Latest attempt on the God dilemma: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » Latest attempt on the God dilemma » Latest attempt on the God dilemma

Latest attempt on the God dilemma

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

Latest attempt on the God dilemma

loveofsophia
Endeavor to Understand

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 02, 2006
Location: Near Madison in Wisconsin

Total Topics: 46
Total Posts: 728

Posted 06/15/09 - 03:29 PM: Subject: Latest attempt on the God dillemma.	#1
So this is my latest analysis of the God concept. Your thoughts? How would you classify me after reading this? This post got out of hand. Sorry. The whole problem: common experience. Important: I don't want to be telling others what they should believe. But since I have not met this God in the rocks and rain, I feel entirely justified in saying I don't know any such God. Others can claim such and such, but if it is not an experience I know, on what basis should I believe they are not mistaken about this fact? Science has a pretty firm standard of common experiences informing understanding and knowledge claims. If what you observe can not be made common, then on what basis for believing them could I or anyone have? I have experiences that call everything into a miraculous frame of mind, but I believe this is an experience that brings my attention to the nature of how much is unknown and mysterious. I once had an experience repeatedly that brought into question the necessity of being. I felt existence was unnecessary. I felt that I had been going through life assuming the way being manifests itself at present is unquestionable (simply inevitable, necessary). But then all existence became suddenly unnecessary to my eyes (it was like a bomb going off in my head). I was looking at the story of my world and realizing how remarkable it is that this story actually exists. The present experience of existence need not be as it presently manifests itself, so I thought (I felt it unexplainable, mysterious, unfathomable). Why this gathering of being, why even this type of being and not some other, etc? For a long time this experience informed a lot of what allowed me to relate to theological conceptions (I attended a catholic college, so theology courses were mandatory). Also, behind this and beyond this present moment (the one of momentous non-necessity), I felt the depth of my ignorance permeating the specific objects of my perception, this presence of reality, the present moment. I can communicate on some level what it is my feelings and thoughts were regarding this experience. I believe it is not entirely uncommon (someone looks at their first born and is blown away, or looks at their dead father and everything radically shifts, etc.). But when one gets into God claims, unless it can have some common basis for evaluation, some ability for another to observe personally, the simple fact that another happens to believe they had an experience of God must need be evaluated by those that it is shared with (without such an experience). I find a God that hides himself a farce (this is my experience in my, at one time, attempts to meet God: I simply encountered an absence or my imagination). Did I not look the right way? I find it all rather suspect and prone to things like, we are the chosen people, exclusivity, group think, gaining a sense of power/control otherwise unavailable, etc I believe in accepting others beliefs and methods of evaluation, their freedom to think as they will; so, likewise, I would hope they would accept that until I meet a God or gods, I have little basis for personally believing such exists. Furthermore, the longer I live, the more unlikely I find the idea of miracles (though the complete wonder I feel at everything that exists seems the closest I have ever gotten to this idea of miracle) and God(s). If such a thing as God existed, why would it not make itself easily assessable to others? A priestly class seems to retain privileged access to special knowledge (I am all for wisdom leading the way, but wisdom from a demonstratively absent source is difficult to trust) and all the consolidation of power and influence over others lives has resulted in many (if not all) traditions with hierarchies. In knowledge and wisdom, all are their own leader and follower of (to do otherwise is to avoid responsibility). I find open dialogue and the freedom to think as one will one of the most important things to do in order to encourage moral development and learning in general (understanding being an important element informing anothers actions). Though, another necessity for growth (to my mind) is: a good dose of meditation and mindful living (the practice of living in the present and catching our habitually negative reaction/actions and redirecting them, cultivating new/positive habits, etc.) I do not see this as such a common ideal among the religious (especially those of the priest-like orders). Furthermore, dogma/codified rules are anti-contextual (blah). Others that "know" God/gods may say it (he/she) is available to those that look, but, given the power of imagination (look at a child and the Easter bunny) I find such suspect based off my own experience and feel entirely justified in doing so. You may say, others have experiences that are not your experiences, and they could be real, but this seems to ignore an important point. I have my experiences informing my understanding of the world and at present there is no God or gods. How are these contrary experiences of the world to be reconciled? Furthermore, can't only one of us be correct? The only mode for coming to agreement is common experience/common ground, anything coming from uncommon experiences would inherently be a breeding ground for disagreement. Though I value disagreement; I do so in the interest of common ground, learning, and consider it necessary for retaining our collective freedom. You may postulate/believe in/have faith in a non-particulate/non0mechanical/absent of cause and effect other-world (of amazing intelligence, consciousness, etc) outside and surrounding the one of matter/energy, but recognize how unlikely such would seem (considering human imaginative powers) to those that have not had "experiences" of such. This idea of experience is rather oxymoronic considering experience as it is commonly understood would not be participating, given God/spirit/the divine would consist of something other than matter/energy. What I just said makes the whole thing rather problematic. The otherness and absent from the world of cause/effect is supposed to be in relationship with us? I find this to be an unsatisfactory catch-22 (you believe in what you can't know or you don't believe because you don't know and find it unlikely). If God/divinity/spirit exists, it would not be a part of this existence (because I could go out and check it out if it was a part of my existence). This all seems like a perfect vehicle for empowering those that believe and disempowering those that don't. I am all for practical things: understanding, patience, compassion, loving-kindness (all things commonly attributed to God). In my experience they are worldly things, not other-wordly. The more I look at this condition, the more I dislike the God-concept. I tend to empathize lately with those that consider God-talk entirely imagined (a projection into ignorance). I am not adverse to our ignorance having something resting beyond it, something true and real; I am simply growing skeptical as to what extent we should go around "knowing" (on whatever level) what is beyond us. I prefer to leave what is indefinite, inexplicable, absurd, as it is. Based off my experiences, I suspect God conceptions and spirituality in general ties into an absence filled with our imagination more than an awesome presence filling in our ignorance. If such is the case (an awesome presence of unfathomable importance), so be it, but my condition of ignorance still persists. So, thanks to all those that followed this, somewhat, rant. How am I classified, by you? Edited by loveofsophia on 06/15/09 - 07:23 PM
It is amazing how susceptible to lies we are when young. I believe people are still far more susceptible to lies as adults than they would like. Balancing what could be, our imaginings, with what we know, this is a delicate act of mind.

