Where Did 'God' Come From?

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
Post Reply
NukeBan
Posts: 144
Joined: April 20th, 2020, 6:24 pm

Re: Where Did 'God' Come From?

Post by NukeBan »

why do you propose 'thought' comes with a "built in" bias for division?
Because that's how thought operates, by dividing the real world in to conceptual objects.

And then we can re-arrange the conceptual objects in our minds, allowing us to create visions of reality that don't yet exist. That is, we can be creative.
Thought can be of absolutely any thing. Thought does not have to be about 'Me' being separated at all.
Thought can have a theory about not being separated, that's true. But there will still be the "me" (a divisive conceptual object) who has the theory. And so the dance between "my theory" and "your theory" begins.
But once one discovers, sees, and understands, thus KNOWS how the division was made apparent, and how there is actually only One, then one is also KNOWN is thought is not inherently divisive.
Sadly, understanding and knowing is a weak stew, which is why we philosophers are just as nutty as everyone else, if not more so.
evolution
Posts: 957
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: Where Did 'God' Come From?

Post by evolution »

NukeBan wrote: May 5th, 2020, 7:25 am
Thomyum2 wrote: May 4th, 2020, 6:41 pmKeep in mind that all truths arrived at empirically or logically are based on the acceptance of the reality of an observation or the truth of a premise - they are not true independent of those. So whether we rely on faith, or empirical observations, or on valid reasoning based on premises - all three of these require an assumption or an acceptance of a truth to start with.
Could we simplify the above to say all positions on the topic of God are built of faith?
You two could say that. But that would not be the actual Truth of things.

I suggest when discussing things that what is said is ONLY thee Truth. That is; the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but thee Truth, only. That way discovering, learning, seeing, and understanding what thee actual Truth IS, is just a very simple and very easy process, done very quickly.

Why I say what you propose here is not thee actual Truth of things is because some positions on the topic of God are built on KNOWING, which obviously could be shown and proven with evidence.

But obviously this could NEVER happen to those who BELIEVE otherwise.
NukeBan wrote: May 5th, 2020, 7:25 am Faith in personal experience, faith in religious authority, faith in the infinite scope of human reason. Isn't any position, conclusion or theory on this topic built upon a foundation of faith in chosen authorities whose qualifications for this particular investigation can not be proven?

Personal experience, religious authority and human reason all have proven themselves useful in various ways in our daily lives at human scale. It seems most folks on every side are making an unwarranted leap from that fact to an assumption that such authorities are therefore also useful, credible and qualified at the very largest of scales, such as in the God question.

If one is comfortable with faith and huge unproven assumptions, then ok, case closed, have a good day and enjoy your life. But, the realm of philosophy does not look kindly upon faith and huge unproven assumptions, so what approach can the philosopher take?

One approach can be to return to observation of reality. What can it tell us?

One thing we might notice is that which we call "things" make up the tiniest fraction of the observable universe, whereas that which we call "nothing" makes up the overwhelming vast majority. So, that which we call "nothing" would seem to be a very big deal.
Who says; "That which we call "nothing" makes up the overwhelming vast majority?

Also, if some thing, which some call "nothing" that supposedly "makes up the overwhelming vast majority", then why would that "seem to be a very big deal".

Some people, for example, seem to think their brand new motor vehicle is a "very big deal", while to them the "overwhelming vast majority" is not that much of a big deal at all.
NukeBan wrote: May 5th, 2020, 7:25 am If we re-examine the God question, we may see that all points of view are attempting to make God in to a "thing". Religious people will say, God is this, God is that, God has these properties, and so on. Atheist people will say that God doesn't exist, that is, God is a proposed thing which doesn't actually exist, just as there is no pencil on my desk.
When you say, "re-examine the God question", what question is that exactly? Is that the question of this thread topic, or did you have another one?
NukeBan wrote: May 5th, 2020, 7:25 am What if we drop this insistence that God must be a thing? What if reality is trying to tell us that what we call nothing is the main show, and that things are just tiny little details?
What is this "nothing" exactly, which you allege is the "overwhelming vast majority" and which you are referring to here?
NukeBan wrote: May 5th, 2020, 7:25 am From this perspective we could ask, what is the state of mind that is most aligned with reality? And from this perspective the answer would seem to be, an empty mind, a mind largely free of conceptual things.
One could go down that path, if they so chose to.

But let us look at this again and follow the steps:
1. If reality can really talk to us,
2 Then what if reality is trying to tell us that what we call "nothing" is the main show?
3. And, all the things that we do actually see and hear, however, are just tiny little details.
4. For some reason we now ask; "What is the state of mind that is most aligned with reality?
5. And the answer is said to be that it would seem to be; "An empty mind is the most aligned state of mind of reality".

