God refutation

I first doubted the existense of there being any diety in 1965...I've yet to see a theist change an atheist mind or vice versa. Four pages of post on this topic here hasn't actually given me anything I haven't already read before; some interesting rearrangement of ideas yes, a pleasent sense of passion on both sides yes -- any mind changing? no.
I've given the idea of listening to the reasons people choose to believe whatever they believe or don't believe as more productive.
Maybe I should start a threat asking just that.
Lost1

Lee Strobel is an example of an atheist turned believer in God. He has written several books on the subject if you are interested.

I change my mind when I want something, and what I am doing to get it isn't working. So, I am on the look-out for some "good news," some idea that I have not thought to try, that might, just might, get me what I am looking for. Usually more love, but maybe security, or adventure, or attaboys.

Been around a while, and have encountered quite a collection of "good ideas." Ones that worked for me. so, I pass them on, fyi.

Now, God or not, the truth gets you, if you don't get it. No vitamin c on a sailing voyage, you (probably) get scurvy. God could warn you, or advise you, might even be persuaded to make you an exception of the rule. If he is out there, of course. But, until He intervenes, no C, you are at risk.

But, according to biblical theology, He has conditions for getting involved. Some might not think that this ought to be, and are so set in their opinion that the point is not open for discussion with Him. If God doesn't see things their way, they would rather not discuss the matter with Him. Never mind that, logically, they are asking God to change places with them. To let them be the right one (God, in practise), and He the one who serves their agenda.

Now, we all do have an agenda for God. I, for one, do not want Him to support illogical propositions. Nor do I want Him to butt in until invited. Perhaps you have seen the movie, "The End of the Affair,"and recall the last line: "Whoever You are, leave me alone!" I value my free will, and the fact that I have a critical say in whether of not God is involved with me.

Now, there are ways to get the truth, and many have nothing to do with God. I rather respect the fact that God will, according to biblical theology, let Himself be found by anyone respecting those rules. Thomas got to do a kitchen table experiment on Jesus, to prove Him. God (Jehovah) sets out a tithing experiment to prove Him. Will power not applied to the gathering of evidence will not produce belief. "I believe! help thou my unbelief!" will work within limits, but the choice to believe is the choice to pull your head out of the sand, and get the evidence. And the understanding. About ten minutes of scholarship in the bible will reveal that what is called prayer by 99.99% of people is no such thing. That it ever works is surprising, to me, and a little annoying. So, plants grow a little better. The proper scientist then sets out to vary the "prayer" to see which kind works best, or is most consistent with the idea that Somebody is answering. And maybe they are motivated to do the ten minutes of scholarship! They (this was done) soon discovered that some prayers, (ones that followed more closely the scriptural guidelines! Fancy that!) worked better than others. How dare God, the Judge of the universe, be so reasonable? He is God! He ought to be unlike any other person any of us ever met, putting His whole Self on the line, no matter how foolishly/arrogantly/ignorantly we ask! Maybe you can love such a person, but I would have problems. I might try to use them....

So, I focus on God-neutral ways of getting the truth, such as Bayesian, hypothetico-deductive science. Godless. Then I apply that method to the hypothesis that God is as self-described in the scriptures, and when predictions are confirmed, including predictions about what will happen when I pray, I regard that hypothesis as more plausible. I go at it as best I know how to do science and scholarship, and as the hypothesis gets plausible enough (I get faith), I apply what I have learned to healing my sick father. More or less successfully. At first, plants grow 3% faster. Later, well I have seen things good beyond hope. OK, it took years, decades. And many things i once would have "prayed" for I now know are too high for me, yet.

Arguments and discussion do not change minds. Evidence changes minds, evidence that the mind has seen for itself. Discussion creates opportunities for getting that evidence, but in the end, the choice to look remains with each person. All love is a choice, including the love of truth. Each of these posts makes the readers here freer and freer, by giving all more choices to choose among.

So, I am grateful for you all! Good on you for being here!

I wanted (and still want) to know what is real.

Years ago I came across the expression “prohibited thought”, the stuff you can’t even begin to think about. It’s the essence of delusion.

So what is real we can’t begin to think about and for which god and religions provide unsatisfactory alternatives?
I suggest crucially it’s our inability to self create, and all that implies.

