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
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 2817
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Where Did 'God' Come From?

Post by Sculptor1 » May 3rd, 2020, 5:18 am

evolution wrote:
May 2nd, 2020, 10:18 pm
Sculptor1 wrote:
May 2nd, 2020, 12:44 pm


The thread question has an unfounded assumption at its heart.
Does it really? And what is that assumption at its heart exactly?
FFS. There is only one assumption possible; that god came from somewhere.



Your Honest answers here would be much appreciate.
Your common sense and rationality would be appreciated.
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...
PLONK!
...futable and not needed to be said anyway, was said as a detraction from you not answering the actual questions being posed to you.

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

Re: Where Did 'God' Come From?

Post by NukeBan » May 3rd, 2020, 9:31 am

Discover or learn how to remove those thoughts that cause the division, then unification begins.
This has generally been the theory of most religions and philosophies since the dawn of time. That is, they typically propose that if we edit the content of thought in some correct manner that this will lead to peace and unity etc. Have you noticed that this has never actually worked?

If editing the content of thought could bring peace then somewhere in the world there would be a society that has found the "one true philosophy" and everyone has been living in blissful peace for many generations. There is no such place, except maybe some tiny island culture somewhere.

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

Re: Where Did 'God' Come From?

Post by evolution » May 4th, 2020, 6:34 am

Sculptor1 wrote:
May 3rd, 2020, 5:16 am
evolution wrote:
May 2nd, 2020, 7:39 pm


NO I DID NOT.

I said; that is what 'God' is, to you
It amounts to exactly the same thing.
NO IT OBVIOUSLY DOES NOT.

One asks a question, the other does not. The other makes a statement. Therefore, they are OBVIOUSLY two very different things and do NOT amount to exactly the same thing at all.
Sculptor1 wrote:
May 3rd, 2020, 5:16 am
You are trying to make me have a definition of god.
I am not trying to make you have any such thing.

You have already defined 'God', from your perspective. You provided this on your own free will.
Sculptor1 wrote:
May 3rd, 2020, 5:16 am
That is just your absurdity.
This is just your assumption, which, by the way, is totally and absurdly WRONG.
Sculptor1 wrote:
May 3rd, 2020, 5:16 am
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."
And there is the EVIDENCE that you provided, on your own free will, your own definition of God.
Sculptor1 wrote:
May 3rd, 2020, 5:16 am
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.
So you say and INSIST that God would HAVE TO BE "capricious, multifarious, multiplicitous, evil, good, sadistic, kind, a turtle, a man, a woman, a crocodile, lightning...". But then say that this is not a definition. Okay.

So, you believe you have the ability to KNOW that God does not exist, yet you are completely incapable of defining this 'thing', which you say is impossible to exist.

From what you have written here you still a great deal more to learn, and especially regarding Me.

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

Re: Where Did 'God' Come From?

Post by evolution » May 4th, 2020, 6:48 am

Sculptor1 wrote:
May 3rd, 2020, 5:18 am
evolution wrote:
May 2nd, 2020, 10:18 pm


Does it really? And what is that assumption at its heart exactly?
FFS. There is only one assumption possible; that god came from somewhere.
Why do 'you' call that an assumption. You are the one who is insisting and telling us where God came from.

Now, did 'God' come from where you say It did, or did It not?
Sculptor1 wrote:
May 3rd, 2020, 5:18 am

Your common sense and rationality would be appreciated.
Why? Your uncommon sense and irrationality obviously cannot even recognize and see it.

Are you even remotely aware that every human being sees things differently?

Have you ever wondered WHY 'you', human beings, are still looking for answers?
Sculptor1 wrote:
May 3rd, 2020, 5:18 am
You establishing whether you KNOW for sure what the presumed 'unfounded assumption' IS exactly...
PLONK!
How could you INSIST some thing, like where God came from, and then call the question that provoked that response and 'unfounded assumption'?

Either the answer you gave is true and right, or it is not. If you want to claim that what you said here is true and right, then you will also have to accept that the question is NOT an 'unfounded assumption' at all.

You cannot have it both ways.

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

Re: Where Did 'God' Come From?