Following on from this;
1. This is all based on the premise reality can talk and is trying to tell us some thing.
2. What if reality is not trying to tell us any such thing at all, or even trying to tell us anything at all? What happens if one has worked out how to just listen to what is actually being told to us?
3. I would suggest that if one can see things and no things, then both are just as important as each other. In fact, could the show go on if there was ONLY "nothing". There only exists a part ("overwhelming vast majority"??) of "nothing" because there are some things, and vice-verse some things only exist because there is a part made of nothing. The two co-existing together is the main show. There obviously could not be any show at all if there was only just no thing or either just one thing.
4. Why do we ask this question? It sounds, to me, like this is a leading question looking specifically with an answer, which would confirm our already held belief or assumption.
5. Obviously a "state of mind" most aligned with a so called "reality" of "nothing" would be an "empty mind". The two do go together. But what is an "empty mind" if nothing at all really, anyway?

Also, are you aware that "a mind largely free of conceptual things' is NOT "an empty mind" at all?
NukeBan wrote: May 5th, 2020, 7:25 amOnce liberated from our thoughts about reality, we are then free to observe reality far more closely. This might be compared to turning down the volume of the TV so we can devote our full attention to what our friend is saying.
Okay, this sounds like a process, but how do you arrive at the "nothing" and "empty mind" conclusion?
NukeBan wrote: May 5th, 2020, 7:25 am To the degree the above is true, philosophy is useful in getting us to this point. And then it becomes more obstacle than asset.
What does 'philosophy' mean to you, and how was that useful to getting you to the point about "nothing" and "empty mind"?

Also, what is the purpose of discovering or learning this? What does this actually achieve afterwards?
NukeBan wrote: May 5th, 2020, 7:25 am
This may be a key reason why philosophers are eternally confused and conflicted about God. Philosophers, including this one, may like philosophy too much, a form of bias which may interfere with the investigation. We may care more about the tool being used than the actual investigation. Maybe we're only willing to follow the investigation trail as far as philosophy can take us, and then we turn back, and return to the tiny realm of things.
Any human being will and can only go so far as their own beliefs and assumptions about what is true and right. Obviously NO human being is going to investigate any thing further than what they already assume and/or believe is true and right already.
NukeBan
Posts: 144
Joined: April 20th, 2020, 6:24 pm

Re: Where Did 'God' Come From?

Post by NukeBan »

because some positions on the topic of God are built on KNOWING, which obviously could be shown and proven with evidence.
Ok, so please proceed to do so.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Where Did 'God' Come From?

Post by Sculptor1 »

evolution wrote: May 5th, 2020, 6:27 am

So, 'God' would have to be the Creator. But I am not defining the word 'God' here. LOL
How convenient for you.
SO you want me to argue against a thing that you find impossible to define.
You are 'aving a bleedin' laff mate.

LOL
Go ahead.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Where Did 'God' Come From?

Post by Sculptor1 »

evolution wrote: May 5th, 2020, 6:35 amFINALLY. CLARIFICATION.

To me;
'God', in the visible sense, is the Universe, Its Self.

'God', in the invisible sense, is the Mind, Its Self.

I think you will find that the first one was here prior to human beings. Where the second one we will have to wait and see.
So what do you mean "god"?
You are talking nonsense.
User avatar
Thomyum2
Posts: 366
Joined: June 10th, 2019, 4:21 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Robert Pirsig + William James

Re: Where Did 'God' Come From?

Post by Thomyum2 »

NukeBan wrote: May 4th, 2020, 8:00 pm Thanks for your engagement Thomyum2, enjoying it.

Likewise, me too! :)

NukeBan wrote: May 4th, 2020, 8:00 pm
Thomyum2 wrote: May 4th, 2020, 1:30 pmI think I see what you’re getting at, but I’m not sure that I understand or would agree that it is ‘thought’ that divides us.

Ok, fair enough, so let's explore it together.

I would agree that there is certainly division at the level of the content of thought, as can be quickly seen on any philosophy forum. I would also agree that philosophy can be useful in undermining some of the more divisive and dangerous ideologies, Nazism for example.
I see thought, like the language of which it consists, to be just a tool, and a useful one – it’s thought and the expression of ideas that set us apart from animals and from which all of the great works of civilization –
First, thought is more than just a tool, it is what we are made of psychologically. Thus, whatever the pros and cons of thought may be, they will have a profound influence. We don't just use thought, we are thought.

Next, yes thought is clearly a useful tool, agree of course. But it comes with a big price tag, a built in bias for division.

Thought divides reality in to conceptual parts, which allows us to rearrange the parts in our minds to create new visions of reality, to be creative, our genius.

Thought divides "me" from "everything else", with "me" being very very small and "everything else" being very very big. This division gives rise to fear, which in turn is the source of most human problems. As example, I need to connect my tiny little "me" with something bigger than myself, like an ideological group for example, and then I need to defend that ideology, because it's what's keeping me from feeling so very small and vulnerable.