GonzophotographyInc.
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 15, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 4

Posted 06/15/09 - 05:09 PM:	#2
I don't believe in god, but for the simple and obvious reason. I was born without a belief in God, in my natural state, and felt no need to develop a concept of one. I'm smoewhat interested in religion becuase I have several religious freinds (I think the most logical one is Bah'ai), and it's interesting to see the logical fallacy of religious people. God is primarily a tool used to reassure people in the face of what we fail to understand. 'The universe is infinite and complicated. I cannot understand it. How scary. How could this have happened.. I know! Somebody made it! But it has to have been someone who understands stuff I cannot... Someone so superior he cannot be understood himself! And this person came from... Aha! This person cannot be understood, so we don't need to rationalise that part! So now I have a theory that doesn't explain anything, my understanding is no greater.. but we have a theory that is impossible to disprove that implies that although I understand nothing, someone does, and that guy is on my side! Yay, I'm reassured!' I see this kind of rationalisation as unneccesary, because I don't fear the unknown. It could be good, it could be bad, it doesn't matter... don't worry about that which you can't understand, because It can't possibly hurt us- if we are hit by an asteroid tomorrow and we all die instantly, has something bad happened to us? No, but it is bad because it eliminates the possibility of something good happening to us. The funny thing is that people like nuns (although some live fulfilling enough lives, of a sort) are deliberately putting themselves into a worst-case scenario! Some people turn to god because their lives are terrible, and they hope there is something more.. there is, of course. But it is now, while they live, that they can experience it. They have to change their lives rather than invest themselves in something 'otherly', and it is the resposibility of everyone to help these people, and everyone else. As John Lennon suggests in 'Imagine', there is more unity in godlessness than not. Godlessness promotes living in the present, for others, at least it should. The 'divine morality' idea is farcial, ignoring the fact that morality (stemming entirely from empathy) is inherent- Religion does not promote morality. It promotes obedience with rules and their enforcers reward-heaven, punishment-hell (or karma, whatever), causing people to obey moral rules regardless of whether they are truly moral. Morality is in theory very simple and obvious- the universe as we know it is defined only by experience, present and future, so morality stems from making this experience as fulfilling as possible for everyone (including animals etc, and for future generations to come). That which makes us feel good is good, unless this has negative effects on others, or is unsustainable, as are certain types of gratification. The only reason morality is complicated is because things have a spectrum of effects on people, which can conflict. Basicly every element of relgion is dependent on an underestimation of humanity, and of the richness of life. Still, it is rather amusing see Athiests trying to discredit religions, it can't be done, (except on specifics, which are easily changed and dismissed as misinterpretation), but the need for religion can be discredited. Edited by GonzophotographyInc. on 06/16/09 - 06:06 PM. Reason: Too pretentious (which is compulsory in some forums! Glad to see not here.)

