Concepts of God (The nature of a \'Creator\')

by dhw, Wednesday, April 06, 2016, 15:42 (2912 days ago)

We have left bacterial motors far behind, and so I am switching this discussion to a new thread.
 
DAVID (under "Bacterial motors"): I feel He wanted to create a thinking being to respond to Him, which we have done. We think like He does, only to a much less degree. Remember we are made in His image, at the mental level.
dhw: I don't have a problem with that, except that I'm not sure what you mean by “respond to him” […] -DAVID: I meant 'response' in the sense that humans setup religions. 
and
DAVID: (to BBella: God created us for a relationship, but He chooses to remain concealed so as to require faith.-So a whatever-it-is hides and keeps shtoom, and we ‘respond' to the hidden whatever-it-is's shtoomness. As BBella puts it so aptly: “...doesn't a relationship at least take two?”-DAVID (to BBella): The voyeur part of dhw's proposal just having entertainment watching us is out and out wrong. -Just as you once dismissed the findings of eminent scientists concerning cellular intelligence as “absolutely wrong”, you now dismiss a hypothesis about God's unknowable nature as “out and out wrong”, which can only mean you profess to have inside knowledge of the truth. Come on, let's have some humility. Besides, if as you say he has an “intense continuous interest” but “chooses to remain concealed”, what the heck can he do except be a “voyeur”? -BBELLA: On the other hand, putting myself into the place of ONE such eternal being with all power to create - instead of creating life, and becoming a watcher and a fiddler of it - I would become life itself. Become it in such a multitude of ways as to experience any and every possible way of being and experience it all fully. But the only way to do that, to truly experience ALL things exclusively as one thing, I would have to close the door to the true knowledge of who - I AM. -This is a very complex concept: God (a being with the power to create) would presumably have created life in the first place, but then decided to experience it in all its aspects by giving up his own identity and becoming all living things. But if he has no identity and IS all living things, he no longer exists as a separate being. He has become ALL THAT IS, in all its diversity. Is this right? It's certainly an intriguing idea, and would explain his absence and the higgledy-piggledy history of evolution, as well as putting paid to David's various evolutionary and teleological hypotheses. In fact, if it weren't for the difficulty of believing that life came about by chance, we could dispense with the concept of God altogether, which perhaps is what you are getting at? On the other hand, putting myself in his place (if he exists), I'm not so sure that I would want to give up my identity!

Concepts of God: how I think about God

by David Turell @, Wednesday, April 06, 2016, 16:38 (2912 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw:So a whatever-it-is hides and keeps shtoom, and we ‘respond' to the hidden whatever-it-is's shtoomness. As BBella puts it so aptly: “...doesn't a relationship at least take two?”-For the uninitiated shtoom is Yiddish for silent. Can we learn more about God if we use Yiddish words?
> 
> DAVID (to BBella): The voyeur part of dhw's proposal just having entertainment watching us is out and out wrong. 
> 
> dhw: Just as you once dismissed the findings of eminent scientists concerning cellular intelligence as “absolutely wrong”, you now dismiss a hypothesis about God's unknowable nature as “out and out wrong”, which can only mean you profess to have inside knowledge of the truth. -I look at the available evidence from God's works to arrive at my conclusions, and I see purpose everywhere, because I look for it. Circular I admit, but productive. Let's look at an interesting scientific study on algae that produce hydrocarbons. Why would they do that? If they evolved that capacity during their evolution, what purpose did it serve them? Nothing as far as I can tell. They don't need to hydrocarbons for their sustained existence. It is a side effect. Is it fortuitous OR is it something God did to help provide oil deposits all over the world for our use for modern fuel?-http://phys.org/news/2016-04-enzyme-discovery-scientists-path-oil.html-"'The interesting thing about this alga is that it produces large amounts of liquid hydrocarbons, which can be used to make fuels such as gasoline, kerosene and diesel fuel," Devarenne said. "And these liquid hydrocarbons made by the alga are currently found in petroleum deposits, so we are already using them as a source to generate fuel." -Comment: Note my bold. We, not God, yes, we are using the fuel supplied by the algae, but why shouldn't we look at the algae as supplied by God. I have a different frame of reference that the researchers and BBella and you. This is the way I came to a belief in God.-> 
> BBELLA: On the other hand, putting myself into the place of ONE such eternal being with all power to create - instead of creating life, and becoming a watcher and a fiddler of it - I would become life itself. Become it in such a multitude of ways as to experience any and every possible way of being and experience it all fully. But the only way to do that, to truly experience ALL things exclusively as one thing, I would have to close the door to the true knowledge of who - I AM. 
> 
> dhw: This is a very complex concept: God (a being with the power to create) would presumably have created life in the first place, but then decided to experience it in all its aspects by giving up his own identity and becoming all living things.-In my view God's identity is not given up. BBella is right on. God is in each of us, but we are not allowed to recognize that by a direct stimulation. That recognition requires thought and reflection by studying God's works for us (teleology). Thus panentheism is a logical conclusion or me by looking for teleology everywhere.-
> dhw: But if he has no identity and IS all living things, he no longer exists as a separate being. He has become ALL THAT IS, in all its diversity. Is this right? It's certainly an intriguing idea, and would explain his absence and the higgledy-piggledy history of evolution, as well as putting paid to David's various evolutionary and teleological hypotheses.-Doesn't change my approach. You don't think in teleological terms at all. -
>dhw; In fact, if it weren't for the difficulty of believing that life came about by chance, we could dispense with the concept of God altogether, which perhaps is what you are getting at? On the other hand, putting myself in his place (if he exists), I'm not so sure that I would want to give up my identity!-Right on. No He wouldn't give up identity! "Concept of God" is for me a strange way of approaching God. Very analytic but is it a search for evidence? I don't think so.

Concepts of God: how I think about God

by dhw, Thursday, April 07, 2016, 12:47 (2911 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: So a whatever-it-is hides and keeps shtoom, and we ‘respond' to the hidden whatever-it-is's shtoomness. As BBella puts it so aptly: “...doesn't a relationship at least take two?”
DAVID: For the uninitiated shtoom is Yiddish for silent. Can we learn more about God if we use Yiddish words?-I'm afraid that doesn't answer BBella's question.-DAVID (to BBella): The voyeur part of dhw's proposal just having entertainment watching us is out and out wrong. 
dhw: Just as you once dismissed the findings of eminent scientists concerning cellular intelligence as “absolutely wrong”, you now dismiss a hypothesis about God's unknowable nature as “out and out wrong”, which can only mean you profess to have inside knowledge of the truth. 
DAVID: I look at the available evidence from God's works to arrive at my conclusions, and I see purpose everywhere, because I look for it. Circular I admit, but productive.-An admirably honest assessment of your own thought processes, but that does not give you the right to dismiss other ideas as “out and out wrong”. And although it was you who used the term “voyeur”, I still don't know why it can't be applied to someone who according to you is intensely interested but keeps himself concealed.
 
DAVID: Let's look at an interesting scientific study on algae that produce hydrocarbons. 
http://phys.org/news/2016-04-enzyme-discovery-scientists-path-oil.html
Comment: ...We, not God, yes, we are using the fuel supplied by the algae, but why shouldn't we look at the algae as supplied by God. I have a different frame of reference that the researchers and BBella and you. This is the way I came to a belief in God.-And your theistic frame of reference enables you to see purpose because you look for it. I don't have a problem with that. Once a basic premise is established, it is very easy to find what you look for. Atheists do the same. My objection is to your “out and out wrong”, because I don't like to see you using the same intolerantly irrational level of argument as the fundamentalists of all creeds. -Dhw (in response to BBella): This is a very complex concept: God (a being with the power to create) would presumably have created life in the first place, but then decided to experience it in all its aspects by giving up his own identity and becoming all living things.
DAVID: In my view God's identity is not given up. BBella is right on. God is in each of us, but we are not allowed to recognize that by a direct stimulation. That recognition requires thought and reflection by studying God's works for us (teleology). Thus panentheism is a logical conclusion or me by looking for teleology everywhere.-Once you have fixed the basic premise, the rest follows on naturally, as above. But see below on the problem of teleology.-dhw: But if he has no identity and IS all living things, he no longer exists as a separate being. He has become ALL THAT IS, in all its diversity. Is this right? It's certainly an intriguing idea, and would explain his absence and the higgledy-piggledy history of evolution, as well as putting paid to David's various evolutionary and teleological hypotheses.
David: Doesn't change my approach. You don't think in teleological terms at all.
-Not so. I try to consider all possibilities, and if God exists, I would very much like to know his purpose in creating life. The hypothesis that he did so in order to relieve his eternal boredom is teleological. It is a hypothesis, not a belief, but in all honesty I must say I find it more rational than the hypothesis that he wants a relationship with us and yet conceals himself from us. -DAVID: "Concept of God" is for me a strange way of approaching God. Very analytic but is it a search for evidence? I don't think so.-It is perfectly possible to consider the evidence for and against the existence of God and at the same time to hypothesize about his nature (if he exists) by studying what he has created. You have drawn one conclusion from such studies; others may draw different conclusions.

Concepts of God: how I think about God

by David Turell @, Friday, April 08, 2016, 02:31 (2910 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I look at the available evidence from God's works to arrive at my conclusions, and I see purpose everywhere, because I look for it. Circular I admit, but productive.
> 
> dhw: An admirably honest assessment of your own thought processes, but that does not give you the right to dismiss other ideas as “out and out wrong”.-I am too forceful in my statements. 'Out and out wrong' is my view of the approach. you certainly have the right to propose what you will.-> dhw: And although it was you who used the term “voyeur”, I still don't know why it can't be applied to someone who according to you is intensely interested but keeps himself concealed.-I am using the word voyeur in its derogatory sense of spying on someone without their permission or knowledge.-> dhw; My objection is to your “out and out wrong”, because I don't like to see you using the same intolerantly irrational level of argument as the fundamentalists of all creeds. -Explained above. -> David: Doesn't change my approach. You don't think in teleological terms at all.
> 
> 
> dhw: Not so. I try to consider all possibilities, and if God exists, I would very much like to know his purpose in creating life. The hypothesis that he did so in order to relieve his eternal boredom is teleological. It is a hypothesis, not a belief, but in all honesty I must say I find it more rational than the hypothesis that he wants a relationship with us and yet conceals himself from us.-The gap in your reasoning is because you do not accept the fact that the arrival of humans is an very extraordinary and unnecessary event from an evolutionary endpoint. We should not be here, unless God intervened. Relationship with Him requires faith.
> 
> DAVID: "Concept of God" is for me a strange way of approaching God. Very analytic but is it a search for evidence? I don't think so.
> 
> dhw: It is perfectly possible to consider the evidence for and against the existence of God and at the same time to hypothesize about his nature (if he exists) by studying what he has created. You have drawn one conclusion from such studies; others may draw different conclusions.-Just so! He created humans. I don't see how they can be a glorious accident, per Gould. He was convinced and I'm quoting him, that if the tape of evolution was run over again, we would not appear! You do not want to accept that we are that degree of special, thus our degree/ kind battle.

Concepts of God: how I think about God

by dhw, Friday, April 08, 2016, 13:39 (2910 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] that does not give you the right to dismiss other ideas as “out and out wrong”.
DAVID: I am too forceful in my statements. 'Out and out wrong' is my view of the approach. you certainly have the right to propose what you will.-Thank you.-dhw: And although it was you who used the term “voyeur”, I still don't know why it can't be applied to someone who according to you is intensely interested but keeps himself concealed.
DAVID: I am using the word voyeur in its derogatory sense of spying on someone without their permission or knowledge.-Yeah, well, that would fit, wouldn't it?-David: Doesn't change my approach. You don't think in teleological terms at all.

dhw: Not so. I try to consider all possibilities, and if God exists, I would very much like to know his purpose in creating life. The hypothesis that he did so in order to relieve his eternal boredom is teleological. It is a hypothesis, not a belief, but in all honesty I must say I find it more rational than the hypothesis that he wants a relationship with us and yet conceals himself from us.-DAVID: The gap in your reasoning is because you do not accept the fact that the arrival of humans is an very extraordinary and unnecessary event from an evolutionary endpoint. We should not be here, unless God intervened. Relationship with Him requires faith.-We don't know that we are the endpoint, but as we have agreed a thousand times, the arrival of all multicellular organisms was extraordinary and unnecessary, since bacteria have survived to this day. According to you, even the weaverbird's nest could not be here unless God had intervened. And since God deliberately conceals himself and we know nothing of his nature, a relationship with him (which is different from belief in his existence) requires not just faith but a vivid imagination.
 
dhw: It is perfectly possible to consider the evidence for and against the existence of God and at the same time to hypothesize about his nature (if he exists) by studying what he has created. You have drawn one conclusion from such studies; others may draw different conclusions.
DAVID: Just so! He created humans. I don't see how they can be a glorious accident, per Gould. He was convinced and I'm quoting him, that if the tape of evolution was run over again, we would not appear! You do not want to accept that we are that degree of special, thus our degree/ kind battle.-According to you, God also created the camouflaged cuttlefish. All life is special. But I agree that our consciousness is specially special. That does not prove God planned and created all living things just for our sake. And what would happen if the tape of evolution was rerun seems to me a totally pointless speculation.

Concepts of God: how I think about God

by David Turell @, Friday, April 08, 2016, 15:19 (2910 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: According to you, God also created the camouflaged cuttlefish. All life is special. But I agree that our consciousness is specially special. That does not prove God planned and created all living things just for our sake. And what would happen if the tape of evolution was rerun seems to me a totally pointless speculation.-There is no proof of any of this, but as I've said before, that is what you want, proof! You have no conclusions from the evidence available. Gould's rerun of evolution was based on his contention that the whole series of events is based on contingencies, his view of Darwinian chance. Atheistic blather.

Concepts of God: how I think about God

by dhw, Saturday, April 09, 2016, 12:42 (2909 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: According to you, God also created the camouflaged cuttlefish. All life is special. But I agree that our consciousness is specially special. That does not prove God planned and created all living things just for our sake. And what would happen if the tape of evolution was rerun seems to me a totally pointless speculation.-DAVID: There is no proof of any of this, but as I've said before, that is what you want, proof! You have no conclusions from the evidence available. Gould's rerun of evolution was based on his contention that the whole series of events is based on contingencies, his view of Darwinian chance. Atheistic blather.-Gould would no doubt have said his hypothesis was based on the evidence available, and that your hypothesis is theistic blather. Proof is impossible, but for me the evidence for all the hypotheses is insufficient to draw a conclusion. I don't know why this is so difficult for you to accept.

Concepts of God: how I think about God

by David Turell @, Saturday, April 09, 2016, 16:18 (2909 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: Gould would no doubt have said his hypothesis was based on the evidence available, and that your hypothesis is theistic blather. Proof is impossible, but for me the evidence for all the hypotheses is insufficient to draw a conclusion. I don't know why this is so difficult for you to accept. - I do accept it, always have.

Concepts of God

by BBella @, Thursday, April 07, 2016, 17:34 (2910 days ago) @ dhw

BBELLA: On the other hand, putting myself into the place of ONE such eternal being with all power to create - instead of creating life, and becoming a watcher and a fiddler of it - I would become life itself. Become it in such a multitude of ways as to experience any and every possible way of being and experience it all fully. But the only way to do that, to truly experience ALL things exclusively as one thing, I would have to close the door to the true knowledge of who - I AM. 
> 
> This is a very complex concept: God (a being with the power to create) would presumably have created life in the first place, but then decided to experience it in all its aspects by giving up his own identity and becoming all living things. -I would not assume (in my imagining myself as God) that I would first create life and then decide to experience it myself. No, I would think I would design a way to experience "being" in many different ways and so create life - or a way to distance myself from my true I-dentity so to become other i-dentities.->But if he has no identity and IS all living things, he no longer exists as a separate being. He has become ALL THAT IS, in all its diversity. Is this right? -Putting myself in God's place (as only a mere human), I do not think I would want to (or could) give up my ONE true I-dentity. The very act of death itself seems to me to fit nicely as a fail-safe assurance that all identities return to that place in-between to be reminded of one's place of origin, etc. The imagination can go wild at this point and can even be evidenced by millions of testimonials. This very concept dominates many religions as well as lives alive and well in most if not all human thought processes (at least somewhere in the back of one's mind - the possibility of God). Many formal beliefs embrace this very concept of God as all and separate. ->It's certainly an intriguing idea, and would explain his absence and the higgledy-piggledy history of evolution, as well as putting paid to David's various evolutionary and teleological hypotheses. In fact, if it weren't for the difficulty of believing that life came about by chance, we could dispense with the concept of God altogether, which perhaps is what you are getting at? On the other hand, putting myself in his place (if he exists), I'm not so sure that I would want to give up my identity!-I agree.

Concepts of God

by dhw, Friday, April 08, 2016, 13:32 (2910 days ago) @ BBella

BBELLA: On the other hand, putting myself into the place of ONE such eternal being with all power to create - instead of creating life, and becoming a watcher and a fiddler of it - I would become life itself. Become it in such a multitude of ways as to experience any and every possible way of being and experience it all fully. But the only way to do that, to truly experience ALL things exclusively as one thing, I would have to close the door to the true knowledge of who - I AM. 

Dhw: This is a very complex concept: God (a being with the power to create) would presumably have created life in the first place, but then decided to experience it in all its aspects by giving up his own identity and becoming all living things. -BBELLA: I would not assume (in my imagining myself as God) that I would first create life and then decide to experience it myself. No, I would think I would design a way to experience "being" in many different ways and so create life - or a way to distance myself from my true I-dentity so to become other i-dentities.-Yes, that makes more sense. Thank you. But God would still have to “close the door” on his own identity if he wanted to experience yours and mine and, presumably, that of the duck-billed platypus.
 
Dhw: But if he has no identity and IS all living things, he no longer exists as a separate being. He has become ALL THAT IS, in all its diversity. Is this right? -BBELLA: Putting myself in God's place (as only a mere human), I do not think I would want to (or could) give up my ONE true I-dentity. The very act of death itself seems to me to fit nicely as a fail-safe assurance that all identities return to that place in-between to be reminded of one's place of origin, etc. The imagination can go wild at this point and can even be evidenced by millions of testimonials. This very concept dominates many religions as well as lives alive and well in most if not all human thought processes (at least somewhere in the back of one's mind - the possibility of God). Many formal beliefs embrace this very concept of God as all and separate.-This is where mysticism takes over - which is not meant as a criticism. God must close the door on his own identity, and yet he retains his own identity. And: “All identities return to that place in-between”, where they are…what? Themselves but not themselves? And God is “all and separate”. You are right, many people have experienced this sense of one-ness and separateness, both in eastern and western religions and philosophies. But in some eastern philosophies, there is no all-powerful individual being who deliberately created the universe and life (let alone centring his attention on the production of humans). And it seems to me that the Hindu moksa and the Buddhist nirvana, for instance, with their emphasis on the abandonment of all self-centred desires and goals and the end of the cycle of birth, death and rebirth, might as well be equated with extinction. The Buddha explicitly rejected this, though, and Chinese Buddhists apparently regard nirvana as a state of eternal bliss. I really haven't a clue how I could ever be in a state of bliss if I was no longer me. You can achieve loss of self and earthly desires and goals and a oneness with All That Is simply by being dead. If, on the other hand, there is a single Creator who is me but is not me, and if I am to be one with him when my body dies, it seems to me that one of us is going to have to give up his identity. And if it's me, once more I might as well as be dead. But as a mere human like yourself, I must acknowledge that I am far too limited in my thinking to conceive of eternity and infinity, let alone the possible identity/identities of an infinite and eternal mind! (Though as David will confirm, I still keep trying!)

Concepts of God

by David Turell @, Friday, April 08, 2016, 15:13 (2910 days ago) @ dhw


> BBELLA: Putting myself in God's place (as only a mere human), I do not think I would want to (or could) give up my ONE true I-dentity. ....This very concept dominates many religions as well as lives alive and well in most if not all human thought processes (at least somewhere in the back of one's mind - the possibility of God). Many formal beliefs embrace this very concept of God as all and separate.
> 
> dhw: If, on the other hand, there is a single Creator who is me but is not me, and if I am to be one with him when my body dies, it seems to me that one of us is going to have to give up his identity. .... I must acknowledge that I am far too limited in my thinking to conceive of eternity and infinity, let alone the possible identity/identities of an infinite and eternal mind! (Though as David will confirm, I still keep trying!)-It's instructive to follow you guys. I've looked into these issues by extrapolating from NDE's. The experiencer sees only dead people. They have not lost their identity, but they are over on the other side with God. Their ability to have their own thoughts is shown by the reported telepathic instructions to go back.

