What is your 'idea of GOD'?

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by hansda, Oct 12, 2013.

  1. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,553
    Don't really have a meaningful one.
    I'm happy to work with whatever definition / concept people want, and will take stances accordingly.
    With some who don't see the universe as being any different to the way I do, but choose to call the universe God, I merely dispute the notion of referring to it as God.
    With others there is an implied metaphysical element to it, and while I do not / can not argue for the non-existence of such, I dispute the claims that there is evidence of its existence.
    Then there are often implications of intelligence, benevolence, and other anthropomorphic qualities.
    Again, I don't argue for the non-existence of such, just that they can be known, or that there is evidence of such.

    I guess my concept would be that if god exists he is unknowable, although I can't know for sure whether it is even possible to know that much.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Lakon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,117
    Though all human races claim thee,
    Thought and language fail to name thee,
    Mortal lips be dumb before thee,
    Silence only may adore thee!


    Christopher Cranch c.1850
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. wegs With brave wings, she flies . . . Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,556
    //decided to delete
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2013
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,659
    @Sakus
    no we were not....
     
  8. wegs With brave wings, she flies . . . Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,556
    Hear, hear

    This coincides with what I've stated above...if this is your belief, then it is yours alone, and such will bring with it, peace.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,659
    Though all human races claim thee,
    Thought and language fail to name thee,
    Mortal lips be dumb before thee,
    Silence only may adore thee!
    Christopher Cranch c.1850


    "But when time comes to claim thee
    and life doth goeth and deserts thee
    It is only when you see thee
    that thee is thee before thee"



    with all due respect....

    [chuckle]


    yeah time to go.. 'tis late
     
  10. Lakon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,117
    Off to bed then, get there thee, thee
    and do not forget to pee pee !
     
  11. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,553
    I'm not sure QQ's original example was circular - it was just a definition that equated "good" with "working" (as applied to cars) and then he rephrased the equivalence.
    I.e. It is just a rhetorical tautology, but doesn't do anything other than repeat what he is trying to equate.

    And because of the different class of items being equated (good, being a subjective view, and working being a description of activity) it holds together logically, although is meaningless beyond equating the two, and thus providing someone with their opinion that "working" and "good" are equivalent (in the context).

    But the syntax of the logic more usually does lead to fallacies: cf.
    "It is a dog because it has four legs; because it has four legs it is a dog"
    This does not work here as the classes of items are the same (I.e. objects), and hopefully you can see that there is clearly no equivalence between "four legs" and "dog".

    Circular reasoning, on the other hand, is only applicable to arguments: one restates the premise in the conclusion of an argument.
    And I'm not sure QQ was trying to say that the conclusion (it functions because it is good) is derived from the premise (it's good because it functions), rather than merely state the same equivalence twice for rhetoric effect.

    Hope that has cleared it up

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,553
    I refer the honourable gentleman to posts around 150 to 155/160 or so.
     
  13. wegs With brave wings, she flies . . . Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,556
    Yes, I have thought about this, and I believe there is a distinct possibility that we all share the same level of ''zero point consciousness'', when asleep. (non dream state as you suggest) You are asking the question for a reason, so do tell. What are YOUR thoughts to this?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Forgive me if you've discussed it earlier in the thread.



    Yes, it does, depending on the religion however, interested in finding middle ground.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Thus, your motivation perhaps as to why you started this thread.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    All spiritual beliefs, faiths, and religions have at best, broad definitions. (despite their respective holy books, dogmas, etc) Having healthy debates online can be fruitful, but still very limited. The only way to truly determine what others believe, is to have ongoing, in depth discussions, over time. These small bubbles of conversation can offer glimpses into how people may define their beliefs, but the bubble bursts, and it's soon forgotten, until the next thread arrives. lol And it goes without saying, that mere words can't possibly capture the essence of an individual's full belief system, thus these discussions fall slightly short of being able to determine others' views with any semblance of accuracy.

    I sure hope Pantheists remain true to themselves, and reject any notions of creating dogmas surrounding Pantheism. But, should that happen, it doesn't matter, for once you have found internal balance and peace, what happens outside of yourself doesn't affect you in quite the same way. Not to say we should be consumed with self. On the contrary, we should merely define our own struggles, and work from there. No one can define someone else's struggle, but mankind has been attempting to for centuries. It is in the internal struggle, where we will find peace...not in following another's idea of 'the struggle.'

    I could go on and on about this, but maybe another time.
     
  14. wegs With brave wings, she flies . . . Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,556
    /decided to delete
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2013
  15. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    I appreciate the attempt, Sark, but you're off-base on this one.

    From Wiki:

     
  16. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,553
    Yeah, I know what Wiki says - but you need to look at context.
    Circular reasoning is a fallacious argument - but QQ's statements were merely a statement of opinion: there was no attempt (although he could tell me I'm wrong, in which case it would be circular reasonin) to make an argument - but rather just state his opinion.

    In this case it's a matter of intent that, as I see it, determines whether it is rhetorical tautology or circular reasoning.

    But anyway, not worth getting hung up on either way.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    I agree, in either case he's not adding anything useful to the discussion. But if I may add my final two cents before you return to entertainingly dismantling everyone who gets in your way, the context of his comment was an evidentiary argument for the intelligence of the universe. He said the genome was evidence for intelligence because, basically, it works. This can be summed up as I stated it. At least, that's how I saw it.
     
