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
evolution
Posts: 615
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: Where Did 'God' Come From?

Post by evolution » May 1st, 2020, 8:49 pm

Sculptor1 wrote:
May 1st, 2020, 7:51 pm
evolution wrote:
May 1st, 2020, 5:30 pm


Therefore, that is what 'God' is, to you.
Take wild guess
Take wild guess at what exactly?

I suggest that you actually read what I write before you comment.

You writing this further shows the reason why you have responded previously.

evolution
Posts: 615
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: Where Did 'God' Come From?

Post by evolution » May 1st, 2020, 8:51 pm

Sculptor1 wrote:
May 1st, 2020, 7:52 pm
Mark_Lee wrote:
May 1st, 2020, 6:41 pm
The mystery of God will never be comprehended by the human mind.
It's very simple indeed.
There is no mystery
If there is no mystery, then what is there?

User avatar
Mark_Lee
New Trial Member
Posts: 18
Joined: November 8th, 2017, 9:42 pm

Re: Where Did 'God' Come From?

Post by Mark_Lee » May 1st, 2020, 9:38 pm

evolution wrote:
May 1st, 2020, 8:47 pm
Mark_Lee wrote:
May 1st, 2020, 6:41 pm
The mystery of God will never be comprehended by the human mind.
Is this an unambiguous and irrefutable fact, which will hold true forever more, or more just a case of what you think and/or believe is true?
Mark_Lee wrote:
May 1st, 2020, 6:41 pm
It's like the idea of the Noumenon and Phenomenon. The Phenomenon we always experience with our senses, the Noumenon will always be there even if we don't experience it. God is part of the Noumenon.
Why are you 'trying to' explain 'that' what you say will never be comprehended anyway?

This sounds somewhat like you are trying to convey that you have already comprehended what you say will never be comprehended?
For your first question. I do not have the arrogance to think that what I think is right is objectively right. No true philosopher will assume that. A true philosopher always seeks to learn and understand without cease.

For your second question. You can talk about something without knowing it. I can talk about Will Smith without me ever "experiencing" him in real life. There's nothing wrong with that.

For your third question. No. I am not saying that what is incomprehensible is something I've already comprehended. I'm simply talking about it.

evolution
Posts: 615
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: Where Did 'God' Come From?

Post by evolution » May 1st, 2020, 11:30 pm

Mark_Lee wrote:
May 1st, 2020, 9:38 pm
evolution wrote:
May 1st, 2020, 8:47 pm


Is this an unambiguous and irrefutable fact, which will hold true forever more, or more just a case of what you think and/or believe is true?



Why are you 'trying to' explain 'that' what you say will never be comprehended anyway?

This sounds somewhat like you are trying to convey that you have already comprehended what you say will never be comprehended?
For your first question. I do not have the arrogance to think that what I think is right is objectively right. No true philosopher will assume that. A true philosopher always seeks to learn and understand without cease.
So, then do you agree that the so called "mystery of God" could be comprehended by human beings one day, and in fact may have actually been discovered and solved already?
Mark_Lee wrote:
May 1st, 2020, 9:38 pm
For your second question. You can talk about something without knowing it.
Sure, you can talk about something without knowing it and make out that you do know it. But why do that?
Mark_Lee wrote:
May 1st, 2020, 9:38 pm
I can talk about Will Smith without me ever "experiencing" him in real life. There's nothing wrong with that.
If you say things which are obviously false or say things as though they are absolutely true, then I say there is something wrong with that. You can believe that there is nothing wrong with that if you want to.
Mark_Lee wrote:
May 1st, 2020, 9:38 pm
For your third question. No. I am not saying that what is incomprehensible is something I've already comprehended. I'm simply talking about it.
Why bother talking about some thing, which you believe will never be comprehended anyway. You obviously have no comprehension of what you are talking about, so why do it?

NukeBan
Posts: 98
Joined: April 20th, 2020, 6:24 pm

Re: Where Did 'God' Come From?