Concepts of God

by dhw, Saturday, April 09, 2016, 12:38 (2909 days ago) @ David Turell

BBELLA: Putting myself in God's place (as only a mere human), I do not think I would want to (or could) give up my ONE true I-dentity. ....This very concept dominates many religions as well as lives alive and well in most if not all human thought processes (at least somewhere in the back of one's mind - the possibility of God). Many formal beliefs embrace this very concept of God as all and separate.

dhw: If, on the other hand, there is a single Creator who is me but is not me, and if I am to be one with him when my body dies, it seems to me that one of us is going to have to give up his identity. .... I must acknowledge that I am far too limited in my thinking to conceive of eternity and infinity, let alone the possible identity/identities of an infinite and eternal mind! (Though as David will confirm, I still keep trying!)-DAVID: It's instructive to follow you guys. I've looked into these issues by extrapolating from NDE's. The experiencer sees only dead people. They have not lost their identity, but they are over on the other side with God. Their ability to have their own thoughts is shown by the reported telepathic instructions to go back.
-NDEs are an important factor for my agnosticism, especially when they result in patients being given information they could not otherwise have known (e.g. the recent death of a relative). You are right - they all keep their identity. However, when we have discussed this in the past, we have noted that some NDEs can be frightening and unpleasant, and they are not all “with God”. On the other hand, some patients mention being welcomed by Jesus. Does that mean Jews and Buddhists and Hindus have got it all wrong? Or do people enter a world of their own imagining? It's a fascinating and bewildering field of study.

Concepts of God

by David Turell @, Saturday, April 09, 2016, 16:16 (2909 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: NDEs are an important factor for my agnosticism, especially when they result in patients being given information they could not otherwise have known (e.g. the recent death of a relative). You are right - they all keep their identity. However, when we have discussed this in the past, we have noted that some NDEs can be frightening and unpleasant, and they are not all “with God”. On the other hand, some patients mention being welcomed by Jesus. Does that mean Jews and Buddhists and Hindus have got it all wrong? Or do people enter a world of their own imagining? It's a fascinating and bewildering field of study.-Unpleasant is a small minority. Have no idea why. Other religions are also represented and based on the individual's religion. They also happen to atheists, as with Eben Alexander.

Concepts of God

by BBella @, Sunday, April 10, 2016, 08:22 (2908 days ago) @ dhw

Part 1...-> Dhw: But if he has no identity and IS all living things, he no longer exists as a separate being. He has become ALL THAT IS, in all its diversity. Is this right? 
> 
> BBELLA: Putting myself in God's place (as only a mere human), I do not think I would want to (or could) give up my ONE true I-dentity. The very act of death itself seems to me to fit nicely as a fail-safe assurance that all identities return to that place in-between to be reminded of one's place of origin, etc. The imagination can go wild at this point and can even be evidenced by millions of testimonials. This very concept dominates many religions as well as lives alive and well in most if not all human thought processes (at least somewhere in the back of one's mind - the possibility of God). Many formal beliefs embrace this very concept of God as all and separate.
> 
> This is where mysticism takes over - which is not meant as a criticism. God must close the door on his own identity, and yet he retains his own identity. And: “All identities return to that place in-between”, where they are…what? Themselves but not themselves? And God is “all and separate”. -I would think anytime we talk of God we are stepping into the waters of mysticism. Religion is just mysticism written in stone (a book), so at least we aren't going there. But, we are treading the waters between science and religion. We are discussing the unknown that we know is not science, but can be discussed scientifically - about what we do know. -There are a lot of factors that can be considered that we do have evidence of, as I said before, by testimonials. The fact that so many religions, personal testimonies, etc, tell us there is something "out there" and an afterlife, God or whatever - some have even been "there" and returned to tell us about it, does give us some scientific facts to go on - just on the overwhelming amount of accounts (probably way over 50%) alone! We have to at least acknowledge there is an overwhelming possibility that "something" happens after we die - has to be a huge possibility and more likely true than nothing happens. But what happens? is the next question, scientifically.-Part 2...next.

Concepts of God

by dhw, Sunday, April 10, 2016, 14:21 (2908 days ago) @ BBella

Dhw: This is where mysticism takes over - which is not meant as a criticism. God must close the door on his own identity, and yet he retains his own identity. And: “All identities return to that place in-between”, where they are…what? Themselves but not themselves? And God is “all and separate”. -BBELLA: I would think anytime we talk of God we are stepping into the waters of mysticism. Religion is just mysticism written in stone (a book), so at least we aren't going there. But, we are treading the waters between science and religion. We are discussing the unknown that we know is not science, but can be discussed scientifically - about what we do know. 
There are a lot of factors that can be considered that we do have evidence of, as I said before, by testimonials. The fact that so many religions, personal testimonies, etc, tell us there is something "out there" and an afterlife, God or whatever - some have even been "there" and returned to tell us about it, does give us some scientific facts to go on - just on the overwhelming amount of accounts (probably way over 50%) alone! We have to at least acknowledge there is an overwhelming possibility that "something" happens after we die - has to be a huge possibility and more likely true than nothing happens. But what happens? is the next question, scientifically.-David has once again raised the subject of NDEs, and one can broaden this out to other psychic experiences such as your own, in which there is a transcendence of our known material reality. Materialists may not agree that such experiences are “scientific facts”, or at best they will argue that there must be a materialist explanation. The latter case requires faith and has nothing to do with science, while the former depends on how you define “scientific”. If someone provides otherwise inaccessible information which has been confirmed by independent third parties, that's good enough for me, and the experience must be taken seriously. But the word “scientific” bothers me, as you will see in Part 2!

Concepts of God

by BBella @, Sunday, April 10, 2016, 08:23 (2908 days ago) @ dhw

You are right, many people have experienced this sense of one-ness and separateness, both in eastern and western religions and philosophies. -Yes, an overwhelming amount of people say they have experienced something similar to this sense - no matter their philosophy - or no philosopy.->But in some eastern philosophies, there is no all-powerful individual being who deliberately created the universe and life (let alone centring his attention on the production of humans). And it seems to me that the Hindu moksa and the Buddhist nirvana, for instance, with their emphasis on the abandonment of all self-centred desires and goals and the end of the cycle of birth, death and rebirth, might as well be equated with extinction. The Buddha explicitly rejected this, though, and Chinese Buddhists apparently regard nirvana as a state of eternal bliss. I really haven't a clue how I could ever be in a state of bliss if I was no longer me. You can achieve loss of self and earthly desires and goals and a oneness with All That Is simply by being dead. If, on the other hand, there is a single Creator who is me but is not me, and if I am to be one with him when my body dies, it seems to me that one of us is going to have to give up his identity. And if it's me, once more I might as well as be dead. But as a mere human like yourself, I must acknowledge that I am far too limited in my thinking to conceive of eternity and infinity, let alone the possible identity/identities of an infinite and eternal mind! (Though as David will confirm, I still keep trying!)-So the next question, what happens after we die? It can be answered with it's own facts. The diversity alone should be as much considered a fact about the afterlife, as it would be if all testimonies/religions agreed on only one belief/philosophy. -So diversity itself is a scientific fact about the afterlife. So what if in fact the this fact of diversity is simply a factor (or an aspect) of the multi-level possibilities of the afterlife - in the same sense that there is a multi-leveled possibilities of types of beings and experiences on the earth itself. From the most simplest organism to the most complex, etc - the diversity of what is experienced here on earth is on such multi-levels it cannot be categorized easily if at all. -So why not the same about the afterlife? Simply, if our world that we know is filled with such diversity of levels and experiences of all that it can be (all possibilities), why not the unknown in the afterlife be the same? Could not that which is above be the same as that which is below? -Maybe, between the separate i-dentities and the ONE I-dentiy of God, is a multitude of levels of states of being that we humans can experience (on some level) while here. This could account for our experiences that seem so different from each others experiences, though sometimes they seem similar (kind of like the fable of the blind men feeling the different parts of the elephant and giving different accounts of what they feel).-Also, it could be a fact that the very fact of these differing accounts that might cause a person who has not experienced any of these experiences (never even felt an elephant), very skeptical that there is anything of truth to any of it - that all of these experiences must be a figment of billions of peoples imagination. In other words - there is no elephant. Possibly?

Concepts of God

by dhw, Sunday, April 10, 2016, 14:29 (2908 days ago) @ BBella

BBELLA: So the next question, what happens after we die? It can be answered with it's own facts. The diversity alone should be as much considered a fact about the afterlife, as it would be if all testimonies/religions agreed on only one belief/philosophy. 
So diversity itself is a scientific fact about the afterlife.-I can't divorce “scientific” from science, and I really don't know if one can talk in such terms about the hypothesis of an afterlife. It is an historical fact that the Battle of Hastings took place in 1066, and it is a personal fact that I like chocolate, and it is a scientific fact that the Earth goes round the sun. I regard science as the study of the material universe, and scientists can get away with linguistic murder by cloaking their most far-fetched theories in the respectability of “scientific” just because they relate to the material world. But by its very nature an afterlife - life after the death of the material body - can't be related to the material universe as we (think) we know it. It is a fact that different people have had different experiences of an apparent afterlife, and so it is a fact that diversity is a feature of the hypothesis. But I don't see how you can call it a “scientific” fact. 
 
BBELLA: So what if in fact the this fact of diversity is simply a factor (or an aspect) of the multi-level possibilities of the afterlife - in the same sense that there is a multi-leveled possibilities of types of beings and experiences on the earth itself. From the most simplest organism to the most complex, etc - the diversity of what is experienced here on earth is on such multi-levels it cannot be categorized easily if at all. 
So why not the same about the afterlife? Simply, if our world that we know is filled with such diversity of levels and experiences of all that it can be (all possibilities), why not the unknown in the afterlife be the same? Could not that which is above be the same as that which is below?
 Maybe, between the separate i-dentities and the ONE I-dentiy of God, is a multitude of levels of states of being that we humans can experience (on some level) while here. This could account for our experiences that seem so different from each others experiences, though sometimes they seem similar (kind of like the fable of the blind men feeling the different parts of the elephant and giving different accounts of what they feel).-Perhaps we are back to solipsism, in the sense that we all experience this reality in our own way, and the same may apply if there is an afterlife. But I'm not sure what is implied by “levels of states of being”. It's true that some of my experiences on Earth seem more profound than others - I do not regard my love of cricket and chocolate to be on the same level as my love for my family - but all these levels co-exist within me and help to form my identity (I like your i-dentity!). However, “states of being” seems to indicate some kind of spiritual hierarchy that culminates in God. Perhaps you could explain this in terms of our i-dentity?-BBELLA: Also, it could be a fact that the very fact of these differing accounts that might cause a person who has not experienced any of these experiences (never even felt an elephant), very skeptical that there is anything of truth to any of it - that all of these experiences must be a figment of billions of peoples imagination. In other words - there is no elephant. Possibly?-That is unquestionably so. I'm sure your average materialist will say there is no afterlife. And I think you would be right to ask whether such a person considers these experiences to be frauds or delusions. (I wish Tony would join in this discussion, because he would attribute them to the Devil.) I think many so-called psychic experiences are as real as our everyday experiences, but whether the i-dentity actually lives on after the death of the body (not just the brain) is a question I simply don't feel able to answer.

Concepts of God

by David Turell @, Monday, April 11, 2016, 01:15 (2907 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: I think many so-called psychic experiences are as real as our everyday experiences, but whether the i-dentity actually lives on after the death of the body (not just the brain) is a question I simply don't feel able to answer.-Brain dead is dead! The body just takes a little longer, because as breathing stops and anoxia sets in the other tissues take their slow time to die. This is why we can do transplants.-What is considered 'brain dead' is loss of activity in the cortex. The other layers show very little activity at that point, but some deep spikes are occasionally seen. Whether that minimal activity can support the complexity of NDE's is very doubtful. BBella is right to feel this is scientific evidence which must be factored into any thinking about afterlife.

Concepts of God

by dhw, Monday, April 11, 2016, 13:37 (2907 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I think many so-called psychic experiences are as real as our everyday experiences, but whether the i-dentity actually lives on after the death of the body (not just the brain) is a question I simply don't feel able to answer.-DAVID: Brain dead is dead! The body just takes a little longer, because as breathing stops and anoxia sets in the other tissues take their slow time to die. This is why we can do transplants.-You will have to enlighten me on this. If the other tissues take their slow time to die, why does brain dead = dead? Didn't Eben Alexander have his NDE while in a coma? Doesn't that = brain dead, body alive?
 
DAVID: What is considered 'brain dead' is loss of activity in the cortex. The other layers show very little activity at that point, but some deep spikes are occasionally seen. Whether that minimal activity can support the complexity of NDE's is very doubtful. BBella is right to feel this is scientific evidence which must be factored into any thinking about afterlife.-BBella wrote that diversity was a “scientific fact about the afterlife”. I don't see how one can talk of scientific facts in such a context, as I have explained in my post to her. I don't know why you feel the need to use the word “scientific” anyway, other than to conform to the general prejudice that if something is not “scientific” it is not to be taken seriously. I think as you do that NDEs should be taken very seriously, and I wish there were some means of devising “scientific” tests to prove that there is or is not such a thing as an afterlife. As it is, we have people's experiences, and in some cases we have information they could not have obtained by normal means. That is evidence enough for me to acknowledge the possibility of an afterlife. However, I also acknowledge the possibility of a “scientific”, i.e. materialistic explanation, and even of a psychic explanation that does not necessitate the existence of the single mind you call God. And the older I get, the closer I come to the truth. So I'll just wait and see - or not see!

Concepts of God

by David Turell @, Monday, April 11, 2016, 15:53 (2907 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I think many so-called psychic experiences are as real as our everyday experiences, but whether the i-dentity actually lives on after the death of the body (not just the brain) is a question I simply don't feel able to answer.
> 
> DAVID: Brain dead is dead! The body just takes a little longer, because as breathing stops and anoxia sets in the other tissues take their slow time to die. This is why we can do transplants.
> 
> dhw: You will have to enlighten me on this. If the other tissues take their slow time to die, why does brain dead = dead? Didn't Eben Alexander have his NDE while in a coma? Doesn't that = brain dead, body alive?-Exactly correct. When the brain turns off (although still can be saved thru cardiac resuscitation) all vital functions stop. Heart stops: within i5 seconds, coma. Within four minutes brain death of the cortex (in adults), not the underlying structures. Breathing will stop shortly after because that control is deeper. Then slowly all the organs begin to die. This time interval is why resuscitation works, and also why we can harvest organs or transplant. Eben had a galloping encephalitis which meant his cortex was alive but non-functioning due to the raging inflammation.
> 
> dhw: However, I also acknowledge the possibility of a “scientific”, i.e. materialistic explanation, and even of a psychic explanation that does not necessitate the existence of the single mind you call God. And the older I get, the closer I come to the truth. So I'll just wait and see - or not see!-BBella's point is we have to try to analyze what facts we do have.

Concepts of God

by dhw, Tuesday, April 12, 2016, 14:54 (2906 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: However, I also acknowledge the possibility of a “scientific”, i.e. materialistic explanation, and even of a psychic explanation that does not necessitate the existence of the single mind you call God. And the older I get, the closer I come to the truth. So I'll just wait and see - or not see!-DAVID: BBella's point is we have to try to analyze what facts we do have.-Agreed. We don't need to call the facts “scientific” before we can analyse them, and we should not assume that there is or is not a “scientific” explanation for those facts. Our ignorance is so profound that we should keep an open mind on all such issues, and this applies particularly to the sceptics. (I can understand why people who have had such experiences themselves will be convinced of their own conclusions.)

Concepts of God

by David Turell @, Tuesday, April 12, 2016, 16:16 (2906 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Agreed. We don't need to call the facts “scientific” before we can analyse them, and we should not assume that there is or is not a “scientific” explanation for those facts. Our ignorance is so profound that we should keep an open mind on all such issues, and this applies particularly to the sceptics. (I can understand why people who have had such experiences themselves will be convinced of their own conclusions.) - Excellent statement.

Concepts of God

by BBella @, Thursday, April 14, 2016, 00:28 (2904 days ago) @ dhw

It is a fact that different people have had different experiences of an apparent afterlife, and so it is a fact that diversity is a feature of the hypothesis. But I don't see how you can call it a “scientific” fact. -Ok, so better said: It is an indisputable fact that millions of people have differing experiences of the afterlife. Not scientific fact - just an indisputable fact.-> 
> BBELLA: So what if in fact the this fact of diversity is simply a factor (or an aspect) of the multi-level possibilities of the afterlife - in the same sense that there is a multi-leveled possibilities of types of beings and experiences on the earth itself. From the most simplest organism to the most complex, etc - the diversity of what is experienced here on earth is on such multi-levels it cannot be categorized easily if at all. 
> So why not the same about the afterlife? Simply, if our world that we know is filled with such diversity of levels and experiences of all that it can be (all possibilities), why not the unknown in the afterlife be the same? Could not that which is above be the same as that which is below?
> Maybe, between the separate i-dentities and the ONE I-dentiy of God, is a multitude of levels of states of being that we humans can experience (on some level) while here. This could account for our experiences that seem so different from each others experiences, though sometimes they seem similar (kind of like the fable of the blind men feeling the different parts of the elephant and giving different accounts of what they feel).
> 
>[dhw] Perhaps we are back to solipsism, in the sense that we all experience this reality in our own way, and the same may apply if there is an afterlife. But I'm not sure what is implied by “levels of states of being”. -I was thinking how just on our earth, different entities experience different levels of states of being. From basic bacteria to humanity. All beings experiencing being in a different way. Maybe the afterlife could be in someway similar. Or, differing levels of existence to be experienced in the in-between by each being differently. By the differing accounts there are so many similarities and then many differences, so that alone says the explanation of levels makes sense as a possibility.->However, “states of being” seems to indicate some kind of spiritual hierarchy that culminates in God. Perhaps you could explain this in terms of our i-dentity?-I dont know about "spiritual hierarchy". Maybe it's more like when a being is on the matter plane of existence (on earth), a being is cloaked within a heavier level or state of existence. Maybe in the afterlife a being can move to a multitude of levels, most would probably be a less dense state of being - so closer to the ONEness of God. Maybe some move to a denser level. Maybe one could move to a state of afterlife where we choose to move toward the ONEness or back to the heavier state of being of earth etc. Of course, conjecture. I'm just using the small amount of facts I know about what I've heard about the afterlife and trying to make some sense of the diverse accounts and what that might mean - other than the easy answer - hallucinations.
 
> 
> BBELLA: Also, it could be a fact that the very fact of these differing accounts that might cause a person who has not experienced any of these experiences (never even felt an elephant), very skeptical that there is anything of truth to any of it - that all of these experiences must be a figment of billions of peoples imagination. In other words - there is no elephant. Possibly?-> whether the i-dentity actually lives on after the death of the body (not just the brain) is a question I simply don't feel able to answer.-Of course. But for millions that have experienced the afterlife (however different their experiences) and for those who have had experiences that gave them insight to an afterlife or something more than what we see, their experiences shouldn't be discounted (which you aren't) but should be considered as fact and way past the half way mark on the scale of possibility especially when discussing concepts of God.

Concepts of God

by David Turell @, Thursday, April 14, 2016, 01:08 (2904 days ago) @ BBella

BBella:I'm just using the small amount of facts I know about what I've heard about the afterlife and trying to make some sense of the diverse accounts and what that might mean - other than the easy answer - hallucinations.-I can state categorically that they are not hallucinations. No study by any of the authors describes them that way. Having dealt with hallucinatory patients, their thoughts and what they imagine is totally disorganized, and the NDE stories I've heard from patients are quite reasonable and organized.

