You say that there is a god...

[dybmh]

I'm just curious if the definition is limited to a theistic deity - an agent (presumably a creator) who lives outside the known universe and "intrudes" upon it, for lack of a better term, in order to influence it.

I think that is called classical theism.

"...in contrast to other conceptions such as pantheism, panentheism, polytheism, deism and process theism."

Classical theism - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

With the presumption of "a creator", classical monotheism. A very specific sort of god. Kind of rare for people to believe in that god, nowadays, I think. A bit old-fashoined.

 

[Muffled]

The sour cream and onion dip in my refrigerator expired 4 days ago.

I believe that would be true of the old mythical gods also although it has been longer than 4 days.

 

[Muffled]

Can someone truly love something they don’t understand?

I believe that is because knowing is not the same thing as understanding. I know Jesus died for me on the cross but I do not understand how God can love us so much to do that.

 

[chinu]

You say that there is a god, but irrespective of whether or not there actually is, why should I be convinced that you know or are even capable of knowing such a thing?

Actually, this is your assumption.
I never tired to convince you that - there is God.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

This reply isn't to argue against your point. In fact, I know this problem about myself all too well. Jumping from A to Z in discussion with people without explaining the steps that I got there. I have bipolar disorder and it's especially bad when I'm off medications. I did explain to you my position without the argument at first, although I did mention how change is part of this. I will explain this idea of change further.

Based on what I've seen people be able to do in my lifetime, there is more than enough evidence to me that pretty much all change is possible. Again, this is a conclusion rather than an argument supported by facts. I get that. It's hard to explain the full nuances of process theology but if you already knew what it meant, you must have heard other people explain this idea to you in a way that was supported by evidence. I have to be honest, when I read Process and Reality by Alfred North Whitehead I barely understand most of it. I mostly understand these positions when they are boiled down in simple to understand explanations that ChatGPT feeds me. In fact, most of process theology is foreign to me, and I'm not expecting you to read that book, which would literally be homework for you.

But the way I understand it currently is that because life exists God has creativity and this creativity allows people to shape the reality they've always wanted. Based on this, the logical extreme of this argument, the conclusion, is that the possibility of change allows God to be developed. It also gives life the ability to direct and control these changes. We do this to 1 - alleviate suffering but also 2 - to enhance creativity. I still have a lot to learn about these topics and I'll most likely never be as intelligent or smart as Alfred Whitehead. But from the rudimentary understandings I have of panentheism, syntheism and process theology, I believe in them. I understand that nothing in science has yet explained or proven that there is anything outside the Universe. My belief in the multiverse, and The Omniverse, are extrapolations - otherwise known as - "an educated guess." I refuse to believe that "nothing" created the Universe, and our understandings of science are not yet at a point where we can explain all phenomena.

Then what created The Omniverse? I don't know that answer. I believe that natural forces are built into The Omniverse that are as eternal as this concept, and, that Entropy and Extropy are those forces. That all of existence exists because of these three fundamental concepts. I believe this because I extrapolate what I already know about the Sun, the planets, the galaxies and so on. Everything I learned about reality points to one thing: that all things change. Everything changes. I extrapolate from this and realize that if all things change, then all things are possible from those changes. I reject the idea that Yahweh or pagan Gods exist in a way that causes these changes, yet, I cannot deny the fact that those things do in fact change. Earthseed explains it so easily. God is change. I extrapolate those changes and realize that life is one never ending cycle to produce the best changes as possible, developing the least amount of suffering and victimhood and at the same time allowing people the freedom to be who they want to be.

I honestly don't know how to explain it better than that. You may not see change as something that is divine - in fact, you probably don't believe in divinity at all, but from how I understand reality certain changes that happen in life and society produces active divinity. My life's work will one day come together and I will write a document/test that will be able to objectively measure this subjective idea, but for now, it is impossible for me to determine what has the least and most amount of passive and active divinity in it. But because I believe - and have faith - that divinity is something that is able to be measured, then I believe in some way it exists in reality, and not just in a monotheistic God. I came to this realization when I was 14 and I never turned away from this idea. Again, you don't have to believe it, as objectifying an idea like divinity would be an extremely hard thing to fully accomplish, and there are going to be people who argue against the test as a result, but due to the diverse complexity of life and nature on Earth, and what millions of different of species of animals do on Earth, proves to me that these changes these lifeforms create on Earth are in some way, divine.

If all things are divine in some rudimentary way, then it is life, and more specifically, intelligent life, that shapes God. By shaping this God we cause the least amount of suffering and promote the most amount of creativity within the species. The more creative people become the faster we shape this God. And everything I've experienced in my life, with all the changes, both good and bad, have helped me understand that all substances in the Universe are undergoing processes that ultimately make it more divine. More energy, more utility, more generosity, more sagacity, more sovereignty, and the most amount of unity built within humans. I haven't developed a religion, but rather, a personal credo that I call Exaltism - the adherence to raising the status amongst things.

