Which God?

[Simple Minded]

Again with the labels! Fascinating projections Mr. P.

For those of us that are non label phobic we call them adjectives.

I'm just enjoying the banter/discussion. Discussing religion is fascinating. Few things are as subjective as individuals claiming they are the sole keepers of the absolute, eternal truth.

Seems like it. Some people find it terrifying that maybe it won't be subjective, in the end.

Especially now that people who may never have been within 500 miles of each other, can communicate so easily.

As someone once said "People don't react to reality, they react to their interpretations of reality."

Seems a timeless aspect of being human. Ancient texts seem to support it.

Some ancient texts aged better than others.

Think as you wish Mr. P, after all, god gave you free will...... just like me!

"Worship my god or burn in Hell for eternity!" is another ancient text that as aged well.

If one is terrified that their god is not subjective, one should get one's ass to church and pray a lot to the most vengeful and powerful god one can find.

It is a timeless, fascinating subject, often over lapping with philosophy and psychology. To each their own (free will, remember?).

My only point is the " my god is better than your god" preachers (like the preschoolers threatening their peers with "my Daddy can beat up your Daddy!") seem to be describing their own psychology more than revealing absolute truth. But if helps them sleep better, be better people (another can of worms), and if they are happy, more power to them. They found an appropriate god. Life is good.

[Typhoon]

The speculations of goat herders and hunter gatherers are now known to have been mostly wrong.

Citation needed.

Where to begin?

What are stars and planets. What are the sun and moon. Anatomy. How conception and reproduction work. What is disease. What is the shape of the earth*. What is sight. What is fire. What is wind. Why do the seasons occur. What are tides. How can birds fly. Etc.

*Remarkably, the misconception that the earth is flat still persists with a few today, despite the circumference of the earth being first measured ~ 200 BC

Your OP argument is a good candidate for the list.

I don't know, it's near identical to your belief system. Based on reading your material, you believe in one gravity, one weak force, one strong force, one periodic table and so forth. There aren't lesser laws competing with higher laws. Just one highest law that everything conforms to. In fact your field is currently looking for the One True God, called the Grand Unifying Theory.

Same thing.

Not at all.

The Standard Model and gravity are solely descriptions of the physical universe and have nothing to do with the metaphysical. Or a moral code. In other words, both ametaphysical and amoral.

Unlike metaphysical speculations, what we know about the four forces of nature is based upon empirical observations from reproducible experiments.

Also, unlike metaphysical dogma, our understanding has been and is an ongoing process of improvement.

6,000 years ago some proto hebrews figured out the same thing applied to other areas, that there must be one highest authority, not several competing lower ones. There is a rich harmony in that, that belief system and yours.

A bit of a leap to say the least.

[Mr. Perfect]

Where to begin?

What are stars and planets. What are the sun and moon. Anatomy. How conception and reproduction work. What is disease. What is the shape of the earth*. What is sight. What is fire. What is wind. Why do the seasons occur. What are tides. How can birds fly. Etc.

*Remarkably, the misconception that the earth is flat still persists with a few today, despite the circumference of the earth being first measured ~ 200 BC

I see. In that case, human beings have a tendency to be wrong.

Not at all.

The Standard Model and gravity are solely descriptions of the physical universe and have nothing to do with the metaphysical. Or a moral code. In other words, both ametaphysical and amoral.

Unlike metaphysical speculations, what we know about the four forces of nature is based upon empirical observations from reproducible experiments.

Also, unlike metaphysical dogma, our understanding has been and is an ongoing process of improvement.

Not really. Metaphysics intersects with philosophy, which also pursues a single higher truth, as science does.

Higher powers everywhere we look. 6,000 years ago proto hebrews figured it out before anyone else.

A bit of a leap to say the least.

Not when you sit with it a while. In the atheist thread it's fleshed out to perfection.

[Simple Minded]

"IT'S NOT SUBJECTIVE!