Apathy Kills
Decaying Organic Matter

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 07, 2007
Location: United States, MIDWEST

Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 232

Posted 06/15/09 - 08:59 PM:	#3
I don't know why but some of your claims remind me of similiar remarks made by Einstein on the subject of religion and belief that I have read. I think that you have a combination of agnosticism, ignosticism, and atheism - which I don't think is vague or evasive on my part. We all shouldn't resign ourselves to find a category or label that fits us. Additionally, I do not think that we can truly be defined by such labels. True, though, that they do offer some form of guidance.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire..." Nietzsche

TempletonEsquire
Irrationally Biased

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 05, 2009
Location: Close To Nil

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 315

Posted 06/15/09 - 09:41 PM:	#4
I share your disbelief of the God of this universe that can reorder physics on the drop of a dime. You mentioned that you were never able to meet God, and that you only found the limit of your subjective imagination. As far as gods go, I have come to the conclusion that the gods are in the imagination. And I too have tried to meet the gods, but in doing so have found that the only way to have any form of conversation that has any recognizable meaning is that you have to trick them for your own awareness. There are limits to the imagination, but they are the limits that are important for survival and living our lives. Yet, beyond these limits is something so unnatural and impossible, that to experience it makes no sense within the context of this universe. I believe this is where gods live, and whether or not they have any cohesive affect on this existence on Earth is question we may never truly know since our experience of them is purely subjective and not independently verifiable.

Apathy Kills
Decaying Organic Matter

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 07, 2007
Location: United States, MIDWEST

Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 232

Posted 06/15/09 - 11:09 PM:	#5
If such a thing as God existed, why would it not make itself easily assessable to others?....Others that "know" God/gods may say it (he/she) is available to those that look, There is something quite interesting that could be said by the theist to this question, for I asked a similiar question several years back to someone and received this sort of response. -- It's a possibility that the time has not come for you, I, or any non-believer to be confronted yet with the choice God is supposed to give us (to accept or reject him/it). The path to accepting God is not the same for everyone. Some of us have to travel a fair bit in our lives before we are "ready" to hear the "truth". What I was told, and I'm sure what believers around you will say, is that when the moment arrives whereupon God makes himself assessable to you... you will know. Frankly, it all sounds extremely far-fetched and I'm still waiting. If God/divinity/spirit exists, it would not be a part of this existence (because I could go out and check it out if it was a part of my existence). Philosophically, I find this an intriguing statement. I've noticed that others have said this as well on the forums (In fact, I think 180 Proof said something similiar to this in his Debate with Doug on 'Does God Exist'). The reason I find this intriguing is that the potential responses from the theist to your claim is entirely varied. The theist could deny your claim outright, but then they would have trouble explaining God's transcendental nature without falling into contradiction. Of course, this all depends on the type of theist you're dealing with. If they're a mystic, then they may embrace contradiction as a way of illustrating the human intellect's inferiority in contemplating such things about God. Recall, for instance, God's chastisement of Job in the Old Testament for presuming his intentions? I don't know. I have found Theology, as a whole, a matter of conjecture/speculation. Hermeneutics is a tricky thing, especially when one's trying to interpret the intent of an omnipotent being.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire..." Nietzsche

180 Proof
kynic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Location: NOTHINGlifeNOTHING

Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 5124

Posted 06/15/09 - 11:51 PM:	#6
@ loveofsophia -- You seem a "religious agnostic" to me. 'We cling to this small, raft-like, island of "knowledge" in the sublime Unknown', right?
The question isn't "Which explanations do I believe?" but rather "Which explanations do I least disbelieve?" Absence of evidence THAT MUST BE THERE (i.e. implied by any claim, concept, or (its) predicates, that affects changes in/to the world) entails evidence of absence. [What cannot be done?[What cannot be hoped?[What cannot be known?]]]

loveofsophia
Endeavor to Understand

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 02, 2006
Location: Near Madison in Wisconsin

Total Topics: 46
Total Posts: 728

Posted 06/16/09 - 06:13 AM:	#7
180 Proof wrote: @ loveofsophia -- You seem a "religious agnostic" to me. 'We cling to this small, raft-like, island of "knowledge" in the sublime Unknown', right? Hmm...interesting characterization. I do think we either make life heaven (sublime) or hell (torturous). We have a creative responsibility for how we endeavor to be. I was hoping I might be mistaken for an atheist and so then I could state I am not (making all atheists agnostics/ignostics in the process). Honestly, I don't really know the difference anymore. I really was thinking I was close to an atheist. But since I had to ask...probably not, huh? So why would you describe this as "religious agnostic" as apposed to "atheistic agnostic" and what metaphor would you ascribe yourself? Edited by loveofsophia on 06/16/09 - 06:58 AM
It is amazing how susceptible to lies we are when young. I believe people are still far more susceptible to lies as adults than they would like. Balancing what could be, our imaginings, with what we know, this is a delicate act of mind.