I hope that this post, which took about an hour to write, reaches you, and I hope you read it. I am not telling you to believe this. I am telling you that I believe it. And ultimately the reason why I do is simple and fundamental and only needs one word to explain it - change. I fundamentally believe that things that exist changes to become more complex and develop creativity, which increases its free will, and this free will is something I call extropy, and I believe - and have faith - that is what makes God divine in the first place. If you still cannot understand this, then there is virtually nothing I can say to explain it better, without reading more literature on these topics myself.

In regards to process philosophy, this article -and indeed, the journal it’s published in- may be of interest to you


Humbly,
Hermit

 

[ppp]

Actually, this is your assumption.
I never tired to convince you that - there is God.

Silly Billy. Then obviously, I wasn't talking to you.

 

[lukethethird]

I say there are many gods.

You shouldn't be convinced unless you have your own experiential evidence of such a being.

That said, you shouldn't be quick to dismiss others' experiences of a god just because you haven't shared in such an experience.

Psychology and the study of human behaviour could help us with an explanation of personal experience, and besides, the question remains, how do you know gods are the explanation for our anomalous experiences?

 

[lukethethird]

I believe that is because knowing is not the same thing as understanding. I know Jesus died for me on the cross but I do not understand how God can love us so much to do that.

What's to understand, you have been well indoctrinated to believe the story.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Psychology and the study of human behaviour could help us with an explanation of personal experience, and besides, the question remains, how do you know gods are the explanation for our anomalous experiences?

Anecdotal evidence. I see the impact personal gods have on people.

 

[Audie]

I believe that is because knowing is not the same thing as understanding. I know Jesus died for me on the cross but I do not understand how God can love us so much to do that.

You BELIEVE that. It's baloney to claim you know it.

 

[lukethethird]

Anecdotal evidence. I see the impact personal gods have on people.

I too see the impact anomalous experiences have on people but the question remains, why do you say there is a god or gods?

 

[SalixIncendium]

I too see the impact anomalous experiences have on people but the question remains, why do you say there is a god or gods?

Because people have claimed these to be experiences of a god and I have no reason to dismiss their experience. What other explanations do you have to offer for such anomalous experiences?

 

[lukethethird]

Because people have claimed these to be experiences of a god and I have no reason to dismiss their experience. What other explanations do you have to offer for such anomalous experiences?

I have no reason to dismiss their experiences either. Sometimes explanations for anomalous experiences go unanswered. This is where god of the gaps come in; I don't know what caused this experience, there is no natural explanation therefore it has to be a god. Some experiences can be answered by researchers but that requires research into the behavioural studies, others can take years before coming across an explanation, if at all.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

I have no reason to dismiss their experiences either. Sometimes explanations for anomalous experiences go unanswered. This is where god of the gaps come in; I don't know what caused this experience, there is no natural explanation therefore it has to be a god. Some experiences can be answered by researchers but that requires research into the behavioural studies, others can take years before coming across an explanation, if at all.

In my case, I have reason to reject belief in the biblical God because I was a very devout Christian for 30 years and genuinely believed in God for years before that, but I never experienced anything that other Christians claimed happened to them, even though we believed in the same God. For example, they claimed to experience peace and joy in their lives because they believed in God, while I, on the other hand, felt nothing but sadness and despair during the years I was a devout Christian. To be honest, I only began to feel peace and joy in my life after I renounced my belief in God and abandoned Christianity. Have you ever heard of the expression "playing church?" That's exactly what I did. I went through the motions and pretended to experience God, as other Christians claimed they had, but I never did. I tried really hard to experience God, but I felt such hopelessness whenever I tried and failed.

It took me a long time to admit that I had been pretending to experience God's presence in my life when I never genuinely did. I understood I had to be honest with myself and quit pretending. I realized that I was wasting my life by pretending to feel the presence of God in my life when he either doesn't really exist or, if he does, obviously doesn't give a damn about me. A couple of years ago, I did a lot of soul-searching and had to ask myself why I was so committed to clinging to the false hope that I had in believing in God. I realized that believing in God was an emotional crutch for me. I also recognized that if I was ever going to recover emotionally and change my life for the better, I needed to let go of that crutch. My mental health and emotional well-being have significantly improved since I disavowed my belief in God and Christianity. In retrospect, it was one of the best decisions I've ever made for myself. While I don't regret my decision, I wish that I had made it years earlier so that I could have avoided decades of depression and emotional turmoil.

 

[nPeace]

Certainly: They are human inventions.

Human beings -- perhaps as a consequence of their self-awareness and self-consciousness -- are innately curious creatures, and over time, have classified their fields of study according to the objects of study.

Currently, humans are (to the best of our knowledge) the only creatures that use spoken language to express both concrete and abstract concepts -we call the study of language, "linguistics."

The fact that we designate certain sounds to express the concept of identity, and how we do so, would fall under linguistics.
In English, one might say, "My name is Bob."
In French, the same idea is expressed as "Je m'applelle Bob," which, translated word-for-word, comes out as, "I call myself Bob."