Where is the evidence for self creation and personal responsibility. However robust, are such beliefs purely emotional?

Lee Strobel is an example of an atheist turned believer in God. He has written several books on the subject if you are interested.

I have read him, and came to the conclusion that he changed his own mind.

I would very much like to hear your opinions on why you found his conclusions of interest if you have the time to share them here.

At some distant point in time, due to entropy, the universe and all universes will cease to exist. Unless there is re-creation, it will be difficult to substantiate the existence of God. Of course no one will be around to observe unless sentient beings are recreated.In that case how will they know that they are recreated beings since there will be no record of previous universes. Of course, that begs the questions as to whether or not we are the first incarnation of existence or merely the most recent.

I wanted (and still want) to know what is real.

Years ago I came across the expression “prohibited thought”, the stuff you can’t even begin to think about. It’s the essence of delusion.

So what is real we can’t begin to think about and for which god and religions provide unsatisfactory alternatives?
I suggest crucially it’s our inability to self create, and all that implies.

Where is the evidence for self creation and personal responsibility. However robust, are such beliefs purely emotional?

Epistemologically, to know what is "real" theologically, you have to consider potential theological sources of "prohibited thought." For example, if you have not received "the love of the truth," God will delude you. He will show you true things, or lead you into true situations (He cannot lie), but will present these in such a way that, according to personal biases you are unaware of, will leave you with a false impression or understanding.

So, if He is real, this is what will happen, and you will probably come to the conclusion that he is not real.

If He is not real, of course, you come to the same conclusion, this time correctly.

So, you have to get to this "love of the truth," before you can know if your conclusion, "God is not real." is true.

Hence, applied epistemology is critical. You have to be "in love with" the rules for knowing what is true: how to define words, logic, the meaning of evidence, risk and probability, game theory, trustworthy authorities. Of course, there is no required level of competence, only a heart to do your best with the talents, treasure, and time you have.

Then there is the devil, who deceives, not deludes. If that potential being is ignored, but is real, again you very well might conclude that he is not real. But, this time, you get there by listening to lies. (usually, half-truths). Again, if he is not real, you hopefully reach the same conclusion, but correctly. So, ignoring the devil, you have no way of knowing whether this conclusion is true. But, there are technigues for neutralizing the devil, if he is real. They are mere precautions if he is not real, but very "real" defenses if he is real. These technigues would, of course, be the most highly recommended by the most trustworthy authorities.

The role of free will, as expressed verbally in "I choose...." statements, which is what i understand you mean by "self-create" is well established and widely used in rehabs. The most successful proceedure is to look honestly and with counsel, (a second opinion) at yourself (Socrates' "the examined life), assess the costs and benefits of various choices (count the cost, as Jesus put it), make your choice, and express it until it becomes a life-habit, unconscious, automatic.

Most choices include an emotional element. To hate adultery, say, or delight to be with a child. One thinks about what emotional response is appropriate, chooses it (above), and lets the arts flesh it out. It is good to be emotionally self conscious from time to time (not in the moment!), to choose to not let them rule the choosing process.

The statement, "I choose to be decisive." is a good place to begin. Then, "My word is my bond." gets you enough committment to see things through, as long as you are getting your word about your choices out there.

Get a Socratic mentor. The first step in loving the truth. And remember, you have to buy the truth, and you only get what you pay for. To pay, pay attention, spend time, purchase (chase after) the rules.

Groktruth,

I am not sure how to answer the question about religion and spirituality.

First of all, I regard religion as an ideational expression that is spiritual only to the extent that it expresses a conscious metaphor based on self concept enhancement, not on hypothetical survival beyond the grave. If it derives from an unconscious expression of an unexamined drive to survive, it is a physical survival metaphor, and these kind of metaphors entrap and enslave.

I think I think poetry may be regarded as spiritual--as may be music and all the fine arts. These things are spiritual because because they are investments in self concept, in surviving beyond the restraints of mortality. Metaphors that are expressions of primitive survival drive tend to be unthoughtout and often trite. Spiritual metaphors, on the other hand, are conscious investments in self concept survival and are more likely to be freeing--less bounded by coercive rules and regulations.

