If one is curious as to why something is some way, how is the answer "god" in any way usefull toward satisfaction of that curiosity. It simply abates it.

The answer "god did it" does absolutely nothing to increase knowledge or comprehension regarding whatever question is in question. How can 'god did it' be utilitarian in other than an emotional short circuit that allows the question to be lumped into this non-answer of emotional security? That said, if the question regards "objective reality" or a factual event, how can emotional security or gratification aid in comprehension of the issue in question?

Actually the function of the answer "god did it" is really to allow one to remove their focus from the issue that arrived at the answer, and focus on something else. In the evolutionary perspective on the issue, it seems to me that this is highly advantageous in a number of ways. For instance "fred died. why?" (it was a heart attack). Answer: "god did it". Now you can move on. You're off the hook. You don't have to understand anything new, don't have to grapple with the workings of the heart, don't have to exert any effort at all. You only need be subservient to the catch all solution that you must accept as your master for it to be effective.

All that offers an excellent tool by the flexibility of the mental focus of the individual is increased. Of course the opportunity cost is truth, but as long as your subservience persists, one's subjective truth is tied directly to it. So to the sheep, "truth" as in "why did fred die" has nothing to do with the function of bill's heart, which if stinted would not have failed ... but it is by the definition of the subservience to the answer, usurped in favor of it. "god did it".

"god did it".

Well fuck you could say that about anything.

Yet if you've accepted the answer, you are bound by that fact to spew it.

Logic bounces right off.

I think of this in terms of some bullshit I made up called "conceptual geometry". The strength of the circle in this schema is its rigidity. It's the strongest sheild in the world. Its shape rebounds inquisition, it's strength is the depth of the related faith (dedication to the premise, ultimately a funciton of the sheer will available to the individual).

Functionally, the scope of idea of god is emotionally utilitarian. It however, offers no intellectual value whatsoever, as any ongoing investigation is immediately derailed by the obligatory retort "god did it".

What erks me about it is that generally one who indulges in this activity cannot admit it and instead feigns to themselves and others that their investigation reached the one and only logical conclusion... yes, "god did it", when in fact by the nature of their faith they are bound to offer nothing of substance toward the investigation. To them the answer is clear before the question arises.

The side effects are annoying if you aren't one of the faithful, since your concern is with comprehending an objective system. Dogma is worthless in your schema, yet of the highest value in the other. Dogma is a mechanism of faith to re-enforce itself. A tool I suppose, born of commitment.

Shit I'm rambling. Sorry it's not very organized. Please understand it's not spite. Either side must by the nature of having taken that side, find a lesser personal value in the other... but I don't diminish that the god folks do indeed value their position. That must be respected.

Thoughts?

Ah, so I see the point in my own terms. It's dogma, reenforcing the premise, strengthening the faith and offloading obligation to investigate further than the premise.

we live in a time when noone wants to have open ended questions, the idea that " god did it" is soothing for alot of people who need that kind of strict structure in thier lives.

we live in a time when noone wants to have open ended questions,

Given humanity's apparent penchant for religious expression, it seems that rather than "a time", it's actually an expression of the function of our minds. Open ended questions are create mental discontinuity if you don't have the motivation or ability to pursue their resolution. Emotional attachment to the curiosity that leads to the question in the first place can have a strong impact. In the case of the fundamental quest for self-justification, If people have no

People garner purpose from self-justification. If in the case of seeking that justification, they come up with "indeterminant"... that's a threat to their mental stability if they are really expecting that some objective answer must be there.

Usually though, people believe in god to begin with because they are indoctrinated by people they love, accepting their authority because they're people they care about and respect.

the idea that " god did it" is soothing for alot of people who need that kind of strict structure in thier lives.

Indeed.

All the above is from the invidual perspective.

It could be argued that from a societal perspective, religion in general is better than not because it promotes similar values amongst its participants. If values like "love thy neighbor" align, strife is theoretically minimized. Plus if I'm a manipulator and in power, sheep are much easier to control than independant thinkers.... that is unless those manipulative values were exposed, then power would diminish.

Ultimatley though, I suppose life is really just a series of rationalizations... some more aligned with reality than others. Fundamentally, we're all at least a little bit full of shit.

i agree with you about the empty category of 'God did it'....but as well as that i also fear the self-assurance of mechanistic science that only THEy know what's what, and poo poo any hint of possible spirituality

By 'spirituality' i don't mean it in the terms patriarchal religion means it. i mean it more in the way animistic peoples would mean it, where the proposed split between 'spirit' and 'matter' hasn't been conceptualized

The other night i was watching a documentary about Michael Jackson. it was going on about his interest in children and the allegations against him. out of all the flack there was a jewel. it was the info that THe present lad who has accused Jackson had orignally had a large cancerous tumour. He had been a devoted fan of Michael and when Michael befriended him his tumour disappeared...!

now, as we know, some religious pople would assume 'God did it'...but as you say, If we leave it at that we stop exploring so i am askin you. how would you explain that...?

I don't think you want to know my explanation. It's kooky and imprecise. I have a vague theory as to an explanation for that kind of shit, but it's not accepted science. It's part of my theory of everythingishness. Something about extra spatial dimensions, consciousness and evolution as the resultant of force in those extra dimensions.

Regardless, I hypothesize that in terms of a rational answer to any question, "god did it" is a pointless answer. That answer is utilitarian only in emotional gratification/stability. By its very nature as a catch-all explanation, it cannot offer opportunity to further one's comprehension of anything.

I don't think you want to know my explanation.

d__Believe me i DO.

It's kooky and imprecise.

d__If there was one thing i would have on the rules of intercourse if i ran a forum it's be to encourage people to expriment with all kinds of stuff so as to explore reality. many people who have come up with radical ideas were thought of as 'kooky' and downright mad at the time. it doesn't matter

I have a vague theory as to an explanation for that kind of shit, but it's not accepted science.

d___Don't be inhibited, i am not a scientist

It's part of my theory of everythingishness. Something about extra spatial dimensions, consciousness and evolution as the resultant of force in those extra dimensions.

d__Sounds interesting. Can you elaborate more?


Regardless, I hypothesize that in terms of a rational answer to any question, "god did it" is a pointless answer. That answer is utilitarian only in emotional gratification/stability. By its very nature as a catch-all explanation, it cannot offer opportunity to further one's comprehension of anything.

i agree with that

god could be thought of as everythingness or whatever

therefore everything that has ever happened and will is because of god, since we exist inside it

all of us are merely functions within this programmed manifestation of matter

what created the domain for manifestation to be capable?

"God did it."


It all depends on who you think God is and the relationship yu have with God.

If one thinks that God is that Nobodaddy, then "God did it" is indeed pointless.

But if one thinks of God as the highest, all-overarching organisational principle, then "God did it." has a lot of meaning for one.


The only problem with God is that faith in God cannot be exercised as a thought experiment. One either lives one's faith in God, or one doesn't. But it makes sense only if one actually lives it, Pascal's Wager never renders a meaningful relationship with God.


I think that those who have a true faith in God don't talk about it -- as it is something that can only be lived, not told, analyzed, rationalized.

The other night i was watching a documentary about Michael Jackson. it was going on about his interest in children and the allegations against him. out of all the flack there was a jewel. it was the info that THe present lad who has accused Jackson had orignally had a large cancerous tumour. He had been a devoted fan of Michael and when Michael befriended him his tumour disappeared...!

now, as we know, some religious pople would assume 'God did it'...but as you say, If we leave it at that we stop exploring so i am askin you. how would you explain that...?Several answers spring to mind - none provable - although some more acceptable than others:
Coincidence.
The chemical balance within the boy altered due to his happier state of mind, with the new chemical balance aiding the curing process.
The other treatment the boy was having finally kicked in.
Mixture of some/all of the above.

There again Mr. Jackson may indeed be a tool of God and cured the boy himself. :)

Whatever the "cause" you want to attribute to the curing of the tumour, there would have to be some chemical / biological / physical reaction going on. It would NOT merely disappear - unless you want to ignore the laws of physics?
As a scientist you would want to understand the details of what went on - and by doing so reach the initial "cause" of that particular chain of events.