Concepts of God

by dhw, Thursday, April 14, 2016, 16:11 (2904 days ago) @ BBella

Dhw: It is a fact that different people have had different experiences of an apparent afterlife, and so it is a fact that diversity is a feature of the hypothesis. But I don't see how you can call it a “scientific” fact. 
BBELLA: Ok, so better said: It is an indisputable fact that millions of people have differing experiences of the afterlife. Not scientific fact - just an indisputable fact.-Thank you. Please forgive my pedantry, but there are too many misunderstandings caused by nuances of language, and in this particular case I feel very strongly that we should not try to conform to the current trend of elevating “science” to the status of the sole adjudicator of what might or might not be the truth.
 
BBELLA: Maybe, between the separate i-dentities and the ONE I-dentiy of God, is a multitude of levels of states of being that we humans can experience (on some level) while here. This could account for our experiences that seem so different from each others experiences, though sometimes they seem similar…
Dhw: …I'm not sure what is implied by “levels of states of being”. 
BBELLA: I was thinking how just on our earth, different entities experience different levels of states of being. From basic bacteria to humanity. All beings experiencing being in a different way. Maybe the afterlife could be in someway similar. Or, differing levels of existence to be experienced in the in-between by each being differently. By the differing accounts there are so many similarities and then many differences, so that alone says the explanation of levels makes sense as a possibility.-Thank you. I agree that different beings experience being in different ways. That may even apply to small organisms as well as large organisms. And for those who believe in reincarnation (the "heavier state"), as you mention below, there is even the possibility of metempsychosis - living again in another form. I vaguely remember asking you what form you would like to come back in if this is an option, but I can't remember the answer!-Dhw: However, “states of being” seems to indicate some kind of spiritual hierarchy that culminates in God. Perhaps you could explain this in terms of our i-dentity?
BBELLA: I dont know about "spiritual hierarchy". Maybe it's more like when a being is on the matter plane of existence (on earth), a being is cloaked within a heavier level or state of existence. Maybe in the afterlife a being can move to a multitude of levels, most would probably be a less dense state of being - so closer to the ONEness of God. Maybe some move to a denser level. Maybe one could move to a state of afterlife where we choose to move toward the ONEness or back to the heavier state of being of earth etc. Of course, conjecture. I'm just using the small amount of facts I know about what I've heard about the afterlife and trying to make some sense of the diverse accounts and what that might mean - other than the easy answer - hallucinations. 
DAVID: I can state categorically that they are not hallucinations. No study by any of the authors describes them that way. Having dealt with hallucinatory patients, their thoughts and what they imagine is totally disorganized, and the NDE stories I've heard from patients are quite reasonable and organized.-I think this is a very important point, and I would not limit it to NDEs. Of course there are undoubtedly many psychic experiences that are fake, or hallucinatory, or just plain misinterpretations of events that do have an everyday explanation. But there are far too many instances - I can think of several even within my own family circle of pretty sceptical folk - that simply cannot be explained or dismissed in such a manner.
 
Dhw: …whether the i-dentity actually lives on after the death of the body (not just the brain) is a question I simply don't feel able to answer.
BBELLA: Of course. But for millions that have experienced the afterlife (however different their experiences) and for those who have had experiences that gave them insight to an afterlife or something more than what we see, their experiences shouldn't be discounted (which you aren't) but should be considered as fact and way past the half way mark on the scale of possibility especially when discussing concepts of God.-No, I certainly do not discount these experiences. But of course one has to distinguish between the facts and people's interpretations of the facts, and since you rightly point out that different people have all kinds of different experiences, we do perhaps come back to solipsism. A Christian's experience of an afterlife may be very different from that of a Hindu, a Muslim, a Buddhist, or a Seventh Day Adventist. And one must also bear in mind that some of these experiences are extremely unpleasant - it's not all peace and love. Ah well, I look forward to finding out what sort of experience awaits an agnostic. But I may never know!

Concepts of God

by David Turell @, Thursday, April 14, 2016, 18:08 (2903 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: And one must also bear in mind that some of these experiences are extremely unpleasant - it's not all peace and love. Ah well, I look forward to finding out what sort of experience awaits an agnostic. But I may never know! - Ah, an agnostic afterlife is probably one big neutral blank nothingness of no experiences.

Concepts of God

by dhw, Friday, April 15, 2016, 14:31 (2903 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: And one must also bear in mind that some of these experiences are extremely unpleasant - it's not all peace and love. Ah well, I look forward to finding out what sort of experience awaits an agnostic. But I may never know! - DAVID: Ah, an agnostic afterlife is probably one big neutral blank nothingness of no experiences. - That would be death.

Concepts of God

by David Turell @, Friday, April 15, 2016, 15:47 (2903 days ago) @ dhw


> DAVID: Ah, an agnostic afterlife is probably one big neutral blank nothingness of no experiences.
> 
> dhw: That would be death. - But the discussion remains, perhaps there is more

Concepts of God

by BBella @, Friday, April 15, 2016, 22:21 (2902 days ago) @ dhw

Dhw: It is a fact that different people have had different experiences of an apparent afterlife, and so it is a fact that diversity is a feature of the hypothesis. But I don't see how you can call it a “scientific” fact. 
> BBELLA: Ok, so better said: It is an indisputable fact that millions of people have differing experiences of the afterlife. Not scientific fact - just an indisputable fact.
> 
> Thank you. Please forgive my pedantry -Nothing to forgive. In fact I appreciate your ability to slice and dice ideas up into tiny pieces as you go. 
 
>And for those who believe in reincarnation (the "heavier state"), as you mention below, there is even the possibility of metempsychosis - living again in another form. I vaguely remember asking you what form you would like to come back in if this is an option, but I can't remember the answer!-I don't remember you asking the question before now, but if there were such a thing as reincarnation, I think I've already went the animal route - probably not that many lives ago - lol! It took me some time to get accustomed to humans in my life, as I came with an extreme affinity for animals and an early distant feeling of disdain for humans that took years to get over. But circumstances and genes could account for that, who knows? So except for possibly a bird, I don't think I'd do the animal thing here (again?). But if there were such a thing, I would hope the possibilities were endless to choose from in many other levels of being, so I have no desire to choose before it's time.-> 
> Dhw: However, “states of being” seems to indicate some kind of spiritual hierarchy that culminates in God. Perhaps you could explain this in terms of our i-dentity?
> BBELLA: just using the small amount of facts I know about what I've heard about the afterlife and trying to make some sense of the diverse accounts and what that might mean - other than the easy answer - hallucinations. 
> DAVID: I can state categorically that they are not hallucinations. No study by any of the authors describes them that way. Having dealt with hallucinatory patients, their thoughts and what they imagine is totally disorganized, and the NDE stories I've heard from patients are quite reasonable and organized.
> 
> I think this is a very important point, and I would not limit it to NDEs. Of course there are undoubtedly many psychic experiences that are fake, or hallucinatory, or just plain misinterpretations of events that do have an everyday explanation. But there are far too many instances - I can think of several even within my own family circle of pretty sceptical folk - that simply cannot be explained or dismissed in such a manner. [...]I certainly do not discount these experiences. But of course one has to distinguish between the facts and people's interpretations of the facts, and since you rightly point out that different people have all kinds of different experiences, we do perhaps come back to solipsism. A Christian's experience of an afterlife may be very different from that of a Hindu, a Muslim, a Buddhist, or a Seventh Day Adventist. And one must also bear in mind that some of these experiences are extremely unpleasant - it's not all peace and love. -Aside from solipsism or any other mental experience, given the fact that there are so many differing accounts of these experiences (though many are uncannily similar) - if you were to go out on a limb for a moment and accept these differing experiences as reality, what do you think would be a good explanation that would fit all of these folks experiences? You do not have to use any known ideas in your answer - you can make up one like I did.

Concepts of God

by dhw, Saturday, April 16, 2016, 09:31 (2902 days ago) @ BBella

Dhw: And for those who believe in reincarnation (the "heavier state"), as you mention below, there is even the possibility of metempsychosis - living again in another form. I vaguely remember asking you what form you would like to come back in if this is an option, but I can't remember the answer!
BBELLA: I don't remember you asking the question before now, but if there were such a thing as reincarnation, I think I've already went the animal route - probably not that many lives ago - lol! It took me some time to get accustomed to humans in my life, as I came with an extreme affinity for animals and an early distant feeling of disdain for humans that took years to get over. But circumstances and genes could account for that, who knows? So except for possibly a bird, I don't think I'd do the animal thing here (again?). But if there were such a thing, I would hope the possibilities were endless to choose from in many other levels of being, so I have no desire to choose before it's time.-I wonder whether your disdain for humans ever returns - e.g. when you see what atrocities they commit against their fellow creatures, or you listen to some of our politicians. But then you see acts of kindness, and you listen to great music, and disdain gives way to admiration. I seem to go through life always being aware of both sides. I expect you are the same.-“No desire to choose before it's time” also rings a bell for me in my agnosticism. If there is a God, and if there is an afterlife, the time will come… -BBELLA: Aside from solipsism or any other mental experience, given the fact that there are so many differing accounts of these experiences (though many are uncannily similar) - if you were to go out on a limb for a moment and accept these differing experiences as reality, what do you think would be a good explanation that would fit all of these folks experiences? You do not have to use any known ideas in your answer - you can make up one like I did.-This is a fascinating challenge! I am short of time today, as I shall be off soon to score for my cricket team - cricket, like chocolate, is one of those inventions that fill me with admiration for my fellow humans! But I shall mull it over and get back to you tomorrow.

Concepts of God

by dhw, Sunday, April 17, 2016, 12:48 (2901 days ago) @ BBella

BBELLA: Aside from solipsism or any other mental experience, given the fact that there are so many differing accounts of these experiences (though many are uncannily similar) - if you were to go out on a limb for a moment and accept these differing experiences as reality, what do you think would be a good explanation that would fit all of these folks experiences? You do not have to use any known ideas in your answer - you can make up one like I did.-This has proved extremely difficult! I have to assume that blissful meetings with God or Jesus Christ are real, and so are terrifying experiences of isolation or a literal hell. Loved ones are there, angels and demons are there, friendly and hostile strangers are there, and here on Earth (I am not thinking only of NDEs now) there are ghosts and there are strange echoes of previous lives. The temptation to dismiss them all as hallucinations is very strong, because as an explanation that would cover everything. But firstly that is against the rules of the game, and secondly, and far more importantly - as I mentioned earlier - there are far too many incidents that I can't dismiss.-My “theory” would have two starting-points: 1) energy, and 2) the subjectivity of reality. In the brief guide, I have pointed out that a telescope on a planet X billion miles away would enable the observer to watch the crucifixion. Images don't die, and images are light waves of energy. We might extend the idea to consciousness and identity as individualized forms of energy that survive the death of the body which has enclosed them. Particularly sensitive living beings might sense the presence of these after-life forms even here on Earth. (That would explain ghosts and mediums who have contact with the “spirit” world.)
 
The individualized form of energy (identity) that we have on Earth is not consistent; it develops and changes in accordance with nature, nurture and experience; its perceptions and memories are often suspect; its interpretations of “reality” are subjective; its subconscious activities may create images, ideas, emotions which themselves are independent of its conscious control. When we tell our personal stories, listeners will not be able to distinguish between fact and fiction, and sometimes we may not be able to do so ourselves. And yet what we recount is real to us.-If all the psychic and after-life experiences are real, then, the immaterial self survives the death of the material self as an individualized unit of energy. It takes with it all the subjective realities, both conscious and unconscious, that it accumulated on Earth. And among these are such concepts as God and Jesus and angels and demons and bliss and torment. And just as our dreams and our memories (whether accurate or not) are “real” to us, the scenes that greet us when we die are also real to us. They can also be shared intersubjectively, like our present experiences and memories, because there is no reason why identities should not go on communicating with and influencing one another. That need not mean that when we die we get what we expect. Our dreams do not always conform to our expectations - on the contrary, they are often a source of surprise (sometimes very unpleasant) - and so the afterlife may well confront us with realities we only knew of subconsciously. Why would an atheist be confronted by God, or a theist find himself in a barren void? To answer that, you would need to know what goes on in their subconscious minds, and that is unexplored territory, probably even for them.
 
Finally, what happens long-term to this individualized energy once it is freed from the body? I like your own suggestion: it chooses the reality it wishes to be in. It can return to Earth in human or any other form (memories of past lives are real); it can let itself merge with the reality of its god or gods; it can go on forming real relationships and doing many of the real things it did on Earth, since clearly our NDE patients have no trouble seeing, hearing, feeling etc. And perhaps it can also opt to end itself.-My made-up explanation, then, is that ultimately all is energy, and reality is whatever the individual thinks it is. But of course this particular individual at this particular time doesn't even know what he thinks reality is!

Concepts of God

by BBella @, Wednesday, April 20, 2016, 07:49 (2898 days ago) @ dhw

BBELLA: Aside from solipsism or any other mental experience, given the fact that there are so many differing accounts of these experiences (though many are uncannily similar) - if you were to go out on a limb for a moment and accept these differing experiences as reality, what do you think would be a good explanation that would fit all of these folks experiences? You do not have to use any known ideas in your answer - you can make up one like I did.
> 
> This has proved extremely difficult! I have to assume that blissful meetings with God or Jesus Christ are real, and so are terrifying experiences of isolation or a literal hell. Loved ones are there, angels and demons are there, friendly and hostile strangers are there, and here on Earth (I am not thinking only of NDEs now) there are ghosts and there are strange echoes of previous lives. The temptation to dismiss them all as hallucinations is very strong, because as an explanation that would cover everything. But firstly that is against the rules of the game, and secondly, and far more importantly - as I mentioned earlier - there are far too many incidents that I can't dismiss.
> 
> My “theory” would have two starting-points: 1) energy, and 2) the subjectivity of reality. In the brief guide, I have pointed out that a telescope on a planet X billion miles away would enable the observer to watch the crucifixion. Images don't die, and images are light waves of energy. We might extend the idea to consciousness and identity as individualized forms of energy that survive the death of the body which has enclosed them. Particularly sensitive living beings might sense the presence of these after-life forms even here on Earth. (That would explain ghosts and mediums who have contact with the “spirit” world.)
> 
> The individualized form of energy (identity) that we have on Earth is not consistent; it develops and changes in accordance with nature, nurture and experience; its perceptions and memories are often suspect; its interpretations of “reality” are subjective; its subconscious activities may create images, ideas, emotions which themselves are independent of its conscious control. When we tell our personal stories, listeners will not be able to distinguish between fact and fiction, and sometimes we may not be able to do so ourselves. And yet what we recount is real to us.
> 
> If all the psychic and after-life experiences are real, then, the immaterial self survives the death of the material self as an individualized unit of energy. It takes with it all the subjective realities, both conscious and unconscious, that it accumulated on Earth. And among these are such concepts as God and Jesus and angels and demons and bliss and torment. And just as our dreams and our memories (whether accurate or not) are “real” to us, the scenes that greet us when we die are also real to us. They can also be shared intersubjectively, like our present experiences and memories, because there is no reason why identities should not go on communicating with and influencing one another. That need not mean that when we die we get what we expect. Our dreams do not always conform to our expectations - on the contrary, they are often a source of surprise (sometimes very unpleasant) - and so the afterlife may well confront us with realities we only knew of subconsciously. Why would an atheist be confronted by God, or a theist find himself in a barren void? To answer that, you would need to know what goes on in their subconscious minds, and that is unexplored territory, probably even for them.
> 
> Finally, what happens long-term to this individualized energy once it is freed from the body? I like your own suggestion: it chooses the reality it wishes to be in. It can return to Earth in human or any other form (memories of past lives are real); it can let itself merge with the reality of its god or gods; it can go on forming real relationships and doing many of the real things it did on Earth, since clearly our NDE patients have no trouble seeing, hearing, feeling etc. And perhaps it can also opt to end itself.
> 
> My made-up explanation, then, is that ultimately all is energy, and reality is whatever the individual thinks it is. But of course this particular individual at this particular time doesn't even know what he thinks reality is!-Wow! Beautiful! I am near speechless! Especially since what you express is so very near (you filled in the cracks for me) what I've already come to conclude (with an open-ended conclusion) for myself - if, as per the condition, what many people experience is in fact reality. But I could have never expressed it so well! Yes, I know it is all conjecture - but still, I am blown away. -Maybe there is already a similar belief out there like this - if so, I may have missed it, or have I?

Concepts of God

by David Turell @, Wednesday, April 20, 2016, 15:48 (2898 days ago) @ BBella


> > dhw: My “theory” would have two starting-points: 1) energy, and 2) the subjectivity of reality. -> > 
> > The individualized form of energy (identity) that we have on Earth is not consistent; -> > 
> > If all the psychic and after-life experiences are real, then, the immaterial self survives the death of the material self as an individualized unit of energy.> > 
> > Finally, what happens long-term to this individualized energy once it is freed from the body? I like your own suggestion: it chooses the reality it wishes to be in. -> > 
> > My made-up explanation, then, is that ultimately all is energy, and reality is whatever the individual thinks it is. But of course this particular individual at this particular time doesn't even know what he thinks reality is!-> 
> BBella: Wow! Beautiful! I am near speechless! Especially since what you express is so very near (you filled in the cracks for me) what I've already come to conclude (with an open-ended conclusion) for myself - if, as per the condition, what many people experience is in fact reality. But I could have never expressed it so well! Yes, I know it is all conjecture - but still, I am blown away. 
> 
> Maybe there is already a similar belief out there like this - if so, I may have missed it, or have I?-I've followed the discussion. It is interesting that dhw can imagine pure free floating energy when generally he argues against the concept. I think the NDE studies are the closest to answering the possibility of an afterlife. As for our concept of reality, I'll stick with my idea that the brain is a coperative biologic machine that we use consciously and actually shape consciously to help us understand everything that is outside our bodies.

Concepts of God

by dhw, Thursday, April 21, 2016, 13:31 (2897 days ago) @ David Turell

Dhw: My made-up explanation, then, is that ultimately all is energy, and reality is whatever the individual thinks it is. But of course this particular individual at this particular time doesn't even know what he thinks reality is!
BBELLA: Wow! Beautiful! I am near speechless! Especially since what you express is so very near (you filled in the cracks for me) what I've already come to conclude (with an open-ended conclusion) for myself - if, as per the condition, what many people experience is in fact reality. But I could have never expressed it so well! Yes, I know it is all conjecture - but still, I am blown away. 
Maybe there is already a similar belief out there like this - if so, I may have missed it, or have I?-Thank you. I'm flattered! Many of the ideas ARE yours. If (“as per the condition”) we accept the reality of psychic experiences, there has to be a form of identity/consciousness that transcends the material world as we know it. And since people experience different things, there has to be an all-important degree of subjectivity underlying their experiences - just as there is here on Earth. The afterlife I described came directly from you! Otherwise, I don't think it would have occurred to me that one might choose what to do next. But it does make sense as a way of breaking up (or ending) a personal eternity.-It would make for a revealing exercise if we extended your challenge, and asked those who have reached a conclusion to write a defence of what they disbelieve: i.e. atheists to defend theism and theists to defend atheism. Any takers?-DAVID: I've followed the discussion. It is interesting that dhw can imagine pure free floating energy when generally he argues against the concept. -An excellent point, though you must remember that I was asked to provide an explanation to encompass the (hypothetical) reality of ALL psychic experiences. I started out from my existence as a human being, which would have to mean a mixture of material and immaterial. The reincarnation aspect of my “explanation” allows for me to have existed in immaterial form before my birth as the present me. But how far back does the pre-“me” go? According to current scientific calculations, at most about 3.8 billion years. My “lives” could not have begun before life began! So there I am, stuck with the usual chicken and egg dilemma - in this case, which came first: the bacterium me or the intelligence me? (A question specially for you, David!;-) ) Could the one have come into existence without the other? You are right, though, my “explanation” of an afterlife and reincarnation demands that ultimately matter becomes energy, which can go on existing independently of matter. That does not mean that life, identities and consciousness existed before matter. What happened before the universe began remains as unknown as what will happen after the universe ends, but that was not part of BBella's challenge!