Post by evolution » May 4th, 2020, 6:55 am

NukeBan wrote:
May 3rd, 2020, 9:31 am
Discover or learn how to remove those thoughts that cause the division, then unification begins.
This has generally been the theory of most religions and philosophies since the dawn of time. That is, they typically propose that if we edit the content of thought in some correct manner that this will lead to peace and unity etc. Have you noticed that this has never actually worked?
Have you also noticed the people who write those theories, religions, and/or philosophies also expect people to "edit the content of SOME thought" and replace it with SOME OTHER thought, usually a BELIEF.

What I have said here is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING like what you are assuming here.
NukeBan wrote:
May 3rd, 2020, 9:31 am
If editing the content of thought could bring peace then somewhere in the world there would be a society that has found the "one true philosophy" and everyone has been living in blissful peace for many generations.
Why do so many people start assuming and/or jump to the conclusion that whenever any one talks about some thing like this, then they are instantly meaning there is something like "one true philosophy", as though this could NEVER be true nor possible?

Whenever any one is Truly interested in learning and understanding more about I am actually saying AND MEANING, then they will find that it will be nothing like what they are assuming and/or believing I am saying, and meaning.
NukeBan wrote:
May 3rd, 2020, 9:31 am
There is no such place, except maybe some tiny island culture somewhere.
So, you are thinking that it may just be possible, correct?

Also, there is the possibility that that culture or those cultures already existed but do so no more, correct?

User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 2817
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Where Did 'God' Come From?

Post by Sculptor1 » May 4th, 2020, 10:23 am

evolution wrote:
May 4th, 2020, 6:34 am
Sculptor1 wrote:
May 3rd, 2020, 5:16 am

It amounts to exactly the same thing.
NO IT OBVIOUSLY DOES NOT.

One asks a question, the other does not. The other makes a statement. Therefore, they are OBVIOUSLY two very different things and do NOT amount to exactly the same thing at all.
Sculptor1 wrote:
May 3rd, 2020, 5:16 am
You are trying to make me have a definition of god.
I am not trying to make you have any such thing.

You have already defined 'God', from your perspective. You provided this on your own free will.
Sculptor1 wrote:
May 3rd, 2020, 5:16 am
That is just your absurdity.
This is just your assumption, which, by the way, is totally and absurdly WRONG.
Sculptor1 wrote:
May 3rd, 2020, 5:16 am
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."
And there is the EVIDENCE that you provided, on your own free will, your own definition of God.
Sculptor1 wrote:
May 3rd, 2020, 5:16 am
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.
So you say and INSIST that God would HAVE TO BE "capricious, multifarious, multiplicitous, evil, good, sadistic, kind, a turtle, a man, a woman, a crocodile, lightning...". But then say that this is not a definition. Okay.

So, you believe you have the ability to KNOW that God does not exist, yet you are completely incapable of defining this 'thing', which you say is impossible to exist.

From what you have written here you still a great deal more to learn, and especially regarding Me.
I have not defined god. I said "god would have to"....
Try and use your brain for a change.
God is impossible.
Run along now.

User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 2817
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Where Did 'God' Come From?

Post by Sculptor1 » May 4th, 2020, 10:26 am

evolution wrote:
May 4th, 2020, 6:48 am
Sculptor1 wrote:
May 3rd, 2020, 5:18 am

FFS. There is only one assumption possible; that god came from somewhere.
Why do 'you' call that an assumption. You are the one who is insisting and telling us where God came from.

Now, did 'God' come from where you say It did, or did It not?
Sculptor1 wrote:
May 3rd, 2020, 5:18 am

Your common sense and rationality would be appreciated.
Why? Your uncommon sense and irrationality obviously cannot even recognize and see it.

Are you even remotely aware that every human being sees things differently?

Have you ever wondered WHY 'you', human beings, are still looking for answers?
Sculptor1 wrote:
May 3rd, 2020, 5:18 am
You establishing whether you KNOW for sure what the presumed 'unfounded assumption' IS exactly...
PLONK!
How could you INSIST some thing, like where God came from, and then call the question that provoked that response and 'unfounded assumption'?

Either the answer you gave is true and right, or it is not. If you want to claim that what you said here is true and right, then you will also have to accept that the question is NOT an 'unfounded assumption' at all.

You cannot have it both ways.
I'm not having anything "both" ways.
God is not a thing that could come from anywhere, except the human imagination.
What do you mean "God" anyway?