  18. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,659
    yeah Sarkus as usual has missed the actual sentence in question.. cars what cars?.. oh you mean the car sentence that was used in retort to Balerions sentence..?
    Yes Balerion is much more on the ball.. and to be honest he has a strong case... I might add IMO most axioms [self evident] are close to "circular" when ever one attempts to explain them.
    I think therefor I am >><< I am therefor I think.. can be seen as circular, validation (equivalence), and also simply wrong [presumption of sequential time] depending on interpretations.

    in response to:
    However Sarkus wants to discuss cars now... so I shall defer for a moment...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Just like he wishes to discuss the evolution of human intelligence instead of universal intelligence and how it may have evolved.
    I then went n to provide a couple of thought gendankins [ thought experients ] to demonstrate my point.
    The comparison and assessment of the creators intelligence of a baby and an ET mother board on a table
    Sarkus decided to discuss procreation instead...

    The real test however is that because humans can only imitate that which influences them one could easily conclude the same for human intelligence, in that it is merely an evolved imitation of the universe's intelligence and a poor one at that.
    Studying the genome is using the genome as an object to learn from, after all, is it not?
    Getting past the "we only imitate intelligence" factor is required to neutralize this line of reasoning.
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2013
  19. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,659
    We were discussing your response to the notion of universal intelligence which then moved on to intelligent evolution. You chose to discuss product of evolution in the form of human intelligence instead of the evolutionary process. Citing that an intelligent product of evolutions is not evidence of intelligent evolution. [Which I happen to agree with but it is not on topic as universal evolution generates "non-intelligence demonstrating" organisms and rivers and landscapes and solar systems and galaxies and stars and "order" in general as well as organism capable of demonstrating intelligence etc ~ hence the suggestion of a too narrow focus]
     
  20. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,659
    So the case for evolved universal intelligence can be put using only one line of reasoning.
    Evidence of universal intelligence is able to be realized once it is accepted that we human can only imitate that which influences us. [intelligence included]


    If our intelligence is merely an imitation (reflection) then logically it can be concluded that the object/target of our imitation is intelligent.
    therefor, by force of reasoning only, the universe itself must be deemed intelligent.
    Which then brings up the notion that "Man was created in the image of God". If " imitation only" holds true then change the word God to Universe and "bingo!" we have an intelligent universe!!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    see? It aint that hard...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    A tau(n)tology perhaps......
     
  21. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,688
    QQ your approach accepts no burden of proof. You offer the zero-point "theory" as an alternative to science. You say that you will be offering no refutation to science.

    Both can't be right so it is necessary to refute science.

    You are using "evolution" in the biological sense and then trying to apply it to "universal evolution". Just call it change.

    Up above you say "...universal evolution generates 'non-intelligence demonstrating' organism and rivers and landscapes and solar systems and galaxies and stars and 'order' in general etc". You admit that there is no intelligence to be demonstrated in these "organisms" (which are not organisms of course) and yet somehow there is supposed to be universal intelligence that comes from all of this?

    You also never offer any proof and mechanism for how any of this would occur. Stating something is true doesn't make it true. Defining words to mean whatever you want them to mean doesn't work either.

    What is your motivation for this "zero-point" non-reality based line of thought? Why has it no mainstream support in your opinion?
     
  22. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,659
    It comes down to the motivation of why I produced the content.
    Firstly, science will not change or evolve with out appropriate utilization of the scientific method. A process I happen to be in full agreement with.
    Secondly, The webs site was created not as a priory statement but as a post "evidence" explanation for that which is emerging universally currently. It was used by me as a vehicle to learn how to communicate the explanations in a way that aids science to understand that evidence currently evolving in the back ground. To help those who already are forced by "weight of evidence" and fears associated to seek an explanation.

    To say on a soap box that zero point theory predicts the existence of the universal constant/gravitational forces, magnetism, universally uniform cosmic metric expansion, universal consciousness, unconsciousness, zero point energy and a whole host of other seemingly intractable issues as an outcome, that the Great attractor [astronomy] is easily explained and that most mental health issues on this planet are psycho-social [psychic] in nature would be a total waste of time.
    As most of the statements made are axiomatic and self evident they are apparently difficult to comprehend.
    It is not hard to understand how energy can be derived from the vacuum of space, with out threatening the laws of thermodynamics, for example. Yet there are ramification to such knowledge that prevent proper and thorough publication.
    No I am not...you are and so is Sarkus

    Can you create, by way of evolutionary forces a dumb rock, a planet or a star? I bet you would like to now how yes?

    so true, best then to seek qualification and certainty of judgement before shooting of at the mouth..yes?

    see above....

    The zero point is the barrier between life and death. It is central to humanities primary fears of death, possession, and hell fire and brimstone.
    It is the end of egoistic dualism and the birth of oneness with the universe.
    To die one must pass through a state of zero-ness [ego death/transformation] and we all die at some point...so fear, paranoia and timing associated is why there is no direct support.
    Evidence in support of the theory is easy to find any how, one only needs to drop the paranoia and go look at it...
    re: Attraction Paradox and how it leads to the uncertainty principle, particle spin and metastability. Easily proven in a high school lab using the scientific method.
    Evidence of zero point dysfunction due to events of 1985/86 are also easy to find : Dark flow [astronomy] is but one of them. But we really don't want to discuss those now do we..?

    Also there are other factors at play that transcend such verbal exchanges... much more serious [by many orders of magnitude] than trying to refute someone else's entrenched beliefs.
    If you wish to discuss it in greater depth by all means start another thread. I personally have given up attempting to "volunteer" it...
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2013
  23. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,659
    I am not sure that my response will be considered as on topic even though it is on topic. This thread is not about only MY ideas of God and I think I have said too much already. If you wish by all means start an appropriate non-qq focused thread and I will respond accordingly. However if you study the attached image and explore the ramifications you can get a relatively good idea...
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2013

Share This Page