Concept of God arising in multiple, different cultures

I agree that trying to recognize who is an authority on what, especially when it comes to God and religion, is a broad and complex topic.

What I find most interesting in these matters is people's motivations for seeking certainty about God and religion.
Why do they want that certainty?

This is because we tend to take this process of metonymic thinking for granted.

That we are well-versed in metonymic thinking is evidenced in that we understand things like this:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Hence we make use of metonymy.
And in the process of that, we can make mistakes, which we can neither recognize nor fix as long as we still use metonymic processes.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You haven't explained how I ignored your use of the word "could."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It takes more trust in people than most of us have to just do what they say without relating it to past experience, though.

Usually day to day functioning is our most important issue, but moral issues are crucial.

That's true about nothing moral being solved empirically because we still have to think it through. Like everything we do, empiricism is only part of the process, but yet it is necessary for perspective.

Imagine someone saying that the earth rotating on its axis every 24 hours is not believable because it's immoral since it makes the day so long that people get too tired.

No way because one must first be involved before we can decide if we like the involvement.

It's the one we all are most familiar with. I don't want to waste more time on Hinduism or whatever.

 

Generally its accepted that "existence" is contingent on god - IOW to talk about god as arising from the secondary creation (ie creating the parts of the universe) doesn't really gel with descriptions of the primary creation being contingent on him.
:shrug:

 

PART II

Tacit knowledge follows explicit knowledge the way a map follows a terrain. A map helps us orient ourselves to the terrain, but by no means corresponds to the terrain in fullness of experience

Knowledge systems that deal exclusively with values - the best examples are ones that exist in closed systems eg mathematics, reason etc - although one can take this discussion a step further to topics of how knowledge/experience of god closes the system of existence although I imagine you really don't want to go there .... needless to say, its sufficient at this point to bring to your attention that empiricism is a poor foundation for justifying explicit claims for reasonns explained.

he is saying those descriptions are less than what you perceive, hence, at least in comparison to offering descriptions, perception has inexhaustible profundity containing boundless undisclosed, perhaps yet unthinkable, experience.

For instance compare a description of learning how to play the piano to actually learning how to play the piano.

It is true that an explicit article has values, but their status (particularly if we are "bound to them by affection") tends to empower such values as opposed to being a sum consequence of such values. For instance our beloved might wear a red dress and we would think that the red dress is beautiful (and even in future take the red dress as an independent source of beauty in and off itself). IOW when an object starts empowering values (as opposed to being the sum consequence of them) we start moving in the direction of explicit descriptions/knowledge. This is why I said there is no meaningful way to break down our experience of them into a series of parts which we could then extrapolate to other people or objects as a substitute.

So for instance, if we need a mechanic, we really don't care too much about them since any one of a thousand could do the job. In the case of the beloved child however, one can still feel immense loss in their absence, even if they had numerous siblings. So we could say "yeah the mechanic can't come so I called the other guy down the road and he can make it this weekend" but we couldn't say "yeah my 2 year old died, but its not really an issue since my wife is pregnant so we will be able to give it another shot in a couple of months".

Basically it ties down to claims that there is an empirical basis for disbelieving in god. At the moment, I am just using metonomy to explain how empiricism isn't up to that task

If further research is ongoing into what a cup of flour actually is, clearly many other people think it does

I am using it as an example how empiricism cannot give a complete description of something as rudimentary as a cup of flour (since, at a certain point, the language of our understandings of the microcosm disappears ... so it loses even more footing when one attempts to field it as a capable player in in/validating the question of god). IOW the fact that the essential description of a cup of flour evades such investigation indicates that empiricism is dealing exclusively with tacit descriptions

I think it does have a limit, but for all intents and purposes its practically unlimited. Kind of like the pacific ocean has a limit, but for all intents and purposes, a dog swimming the length of it is practically unlimited. IOW the question of our investigating it is contextualized by a greater question of our powers of investigation, or even our powers of creating tools to assist our investigation.

IOW this universe operates out of a stronger potency than ourselves, and unassisted (or by the dint of our own steam), we come out in second place in each and every circumstance

 

well for start, it might mean that you are fielding a take on reality totally divorced from philosophical discourse (at worst) or simply airing your beliefs about how one paradigm is better than another (at best)

Needless to say, lexicographers have different ideas about what words ought to mean .. and the fact that life is short and that survival has been frustrated in 100% of all cases since time immemorial is but one symptom of this ignorance

once again, it appears that you just saw the phrase "figure of speech" and though "this doesn't have anything to do with science"

JamesR though the same thing and I am in the middle of discussing why such thinking is ignorant.

with no real solution ...

lol
obviously

Can you think of a single pedagogical model that doesn't incorporate some sort of negative experience?
Or even better, can you imagine the negative consequences that would accrue if a person went through such a pedagogical model?

IOW to say that we will only accept a god that does what I want to do is a good introduction to the topic of why we have to accept so much other stuff in this world.

I think the problem is your idea of a good god is simply someone who gives you a passport and visa to do whatever you want.

 

well for start, it might mean that you are fielding a take on reality totally divorced from philosophical discourse (at worst) or simply airing your beliefs about how one paradigm is better than another (at best)

Needless to say, lexicographers have different ideas about what words ought to mean .. and the fact that life is short and that survival has been frustrated in 100% of all cases since time immemorial is but one symptom of this ignorance

once again, it appears that you just saw the phrase "figure of speech" and though "this doesn't have anything to do with science"

JamesR though the same thing and I am in the middle of discussing why this is a hasty conclusion

with no real solution ...

lol
obviously

Can you think of a single pedagogical model that doesn't incorporate some sort of negative experience?
Or even better, can you imagine the negative consequences that would accrue if a person went through such a pedagogical model?

