in the sense that we cannot pin it
down, that we do not understand it because it under/stands us."

Alan Watts, 'Myth and Ritual in Christianity

 

[Heathen Hammer]

You're welcome

 

[Tiberius]

Well, perhaps YOU don't 'tree', but the universe obviously does; not only does it 'tree', it 'stars' and 'galaxies' and 'black holes' as well. And, oh yes, it also peoples, like you, for example. You emerged from the universe in the same way that an orange emerges from an orange tree. You are an action of the universe, just as rocks and trees are. Rocks and trees are not static 'objects', but always in movement. That movement may be imperceptible to you, but they are in movement nonetheless. Is a wave an object, or an action? How about a 'glacier'?

'Object' and 'thing' are merely convenient concepts. There are no such objects or things.

You need to learn the difference between a noun and a verb.

No, I am saying that they are all interrelated and interdependent actions of the universe, and constitute a dance, for no other reason than to dance.

You use the abstract term dance in a way that is undefined, and thus meaningless in this discussion.

Do YOU have thoughts and feelings you express via dance? Are you not the universe itself? The universe is not an object; it is inside you and outside you. It is your very next breath. It's not just alive, it's intelligent.

I am a PART of the universe, yes. But what applies to the entire universe does not necessarily apply to me, and what applies to me does not necessarily apply to the entire universe either.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Tiberius;2807139]You need to learn the difference between a noun and a verb.

Sorry for jumping in, but I can.

What i think gognotgod is trying to express comes from a language far superior to English, and words that make no sense to a speaker of English make sense to those who understand it in other languages.

You use the abstract term dance in a way that is undefined, and thus meaningless in this discussion.

See language of English, cannot............. sorry there are no English words to explain it.

I am a PART of the universe, yes. But what applies to the entire universe does not necessarily apply to me, and what applies to me does not necessarily apply to the entire universe either.

Please prove it.

 

[meddlehaze]

No. Unless we're defining existence as being exclusive to the universe

What I mean by that is, God is not bound by the laws of the universe as part of His existence.

We did? Who says that it chose to create rather than just being the catalyst or cause?

I thought we did with my comments about logic being a process of the mind.

If logic is also transcendent then it's subject to it. Logic seems to suggest that you can't have an uncaused cause, as that's a logical contradiction

I don't think I ever said logic itself is transcendent. My claim is that logical absolutes are transcendent. They are not thinking entities. This non-caused cause cannot not bound by the laws of the universe, by being transcendent. He must be metaphysical and therefore, uncaused.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

It seems 'transcendent' is a vaguely defined term, applied arbitrarily

 

[9Westy9]

What I mean by that is, God is not bound by the laws of the universe as part of His existence.

and I meant that I agree unless existence is exclusive to things inside the universe. In which case the uncaused thing doesn't exist

I thought we did with my comments about logic being a process of the mind.

I don't remember you proving that the laws were caused mindfully

I don't think I ever said logic itself is transcendent. My claim is that logical absolutes are transcendent. They are not thinking entities. This non-caused cause cannot not bound by the laws of the universe, by being transcendent. He must be metaphysical and therefore, uncaused.

You seem to be arguing this (correct me if I'm wrong)

1) All things non transcendent have a cause
2) All of these causes must have had a first cause that is uncaused
3) Due to 1 and 2 a transcendent being must exist.

Is that correct?

 

[apophenia]

You use the abstract term dance in a way that is undefined, and thus meaningless in this discussion.

You are not in a position to define what is meaningless in this dicsussion. Check the thread title.

Your position is that only scientific analysis yields 'meaning'.

This attitude has (and has had) considerable social implications, including the obliteration of 'meaningless' cultures, such as the natives of the south American rainforest or the Australian aborigines (and countless forgotten others). It has these implications because of a mindset which says that their cultural expression is not science-based, and therefore these people are ignorant worthless savages. You probably haven't made that connection, but the philosophy of scientism is accompanied by an utter devaluing, and eventual destruction, of all 'non-scientific' cultures. In that sense it serves a very aggressive materialistic and imperialistic society, by justifying the destruction of every other form of culture on 'rational' grounds - not worth preserving, wasting their time because they are not 'advancing', better off as cheap labor to produce your iPhone etc etc. And all this justified because we are bringing them Jesus ... oops, I mean science and technology.

So although you may condemn the Spanish Inquisition and the Jesuits and point to them as examples of the hypocrisy of christians, for example, scientism is just as surely the philosophical arm of global 'cultural cleansing' and political domination today.

The christians say life is meaningless without Jesus, you say it is meaningless without science. Both positions seek to dictate all meaning and value.

There are other interpretations of 'meaning'. For example, "Painting gives my life meaning", or "Life had no meaning until my child was born", "Understanding our relationship with the forest is what gives our life meaning".