Concepts of God

by David Turell @, Friday, April 22, 2016, 02:37 (2896 days ago) @ dhw


> DAVID: I've followed the discussion. It is interesting that dhw can imagine pure free floating energy when generally he argues against the concept. 
> 
> dhw: An excellent point, though you must remember that I was asked to provide an explanation to encompass the (hypothetical) reality of ALL psychic experiences....... My “lives” could not have begun before life began! So there I am, stuck with the usual chicken and egg dilemma - in this case, which came first: the bacterium me or the intelligence me? (A question specially for you, David!;-) ) Could the one have come into existence without the other? You are right, though, my “explanation” of an afterlife and reincarnation demands that ultimately matter becomes energy, which can go on existing independently of matter. That does not mean that life, identities and consciousness existed before matter. What happened before the universe began remains as unknown as what will happen after the universe ends, but that was not part of BBella's challenge!-Simple solution. Start with the assumption that a pure energy consciousness was present before anything else began

Concepts of God

by BBella @, Saturday, April 23, 2016, 07:03 (2895 days ago) @ dhw

Dhw:I started out from my existence as a human being, which would have to mean a mixture of material and immaterial. The reincarnation aspect of my “explanation” allows for me to have existed in immaterial form before my birth as the present me. But how far back does the pre-“me” go? According to current scientific calculations, at most about 3.8 billion years. My “lives” could not have begun before life began! -Keeping in mind the challenge, you would be right. Your material lives could not have begun before material life began - that's logic. But your immaterial life could have preceded your material life by eternity...or longer lol. Meaning, your immaterial existence could be eternal (think how boring that would be!). ->So there I am, stuck with the usual chicken and egg dilemma - in this case, which came first: the bacterium me or the intelligence me? (A question specially for you, David!;-) ) Could the one have come into existence without the other? -I always assume intelligence existed first (maybe not). As an intelligent being, I do not necessarily think I would choose to become a bacterium (unless I just wanted to experience that level of conscious(?) existence - which, who knows, at that point in eternity, bacterium existence might sound very exciting - like a night on the town with a hangover ending - lol- something different anyway). That thought aside, I would think bacterium and all material life may have had to be incubated in order to evolve to a state that we intelligent, immaterial beings would want to choose to inhabit it. Thinking of eternity, what's another 3.8 billion years anyway? ->You are right, though, my “explanation” of an afterlife and reincarnation demands that ultimately matter becomes energy, which can go on existing independently of matter. That does not mean that life, identities and consciousness existed before matter. What happened before the universe began remains as unknown as what will happen after the universe ends, but that was not part of BBella's challenge!-Bringing together the two constructs does make perfect sense (within this challenge): an ENDLESS eternal existence and a timed existence within material life that always has an ending. Any cracks come to mind we can fill while we are at it?

Concepts of God

by dhw, Saturday, April 23, 2016, 13:25 (2895 days ago) @ BBella

Dhw:I started out from my existence as a human being, which would have to mean a mixture of material and immaterial. The reincarnation aspect of my “explanation” allows for me to have existed in immaterial form before my birth as the present me. But how far back does the pre-“me” go? According to current scientific calculations, at most about 3.8 billion years. My “lives” could not have begun before life began! 
-BBELLA: Keeping in mind the challenge, you would be right. Your material lives could not have begun before material life began - that's logic. But your immaterial life could have preceded your material life by eternity...or longer lol. Meaning, your immaterial existence could be eternal (think how boring that would be!).-Hmmm….Keeping in mind the challenge (supposing all psychic experiences were real), I was focusing on reincarnation, which is particularly difficult to bring in under the explanatory umbrella because it is impossible without a material self. That's OK so long as there is material life, but has anyone ever had a psychic experience in which they had an identity of any kind BEFORE material life began?
 
Dhw: So there I am, stuck with the usual chicken and egg dilemma - in this case, which came first: the bacterium me or the intelligence me? (A question specially for you, David! ;-) ) Could the one have come into existence without the other? -BBELLA: I always assume intelligence existed first (maybe not). As an intelligent being, I do not necessarily think I would choose to become a bacterium (unless I just wanted to experience that level of conscious(?) existence - which, who knows, at that point in eternity, bacterium existence might sound very exciting - like a night on the town with a hangover ending - lol- something different anyway). That thought aside, I would think bacterium and all material life may have had to be incubated in order to evolve to a state that we intelligent, immaterial beings would want to choose to inhabit it. Thinking of eternity, what's another 3.8 billion years anyway?-I wasn't actually thinking of choosing to become a bacterium, but of the limits of my explanation for all “real” psychic experiences. I've never actually heard of anyone recalling his/her life as a bacterium.
 
Dhw: You are right, though, my “explanation” of an afterlife and reincarnation demands that ultimately matter becomes energy, which can go on existing independently of matter. That does not mean that life, identities and consciousness existed before matter. What happened before the universe began remains as unknown as what will happen after the universe ends, but that was not part of BBella's challenge!-BBELLA: Bringing together the two constructs does make perfect sense (within this challenge): an ENDLESS eternal existence and a timed existence within material life that always has an ending. Any cracks come to mind we can fill while we are at it?-“Endless”, looking forward. My attitude is hardening. The challenge could only relate to life after the beginning of life on Earth, unless you can refer me to psychic experiences of lives before then. Phew! As for cracks…well, when Planet Earth dies, reincarnation may have to come to an end, which could be a problem for our eastern friends if they haven't yet reached closure of the recycling process. But maybe we'll have found another habitable planet by then. And when the universe dies…? Well, I'm not going to lose any sleep over that particular crack.

Concepts of God

by David Turell @, Saturday, April 23, 2016, 16:18 (2895 days ago) @ dhw

Dhw: So there I am, stuck with the usual chicken and egg dilemma - in this case, which came first: the bacterium me or the intelligence me? (A question specially for you, David! ;-) ) Could the one have come into existence without the other? ->> “Endless”, looking forward. My attitude is hardening. The challenge could only relate to life after the beginning of life on Earth, unless you can refer me to psychic experiences of lives before then. Phew! As for cracks…well, when Planet Earth dies, reincarnation may have to come to an end, which could be a problem for our eastern friends if they haven't yet reached closure of the recycling process. But maybe we'll have found another habitable planet by then. And when the universe dies…? Well, I'm not going to lose any sleep over that particular crack.-As you know, I think there is a definite break in the continuum of evolution when human consciousness appeared. Bacterium cellular you is still present in your body, the part of which runs on autopilot, that is, all but three pounds of brain. As for reincarnation, if it exists, it is a property of human consciousness, and certainly not a part of an animal's conscious state.

Concepts of God

by BBella @, Saturday, April 23, 2016, 20:54 (2894 days ago) @ dhw

Dhw:I started out from my existence as a human being, which would have to mean a mixture of material and immaterial. The reincarnation aspect of my “explanation” allows for me to have existed in immaterial form before my birth as the present me. But how far back does the pre-“me” go? According to current scientific calculations, at most about 3.8 billion years. My “lives” could not have begun before life began! 
> 
> 
> BBELLA: Keeping in mind the challenge, you would be right. Your material lives could not have begun before material life began - that's logic. But your immaterial life could have preceded your material life by eternity...or longer lol. Meaning, your immaterial existence could be eternal (think how boring that would be!).
> 
> Hmmm….Keeping in mind the challenge (supposing all psychic experiences were real), I was focusing on reincarnation, which is particularly difficult to bring in under the explanatory umbrella because it is impossible without a material self. That's OK so long as there is material life, but has anyone ever had a psychic experience in which they had an identity of any kind BEFORE material life began?-Ah, I see. I missed that. I read "how far does the pre-me go?" and took it from there and missed the limitations of under the reincarnation umbrella. 
> 
> Dhw: So there I am, stuck with the usual chicken and egg dilemma - in this case, which came first: the bacterium me or the intelligence me? (A question specially for you, David! ;-) ) Could the one have come into existence without the other? 
> 
> BBELLA: I always assume intelligence existed first (maybe not). As an intelligent being, I do not necessarily think I would choose to become a bacterium (unless I just wanted to experience that level of conscious(?) existence - which, who knows, at that point in eternity, bacterium existence might sound very exciting - like a night on the town with a hangover ending - lol- something different anyway). That thought aside, I would think bacterium and all material life may have had to be incubated in order to evolve to a state that we intelligent, immaterial beings would want to choose to inhabit it. Thinking of eternity, what's another 3.8 billion years anyway?
> 
> I wasn't actually thinking of choosing to become a bacterium, but of the limits of my explanation for all “real” psychic experiences. I've never actually heard of anyone recalling his/her life as a bacterium.-Ah...ok, again, missed the umbrella thing. -> 
> Dhw: You are right, though, my “explanation” of an afterlife and reincarnation demands that ultimately matter becomes energy, which can go on existing independently of matter. That does not mean that life, identities and consciousness existed before matter. What happened before the universe began remains as unknown as what will happen after the universe ends, but that was not part of BBella's challenge!
> 
> BBELLA: Bringing together the two constructs does make perfect sense (within this challenge): an ENDLESS eternal existence and a timed existence within material life that always has an ending. Any cracks come to mind we can fill while we are at it?
> 
> “Endless”, looking forward. My attitude is hardening. The challenge could only relate to life after the beginning of life on Earth, unless you can refer me to psychic experiences of lives before then. -I personally have read of supernatural experiences of lives as other beings (animal, humanoid, alienlike, etc) on earth and in other places, dimensions, etc as well as accounts of NDE that illuminated these ideas. But all those experiences fit neatly under your (my?) original explanation. None that I remember were accounts given in particular before earth time.->Phew! As for cracks…well, when Planet Earth dies, reincarnation may have to come to an end, which could be a problem for our eastern friends if they haven't yet reached closure of the recycling process. -Unless...planet earth will not die until all purposes for it's existence have been exhausted.->But maybe we'll have found another habitable planet by then. And when the universe dies…? Well, I'm not going to lose any sleep over that particular crack.-If we are eternal, immaterial beings in the first place - the comings and goings of our universe may be nothing more than just another curtain closing at the end of a great play.

Concepts of God

by romansh ⌂ @, Saturday, April 23, 2016, 20:57 (2894 days ago) @ BBella

BBELLA: If we are eternal, immaterial beings in the first place - the comings and goings of our universe may be nothing more than just another curtain closing at the end of a great play. - 
If we are eternal beings then we have no recollection in the first place.

Concepts of God

by dhw, Sunday, April 24, 2016, 13:22 (2894 days ago) @ BBella

Dhw: So there I am, stuck with the usual chicken and egg dilemma - in this case, which came first: the bacterium me or the intelligence me? (A question specially for you, David!;-) ) Could the one have come into existence without the other? 
“Endless”, looking forward. My attitude is hardening. The challenge could only relate to life after the beginning of life on Earth, unless you can refer me to psychic experiences of lives before then. Phew! As for cracks…well, when Planet Earth dies, reincarnation may have to come to an end, which could be a problem for our eastern friends if they haven't yet reached closure of the recycling process. But maybe we'll have found another habitable planet by then. And when the universe dies…? Well, I'm not going to lose any sleep over that particular crack.-DAVID: As you know, I think there is a definite break in the continuum of evolution when human consciousness appeared. Bacterium cellular you is still present in your body, the part of which runs on autopilot, that is, all but three pounds of brain. As for reincarnation, if it exists, it is a property of human consciousness, and certainly not a part of an animal's conscious state.-Please remember that I have been asked to provide an explanation to cover all psychic experiences, based on the premise that they are real. There are humans who genuinely believe they have lived before as animals (see BBella below). But I think I can safely state that we do not know of any animals that claim to have lived before as humans!
 
BBELLA: Bringing together the two constructs does make perfect sense (within this challenge): an ENDLESS eternal existence and a timed existence within material life that always has an ending. Any cracks come to mind we can fill while we are at it?

Dhw: “Endless”, looking forward. My attitude is hardening. The challenge could only relate to life after the beginning of life on Earth, unless you can refer me to psychic experiences of lives before then. -BBELLA: I personally have read of supernatural experiences of lives as other beings (animal, humanoid, alienlike, etc) on earth and in other places, dimensions, etc as well as accounts of NDE that illuminated these ideas. But all those experiences fit neatly under your (my?) original explanation. None that I remember were accounts given in particular before earth time.-I have also read of such experiences.
 
dhw: Phew! As for cracks…well, when Planet Earth dies, reincarnation may have to come to an end, which could be a problem for our eastern friends if they haven't yet reached closure of the recycling process. 
BBELLA: Unless...planet earth will not die until all purposes for it's existence have been exhausted.-That would mean completion of “samsara” (the cycle of birth and death) for those who believe in it. I'm not sure that Planet Earth or even the human race will be able to organize things so considerately! A supreme, all-powerful God could do it, but most of our Buddhist friends don't include such a God in their psychic experiences.-Dhw: But maybe we'll have found another habitable planet by then. And when the universe dies…? Well, I'm not going to lose any sleep over that particular crack.
BBELLA: If we are eternal, immaterial beings in the first place - the comings and goings of our universe may be nothing more than just another curtain closing at the end of a great play.-But reincarnation must come to an end. I'm afraid it's still a crack, unless believers have also experienced bodily life in other universes…-ROM: If we are eternal beings then we have no recollection in the first place.
-Quite right, but BBella's challenge is to find an explanation for all psychic experiences, on the premise that they are “real” and not hallucinatory, and so we only need to explain what HAS been “remembered” (e.g. Rabbi Robert the rabbit, or Guru Gary the gorilla).

Concepts of God

by romansh ⌂ @, Sunday, April 17, 2016, 14:54 (2901 days ago) @ BBella

Aside from solipsism or any other mental experience, given the fact that there are so many differing accounts of these experiences (though many are uncannily similar) - if you were to go out on a limb for a moment and accept these differing experiences as reality, what do you think would be a good explanation that would fit all of these folks experiences? You do not have to use any known ideas in your answer - you can make up one like I did. - Cause and effect. - We are all made up of the same substrate ... hence the similarities. - We live in a chaotic universe and hence the arrangement of the substrate is different for each of us, and this accounts for the differences.

Concepts of God

by David Turell @, Sunday, April 17, 2016, 15:30 (2901 days ago) @ romansh

BBElla: Aside from solipsism or any other mental experience, given the fact that there are so many differing accounts of these experiences (though many are uncannily similar) - if you were to go out on a limb for a moment and accept these differing experiences as reality, what do you think would be a good explanation that would fit all of these folks experiences? You do not have to use any known ideas in your answer - you can make up one like I did.
> 
> Romansh: Cause and effect.
> 
> We are all made up of the same substrate ... hence the similarities.
> 
> We live in a chaotic universe and hence the arrangement of the substrate is different for each of us, and this accounts for the differences. - Agreed. Each of us is very individual, partially due to experiences.

Concepts of God

by romansh ⌂ @, Sunday, April 17, 2016, 15:48 (2901 days ago) @ David Turell

BBElla: Aside from solipsism or any other mental experience, given the fact that there are so many differing accounts of these experiences (though many are uncannily similar) - if you were to go out on a limb for a moment and accept these differing experiences as reality, what do you think would be a good explanation that would fit all of these folks experiences? You do not have to use any known ideas in your answer - you can make up one like I did.
> > 
> > Romansh: Cause and effect.
> > 
> > We are all made up of the same substrate ... hence the similarities.
> > 
> > We live in a chaotic universe and hence the arrangement of the substrate is different for each of us, and this accounts for the differences.
> 
> David:Agreed. Each of us is very individual, partially due to experiences.-> David: We have free will to be stupid if we wish.-I suspect fundamentally we don't agree David.-I don't believe humans are first cause generators ... this is what is required for free will.

Concepts of God

by David Turell @, Sunday, April 17, 2016, 21:16 (2900 days ago) @ romansh

David: We have free will to be stupid if we wish.
> 
> Romansh:I suspect fundamentally we don't agree David.
> 
> I don't believe humans are first cause generators ... this is what is required for free will.-I understand that. I view the brain as an idea producing machine in which I drive the machine, much as I drive a truck, but I don't do what the motor and tires do.

Concepts of God

by romansh ⌂ @, Friday, April 22, 2016, 02:03 (2896 days ago) @ David Turell

David: We have free will to be stupid if we wish.
> > 
> > Romansh:I suspect fundamentally we don't agree David.
> > 
> > I don't believe humans are first cause generators ... this is what is required for free will.
> 
> David: I understand that. I view the brain as an idea producing machine in which I drive the machine, much as I drive a truck, but I don't do what the motor and tires do.-I too drive the machine ... except in my case the "I" is an illusion and is definitely not a source of first causes.-Unlike in your case, where you are a prime source of a myriad of first causes.-I am not sure I even believe in any first causes.

Concepts of God

by David Turell @, Friday, April 22, 2016, 05:23 (2896 days ago) @ romansh


> Romansh: I am not sure I even believe in any first causes. - Did anything start the contingent series of events that led to this universe?

Concepts of God

by romansh ⌂ @, Friday, April 22, 2016, 16:27 (2896 days ago) @ David Turell


> > Romansh: I am not sure I even believe in any first causes.
> 
> David: Did anything start the contingent series of events that led to this universe?-I don't know.
 
Do you have a reason to assume that "nothing" is the default state for this or any other universe?-Having said that ... I don't believe that humans are responsible for first causes.

Concepts of God

by David Turell @, Friday, April 22, 2016, 19:47 (2895 days ago) @ romansh

David: Did anything start the contingent series of events that led to this universe?
> 
> Romansh:I don't know.-Fair enough.
> 
>Romansh: Do you have a reason to assume that "nothing" is the default state for this or any other universe?-No, there has always been something. True nothingness not produce something.
> 
> Romansh: Having said that ... I don't believe that humans are responsible for first causes.-Humans are first causes of processes they create. Cause and effect exists.

Concepts of God

by romansh ⌂ @, Saturday, April 23, 2016, 02:17 (2895 days ago) @ David Turell

Romansh: Do you have a reason to assume that "nothing" is the default state for this or any other universe?
> 
> David: No, there has always been something. True nothingness not produce something.
Then there is no reason assume any magical deities. All we have to assume is a Krauss like nothing. No magic necessary, no first cause necessary. No imaginary 'nothing' necessary. Just the nothing we experience.
 
> > Romansh: Having said that ... I don't believe that humans are responsible for first causes.
> 
> David: Humans are first causes of processes they create. Cause and effect exists.-I would argue this is plain wrong!-I did not assemble myself. Cause and effect did.

Concepts of God

by David Turell @, Saturday, April 23, 2016, 06:08 (2895 days ago) @ romansh

romansh: Then there is no reason assume any magical deities. All we have to assume is a Krauss like nothing. No magic necessary, no first cause necessary. No imaginary 'nothing' necessary. Just the nothing we experience.-Krauss-like nothing is not nothing. He assumes a quantum space with potentialities. That is not nothing.
> 
> > > Romansh: Having said that ... I don't believe that humans are responsible for first causes.
> > 
> > David: Humans are first causes of processes they create. Cause and effect exists.
> 
> romansh; I would argue this is plain wrong!
> 
> I did not assemble myself. Cause and effect did.-You are not interpreting what I said correctly. Of course cause and effect created me and you. Humans can be causes of the processes they create. Then you obviously accept cause and effect!

Concepts of God

by romansh ⌂ @, Saturday, April 23, 2016, 20:50 (2894 days ago) @ David Turell

David: You are not interpreting what I said correctly. Of course cause and effect created me and you. Humans can be causes of the processes they create. Then you obviously accept cause and effect! - Then you have not expressed yourself correctly. - Of course human beings are part of the casual chain (mesh). - But they are not first causes!
Any cause that you think you start is a product of other causes.

Concepts of God

by David Turell @, Saturday, April 23, 2016, 22:23 (2894 days ago) @ romansh


> Romansh: Of course human beings are part of the casual chain (mesh).
> 
> But they are not first causes!
> Any cause that you think you start is a product of other causes. - Of course, a process I initiate will be due to a decision made from previous events. But there should be a trail back to an initial cause.

Concepts of God

by romansh ⌂ @, Saturday, April 23, 2016, 23:30 (2894 days ago) @ David Turell

David: Of course, a process I initiate will be due to a decision made from previous events. But there should be a trail back to an initial cause. - Why?

Concepts of God

by David Turell @, Sunday, April 24, 2016, 02:13 (2894 days ago) @ romansh

David: Of course, a process I initiate will be due to a decision made from previous events. But there should be a trail back to an initial cause.
> 
> Romansh: Why?-I accept everything has a first cause. I don't buy Krauss and something from nothing. Quantum perturbations are something in a space. Something! Something is eternal, either that Krauss space or a creating force religions call God.

