Why Did We Evolve the Notion of God?

[Sunstone]

There is no requirement for cogency. We're all trying to understand each other. While we're getting along at our own pace, you're merely causing disruptions.

Well, it was worth a try, Scott. Frubals for the effort!

 

[Sunstone]

What Rolling_Stone realizes is that no matter who disagrees with atheist or how they do it, it is a first response of atheist to make the message carrier out to be causing trouble with outrageous statement about the carrier of truth. In other words, when they can not refute the truth they call names, question their character, accuse them of being arrogant, stubborn, and a trouble maker.

Gadfly, when you attack atheists without actually citing specific evidence for your claims, you very much come across as indulging in mere rhetoric at the expense of others.

For instance, you claim, "it is a first response of atheist to make the message carrier out to be causing trouble....". But you don't go on to either quote or cite where this has indeed been the first response of any atheist, let alone of atheists in general. Consequently, your claim appears to be unfounded.

 

[Magic Man]

Gadfly, when you attack atheists without actually citing specific evidence for your claims, you very much come across as indulging in mere rhetoric at the expense of others.

For instance, you claim, "it is a first response of atheist to make the message carrier out to be causing trouble....". But you don't go on to either quote or cite where this has indeed been the first response of any atheist, let alone of atheists in general. Consequently, your claim appears to be unfounded.

There's a very good reason for this, actually. It's the same reason he doesn't use evidence to back anything else up that he says: There is no evidence he can quote, and his claims are unfounded.

 

[Yerda]

Okay, so humans have these tendencies and needs, but why?

Why did we evolve a complex psychological life, do you mean?

Are there unseen, existential principles at play? I say, :yes:; atheists in this thread say: and therefore:no:.

"I don't know," is not a denial. I would contend that theists do not know either.

It's not logical, but like Gadfly implied, when logic fails, change the rules of logic.

When did this occur?

The above (mostly Plotinus) is not new, as one poster would have us believe, in order to have have a god that science allows. Ideas like this go back long, long before science came on the scene to challenge religion. Can it be that human beings have religion because, though distant from The One (what Plotinus calls what I call God), we are not entirely removed from Its presence and respond to it at some level?[/SIZE]

It's a logical possibility. Are you arguing that we evolved a capacity for theism because there is a God?

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Deep. Care to show me where an atheist "followed the water to its source"? Maybe I just missed it.

I was accused of something and responded with this question. Where is the answer?

Please hold yourself to the standards you hold Gadfly, Sunstone. By not doing so, you prove Gadfly right.

When did this occur?

If you were following the thread, you would know.

It's a logical possibility. Are you arguing that we evolved a capacity for theism because there is a God?

Well, duh!

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Just don't stand there looking at the waterfall, follow the water to its source. Or if you work in an oil refinery, to learn the process, trace the flows to where they begin.

God passes from unity to duality and trinity, from simplicity to complexity, from identity to variation, from quiescence to motion, from infinity to finitude, and from the divine to the human. This is not a new idea.

 

[Sunstone]

Please hold yourself to the standards you hold Gadfly, Sunstone. By not doing so, you prove Gadfly right.

Is there some particular reason you are going around randomly accusing me of things you fail to provide evidence of my having done? Or, are you just in a good mood today?

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Is there some particular reason you are going around randomly accusing me of things you fail to provide evidence of my having done? Or, are you just in a good mood today?

I'm sorry. I should have said you should hold JAY to the same standard.

 

[yossarian22]

Back to the topic. Many in this thread argue that religon is simply a by-product of evolution, but doing so tells us nothing about the why of things. Not one atheist in this discussion (I'm sorry, debate) has looked past the psychological and emotional needs of humans in order to explain religion.

Yep. Because that is all we need to address.
Why do we have these drives?
There is an evolutionary advantage to seeing patterns.

How does potentiality become actuality unless a cause brings it about? Could chance effect it? Then it would have never come about, for chaos begets only chaos.

This definition of chaos is entirely self serving. It does not exist in nature. Nature is not a mathematical function. The rest is just idiotic rationalizing

Can it be that human beings have religion because, though distant from The One (what Plotinus calls what I call God), we are not entirely removed from Its presence and respond to it at some level?

Do you actually think this furthers your point at all?
Again, why should we believe that what you call God exists?

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Yep. Because that is all we need to address.
Why do we have these drives?
There is an evolutionary advantage to seeing patterns.

Of course. Where do they ultimately come from?

This definition of chaos is entirely self serving. It does not exist in nature. Nature is not a mathematical function. The rest is just idiotic rationalizing.

If chaos isn't chaotic, what is it? If it is self-organizing, what are the underlying principles? But if there are underlying principles, it's not chaotic. Neat, huh?

Do you actually think this furthers your point at all?
Again, why should we believe that what you call God exists?

Just don't stand there looking at the waterfall, follow the water to its source. The rules of logic do not change in the transition between the seen and the unseen. If you have a better explanation, if your logic leads to another conception of the water's ultimate source, I'd love to hear it and discuss it.

 

[yossarian22]

Of course. Where do they ultimately come from?

Asked and answered.

If chaos isn't chaotic, what is it? If it is self-organizing, what are the underlying principles? But if there are underlying principles, it's not chaotic. Neat, huh?