As to predictions: I am prepared to predict that no one will ever return from the grave mouthing absolute truths about magical encounters--that in this life you will never open your livingroom door to greet long-dead ancestors. Furthermore, I am prepared to predict that I will die and that my bodily remains will turn to dust or ashes. I also predict that if my ideas (and poetry) have sufficient value they will survive in posterity.

One final observation: If I am right that anger is always a response to a threatened self-image, to self-doubt, then I admonish everyone to invest (with all the integrity they can summon) in a strong and self-sufficient self. "Delusional"--your word, not mine, is an angry word and not a good "investment."

Groktruth and Eston
For a moment, choose an emotionality riveted on what could be real, prepared to sideline the clamouring objections of other emotionality.
Is it likely that you are author of yourself, that you gave yourself genetic inheritance and, from minus 9 months to now, your own nurturing environment. Or is it likely that you have been the subject of nurture and nature, that you have evolved.
Is it likely that “nature” has evolved over eons of environmental nurture.
Is it likely that you self determine or has your environment been complicit in what you are, and will be complicit in your future.
Is it likely you are immersed in evolution or more likely that you are an individual to the extent you are separate from everything else including evolution.
Is it likely you are a self sufficient, stand alone individual, without any need of, or have any relationship with, your environment.
Is it likely that you are an individual or merely individualised by distinguishing characteristics.
Is it likely you have identity without an environment essential to what you think you are.
Is it likely that there are dysfunctional people and families, or likely everything is perfectly functional but maybe we don’t approve of its functionality.
Is it likely there are personality disorders or that there are personality orders we don’t approve.
Is it likely that there is non cooperation or more likely there is cooperation we find objectionable.
Is it likely that the breakdown of law would produce disorder or an unknown order we may not want.
Allowing for what you do and don’t do, is it possible for you to be non influential, particularly regarding evolution.
Is it possible you are not a social engineer, though usually without the forethought implied by “engineer”.
Is it likely that man is uniquely responsible for himself.
Is it not likely that man and everything else is perfectly innocent.

You may make full use of Occam’s razor.

If this sounds aggressive, I apologise. I want to know what is real and I’m willing to admit I’m more (or less) insane.
I think we are broadly ruled by the feasible and our emotionality. If so, this will be difficult for you, as it has been for me.
I suggest that god makes the emotionally desirable (but impossible) “feasible”.

I wanted (and still want) to know what is real.

Years ago I came across the expression “prohibited thought”, the stuff you can’t even begin to think about. It’s the essence of delusion.

So what is real we can’t begin to think about and for which god and religions provide unsatisfactory alternatives?
I suggest crucially it’s our inability to self create, and all that implies.

Where is the evidence for self creation and personal responsibility. However robust, are such beliefs purely emotional?

I agree that, most likely, self-creation and personal responsibility are nil because free will is nil. However, what is certain is that an idea that the will is free exists in actuality. It cannot be ignored, and having been already thought, isn't prohibited, so that it is not in God's domain, if He were to exist. This is essentially what the idea of self-creation is, that something has come into the light of consciousness, whether it be true or false extracted from the mind, so that it enters that which can be classified as voluntary v. involuntary. It is awareness that makes it a relevant question. It is probably not as relevant as we would wish in the total scheme of life, but one can still go very deep on a narrow path, and in this way make it a significant, noticeable path, like the Great Wall of China being noticeable from space. The game of life which brings us to philosophy, is simply, what can be done in the lit realm. Beyond the light there is dark, it is the involuntary root of choice which, as you say, is the environmental, evolutionary factors. It takes a little fun out of a serious person's desire to know reality. But it does not ruin the whole game. Groktruth and Eston are heavily invested in this part tiny, tiny part of the field of life. It makes one want to even mock those who are so serious, until one realizes that one's personal investment is just as much, so long as one is still intentionally going about in conscious life.

So it helps me to think that the idea of personal responsibility is in fact two different questions: 1) Does free will exist extracted from the mind (what is real?). Which answer is probably No, and 2) How can it be manipulated within human subjectivity? Which is the emotionality factor you raise.