Post by NukeBan » May 2nd, 2020, 8:34 am

You obviously have no comprehension of what you are talking about, so why do it?
In order for anyone to have any credible idea of what they're talking about on God topics, they would have to have some qualified authority to reference. If a person feels their holy book is a qualified authority, then they can attempt to comprehend God by referencing what their holy book says. If a person feels the rules of human reason are binding upon all of reality, and thus upon any Gods who may or may not be contained within, then they can reach for comprehension by following those rules.

The problem we have is that no one on any side can prove that that their chosen authority is qualified for delivering credible statements on the subject of gods. Instead everyone on every side simply asserts the qualifications of their chosen authority as a matter of faith. And so no one on any side can claim credible comprehension on the topic.

And so you ask the reasonable question. Why do it? Why discuss any of this?

One reason can be to discover that no one on any side knows what they're talking about. We can if we wish use the process of philosophy to rip to shreds all claims to knowledge on this topic. And once all claims to knowledge are demolished, we are left with nothing.

We went looking for God knowledge, but instead we found nothing. So, the investigation wasn't a failure, we just didn't find what we expected to find, that's all.

Some people won't like what the investigation has found, and so they will ignore the results and go running back in to the ego inflating glory of fantasy knowings, as is their right.

Other people will take the investigation more seriously and be more faithful to the process, and upon discovering nothing will ask practical questions such as..

What can we do with this nothing that we've discovered? How can we put it to practical use?

User avatar
Thomyum2
Posts: 182
Joined: June 10th, 2019, 4:21 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Wittgenstein

Re: Where Did 'God' Come From?

Post by Thomyum2 » May 2nd, 2020, 11:50 am

NukeBan wrote:
May 2nd, 2020, 8:34 am
You obviously have no comprehension of what you are talking about, so why do it?
In order for anyone to have any credible idea of what they're talking about on God topics, they would have to have some qualified authority to reference. If a person feels their holy book is a qualified authority, then they can attempt to comprehend God by referencing what their holy book says. If a person feels the rules of human reason are binding upon all of reality, and thus upon any Gods who may or may not be contained within, then they can reach for comprehension by following those rules.

The problem we have is that no one on any side can prove that that their chosen authority is qualified for delivering credible statements on the subject of gods. Instead everyone on every side simply asserts the qualifications of their chosen authority as a matter of faith. And so no one on any side can claim credible comprehension on the topic.

And so you ask the reasonable question. Why do it? Why discuss any of this?

One reason can be to discover that no one on any side knows what they're talking about. We can if we wish use the process of philosophy to rip to shreds all claims to knowledge on this topic. And once all claims to knowledge are demolished, we are left with nothing.

We went looking for God knowledge, but instead we found nothing. So, the investigation wasn't a failure, we just didn't find what we expected to find, that's all.

Some people won't like what the investigation has found, and so they will ignore the results and go running back in to the ego inflating glory of fantasy knowings, as is their right.

Other people will take the investigation more seriously and be more faithful to the process, and upon discovering nothing will ask practical questions such as..

What can we do with this nothing that we've discovered? How can we put it to practical use?
I think you've made good points here. I would add that although we do use language to communicate knowledge, i.e. factual information, we also use it as a form of expression (and these two usages are always intermixed, actually). Communication is not just about passing along information about the things we comprehend, but it is also a way to show who we are, how we feel, what we are experiencing. Consider poetry or literature for example - it is a creative act that reaches us in a way that is beyond just the factual meanings of the words and phrases. We use language to try to show things that we know or imagine which language can't fully capture. What more when it comes to talking about something like God, which is not empirical or logically derived information that can be argued are shown to be right or wrong. Rather, for most people who profess a faith in God, it is something deeply personal that lies beyond proofs of claims of knowledge. But that doesn't make it useless to try to speak about it - communication and sharing of experience is still possible, it just takes a different form. It's insightful to remember that the word 'communication' has the root 'commune', to make 'common' or to share, or even to 'become one', which means more than just transmitting information.

User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 2819
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Where Did 'God' Come From?

Post by Sculptor1 » May 2nd, 2020, 12:44 pm

NukeBan wrote:
May 1st, 2020, 8:15 pm
Sculptor1 wrote:
May 1st, 2020, 4:24 pm
My statement is based on the empirical evidence of anthropology.
Your statement is based on an unwillingness to read to the question you are attempting to reject.
The thread question has an unfounded assumption at its heart. You have much to establish before asking any more dumb questions.