loveofsophia
Endeavor to Understand

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 02, 2006
Location: Near Madison in Wisconsin

Total Topics: 46
Total Posts: 728

Posted 06/16/09 - 07:02 AM:	#8
Apathy Kills wrote: There is something quite interesting that could be said by the theist to this question, for I asked a similiar question several years back to someone and received this sort of response. -- It's a possibility that the time has not come for you, I, or any non-believer to be confronted yet with the choice God is supposed to give us (to accept or reject him/it). The path to accepting God is not the same for everyone. Some of us have to travel a fair bit in our lives before we are "ready" to hear the "truth". What I was told, and I'm sure what believers around you will say, is that when the moment arrives whereupon God makes himself assessable to you... you will know. Frankly, it all sounds extremely far-fetched and I'm still waiting. I am not really waiting anymore. I think there is something fishy going. Philosophically, I find this an intriguing statement. I've noticed that others have said this as well on the forums (In fact, I think 180 Proof said something similiar to this in his Debate with Doug on 'Does God Exist'). The reason I find this intriguing is that the potential responses from the theist to your claim is entirely varied. The theist could deny your claim outright, but then they would have trouble explaining God's transcendental nature without falling into contradiction. Of course, this all depends on the type of theist you're dealing with. If they're a mystic, then they may embrace contradiction as a way of illustrating the human intellect's inferiority in contemplating such things about God. Recall, for instance, God's chastisement of Job in the Old Testament for presuming his intentions? I don't know. I have found Theology, as a whole, a matter of conjecture/speculation. Hermeneutics is a tricky thing, especially when one's trying to interpret the intent of an omnipotent being. Conjecture/speculation is percieved by me as something of a distraction from life and living it. I think we may be on a similar page. Thanks for the response.
It is amazing how susceptible to lies we are when young. I believe people are still far more susceptible to lies as adults than they would like. Balancing what could be, our imaginings, with what we know, this is a delicate act of mind.

Crackers
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 28, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 519

Posted 06/16/09 - 07:18 AM:	#9
loveofsophia wrote: I am all for practical things: understanding, patience, compassion, loving-kindness... Understanding is not practical for those who do not wish to understand. Patience is not practical for those who must act with immediate diligence. Compassion is not practical for those who must fight. Loving-kindness is not always practical for mentors and rulers; rulers must make harsh decisions, mentors must test their protégé with adversity so that the student will improve. The only mode for coming to agreement is common experience/common ground, anything coming from uncommon experiences would inherently be a breeding ground for disagreement. Though I value disagreement; I do so in the interest of common ground, learning, and consider it necessary for retaining our collective freedom. Indeed, one should first understand that Truth is not a democracy. ------------- Gnostic-Atheist: A state of knowing that no gods exist. Agnostic-Atheist: A state of not knowing wether any gods exist or not. Theism: The state of knowing god(s) exist. Agnosticism: A state of not knowing. "Agnosticism" is a word that concerns only knowledge and is independant of belief. Many who call themselves Agnostics are in fact Agnostic-Atheists. When one thinks about the meaning of the word "atheism", not believing in God, one realises that those who are agnostic on the existence of God do not believe in God and thus are atheists. They don't believe He doesn't exist yet they do not believe He does exist either. "Agnosticism" comes from the Greek "gnosi" which means "knowledge". I long called myself "agnostic" until I became aware of this distinction. I felt clarification was needed for those under this common misconception. Edited by Crackers on 06/16/09 - 07:32 AM

ciceronianus
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 20, 2008
Location: USA

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1021

Last Blog: Trials in which "Failure is not an option"

Posted 06/16/09 - 08:04 AM:	#10
God's golden teeth! I have trouble determining what I am. How, then, can I determine what you are?
"Let us not pretend to doubt in philosophy what we do not doubt in our hearts."--C.S. Peirce "There is nothing so absurd but some philosopher has said it."--Marcus Tullius Cicero "Philosophy recovers itself when it ceases to be a device for dealing with the problems of philosophers and becomes a method, cultivated by philosophers, for dealing with the problems of men."--John Dewey

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.