Nope, you have a poor definition of chaotic. Total unpredictability does not exist.
There is statistical randomness which rules can arbitrarily form.
You insist on treating nature as a function, when there is no valid reason for it to be one.

Just don't stand there looking at the waterfall, follow the water to its source. The rules of logic do not change in the transition between the seen and the unseen. If you have a better explanation, if your logic leads to another conception of the water's ultimate source, I'd love to hear it and discuss it.

Who says there is a source, or there is water at all?
Your view are worthless unless you can somehow validate them to me.
If you can't fine. Just don't pretend that your view is any more valid than mine.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Asked and answered.

No, it wasn't answered. I used the word "ultimate."

Nope, you have a poor definition of chaotic. Total unpredictability does not exist.

That's my point. And there was never a time when existrence didn't exist in some form. Now, follow it through to its ultimate conclusion.

There is statistical randomness which rules can arbitrarily form.

Then it's not random, obeying underlying principles, howbeit not understood and unpredictable in each particular outcome.

Who says there is a source, or there is water at all?

This proves what Gadfly was first to say: atheists believe that the principles of logic change when their logic fails them.

Just don't pretend that your view is any more valid than mine.

That would be impossible: you don't have one.

Since you don't want to offer a possible logical alternative for an ultimate source, there is no point in continuing this....which is the reason I've ignored you in the past and will do so again.

::::::click::::::

 

[yossarian22]

No, it wasn't answered. I used the word "ultimate."

Ah, the word 'ultimate'.
That changes things

That's my point. And there was never a time when existrence didn't exist in some form. Now, follow it through to its ultimate conclusion.

Read my post again. You have misunderstood

Then it's not random, obeying underlying principles, howbeit not understood and unpredictable in each particular outcome.

That is what people mean by 'chaotic systems'
The other definition of chaos is useless and self serving.
Go read a book on statistics then try to talk about randomness.

This proves what Gadfly was first to say: atheists believe that the principles of logic change when their logic fails them.

Hah, what Gadfly says does not apply to me in the slightest, especially since I am more than willing to admit I have utter faith in a singular principle.
A principle, I might add, which you cannot respond to at all

Infinite regression into matter is bad, but infinite regression into consciousness isn't?

That would be impossible: you don't have one.

Then you don't understand my view and should not pretend to.

Since you don't want to offer a possible logical alternative for an ultimate source, there is no point in continuing this....which is the reason I've ignored you in the past and will do so again.

True. I reject the idea of an ultimate source.
And I invite you to give a reason why there should be one.

But I won't hold my breath.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

If statistical randomness can bring about order, then, following it to its logical conclusion, we have Plotinus’ God: The One.

 

[yossarian22]

If statistical randomness can bring about order, then, following it to its logical conclusion, we have Plotinus’ God: The One.

Statistical randomness is nothing like the 'randomness' Plotinus uses. There is no logical conclusion to statistical randomness. Just an infinite regression.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

There is statistical randomness which rules can arbitrarily form.

That goes to my point: where do the rules come from? "Rules" are an underlying principle that belies true randomness. "Statistical randomness" is the soft pillow of ignorance assigned to processes and principles that cannot be measured, observed, or even be said to exist prior to their manifestation, like quantum events.

I've read a few books about chaos and randomness, and I agree that nothing is truly random. But the "rules" to which you refer are necessarily atemporal (Aspect experiments); prior even to the Big Bang, hypothetical or not. Plotinus' system does not permit the notion of creatio ex nihilo (creation out of nothingness). It is, rather, emanation ex deo (out of God); confirming the absolute transcendence of the One and making the unfolding of the cosmos purely a consequence of The One’s existence, which is under no compulsion or obligation to produce anything outside itself and is in no way affected or diminished by these emanations.

Now, this is a very good example of "statistical randomness," or more precisely, its cause. I think your resistence to the idea is its association with a concept of God. Think of it in terms with which you are most comfortable: the Quantum Sea or the Great Nose Booger. The idea doesn't really matter so long as you acquainted with the ideal of its infinite, unified and eternal nature.

 

[Willamena]

If chaos isn't chaotic, what is it? If it is self-organizing, what are the underlying principles? But if there are underlying principles, it's not chaotic. Neat, huh?

You are the underlying principle of chaos, as of all things. You are its order, and its disorder. Neat, huh?

Chaos is a form.

That goes to my point: where do the rules come from?

You. Nowhere else.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

You are the underlying principle of chaos, as of all things. You are its order, and its disorder. Neat, huh?

Chaos is a form.


You. Nowhere else.

In an off-beat sort of way, I agree.

 

[Magic Man]

Rolling Stone, it's impossible for us to follow the water to the source at this point. We're trying, but haven't gotten there yet. Just because I can't tell you a good answer doesn't mean I should just dream one up out of thin air. I want the real answer, not just something that fits because I made it. That's what organized religion does, and that's why I'm not a part of it. Some people claim to have experienced God, which I guess includes you. They might be right, and God might be the source, but I haven't experienced that, and I have no logical reason to believe that's any more true than that a pink unicorn is the source of all existence.

 

[Storm]

Alas, Matt, I can't frubal you until I spread the love.

Can we get back on topic now?