So on the surface it seems the ideology is the problem, or my ego attachment to it, and that's all true But underneath these symptoms is the process which created the sense that I am divided from everything else.
But as I see it, thought - like any other man-made tool - can be used for both good and ill. Rather, I’d say that what divides us is not thought, but the attachment to particular thoughts, or as some have said, the identification of the ego with thought.
Well, to quibble a bit, thought is not a man made tool, but a creation of evolution.

You make good points about the ego's attachment to particular thoughts, agreed. I'm just asking you to consider, what created the ego? What created this experience that all of reality is divided between "me" and "everything else"? My reply would be, the inherently divisive nature of thought, the medium itself.
When this happens, we treat particular ideas and thoughts like a territory that needs to be defended, and falsely view the thoughts of groups that are different from us as a threat to our own cultures and values, our 'way of life', and ultimately our very selves. Isn't this what really drives division?
Yes, what you describe is obviously very real. I'm not disputing your point, but instead arguing the phenomena you describe is a surface level operation, a symptom of the nature of thought.
Wow, OK, a lot to think about here. These are existential questions really; where to start?

We are thought? I don’t feel so sure about that - I think that’s what I was getting at earlier when I said that it’s not only the ego’s attachment to thoughts that causes division, but its identification with them. I think it may be a false notion to confuse our thoughts with our identity, with our self. Maybe our ‘sense of identity’? But then doesn’t this lead to a much larger question – what (or who) in fact, are we? I’m not sure I’m quite prepared to tackle that one here!

After that, I’m with you up to the point where you say that the division that is an integral part of thought gives rise to fear, but I don’t think it then follows that this that it is therefore source of human problems. I think rather we create our problems by how we choose to react to that fear. Thought, and fear that it may produce, may make up the playing field on which we find ourselves or the hand we’re dealt, but don’t determine how we play the game.

Interestingly, I’ve just been reading Kierkegaard’s The Concept of Anxiety and your questions bring it very much to my mind – what you’re describing here sounds much like what he’s calling anxiety, which is a product of our ability to see possibilities, and the ‘dizziness’ that comes along with our experience of freedom. I can’t do justice to his ideas, but of course in the context of a thread on God and faith, and as relates to Kierkegaard’s writing too, this leads inevitably into the idea of sin, which is another whole discussion in and of itself. But briefly, if possible, I’d just point out that in the perspective of the Christian tradition it's certainly sin that is responsible for all of the ills of the world, and the notion of sin itself is one that has its roots in division: that of separation from God and from our nature as created in His image. But that is a division that has come out of our own choices and actions, not one that was an inevitable consequence of the experiencing of fear through thought.

So to your last question, yes, perhaps the medium of thought, by virtue of the fact that it enables us to imagine possibilities, may create that experience of feeling divided, but we are the ones who take that step out and actualize it by how we choose to put it to use.
“We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.”
— Epictetus
NukeBan
Posts: 144
Joined: April 20th, 2020, 6:24 pm

Re: Where Did 'God' Come From?

Post by NukeBan »

We are thought? I don’t feel so sure about that -
I just mean psychologically, the "me" is made of thought. I'm not ruling out deeper forms of identity such as a soul etc.
I think that’s what I was getting at earlier when I said that it’s not only the ego’s attachment to thoughts that causes division, but its identification with them.
Yes, but where did the "me" come from? I think you're talking about what the "me" does once in existence. I'm arguing the "me" is just another conceptual object created by the divisive nature of thought.

As example, consider the noun "tree", or any noun. Conceptually "tree" is divided from "not tree" in a neat and tidy manner. But in the real world "tree" is intimately connected to many other phenomena which it depends on for it's existence. Point being, in creating the noun "tree" thought has artificially generated a level of division that doesn't exist in the real world, because that is thought's job.

My argument is that religion arises directly out of the divisive nature of thought, from the way it works. Thought creates an experience of separation from reality, which we then attempt to heal through various methods of "getting back to God", that is, re-establishing the primal bond with reality/nature that existed before the emergence and then dominance of thought in the human experience.

Religions typically try to think their way out of the separation, thus feeding the very thing causing the experience of separation. And when that doesn't work, sometimes religions become frantic and attempt to make their ideas stronger and more permanent with dogmatic doctrines enforced with violence etc. And that doesn't work either, because the problem does not arise at the level of the content of thought, and thus can not be solved at that level.

This is all abundantly clear to me, but I could probably use help in finding a wider variety of ways of expressing it. I tend to repeat the same language over and over because it works for me, but that doesn't automatically equal it being useful language for others.
But then doesn’t this lead to a much larger question – what (or who) in fact, are we? I’m not sure I’m quite prepared to tackle that one here!
Yes, I can't answer that either in an ultimate existential manner. I'm just talking about daily human life. As I sit here typing this, the "me" who is typing is a pile of thought.
After that, I’m with you up to the point where you say that the division that is an integral part of thought gives rise to fear, but I don’t think it then follows that this that it is therefore source of human problems.
Fear is a source of many human problems, but obviously not the cause of hurricanes and pandemics etc.
I think rather we create our problems by how we choose to react to that fear. Thought, and fear that it may produce, may make up the playing field on which we find ourselves or the hand we’re dealt, but don’t determine how we play the game.
Ok, fair enough. But no where in history as any person or society played the game successfully. Division and conflict is epidemic, both personally and socially.