Several answers spring to mind - none provable - although some more acceptable than others:
Coincidence.
The chemical balance within the boy altered due to his happier state of mind, with the new chemical balance aiding the curing process.
The other treatment the boy was having finally kicked in.
Mixture of some/all of the above.

There again Mr. Jackson may indeed be a tool of God and cured the boy himself. :)

d__errrno i wasn't suggesting that

Whatever the "cause" you want to attribute to the curing of the tumour, there would have to be some chemical / biological / physical reaction going on. It would NOT merely disappear - unless you want to ignore the laws of physics?
As a scientist you would want to understand the details of what went on - and by doing so reach the initial "cause" of that particular chain of events.

I dont particularly deny the 'laws' of physics, nor discount chemicals. but what i find with many promoters of science, particularly those who are materiastically-inclined, is that they insist it has to be ONLY chemicals.

what that dogma does is dimiss spirituality from their data. spirituality INCLUDEs good feeling, and good lifstyles, etc. so holding to a mechansitc science with its mechanistic society makes for a spiritless existence, where dis-eases are more prone to occur

"God did it."

It all depends on who you think God is and the relationship yu have with God.

So what? It's still pointless in the manner I specified above. No, it's not pointless to the individual who thinks they know about god.. but it is of absolutely no use to someone who doesn't. It does nothing to further a comprehension of whatever scenario that more than one person can agree upon.

If one thinks that God is that Nobodaddy, then "God did it" is indeed pointless.

I assert that it is indeed necessarily pointless as to enhancing understanding of the world external to the individual who says it. The point is that a catch-all answer short circuits the process of learning, feeding it back into some nebulous relief of curiousity.

You may think "god did it", but that in and of itself is completely useless to anyone but you. You may have a number of other thoughts past that, but if you stop at "god did it" or even if it's just a passing thought on the road to further understanding, then still, that portion of the road is useless to anyone but you. Even if you think others believe as you do, they really can't, as you said "god is personal". Well, whatever... god is an emotional thing, great for those in the circle, but pointless to those who aren't. It's cannot offer expanding comprehension to those outside the circle, those who wish to understand that which is outside of themselves. What peeves me is the obligatory existence that something that is inherently emotional/personal like god is projected outside of themselves. IMO, that's pure narcicissm.

But if one thinks of God as the highest, all-overarching organisational principle, then "God did it." has a lot of meaning for one.

Meaning yes, but what good is it outside of that individual? Sure, great for them... but would communicating that meaning to a person who didn't make the same assumption provide any utility for that person?

The only problem with God is that faith in God cannot be exercised as a thought experiment.

That's not the only problem, but whatever.

One either lives one's faith in God, or one doesn't. But it makes sense only if one actually lives it, Pascal's Wager never renders a meaningful relationship with God.

Have you considered my point about the safety of the circle?

I think that those who have a true faith in God don't talk about it -- as it is something that can only be lived, not told, analyzed, rationalized.

Not only that but they should not talk about it unless asked, as the subjective validity of their conviction... lemme try another way.

If we're standing together and see a comet, we can agree about that. If one of us concludes that god sent that comet there, that is subjectively valid but if the other doesn't reach the same conclusion.. there's no point in arguing since there's no common experience to validate it. God guy saw god as far as he's concerned, and I didn't. We must agree we both saw a comet, but our rationalle as to how it got there shares no common ground. I think "well, rock from space" and dude thinks "hand of god".

One of these answers is utilitarian in terms of comprehending the objective system in which they exist - as it applies to both individuals, and the other is base some emotional function accepted and required by his core beliefs.

Several answers spring to mind - none provable - although some more acceptable than others:
Coincidence.
The chemical balance within the boy altered due to his happier state of mind, with the new chemical balance aiding the curing process.
The other treatment the boy was having finally kicked in.
Mixture of some/all of the above.

There again Mr. Jackson may indeed be a tool of God and cured the boy himself. :)

Whatever the "cause" you want to attribute to the curing of the tumour, there would have to be some chemical / biological / physical reaction going on. It would NOT merely disappear - unless you want to ignore the laws of physics?
As a scientist you would want to understand the details of what went on - and by doing so reach the initial "cause" of that particular chain of events.

Yeah this.

The horsecrap I was spewing before really underlies all the above. The direct approach is as stated by Sarkus above.

Well it removes the requirement to think about a subject.

Well it removes the requirement to think about a subject.

Why you gotta condense my whole rambling rant into a single sentence and stuff?

So what? It's still pointless in the manner I specified above. No, it's not pointless to the individual who thinks they know about god.. but it is of absolutely no use to someone who doesn't. It does nothing to further a comprehension of whatever scenario that more than one person can agree upon.

Someone who doesn't believe, doesn't believe, period. Why then does he talk about it?! If the non-believer wants to comprehend, then he has to allow for an answer, whatever that answer is. Instead, your non-believer wants an answer on *his* own terms. In other words, he doesn't want an answer at all.


You may think "god did it", but that in and of itself is completely useless to anyone but you. You may have a number of other thoughts past that, but if you stop at "god did it" or even if it's just a passing thought on the road to further understanding, then still, that portion of the road is useless to anyone but you. Even if you think others believe as you do, they really can't, as you said "god is personal". Well, whatever... god is an emotional thing, great for those in the circle, but pointless to those who aren't. It's cannot offer expanding comprehension to those outside the circle, those who wish to understand that which is outside of themselves. What peeves me is the obligatory existence that something that is inherently emotional/personal like god is projected outside of themselves. IMO, that's pure narcicissm.

No, it's not narcissism. It is the communal aspect of religion.

Individualistic psychology is speaking through you. The stream of psychology that treats an individual as something completely different and separate from other individuals, much as if each of them fell from the moon. As if everyone invents everything, every thought pattern for oneself, as if people are essentially disconnected from eachother, some abstract stand-alones. Sure, this is a common way to look at human personality, but human communality is being grossly neglected.


As for making objective arguments about God and faith:

If you read "I love you" written on the wall, will you feel loved?
It is not only the message, but also who says it and what relationship you have with this person -- all this combined makes the message meaningful and important to you.

We cannot come far with impersonal (or better: depersonalized) arguments. Surely, we can make them, but they are just that: impersonal (depersonalized) arguments. As far as, say, formal logics is concerned -- wow, that kind of arguments is the thing to go for. But faith in God is not the same as formal logics. And when faith in God is being *downscaled* to some objective depersonalized argument, that argument fails, surely.


But if one thinks of God as the highest, all-overarching organisational principle, then "God did it." has a lot of meaning for one.

Meaning yes, but what good is it outside of that individual?

Communal, interpersonal aspect again.
Religion is both personal and communal. Shaped by our modern non-tribal way of life (and individualistic psychology), we fail to bring the personal and the communal together in a meaningful way.
We can't think in that tribal way anymore, but our sense of communality is still there; only that is has become downscaled or very abstract to us. In towns, people don't actually live and work together in close groups of a tribe size -- where *all* the life's happenings would take place only within *this same* group. The Amish are probably the closest to a tribe.


Sure, great for them... but would communicating that meaning to a person who didn't make the same assumption provide any utility for that person?

If you ask a question, prepare to accept the answer. By accept I don't mean agree with it, only accept it.


One either lives one's faith in God, or one doesn't. But it makes sense only if one actually lives it, Pascal's Wager never renders a meaningful relationship with God.

Have you considered my point about the safety of the circle? [/quote]

I have. Surely, "the safety of the circle" is one interpretation. Someone else might say about this same thing that people are "hypocrites with double standards, and above all arbitrary". I prefer to refer to it as "system economy" -- it doesn't contain the negativism of the two other terms.


I think that those who have a true faith in God don't talk about it -- as it is something that can only be lived, not told, analyzed, rationalized.

Not only that but they should not talk about it unless asked, as the subjective validity of their conviction... lemme try another way.

SHOULD. Ah, and you think you are so much better than them, or what?


If we're standing together and see a comet, we can agree about that. If one of us concludes that god sent that comet there, that is subjectively valid but if the other doesn't reach the same conclusion.. there's no point in arguing since there's no common experience to validate it. God guy saw god as far as he's concerned, and I didn't. We must agree we both saw a comet, but our rationalle as to how it got there shares no common ground. I think "well, rock from space" and dude thinks "hand of god".