Your concept of meaning is sterile, dictatorial and also the intellectual sledgehammer of global military-industrial imperialism. It is used to 'win' arguments, (and to produce gadgets to drive a consumer society where 'meaning' is measured by the gigabyte and the dollar), rather than to enjoy being-in-the world.

 

[meddlehaze]

and I meant that I agree unless existence is exclusive to things inside the universe. In which case the uncaused thing doesn't exist

Existence is not.

I don't remember you proving that the laws were caused mindfully

Logical absolutes (the laws) are discovered by logic (or correct, mindful thought), which is a process of the mind.

You seem to be arguing this (correct me if I'm wrong)

1) All things non transcendent have a cause
2) All of these causes must have had a first cause that is uncaused
3) Due to 1 and 2 a transcendent being must exist.

Is that correct?

It seems my argument has been convoluted due to our previous dialogue. I will clarify the premises and conclusion from the very beginning.

1) Without God, logical absolutes are not possible.
2) Logical absolutes are possible
3) Therefore, God exists.

 

[9Westy9]

Logical absolutes (the laws) are discovered by logic (or correct, mindful thought), which is a process of the mind.

1) Logical absolutes are discovered by logic
2) Logic is a process of the mind.
3) Logical absolutes cannot exist without a mind

Correct?

It seems my argument has been convoluted due to our previous dialogue. I will clarify the premises and conclusion from the very beginning.

1) Without God, logical absolutes are not possible.
2) Logical absolutes are possible
3) Therefore, God exists.

1) What evidence do you have that logical absolutes are impossible without god?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

1) Without God, logical absolutes are not possible.
2) Logical absolutes are possible
3) Therefore, God exists.

Pretty sure that's just begging the question

 

[Tiberius]

1) Without God, logical absolutes are not possible.

Prove it.

 

[Tiberius]

You are not in a position to define what is meaningless in this dicsussion. Check the thread title.

Your position is that only scientific analysis yields 'meaning'.

This attitude has (and has had) considerable social implications, including the obliteration of 'meaningless' cultures, such as the natives of the south American rainforest or the Australian aborigines (and countless forgotten others). It has these implications because of a mindset which says that their cultural expression is not science-based, and therefore these people are ignorant worthless savages. You probably haven't made that connection, but the philosophy of scientism is accompanied by an utter devaluing, and eventual destruction, of all 'non-scientific' cultures. In that sense it serves a very aggressive materialistic and imperialistic society, by justifying the destruction of every other form of culture on 'rational' grounds - not worth preserving, wasting their time because they are not 'advancing', better off as cheap labor to produce your iPhone etc etc. And all this justified because we are bringing them Jesus ... oops, I mean science and technology.

So although you may condemn the Spanish Inquisition and the Jesuits and point to them as examples of the hypocrisy of christians, for example, scientism is just as surely the philosophical arm of global 'cultural cleansing' and political domination today.

The christians say life is meaningless without Jesus, you say it is meaningless without science. Both positions seek to dictate all meaning and value.

There are other interpretations of 'meaning'. For example, "Painting gives my life meaning", or "Life had no meaning until my child was born", "Understanding our relationship with the forest is what gives our life meaning".

Your concept of meaning is sterile, dictatorial and also the intellectual sledgehammer of global military-industrial imperialism. It is used to 'win' arguments, (and to produce gadgets to drive a consumer society where 'meaning' is measured by the gigabyte and the dollar), rather than to enjoy being-in-the world.

For Godnotgod to say that the universe is a dance makes as much sense as saying that the universe is a smurf. Unless I define what smurf means in this context, the phrase is meaningless.

 

[Tiberius]

Please prove it.

Okay. An example of a statement that applies to the universe but not to me.

"The universe is made up mostly of hydrogen. It is billions of light years across."

A statement that applies to me but not to the universe.

"I am a biological entity."

 

[apophenia]

I think Godnotgod is conflating exposition with description

taking a poetic exposition as literal explanation

I generally enjoy the perspicacity and humour of your posts, and I see what you are saying here.

Nevertheless, I think an important point to note here is that godnotgod is presenting a poetic exposition, as you say, not suggesting a 'literal explanation', and that poetic exposition is not rendered valueless by science.

I do take note of the cultural milieu which shapes this debate - I would not be happy having creationism taught in schools for example, or having government policies flowing from interpretation of Abrahamic texts. It is spooky watching that happening in the USA ( I'm in Australia), and so I really do get the vitriol directed against religious belief.

But there is a difference between conditioned religious belief of that kind and poetic exposition of felt experience. It would be a shame to throw out the baby with the bathwater, in the sense of excluding poetic exposition from the dimension of 'meaning'.

I would include in poetic exposition works like Tao te Ching by Lao Tzu. Arguing that Lao Tzu is meaningless because it does not support science would be [ * ]

* insert a meaningful desciptor here

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I bow to your appreciated insight

 

[apophenia]

woohoo !

thanks heathen,made my day