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 4th, 2020, 1:30 pm

NukeBan wrote:
May 2nd, 2020, 8:13 pm
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.
I 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. 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 – all of the arts and sciences (and yes, even philosophy) - have sprung up, and our differences and diversity are what drives that. Communication of thoughts and ideas allows us to share information and perspectives with others whose experiences are unlike our own, and we need those differences and disagreements in order to synthesize and bring about new things. I've heard some philosophers call it the "fusion of horizons" that occurs when disparate groups come together and have to work through a period of coming to a greater understanding than each would have had separately.

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. 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?

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 4th, 2020, 6:41 pm

evolution wrote:
May 2nd, 2020, 9:41 pm
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.
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. 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.

evolution wrote:
May 2nd, 2020, 9:41 pm
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.
Well, God to me is not revealed empirically or by logic, but through faith. 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. 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. How we each come to that kind of acceptance, that starting point that we build on, is a personal matter and not something that anyone else can see into us to prove or disprove. 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.

evolution wrote:
May 2nd, 2020, 9:41 pm
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. 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.
It is understood that we will be challenged, and hopefully if done in the proper spirit we will all be the better for it. But I would point out a distinction between faith and belief - they are not the same thing. 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.

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

Re: Where Did 'God' Come From?

Post by NukeBan » May 4th, 2020, 8:00 pm

Thanks for your engagement Thomyum2, enjoying it.
Thomyum2 wrote:
May 4th, 2020, 1:30 pm
I 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.

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

Re: Where Did 'God' Come From?

Post by evolution » May 5th, 2020, 6:27 am

Sculptor1 wrote:
May 4th, 2020, 10:23 am
evolution wrote:
May 4th, 2020, 6:34 am


NO IT OBVIOUSLY DOES NOT.

One asks a question, the other does not. The other makes a statement. Therefore, they are OBVIOUSLY two very different things and do NOT amount to exactly the same thing at all.



I am not trying to make you have any such thing.

You have already defined 'God', from your perspective. You provided this on your own free will.



This is just your assumption, which, by the way, is totally and absurdly WRONG.



And there is the EVIDENCE that you provided, on your own free will, your own definition of God.



So you say and INSIST that God would HAVE TO BE "capricious, multifarious, multiplicitous, evil, good, sadistic, kind, a turtle, a man, a woman, a crocodile, lightning...". But then say that this is not a definition. Okay.

So, you believe you have the ability to KNOW that God does not exist, yet you are completely incapable of defining this 'thing', which you say is impossible to exist.

From what you have written here you still a great deal more to learn, and especially regarding Me.
I have not defined god. I said "god would have to"....
Try and use your brain for a change.
God is impossible.
Run along now.
So, 'God' would have to be the Creator. But I am not defining the word 'God' here. LOL

God is possible. Now, stay here and try and logically argue against this. Or, would you really prefer to run away now?

By the way, I also suggest not using that brain so much. It actually works against you. Not for you.

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

Re: Where Did 'God' Come From?

Post by evolution » May 5th, 2020, 6:35 am

Sculptor1 wrote:
May 4th, 2020, 10:26 am
evolution wrote:
May 4th, 2020, 6:48 am


Why do 'you' call that an assumption. You are the one who is insisting and telling us where God came from.

Now, did 'God' come from where you say It did, or did It not?



Why? Your uncommon sense and irrationality obviously cannot even recognize and see it.

Are you even remotely aware that every human being sees things differently?

Have you ever wondered WHY 'you', human beings, are still looking for answers?



How could you INSIST some thing, like where God came from, and then call the question that provoked that response and 'unfounded assumption'?

Either the answer you gave is true and right, or it is not. If you want to claim that what you said here is true and right, then you will also have to accept that the question is NOT an 'unfounded assumption' at all.

You cannot have it both ways.
I'm not having anything "both" ways.
Why are you not having this specific thing both ways? Which one will you keep and which one will you get rid of?
Sculptor1 wrote:
May 4th, 2020, 10:26 am
God is not a thing that could come from anywhere, except the human imagination.
Why do you believe and insist on this, especially when you say you can not or will not define what 'God' is?
Sculptor1 wrote:
May 4th, 2020, 10:26 am
What do you mean "God" anyway?
FINALLY. 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.