Gross simplification. Unless you are talking about religious fundamentalists.


One of these answers is utilitarian in terms of comprehending the objective system in which they exist - as it applies to both individuals, and the other is base some emotional function accepted and required by his core beliefs.

No. It is not just some "emotional function".


"Sometimes I think that the philosophers and the atheists originally got together and made themselves a partnership -- the philosophers creating a God that could not possibly exist."
(Someone said this once, here.)

I agree with this. The god of philosophy and atheism is a god that is per definition unknowable; and if they do allow for a god, it is some strawman version. And there is no way anyone could make a point to them, as they have set the terms on which they will accept an answer as valid -- the term of God being unknowable.

Why you gotta condense my whole rambling rant into a single sentence and stuff?

... and that condension is so general that it is useless.

Gnosticism is based in narcissim. It sheilds its presumed knowledge in circular logic it deems divine. It is impervious to critical thinking. This is faith.

Is it narcissistic for me to believe I exist? Yes, I think so.

Is it MORE narcissitic for me to believe I know how the universe came to be, especially when the claim cannot withstand skepticism? YES, I THINK SO.

In the case of my existence, skepticism is withstood because it doesn't matter if I think I don't exist as long as I still do. I'll just be a dumbass.

In the case of god, well that's just stupid from an intellectual angle, but justifiable within the emotional context of an individual's experience. Their experience tells them its valid and there's no stimulous to contradict it - so the belief can persist. You can't contradict something that is the reason for everything. No matter what happens, new stimulous is accounted for in the context of your presumption. That is, excepting the emotional utility - pointless.

I value emotional utility, but this thread is about accounting, comprehending, looking at the overall system with minimal presumption. I want to understand how these things relate to one another in a schematic sense. God folks don't. They can't. They already know. If they decide to not know, then they can't be god people, as their faith has changed to inquiry.

I don't think you want to know my explanation. It's kooky and imprecise. I have a vague theory as to an explanation for that kind of shit, but it's not accepted science. It's part of my theory of everythingishness. Something about extra spatial dimensions, consciousness and evolution as the resultant of force in those extra dimensions.

Regardless, I hypothesize that in terms of a rational answer to any question, "god did it" is a pointless answer. That answer is utilitarian only in emotional gratification/stability. By its very nature as a catch-all explanation, it cannot offer opportunity to further one's comprehension of anything.

So, is your explanation useless too? Or is it valuable as an approach?
I can't say for sure, but it would seem that you find your "explanation" useful in analysis or has a use for something. Unless your "explanation" is just a knick-knack you keep around the house.

Also, Occam never said the simplest answer is the correct one. Just that it is better to investigate it first, right? But his is not the only valid method of investigation. It is just a good way to speed things up. Some processes just seem to not want to speed up, though, they just take as long as they take.

*edit*
P.S. You say "they" shouldn't talk unless asked, but haven't "they" been asked and challenged many times for having faith? Where do we stop this chain of asking and responding, and where did it start?

So, is your explanation useless too? Or is it valuable as an approach?

It's only useful if we agree it is. It will remain usefull to me until usurped by what I deem superior reasoning.

I can't say for sure, but it would seem that you find your "explanation" useful in analysis or has a use for something. Unless your "explanation" is just a knick-knack you keep around the house.

Of course it's useful to me, but if it isn't to you, then its use is pointless. We could perhaps gauge their effectiveness in terms of some sort of competetive advantage if we choose a goal and agree on a metric.

Also, Occam never said the simplest answer is the correct one.

Neither did I. My point is a basic tenent of hueuristics and problem solving. Consider the set of sets to be the basis for any solution to any problem. The solution to the problem you pose to the set is in there somewhere, but you don't know where without investigation/problem solving. Each assumption you make takes its related set of possible solutions and excludes them from consideration in terms of your solution. This is done in hopes of making it easier to find the solution. However in doing so - there is no gaurentee the actual solution still remains in the set of possible solutions. If you can demonstrate clearly that your assumptions are valid, you can be more confident that you didn't exclude the actual solution from consideration. Hence, though assumptions are necessary to render the solution set managable, we must ensure they are as simple and few as possible. Well that is, if a truthful solution is our goal.

With that in mind, GOD is the worst possible assumption to make in that it narrows the potential solution set to one possibility: god.

Seems pretty dishonest and narcissitic (in that one presumes that they know god is the answer, even though it can't be demonstrated to the satisfaction of a "nuetral" observer) to me, but I think that's the opportunity cost of tentatively believing what I just said. I will tentatively accept superior reasoning if I can comprehend and integrate it into my world-view.

It will remain usefull to me until usurped by what I deem superior reasoning.
This is my approach too. However, I seem to have more confidence in my ability to reason incorrectly, given a lack of information, than you do. Or I assume the lack of information is greater than you do?

With that in mind, GOD is the worst possible assumption to make in that it narrows the potential solution set to one possibility: god.

I think the opposite view, that once we have scientifically found the patterns to everything God has done we will have shown God to be absent, is another "worst possible assumption".

Why do I burp? God.
Why did I just think that thought? God.
Why is the sky blue? God.
I agree that that is silly and meaningless. I agree that if I believe God is all, and that is all, I will have no place to go from there. It may be one useful idea to knock around against a bunch of other ideas, though.

Seems pretty dishonest and narcissitic (in that one presumes that they know god is the answer, even though it can't be demonstrated to the satisfaction of a "nuetral" observer)
I'm not sure that it can't be demonstrated to a "nuetral" observer. Completely nuetral in conscious and subliminal thought? How do we know when we find someone like this? Because they profess nuetrality?

Gnosticism is based in narcissim. It sheilds its presumed knowledge in circular logic it deems divine. It is impervious to critical thinking. This is faith.

Is it narcissistic for me to believe I exist? Yes, I think so.

False humility.
Next thing you know, you'll say you're not worthy to be alive? Nah, you wouldn't be *that* consequent.


Is it MORE narcissitic for me to believe I know how the universe came to be, especially when the claim cannot withstand skepticism? YES, I THINK SO.

You know what? You will believe in God, but only if you are at the same time alllowed to back out for whatever reason.


In the case of god, well that's just stupid from an intellectual angle, but justifiable within the emotional context of an individual's experience. Their experience tells them its valid and there's no stimulous to contradict it - so the belief can persist. You can't contradict something that is the reason for everything. No matter what happens, new stimulous is accounted for in the context of your presumption. That is, excepting the emotional utility - pointless.

Translated: God is unknowable. God is unknowable. God is unknowable. God is unknowable. Should I say it again? God is unknowable.

This is all you've been saying.


I value emotional utility, but this thread is about accounting, comprehending, looking at the overall system with minimal presumption.

Yes, and you are commiting reductionism.


I want to understand how these things relate to one another in a schematic sense. God folks don't. They can't. They already know. If they decide to not know, then they can't be god people, as their faith has changed to inquiry.

You know shit. You never had religious faith.


Yes, an ad hominem it is. But at some point, it becomes meaningless to try to have a discussion, at some point, listening is not in place anymore.
You, too, go suck Ayn Rand's hemorrhoid ass.

This is my approach too. However, I seem to have more confidence in my ability to reason incorrectly, given a lack of information, than you do.

I think that's a misperception. I'm trying to further my understanding of a system I've come to see in my mind. I'm just telling you what I think, always hoping to find a better model. I'm driven by innate curiosity in this matter, as I've leaned toward this type of investigation since I was a kid.

Or I assume the lack of information is greater than you do?

I have no idea how big of a lack of information you think there is as compared to mine. Information is pointless outside of context. I have certain models that seem universally applicable. They're quite simple as in the context I proved in my last post. I can't insist they are representative of the tao... only my impression of it. What I offer is of course the best that I've discerned from my experience. I do not hold it to be absolute outside of my own context, but of course it seems that way.

I think the opposite view, that once we have scientifically found the patterns to everything God has done we will have shown God to be absent, is another "worst possible assumption".

God is irrelevant to the problem solving process. That we may find solutions to problems does not lend anything as to the god's existence or lack thereof.

Why do I burp? God.
Why did I just think that thought? God.
Why is the sky blue? God.
I agree that that is silly and meaningless. I agree that if I believe God is all, and that is all, I will have no place to go from there. It may be one useful idea to knock around against a bunch of other ideas, though.