IT'S NOT AN INK BLOT!

IT'S A BUTTERFLY DAMMN IT!

DIE HERETIC DIE!"

[Typhoon]

Where to begin?

What are stars and planets. What are the sun and moon. Anatomy. How conception and reproduction work. What is disease. What is the shape of the earth*. What is sight. What is fire. What is wind. Why do the seasons occur. What are tides. How can birds fly. Etc.

*Remarkably, the misconception that the earth is flat still persists with a few today, despite the circumference of the earth being first measured ~ 200 BC

I see. In that case, human beings have a tendency to be wrong.

Not at all.

The Standard Model and gravity are solely descriptions of the physical universe and have nothing to do with the metaphysical. Or a moral code. In other words, both ametaphysical and amoral.

Unlike metaphysical speculations, what we know about the four forces of nature is based upon empirical observations from reproducible experiments.

Also, unlike metaphysical dogma, our understanding has been and is an ongoing process of improvement.

Not really. Metaphysics intersects with philosophy, which also pursues a single higher truth, as science does.

Perhaps, however, science diverged when it came to understand the primacy of empirical observation and experimental testing, whereas metaphysics, and much of philosophy, remained solely speculative.

d6e754d24aaef324c1595e68583ace7a.png (296.06 KiB) Viewed 1405 times

[Credit: Sidney Harris]

A bit of a leap to say the least.

Not when you sit with it a while. In the atheist thread it's fleshed out to perfection.

A novel definition of the meaning of "perfection" as no counterparty has been convinced by your arguments.

A tendency amongst some Yanks, usually public figures - you're an exception, to experience premature declaration.

[Simple Minded]

A tendency amongst some Yanks, usually public figures - you're an exception, to experience premature declaration.

Me thinks the OTNOT auto spell checker/corrector failed to recognize the word "ejaculation" in the above sentence and substituted "declaration."

Can the mods fix this bug?

[noddy]

within the context of picking *a* god, then i think Mr P is right, the abrahamic super god is perhaps the obvious choice.

unless you have cultural connection to your motley collection of metaphorical gods, and this is the nub of it, the extent to which god is an entity vs a meditation technique.

this is the case for me , seeing as i cant help but see it all as allegory and metaphor.

[Simple Minded]

within the context of picking *a* god, then i think Mr P is right, the abrahamic super god is perhaps the obvious choice.

unless you have cultural connection to your motley collection of metaphorical gods, and this is the nub of it, the extent to which god is an entity vs a meditation technique.

this is the case for me , seeing as i cant help but see it all as allegory and metaphor.

That is a good point. We all get to define what God means to us personally. I have a 12 inch Cresent wrench that I use as a hammer when I am to lazy to look for a hammer. It doesn't make the wrench into a hammer, but functionally.......

Who is the prettiest woman in America?
The one that won the Miss America contest of course.
How do you know she is the prettiest? Cause she won the contest. Therefore, she is the prettiest by definition.

But what if it was God's will that you were born into a neighborhood or culture that worships one of the lesser gods? That's why the priests don't want you to marry outside of their, er, uh, I mean your religion.

Like I said above, if one is terrified of the alternatives, worship the most powerful, vengeful god one can find. He will protect you. It says so on the label.

Stands to reason that the most powerful God created everything. But who created him? God creating himself would be as silly as the Big Bang Theory. Something coming out of nothing? Hah, only a fool would believe that!

Ever bigger turtles?

Great fun! We're all June bugs talking about who makes the best snowmobile!

[Typhoon]

A tendency amongst some Yanks, usually public figures - you're an exception, to experience premature declaration.

Me thinks the OTNOT auto spell checker/corrector failed to recognize the word "ejaculation" in the above sentence and substituted "declaration."

. . .

A bit rough.