IOW to say that we will only accept a god that does what I want to do is a good introduction to the topic of why we have to accept so much other stuff in this world.

I think the problem is your idea of a good god (or even an existent one) is simply someone who gives you a passport and visa to do whatever you want.

 

I see it more as an attempt by all to identify a fundamental causality. But, IMO, it is a relative function. There is no Certainty such as a God. God is merely a frame of reference.

In a relativistic world we use the term "frame of reference". Logically it allows for conflict resolution.

In religion, this fixed frame of reference is called God. However, reality is only allowed to emerge according to simple but strict natural constants and functions. Thus, even as God (concept) is capable of miracles, in reality, no such action or condition can exist without having to follow the laws by which it can be expressed in reality.
But if that is true, then allow me to introduce the secular word Potential as an acceptable and logical substitute for the concept contained in the word God.

Potential (n.) is defined as "that which may become reality" and "a latent excellence or ability". It is a common denominator in all expressions of matter and energy. It is the Implicate before it becomes Explicate in reality. It is a mathematical Deterministic pre-condition to reality.
The concept passes and embraces both physical and meta-physical scrutiny.

All Gods <=> Potential

 

Not at all.
I think that the belief that a topic can be adequately discussed without looking into one's motivations for discussing it, is at the core of so many useless arguments.

Observation is necessarily selective.
As you yourself said:

Since some people are religious, they have probably made different observations than you.

For colloquial intents and purposes, this is precise enough. But not for any earnest analysis.

That which is self-sufficient, self-sustaining, that which doesn't require any sustenance or other input in order to exist and function.

It doesn't, but it is something to keep in mind, before one jumps to conclusions about (the non-existence or disinterest of) God, based on one's experience with the world.

Can you tell me why you're interested in this?

Like I said in the beginning, it's the person's interests, their motivations for engaging in discussion on a topic that play a crucial role in what they will say, how they will receive the replies they get, what replies they will find satisfactory and which ones they will dismiss.
So without knowing what your interest is in this matter, I can't say much more in reply.

Only one part of it.

That which is not contingent on anything else in order to exist.

You're working with a fallacious equivocation there.

Traditionally, "God" is defined as the one that caused the Universe.

With the Declaration of Human Rights, I've given you an example of why your reasoning -

doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Per your reasoning, it would follow:

But you certainly don't accept that conclusion.

You allow for that kind of specious reasoning when it comes to God, but not when it comes to human rights.



I'd like to see how you reply to LG's replies to you.

 

It's also fallacious to engage in sophistry.
You're trying to do away with millennia of philosophy by a mere play of words.

 

Sure.

Day to day functioning and resolving moral issues go hand in hand.

People are saying such things at least indirectly quite often -- when they complain.

The dichotomy I proposed was this:
"God is not involved."
vs.
"God is not involved in ways I like."

You don't like the way things (currently) are in the world, and that leads you to conclude that there is no God, or that God is indifferent.
Either way, your opinion in matters of God is entirely or mostly shaped by your negative experiences with the world.
IOW, you're starting off with your dislike of the world to begin with, not with whether there is God or not.

Again:
1. Currently, there are many theistic religious doctrines available to us to reflect on them.
2. These theistic religious doctrines offer quite different perspectives on God, ourselves, life.
3. We have no certainty about which one is the right one, or whether any of them is right at all.

4. And yet you insist on focusing on the Abrahamic ones. Why?

It seems strange to propose that all religions are man-made, but then insist on reflecting only on one or one group of them, as if that one would be the right one.

Reflecting on mainstream Abrahamic notions of God, one ends up with a rather bleak picture of one's existence in the world.
But with some other notions of God, this is not the case.
If you believe that all religions are man-made anyway, or believe that all may be equally possible - then there should on principle be no impediment to reflecting on those.

 

But is that not the crux of the matter? There are so many religions that no religion can claim exclusive truth without being in conflict with another religion. There are so many gods that it is impossible to pick a god without being in conflict of other gods. There are so many scriptures that no scripture can claim perfection without being in conflict with other scripture.

Discussing religion is like discussing the relative moral messages contained in fables and fairytales. There is no provable truth and the messages is wholly abstract and symbolic and inherently contradictory.

IMO, religion belongs in the discipline of psychiatry more so even than philosophy and certainly does not belong in physics.

 

yeah its just like medicine and health..

One guys wants to poke you with a needle. The next one is suggesting diet, and someone else is in favor of massage.

Strangely enough, fairy tales are usually told with a particular moral in mind.... all of which require abstract and symbolic thinking

Given that probably well over 99% of what is important to us does not belong in physics (even psychiatry for that matter) you shouldn't have too much to worry about ...

 

The difference, obviously, is that the medical profession doesn't claim to be revealed truth, and as such doesn't contradict itself when two different remedies are prescribed for the same diagnosis.

 

how does that make any difference when reconciling the conflicting truths of any given field?

so you mean, like, if one is actually working with the goal of "improved health" its not at all difficult to reconcile the various opinions about what should and shouldn't be done?

Geez, who would of thought it would be such a cinch, huh?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I don't know which conflicts you're referring to, but in regards to the medical field we're not talking about conflicting truths, simply conflicting opinions. And it's entirely possible that there are different solutions to the same problem (ie needles, diet, massage)

But in religion, we're not talking about opinions, we're talking about truths. When they conflict, one must be untrue.

And there's no way to measure the "effectiveness" of a religion, so it that sense it can't be compared to the medical field.