I disagree because as you demonstrated, once the answer is accepted - you're at a dead end. I suppose that's fine if your problem is already solved, but it cannot provide utility in seeking the solution.

I'm not sure that it can't be demonstrated to a "nuetral" observer. Completely nuetral in conscious and subliminal thought? How do we know when we find someone like this? Because they profess nuetrality?

I should have prefaced it with "hypothetical"... the hypothetical nuetral observer.

I'm not sure that it can't be demonstrated to a "nuetral" observer. Completely nuetral in conscious and subliminal thought? How do we know when we find someone like this? Because they profess nuetrality?

Courtesy of Fraggle Rocker's succint formulation:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=727602&highlight=frelling#post727602


Hey dude. This is the frelling internet here. We get no body language, no facial expressions, no tone of voice, no gestures. We don't even get to see how you dress or whether you're typing with a beloved pet in your lap.

That deprives us of about 75 percent of the carrier wave of human communication. Sure, it's the band with the smallest bandwidth, but that bandwidth is important. It tells us what kind of member you are of this community, whether we can let our guard down and trust you, whether we'd be comfortable asking you for advice, etc. All we have left to go on is your keystrokes.

I understand that posting here is not on the same level as writing a graduate thesis, and that there's a point of diminishing returns for an obsession with proofreading such as the one I have.

But you must understand that if you make someone angry, they can't get back at you by dissing your ugly shirt or your unkempt hairdo or your funny-looking dog or your habit of cracking your knuckles. All they can diss is what they see: the message, the choice of words, the spelling, composition, and punctuation.

I repeat: This is the internet.

It's

nEUtral
nEUron
hEUristic

False humility.

It's not even humility related. Apologize for calling me a liar. Hung up on labels are you?

Next thing you know, you'll say you're not worthy to be alive?

Uhm.. where the shit did that come from? How that question even comes to mind is beyond me? Man you read a lot of shit into what I say don't you? How about stopping that? Well whatever. I think we can reach some common understanding, but it's apparently going to be a bumpy road.

You know what? You will believe in God, but only if you are at the same time alllowed to back out for whatever reason.

I'll borrow your line: "You know shit." God is irrelevant to me.

Translated: God is unknowable. God is unknowable. God is unknowable. God is unknowable. Should I say it again? God is unknowable.

This is all you've been saying.

Maybe so. The boundaries of logic get me spinning a bit sometimes. I try to stay the course, but I keep bouncing off the edges and getting caught in little eddies. I think I've said more than that.

Yes, and you are commiting reductionism.

*shrug* I can't fit it all into my head at the same time. It's too big. I can see little pieces and how they relate to one another, and sometimes it seems I get a glimpse of the bigger picture. So far, I haven't noticed inconsistencies within what I see except for where they belong. If you can point out a particular problem, please do. Otherwise, do you have an actual point or are you just venting because I don't buy what you're selling? I like your perspective, find it interesting and consistent. That doesn't mean that I'll adopt, as it seems to me that my own is as good or better... at least to me.

You know shit.

And you?

You never had religious faith.

So what?

Yes, an ad hominem it is. But at some point, it becomes meaningless to try to have a discussion, at some point, listening is not in place anymore.

So high and mighty. It doesn't seem to me you've heard a thing I've said... do you know sometimes it takes a long, tough road to get over one's pre-conceived notions of this and that? It's often so difficult that people just give up, like this:

You, too, go suck Ayn Rand's hemorrhoid ass.

Uhm, fuck you.

Care to try again when you get over your mood or whatever?

And now she resorts to criticizing spelling? All is lost.

Water,

I don't know why you're being a poopy-head. I assume it's frustration. I guess it doesn't matter.

First of all, the following doesn't have anything to do with whether or not god is knowable. It's about solving problems and how god is a useless tool for aiding in that process, regardless of its (god's) existence. Please refute it:

My point is a basic tenant of heuristics and problem solving. Consider the set of sets to be the basis for any solution to any problem. The solution to the problem you pose to the set is in there somewhere, but you don't know where without investigation/problem solving. Each assumption you make takes its related set of possible solutions and excludes them from consideration in terms of your solution. This is done in hopes of making it easier to find the solution. However in doing so - there is no guarantee the actual solution still remains in the set of possible solutions. If you can demonstrate clearly that your assumptions are valid, you can be more confident that you didn't exclude the actual solution from consideration. Hence, though assumptions are necessary to render the solution set manageable, we must ensure they are as simple and few as possible. Well that is, if a truthful solution is our goal.



Okay.

Now, please elaborate on how you propose to justify god or circular reasoning via something other than a thought experiement.

I think that's a misperception.
I said " seem" because I realize it may not be true, but it actually does "seem" that your wonderful confusion implies a person who is not dogmatic enough to insist they are being reasonable, so I retract the other statement.

God is irrelevant to the problem solving process. That we may find solutions to problems does not lend anything as to the god's existence or lack thereof.
Which problem is God irrelevant to? 2+2=4, ok God is irrelevant. But all problems?

Today I looked out my kitchen window, decided to look up at a faraway tree instead of the tree in my backyard, and I saw a cool bird fly by. This wasn't me experiencing God necessarily, but it is an excellent metaphor for me experiencing God. The God concept is useful, as it opens up the potential solution set, therefore giving me more places to look for information. You may say these places are all devoid of "true" information, which is an incredibly haughty thing to say. Would you limit what is valuable to that which is mathematically logical?

Once I was told to search for God. It wasn't put that way, more like, "God is there, believe, etc.", but that wasn't good enough for me because I have to see for myself. By opening my eyes to the possibility of God, I was able to make many connections that would not have been available to me - mental, emotional, etc. These experiences are my experience of God. Have I "found" God? You would be crazy to say no. Unless you want scientific proof, in which case I say, good luck. Needing scientific proof is a bias against any other proof you may find. It is a bias against the validity of love to many people here on this forum. Sad.

Also, you say God people can't think because they know, but then how do so many people lose faith if they weren't thinking about it? And what then of people who lose faith and return, like myself? Have I stopped thinking again now?
Now?
Now?
(Sorry, I had to throw in that joke, because I thought of the, "the future is now... Now... Now... thing. I am not a great comedian.)

Also, if you think it is wrong to "narrow the potential solution set" too much, wouldn't it be even more wrong for you to try to narrow my solution set? Sounds dogmatic to me. "You must reasearch using my method", so says Wes.

I guess what I'm really trying to say is... you can't apply the same problem-solving technique to all problems.

I said " seem" because I realize it may not be true, but it actually does "seem" that your wonderful confusion implies a person who is not dogmatic enough to insist they are being reasonable, so I retract the other statement.

I would ask how you find yourself so sure my world is confused. Please elaborate.

Which problem is God irrelevant to? 2+2=4, ok God is irrelevant. But all problems?

All problems in which god has not already been presumed, yes. Please understand I'm not talking about solving a particular problem, I'm talking about problem solving in general. I'm not talking about a method, I'm talking about what seems to me to be the limits of the how the system works.

Today I looked out my kitchen window, decided to look up at a faraway tree instead of the tree in my backyard, and I saw a cool bird fly by. This wasn't me experiencing God necessarily, but it is an excellent metaphor for me experiencing God.

That's dandy and all, and I don't diminish your personal experience, but how is that relevant to a discussion of problem solving... in... gaining comprehension?

The God concept is useful, as it opens up the potential solution set, therefore giving me more places to look for information.

It's useful to you, because you've already accepted it. There are a number of advantages offered by belief, as with anything.

You may say these places are all devoid of "true" information, which is an incredibly haughty thing to say.

What information did you gain? I don't see any information gained at all. You saw something pretty, attributed it to your presumption and got a warm fuzzy. Maybe you can clarify.

Would you limit what is valuable to that which is mathematically logical?

Not at all, but I would say that what is valuable doesn't necessarily solve problems. It's value that creates problems. I value something I don't have, the problem is getting it (be it knowledge, whatever). People value all kinds of eronious things, all of which are subjectively justifiable and sensible. That's dandy, it just doesn't really mean much in the context of this conversation. Presuming the bird is cool because of something you already presumed is not problem solving.