Concepts of God

by romansh ⌂ @, Sunday, April 24, 2016, 17:38 (2893 days ago) @ David Turell

David: Of course, a process I initiate will be due to a decision made from previous events. But there should be a trail back to an initial cause.
> > 
> > Romansh: Why?
> 
> David: I accept everything has a first cause. 
Why?-> David: I don't buy Krauss and something from nothing.
This is fair enough ... Krauss is talking about the nothing empty space ... not your imaginary nothing.->David: Quantum perturbations are something in a space. 
Yep ... yet the ones we generally observe add up to nothing-> David: Something! Something is eternal, either that Krauss space or a creating force religions call God.-Something is eternal? Yet our universe seems to add up to nothing energy wise?-So which is simpler ... quantum fluctuations created this universe or that an unspecified unreachable god created this universe?-The first argument cause has always been crappy, ten year old children can see through it.

Concepts of God

by David Turell @, Sunday, April 24, 2016, 19:01 (2893 days ago) @ romansh


> > David: I don't buy Krauss and something from nothing.
> This is fair enough ... Krauss is talking about the nothing empty space ... not your imaginary nothing.
> 
> >David: Quantum perturbations are something in a space. 
> 
Romansh: Yep ... yet the ones we generally observe add up to nothing-That is a mathematical nothing
> 
> > David: Something! Something is eternal, either that Krauss space or a creating force religions call God.
> 
> Romansh: Something is eternal? Yet our universe seems to add up to nothing energy wise?-Again a mathematical energy nothing, is not nothing when the charges add up that way. A negative charge is not nothing, no more than a positive charge, or the force of gravity thrown into the sum.
> 
> Romansh: So which is simpler ... quantum fluctuations created this universe or that an unspecified unreachable god created this universe?
> 
> The first argument cause has always been crappy, ten year old children can see through it.-If anything exists it has a cause. Ask any 10-year-old. Unless we are a simulation, but the aliens are the first caused in that case!

Concepts of God

by romansh ⌂ @, Sunday, April 24, 2016, 23:17 (2893 days ago) @ David Turell

David: That is a mathematical nothing
And yet it is what we observe.-> David: Again a mathematical energy nothing, is not nothing when the charges add up that way. A negative charge is not nothing, no more than a positive charge, or the force of gravity thrown into the sum.
Actually it is not just charges that seem to add up zero ... it is energy in all its forms mass, gravitational etc.-> David: If anything exists it has a cause. Ask any 10-year-old.-My apocryphal ten year old would understand the problems infinite regress.-
Ultimately this discussion is about the asymmetry of the "nothing", whether it be Krauss's real one or your imaginary one. Even in your imaginary one ... it is not nothing.

Concepts of God

by David Turell @, Monday, April 25, 2016, 00:45 (2893 days ago) @ romansh

Romansh: Actually it is not just charges that seem to add up zero ... it is energy in all its forms mass, gravitational etc.-Yes, I understood that. Where does dark energy and dark mass fit in? When Guth wrote in The Inflationary Universe that with gravity the energy in the universe was zero, there was no knowledge of dark mass or energy. I know they are opposite but not in equal proportions. Does the sum still get to zero?
> 
> Romansh: Ultimately this discussion is about the asymmetry of the "nothing", whether it be Krauss's real one or your imaginary one. Even in your imaginary one ... it is not nothing.-Thank you. We can conceive of a complete void, but I doubt one ever existed, since there is something.

Concepts of God

by romansh ⌂ @, Sunday, May 01, 2016, 20:43 (2886 days ago) @ David Turell

Romansh: Actually it is not just charges that seem to add up zero ... it is energy in all its forms mass, gravitational etc.
> 
> David: Yes, I understood that. Where does dark energy and dark mass fit in? When Guth wrote in The Inflationary Universe that with gravity the energy in the universe was zero, there was no knowledge of dark mass or energy. I know they are opposite but not in equal proportions. Does the sum still get to zero?-Apparently yes.-
> > Romansh: Ultimately this discussion is about the asymmetry of the "nothing", whether it be Krauss's real one or your imaginary one. Even in your imaginary one ... it is not nothing.
> 
> David:Thank you. We can conceive of a complete void, but I doubt one ever existed, since there is something.-Yes you and Krauss agree that your imaginary nothing does not exist. In your case it is God, in Krauss' (and Hawking's and no doubt many other scientists' views) it is simply a quantum fluctuation.

Concepts of God

by David Turell @, Sunday, May 01, 2016, 21:00 (2886 days ago) @ romansh

David:Thank you. We can conceive of a complete void, but I doubt one ever existed, since there is something.
> 
> Romansh:Yes you and Krauss agree that your imaginary nothing does not exist. In your case it is God, in Krauss' (and Hawking's and no doubt many other scientists' views) it is simply a quantum fluctuation.-Quantum fluctuations exist in our spacetime. But we have no idea what preceded our spacetime, per Guth, Borde, Vilenkin past imperfect paper, never refuted.

Concepts of God

by romansh ⌂ @, Sunday, May 01, 2016, 21:29 (2886 days ago) @ David Turell

If anything?

Concepts of God

by David Turell @, Monday, May 02, 2016, 00:08 (2886 days ago) @ romansh

Romansh: If anything? - They could not show a past

Concepts of God: universe too big for Him?

by David Turell @, Monday, November 06, 2017, 00:22 (2333 days ago) @ David Turell

A nutty theology which uses religious expectations of God to then claim the universe is too big considering His supposedly close relationship to humans, who are an insignificant group on an insignificant planet in a giant universe. Therefore atheism is correct!:

https://theconversation.com/does-the-size-of-the-universe-prove-god-doesnt-exist-86645

"Over the last few decades, a new way of arguing for atheism has emerged. Philosophers of religion such as Michael Martin and Nicholas Everitt have asked us to consider the kind of universe we would expect the Christian God to have created, and compare it with the universe we actually live in. They argue there is a mismatch. Everitt focuses on how big the universe is, and argues this gives us reason to believe the God of classical Christianity doesn’t exist.

"To explain why, we need a little theology. Traditionally, the Christian God is held to be deeply concerned with human beings. Genesis (1:27) states: “God created mankind in his own image.” Psalms (8:1-5) says: “O Lord … What is man that You take thought of him … Yet You have made him a little lower than God, And You crown him with glory and majesty!” And, of course, John (3:16) explains God gave humans his son out of love for us.

"These texts show that God is human-oriented: human beings are like God, and he values us highly. Although we’re focusing on Christianity, these claims can be found in other monotheistic religions, too.

"If God is human-oriented, wouldn’t you expect him to create a universe in which humans feature prominently? You’d expect humans to occupy most of the universe, existing across time. Yet that isn’t the kind of universe we live in. Humans are very small, and space, as Douglas Adams once put it, “is big, really really big”.

***

"Clearly, there is a discrepancy between the kind of universe we would expect a human-oriented God to create, and the universe we live in. How can we explain it? Surely the simplest explanation is that God doesn’t exist. The spatial and temporal size of the universe gives us reason to be atheists.

"As Everitt puts it:

"The findings of modern science significantly reduce the probability that theism is true, because the universe is turning out to be very unlike the sort of universe which we would have expected, had theism been true.

"The fact that atheism is the simplest reply to the mismatch doesn’t mean that other explanations aren’t possible. Perhaps God exists but his motives for not creating humans sooner, or on a bigger scale, are unknowable. The divine is, after all, mysterious.

"Perhaps the swathes of space strung with gossamer nebulae serve some aesthetic purpose, beauty wrought on an inhuman scale. Or, perhaps, God exists but isn’t as human-oriented as we thought. Perhaps God values rocks and cosmic dust more highly than humans.

"The problem with these rival explanations is that, as they stand, they are unsatisfying.

"They hint at reasons why God might create tiny humans in a gargantuan place but are a million miles away from fully explaining why. The weight of galaxies, and the press of years, seem to sweep us towards atheism."

Comment: The fallacy of this reasoning is obvious. It is not clear that the Bible's description of God's purpose and thoughts are accurate, since the books of the Bible are written by humans who would like God to be close and prefer doing nice things for humans. Not a reason for atheism.

Concepts of God: universe too big for Him?

by dhw, Monday, November 06, 2017, 13:10 (2333 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTES: "If God is human-oriented, wouldn’t you expect him to create a universe in which humans feature prominently? You’d expect humans to occupy most of the universe, existing across time. Yet that isn’t the kind of universe we live in. Humans are very small, and space, as Douglas Adams once put it, “is big, really really big”.

"Clearly, there is a discrepancy between the kind of universe we would expect a human-oriented God to create, and the universe we live in. How can we explain it? Surely the simplest explanation is that God doesn’t exist. The spatial and temporal size of the universe gives us reason to be atheists."

DAVID’s comment: The fallacy of this reasoning is obvious. It is not clear that the Bible's description of God's purpose and thoughts are accurate, since the books of the Bible are written by humans who would like God to be close and prefer doing nice things for humans. Not a reason for atheism.

And yet you believe that God’s prime purpose for creating life was to produce the brain of Homo sapiens! If anthropocentrism is a fallacy in their reasoning, then it must be a fallacy in your own as well. And so, if God exists, perhaps he had other reasons for creating the “really really big universe”.

Concepts of God: universe too big for Him?

by David Turell @, Monday, November 06, 2017, 20:16 (2332 days ago) @ dhw

QUOTES: "If God is human-oriented, wouldn’t you expect him to create a universe in which humans feature prominently? You’d expect humans to occupy most of the universe, existing across time. Yet that isn’t the kind of universe we live in. Humans are very small, and space, as Douglas Adams once put it, “is big, really really big”.

"Clearly, there is a discrepancy between the kind of universe we would expect a human-oriented God to create, and the universe we live in. How can we explain it? Surely the simplest explanation is that God doesn’t exist. The spatial and temporal size of the universe gives us reason to be atheists."

DAVID’s comment: The fallacy of this reasoning is obvious. It is not clear that the Bible's description of God's purpose and thoughts are accurate, since the books of the Bible are written by humans who would like God to be close and prefer doing nice things for humans. Not a reason for atheism.

dhw: And yet you believe that God’s prime purpose for creating life was to produce the brain of Homo sapiens! If anthropocentrism is a fallacy in their reasoning, then it must be a fallacy in your own as well. And so, if God exists, perhaps he had other reasons for creating the “really really big universe”.

Your rebuttal is off point. I objected to their premise about about God' purposes taken from the Bible. I don't start from the Bible's suppositions. They do.

Concepts of God: universe too big for Him?

by dhw, Tuesday, November 07, 2017, 13:40 (2332 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTES: "If God is human-oriented, wouldn’t you expect him to create a universe in which humans feature prominently?"

"Clearly, there is a discrepancy between the kind of universe we would expect a human-oriented God to create, and the universe we live in.

DAVID’s comment: The fallacy of this reasoning is obvious. It is not clear that the Bible's description of God's purpose and thoughts are accurate, since the books of the Bible are written by humans who would like God to be close and prefer doing nice things for humans. Not a reason for atheism.

dhw: And yet you believe that God’s prime purpose for creating life was to produce the brain of Homo sapiens! If anthropocentrism is a fallacy in their reasoning, then it must be a fallacy in your own as well. And so, if God exists, perhaps he had other reasons for creating the “really really big universe”.

DAVID: Your rebuttal is off point. I objected to their premise about about God' purposes taken from the Bible. I don't start from the Bible's suppositions. They do.

The biblical references simply illustrate the point that God is supposed to be “human-oriented”. So looking at the above quotes, and bearing in mind that you yourself have admitted that you can’t explain the big universe, do you disagree with the claim that a God who you believe created the whole of life for the purpose of producing the brain of Homo sapiens is human-oriented?

Concepts of God: universe too big for Him?

by David Turell @, Tuesday, November 07, 2017, 14:51 (2332 days ago) @ dhw

QUOTES: "If God is human-oriented, wouldn’t you expect him to create a universe in which humans feature prominently?"

"Clearly, there is a discrepancy between the kind of universe we would expect a human-oriented God to create, and the universe we live in.

DAVID’s comment: The fallacy of this reasoning is obvious. It is not clear that the Bible's description of God's purpose and thoughts are accurate, since the books of the Bible are written by humans who would like God to be close and prefer doing nice things for humans. Not a reason for atheism.

dhw: And yet you believe that God’s prime purpose for creating life was to produce the brain of Homo sapiens! If anthropocentrism is a fallacy in their reasoning, then it must be a fallacy in your own as well. And so, if God exists, perhaps he had other reasons for creating the “really really big universe”.

DAVID: Your rebuttal is off point. I objected to their premise about about God' purposes taken from the Bible. I don't start from the Bible's suppositions. They do.

dhw: The biblical references simply illustrate the point that God is supposed to be “human-oriented”. So looking at the above quotes, and bearing in mind that you yourself have admitted that you can’t explain the big universe, do you disagree with the claim that a God who you believe created the whole of life for the purpose of producing the brain of Homo sapiens is human-oriented?

Of course God is human oriented. We have part of His universal consciousness through the brain He gave us. Once again, the giant universe is not an argument for atheism.

Concepts of God: universe too big for Him?

by dhw, Wednesday, November 08, 2017, 13:12 (2331 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your rebuttal is off point. I objected to their premise about about God' purposes taken from the Bible. I don't start from the Bible's suppositions. They do.

dhw: The biblical references simply illustrate the point that God is supposed to be “human-oriented”. So looking at the above quotes, and bearing in mind that you yourself have admitted that you can’t explain the big universe, do you disagree with the claim that a God who you believe created the whole of life for the purpose of producing the brain of Homo sapiens is human-oriented?

DAVID: Of course God is human oriented. We have part of His universal consciousness through the brain He gave us. Once again, the giant universe is not an argument for atheism.

You claimed the fallacy in their reasoning was that the authors relied on the Bible, and it is “not clear that the Bible's description of God's purpose and thoughts are accurate, since the books of the Bible are written by humans who would like God to be close and prefer doing nice things for humans.” The Bible makes God human-oriented, and so do you. May I suggest that ALTHOUGH you agree with the Bible’s teaching that God is human-oriented, you do not regard the giant universe as a reason for atheism. For you the fallacy in the authors’ reasoning would then be that your God must have had a human-oriented reason for the giant universe, even though you can’t think of one. Alternatively a different type of theist could argue that the giant universe merely indicates that God was NOT human-oriented but had other purposes in mind.

Concepts of God: universe too big for Him?

by David Turell @, Wednesday, November 08, 2017, 14:33 (2331 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your rebuttal is off point. I objected to their premise about about God' purposes taken from the Bible. I don't start from the Bible's suppositions. They do.

dhw: The biblical references simply illustrate the point that God is supposed to be “human-oriented”. So looking at the above quotes, and bearing in mind that you yourself have admitted that you can’t explain the big universe, do you disagree with the claim that a God who you believe created the whole of life for the purpose of producing the brain of Homo sapiens is human-oriented?

DAVID: Of course God is human oriented. We have part of His universal consciousness through the brain He gave us. Once again, the giant universe is not an argument for atheism.

dhw: You claimed the fallacy in their reasoning was that the authors relied on the Bible, and it is “not clear that the Bible's description of God's purpose and thoughts are accurate, since the books of the Bible are written by humans who would like God to be close and prefer doing nice things for humans.” The Bible makes God human-oriented, and so do you. May I suggest that ALTHOUGH you agree with the Bible’s teaching that God is human-oriented, you do not regard the giant universe as a reason for atheism. For you the fallacy in the authors’ reasoning would then be that your God must have had a human-oriented reason for the giant universe, even though you can’t think of one. Alternatively a different type of theist could argue that the giant universe merely indicates that God was NOT human-oriented but had other purposes in mind.

My thought about the universe is that God planned it to evolve and produce the Earth:

https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-the-universe/

"The famous Kalam cosmological argument is a three-part argument that the universe requires a first cause. Its name reflects its roots in Islamic thought.

"Anything that begins to exist has a cause.

"The universe began to exist.

"Therefore, the universe has a First Cause.

"The step in the argument that science can address is the middle one — evidence that the universe began to exist. That evidence comes in two major pieces — (i) the redshift and the Doppler effect, and (ii) the discovery of microwave background radiation.

***

"Finally, in the early 1990s, precise measurements from NASA’s Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite indicated that the universe was filled with radiation having the exact properties predicted by the Big Bang theory.

"The COBE measurements confirmed that all matter in the early universe exploded from a densely compacted state. Scientists now had conclusive evidence that the universe had a beginning. As astrophysicist Neil F. Comins explained it:

"Detection of the cosmic microwave background is a principal reason why the Big Bang is accepted by astronomers as the correct cosmological theory.

***

"What all this means is that there is very strong evidence that the universe had a beginning. If the universe had a beginning, then it had a first cause. And if it had a first cause, then it makes sense to ask what kind of first cause is necessary to explain the origin of the universe. It must be:

"A cause outside of the universe

"Capable of generating all the matter and energy in the universe

"Capable of generating all the order we see in inherent within the universe (more on this coming up).

"That’s quite a job description — one that no known material cause or set of material causes appears capable of accomplishing. The need for such a powerful and intelligent first cause strongly suggests a purposeful design behind the origin of the universe."

No comment necessary.

Concepts of God: universe too big for Him?

by dhw, Thursday, November 09, 2017, 14:23 (2330 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Of course God is human oriented. We have part of His universal consciousness through the brain He gave us. Once again, the giant universe is not an argument for atheism.

dhw: You claimed the fallacy in their reasoning was that the authors relied on the Bible, and it is “not clear that the Bible's description of God's purpose and thoughts are accurate, since the books of the Bible are written by humans who would like God to be close and prefer doing nice things for humans.” The Bible makes God human-oriented, and so do you. May I suggest that ALTHOUGH you agree with the Bible’s teaching that God is human-oriented, you do not regard the giant universe as a reason for atheism...

DAVID: My thought about the universe is that God planned it to evolve and produce the Earth:
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-the-universe/

QUOTE: "The famous Kalam cosmological argument is a three-part argument that the universe requires a first cause. Its name reflects its roots in Islamic thought.

The rest of the article is all about proving that God is the first cause. The fact that you believe in God as the first cause does not explain why he needed the big, big universe in order to produce the brain of Homo sapiens (the human-oriented vision of God you share with the Bible). The authors regard this as evidence for atheism. Hence my conclusion: "For you the fallacy in the authors’ reasoning would then be that your God must have had a human-oriented reason for the giant universe, even though you can’t think of one. Alternatively a different type of theist could argue that the giant universe merely indicates that God was NOT human-oriented but had other purposes in mind." Which of these alternatives do you regard as true?

Concepts of God: universe too big for Him?

by David Turell @, Thursday, November 09, 2017, 20:31 (2329 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Of course God is human oriented. We have part of His universal consciousness through the brain He gave us. Once again, the giant universe is not an argument for atheism.

DAVID: My thought about the universe is that God planned it to evolve and produce the Earth:

https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/ids-top-six-the-origin-of-the-universe/

dhw: QUOTE: "The famous Kalam cosmological argument is a three-part argument that the universe requires a first cause. Its name reflects its roots in Islamic thought.

The rest of the article is all about proving that God is the first cause. The fact that you believe in God as the first cause does not explain why he needed the big, big universe in order to produce the brain of Homo sapiens (the human-oriented vision of God you share with the Bible). The authors regard this as evidence for atheism. Hence my conclusion: "For you the fallacy in the authors’ reasoning would then be that your God must have had a human-oriented reason for the giant universe, even though you can’t think of one. Alternatively a different type of theist could argue that the giant universe merely indicates that God was NOT human-oriented but had other purposes in mind." Which of these alternatives do you regard as true?

I've given you the answer. God evolved the giant universe to create the one life-supporting Earth that would eventually allow the evolution of the brain. I've never met an alternative theist in your second suggestion except your agnostic supposed theistic thinking.