My argument is that if the problem could be solved at the level of the content of thought, by agreeing to some collection of ideas, there would be some society somewhere living in real peace. But that's not what we see. What we see instead is that conflict within and between minds is a universal phenomena in all times and places. Point being, the playing field (thought itself) is very influential.
But briefly, if possible, I’d just point out that in the perspective of the Christian tradition it's certainly sin that is responsible for all of the ills of the world, and the notion of sin itself is one that has its roots in division: that of separation from God and from our nature as created in His image.
Yes, sin is another word for division, separation, I like that. My argument is that the sense of separation from God (or nature for the atheists) is an illusion generated by the divisive nature of thought. It's actually not possible to be separated from God (or nature) but it's surely possible to FEEL separated.

So as I see religion, it's not a process of getting back to God, but various methodologies for overcoming the illusion that we are separated. This theory obviously has big implications for Christianity, as in this theory no one needs to be "saved" except during our brief existence within human minds. And it's not really possible to be fully "saved" in this existence, as we need thought to function and survive, so it's divisive influence will always be part of the picture.
So to your last question, yes, perhaps the medium of thought, by virtue of the fact that it enables us to imagine possibilities, may create that experience of feeling divided, but we are the ones who take that step out and actualize it by how we choose to put it to use.
Well, to be further argumentative :-) then show us the people and societies we have made the right choice and now live in peace both internally and externally.

Good topic! Thanks for engaging.
NukeBan
Posts: 144
Joined: April 20th, 2020, 6:24 pm

Re: Where Did 'God' Come From?

Post by NukeBan »

To my knowledge, every ideology in human history has inevitably sub-divided in to competing internal factions.

If this happened only to particular ideologies, we might reasonably blame the divisions and resulting conflicts on weaknesses in those particular ideologies.

But when the divisions and conflicts happen in every ideology, don't we have to look deeper for some factor which all ideologies have in common? And wouldn't thought itself be a prime suspect? What else do all ideologies have in common?
User avatar
Thomyum2
Posts: 366
Joined: June 10th, 2019, 4:21 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Robert Pirsig + William James

Re: Where Did 'God' Come From?

Post by Thomyum2 »

evolution wrote: May 5th, 2020, 7:08 am
Thomyum2 wrote: May 4th, 2020, 6:41 pm Yes, this is what we do. We speak not only about things we have in common, but we also speak about experiences which belong to us alone. Like Wittgenstein's 'beetle in a box', we can all talk about our beetle, but if we cannot see into each others' box, we cannot know whether or not our beetles are the same - language cannot capture that.
But we can see into each other's box. This is an extremely very simple and very easy thing to do. This is; once one discovers or learns and knows how to. And, in fact, it is through language, itself, how what is seen is understood or captured.

When people usually say some thing like; "this cannot be done". The Truth usually is the case that it can in fact usually be done very simply and very easily.

Just like about absolutely every thing that was once thought of as being impossible, once when it is achieved and/or is being done, then what is found is it can be done - and usually very simply and very easily as well. All that is needed is the know-how of how to achieve and/or do it.
Thomyum2 wrote: May 4th, 2020, 6:41 pm This is often discussed in the context of pain - we use the word 'pain' to refer to a general class of experiences we all have, and I can use a simile to try to approximate it for you, e.g. 'it hurts like a bee sting' or 'I feel sort of like I've been punched in the stomach', and that way if you've been stung by a bee or punched in the stomach, you may be able to come close to imagining how I feel, but you can never know for sure how I feel because that experience is mine alone, and there are no words in language that will let me give it to you.
But you did just give 'it' to me, and through words in language in fact.

By the way, people, themselves, hardly ever knows for sure how they, them self, feels at any given moment. But this does not stop us from seeing into our own box nor seeing into other's boxes.