Once I was told to search for God. It wasn't put that way, more like, "God is there, believe, etc.", but that wasn't good enough for me because I have to see for myself. By opening my eyes to the possibility of God, I was able to make many connections that would not have been available to me - mental, emotional, etc.

The possibility of god is not in question for me. Who am I to say god is well, anything. IMO, reverence for the concept renders attempts to know it moot.

These experiences are my experience of God. Have I "found" God? You would be crazy to say no.

You surely think you have. Nothing personal, but your rationalization offers me little information regarding the status of "god's" existence. It offers me more information about your psychology. No, I'm not saying your crazy. You are however, a believer. Most humans are. It's really somewhat endearing to me in a number of ways.

Unless you want scientific proof, in which case I say, good luck.

Well, all this is really off topic, as I'm trying to examine the question of god as a utility for gaining knowledge, solving problems... etc. As I've mentioned, it seems like a dead-end solution to me. That's my rationalization.

Needing scientific proof is a bias against any other proof you may find.

Scientific proof is only really necessary for matters outside of self. For instance, I don't need proof that I love my family. I know it. Further, I don't really care if you believe me or not... though you likely would from experience of knowing fathers and that the answer has little bearing on you personally. The cost of being wrong is nominal, so belief is non-critical.

It is a bias against the validity of love to many people here on this forum. Sad.

I don't understand what you mean. I don't doubt most people's love for god if they proclaim it. I'm skeptical of the basis for which they arrived at the conclusion "god did it". I think actually, I understand how it generally comes to pass. I'm generally only annoyed by it when one claims their belief... which is wholly personal, to be a factual undoubtable aspect of reality. "god is real" may work for you, but proclaiming it true outside of one's self is nonsense. It could be, but you really can't know regardless of how convinced you are. At best, you're hedging your bet.

Also, you say God people can't think because they know, but then how do so many people lose faith if they weren't thinking about it?

I didn't mean exactly what I said... pardon. The only way out of the circle is skepticism. People can lose faith if they decide that the value gained by being inside it no longer offers utility. If you're questioning your faith, you're not a god person. Faith cannot be questioned because you have faith. Once you begin to question it, you're not really faithful... true faith is unquestionable.

And what then of people who lose faith and return, like myself?

Obvious in terms of the response above.

Have I stopped thinking again now?

Sorry, didn't mean you stop thinking.. just questioning that particular topic. If you didn't, you're not really faithful. You'll still think about things of course. That's what brains do. Those things you associate with god will be attributed to god though, and gaining new insights regarding those things will all be in terms of that presumption. You won't however, necessarily associate everything with god. Your personal context/circumstance/propensity/experience/will will influence how your relationship with god is weaved into your mind.

Now?
Now?

Only you know. ;)

(Sorry, I had to throw in that joke, because I thought of the, "the future is now... Now... Now... thing. I am not a great comedian.)

Not a problem. I did get a smidge of a chuckle, so maybe you have potential. Hehe. Then again, I've got a low threshold for humor.

Also, if you think it is wrong to "narrow the potential solution set" too much, wouldn't it be even more wrong for you to try to narrow my solution set?

Do you think that's what I'm doing?

Sounds dogmatic to me. "You must reasearch using my method", so says Wes.

I have a hard time seeing how you get that from what I said. This medium is rich with that though. I'm sure I do the same to people frequently.

You, too, go suck Ayn Rand's hemorrhoid ass.

Spoken like a true theist! Hypocrite.

You profess to love, yet you hate those who disagree with you.
Turn the cheek? hell no Just slap an insult.

First of all an existence has to have an identity.
What kind of identity have you given this entity you call god?.
(they keep telling you what it is not, but never tell you what it is. All their identitifications consists of negating: God is that which no human mind can know, they say--and proceed to demand that you consider it knowledge--God is non-man, heaven is non-earth, soul is non-body, virtue is non-profit, A is non-A, perception is non-sensory, knowledge is non-reason. Their defenitions are not acts of defining, but of wiping out.)AYN RAND!. :D

Godless.

I would ask how you find yourself so sure my world is confused. Please elaborate.
If you concede that your reasoning ability is fallible, and that there is a lack of information regarding the proof of god's existence, it becomes hard for you to blindly follow dogmatic principles. I think that is good, it shows that you are still thinking. I wasn't being sarcastic. Are you saying that you have found all the answers, and are not confused at all? That doesn't seem to be what your posts have implied throughout this forum. If there are two possibilities, at least, and you cannot vouch for either definitively wouldn't that equal confusion?

What information did you gain? I don't see any information gained at all. You saw something pretty, attributed it to your presumption and got a warm fuzzy. Maybe you can clarify.
What information have you gained? I'm sure there is a ton of information we have both gained using different life ideals. Are you just saying that the concept of God is not useful in figuring out logic problems? Or that having a belief in God keeps one from researching well? Take einstein as an example. He had a belief in an organizing principle of some kind. The force, or whatever. This may be part of his motivation for figuring out some of the things he did. If he hadn't said, "this universe makes complete sense, but we haven't figured out how yet", he may have stayed in the patent office. Now, he may not have used his principle of an organized universe, on every little part of every problem, but I think it was an important part of his work.
Are you just saying that blindly ignoring everything around you, and ooh-ing and aah-ing at the universe saying "god did it", with no problem solving work solves no problems?
Are you saying, "God did it" is not a good "proof" of god's existence? I think that is entirely subjective, and you are right the belief in God can't be forced on anyone.

If you're questioning your faith, you're not a god person. Faith cannot be questioned because you have faith. Once you begin to question it, you're not really faithful... true faith is unquestionable.

Nothing is unquestionable.

If you think the only type of faith is one with no doubts, you are wrong. How could any sane person have faith if that were so? After I read this, I don't think you are an expert on faith, to be euphemistic about it. It sounds like you only know of one viewpoint on faith. One which I wholeheartedly reject.

Religion and spirituality goes way back, when we used to sit around our wood campfires before we even comprehended societies.

The idea of "god did it, so thats all" is purely for someone who is comfortable in others exploring the unknown possiblities.
The fact is nobody knows what we are, but the possibilities should not be left to science. Afterall science does not create our buildings, technology and love, it is our imaginations and thought creations, we just apply the physical formulae after that.

Just like god, we have thought about it so much, it has become the ultimate reality in our minds and in the second level.
Earth is to learn how to take control of our imaginations, so there is no chaos in the second level.

Ill never stop imagining my nearer existance, that is what gets me up in the morning.

... and that condension is so general that it is useless.

Perhaps you would show an example of how using goddidit has enriched human understanding of any subject. How does goddidit futher debate?

Today I looked out my kitchen window, decided to look up at a faraway tree instead of the tree in my backyard, and I saw a cool bird fly by. This wasn't me experiencing God necessarily, but it is an excellent metaphor for me experiencing God. The God concept is useful, as it opens up the potential solution set, therefore giving me more places to look for information. You may say these places are all devoid of "true" information, which is an incredibly haughty thing to say. Would you limit what is valuable to that which is mathematically logical?This is exactly why I'm an atheist, and why it is the diametric opposite of the truth to characterise atheists as lacking in soul or awe or wonderment. It is the fact that something beautiful happened, totally naturally, in the absence of some all-Powerful puppet-master that on occasion fills me with something akin to transcendence. To be so incredibly fortunate to be alive, and experiencing - coupled with the unbelievably small chance of having been born a member of the only known living species in the entire universe capable of appreciating such a thing (to say nothing of understanding it) is a concept the uh, bigness of which is more than I can readily express in words.(they keep telling you what it is not, but never tell you what it is. All their identitifications consists of negating: God is that which no human mind can know, they say--and proceed to demand that you consider it knowledge--God is non-man, heaven is non-earth, soul is non-body, virtue is non-profit, A is non-A, perception is non-sensory, knowledge is non-reason. Their defenitions are not acts of defining, but of wiping out.)AYN RAND!. Yeah, she does talk shit sometimes, doesn't she? :P

God is irrelevant to me.

You do realize that taking this position means that no matter what anyone would say about God, nothing can be a valid argument to you, as you have, in advance, discarded God and said God is irrelevant to you?



You never had religious faith.

So what?