User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 2819
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Where Did 'God' Come From?

Post by Sculptor1 » May 2nd, 2020, 12:45 pm

evolution wrote:
May 1st, 2020, 8:49 pm
Sculptor1 wrote:
May 1st, 2020, 7:51 pm

Take wild guess
Take wild guess at what exactly?

I suggest that you actually read what I write before you comment.

You writing this further shows the reason why you have responded previously.
Duh. You asked me "what is god to you".

evolution
Posts: 615
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: Where Did 'God' Come From?

Post by evolution » May 2nd, 2020, 7:39 pm

Sculptor1 wrote:
May 2nd, 2020, 12:45 pm
evolution wrote:
May 1st, 2020, 8:49 pm


Take wild guess at what exactly?

I suggest that you actually read what I write before you comment.

You writing this further shows the reason why you have responded previously.
Duh. You asked me "what is god to you".
NO I DID NOT.

I said; that is what 'God' is, to you

Which is WHY I suggest that you actually read what I write BEFORE you comment. What I ACTUALLY WROTE can be clearly seen and evidenced above.

Talk about "duh".

NukeBan
Posts: 98
Joined: April 20th, 2020, 6:24 pm

Re: Where Did 'God' Come From?

Post by NukeBan » May 2nd, 2020, 8:13 pm

Good post Thomyum2!
What more when it comes to talking about something like God, which is not empirical or logically derived information that can be argued are shown to be right or wrong. Rather, for most people who profess a faith in God, it is something deeply personal that lies beyond proofs of claims of knowledge.
I see all commentators on the subject to be people of faith operating from a very human personal agenda. Some people have a faith in an infinite God which lies beyond proof, while others have a faith in the infinite relevance of human reason which lies beyond proof. In both cases, there is a very human need to know which arises from a place in us which is deeper than surface level intellectual curiosity. We want The Answer, and we find it on whatever channel our personal circumstances can most easily relate to.
Consider poetry or literature for example - it is a creative act that reaches us in a way that is beyond just the factual meanings of the words and phrases.
Yes! The older I get the more I appreciate the power of art. Increasingly philosophy seems a weak medium in comparison, but it's what I was born to do, so I try to accept my genetic destiny with a sense of humor.
But that doesn't make it useless to try to speak about it - communication and sharing of experience is still possible, it just takes a different form.
I seem to agree it's not useless to talk about such things, given that I find myself doing it all the time. That said, you also remarked...
It's insightful to remember that the word 'communication' has the root 'commune', to make 'common' or to share, or even to 'become one', which means more than just transmitting information.
To me, it seems most useful to uncover and explore that which divides us, which I propose to be thought itself. It's not the content of thought which is the real source of the divisions, but the medium itself, which may explain why such human problems are so intractable.

Philosophy typically concerns itself with the content of thought, and in that context we might say that what divides us is that I'm a Muslim and you're a Hindu, or I'm a Protestant and you're a Catholic, or I'm a Republican and you're a Democrat etc. All that's real enough, but such divisions are on the surface.

The fact that such divisions have arisen in every time and place in human history suggests that the source of such division must be something more fundamental that all human beings have in common, and that can only be thought itself.

One problem with discussions which aim to bring us together is that they take place in thought, the very thing driving us apart. And so I propose my theory for unity, and you propose yours, and then we argue about it, or kill each other over it. Welcome to the history of religion.

evolution
Posts: 615
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: Where Did 'God' Come From?

Post by evolution » May 2nd, 2020, 8:53 pm

NukeBan wrote:
May 2nd, 2020, 8:34 am
You obviously have no comprehension of what you are talking about, so why do it?
In order for anyone to have any credible idea of what they're talking about on God topics, they would have to have some qualified authority to reference. If a person feels their holy book is a qualified authority, then they can attempt to comprehend God by referencing what their holy book says. If a person feels the rules of human reason are binding upon all of reality, and thus upon any Gods who may or may not be contained within, then they can reach for comprehension by following those rules.