See there is very simple and very easy way to see into other's boxes. Once that way is learned, then fully understanding how to gain True empathy is obtained.
We can get close to an understanding of what is in the other's box, but we cannot not 'see' into it - that is Wittgenstein's point. It's true that through language and discovery of other mutually shared experiences, and with time and patience and effort, we can grow in our understanding and develop that empathy. But we can't verify it. For example, if you go to the doctor and say you have a fever, they can take your temperature and confirm if that is the case or not. But if you tell them you feel pain, they can look for a cause of pain, but there is no way to verify or measure the patient's actual pain. (This actually poses a significant problem for doctors because they can't determine if the patient is saying this because of actual pain or because they have an addiction to the pain medication.) So you say I did just give 'it' to you, but how do you know that I was being truthful? Ronald Reagan famously said that in relationships between nations we should 'trust but verify'. But what if we cannot verify? So this follows well into the next question...
evolution wrote: May 5th, 2020, 7:08 am
Thomyum2 wrote: May 4th, 2020, 6:41 pm
Well, God to me is not revealed empirically or by logic, but through faith.
Faith is not needed once FULL understanding is gained.
...that faith is in fact needed before understanding can be gained. As I've said earlier, faith is an act of trust, and you do need to be able to trust what I say in order to be able to know that what I tell you in language is true - in other words, to have faith in me. In the Catholic catechism, understanding and knowledge are listed among the 'gifts of the Holy Spirit' - knowledge of God follows from trust, or faith, in God. God is not (and I would argue cannot be, else He would not be God) subject to verification. But faith can be in other things besides God - we can have faith in people, in sources of information, in what our senses tell us, etc. And knowledge follows from these.

evolution wrote: May 5th, 2020, 7:08 am
Thomyum2 wrote: May 4th, 2020, 6:41 pm Keep in mind that all truths arrived at empirically or logically are based on the acceptance of the reality of an observation or the truth of a premise - they are not true independent of those.
But this is the whole point of gaining the FULL understanding of Truth, Reality, God, et cetera. They are by definition a Truly independent thing.

But there is a lot that needs to be explained further and to be understood before this can be clearly seen and Truly understood.
Yes, agreed, a lot more that needs to be said, so I'll skip ahead a bit for now.

evolution wrote: May 5th, 2020, 7:08 am
Thomyum2 wrote: May 4th, 2020, 6:41 pm Which is why I say that the experience of God can be discussed or expressed in language - but not shown to be right or wrong.
Correct me if I am wrong here, but this is just an assumption you are making, based solely on your own past personal experiences, and which you are building upon further and further, because as of now you have not seen nor experienced anything that shows you otherwise, correct?

Also, just discussing one's own personal experience of God does not really achieve any thing, unless of course there is a goal oriented discussion, which that experience expressed with the people in the discussion would be helpful in achieving the agreed upon and accepted goal to be reached.

If it is not, then some people might just believe that that one is just pushing their own beliefs onto others. And we all know how those discussions end up.
Absolutely not trying to push my beliefs on others and if it ever comes across that way, it was unintended. I fully understand that these are personal choices that everyone needs to make freely and on their own terms, and to be respected for that.
evolution wrote: May 5th, 2020, 7:08 am
Thomyum2 wrote: May 4th, 2020, 6:41 pm An act of faith is one of trust not of belief; it is a choice that plays out in how we choose to live and relate to other, not in what we think or decide to 'believe' - it is an important distinction. Having faith is not merely believing that something is true or false.
Yes I am aware of this as well.

Just out of curiosity what were you assuming I was saying and/or meaning?
My comment here was prompted by your saying "I suggest if any one wants to claim some thing is true, then they have at least something to back up and support this claim BEFORE they make the claim. Otherwise all they are doing is just expressing a form of belief, which they believe is true, based on nothing at all." So I wanted to emphasize that there may be claims which are based on faith (i.e. one may say that something is true because of their underlying faith) and if it something that is not verifiable, as per my discussion above, that is not the same as being 'based on nothing at all'. So it may have been a misunderstanding of what you said on my part if that wasn't what you meant.
“We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.”
— Epictetus
evolution
Posts: 957
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: Where Did 'God' Come From?

Post by evolution »

Sculptor1 wrote: May 5th, 2020, 11:41 am
evolution wrote: May 5th, 2020, 6:27 am

So, 'God' would have to be the Creator. But I am not defining the word 'God' here. LOL
How convenient for you.
SO you want me to argue against a thing that you find impossible to define.
What do you mean by, "you find impossible to define"?

I actually find defining 'God' an extremely simple and very easy thing to indeed. As has already been proven.
Sculptor1 wrote: May 5th, 2020, 11:41 am You are 'aving a bleedin' laff mate.

LOL
Go ahead.
evolution
Posts: 957
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: Where Did 'God' Come From?

Post by evolution »

Sculptor1 wrote: May 5th, 2020, 11:42 am
evolution wrote: May 5th, 2020, 6:35 amFINALLY. CLARIFICATION.

To me;
'God', in the visible sense, is the Universe, Its Self.

'God', in the invisible sense, is the Mind, Its Self.

I think you will find that the first one was here prior to human beings. Where the second one we will have to wait and see.
So what do you mean "god"?
You are talking nonsense.
I do not mean anything with the "god" (little 'g') word.

I already clarified what I mean. I did this providing definitions for what I mean.

If this is nonsense to you, then so be it. It makes a lot of sense to me. But then again I do see things very differently than you do.
evolution
Posts: 957
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: Where Did 'God' Come From?