So you can't possibly know what it is like to have that kind of faith. And yet you keep talking about it as if you knew first hand.
You are like a teenage *virgin* who speaks about rough sex, and how she knows everything about it.

Our expectation of something, the thought experiment we make, our prediction of something yet to happen is NEVER the same as our experience of this thing.
This is why experience is necessary, crucial.


And yet you insist on your thought experiments to be a valid way to understand and even to prove something. Some empiricist you are.


So high and mighty. It doesn't seem to me you've heard a thing I've said... do you know sometimes it takes a long, tough road to get over one's pre-conceived notions of this and that?

The same goes for you.


Care to try again when you get over your mood or whatever?

It's not my "mood". You just don't know me well.


I don't know why you're being a poopy-head. I assume it's frustration. I guess it doesn't matter.

How feeling you are. Uh.


First of all, the following doesn't have anything to do with whether or not god is knowable. It's about solving problems and how god is a useless tool for aiding in that process, regardless of its (god's) existence. Please refute it:

My point is a basic tenant of heuristics and problem solving. Consider the set of sets to be the basis for any solution to any problem. The solution to the problem you pose to the set is in there somewhere, but you don't know where without investigation/problem solving. Each assumption you make takes its related set of possible solutions and excludes them from consideration in terms of your solution. This is done in hopes of making it easier to find the solution. However in doing so - there is no guarantee the actual solution still remains in the set of possible solutions. If you can demonstrate clearly that your assumptions are valid, you can be more confident that you didn't exclude the actual solution from consideration. Hence, though assumptions are necessary to render the solution set manageable, we must ensure they are as simple and few as possible. Well that is, if a truthful solution is our goal.

What the hell does this have to do with God?! There is nothing to refute, and your proposed strategy doesn't exclude God. It may exclude the Skydaddy, but I think it is a shame to understand God as 'that old man with a beard'.


Now, please elaborate on how you propose to justify god or circular reasoning via something other than a thought experiement.

You are suggesting as if faith is something static, unchangeable, robotic -- hence circular.

Love, faith can be "justified" only in real life, in actual actions. And the same goes for God. Thought experiments won't do.

Once I was told to search for God. It wasn't put that way, more like, "God is there, believe, etc.", but that wasn't good enough for me because I have to see for myself. By opening my eyes to the possibility of God, I was able to make many connections that would not have been available to me - mental, emotional, etc. These experiences are my experience of God. Have I "found" God? You would be crazy to say no.

Exactly.
Declared atheists seem to search for God there where God surely is least likely to be found, and then they say "There is no proof of God".


"You must reasearch using my method", so says Wes.

I've been telling him this all along.

That's dandy and all, and I don't diminish your personal experience, but how is that relevant to a discussion of problem solving... in... gaining comprehension?

Fuck it. You ask a question, people answer, but then you say, "No, this is not a good answer because it doesn't align with my thinking."


What information did you gain? I don't see any information gained at all. You saw something pretty, attributed it to your presumption and got a warm fuzzy. Maybe you can clarify.

Again: Our expectation or prediction of something that is yet to happen is never the same as the experience of this thing.


Not at all, but I would say that what is valuable doesn't necessarily solve problems. It's value that creates problems. I value something I don't have, the problem is getting it (be it knowledge, whatever). People value all kinds of eronious things, all of which are subjectively justifiable and sensible. That's dandy, it just doesn't really mean much in the context of this conversation. Presuming the bird is cool because of something you already presumed is not problem solving.

Wes, are you after some Theory Of Everything?


The possibility of god is not in question for me. Who am I to say god is well, anything. IMO, reverence for the concept renders attempts to know it moot.

That's because you think that when it is said that God wants you to serve Him, this means you have to serve God the way you would serve a human -- the way you would be a slave to a human slave owner. And that respect for God comes at the cost of your own self-respect.


Well, all this is really off topic, as I'm trying to examine the question of god as a utility for gaining knowledge, solving problems... etc. As I've mentioned, it seems like a dead-end solution to me. That's my rationalization.

That's because you operate with the concept of God meaning something like 'Skydaddy', 'Nobodaddy', 'Slave owner'.


I didn't mean exactly what I said... pardon. The only way out of the circle is skepticism. People can lose faith if they decide that the value gained by being inside it no longer offers utility. If you're questioning your faith, you're not a god person. Faith cannot be questioned because you have faith. Once you begin to question it, you're not really faithful... true faith is unquestionable.

??!! True faith is unquestionable?
If one treats one's faith as "unquestionable", one is taking it for granted. And this is the worst one can do -- to take one's own faith for granted.

You, too, go suck Ayn Rand's hemorrhoid ass.

Spoken like a true theist! Hypocrite.

You profess to love, yet you hate those who disagree with you.
Turn the cheek? hell no Just slap an insult.

First of all an existence has to have an identity.
What kind of identity have you given this entity you call god?.
(they keep telling you what it is not, but never tell you what it is. All their identitifications consists of negating: God is that which no human mind can know, they say--and proceed to demand that you consider it knowledge--God is non-man, heaven is non-earth, soul is non-body, virtue is non-profit, A is non-A, perception is non-sensory, knowledge is non-reason. Their defenitions are not acts of defining, but of wiping out.)AYN RAND!.

Godless.

You don't know who I am or what I believe. You never bothered to investigate. And yet you accuse me of things!


* * *

Perhaps you would show an example of how using goddidit has enriched human understanding of any subject. How does goddidit futher debate?

Can you say "strawman", 10 times, real fast?

This is exactly why I'm an atheist, and why it is the diametric opposite of the truth to characterise atheists as lacking in soul or awe or wonderment. It is the fact that something beautiful happened, totally naturally, in the absence of some all-Powerful puppet-master that on occasion fills me with something akin to transcendence. To be so incredibly fortunate to be alive, and experiencing - coupled with the unbelievably small chance of having been born a member of the only known living species in the entire universe capable of appreciating such a thing (to say nothing of understanding it) is a concept the uh, bigness of which is more than I can readily express in words.

Why consider God "some all-Powerful puppet-master"?

Can you say "strawman", 10 times, real fast?

Can you give an example of where goddidit made people think?

and i'm guessing you can't think of any examples of how godidit advanced human knowledge either. Useful stuff religion.

If you concede that your reasoning ability is fallible, and that there is a lack of information regarding the proof of god's existence, it becomes hard for you to blindly follow dogmatic principles. I think that is good, it shows that you are still thinking. I wasn't being sarcastic.

Okay.

Are you saying that you have found all the answers, and are not confused at all?
My confusion can avoid my attention, so I might say it but I'm never sure how accurate it is.

That doesn't seem to be what your posts have implied throughout this forum.

Well, it could also be that the way we use ideas differs so greatly that we both seem at least a smidge confused to one another.

If there are two possibilities, at least, and you cannot vouch for either definitively wouldn't that equal confusion?

I'd call that particular scenario "ignorance". In the case of god, I'd call it necessary ignorance based on my analysis of the circumstances of being.

What information have you gained? I'm sure there is a ton of information we have both gained using different life ideals.

I'm sure. Regardless, that isn't really relevant. You said you gained information, I wanted to know what it was. The question was intended to gain clarification of what you'd said in the relevant paragraph.

Are you just saying that the concept of God is not useful in figuring out logic problems?

Yes. Further, I'm saying it's a dead end in reasoning in general. It doesn't offer extension of thought. It's recursive.

Or that having a belief in God keeps one from researching well?

Note the doodad I said about god and your personal context. You can suspend subjective god relevance in order to research whatever and your talent/skill in that area is not necessarily correlated to your suspended belief. The point is only that when you finally get to "god did it", even if you did a whole buttload of great, solid researd on your way there... you hit a dead end, sink hole.. whatever. "god did it" offers no utility in the solution of the problem. It may offer you motivation to pursue whatever, but it doesn't apply to reasoning directly.

Take einstein as an example. He had a belief in an organizing principle of some kind. The force, or whatever.

I pretty much agree with that, but have an idea as to why things are that way. What does that have to do with god?

This may be part of his motivation for figuring out some of the things he did.

That doesn't mean anything in terms of god. If he'd thought "hmmm... must be god", he probably would have stayed in the patent office.

If he hadn't said, "this universe makes complete sense, but we haven't figured out how yet", he may have stayed in the patent office.