The problem we have is that no one on any side can prove that that their chosen authority is qualified for delivering credible statements on the subject of gods. Instead everyone on every side simply asserts the qualifications of their chosen authority as a matter of faith. And so no one on any side can claim credible comprehension on the topic.
This is the exact same point that I have been saying.

I do agree with a lot of what you have been saying throughout this.

By the way, "having sides" is just about all of the problem and issue here about WHY human beings cannot and do not find agreement of what thee actual Truth IS.
NukeBan wrote:
May 2nd, 2020, 8:34 am
And so you ask the reasonable question. Why do it? Why discuss any of this?
Do not mistake what I actually said and turn it around to mean in relation to "discuss 'any of this' ".

To make it clear, I specifically said and wrote:
Why bother talking about some thing, which you believe will never be comprehended anyway. You obviously have no comprehension of what you are talking about, so why do it?

As can be clearly seen, I was not talking about in relation to 'any of this' (God stuff). I was specifically talking in relation to that person using the very clearly stated words, "The mystery of God will never be comprehended by the human mind.", but that same person then going on to tell us what "God is" actually. My question; Why do it? was specifically in relation to this specific thing of contradicting them self, and not in relation to anything else.

If a person wants to say and/or argue that some thing can NEVER be comprehended, then they also will have to admit that they obviously have absolutely no comprehension of it as well. Otherwise they are just totally contradicting them self.

To me it seems like a hard ask to tell us that some thing can NEVER be comprehended, but then tell us what that thing is, and then ask us or expect us to accept this.

If someone wants to argue to me that some thing can NEVER be comprehended, then do NOT use absolutely any thing, including any so called "qualified authority" to then try and tell me what that comprehensible thing is, or even could be. If 'it' can NEVER be comprehended, then do not even attempt to try to comprehend 'it' nor explain 'it'.

'It' is either one or the other. 'It' cannot be both incomprehensible and comprehensible and explainable.

Oh, and by the way, if you want to explain, 'Why discuss any of this?" then feel free. But I just wanted to make clear what my clarifying question was in relation to exactly.
NukeBan wrote:
May 2nd, 2020, 8:34 am
One reason can be to discover that no one on any side knows what they're talking about.
This is obviously already KNOWN. Considering the evidence for this has been around for thousands of years now, hopefully everyone already KNEW this.

By the way, no one on any "side" of any so called "philosophical issue or discussion" knows what they are talking about.

For absolute EVERY "philosophical" issue, for example, nature/nurture, creation/evolution, free will/determinism, et cetera the one and only True and Right Answer is NOT on either "side" but in the middle.

When one knows how to find and see the Truths and the falsehoods on both "sides" of the discussion, then what the actual Truth IS and where is lays can also be found and seen, almost immediately I might add.

For those three example given BOTH "sides" play an EQUAL part. There NEVER has been a 'one/or the other' position. Human beings have just mistakenly taken these positions. But this wrong doing is not a direct result of a flaw in the human being condition itself. This flaw is caused by and exasperated by the education system, itself, which ultimately is formed by the adult human being anyway.

The reason the education system has caused generations of human beings to have a 'one side or the other' position in these topics and discussions is because from very early childhood human beings are taught to "pick a side" and fight for that "side". The teaching of debating is a huge cause of this issue and WHY the Answers have not been found much earlier, hundreds even thousands of years ago.

Picking a "side" and "fighting" or remaining on that "side" only obviously means that they do NOT know what they are talking about because they are MISSING the actual Truths on the so called "other side". These people only have a part of the picture and not the FULL and WHOLE picture. Therefore, they cannot YET see the WHOLE Truth.
NukeBan wrote:
May 2nd, 2020, 8:34 am
We can if we wish use the process of philosophy to rip to shreds all claims to knowledge on this topic. And once all claims to knowledge are demolished, we are left with nothing.
Not necessarily so. But not unlikely as well.
NukeBan wrote:
May 2nd, 2020, 8:34 am
We went looking for God knowledge, but instead we found nothing. So, the investigation wasn't a failure, we just didn't find what we expected to find, that's all.
Half the problem, if not more, is 'expecting'.