Post by evolution »

Thomyum2 wrote: May 6th, 2020, 11:30 am
evolution wrote: May 5th, 2020, 7:08 am
But we can see into each other's box. This is an extremely very simple and very easy thing to do. This is; once one discovers or learns and knows how to. And, in fact, it is through language, itself, how what is seen is understood or captured.

When people usually say some thing like; "this cannot be done". The Truth usually is the case that it can in fact usually be done very simply and very easily.

Just like about absolutely every thing that was once thought of as being impossible, once when it is achieved and/or is being done, then what is found is it can be done - and usually very simply and very easily as well. All that is needed is the know-how of how to achieve and/or do it.



But you did just give 'it' to me, and through words in language in fact.

By the way, people, themselves, hardly ever knows for sure how they, them self, feels at any given moment. But this does not stop us from seeing into our own box nor seeing into other's boxes.

See there is very simple and very easy way to see into other's boxes. Once that way is learned, then fully understanding how to gain True empathy is obtained.
We can get close to an understanding of what is in the other's box, but we cannot not 'see' into it - that is Wittgenstein's point.
Does using another person's [wittgensteins'] point, somewhat contradict the notion that we cannot 'see' into another's box?

If you want to use another's point to say or prove something, then that in and of itself could be proof that you have just 'seen' into another's box.

I say we can, and thus are able to, 'see' into 'another's box', (by the way I have never read the words "other's box" so I am just using these words as meaning 'another person them self') and that this is a very simple and easy thing to do. If anyone is interested, then I am more than willing to share.
Thomyum2 wrote: May 6th, 2020, 11:30 am It's true that through language and discovery of other mutually shared experiences, and with time and patience and effort, we can grow in our understanding and develop that empathy. But we can't verify it. For example, if you go to the doctor and say you have a fever, they can take your temperature and confirm if that is the case or not. But if you tell them you feel pain, they can look for a cause of pain, but there is no way to verify or measure the patient's actual pain.
Is the patient not capable of explaining the pain, on a measured scale?

Of course there is no real way to verify if another person is lying to you or not in absolutely every thing. But some people do not even recognize nor know when they are lying to them own selves sometimes.
Thomyum2 wrote: May 6th, 2020, 11:30 am (This actually poses a significant problem for doctors because they can't determine if the patient is saying this because of actual pain or because they have an addiction to the pain medication.) So you say I did just give 'it' to you, but how do you know that I was being truthful? Ronald Reagan famously said that in relationships between nations we should 'trust but verify'. But what if we cannot verify? So this follows well into the next question...
But unless a person has had first hand experience them self, then they have no real way of being able to verify just about anything someone else says.
Thomyum2 wrote: May 6th, 2020, 11:30 am
evolution wrote: May 5th, 2020, 7:08 am


Faith is not needed once FULL understanding is gained.
...that faith is in fact needed before understanding can be gained. As I've said earlier, faith is an act of trust, and you do need to be able to trust what I say in order to be able to know that what I tell you in language is true - in other words, to have faith in me.
I think I am completely misunderstanding what you are saying and meaning when you use the word 'faith'. How do you define the word 'faith' here?

If you tell me something in language, then either I know it is true or I do not know it is true. There is no faith nor trust in nor of you needed on my part.
Thomyum2 wrote: May 6th, 2020, 11:30 am In the Catholic catechism, understanding and knowledge are listed among the 'gifts of the Holy Spirit' - knowledge of God follows from trust, or faith, in God. God is not (and I would argue cannot be, else He would not be God) subject to verification.
To me, God was not even a thing. That was; until I came to understand what the word 'God' was referring to EXACTLY, which, when looked at from a particular perspective, fitted in with what all these stories and religions were meaning and have been 'trying to' say and explain for all of these years now. Therefore, 'God, well for me anyway, had to be verified before I would accept It as some thing.
Thomyum2 wrote: May 6th, 2020, 11:30 am But faith can be in other things besides God - we can have faith in people, in sources of information, in what our senses tell us, etc. And knowledge follows from these.
To me, the only thing I have faith in is thee True Self and Its abilities to accomplish or achieve what It sets out to do. And, the only source of information that is worth listening to, for me, is thee Truth, and this certainly does not need to have faith in, as thee Truth speaks for Itself.

Thomyum2 wrote: May 6th, 2020, 11:30 am
evolution wrote: May 5th, 2020, 7:08 am


But this is the whole point of gaining the FULL understanding of Truth, Reality, God, et cetera. They are by definition a Truly independent thing.

But there is a lot that needs to be explained further and to be understood before this can be clearly seen and Truly understood.
Yes, agreed, a lot more that needs to be said, so I'll skip ahead a bit for now.