[Typhoon]

within the context of picking *a* god, then i think Mr P is right, the abrahamic super god is perhaps the obvious choice.

unless you have cultural connection to your motley collection of metaphorical gods, and this is the nub of it, the extent to which god is an entity vs a meditation technique.

this is the case for me , seeing as i cant help but see it all as allegory and metaphor.

The Abrahamic god is the obvious choice for about 1/2 of the world's population ~ 3.4 billion. The success of proselytization; by sword and sermon.

Gods evolve. The new Testament was a sea change from the Old one. The Abrahamic god today is far less fearsome to many Christians than he [?] used to be.
The Muslim perception is stuck in the 13th century.

Who knows which god or gods people will be worshiping 1000 years from now?

Some unrecognizable Sinified version of the Abrahamic god? Gaia? L. Ron Hubbard? Or something entirely new.

Should the West decline, then the appeal of the Abrahamic god outside of the West will possibly also decline

[Simple Minded]

Interesting concept, discussing the nature/origin of a being who exists outside the realm of our fives information gathering senses. Only the idea of a being and what that being should be. And still humans argue and fight over the idea.

Creating consensus based primarily on shared culture, or even going to war over differences.

Is god evolving, or does he/she only give us the slightest little bits of information, and then allow us to chew on it for centuries, and just to see what we do with it?

[Mr. Perfect]

"IT'S NOT SUBJECTIVE!

IT'S NOT AN INK BLOT!

IT'S A BUTTERFLY DAMMN IT!

DIE HERETIC DIE!"

I think you are reading another thread.

[Mr. Perfect]

Not at all.

Yes, definitely. Human beings make mistakes and are wrong all the time, regardless of time frame.

The Standard Model and gravity are solely descriptions of the physical universe and have nothing to do with the metaphysical. Or a moral code. In other words, both ametaphysical and amoral.

That standard model says there should be the same amount of anti matter as matter, and therefore matter wouldn't exist. We went over this already. Human beings can be wrong, especially scientists.

Unlike metaphysical speculations, what we know about the four forces of nature is based upon empirical observations from reproducible experiments.

Also, unlike metaphysical dogma, our understanding has been and is an ongoing process of improvement.

Sort of a strawman from the church of scientism. They seem to imply that since science has discovered some things that science will in the future confrim their personal opinions on everything. It won't of course.

Perhaps, however, science diverged when it came to understand the primacy of empirical observation and experimental testing, whereas metaphysics, and much of philosophy, remained solely speculative.

Yet the only way certain topics can be studied. Science is limited to that which can be observed and tested. Anyone who limits themselves to science only removes themselves from most of the interesting things in life.

[img]d6e754d24aaef324c1595e68583ace7a.jpg[/img]

I like this picture. It reminds me of the big bang, abiotic genesis and evolution. Pure articles of faith from the Church of Scientism.

A novel definition of the meaning of "perfection" as no counterparty has been convinced by your arguments.

My arguments crushed the opposition, including you. They were helpless before my arguments.

A tendency amongst some Yanks, usually public figures - you're an exception, to experience premature declaration.

I don't know, that thread has been around long enough.

[Mr. Perfect]

That is a good point. We all get to define what God means to us personally.

No, we sure don't.

[Mr. Perfect]

The Abrahamic god is the obvious choice for about 1/2 of the world's population ~ 3.4 billion. The success of proselytization; by sword and sermon.

Gods evolve. The new Testament was a sea change from the Old one. The Abrahamic god today is far less fearsome to many Christians than he [?] used to be.
The Muslim perception is stuck in the 13th century.

Who knows which god or gods people will be worshiping 1000 years from now?

Some unrecognizable Sinified version of the Abrahamic god? Gaia? L. Ron Hubbard? Or something entirely new.

Should the West decline, then the appeal of the Abrahamic god outside of the West will possibly also decline

What does any of this have to do with anything.

[Simple Minded]

That is a good point. We all get to define what God means to us personally.

No, we sure don't.

Mr. P,
That is only a true statement if your god is Sam Harris.