Obviously one only 'expects' to find some thing when they are already assuming and/or believing that they already know what the truth is.

If any one went looking for so called "God knowledge", then that implies that they are expecting that there is some thing known as 'God' and expecting that 'It' has some sort of knowledge already.

I suggest not expecting any thing. Not looking for any thing, and just looking at changing one's own 'self' for the better. When, and if, they do this properly and successfully, then they will be somewhat surprised at what they actually discover and find out about them 'self' and thy True Self.

But do not let me deter people from carrying on doing the exact same things that have been for thousands of years now. That is; looking for some particular expected thing.
NukeBan wrote:
May 2nd, 2020, 8:34 am
Some people won't like what the investigation has found, and so they will ignore the results and go running back in to the ego inflating glory of fantasy knowings, as is their right.
If some people will not like what the investigation has found, then this is a sure sign and proof that they already have an expectation of what they were searching for.

I suggest that if one is just seriously wanting to change one's self for the better, then they can NEVER and will NEVER be disappointed at all. As they will only like what is eventually found. They may not like what they first discover, but this completely overridden by the what thee actual Truth IS. In fact the surprise of what actually uncovered and revealed outshines absolutely every thing else.

When one is NOT expecting, then they can only be surprised and NEVER disappointed.
NukeBan wrote:
May 2nd, 2020, 8:34 am
Other people will take the investigation more seriously and be more faithful to the process, and upon discovering nothing will ask practical questions such as..

What can we do with this nothing that we've discovered? How can we put it to practical use?
Seems all very useless and a very fruitless exercise.

How did you respond to those questions when you discovered nothing? What can you do with this 'nothing', and, how can you put that 'nothing' to practical use?

Also, what was 'it' exactly that you were investigating or looking for, when you arrived at "nothing"?

I could say what I uncovered, or more correctly, what was reveal to me was just about the exact opposite of 'nothing'.

And, what can I do with this is the exact same as actually putting it to practical use. But that is for another thread.

I suggest if anyone wants to find out and discover where 'God' actually came from, then they do as one person has done here (in a very roundabout way). That is; first define what the word 'God' refers to exactly. And then the answer to the questions comes almost immediately. That person says that the word God is a human concept ONLY. Therefore, the answer to the topic question, from their perspective anyway, IS ; God comes from human beings.

Although they cannot specify in any more detail other than 'God' is a human concept only, at least they have PROVEN just how quick, simple, and easy it is to find ANSWERS to questions, as above. By just being Honest and clarifying what it is that one is actually saying and meaning, then ALL answers can be found very quickly, simply, and easily.

Now, just as long as that person forever more now makes it absolutely clear that whenever they use the 'God' word, that they are referring to absolutely 'nothing' other that just an absolute meaningless concept, then all is good.

evolution
Posts: 615
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: Where Did 'God' Come From?

Post by evolution » May 2nd, 2020, 9:41 pm

Thomyum2 wrote:
May 2nd, 2020, 11:50 am
NukeBan wrote:
May 2nd, 2020, 8:34 am


In order for anyone to have any credible idea of what they're talking about on God topics, they would have to have some qualified authority to reference. If a person feels their holy book is a qualified authority, then they can attempt to comprehend God by referencing what their holy book says. If a person feels the rules of human reason are binding upon all of reality, and thus upon any Gods who may or may not be contained within, then they can reach for comprehension by following those rules.

The problem we have is that no one on any side can prove that that their chosen authority is qualified for delivering credible statements on the subject of gods. Instead everyone on every side simply asserts the qualifications of their chosen authority as a matter of faith. And so no one on any side can claim credible comprehension on the topic.

And so you ask the reasonable question. Why do it? Why discuss any of this?

One reason can be to discover that no one on any side knows what they're talking about. We can if we wish use the process of philosophy to rip to shreds all claims to knowledge on this topic. And once all claims to knowledge are demolished, we are left with nothing.

We went looking for God knowledge, but instead we found nothing. So, the investigation wasn't a failure, we just didn't find what we expected to find, that's all.

Some people won't like what the investigation has found, and so they will ignore the results and go running back in to the ego inflating glory of fantasy knowings, as is their right.