That does not tell me the science behind your name.
You have only explained that humans have and use speech.
The question was not, why do humans use language... not to mention that this is a puzzle even for scientists.

"Ethics" one could argue, is more of a philosophical study than a scientific one, that studies our morality -- that is to say, our understanding of "right" and "wrong" -- and its application in a social context.
That social context is important -- one could argue that someone marooned on a deserted island would have no need for ethics, since his actions would affect nobody but himself.

You haven't told me the science behing morality - that is, what is, or is not moral - right or wrong.

"Psychology" (the study of our behavior) and "sociology" (the study of the development of human society) would both come into play when discussing desires and goals, for one reason, to determine to what extent our desires and goals are innate, or imposed on us by society?

If, for example, your desire and goal was to get married, settle down, and raise a family, is that the result of your own belief that these are fulfilling activities which give life meaning (and for many people, they are indeed), or is it a response to outside pressures -- from family, from education, from religion, from culture, etc... that this is what is expected of you?

All fascinating fields of study, IMO, and all borne from, as I said, human curiosity. The names are strictly to organize the fields to keep everything straight -- you don't get very far if you're not organized. As Granny Valentine used to say, "people don't plan to fail; they fail to plan."

Perhaps you misunderstood what the question was.
This doesn't explain anything about your goals and desires, scientifically .

Theory of mind is a "theory" because the behavior of the other person, such as their statements and expressions, is the only thing being directly observed. Their mind and its contents cannot be observed directly, so the existence and nature of the mind must be inferred.

 

[nPeace]

It's alright, there is no science behind the claim that God exists, I already knew that that would leave you stumped.

You are an atheist right, so I expect these kind of tactics.
Stumped is when someone cannot answer a question.
Since I answered your question, it cannot be true that I was stumped.
What stumps me, is that you cannot understand, somthing so basic as 'Science cannot answer all questions, and science is not the only study from which answers can be had'.
Your question therefore, as shown, is a failed strawman... but you are still trying to grab on to it. Unbelievable.

 

[TLK Valentine]

That does not tell me the science behind your name.
You have only explained that humans have and use speech.
The question was not, why do humans use language... not to mention that this is a puzzle even for scientists.

Sure it does. We use speech as a means to differentiate one from another. Most animals use scents to identify themselves; personally, I find out method a lot more sanitary.

And what makes it such a "puzzle"? Linguistics, like any other science, is chock full of knowns and unknowns... but that's what keeps the linguists in business, as it were.

You haven't told me the science behing morality - that is, what is, or is not moral - right or wrong.

Because,as I said, morality is more of a philosophy than a science. But many of the philosophers in this field agree that what is "right" or "wrong" is contextual and situational -- there are no universal answers to that question.

Perhaps you misunderstood what the question was.
This doesn't explain anything about your goals and desires, scientifically .

Personally, I think, far from misunderstanding, I saw through what the question was.

 

[lukethethird]

You are an atheist right, so I expect these kind of tactics.
Stumped is when someone cannot answer a question.
Since I answered your question, it cannot be true that I was stumped.
What stumps me, is that you cannot understand, somthing so basic as 'Science cannot answer all questions, and science is not the only study from which answers can be had'.
Your question therefore, as shown, is a failed strawman... but you are still trying to grab on to it. Unbelievable.

You are stumped because when I ask what the science is behind claims that God exists out there you claim science does not apply to ethics and such which is a non sequitur, you provide an awful lot of hand waving but not an answer. You are stumped because you don't know the science behind these claims or whether there is any science behind them.

 

[nPeace]

Sure it does. We use speech as a means to differentiate one from another. Most animals use scents to identify themselves; personally, I find out method a lot more sanitary.

And what makes it such a "puzzle"? Linguistics, like any other science, is chock full of knowns and unknowns... but that's what keeps the linguists in business, as it were.


Because,as I said, morality is more of a philosophy than a science. But many of the philosophers in this field agree that what is "right" or "wrong" is contextual and situational -- there are no universal answers to that question.


Personally, I think, far from misunderstanding, I saw through what the question was.

Then why did you answer, knowing that science cannot answer "philosophical" questions?

 

[nPeace]

You are stumped because when I ask what the science is behind claims that God exists out there you claim science does not apply to ethics and such which is a non sequitur, you provide an awful lot of hand waving but not an answer. You are stumped because you don't know the science behind these claims or whether there is any science behind them.

That's not true.
My answer to you.
Then you insisted that since science is not able to answer that question, then it automatically means that any concept of God must be fantasy.
So to show how unreasonable that 'logic' is, I tried to help you to understand why it's so unreasonable, by pointing out that there are a lot of real things science cannot answer... like for example, morality.
I tried repeatedly, here, here, and here.
Unfortunately, I failed, since reasonableness does not appear to be one of those things you keep company with.

So, since you are now trying to have the last word with what's an obvious false story of what's the actual situation., I'm staying with you... Not letting you have that.
That too, is an atheist tactic - trying to cover the truth with a post declaring themselves the winner.

I asked you some questions which you don't dare answer, lest they highlight the obvious flaw in your thinking.