Concepts of God: universe too big for Him?

by dhw, Friday, November 10, 2017, 13:54 (2329 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: The fact that you believe in God as the first cause does not explain why he needed the big, big universe in order to produce the brain of Homo sapiens (the human-oriented vision of God you share with the Bible). The authors regard this as evidence for atheism. Hence my conclusion: "For you the fallacy in the authors’ reasoning would then be that your God must have had a human-oriented reason for the giant universe, even though you can’t think of one. Alternatively a different type of theist could argue that the giant universe merely indicates that God was NOT human-oriented but had other purposes in mind." Which of these alternatives do you regard as true?

DAVID: I've given you the answer. God evolved the giant universe to create the one life-supporting Earth that would eventually allow the evolution of the brain. I've never met an alternative theist in your second suggestion except your agnostic supposed theistic thinking.

I was offering you an alternative to the first suggestion. I don’t remember ever offering a theistic explanation for the giant universe. I agree with the authors that its vastness and seemingly random comings and goings are an argument for atheism. But the complexities of life are an argument for theism. And so I remain agnostic. Meanwhile, you are now left with my first suggestion: God must have had a human-oriented reason for the giant universe, even though you can’t think of one. The answer you have given above does not explain WHY he created the GIANT universe when all he wanted was to create the human brain, and that was the authors’ point. You have said yourself you don’t know why, so maybe we should leave it at that.

Concepts of God: universe too big for Him?

by David Turell @, Friday, November 10, 2017, 15:02 (2329 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: The fact that you believe in God as the first cause does not explain why he needed the big, big universe in order to produce the brain of Homo sapiens (the human-oriented vision of God you share with the Bible). The authors regard this as evidence for atheism. Hence my conclusion: "For you the fallacy in the authors’ reasoning would then be that your God must have had a human-oriented reason for the giant universe, even though you can’t think of one. Alternatively a different type of theist could argue that the giant universe merely indicates that God was NOT human-oriented but had other purposes in mind." Which of these alternatives do you regard as true?

DAVID: I've given you the answer. God evolved the giant universe to create the one life-supporting Earth that would eventually allow the evolution of the brain. I've never met an alternative theist in your second suggestion except your agnostic supposed theistic thinking.

dhw: I was offering you an alternative to the first suggestion. I don’t remember ever offering a theistic explanation for the giant universe. I agree with the authors that its vastness and seemingly random comings and goings are an argument for atheism. But the complexities of life are an argument for theism. And so I remain agnostic. Meanwhile, you are now left with my first suggestion: God must have had a human-oriented reason for the giant universe, even though you can’t think of one. The answer you have given above does not explain WHY he created the GIANT universe when all he wanted was to create the human brain, and that was the authors’ point. You have said yourself you don’t know why, so maybe we should leave it at that.

I clearly said above that the giant universe was required to produce the Earth. The explosion of stars to create the elements needed for life are a clear reason to believe that. All a process of evolution.

Concepts of God: universe too big for Him?

by dhw, Saturday, November 11, 2017, 12:42 (2328 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I don’t remember ever offering a theistic explanation for the giant universe. I agree with the authors that its vastness and seemingly random comings and goings are an argument for atheism. But the complexities of life are an argument for theism. And so I remain agnostic. Meanwhile, you are now left with my first suggestion: God must have had a human-oriented reason for the giant universe, even though you can’t think of one. The answer you have given above does not explain WHY he created the GIANT universe when all he wanted was to create the human brain, and that was the authors’ point. You have said yourself you don’t know why, so maybe we should leave it at that.

DAVID: I clearly said above that the giant universe was required to produce the Earth. The explosion of stars to create the elements needed for life are a clear reason to believe that. All a process of evolution.

Well, I’ve never created a universe myself, but I must confess I find it odd that billions and trillions and zillions of solar systems and stars coming and going for approx. nine thousand million years were “required” to produce just one little planet, all for the sake of one species of animal.

Concepts of God: universe too big for Him?

by David Turell @, Saturday, November 11, 2017, 14:38 (2328 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I don’t remember ever offering a theistic explanation for the giant universe. I agree with the authors that its vastness and seemingly random comings and goings are an argument for atheism. But the complexities of life are an argument for theism. And so I remain agnostic. Meanwhile, you are now left with my first suggestion: God must have had a human-oriented reason for the giant universe, even though you can’t think of one. The answer you have given above does not explain WHY he created the GIANT universe when all he wanted was to create the human brain, and that was the authors’ point. You have said yourself you don’t know why, so maybe we should leave it at that.

DAVID: I clearly said above that the giant universe was required to produce the Earth. The explosion of stars to create the elements needed for life are a clear reason to believe that. All a process of evolution.

dhw: Well, I’ve never created a universe myself, but I must confess I find it odd that billions and trillions and zillions of solar systems and stars coming and going for approx. nine thousand million years were “required” to produce just one little planet, all for the sake of one species of animal.

I guess you think we are that inconsequential, but we are the only folks around who can study why we are here. I'm simply paraphrasing Paul Davies. But that doesn't matter to you.

Concepts of God: universe too big for Him?

by dhw, Sunday, November 12, 2017, 13:37 (2327 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: The answer you have given above does not explain WHY he created the GIANT universe when all he wanted was to create the human brain, and that was the authors’ point. You have said yourself you don’t know why, so maybe we should leave it at that.

DAVID: I clearly said above that the giant universe was required to produce the Earth. The explosion of stars to create the elements needed for life are a clear reason to believe that. All a process of evolution.

dhw: Well, I’ve never created a universe myself, but I must confess I find it odd that billions and trillions and zillions of solar systems and stars coming and going for approx. nine thousand million years were “required” to produce just one little planet, all for the sake of one species of animal.

DAVID: I guess you think we are that inconsequential, but we are the only folks around who can study why we are here. I'm simply paraphrasing Paul Davies. But that doesn't matter to you.

You have totally missed the point. The discussion is not about the unique (as far as we know) consciousness of humans but about why your God needed to create billions and trillions and zillions of solar systems and stars that came and went for nine thousand million years just so that he could produce the Earth and then us! (Subject of thread:"universe too big for him?"

Concepts of God: universe too big for Him?

by David Turell @, Sunday, November 12, 2017, 15:35 (2327 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: The answer you have given above does not explain WHY he created the GIANT universe when all he wanted was to create the human brain, and that was the authors’ point. You have said yourself you don’t know why, so maybe we should leave it at that.

DAVID: I clearly said above that the giant universe was required to produce the Earth. The explosion of stars to create the elements needed for life are a clear reason to believe that. All a process of evolution.

dhw: Well, I’ve never created a universe myself, but I must confess I find it odd that billions and trillions and zillions of solar systems and stars coming and going for approx. nine thousand million years were “required” to produce just one little planet, all for the sake of one species of animal.

DAVID: I guess you think we are that inconsequential, but we are the only folks around who can study why we are here. I'm simply paraphrasing Paul Davies. But that doesn't matter to you.

dhw: You have totally missed the point. The discussion is not about the unique (as far as we know) consciousness of humans but about why your God needed to create billions and trillions and zillions of solar systems and stars that came and went for nine thousand million years just so that he could produce the Earth and then us! (Subject of thread:"universe too big for him?"

It is you who are missing my point. The authors are saying God had no reason to make the universe so big. How do they know that? Is it their sense of wonderment at how amazing and massive it is? It brings to mind your approach to evolution as a massive spectacle for God.

Concepts of God: universe too big for Him?

by dhw, Monday, November 13, 2017, 13:03 (2326 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Well, I’ve never created a universe myself, but I must confess I find it odd that billions and trillions and zillions of solar systems and stars coming and going for approx. nine thousand million years were “required” to produce just one little planet, all for the sake of one species of animal.

DAVID: I guess you think we are that inconsequential, but we are the only folks around who can study why we are here. I'm simply paraphrasing Paul Davies. But that doesn't matter to you.

dhw: You have totally missed the point. The discussion is not about the unique (as far as we know) consciousness of humans but about why your God needed to create billions and trillions and zillions of solar systems and stars that came and went for nine thousand million years just so that he could produce the Earth and then us! (Subject of thread:"universe too big for him?"

DAVID: It is you who are missing my point. The authors are saying God had no reason to make the universe so big. How do they know that? Is it their sense of wonderment at how amazing and massive it is? It brings to mind your approach to evolution as a massive spectacle for God.

I thought your point was that humans are the only folk who can study why we are here, so God made the universe for us, whereas my point (linking up with theirs) was that if humans were the reason for God creating the universe, why did he need to create billions and trillions and zillions of solar systems and stars that came and went for nine thousand million years before he made the Earth?

Concepts of God: universe too big for Him?

by David Turell @, Monday, November 13, 2017, 15:02 (2326 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: It is you who are missing my point. The authors are saying God had no reason to make the universe so big. How do they know that? Is it their sense of wonderment at how amazing and massive it is? It brings to mind your approach to evolution as a massive spectacle for God.

dhw: I thought your point was that humans are the only folk who can study why we are here, so God made the universe for us, whereas my point (linking up with theirs) was that if humans were the reason for God creating the universe, why did he need to create billions and trillions and zillions of solar systems and stars that came and went for nine thousand million years before he made the Earth?

Go back and look at the original entry in this series. They use quotes from the Bible to make assumptions about God and the universe and then support atheism by saying the universe is too big.

Concepts of God: universe too big for Him?

by dhw, Tuesday, November 14, 2017, 12:04 (2325 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Go back and look at the original entry in this series. They use quotes from the Bible to make assumptions about God and the universe and then support atheism by saying the universe is too big.

Oh dear, then we’d better repeat the whole course of this discussion. The biblical assumption about God is that he is human-oriented, and that is precisely your assumption about God. Then they say that "If God is human-oriented, wouldn’t you expect him to create a universe in which humans feature prominently? […] Yet that isn’t the kind of universe we live in. Humans are very small, and space, as Douglas Adams once put it, “is big, really really big”. And “The spatial and temporal size of the universe gives us reason to be atheists.”

Then come qualifications of the argument:

"The fact that atheism is the simplest reply to the mismatch doesn’t mean that other explanations aren’t possible. Perhaps God exists but his motives for not creating humans sooner, or on a bigger scale, are unknowable. The divine is, after all, mysterious.
"Perhaps the swathes of space strung with gossamer nebulae serve some aesthetic purpose, beauty wrought on an inhuman scale. Or, perhaps, God exists but isn’t as human-oriented as we thought. Perhaps God values rocks and cosmic dust more highly than humans
.”

And so the authors still opt for atheism as the simplest solution.

Your comment on this, followed by my own:
DAVID: “The fallacy of this reasoning is obvious. It is not clear that the Bible's description of God's purpose and thoughts are accurate, since the books of the Bible are written by humans who would like God to be close and prefer doing nice things for humans. Not a reason for atheism.”
dhw: And yet you believe that God’s prime purpose for creating life was to produce the brain of Homo sapiens! If anthropocentrism is a fallacy in their reasoning, then it must be a fallacy in your own as well. And so, if God exists, perhaps he had other reasons for creating the “really really big universe”.

Would you like to start again from there? Or would you agree with my later comment, and put an end to this rather unproductive discussion?

Dhw: The Bible makes God human-oriented, and so do you. May I suggest that ALTHOUGH you agree with the Bible’s teaching that God is human-oriented, you do not regard the giant universe as a reason for atheism. For you the fallacy in the authors’ reasoning would then be that your God must have had a human-oriented reason for the giant universe, even though you can’t think of one. Alternatively a different type of theist could argue that the giant universe merely indicates that God was NOT human-oriented but had other purposes in mind.

Concepts of God: universe too big for Him?

by David Turell @, Tuesday, November 14, 2017, 15:10 (2325 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Go back and look at the original entry in this series. They use quotes from the Bible to make assumptions about God and the universe and then support atheism by saying the universe is too big.

Oh dear, then we’d better repeat the whole course of this discussion. The biblical assumption about God is that he is human-oriented, and that is precisely your assumption about God. Then they say that "If God is human-oriented, wouldn’t you expect him to create a universe in which humans feature prominently? […] Yet that isn’t the kind of universe we live in. Humans are very small, and space, as Douglas Adams once put it, “is big, really really big”. And “The spatial and temporal size of the universe gives us reason to be atheists.”

Then come qualifications of the argument:

"The fact that atheism is the simplest reply to the mismatch doesn’t mean that other explanations aren’t possible. Perhaps God exists but his motives for not creating humans sooner, or on a bigger scale, are unknowable. The divine is, after all, mysterious.
"Perhaps the swathes of space strung with gossamer nebulae serve some aesthetic purpose, beauty wrought on an inhuman scale. Or, perhaps, God exists but isn’t as human-oriented as we thought. Perhaps God values rocks and cosmic dust more highly than humans
.”

And so the authors still opt for atheism as the simplest solution.

Your comment on this, followed by my own:
DAVID: “The fallacy of this reasoning is obvious. It is not clear that the Bible's description of God's purpose and thoughts are accurate, since the books of the Bible are written by humans who would like God to be close and prefer doing nice things for humans. Not a reason for atheism.”
dhw: And yet you believe that God’s prime purpose for creating life was to produce the brain of Homo sapiens! If anthropocentrism is a fallacy in their reasoning, then it must be a fallacy in your own as well. And so, if God exists, perhaps he had other reasons for creating the “really really big universe”.

Would you like to start again from there? Or would you agree with my later comment, and put an end to this rather unproductive discussion?

Dhw: The Bible makes God human-oriented, and so do you. May I suggest that ALTHOUGH you agree with the Bible’s teaching that God is human-oriented, you do not regard the giant universe as a reason for atheism. For you the fallacy in the authors’ reasoning would then be that your God must have had a human-oriented reason for the giant universe, even though you can’t think of one. Alternatively a different type of theist could argue that the giant universe merely indicates that God was NOT human-oriented but had other purposes in mind.

Yes, we go round and round. I do see a reason for the giant universe. It is required in order to evolve a galaxy with an Earth.

Concepts of God: universe too big for Him?

by David Turell @, Tuesday, November 14, 2017, 21:12 (2324 days ago) @ David Turell

What if God is creating more Milky Way like galaxies? To create more humans? A galaxy very similar tours is found:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2153336-we-found-our-galactic-twin-180-million-lig...

"We’ve seen ourselves in the heavens. A giant spiral galaxy 180 million light years from Earth not only resembles the Milky Way but also boasts a pair of interacting galaxies that look like our galaxy’s two brightest satellites.

"At least 50 galaxies orbit the Milky Way. Most have run out of gas because they’ve spent more time close enough to our galaxy for it to steal their gas. But two of the nearest satellites – the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds – have been in our neighbourhood for less time, and still possess lots of gas that spawns new stars. The two galaxies are respectively 160,000 and 200,000 light years from us and 75,000 light years from each other.

"This arrangement is rare. Most giant galaxies don’t have even one star-making companion nearby, let alone two. That’s probably because a giant galaxy strips small neighbours of gas, thwarting their ability to make new stars.

"Nevertheless, the astronomers succeeded, finding a giant barred spiral galaxy in the constellation Hydra named NGC 2718 that resembles the Milky Way. Moreover, it has two bright star-forming companions named UGC 4703. A bridge of young stars connects the two smaller galaxies, indicating they are interacting with each other, just as the Magellanic Clouds are.

“'They have definitely found a better analogue than any of the cases we presented,” says Philip James at Liverpool John Moores University, who in 2011 published the results of a search for such systems and found them exceedingly rare.

“'This one is particularly interesting because it is clear that the two smaller galaxies are interacting,” says Gurtina Besla at the University of Arizona in Tucson. “That wasn’t as clear in any of the other existing analogues.”

"How can star-making galaxies thrive next to a gas-grabbing giant galaxy? The Magellanic Clouds probably fell toward us only recently, so the Milky Way hasn’t had time to steal much of their gas. Paudel says the same explanation may hold for the newfound galactic trio in Hydra."

Comment: It is possible the giant universe is to create galaxies all over the universe with humans!

Concepts of God: universe too big for Him?

by dhw, Wednesday, November 15, 2017, 13:06 (2324 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: What if God is creating more Milky Way like galaxies? To create more humans? A galaxy very similar tours is found:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2153336-we-found-our-galactic-twin-180-million-lig...

QUOTE:"We’ve seen ourselves in the heavens. A giant spiral galaxy 180 million light years from Earth not only resembles the Milky Way but also boasts a pair of interacting galaxies that look like our galaxy’s two brightest satellites.

DAVID’s comment: It is possible the giant universe is to create galaxies all over the universe with humans!

Yep, and it’s possible that there are no other humans, that there are other forms of life, that there is no life at all, that there is a God, and that there is no God. So many things are possible, and currently we have no idea of the truth. It’s enough to drive a person to agnosticism.

Concepts of God: universe too big for Him?

by David Turell @, Wednesday, November 15, 2017, 14:41 (2324 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: What if God is creating more Milky Way like galaxies? To create more humans? A galaxy very similar tours is found:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2153336-we-found-our-galactic-twin-180-million-lig...

QUOTE:"We’ve seen ourselves in the heavens. A giant spiral galaxy 180 million light years from Earth not only resembles the Milky Way but also boasts a pair of interacting galaxies that look like our galaxy’s two brightest satellites.

DAVID’s comment: It is possible the giant universe is to create galaxies all over the universe with humans!

dhw: Yep, and it’s possible that there are no other humans, that there are other forms of life, that there is no life at all, that there is a God, and that there is no God. So many things are possible, and currently we have no idea of the truth. It’s enough to drive a person to agnosticism.

It is possible that God is experimenting with different types of humans, those with total free will and those which lesser amounts to see how their civilizations turn out.

Concepts of God: universe too big for Him?

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Saturday, November 18, 2017, 18:27 (2320 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: What if God is creating more Milky Way like galaxies? To create more humans? A galaxy very similar tours is found:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2153336-we-found-our-galactic-twin-180-million-lig...

QUOTE:"We’ve seen ourselves in the heavens. A giant spiral galaxy 180 million light years from Earth not only resembles the Milky Way but also boasts a pair of interacting galaxies that look like our galaxy’s two brightest satellites.

DAVID’s comment: It is possible the giant universe is to create galaxies all over the universe with humans!

dhw: Yep, and it’s possible that there are no other humans, that there are other forms of life, that there is no life at all, that there is a God, and that there is no God. So many things are possible, and currently we have no idea of the truth. It’s enough to drive a person to agnosticism.


David: It is possible that God is experimenting with different types of humans, those with total free will and those which lesser amounts to see how their civilizations turn out.

It is possible that it was always the plan to populate them with humans, but he is working the bugs out with us.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Concepts of God: universe too big for Him?

by David Turell @, Saturday, November 18, 2017, 19:26 (2320 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

DAVID: What if God is creating more Milky Way like galaxies? To create more humans? A galaxy very similar tours is found:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2153336-we-found-our-galactic-twin-180-million-lig...

QUOTE:"We’ve seen ourselves in the heavens. A giant spiral galaxy 180 million light years from Earth not only resembles the Milky Way but also boasts a pair of interacting galaxies that look like our galaxy’s two brightest satellites.

DAVID’s comment: It is possible the giant universe is to create galaxies all over the universe with humans!

dhw: Yep, and it’s possible that there are no other humans, that there are other forms of life, that there is no life at all, that there is a God, and that there is no God. So many things are possible, and currently we have no idea of the truth. It’s enough to drive a person to agnosticism.


David: It is possible that God is experimenting with different types of humans, those with total free will and those which lesser amounts to see how their civilizations turn out.


Tony: It is possible that it was always the plan to populate them with humans, but he is working the bugs out with us.

Great point.

Concepts of God: proof of God by St. Thomas' Fifth Way

by David Turell @, Monday, November 18, 2019, 23:15 (1590 days ago) @ David Turell

This has to be read in its entirety for full import. About five+ minutes:

https://dot.discovery.org/e/563722/-the-proof-from-specification-/592yh6/419767935?h=wo...

Concepts of God: proof of God by St. Thomas' Fifth Way

by dhw, Tuesday, November 19, 2019, 13:13 (1590 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: This has to be read in its entirety for full import. About five+ minutes:
https://dot.discovery.org/e/563722/-the-proof-from-specification-/592yh6/419767935?h=wo...

We have been over this umpteen times, though we have used the term “first cause” instead of “final cause”.

Quote: Final cause: the end or purpose for the cause. The final cause of a statue is the purpose in the mind of the sculptor — to use the statue to decorate a garden, for example.