Other people will take the investigation more seriously and be more faithful to the process, and upon discovering nothing will ask practical questions such as..

What can we do with this nothing that we've discovered? How can we put it to practical use?
I think you've made good points here. I would add that although we do use language to communicate knowledge, i.e. factual information, we also use it as a form of expression (and these two usages are always intermixed, actually).
Are they ALWAYS intermixed, actually?

What happens if just one tiny short piece of knowledge is wanted to be communicated or shared is not meant to be any 'form of expression'? Does it have to be a 'form of expression' also and not just be to communicated knowledge only?

What happens if the one just wants to communicate that it is the earth that actually revolves around the sun and not the other way around, only. What is the 'form of expression' here?

What do you mean by 'form of expression'?
Thomyum2 wrote:
May 2nd, 2020, 11:50 am
Communication is not just about passing along information about the things we comprehend, but it is also a way to show who we are, how we feel, what we are experiencing.
Yes communication can be either of the two, or be the two of them together. We can show one or the other or both together, but is it really true that they are always actually intermixed?
Thomyum2 wrote:
May 2nd, 2020, 11:50 am
Consider poetry or literature for example - it is a creative act that reaches us in a way that is beyond just the factual meanings of the words and phrases.
This can take place.
Thomyum2 wrote:
May 2nd, 2020, 11:50 am
We use language to try to show things that we know or imagine which language can't fully capture.
Is that what you do.

I do not do this.

I use language and words that I KNOW I can back up and support with evidence and/or proof.

I am not aware of any thing, which cannot be fully captured in language and words. After all there is a word for absolutely EVERY thing in the Universe. Therefore, I find it extremely simple and easy to use words and language for EVERY thing, and know that EVERY thing can be captured in words and/or language.
Thomyum2 wrote:
May 2nd, 2020, 11:50 am
What more when it comes to talking about something like God, which is not empirical or logically derived information that can be argued are shown to be right or wrong.
But 'God', Itself, to me, was exactly empirically and logically obtained information, which, by the way, can be argued and shown, very simply and very easily, to be true, right, and correct. This is because what the word 'God' actually could be referring to was revealed to me empirically and logically.
Thomyum2 wrote:
May 2nd, 2020, 11:50 am
Rather, for most people who profess a faith in God, it is something deeply personal that lies beyond proofs of claims of knowledge.
Okay, but I certainly do not profess any faith at all in God.
Thomyum2 wrote:
May 2nd, 2020, 11:50 am
But that doesn't make it useless to try to speak about it - communication and sharing of experience is still possible, it just takes a different form.
If people want to 'try' and speak about what they have faith in but actually do not yet know what that thing is, then so be it. All well and good. But I suggest to them to not be to surprised if the get questioned about or challenged on what they say and believe is true.

This applies for those that insist that there is no God also. Do not be to surprised if you get questioned about or challenged on what you say and believe is true either.

If anyone wants to insist any thing is true, then do not be to surprised if you are challenged on it. 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.
Thomyum2 wrote:
May 2nd, 2020, 11:50 am
It's insightful to remember that the word 'communication' has the root 'commune', to make 'common' or to share, or even to 'become one', which means more than just transmitting information.
The word 'mediate' also comes from 'medium', to be 'mediator' or 'media' between two parties. To 'meditate' is to be in the 'middle' or to be in 'between' the two; the 'human-self' and the God-Self, and to 'mediate' through 'communication' bring the two together, or unify, as One. This is best done through 'common-sense', which is just 'that' what makes sense to EVERY one.

'That' what is 'common' to EVERY one, and which is shared, through just logical, peaceful discussion and reasoning, then 'that' what is agreed upon and accepted as being true, right, and/or correct, then is what IS for the 'common' good of EVERY one, as One. Through this type of 'communication', then ONE 'community' is reached where Everyone can live together in peace and harmony, as One.

'That', which brings EVERY 'one' together as One, literally makes 'every(single)one' just thee One single 'Everyone', and if we are living as One with each other, in peace and harmony, then we will be living in Heaven, or be living God-like, and not like the human-like conditions we find our selves in now, when this is being written.