I guess I'm saying that I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment, except that I would like to add that there is succulent detail to the whole business of subjectivity itself, which question of free will, and all other questions one can ask, are beneath. The ultimate bottom to the concern of, what is real?, is a despair that one's emotionality isn't relevant to the grand schema, which is contradictory, since the grand schema clearly wants to be emotional. I say 'wants' metaphorically, not anthropomorphically.

I wonder, moreorlessinsane, if you would let me know whether or not you think I have added some color to the dreaded drabness of realizing that choice is not a cause, but an effect, of reality, but as such it is still a thing which gives it an importance on par with any other thing which has caused it. And whether or not you think that since everything exists in a chain as it were, the individual links are insignificant, both animate and inanimate alike. It seems to me that everything, involuntary and voluntary, has to be given the same label, in terms of our emotions towards it, so that each link is either meaningful or non-meaningful. The Occam's Razor scenario is that ultimately one will be emotional either pleasantly or unpleasantly towards the interchangeable classification of reality that one settles on, so is it more likely that one deals well with the tool of consciousness by believing one is responsible or not responsible for one's life? It all takes place with the web of consciousness, the entire either/or scenario, and oftentimes it is more shrewd to 'believe in God' than not. I see believers as snakes and devils every one, but in a way that is full of awe at the exhibition of Reality's wanting to feel good, metaphorically, sort of, because since everything exists in an environmental chain, several links in this chain have feelings, so that possibly, one could say that the whole link has feeling and is aware of itself, by extension. But the argument, the idea of evolution which has hurt our feelings of personal significance and self-creation so badly, is an argument of, a principle, extension.

I meant to answer very simply, and haven't. I meant to say that such robust arguments are purely emotional, but emotionality is as real as matter, which lifts it back up from the sin of subjectivity.

Groktruth,

I am not sure how to answer the question about religion and spirituality.

First of all, I regard religion as an ideational expression that is spiritual only to the extent that it expresses a conscious metaphor based on self concept enhancement, not on hypothetical survival beyond the grave. If it derives from an unconscious expression of an unexamined drive to survive, it is a physical survival metaphor, and these kind of metaphors entrap and enslave.

I think I think poetry may be regarded as spiritual--as may be music and all the fine arts. These things are spiritual because because they are investments in self concept, in surviving beyond the restraints of mortality. Metaphors that are expressions of primitive survival drive tend to be unthoughtout and often trite. Spiritual metaphors, on the other hand, are conscious investments in self concept survival and are more likely to be freeing--less bounded by coercive rules and regulations.

As to predictions: I am prepared to predict that no one will ever return from the grave mouthing absolute truths about magical encounters--that in this life you will never open your livingroom door to greet long-dead ancestors. Furthermore, I am prepared to predict that I will die and that my bodily remains will turn to dust or ashes. I also predict that if my ideas (and poetry) have sufficient value they will survive in posterity.

One final observation: If I am right that anger is always a response to a threatened self-image, to self-doubt, then I admonish everyone to invest (with all the integrity they can summon) in a strong and self-sufficient self. "Delusional"--your word, not mine, is an angry word and not a good "investment."

Good answer. My self-concept broadly includes body, soul, and spirit, which simply divides up my self-experience into physical, mental/emotional/mind, and intuitive/ecstatic/and conscience. These last three, I suppose, stem from a part of myself that I call "spirit," and all get their stuff from certain parts of the universe that I call heavenly or spiritual. (Which for the time being, I accept as the parts of the universe that the physicists know as dark matter, the matrix, and/or non-local.)

I agree that poetry and art are basically spiritual. Certainly they are "inspired" and inspiring.

We await the NDE experiments in progress, where persons engaged in an NDE are given printed signs up near the ceiling, that living persons walking about below cannot read. Do you accept that, if they return with a magical report of what those signs say, from, well not a grave, but death, we have evidence for "immortal souls?"


Philosophy and science have, for nearly 3000 years. worked on the problem of teasing subjective self-deception from truth-related insights. As a professional scientists, I attest they have made progress. But, I agree with you that because few carefully study this progress, the best explanation for what most people think is psychological.

Chadwhat
Color? Certainly. Thought provoking? Certainly.
I think we could agree that the “concept” of free will exists and gives rise to much else, but free will probably does not exist.
Though I may disagree with the beliefs of others, in my opinion they are involved with the progress of evolution and make no less a contribution to the future. To suppose otherwise would be arrogant and (I submit) wrong.