I simply don't see that as god-related at all. That the universe can make sense isn't necessarily related at all.

Now, he may not have used his principle of an organized universe, on every little part of every problem, but I think it was an important part of his work.

Okay.

Are you just saying that blindly ignoring everything around you, and ooh-ing and aah-ing at the universe saying "god did it", with no problem solving work solves no problems?

Pretty much yeah. There's a smidge more to it..

Are you saying, "God did it" is not a good "proof" of god's existence?

I wasn't saying that, as it seems obvious... but I've probably said it. There is no proof of god via any sort of repeatable methodology. Well, you know all that shit, you covered it. I'm not sure what you really believe or whatever, but it seems there's not a lot of difference excepting our semantics.

I think that is entirely subjective, and you are right the belief in God can't be forced on anyone.

I'd take it one step further, or to the side... in that the evidence you take for "god" is as you admit, subjective... rendering it useless as evidence for anyone but you. No not certainly useless, but as in "you can't expect anyone else to accept it as evidence". The big difference being that if we were sitting together at a table, I could expect you to believe we were sitting at a table and vice-versa. In fact if you didn't I'd count it as evidence of some sort of disorder on your part (and vice-versa I'd expect).

Nothing is unquestionable.

True enough, but the faithful... if faithful, have only one song to sing. I meant that as in, it's pointless to question it. Sure, I can question your faith all day long but if you're truly faithful, you'll simply repeat yourself. For instance I have faith in reason, that I exist and that this is real. If you were to ask me all day "are you real", I'd say "yeah" over and over and over. To trip me up you'd say "hey did you know you're not real" and I'd be all "nope, I'm real". The minute I say "well, I guess you're right. i'm not really real after all", I'm no longer faithful. This is how I use the word faith. Perhaps we don't use it in the same way... that doesn't mean I don't know anything about it.

If you think the only type of faith is one with no doubts, you are wrong.

If you have doubts, I wouldn't call it faith. It's hope or something else at that point. The faithful cannot doubt or they wouldn't be faithful. Know what I mean?

How could any sane person have faith if that were so?

That's a loaded question. Hehe. Uhm, sanity is a whole big, other topic. People can believe all kinds of crazy shit and still be considered sane.

After I read this, I don't think you are an expert on faith, to be euphemistic about it.

Well I never claimed to be, but I definately have a few ideas about it. The term itself is absolute to me. You believe something or you don't. Could be you're on the fence. I see a scale with faith at one end, skepticism at the other. Real faith is one extreme, complete skepticism the other. Real faith stops examination, complete skepticism sustains it infinitely. Each offers utility. Skepticism leads to knowledge, leading to conclusions. Faith props up those conclusions until questioned again, then skepticism can lead one through the path used to create the faith, then justifying and re-enforcing the faith, or leading to further skepticism based on the new circumstance/stimulous.

It sounds like you only know of one viewpoint on faith.
*shrug* How many do you have?

One which I wholeheartedly reject.

Maybe you should maintain some skepticism of that conviction until you're sure I don't know what I'm talking about... or maybe you've falsely presumed I don't or maybe I really don't.

Can you give an example of where goddidit made people think?

and i'm guessing you can't think of any examples of how godidit advanced human knowledge either. Useful stuff religion.

Alright. Can you say "strawman", real fast, a 100 times?

WES -

re: faith (blind faith vs. strong faith)

Please correct me if I am wrong, but from what I understand you have a wife and child (or children). If you didn't have faith that your wife loved you would you act differently than you act toward her now? You have faith in your love for her (I assume), partly because you have faith in her love for you.
I'm not saying you have reason to doubt that your wife is in love with you, but if you ever doubted would that make you faithless? While you were doubting her love for you, would you act as if she did or did not love you? Your faith in your marriage is partly her choice and partly your choice. It is dependent on belief, but does not have to be entirely free of doubt for you to remain faithful to her.
This is faith. I think you can have strong faith even when in doubt, and if your faith in your marriage is especially strong you will remain faithful even under questionable circumstances. Blind faith is not accessible to everyone, but strong faith is accessible to someone who has doubts.
I will go one step further and say that if you had never had any reason to doubt, whether it was from her behavior or just from seeing that other people on earth are capable of infedelity etc., your faith would be less complete. Complete in the sense of being multidimensional, that is. It would be less strong if it had nothing that could possibly oppose it. It could be more blindly accepted though.
I still wholeheartedly reject your idea that blind faith is the only faith. I have many songs to sing, not "just one".

Re:God did it

You don't have to suspend your belief in an ultimate "why" to try to figure out how things work. Your supposition here is incorrect.

If we get past these two things above, maybe we can approach the use of God for reasoning.

SILAS - Your wonder is valid. Just as valid as mine. You don't attribute the same "why" as I do. So what? Don't get confused into thinking you get to have some wonder at the science of it all, and I don't. I just get to experience both types of wonder. Sometimes I experience your (and my) type of wonder, sometimes I experience the other type which you don't. If the second type is false, you aren't missing anything true, even if you are missing something good. I'm not saying what types you should experience, that is up to you.

WES -

re: faith (blind faith vs. strong faith)

What I see as your problem is that you're calling mind static. I'll show you what I mean. Maybe we're both doing kind of the opposite of one another.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but from what I understand you have a wife and child (or children).

No correction required. Two kids, 2 and 4, girls, wonderful.

If you didn't have faith that your wife loved you would you act differently than you act toward her now?

Yes, a little at least. I'd probably be bummed out. I'd be nice to her, but I'm nice to people that don't piss me off. When I'm pissed, I'm not as nice... When I get over being pissed, I'm nice again. So some of the time I'm an asshole, but most of the time I'm a pretty nice guy. I'm a jokester. Ha. Ha ha. People get a kick out of me and I them. My point is however, I change. I might have faith now. Maybe not so much later. It depends on my stimulous, context, etc.

You have faith in your love for her (I assume), partly because you have faith in her love for you.

It's mostly because of how she acts towards me, and that we have children. It's one hell of a bond. I saw her give birth to both my children. She's my family. There's no reason to doubt that, as I live it every day. It's sweeter than it is annoying, so I feel pretty lucky.

I'm not saying you have reason to doubt that your wife is in love with you, but if you ever doubted would that make you faithless?

How could it not? If I doubt it, that's a poor excuse for faith. At that time, it would be something other than faith. Maybe it would come back, maybe not.. but if I were to question it, I wouldn't think it faith at all. More like a question.

While you were doubting her love for you, would you act as if she did or did not love you?

It's hard not to love me, you beautiful bastard. LOL. Yeah okay well I'd act differently than I had prior to that yes, as I'd likely be quite disturbed that a I suspected a family member had jumped ship. Again that doesn't mean I'd be intentionally cruel, but I'd certainly be disturbed.

Your faith in your marriage is partly her choice and partly your choice.

I really don't see it as a choice. It just is. We have children. We can't not have had children together, thus we're family. You can't choose your family once they're part of your family. The idea of choice is in this context actually seems pretty ridiculous to me. I can't undo what is done and if I could, I wouldn't. Choice is simply innapplicable.

Sure, people can choose to pretend they didn't accept someone as family, but that would be a lie. It would be inconsistent with what they themselves know to be true. That's where nuerosis and mental jacked-upedness comes from.

It is dependent on belief, but does not have to be entirely free of doubt for you to remain faithful to her.

I disagree. You're lumping it all together and I'm talking about one's state in time. You either have faith now, or you don't.

This is faith.

Our comprehension of it obviously differs. The way I see it, there is only right now. Later will be now too, if it comes.

Blind faith is not accessible to everyone, but strong faith is accessible to someone who has doubts.

I think that's simply incorrect. The momentum of your earlier faith may catch up with you, but while you're doubting it... I don't see how you call that faith.

I will go one step further and say that if you had never had any reason to doubt, whether it was from her behavior or just from seeing that other people on earth are capable of infedelity etc., your faith would be less complete.

That is an odd way to see it to me. I have blind faith that my wife is my family because she is. I don't worry about infedelity because I know her, and I'm just not really a worrier. If she does, I'll deal with it... but until then or some signs I should be suspicious... I'll cut her some slack. For chrissake she needs it, as even sweet precious girls are incredibly trying.