[Parodite]

What exists when we are all dead or before humans roamed the planet? I remember a Jordan Peterson talk where a guy asked him about God: does he exist independently of us? Jordan did not have an answer to that. Well, there you go.

The scientific assumption is, and for good reasons, that there exists something independent of us, i.e. independent from our conscious experience of things. This experience-independent reality is usually named physical reality, or objective reality. That "there still is a moon when nobody looks at it" as Einstein liked to frame it. But physical reality as we know it is not experience-independent, on the contrary. The physical world as we know it is entirely subjective, a model/representation that arises in your and my brain.

Therefor.. I would suggest before speculating about which/what God exists independently of us human beings... lets start with the more obvious question about experience-independent reality closer at home. What kind of a thing is the moon when nobody looks at it? If we can't even figure out our experience-independent little daily moon, than forget about making sense of God.

[Miss_Faucie_Fishtits]

What kind of a thing is the moon when nobody looks at it?

Possibly a god, which is why we posit an ineffable, boundless and unnameable Ha'Shem as a place holder to minimise the damage done going down a rabbit hole contemplating experience-independent reality. We as a species may yet be unable doing that without deifying it......'>.......

[Typhoon]

What kind of a thing is the moon when nobody looks at it?

Possibly a god, which is why we posit an ineffable, boundless and unnameable Ha'Shem as a place holder to minimise the damage done going down a rabbit hole contemplating experience-independent reality. We as a species may yet be unable doing that without deifying it......'>.......

The moon goddess's name is Chang'e a.k.a. Chang'o | 嫦娥

Chang'e was mentioned in a conversation between Houston CAPCOM and the Apollo 11 crew just before the first Moon landing in 1969:

Ronald Evans (CC): "Among the large headlines concerning Apollo this morning, is one asking that you watch for a lovely girl with a big rabbit. An ancient legend says a beautiful Chinese girl called Chang-o has been living there for 4,000 years. It seems she was banished to the Moon because she stole the pill of immortality from her husband. You might also look for her companion, a large Chinese rabbit, who is easy to spot since he is always standing on his hind feet in the shade of a cinnamon tree. The name of the rabbit is not reported."

Michael Collins (CMP): "Okay. We'll keep a close eye out for the bunny girl."

[Simple Minded]

What exists when we are all dead or before humans roamed the planet? I remember a Jordan Peterson talk where a guy asked him about God: does he exist independently of us? Jordan did not have an answer to that. Well, there you go.

The scientific assumption is, and for good reasons, that there exists something independent of us, i.e. independent from our conscious experience of things. This experience-independent reality is usually named physical reality, or objective reality. That "there still is a moon when nobody looks at it" as Einstein liked to frame it. But physical reality as we know it is not experience-independent, on the contrary. The physical world as we know it is entirely subjective, a model/representation that arises in your and my brain.

Therefor.. I would suggest before speculating about which/what God exists independently of us human beings... lets start with the more obvious question about experience-independent reality closer at home. What kind of a thing is the moon when nobody looks at it? If we can't even figure out our experience-independent little daily moon, than forget about making sense of God.

Much too sensible an opinion for this thread. I say we bet the farm on the all powerful god thing and that will cover all the bases, and end all debates and discussion forever.

After all, we OTNOTers are big picture people!

We'll either win big and live like kings for eternity, or we bake like charcoal briquets at the church picnic.

Or maybe, nothing happens.......

[Parodite]

What kind of a thing is the moon when nobody looks at it?

Possibly a god, which is why we posit an ineffable, boundless and unnameable Ha'Shem as a place holder to minimise the damage done going down a rabbit hole contemplating experience-independent reality. We as a species may yet be unable doing that without deifying it......'>.......

I'm born to beg to differ!;) It is true that many have concluded that every attempt to know more about experience-independent (e-i) reality is doomed. All we know about the world is that it is mediated by our sense apparatus and that it is our brains that construct reality as we know it. In ways that makes it very unlikely that experience-independent reality is even remotely similar to how we experience it to be.