If you will please bear with me:
I come at this from various directions, all presently converging on an understanding that the universe is an evolving self organizing system, complete with (“miraculous”) “emergence” and without any central internal or external control. The system can be broken up and individualized (as we do in an effort to understand) as sub systems, but all the individualized parts will be integral with the whole, without exceptions and without remainders, i.e. it must all add up (and dark matter needs some explanation).
It is then true to say that no man individualized can achieve (or fail at) anything by himself, it needs the cooperation of everything else.
It is then true to say nothing individualized is insignificant to evolution and the future (according to this reality there are no links).
It is also then true to say the only individual is the incomparable entirety and that its composition is entirely cooperative.
It is also (I keep adding stuff) means that big bang or whatever initiated it is the mother and father of all cause.

This resonates with some Eastern religions, as I understand them, though I would dispute any man being given preference in a reincarnation. It’s interesting also that (inexplicable) mystical experience has some relevance.

I regard emotionality as segregated by mood, as if there are gods of emotionality that barely talk to each other. Certainly the god that insists one is an individual etc. can be exposed and exorcised, though for me it felt like certain death and is still difficult to manage.
That segregation implies that a man’s emotionality is not destroyed by thinking this stuff, and if that was death I promise you there is a resurrection.

While I “feel” responsible for myself, my thoughts, beliefs and (crucially) behaviors, I am able to have a greater objectivity regarding my environment which includes other people. I regard everything out there is inevitably as made, has intrinsic perfection and (unable to create itself) is perfectly innocent.

Life is no less vibrant for all this. There are thoroughly enjoyable crazy people, cats, dogs and squirrels. Autumn and the girls are still beautiful and yellow is still yellow.
But perhaps it becomes more challenging. I am aware that every routine behavior, everything done and not done, has significance (and not merely the “proactive”) for the future which evolves from now and every other now.

I suggest the ultimate self interest is to take great care of the (whole) environment with which we inevitably socialize and which cares for and develops us.
Perhaps the ultimate altruism is to behave in ways that develop a (OK, subjectively) better future you’ll never know.

Now I’ve (somewhat) shown my bigotry and soft underbelly.

Best wishes.

Groktruth, I am glad to know you are a scientist and would agree that we are making progress in differentiation between the truths we wish were true and the truths that actually are--though truths are still largely subjective, even (we find) in the world of science (quantum mechanics).

I don't personally find much wrong with subjective truths based on solid science--that keeps us grounded in a largely gravity-free environment!--but I do object to open-ended metaphors where individuals are free to chose the meaning that pleases them. I think the creator of any metaphor owes it to his readers to be clear about what he/she means it to mean. Burns, for instance, had a specific woman in mind when he wrote, "My love is like a red, red rose..." and I'm almost positive that Blake was thinking penis when he wrote about the "worm that flies in the night...."

All this is prefatory to my conviction that the metaphor of self mirrors the body physical. It is embued with survival drive the same way the body is. The difference is that the self's truth is metaphorical--it survives best when it feels good about itself--even as the physical body feels good about itself when it is healthy. The fact that the metaphor of self is grounded (mirrored) on the physical gives it (I think) a basis in reality.

And certainly truth (reality) is psychological. All that we perceive we perceive in the brain, and everything we perceive is a synaptic version of its physical source. Since no synaptic version is an exact recreation, it follows (in my mind) that no metaphor is true or false, just efficient or not. I like it when I reach for a plum and it is there, but the plum I dream is tasteless. It's the price we pay for being visionary humans, a price I am more than willing to pay.

So it is, miracle of miracle, that I a mere man can dream great dreams, fashion a universe made not of stick and bones but of metaphor--a universe, were I as great as William Blake, that would lighten the paths into eternity of those who follow me.

It all began, I contend, with the metaphor of self concept, a metaphor that with care and determination can be fashioned into something that just might outlive its maker. I am the god of my creation, as are--god willing--all who dare to dream dreams based upon an integrity to self that foreswears all lying unto itself.

The world was created by metaphor. Who are we to do anything less?

-- Updated Mon Oct 24, 2011 10:17 pm to add the following --

Moreorless insane, forgive me if I overuse Occam's razor and limit myself to your second postulate.