An excellent explanation, which illustrates the major weakness in the whole argument: where did the sculptor come from? The theory that there is a conscious, all-powerful, immaterial mind which has simply existed for ever and ever is no more credible than the theory that materials have existed for ever and ever, and sooner or later they were bound to combine in a form that would create a rudimentary consciousness which, in turn, would evolve into ever greater complexity. With this scenario, there is no purpose until there are individual minds with purposes (e.g. cells whose purpose is to survive).

Quote: The foresight inherent in teleology is in God’s Mind, and it is via His manifest foresight in teleology that we see Him at work all around us.
This rules out the God of deism. The God of the Fifth Way is no watchmaker who winds up the world and walks away. He is at work ceaselessly and everywhere. The evidence for a Designer is as clear in the most simple inanimate process as it is in the most complex living organism. The elegant intricate complexity of cellular metabolism is certainly a manifestation of God’s glory — the beauty of biological processes is breath-taking. But the proof of His existence is in every movement in nature — in every detail of cellular metabolism, of course, but also in every raindrop and in every blown grain of dust.

This could be pure pantheism: God is Nature. But Nature does not have to be a single, thinking mind, and one can argue that materials and so-called natural laws are the first or final cause. You can follow a panpsychist route to atheism by arguing that if a raindrop or a grain of dust proves the existence of a single mind, you might just as well say that the raindrop and the grain of dust has a mind of its own. This also applies to the argument against deism. If God is “at work ceaselessly and everywhere”, he must be present in every movement. But why couldn’t he have invented all the mechanisms and then walked away? They would still provide evidence for design! Even you, David, say that he is hidden, and you don’t like to commit yourself to his having any personal interest in us.

Concepts of God: proof of God by St. Thomas' Fifth Way

by David Turell @, Wednesday, November 20, 2019, 01:00 (1589 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: This has to be read in its entirety for full import. About five+ minutes:
https://dot.discovery.org/e/563722/-the-proof-from-specification-/592yh6/419767935?h=wo...

dhw: We have been over this umpteen times, though we have used the term “first cause” instead of “final cause”.

Quote: Final cause: the end or purpose for the cause. The final cause of a statue is the purpose in the mind of the sculptor — to use the statue to decorate a garden, for example.

dhw: An excellent explanation, which illustrates the major weakness in the whole argument: where did the sculptor come from? The theory that there is a conscious, all-powerful, immaterial mind which has simply existed for ever and ever is no more credible than the theory that materials have existed for ever and ever, and sooner or later they were bound to combine in a form that would create a rudimentary consciousness which, in turn, would evolve into ever greater complexity. With this scenario, there is no purpose until there are individual minds with purposes (e.g. cells whose purpose is to survive).

Purposeful Activity is caused by a mind as you admit. There is no evidence that the first material (non-living) substances had any indication or ability of combining together to each other by their own selves.


dhw: Quote: The foresight inherent in teleology is in God’s Mind, and it is via His manifest foresight in teleology that we see Him at work all around us.
This rules out the God of deism. The God of the Fifth Way is no watchmaker who winds up the world and walks away. He is at work ceaselessly and everywhere. The evidence for a Designer is as clear in the most simple inanimate process as it is in the most complex living organism. The elegant intricate complexity of cellular metabolism is certainly a manifestation of God’s glory — the beauty of biological processes is breath-taking. But the proof of His existence is in every movement in nature — in every detail of cellular metabolism, of course, but also in every raindrop and in every blown grain of dust.

This could be pure pantheism: God is Nature. But Nature does not have to be a single, thinking mind, and one can argue that materials and so-called natural laws are the first or final cause. You can follow a panpsychist route to atheism by arguing that if a raindrop or a grain of dust proves the existence of a single mind, you might just as well say that the raindrop and the grain of dust has a mind of its own. This also applies to the argument against deism. If God is “at work ceaselessly and everywhere”, he must be present in every movement. But why couldn’t he have invented all the mechanisms and then walked away? They would still provide evidence for design! Even you, David, say that he is hidden, and you don’t like to commit yourself to his having any personal interest in us.

Last first, I don't know, cannot know, if God has an interest in any of us or all of us. Since he created us I think He is interested, degree unknown. Psychism has one meaning that fits:

https://www.wordnik.com/words/psychism

"The character of being psychic or mental." This means it is a bastardized version of recognizing the presence of mind or consciousness within the universe, without recognizing the possible source in/from God.

Concepts of God: proof of God by St. Thomas' Fifth Way

by dhw, Wednesday, November 20, 2019, 12:52 (1589 days ago) @ David Turell

Quote: Final cause: the end or purpose for the cause. The final cause of a statue is the purpose in the mind of the sculptor — to use the statue to decorate a garden, for example.

dhw: An excellent explanation, which illustrates the major weakness in the whole argument: where did the sculptor come from? The theory that there is a conscious, all-powerful, immaterial mind which has simply existed for ever and ever is no more credible than the theory that materials have existed for ever and ever, and sooner or later they were bound to combine in a form that would create a rudimentary consciousness which, in turn, would evolve into ever greater complexity. With this scenario, there is no purpose until there are individual minds with purposes (e.g. cells whose purpose is to survive).

DAVID: Purposeful Activity is caused by a mind as you admit. There is no evidence that the first material (non-living) substances had any indication or ability of combining together to each other by their own selves.

But they did combine. There is no evidence that they did so “by their own selves”, and there is no evidence that an unknown mind converted its own pure energy into material cells and either supplied them with computer programmes for every subsequent combination for the rest of time, or kept on psychokinetically moving them around for the next 3.8 billion years. I don’t know why you can’t accept that nobody knows how life started or through what mechanisms the first cells acquired the ability to evolve. That is why there are different theories.

dhw: This could be pure pantheism: God is Nature. But Nature does not have to be a single, thinking mind, and one can argue that materials and so-called natural laws are the first or final cause. You can follow a panpsychist route to atheism by arguing that if a raindrop or a grain of dust proves the existence of a single mind, you might just as well say that the raindrop and the grain of dust has a mind of its own. This also applies to the argument against deism. If God is “at work ceaselessly and everywhere”, he must be present in every movement. But why couldn’t he have invented all the mechanisms and then walked away? They would still provide evidence for design! Even you, David, say that he is hidden, and you don’t like to commit yourself to his having any personal interest in us.

DAVID: Last first, I don't know, cannot know, if God has an interest in any of us or all of us. Since he created us I think He is interested, degree unknown.

So you allow for deism, whereas for some reason St Thomas dismissed it.

DAVID: Psychism has one meaning that fits:
https://www.wordnik.com/words/psychism
"The character of being psychic or mental." This means it is a bastardized version of recognizing the presence of mind or consciousness within the universe, without recognizing the possible source in/from God.

I don’t know why you’ve fastened on psychism, when we are discussing panpsychism, defined as: “The theory that all nature is psychical or has a psychical aspect; the theory that every particle of matter has a psychical character or aspect.” This can be interpreted both theistically and atheistically. What is your point?.

Concepts of God: proof of God by St. Thomas' Fifth Way

by David Turell @, Wednesday, November 20, 2019, 19:42 (1588 days ago) @ dhw

Quote: Final cause: the end or purpose for the cause. The final cause of a statue is the purpose in the mind of the sculptor — to use the statue to decorate a garden, for example.

dhw: An excellent explanation, which illustrates the major weakness in the whole argument: where did the sculptor come from? The theory that there is a conscious, all-powerful, immaterial mind which has simply existed for ever and ever is no more credible than the theory that materials have existed for ever and ever, and sooner or later they were bound to combine in a form that would create a rudimentary consciousness which, in turn, would evolve into ever greater complexity. With this scenario, there is no purpose until there are individual minds with purposes (e.g. cells whose purpose is to survive).

DAVID: Purposeful Activity is caused by a mind as you admit. There is no evidence that the first material (non-living) substances had any indication or ability of combining together to each other by their own selves.

dhw: But they did combine. There is no evidence that they did so “by their own selves”, and there is no evidence that an unknown mind converted its own pure energy into material cells and either supplied them with computer programmes for every subsequent combination for the rest of time, or kept on psychokinetically moving them around for the next 3.8 billion years. I don’t know why you can’t accept that nobody knows how life started or through what mechanisms the first cells acquired the ability to evolve. That is why there are different theories.

Yes life exists, and our knowledge of how cells operate is that it is so complex no one has any concept of how it originated as you clearly state. Why do you turn to psychokinetics? Tour's article is exactly on point, and I have exhibited here the foolishness of most of the studies.


dhw: This could be pure pantheism: God is Nature. But Nature does not have to be a single, thinking mind, and one can argue that materials and so-called natural laws are the first or final cause. You can follow a panpsychist route to atheism by arguing that if a raindrop or a grain of dust proves the existence of a single mind, you might just as well say that the raindrop and the grain of dust has a mind of its own. This also applies to the argument against deism. If God is “at work ceaselessly and everywhere”, he must be present in every movement. But why couldn’t he have invented all the mechanisms and then walked away? They would still provide evidence for design! Even you, David, say that he is hidden, and you don’t like to commit yourself to his having any personal interest in us.

DAVID: Last first, I don't know, cannot know, if God has an interest in any of us or all of us. Since he created us I think He is interested, degree unknown.

dhw: So you allow for deism, whereas for some reason St Thomas dismissed it.

I can't avoid it, but I don't accept it.


DAVID: Psychism has one meaning that fits:
https://www.wordnik.com/words/psychism
"The character of being psychic or mental." This means it is a bastardized version of recognizing the presence of mind or consciousness within the universe, without recognizing the possible source in/from God.

dhw: I don’t know why you’ve fastened on psychism, when we are discussing panpsychism, defined as: “The theory that all nature is psychical or has a psychical aspect; the theory that every particle of matter has a psychical character or aspect.” This can be interpreted both theistically and atheistically. What is your point?.

Panpsychism is just spreading psychism ( bolded above) around the world and universe. And in every case it invokes the concept of mental activity behind our reality, which is my point about a designing God's mind. You did not comment on my characterization of panpsychism as a bastardized version of mental activity obviously necessary for the exquisite design in nature we easily see. Panpsychism is a neat way to get rid of the need for God.

Concepts of God: proof of God by St. Thomas' Fifth Way

by dhw, Thursday, November 21, 2019, 10:37 (1588 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Purposeful Activity is caused by a mind as you admit. There is no evidence that the first material (non-living) substances had any indication or ability of combining together to each other by their own selves.

dhw: But they did combine. There is no evidence that they did so “by their own selves”, and there is no evidence that an unknown mind converted its own pure energy into material cells and either supplied them with computer programmes for every subsequent combination for the rest of time, or kept on psychokinetically moving them around for the next 3.8 billion years. I don’t know why you can’t accept that nobody knows how life started or through what mechanisms the first cells acquired the ability to evolve. That is why there are different theories.

DAVID: Yes life exists, and our knowledge of how cells operate is that it is so complex no one has any concept of how it originated as you clearly state. Why do you turn to psychokinetics? Tour's article is exactly on point, and I have exhibited here the foolishness of most of the studies.

Psychokinesis is the ability of the mind to move or change objects without physical means. How else could “pure energy” dabble with existing materials?

DAVID: Psychism has one meaning that fits:
https://www.wordnik.com/words/psychism
"The character of being psychic or mental." This means it is a bastardized version of recognizing the presence of mind or consciousness within the universe, without recognizing the possible source in/from God.”

dhw: I don’t know why you’ve fastened on psychism, when we are discussing panpsychism, defined as: “The theory that all nature is psychical or has a psychical aspect; the theory that every particle of matter has a psychical character or aspect.” This can be interpreted both theistically and atheistically. What is your point?

DAVID: Panpsychism is just spreading psychism [...] around the world and universe. And in every case it invokes the concept of mental activity behind our reality, which is my point about a designing God's mind. You did not comment on my characterization of panpsychism as a bastardized version of mental activity obviously necessary for the exquisite design in nature we easily see. Panpsychism is a neat way to get rid of the need for God.

Your comment referred to psychism, but I have no idea why you consider it to be a way to get rid of God. I specified that it can be interpreted both theistically and atheistically! If, as you believe, your God’s consciousness is everywhere, you are a panpsychist, whether you like it or not.

Concepts of God: proof of God by St. Thomas' Fifth Way

by David Turell @, Thursday, November 21, 2019, 20:04 (1587 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Purposeful Activity is caused by a mind as you admit. There is no evidence that the first material (non-living) substances had any indication or ability of combining together to each other by their own selves.

dhw: But they did combine. There is no evidence that they did so “by their own selves”, and there is no evidence that an unknown mind converted its own pure energy into material cells and either supplied them with computer programmes for every subsequent combination for the rest of time, or kept on psychokinetically moving them around for the next 3.8 billion years. I don’t know why you can’t accept that nobody knows how life started or through what mechanisms the first cells acquired the ability to evolve. That is why there are different theories.

DAVID: Yes life exists, and our knowledge of how cells operate is that it is so complex no one has any concept of how it originated as you clearly state. Why do you turn to psychokinetics? Tour's article is exactly on point, and I have exhibited here the foolishness of most of the studies.

dhw: Psychokinesis is the ability of the mind to move or change objects without physical means. How else could “pure energy” dabble with existing materials?

I meant panpsychism. And my comment applies. The panpsychism theory is my theory that God's consciousness runs the universe in lite form, to avoid God. See below.


DAVID: Psychism has one meaning that fits:
https://www.wordnik.com/words/psychism
"The character of being psychic or mental." This means it is a bastardized version of recognizing the presence of mind or consciousness within the universe, without recognizing the possible source in/from God.”

dhw: I don’t know why you’ve fastened on psychism, when we are discussing panpsychism, defined as: “The theory that all nature is psychical or has a psychical aspect; the theory that every particle of matter has a psychical character or aspect.” This can be interpreted both theistically and atheistically. What is your point?

DAVID: Panpsychism is just spreading psychism [...] around the world and universe. And in every case it invokes the concept of mental activity behind our reality, which is my point about a designing God's mind. You did not comment on my characterization of panpsychism as a bastardized version of mental activity obviously necessary for the exquisite design in nature we easily see. Panpsychism is a neat way to get rid of the need for God.

dhw: Your comment referred to psychism, but I have no idea why you consider it to be a way to get rid of God. I specified that it can be interpreted both theistically and atheistically! If, as you believe, your God’s consciousness is everywhere, you are a panpsychist, whether you like it or not.

I actually am a panenpsychist in belief, God within and without the universe

Concepts of God: proof of God by St. Thomas' Fifth Way

by dhw, Friday, November 22, 2019, 10:01 (1587 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Yes life exists, and our knowledge of how cells operate is that it is so complex no one has any concept of how it originated as you clearly state. Why do you turn to psychokinetics?

dhw: Psychokinesis is the ability of the mind to move or change objects without physical means. How else could “pure energy” dabble with existing materials?

DAVID: I meant panpsychism. And my comment applies. The panpsychism theory is my theory that God's consciousness runs the universe in lite form, to avoid God.

Panpsychism is: "The theory that all nature is psychical or has a psychical aspect; the theory that every particle of matter has a psychical character or aspect.” How does God running the universe “in lite form” avoid God? And what is “lite” about it? If you think God’s consciousness is everywhere, you are a panpsychist! But equally you can believe that all things have their own individual “psyche”, regardless of whether God exists or not. That is why panpsychism can be theistic or atheistic.

DAVID: I actually am a panenpsychist in belief, God within and without the universe.

That still means God’s consciousness is everywhere. Once more: what is your point? We were discussing St Thomas’s attempt to prove God’s existence and also to discredit deism. The argument went that “he is at work ceaselessly and everywhere” and the “proof of his existence is […] in every raindrop and in every blown grain of dust”. The design may be seen as proof of God’s existence, but that does not “rule out the God of deism”. I also pointed out that the concept of God outlined here could be pure pantheism, but Nature does not have to be a single, thinking mind, and the concept of universal consciousness is a form of panpsychism, which can be theistic or atheistic. Do you agree with this critique or not?

Concepts of God: proof of God by St. Thomas' Fifth Way

by David Turell @, Friday, November 22, 2019, 22:51 (1586 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Yes life exists, and our knowledge of how cells operate is that it is so complex no one has any concept of how it originated as you clearly state. Why do you turn to psychokinetics?

dhw: Psychokinesis is the ability of the mind to move or change objects without physical means. How else could “pure energy” dabble with existing materials?

DAVID: I meant panpsychism. And my comment applies. The panpsychism theory is my theory that God's consciousness runs the universe in lite form, to avoid God.

Panpsychism is: "The theory that all nature is psychical or has a psychical aspect; the theory that every particle of matter has a psychical character or aspect.” How does God running the universe “in lite form” avoid God? And what is “lite” about it? If you think God’s consciousness is everywhere, you are a panpsychist! But equally you can believe that all things have their own individual “psyche”, regardless of whether God exists or not. That is why panpsychism can be theistic or atheistic.

DAVID: I actually am a panenpsychist in belief, God within and without the universe.

dhw: That still means God’s consciousness is everywhere. Once more: what is your point? We were discussing St Thomas’s attempt to prove God’s existence and also to discredit deism. The argument went that “he is at work ceaselessly and everywhere” and the “proof of his existence is […] in every raindrop and in every blown grain of dust”. The design may be seen as proof of God’s existence, but that does not “rule out the God of deism”. I also pointed out that the concept of God outlined here could be pure pantheism, but Nature does not have to be a single, thinking mind, and the concept of universal consciousness is a form of panpsychism, which can be theistic or atheistic. Do you agree with this critique or not?

Yours is a good summary of the issues.

Concepts of God: proof of God by St. Thomas' Fifth Way

by dhw, Saturday, November 23, 2019, 10:28 (1586 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I actually am a panenpsychist in belief, God within and without the universe.

dhw: That still means God’s consciousness is everywhere. Once more: what is your point? We were discussing St Thomas’s attempt to prove God’s existence and also to discredit deism. The argument went that “he is at work ceaselessly and everywhere” and the “proof of his existence is […] in every raindrop and in every blown grain of dust”. The design may be seen as proof of God’s existence, but that does not “rule out the God of deism”. I also pointed out that the concept of God outlined here could be pure pantheism, but Nature does not have to be a single, thinking mind, and the concept of universal consciousness is a form of panpsychism, which can be theistic or atheistic. Do you agree with this critique or not?

DAVID: Yours is a good summary of the issues.

Thank you, and goodbye to St Thomas.

Concepts of God: proof of God by Max Planck

by David Turell @, Tuesday, February 09, 2021, 04:17 (1142 days ago) @ David Turell

From a lecture:

https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/max-planck-on-the-force-behind-the-unive...

"Max Planck: Gentlemen, as a physicist who all his life, within the most sober and rational science, has been devoted to the study of matter, I am certain to be free of the suspicion of being a dreamer, and so I say after my research on the atom; matter as such does not exist.

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force that brings the parts of the atom in vibration, and keeps the smallest solar system of the universe together. As there in the entire universe does not exist an intelligent force, nor an eternal force- man has not yet succeded in inventing the perpetuum mobile- so must we assume behind this force the existence of a conscious intelligent spirit. This spirit is the basis of all matter. The visible but impermanent matter is not the reality and truth- because without spirit, matter wouldn’t exist at all- but the invisible, immortal spirit is the truth. Because every spirit belongs to a being, we are forced to assume it to be a spiritual being. Because spiritual beings do not come about by themselves, but must be created, I will not hesitate in fact, to call this secretive creator, like people of all cultures through millennia has done, God. Thereby moves the physicist who dealt with matter, from the realm of stuff to the realm of the spirit. And so is our task ended, and we must then pass on the research into the hands of the philosophers. – Lecture, ‘Das Wesen der Materie’ [The Essence/Nature/Character of Matter], Florence, Italy (1944). Archiv zur Geschichte der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Abt. Va, Rep. 11 Planck, Nr. 1797. Excerpt in Gregg Braden, The Spontaneous Healing of Belief: Shattering the Paradigm of False Limits (2009), 334-35."

By spirit I feel he means intelligence in a Creator.