Complete in the sense of being multidimensional, that is.

What the shit is that supposed to mean? What do you know of my dimensions? My relationship to my wife is layered in my history.. layered in my experiences... layered in my concepts, the way I view the world. How can all that not be wrapped up in the way I see my family?

It would be less strong if it had nothing that could possibly oppose it.

That is the most twisted shit I've ever heard. Hehe. Are you serious? Maybe you're trying to use some kind of growth idea? It couldn't be more strong if nothing could oppose it... right? Maybe you just got backwards for a minute.

It could be more blindly accepted though.

It can't be blind to me if I lived it and have access to it in my mind as part of myself. That's the opposite of blind.

I still wholeheartedly reject your idea that blind faith is the only faith.

I never said that. Perhaps you understand what I mean more clearly after this post.

I have many songs to sing, not "just one".

Yes but do you have style or rythm?

Re:God did it

You keep singing that song though.. don't you? I suppose it is part of your you.. however imaginary a part it is.

You don't have to suspend your belief in an ultimate "why" to try to figure out how things work.

Well then you wouldn't really be honest in your endeavor. You'd be looking to back up your premise. You know, like theists must necessarily do?

Your supposition here is incorrect.

Obviously, we disagree. You cannot have faith in god and question it if you're truly prepared to accept the answer "I don't know" or "no". If you think you can, you're simply a lying to you. I think I owe me more than that.

If we get past these two things above, maybe we can approach the use of God for reasoning.

We cannot get past it as long as you can't accept the possibility that god doesn't exist, or that you can't know that god exists. If you accept it those things however, you've taken my position and your faith would have to be put somewhere else... like for instance, in reason. I don't really think our dispute is really about a lack of faith... it's about where you put it.

You've chosen to put yours in a circle in your mind.

You claim to know the omnipotent. I think it's about your ego. I think you need something like the idea of god to prop yourself upon, in order than you not feel small... in order that your ego not sink to despair. The question that brings to mind is the most important question I can think of...

Why aren't you enough for you?

Perhaps I'm being far to presumptuous. I really don't know you at all... but that's the line of reasoning that came to mind. I'm sure you'll straighten me out where I've errored.

I truly feel lucky to be alive and me. I guess I'd have never missed it had I not existed, but I do... so I might as well enjoy the ride. I hope you enjoy yours too.. even if jesus is your co-pilot.

You don't know who I am or what I believe. You never bothered to investigate. And yet you accuse me of things!

Pick on my mentor and get your ass kicked allover these here boards!.
;)

Or haven't you looked under my name?.

Godless.

So that's it?

wes,

sorry, but I got slammed with a work project. Hopefully soon I can return.

Water, Now Now, i Said:

Well it removes the requirement to think about a subject.

and your comment was:

... and that condension is so general that it is useless.

So all i'm doing is asking you to support your "rebuttal" with information that shows that goddidit does make people think.

I'd assume by your avoidance of the question you can't.

wes,

sorry, but I got slammed with a work project. Hopefully soon I can return.

Not a problem, I appreciate the response.

Pick on my mentor and get your ass kicked allover these here boards!.

So you worship idols?


* * *



“ Well it removes the requirement to think about a subject. ”

and your comment was:

“ ... and that condension is so general that it is useless. ”

So all i'm doing is asking you to support your "rebuttal" with information that shows that goddidit does make people think.

"Goddidit" is a strawman that you use against believers, implying that they don't think.

As I have said in my reply to Wes, it all depends on what we understand by "God" and "God did it".

If God is of no relevance to you, if by "God" you think of some old man with a beard, then saying "goddidit" indeed shows you do not think about a subject.

On the other hand, if God is of relevance to you, and is important to you, then you are not taking God for granted, and make your best effort to not take anything for granted -- you think about subjects.



I'd assume by your avoidance of the question you can't.

Presumptuous you are.

wesmorris, without the assumption of order, the scientific progress we've made would not be possible. Why look for a solution if your philosophy tells you otherwise? Atheists, of course, can believe in this order, too. But they cannot tell us why it exists. We can point to God. We can say he created this order, and then, assuming that order exists, attempt to find laws. Atheists tell us otherwise. They tell us that order comes out of chaos or that order has always existed. But, to me, these stances seem oblivious to our reality. We know that a clock was made by a man--not because of its complexity but because of its order.

So you worship idols?

LOL,LOL,LOL!!! LOL,LOL!!

Thanks for making an ass of yourself!!. :D

A mentor is not an idol, it's someone whom you admire for their philosophy, kindness, or basically parental attitude towards someone younger. She's my mentor because I admire her writing, and her achievements while she lived.

"Goddidit" is a strawman that you use against believers, implying that they don't think.

Well the "goddidit" is not a strawman; it's a good example of "GIVING UP", and plainly just claiming since theists don't understand, or can't comprehend, or can't figure it out, the only logical answer for these individuals is "goddidit". Totally stagnating the research needed to Understand, to Comprehend and to Figure it out.

Godless.

wesmorris, without the assumption of order, the scientific progress we've made would not be possible.

It does not need to be assumed. There is plenty of evidence to support it.

Why look for a solution if your philosophy tells you otherwise?

Why do you think my philosophy dissallows order?

Atheists, of course, can believe in this order, too.

Kind of you to allow it?

But they cannot tell us why it exists.

Oh? How do you know?

We can point to God.

That one is free to explain anything in whatever manner they choose does necessarily not lend relevance to their explanation to anyone but them.

We can say he created this order, and then, assuming that order exists, attempt to find laws.

You don't have to assume order to look for it. Actually if you do, you've screwed up your investigation.

Atheists tell us otherwise.

I think you have a lot to learn.

They tell us that order comes out of chaos or that order has always existed.

First, "atheists" don't tell you that. People may. Some of those people may be athiests. Regardless, how do you know it doesn't? You've already made up your mind about things that you don't know anything about. If you maintain your presumption, you can have no capacity to investigate the relevance of your claims to the contrary.

But, to me, these stances seem oblivious to our reality.

So what? It may seem that way. Is it? You don't know, but presume you do. Your ego requires it of you else you feel small. This is the opportunity cost of religion. Integration of religious presumption into the ego causes dependence upon it. As with anything, there are related strengths and weaknesses. One of the strengths offered by religion is conviction and belonging - very useful for tribal socialization.

We know that a clock was made by a man--not because of its complexity but because of its order.

LOL. Ah, the blind clock maker eh? Can you say anthropomorphization?

It does not need to be assumed. There is plenty of evidence to support it.

No, there is not. For instance, we could be attempting to bring our enivoronment, which is unordered, to the order of our minds.


Why do you think my philosophy dissallows order?

The question was not meant in reference to you, but to those who did have a philosophy where the world was unordered.


Oh? How do you know?

Well, I know because the only way out of this dilemna is to assume at one time order did not exist, and then came to being from unorder, or to assume order has always existed. For the first point, if order did not exist and then gave rise to order, by the assumption of no order before order, an "orderly" explanation cannot be given.
For the second point, they have similar problems. They will not be able to give an explanation, to do so would mean some unordered object caused order. That is not to say there're wrong. There might not be an explanation. But certaintly this view puts them in the category of "God-did-it."


First, "atheists" don't tell you that. People may.

I used the term atheists not to generalize but to mean atheists; that is, people belonging to the atheistic religion/ideology.


Some of those people may be athiests. Regardless, how do you know it doesn't? You've already made up your mind about things that you don't know anything about. If you maintain your presumption, you can have no capacity to investigate the relevance of your claims to the contrary.

For anything that exists, it either existed forever or it didn't. In the case an object didn't exist but now exists, it must have been brought into being. Most things that are brought into being have a cause, some force that brought them into being. But to assume so is an assumption, I think.


So what? It may seem that way. Is it? You don't know, but presume you do. Your ego requires it of you else you feel small. This is the opportunity cost of religion. Integration of religious presumption into the ego causes dependence upon it. As with anything, there are related strengths and weaknesses. One of the strengths offered by religion is conviction and belonging - very useful for tribal socialization.

The strength of a religion is brought by the force of truth, within it's claims, I mean. Both ego and socialization are not viable reasons for the truth, though they are viable reasons for <em>searching</em> for the truth, the truth of course being ordered.