No, I am not creator of this human animal my mother names eston. The genes that she and my father formulated were products of millions of years of evolutionary trial and error, so I most definitely am not the author of myself. That being said, this does not mean that I am cast like a hayseed into a random universe.

I was born with an awareness of sellf--admittedly a hungry self endowed with a need to feed--but with a self that over time evolved into a sentient entity with the ability to choose and decide. This sentient entity--this self concept--can choose to evolve reflexively, without thought or responsibility, or it can choose to make those responsible choices that hone it into an instrument for good and personal freedom

I elect the latter, and, yes, I am determined to be the creator of this eston.

Eston,

As a scientist, I use the word model much as you, a literary person, use metaphor. Both convey that what we deal with is only an approximation of what "is."

And, where you would speak of experience, I would say "data." The efficient metaphors/models are kept around.

We will otherwise have to wait for the results of the NDE experiments. My "model" of a dark matter symbiont libing with my primate body, interacting with other free living dark matter living beings, still is working out for me, in fairly tangible, psychologically important, but beyond psychological ways. Same with bible code research. But, unlike research on chemistry, say, which doesn't care what you find out about it, this research has a personal connection. Some pretty girls, I have found, will let you "research" them, with "real" results. But they do not allow others, or the public, to get the evidence.

So, you have to go at it with "honorable intentions."

Note too that real is a word made up a prefix, re-, and a suffix, -al. The implication is inductive, a repetition of what has been. Truth, on the other hand, would include the future as well as the past. (ruth means compassion, and truth is often used to describe a commitment for the future that one caringly intends to keep. As well, of course, as a honest report of the past.) So, truth is deductive, where one correctly predicts the future based on one's model or metaphor. "The best explanation..." so often offered in science is in fact barely a first step in the scientific method. Good theories are defended on the basis of their predicitve powers, not their reasonableness.

Eston

I don’t doubt your sincerity and integrity.

To this mind evolution is a process of mutual development. In the extreme you and your environment are all there is, together you are the universe. It nurtures you and you nurture it. Neither has responsibility for whatever it is.
You can slice (or individualize) this any way you want, anything individualized (in what I believe to be a perfectly cooperative system) is nurturing environment to the remainder.
A corpse needs an environment in which to rot. So perhaps there’s the meaning of death, a reuniting with the entirety that, but for an emotional awareness, I never left.

Your intention to “hone it [yourself] into an instrument for good” means to me that you intellectually challenge your emotionality. Though my beliefs would say everything is coequal, I applaud that. Except that it must somehow evolve, I suspect the emotional imperative can only be tamed by the intellect.
Does god, in part, give freedom to a more raw emotionality?

Perhaps perversely there seems to be freedom in accepting absolute obedience to evolution. At least I feel no less free.
OK, maybe this mind doubts its own construct … which would be no bad thing. It is only belief and the search for reality goes on.

...and I'm almost positive that Blake was thinking penis when he wrote about the "worm that flies in the night...."

O Rose thou art sick.
The invisible worm,
That flies in the night
In the howling storm:

Has found out thy bed
Of crimson joy:
And his dark secret love
Does thy life destroy.

How do you get 'penis' from this poem Freud??
The worm is a reference to death or the bringers of death. It is in the context of religious piety and how love/sex was/is made out to be viewed as evil by religious leaders. They made/make it seem as if sex isn't apart of God's plan for life. Blake uses the 'worm' reference in a few of his poems, and none are related to a phallic symbol. If you can't see the poem for what it is, tell me, I'll break it down line for line.

Sartre also uses the reference of a worm at the end of Chapter one (The Origin of Negation) part IV of 'Being and Nothingness', in the same context as Blake intended:
"Nothingness lies coiled in the heart of being- like a worm."

Because the notion of non existence can only be present in something which existed... this is complicated as hell, but simple to understand once you get past the wording. I'll lay this out as well if you want, but I think you're better off hearing it from Sarte's book. You only have to read to page 56 (and the intro; you can't skip that unless you're familiar with Heiddeger and Husserl) but it's tedious. Read it anyway.

Also, don't think I'm singling you out. Anyone who speaks of Blake here at this forum usually hears my two-sense on the subject, as my prior post show.