So, there seems to be some silent consensus that we just have to humbly accept we will never understand what e-i is like, since we have no direct access to it. You'd have to step out of your own brain and hope to have something like a divine third eye available in that dis-embodied state, which would enable you to see the e-i world "as it really is". But then death would be our only way to find out. Next to the many attractions of an after life with grapes and virgins, the thought of "finally understanding reality" where God explains things in minute detail (or heaven as a location/state of being where the warm lights are always on) is also nice candy. Death is both horrible and who knows.. a wonderful opportunity and surprise. It might also be rather disappointing however. I'd not bet on death. The moon will survive us all so why not start there and do a decent moon prayer.

[Mr. Perfect]

Much too sensible an opinion for this thread. I say we bet the farm on the all powerful god thing and that will cover all the bases, and end all debates and discussion forever.

Astonishing strawman. I am becoming more intrigued by your responses here, you appear to be deeply triggered. It's very revealing.

[Mr. Perfect]

Possibly a god, which is why we posit an ineffable, boundless and unnameable Ha'Shem as a place holder to minimise the damage done going down a rabbit hole contemplating experience-independent reality. We as a species may yet be unable doing that without deifying it......'>.......

Not sure it is a God, it appears to be subject to laws and not the source of them.

[Mr. Perfect]

What exists when we are all dead or before humans roamed the planet? I remember a Jordan Peterson talk where a guy asked him about God: does he exist independently of us? Jordan did not have an answer to that. Well, there you go.

Not sure how we whittled down the only opinion to Jordan Peterson, and why he would know one way or the other, but I will posit God exists independently of us.

The scientific assumption is, and for good reasons, that there exists something independent of us, i.e. independent from our conscious experience of things. This experience-independent reality is usually named physical reality, or objective reality. That "there still is a moon when nobody looks at it" as Einstein liked to frame it. But physical reality as we know it is not experience-independent, on the contrary. The physical world as we know it is entirely subjective, a model/representation that arises in your and my brain.

Therefor.. I would suggest before speculating about which/what God exists independently of us human beings... lets start with the more obvious question about experience-independent reality closer at home. What kind of a thing is the moon when nobody looks at it? If we can't even figure out our experience-independent little daily moon, than forget about making sense of God.

The moon is the same when we don't look at it as when we do, barring observer effects and uncertainty which are nil at that size.

The better question is what kind of thing is the Krebs Cycle when no one is looking at it.

[Mr. Perfect]

I'm born to beg to differ!;) It is true that many have concluded that every attempt to know more about experience-independent (e-i) reality is doomed. All we know about the world is that it is mediated by our sense apparatus and that it is our brains that construct reality as we know it. In ways that makes it very unlikely that experience-independent reality is even remotely similar to how we experience it to be.

So, there seems to be some silent consensus that we just have to humbly accept we will never understand what e-i is like, since we have no direct access to it. You'd have to step out of your own brain and hope to have something like a divine third eye available in that dis-embodied state, which would enable you to see the e-i world "as it really is". But then death would be our only way to find out. Next to the many attractions of an after life with grapes and virgins, the thought of "finally understanding reality" where God explains things in minute detail (or heaven as a location/state of being where the warm lights are always on) is also nice candy. Death is both horrible and who knows.. a wonderful opportunity and surprise. It might also be rather disappointing however. I'd not bet on death. The moon will survive us all so why not start there and do a decent moon prayer.

Jeremiah 33:3 Call unto me, and I will answer thee, and show thee great and mighty things, which thou knowest not.

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

Daniel 2:21 And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding:

22 He revealeth the deep and secret things: he knoweth what is in the darkness, and the light dwelleth with him.

29 As for thee, O king, thy thoughts came into thy mind upon thy bed, what should come to pass hereafter: and he that revealeth secrets maketh known to thee what shall come to pass.

1 Cor 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.