Where a lot of words have their 'roots' and how these are all interlinked and intertwined, (at the bottom of the tree of knowledge for example), then the more Truly amazing ALL-OF-THIS actually really becomes.

evolution
Posts: 615
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: Where Did 'God' Come From?

Post by evolution » May 2nd, 2020, 10:18 pm

Sculptor1 wrote:
May 2nd, 2020, 12:44 pm
NukeBan wrote:
May 1st, 2020, 8:15 pm


Your statement is based on an unwillingness to read to the question you are attempting to reject.
The thread question has an unfounded assumption at its heart.
Does it really? And what is that assumption at its heart exactly?

And, considering it was NOT 'you' who wrote and posed the question, then how do you know what this supposed 'unfounded assumption' is exactly?

Is the actual Truth here; you KNOW what this so called 'unfounded assumption' IS, or you are just 'assuming' you know what 'it' is?

Your Honest answers here would be much appreciate.
Sculptor1 wrote:
May 2nd, 2020, 12:44 pm
You have much to establish before asking any more dumb questions.
You establishing whether you KNOW for sure what the presumed 'unfounded assumption' IS exactly, or whether you are just making an 'assumption' yourself could be one thing to establish here first.

Also, a question was not asked. What was being pointed out is you continually fail to read questions, or you are continually unwillingly to read questions posed to you, and then answer those actual questions openly and honestly.

Your statement, besides being obviously already irrefutable and not needed to be said anyway, was said as a detraction from you not answering the actual questions being posed to you.

evolution
Posts: 615
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: Where Did 'God' Come From?

Post by evolution » May 2nd, 2020, 10:56 pm

NukeBan wrote:
May 2nd, 2020, 8:13 pm
Good post Thomyum2!
What more when it comes to talking about something like God, which is not empirical or logically derived information that can be argued are shown to be right or wrong. Rather, for most people who profess a faith in God, it is something deeply personal that lies beyond proofs of claims of knowledge.
I see all commentators on the subject to be people of faith operating from a very human personal agenda.
Well 'you' have not yet seen this 'commentator' yet.
NukeBan wrote:
May 2nd, 2020, 8:13 pm
Some people have a faith in an infinite God which lies beyond proof,
Why do you say this cannot be proven?
NukeBan wrote:
May 2nd, 2020, 8:13 pm
while others have a faith in the infinite relevance of human reason which lies beyond proof.
Is this an absolute, irrefutable fact?
NukeBan wrote:
May 2nd, 2020, 8:13 pm
In both cases, there is a very human need to know which arises from a place in us which is deeper than surface level intellectual curiosity. We want The Answer, and we find it on whatever channel our personal circumstances can most easily relate to.
Not ALL people find The Answer this way at all.

Some people found The Answer in another way.

But, then again, you were only talking about those with 'faith' so you may be correct here?
NukeBan wrote:
May 2nd, 2020, 8:13 pm
Consider poetry or literature for example - it is a creative act that reaches us in a way that is beyond just the factual meanings of the words and phrases.
Yes! The older I get the more I appreciate the power of art. Increasingly philosophy seems a weak medium in comparison, but it's what I was born to do, so I try to accept my genetic destiny with a sense of humor.
But that doesn't make it useless to try to speak about it - communication and sharing of experience is still possible, it just takes a different form.
I seem to agree it's not useless to talk about such things, given that I find myself doing it all the time. That said, you also remarked...
It's insightful to remember that the word 'communication' has the root 'commune', to make 'common' or to share, or even to 'become one', which means more than just transmitting information.
To me, it seems most useful to uncover and explore that which divides us, which I propose to be thought itself.
I agree that it is 'thought', itself. But to be more specific it is only some 'thoughts', like; assumptions, beliefs, judgments, et cetera themselves, which divides human beings from each other. But, to be even more specific it is the actual words that we use, which divides or unites us. And to be even more specific again it is the actual meaning, which we all personally put in and behind the words we use that either separates or divides us all.