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

Re: Where Did 'God' Come From?

Post by evolution » May 5th, 2020, 7:08 am

Thomyum2 wrote:
May 4th, 2020, 6:41 pm
evolution wrote:
May 2nd, 2020, 9:41 pm


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.
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.

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.
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.
Thomyum2 wrote:
May 4th, 2020, 6:41 pm
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.
Again, the point is; there cannot be any assumption at all being made prior, for ALL-OF-THIS to be Truly understood.
Thomyum2 wrote:
May 4th, 2020, 6:41 pm
How we each come to that kind of acceptance, that starting point that we build on, is a personal matter and not something that anyone else can see into us to prove or disprove.
EVERY thing is built on past experiences. The starting point is just the first experience. As for seeing into and proving or disproving things I would not be so sure of one's self to say that this could not be done. There are a lot of things that can be very easily and very simple done NOW, which were once seen as being completely impossible to do, prior.
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.

Thomyum2 wrote:
May 4th, 2020, 6:41 pm


It is understood that we will be challenged, and hopefully if done in the proper spirit we will all be the better for it. But I would point out a distinction between faith and belief - they are not the same thing.
Yes I am aware of this, and that is why I said what I said the way I said it.
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?

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

Re: Where Did 'God' Come From?

Post by NukeBan » May 5th, 2020, 7:25 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. 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.

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

Re: Where Did 'God' Come From?

Post by evolution » May 5th, 2020, 7:38 am

NukeBan wrote:
May 4th, 2020, 8:00 pm
Thanks for your engagement Thomyum2, enjoying it.
Thomyum2 wrote:
May 4th, 2020, 1:30 pm
I 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.
I agree with what you have said so far. But, why do you propose 'thought' comes with a "built in" bias for division?

NukeBan wrote:
May 4th, 2020, 8:00 pm
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.
When what you have said here is rearranged in the slightest of ways, then that is thee actual Truth of things.
NukeBan wrote:
May 4th, 2020, 8:00 pm
Thought divides "me" from "everything else", with "me" being very very small and "everything else" being very very big.
But thought does not have to.

Thought can be of absolutely any thing. Thought does not have to be about 'Me' being separated at all.
NukeBan wrote:
May 4th, 2020, 8:00 pm
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.
But why do 'you' feel so small and vulnerable. If, as you said before, thought is what 'we' are made of psychologically, then this should be a great hind and help in understanding that 'we', you and me, the individual separate persons, are just that. Then discovering or learning and understanding exactly where thought/we come from, then Truly understanding each other becomes a reality, of which where True forgiveness and Love for each and EVERY one come from and blossom.
NukeBan wrote:
May 4th, 2020, 8:00 pm
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.
The 'underneath' or 'deep down' is where the True Self lies. Find the process of where ALL-OF-THIS came from or comes about, then learning, understanding, and knowing Thy (True) Self starts to really take shape.
NukeBan wrote:
May 4th, 2020, 8:00 pm
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.
Agreed. Thought is just another Creation of Evolution.

Every thing is a creation of evolution, and, every thing created evolves creating new things.
NukeBan wrote:
May 4th, 2020, 8:00 pm
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"?
The same thing that created this experience that there is only One, with an appearance of separation and division.
NukeBan wrote:
May 4th, 2020, 8:00 pm
My reply would be, the inherently divisive nature of thought, the medium itself.
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. It is only the way one is taught to think of its self as being a completely separate being that that is where the division WITHIN 'thought' comes from.
NukeBan wrote:
May 4th, 2020, 8:00 pm
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.
People only treat particular ideas and thoughts like a territory that needs to be defended, and falsely view the thoughts of groups that are different from (this imagined and apparent) "us" (or in other words any thought contrary from the one within this head) as a threat to our (supposed) "own" cultures and values, "our (own supposed) 'way of life', IF, and only IF, we have and hold beliefs. Only IF we are assuming and/or believing we already know what the truth is, then, and only then, we "defend our territory" AND "falsely view any contrary thoughts".

I would also say that I agree that this is a truly just totally 'surface level" phenomena. But, I disagree that this is the nature of thought. This phenomena is just a result of the way things are taught, which is just a by product of what has been learned, and vice-versa.

Post Reply