Absolutely not trying to push my beliefs on others and if it ever comes across that way, it was unintended.
No, you certainly never come across that way at all here.
Thomyum2 wrote: May 6th, 2020, 11:30 am I fully understand that these are personal choices that everyone needs to make freely and on their own terms, and to be respected for that.
I am just saying that if any discussion where a goal is not being sort by all in the discussion, then bringing up one's own beliefs or assumptions about some thing being true or not, then can turn people off the discussion, or the speaker/writer.
Thomyum2 wrote: May 6th, 2020, 11:30 am

My comment here was prompted by your saying "I suggest if any one wants to claim some thing is true, then they have at least something to back up and support this claim BEFORE they make the claim. Otherwise all they are doing is just expressing a form of belief, which they believe is true, based on nothing at all." So I wanted to emphasize that there may be claims which are based on faith (i.e. one may say that something is true because of their underlying faith) and if it something that is not verifiable, as per my discussion above, that is not the same as being 'based on nothing at all'.
To me, absolutely any claim at all that cannot be backed up and supported with at least some thing as evidence and/or, preferably, proof for their claim, then it would not matter if that claim is based on 'faith' alone, to me that is still nothing actually at all.

If basing one's claims on faith alone was seen as verifiably worthy, then we could also say that just because someone believes some thing to be true, then this is worthy also. I do not hold the view that just because someone believes or assumes some thing to be true, or just because they have faith in some thing being true, then that alone is sufficient. I will just remain OPEN until things are verified to me of either being true, partly true, or false, and even thing I will still remain OPEN.
Thomyum2 wrote: May 6th, 2020, 11:30 am So it may have been a misunderstanding of what you said on my part if that wasn't what you meant.
I meant, if any one wants to claim some thing is true, then I suggest that they have at least some thing to back up and support their claim BEFORE they make the claim. This means that if they then want to make the claim that their 'faith' backs up and supports their claim, then I suggest that they have at least some thing, which backs up and supports this now new claim. 'Faith' itself is obviously NOT 'nothing at all'. But, to me, to make a claim based on faith alone, might as well be 'nothing at all', from the perspective of another.

By the way 'God' is absolutely verifiable, which will be proven soon enough.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Where Did 'God' Come From?

Post by Sculptor1 »

evolution wrote: May 7th, 2020, 6:29 am
Sculptor1 wrote: May 5th, 2020, 11:42 am

So what do you mean "god"?
You are talking nonsense.
I do not mean anything with the "god" (little 'g') word.

I already clarified what I mean. I did this providing definitions for what I mean.

If this is nonsense to you, then so be it. It makes a lot of sense to me. But then again I do see things very differently than you do.
You mean God, you mean a person. LOL.
User avatar
Thomyum2
Posts: 366
Joined: June 10th, 2019, 4:21 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Robert Pirsig + William James

Re: Where Did 'God' Come From?

Post by Thomyum2 »

NukeBan wrote: May 5th, 2020, 7:25 am
Thomyum2 wrote: May 4th, 2020, 6:41 pmKeep in mind that all truths arrived at empirically or logically are based on the acceptance of the reality of an observation or the truth of a premise - they are not true independent of those. So whether we rely on faith, or empirical observations, or on valid reasoning based on premises - all three of these require an assumption or an acceptance of a truth to start with.
Could we simplify the above to say all positions on the topic of God are built of faith? Faith in personal experience, faith in religious authority, faith in the infinite scope of human reason. Isn't any position, conclusion or theory on this topic built upon a foundation of faith in chosen authorities whose qualifications for this particular investigation can not be proven?

Personal experience, religious authority and human reason all have proven themselves useful in various ways in our daily lives at human scale. It seems most folks on every side are making an unwarranted leap from that fact to an assumption that such authorities are therefore also useful, credible and qualified at the very largest of scales, such as in the God question.

If one is comfortable with faith and huge unproven assumptions, then ok, case closed, have a good day and enjoy your life. But, the realm of philosophy does not look kindly upon faith and huge unproven assumptions, so what approach can the philosopher take?

One approach can be to return to observation of reality. What can it tell us?

One thing we might notice is that which we call "things" make up the tiniest fraction of the observable universe, whereas that which we call "nothing" makes up the overwhelming vast majority. So, that which we call "nothing" would seem to be a very big deal.

If we re-examine the God question, we may see that all points of view are attempting to make God in to a "thing". Religious people will say, God is this, God is that, God has these properties, and so on. Atheist people will say that God doesn't exist, that is, God is a proposed thing which doesn't actually exist, just as there is no pencil on my desk.

What if we drop this insistence that God must be a thing? What if reality is trying to tell us that what we call nothing is the main show, and that things are just tiny little details?

From this perspective we could ask, what is the state of mind that is most aligned with reality? And from this perspective the answer would seem to be, an empty mind, a mind largely free of conceptual things.

Once liberated from our thoughts about reality, we are then free to observe reality far more closely. This might be compared to turning down the volume of the TV so we can devote our full attention to what our friend is saying.

To the degree the above is true, philosophy is useful in getting us to this point. And then it becomes more obstacle than asset.