And, if we want to get to the actual 'thing' that divides us all it is the 'interpretation' of the words being used and the 'interpretation' of the meaning and/or intention behind the conveying of those words.
NukeBan wrote:
May 2nd, 2020, 8:13 pm
It's not the content of thought which is the real source of the divisions, but the medium itself, which may explain why such human problems are so intractable.

Philosophy typically concerns itself with the content of thought, and in that context we might say that what divides us is that I'm a Muslim and you're a Hindu, or I'm a Protestant and you're a Catholic, or I'm a Republican and you're a Democrat etc. All that's real enough, but such divisions are on the surface.
Actually that is not real at all. To say, "I am ... [one of these things or any thing else like them] is just false to begin with. To SHOW, in action, just how saying these false things causes division and just how quick it happens, just try and define one of those things and have your definition agreed with by all or even most people. What actually divides you all is your own 'interpretations' of what words actually mean. I agree, however, that these divisions lay only on the 'surface'. Go deeper and understand that every one has their own different definitions for words, then agreement and thus unity can be very quickly achieved. Discover or learn the very reason WHY every one thinks the way they do, then UNDERSTANDING for ALL, and thus UNITY with and for ALL happens almost immediately
NukeBan wrote:
May 2nd, 2020, 8:13 pm
The fact that such divisions have arisen in every time and place in human history suggests that the source of such division must be something more fundamental that all human beings have in common, and that can only be thought itself.
What is more fundamental than 'thought' for human being?

And, it is what causes the 'thoughts', themselves, within the human body, which is the fundamental reason WHY there is a division with human beings in this day and age when this is written.

To say, that it is a fact that such divisions have arisen in EVERY time and place in human history is a pretty absolutist claim, especially considering how long human history goes back for.
NukeBan wrote:
May 2nd, 2020, 8:13 pm
One problem with discussions which aim to bring us together is that they take place in thought, the very thing driving us apart.
But as I was saying above, it is not all thought that is driving human beings apart. Only some of it does.

Discover or learn how to remove those thoughts that cause the division, then unification begins.
NukeBan wrote:
May 2nd, 2020, 8:13 pm
And so I propose my theory for unity, and you propose yours, and then we argue about it, or kill each other over it.
One example of just how it is the separate and different 'interpretation' of things, words, definitions, and/or meanings can be shown by me saying, 'arguing' over these things is probably the best thing that could ever be done, and which if done will actually UNIFY us ALL, and then we can ALL start living in peace and harmony together as One.

Now, to SHOW just how it is 'interpretation' that will either divide us or unite us here now depends on the next step that is taken.

I have explained the steps needed in order to gain a True understanding, which in turn leads to a Truly peaceful world for EVERY one, enough times already. Let us see if anyone who has seen that has taken any real notice.

For people like yourself, "nukeban", who probably has not yet seen what I have said in relation to those steps, it will be interesting to see if you do them naturally, or just do what the general population of adults almost always do instead?
NukeBan wrote:
May 2nd, 2020, 8:13 pm
Welcome to the history of religion.
But people, through religion, do not propose their 'theory'. What they do instead is propose their 'beliefs', which is a whole other matter.

Religion is based on 'faith' and 'belief' alone. In religion you have to 'believe' what you have 'faith' in is absolutely true, without any doubt at all. Therefore, these people are not at all open to any thing contrary to what they believe is true. Therefore, one of the highest form of divisions begins and starts to take place.

User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 2819
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Where Did 'God' Come From?

Post by Sculptor1 » May 3rd, 2020, 5:16 am

evolution wrote:
May 2nd, 2020, 7:39 pm
Sculptor1 wrote:
May 2nd, 2020, 12:45 pm


Duh. You asked me "what is god to you".
NO I DID NOT.

I said; that is what 'God' is, to you
It amounts to exactly the same thing.
You are trying to make me have a definition of god.
That is just your absurdity.
What I had said was "Define god anyway you want. There are enough examples- just choose one.
For god to exist it would have to be capricious, multifarious, multiplicitous, evil, good, sadistic, kind, a turtle, a man, a woman, a crocodile, lightning... You name it."


There is no "god to me".
The description is just indicating the absurdity of you and your assumption that such a thing as a god is even possible or meaningful.
What you see above is not a definition of anything.

Post Reply