Why Did We Evolve the Notion of God?

[Magic Man]

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

Can we get back on topic now?

There's an OP!?

 

[Rolling_Stone]

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.

I know what you're going through. I quit organized religion for that reason, among others at 13. Personally, I don't think (now, anyway) coming to conclusions based on the same logic we use in everyday life is "making it up" simply because it's applied to personal insight and things we don't see.

Anyway, that is a very good post. Frubals.

 

[yossarian22]

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.

It is painfully obvious you have not read a single thing I have said in my previous posts. I have addressed this point already; I am not going to waste my time explaining myself yet again. Go read my posts again
You insist on treating nature as a function, when there is no valid reason to do so.

I've read a few books about chaos and randomness, and I agree that nothing is truly random.

Good.
Then the term is useless and there is no point in referring to it, as nobody really means 'true randomness' when they say random.
It has been replaced by statistical randomness.

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)
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.

Yes, and I seen Plotinus's One, and rejected it for various reasons.
Its not the idea of God. I have no problem with God concepts. I would have once classified myself as a theist. I just have various problems that The One brings up.
They aren't the mildly annoying 'Where did the One come from?' which sprout up frequently.

As a purely off topic bit, nature seems to have the odd tendency of trying to return to a state of nonexistence.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

As a purely off topic bit, nature seems to have the odd tendency of trying to return to a state of nonexistence.

Ain't no such thing.

Sorry, yoss, but you just haven't made clear as to just what you believe other than to say "statistical randomness" and unexplaned "rules."

 

[blueman]

(1) The level of information in one DNA cell point to an intellectual designer and,

(2) A moral standard-How did that evolve?

 

[sandandfoam]

A moral standard-How did that evolve?

Moral standards are socially constructed. There is no universal moral standard.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Moral standards are socially constructed. There is no universal moral standard.

Why not both?

 

[meogi]

Why not both?

How do we go about knowing the universal standards?

 

[meogi]

(1) The level of information in one DNA cell point to an intellectual designer

There are large portions of our DNA that are actually just self replicating 'parasites' that create protiens that copy themselves and insert themselves back into the DNA. They serve no purpose other than to be self replicating 'parasites.' Please explain the intellectually designed need for this.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

How do we go about knowing the universal standards?

Properly speaking, "Ultimate Reality" is not a concept, for “concept” implies something that that can be known by discursive knowledge, a separation. Ultimate Reality which necessarily includes the observer and cannot be known through such a process any more than an eye can see itself. Just as the eye is "seen" by its seeing, Ultimate Reality is known only through the experiencing of its presence through contemplation.

Atheism denies such a presence; secularism ignores it or presumes to take its place. Both are victims of the ancient Chinese curse, "May you live in interesting times"; both demand objective or empirical evidence before considering the Divine worthy of their attention. Neither understand that faith is the remembrance of a knowledge—a knowingness—deeply imbedded in our being drawing its reason from life rather than from abstractions and physical sensation.

 

[yossarian22]

Ain't no such thing.

Hehehe
True

Sorry, yoss, but you just haven't made clear as to just what you believe other than to say "statistical randomness" and unexplaned "rules."

Acceptable. Consider me a person with utter faith in Occam's razor then take that to its conclusion whilst rejecting god.

You now have a core understanding of what I believe.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Hehehe
True

Acceptable. Consider me a person with utter faith in Occam's razor then take that to its conclusion whilst rejecting god.

You now have a core understanding of what I believe.

We aren't so far apart after all, except in carrying Occam's razor too far. (Dang! There's a saying about that but I can't remember it.)

 

[Rolling_Stone]

We aren't so far apart after all, except in carrying Occam's razor too far. (Dang! There's a saying about that but I can't remember it.)

Edit: Since your "rules" are unexplained, your ultimate explanation is still "just because."

 

[yossarian22]

We aren't so far apart after all, except in carrying Occam's razor too far. (Dang! There's a saying about that but I can't remember it.)

Yep.
I have a tendency of taking things to their extremes

Edit: Since your "rules" are unexplained, your ultimate explanation is still "just because."

I do not claim to have an ultimate explanation.
I just call em as I see them. I will not claim to have a valid explanation.

Although I am intrigued by the implications Strong Anthropic Principle.....

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Yep.
I have a tendency of taking things to their extremes

I do not claim to have an ultimate explanation.
I just call em as I see them. I will not claim to have a valid explanation.

Although I am intrigued by the implications Strong Anthropic Principle.....

Oddly, I'm in your debt. This discussion with you clarified my conception (which isn't really a conception so much as a felt understanding), or, rather, brought it into focus. I sincerely apoligize if at any time I offended you.

The "unexplained rules" are what I call the personality of God and very consistent with you conception of "statistical randomness." This "God"--a word I am beginning to detest for all its connotations--is wholly transcendent (utterly beyond conceptualization), wholly free (spontaneous), and necessary (existence is unimaginable without it). But we have to be careful with the way we use the word "personality." It's nothing like what we usually think of as a personality. Rather, it is more like the source of pattern-personalities without itself being a pattern. It just is. Yet, the physics of non-locality in association with the presence of consciousness--however we conceive it to be (I have my own ideas on this)--means it is responsive to the whole in ways we can't even begin to imagine; it is alive in the fullest possible way.

But you probably didn't want to hear any more of this stuff from me. :foot:

 

[Yerda]

If you were following the thread, you would know.

OK.

Well, duh!

What was the evolutionary pressure in correctly perceiving God(a God concept according to you to be more or less undetectable by our senses)?

Was God really smiting the unbelievers?

 

[Rolling_Stone]

OK.

What was the evolutionary pressure in correctly perceiving God(a God concept according to you to be more or less undetectable by our senses)?

None/presence

 

[Yerda]

None/presence

Sorry?

 

[shema]

I think maybe we have to look at the question. From a believer's stand point a I ask the question why did God evolve us? I mean we are the ones who learned and taught about evolution. The books say that he created man in his own image. Kinda like when we have children. Except that we want them to be better than us. However, the same outcome could potentially happen whether we like it or not. Its because they are individuals that have their own lives as we all do. Into the mist like the prodigal son; into a world so cold. how many ways can fate be avoided? Is there a religion that holds the key? is there more than one key to unlocking the truth? or are there many keys to many truths? And if so then what if we dont have all the truths, just bits and peices? I believe that my God Is the Truth, the Way, and the Life. I think he created us to be like mini Hims walking among a beautiful planet:bow:, manifesting his spirit into a physical body of people like Voltron. May sound weird but to humanistic ears the meanings are filtered by daily life caused by worldy influences.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Sorry?

I understood the question as asking what evolutionary pressures there were in evolving the "right" conception of God. Answer: none but presence of the Divine. Concepts of truth are indispensible errors in the process of human self-creation.

This is closely related to "Laughter is Good Medicine." I laughed because I saw the same joke used by a Jewish author to emphasize the superficiality of conceptions. (So, I guess you could say Sunstone got it half right in his post.)