This may be a key reason why philosophers are eternally confused and conflicted about God. Philosophers, including this one, may like philosophy too much, a form of bias which may interfere with the investigation. We may care more about the tool being used than the actual investigation. Maybe we're only willing to follow the investigation trail as far as philosophy can take us, and then we turn back, and return to the tiny realm of things.
I think you make a lot of very valid points here.

Yes, I guess I’d agree that ‘all positions on the topic of God are built of faith’, and my even go further to say that all positions on anything are – by being based on premises which, if we examine them, are ultimately built on information or knowledge from some source we trust – whether it be an authority, an institution, people we know, or even ultimately our own senses and reasoning.

I follow you on your idea of being ‘liberated from our thoughts about reality’. The idea of a emptiness, that ‘what we call nothing is the main show’ is akin to some traditions of Eastern thought and religious practice, wouldn’t you say? But isn’t it a bit of a paradox to say if we are “liberated from our thoughts about reality, we are then free to observe reality far more closely” - because once we give up thought, then doesn’t the very distinction - between what is real and what is not – itself disappear?

As far as philosophy goes, well, I often cite my favorite philosopher’s famous quote which I’ll put below. I agree with this and think philosophy is not successful when it is used to try to establish ultimate truth. Rather, I find it a helpful way to examine ideas, shed light on arguments, and to help me clarify my own thinking process.

Philosophy aims at the logical clarification of thoughts. Philosophy is not a body of doctrine but an activity. A philosophical work consists essentially of elucidations. Philosophy does not result in 'philosophical propositions', but rather in the clarification of propositions. Without philosophy thoughts are, as it were, cloudy and indistinct: its task is to make them clear and to give them sharp boundaries.”
“We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.”
— Epictetus
evolution
Posts: 957
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: Where Did 'God' Come From?

Post by evolution »

    Sculptor1 wrote: May 7th, 2020, 7:45 am
    evolution wrote: May 7th, 2020, 6:29 am

    I do not mean anything with the "god" (little 'g') word.

    I already clarified what I mean. I did this providing definitions for what I mean.

    If this is nonsense to you, then so be it. It makes a lot of sense to me. But then again I do see things very differently than you do.
    You mean God, you mean a person. LOL.
    That is exactly NOT what I mean.
    Post Reply

    Return to “Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology”

    2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

    Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

    Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
    by John K Danenbarger
    January 2023

    Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

    Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
    by Mitzi Perdue
    February 2023

    Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

    Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
    by Chet Shupe
    March 2023

    The Unfakeable Code®

    The Unfakeable Code®
    by Tony Jeton Selimi
    April 2023

    The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

    The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
    by Alan Watts
    May 2023

    Killing Abel

    Killing Abel
    by Michael Tieman
    June 2023

    Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

    Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
    by E. Alan Fleischauer
    July 2023

    First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

    First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
    by Mark Unger
    August 2023

    Predictably Irrational

    Predictably Irrational
    by Dan Ariely
    September 2023

    Artwords

    Artwords
    by Beatriz M. Robles
    November 2023

    Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

    Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
    by Dr. Randy Ross
    December 2023

    Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

    Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
    by Ali Master
    February 2024

    2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

    Emotional Intelligence At Work

    Emotional Intelligence At Work
    by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
    January 2022

    Free Will, Do You Have It?

    Free Will, Do You Have It?
    by Albertus Kral
    February 2022

    My Enemy in Vietnam

    My Enemy in Vietnam
    by Billy Springer
    March 2022

    2X2 on the Ark

    2X2 on the Ark
    by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
    April 2022

    The Maestro Monologue

    The Maestro Monologue
    by Rob White
    May 2022

    What Makes America Great

    What Makes America Great
    by Bob Dowell
    June 2022

    The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

    The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
    by Jerry Durr
    July 2022

    Living in Color

    Living in Color
    by Mike Murphy
    August 2022 (tentative)

    The Not So Great American Novel

    The Not So Great American Novel
    by James E Doucette
    September 2022

    Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

    Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
    by John N. (Jake) Ferris
    October 2022

    In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

    In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
    by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
    November 2022

    The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

    The Smartest Person in the Room
    by Christian Espinosa
    December 2022

    2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

    The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

    The Biblical Clock
    by Daniel Friedmann
    March 2021

    Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

    Wilderness Cry
    by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
    April 2021

    Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

    Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
    by Jeff Meyer
    May 2021

    Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

    Surviving the Business of Healthcare
    by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
    June 2021

    Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

    Winning the War on Cancer
    by Sylvie Beljanski
    July 2021

    Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

    Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
    by Dr Frank L Douglas
    August 2021

    If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

    If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
    by Mark L. Wdowiak
    September 2021

    The Preppers Medical Handbook

    The Preppers Medical Handbook
    by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
    October 2021

    Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

    Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
    by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
    November 2021

    Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

    Dream For Peace
    by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
    December 2021