Concepts of God: proof of God by Max Planck

by dhw, Tuesday, February 09, 2021, 12:48 (1142 days ago) @ David Turell

Max Planck: Gentlemen, as a physicist who all his life, within the most sober and rational science, has been devoted to the study of matter, I am certain to be free of the suspicion of being a dreamer, and so I say after my research on the atom; matter as such does not exist. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force that brings the parts of the atom in vibration, and keeps the smallest solar system of the universe together. ……

I hesitate to cross swords with such an eminent scientist who can't answer back, but hold on. “Matter as such does not exist”, but matter exists? Everything we know of has to originate, but how does that come to mean it doesn’t exist “as such”?

Planck: As there in the entire universe does not exist an intelligent force, nor an eternal force- man has not yet succeeded in inventing the perpetuum mobile- so must we assume behind this force the existence of a conscious intelligent spirit.

So we don’t know of any intelligent eternal force, and that must mean there is an intelligent eternal force. And the intelligent eternal force must be something we don’t know of, but we’ll call it a conscious, immortal spirit. In other words, let’s substitute one unknown eternal force for another unknown eternal source.

PLANCK: This spirit is the basis of all matter. The visible but impermanent matter is not the reality and truth- because without spirit, matter wouldn’t exist at all- but the invisible, immortal spirit is the truth.

I’m going to risk philosophical life and limb here, but I truly believe that matter is real. I don’t know how it originated, but maybe…just maybe…it has always been there. Hold on for the next mystery…

PLANCK: Because every spirit belongs to a being, we are forced to assume it to be a spiritual being. Because spiritual beings do not come about by themselves, but must be created, I will not hesitate in fact, to call this secretive creator, like people of all cultures through millennia has done, God.

So matter has to be created, it’s been created by a spiritual being, but spiritual beings have to be created, and therefore the spiritual being which created matter – or does he mean the spiritual being which created the spiritual being which created matter – was created by...oh, hold on...no this spiritual being is called God. So what spiritual being created the spiritual being called God?

DAVID: By spirit I feel he means intelligence in a Creator.

Of course he does. That’s why he called God the “secretive creator”. Why didn’t he just say there had to be a first cause, and he believed it was a spiritual being named God, instead of all this tangled sophistry?

Concepts of God: proof of God by Max Planck

by David Turell @, Tuesday, February 09, 2021, 18:19 (1141 days ago) @ dhw

Max Planck: Gentlemen, as a physicist who all his life, within the most sober and rational science, has been devoted to the study of matter, I am certain to be free of the suspicion of being a dreamer, and so I say after my research on the atom; matter as such does not exist. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force that brings the parts of the atom in vibration, and keeps the smallest solar system of the universe together. ……

dhw: I hesitate to cross swords with such an eminent scientist who can't answer back, but hold on. “Matter as such does not exist”, but matter exists? Everything we know of has to originate, but how does that come to mean it doesn’t exist “as such”?

The atom is pure energy particles is his meaning.


Planck: As there in the entire universe does not exist an intelligent force, nor an eternal force- man has not yet succeeded in inventing the perpetuum mobile- so must we assume behind this force the existence of a conscious intelligent spirit.

dhw: So we don’t know of any intelligent eternal force, and that must mean there is an intelligent eternal force. And the intelligent eternal force must be something we don’t know of, but we’ll call it a conscious, immortal spirit. In other words, let’s substitute one unknown eternal force for another unknown eternal source.

PLANCK: This spirit is the basis of all matter. The visible but impermanent matter is not the reality and truth- because without spirit, matter wouldn’t exist at all- but the invisible, immortal spirit is the truth.

dhw: I’m going to risk philosophical life and limb here, but I truly believe that matter is real. I don’t know how it originated, but maybe…just maybe…it has always been there. Hold on for the next mystery…

But, remember E=mc2. At the plasma stage our universe was pure energy in a plasma state.


PLANCK: Because every spirit belongs to a being, we are forced to assume it to be a spiritual being. Because spiritual beings do not come about by themselves, but must be created, I will not hesitate in fact, to call this secretive creator, like people of all cultures through millennia has done, God.

dhw: So matter has to be created, it’s been created by a spiritual being, but spiritual beings have to be created, and therefore the spiritual being which created matter – or does he mean the spiritual being which created the spiritual being which created matter – was created by...oh, hold on...no this spiritual being is called God. So what spiritual being created the spiritual being called God?

DAVID: By spirit I feel he means intelligence in a Creator.

dhw: Of course he does. That’s why he called God the “secretive creator”. Why didn’t he just say there had to be a first cause, and he believed it was a spiritual being named God, instead of all this tangled sophistry?

I can't speak for him, but a first cause MUST exist eternally

Concepts of God: God does not exist in time

by David Turell @, Friday, February 26, 2021, 20:37 (1124 days ago) @ David Turell

Ed Feser on the subject eulogizing an atheist philosopher:

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2021/02/smith-and-divine-eternity.html#more

"Smith begins by noting that the concept of eternity is traditionally defined in theological terms, as in Boethius’ famous characterization of it as God’s “possession all at once of unlimited life.” This “possession all at once” involves God’s existing timelessly. It’s not that God has always existed in the past and will continue to do so in the future, but rather that he exists outside of time altogether.

***

"I [Feser] would add two more points. First, “simultaneous” and “duration” are temporal notions, which should already make us suspicious of this way of spelling out the notion of eternity. (To be sure, it is very hard to avoid all temporal language when speaking of eternity, which means that we need to rely heavily on the analogical use of terms and explicit negation of all of the temporal implications of univocal usage.

"Second, talk of God “seeing” different points of time all at once, though very common in discussions of eternity, is extremely misleading ... God does not know the world via anything like perception. He knows it by virtue of being its cause. In particular, he does not know what is happening in 1776 and 2021 by way of observing them. He know them because he knows himself as the cause of a world in which a series of events occurs, some of which are in 1776 and some of which are in 2021.

"(Compare: A novelist knows what happens in chapter 1 and chapter 5 of his book, not because he has read both chapters, but because he wrote both of them. Much bad thinking about God’s relation to the world in general and to time in particular results from thinking of God as if he were just one more reader of the “novel” that is the world, rather than the novel’s author.)

***

"...all this talk of God having “stages” is in any event a non-starter, because it violates divine simplicity... talk of “duration” has, here too, potentially problematic temporal connotations.

***

"Eternity is not endless duration, but it is more like endless duration than it is like an instant.

"The main problem Smith raises against the “tenseless instant” view is this. Suppose Washington was worshipping God one morning in 1776, but was not doing so an hour later when his attention was distracted by other matters. Then it seems that God underwent a change (i.e. from being worshipped by Washington to not being worshipped by him), and if he undergoes change, then he is in time. A traditional response to this kind of objection, which Smith considers, is that while this involves a change to Washington, it does not really involve a change to God himself, but only a change in the relations Washington bears to him. And this kind of change does not require God to exist in time.

***

"Smith (or his dialogue’s character) also neglects to consider the Thomistic position that while the world bears a real relation to God, God does not bear a real relation to the world.

***

"...his talk of eternity as a “standing now” also deploys a term with temporal connotations. However, the situation here is similar to the one we face when attributing things like power, goodness, knowledge, and the like to God. We are saying both that there is in God something analogous to what we call the now (or power, or goodness, or knowledge) in our case, but that it is not exactly the same thing, and that it lacks all aspects concomitant with our being changeable, corporeal, composite, and so on.

Comment: I must remind that Feser was an atheist and now a highly regarded Catholic philosopher. Time is our concept, not God's. God does not create in anticipation of watching with interest that creation in the future. As stated, 1776 is the same as 2021 to God. If this seems disjointed, it is. Read the entire long entry for completeness.

Concepts of God: God does not exist in time

by dhw, Saturday, February 27, 2021, 09:23 (1124 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I must remind that Feser was an atheist and now a highly regarded Catholic philosopher. Time is our concept, not God's. God does not create in anticipation of watching with interest that creation in the future. As stated, 1776 is the same as 2021 to God. If this seems disjointed, it is. Read the entire long entry for completeness.

No, thank you. I would not even have commented on this if it were not for your claim that your God does not create in anticipation of watching with interest...How do you or Feser know that past, present and future are “all the same” to God. You spend hours of your life (and mine) trying to demonstrate all the befores and afters as your God deliberately fine-tuned the universe in order to produce an environment that would later sustain life forms which would start off with single-celled organisms and would later evolve into different life forms, which would later culminate in humans. That sequence denotes the reality of time and your God’s use of it. And you yourself repeat ad nauseam that all his programmes and his operations and his lecture courses are In ANTICIPATION of what is to come. So how can you now support a “highly regarded Catholic philosopher” who is telling you that all your theories about evolution and planning for the future are wrong?

Concepts of God: God does not exist in time

by David Turell @, Saturday, February 27, 2021, 14:34 (1124 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I must remind that Feser was an atheist and now a highly regarded Catholic philosopher. Time is our concept, not God's. God does not create in anticipation of watching with interest that creation in the future. As stated, 1776 is the same as 2021 to God. If this seems disjointed, it is. Read the entire long entry for completeness.

dhw: No, thank you. I would not even have commented on this if it were not for your claim that your God does not create in anticipation of watching with interest...How do you or Feser know that past, present and future are “all the same” to God. You spend hours of your life (and mine) trying to demonstrate all the befores and afters as your God deliberately fine-tuned the universe in order to produce an environment that would later sustain life forms which would start off with single-celled organisms and would later evolve into different life forms, which would later culminate in humans. That sequence denotes the reality of time and your God’s use of it. And you yourself repeat ad nauseam that all his programmes and his operations and his lecture courses are In ANTICIPATION of what is to come. So how can you now support a “highly regarded Catholic philosopher” who is telling you that all your theories about evolution and planning for the future are wrong?

It is obvious you do not understand Feder's point in any way. It shows why you have no clue why I tell you you are humanizing God. We live in time, God does not. You are using what happens to us to apply the use of time to God as if He lives in our time. Feser is a Thomist, whose philosophy I have accepted in large part, but not the trinitarianism. Have you forgotten that when the universe appeared, time started? That alone makes God timeless. So don't do some reading for yourself, especially when you assume the imagined role of theist.

Concepts of God: God does not exist in time

by dhw, Sunday, February 28, 2021, 09:03 (1123 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I must remind that Feser was an atheist and now a highly regarded Catholic philosopher. Time is our concept, not God's. God does not create in anticipation of watching with interest that creation in the future. As stated, 1776 is the same as 2021 to God. If this seems disjointed, it is. Read the entire long entry for completeness.

dhw: No, thank you. I would not even have commented on this if it were not for your claim that your God does not create in anticipation of watching with interest...How do you or Feser know that past, present and future are “all the same” to God. […]

DAVID: It is obvious you do not understand Feder's point in any way. It shows why you have no clue why I tell you you are humanizing God. We live in time, God does not. You are using what happens to us to apply the use of time to God as if He lives in our time. Feser is a Thomist, whose philosophy I have accepted in large part, but not the trinitarianism. Have you forgotten that when the universe appeared, time started? That alone makes God timeless. So don't do some reading for yourself, especially when you assume the imagined role of theist.

What is your definition of time? Mine is the sequence of before, now, and after - of past, present and future. It is not one o’clock, two o’ clock, three o‘clock rock. The division of time into units is a human invention based upon natural cycles. But you have agreed that there must have been a “before” the Big Bang (since your God is eternal and created the universe), and you insist that your God created a sequence of befores and afters, fine-tuning the universe for life, then creating life, and then continuing to fiddle with it through a sequence of life forms until – according to you – after 3.X billion years he achieved his one and only purpose of designing H. sapiens, having operated on pre-sapiens brains IN ANTICIPATION of future usages. The figure of 3.X billion years is our invention, but the history of the universe is a sequence of befores, nows, and afters. And so if you think your God did absolutely nothing before the Big Bang but simply existed as a totally inert blob of pure energy (but remember, nobody knows what sequences he might have created before the Big Bang ), then you can certainly argue that he created time when he created the universe (i.e. “when the universe appeared, time started”). But unless he is now dead, he lives in and uses – or used - the time he created. Please begin your reply with your definition of time.

Concepts of God: God does not exist in time

by David Turell @, Sunday, February 28, 2021, 15:15 (1123 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: It is obvious you do not understand Feder's point in any way. It shows why you have no clue why I tell you you are humanizing God. We live in time, God does not. You are using what happens to us to apply the use of time to God as if He lives in our time. Feser is a Thomist, whose philosophy I have accepted in large part, but not the trinitarianism. Have you forgotten that when the universe appeared, time started? That alone makes God timeless. So don't do some reading for yourself, especially when you assume the imagined role of theist.

dhw: What is your definition of time? Mine is the sequence of before, now, and after - of past, present and future. It is not one o’clock, two o’ clock, three o‘clock rock. The division of time into units is a human invention based upon natural cycles. But you have agreed that there must have been a “before” the Big Bang (since your God is eternal and created the universe), and you insist that your God created a sequence of befores and afters, fine-tuning the universe for life, then creating life, and then continuing to fiddle with it through a sequence of life forms until – according to you – after 3.X billion years he achieved his one and only purpose of designing H. sapiens, having operated on pre-sapiens brains IN ANTICIPATION of future usages. The figure of 3.X billion years is our invention, but the history of the universe is a sequence of befores, nows, and afters. And so if you think your God did absolutely nothing before the Big Bang but simply existed as a totally inert blob of pure energy (but remember, nobody knows what sequences he might have created before the Big Bang ), then you can certainly argue that he created time when he created the universe (i.e. “when the universe appeared, time started”). But unless he is now dead, he lives in and uses – or used - the time he created. Please begin your reply with your definition of time.

Your exposition of the human version of time is right on. Yes God has worked in our universe while our time passed by. Absolutely correct. But again you are off the main point. God is timeless. What He created before this Big Bang is a time concept as we see it , not as God would review it. God is timelessly eternal. Only when He creates a species that can understand the passage of events does the concept of time appear. I am a panentheist, and understand that God's consciousness enters our universe's time to act. Yes God acts in our time but He Himself is timeless. A distillate of my theological readings.

Concepts of God: God does not exist in time

by dhw, Monday, March 01, 2021, 13:06 (1122 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: It is obvious you do not understand Feder's point in any way. It shows why you have no clue why I tell you you are humanizing God. We live in time, God does not. You are using what happens to us to apply the use of time to God as if He lives in our time. Feser is a Thomist, whose philosophy I have accepted in large part, but not the trinitarianism. Have you forgotten that when the universe appeared, time started? That alone makes God timeless. So don't do some reading for yourself, especially when you assume the imagined role of theist.

dhw: What is your definition of time? Mine is the sequence of before, now, and after - of past, present and future. It is not one o’clock, two o’ clock, three o‘clock rock. The division of time into units is a human invention based upon natural cycles. But you have agreed that there must have been a “before” the Big Bang (since your God is eternal and created the universe), and you insist that your God created a sequence of befores and afters, fine-tuning the universe for life, then creating life, and then continuing to fiddle with it through a sequence of life forms until – according to you – after 3.X billion years he achieved his one and only purpose of designing H. sapiens, having operated on pre-sapiens brains IN ANTICIPATION of future usages. The figure of 3.X billion years is our invention, but the history of the universe is a sequence of befores, nows, and afters. And so if you think your God did absolutely nothing before the Big Bang but simply existed as a totally inert blob of pure energy (but remember, nobody knows what sequences he might have created before the Big Bang ), then you can certainly argue that he created time when he created the universe (i.e. “when the universe appeared, time started”). But unless he is now dead, he lives in and uses – or used - the time he created. Please begin your reply with your definition of time.

DAVID: Your exposition of the human version of time is right on. Yes God has worked in our universe while our time passed by. Absolutely correct. But again you are off the main point. God is timeless. What He created before this Big Bang is a time concept as we see it , not as God would review it. God is timelessly eternal. Only when He creates a species that can understand the passage of events does the concept of time appear. I am a panentheist, and understand that God's consciousness enters our universe's time to act. Yes God acts in our time but He Himself is timeless. A distillate of my theological readings.

I asked you for your definition of time. If you accept my definition, do you think your God is ignorant of the fact that his work DEPENDS on there being a before, a now, and an after, although according to you it was he who created a beginning – the universe – and a sequence of befores, nows and afters from that beginning to our present? You even have him programming events and acting in anticipation of future events! What do you mean by “timelessly eternal”? The only possible meaning of “timeless” in this context is eternal, so yes indeed, an eternal God is eternal. But an eternal God who is eternal still “exists in time”, unless of course he is now dead, in which case he is not eternal. Without a definition of time as something that negates sequences of cause and effect, of before, now and after, and of past, present and future, this argument is pointless.

Concepts of God: God does not exist in time

by David Turell @, Monday, March 01, 2021, 15:21 (1122 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: What is your definition of time? Mine is the sequence of before, now, and after - of past, present and future. It is not one o’clock, two o’ clock, three o‘clock rock. The division of time into units is a human invention based upon natural cycles. But you have agreed that there must have been a “before” the Big Bang (since your God is eternal and created the universe), and you insist that your God created a sequence of befores and afters, fine-tuning the universe for life, then creating life, and then continuing to fiddle with it through a sequence of life forms until – according to you – after 3.X billion years he achieved his one and only purpose of designing H. sapiens, having operated on pre-sapiens brains IN ANTICIPATION of future usages. The figure of 3.X billion years is our invention, but the history of the universe is a sequence of befores, nows, and afters. And so if you think your God did absolutely nothing before the Big Bang but simply existed as a totally inert blob of pure energy (but remember, nobody knows what sequences he might have created before the Big Bang ), then you can certainly argue that he created time when he created the universe (i.e. “when the universe appeared, time started”). But unless he is now dead, he lives in and uses – or used - the time he created. Please begin your reply with your definition of time.

DAVID: Your exposition of the human version of time is right on. Yes God has worked in our universe while our time passed by. Absolutely correct. But again you are off the main point. God is timeless. What He created before this Big Bang is a time concept as we see it , not as God would review it. God is timelessly eternal. Only when He creates a species that can understand the passage of events does the concept of time appear. I am a panentheist, and understand that God's consciousness enters our universe's time to act. Yes God acts in our time but He Himself is timeless. A distillate of my theological readings.

dhw: I asked you for your definition of time. If you accept my definition, do you think your God is ignorant of the fact that his work DEPENDS on there being a before, a now, and an after, although according to you it was he who created a beginning – the universe – and a sequence of befores, nows and afters from that beginning to our present? You even have him programming events and acting in anticipation of future events! What do you mean by “timelessly eternal”? The only possible meaning of “timeless” in this context is eternal, so yes indeed, an eternal God is eternal. But an eternal God who is eternal still “exists in time”, unless of course he is now dead, in which case he is not eternal. Without a definition of time as something that negates sequences of cause and effect, of before, now and after, and of past, present and future, this argument is pointless.

All you have done is discuss the human concept of time and tried to apply that to God. God is unchanging all through eternity, and not being different ever He is timeless. What you have described are things that God does for us or for evolution in our time. Obviously God recognizes the passage of our time as He performs activity in that time. What you do not seem to understand is the separation. Timeless God can enter our time and remain timeless as He manipulates within our time. It is not pointless trying to make you understand Feser's concepts.

Concepts of God: God does not exist in time

by dhw, Tuesday, March 02, 2021, 12:49 (1121 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I asked you for your definition of time. If you accept my definition, do you think your God is ignorant of the fact that his work DEPENDS on there being a before, a now, and an after, although according to you it was he who created a beginning – the universe – and a sequence of befores, nows and afters from that beginning to our present? You even have him programming events and acting in anticipation of future events! What do you mean by “timelessly eternal”? The only possible meaning of “timeless” in this context is eternal, so yes indeed, an eternal God is eternal. But an eternal God who is eternal still “exists in time”, unless of course he is now dead, in which case he is not eternal. Without a definition of time as something that negates sequences of cause and effect, of before, now and after, and of past, present and future, this argument is pointless.

DAVID: All you have done is discuss the human concept of time and tried to apply that to God. God is unchanging all through eternity, and not being different ever He is timeless.

Why do you refuse to define time and timeless? And unchanging in what way? For instance, do you think he is incapable of learning? You believe he is interested in us, so does that mean he watches us but his mind remains a total blank?

DAVID: What you have described are things that God does for us or for evolution in our time. Obviously God recognizes the passage of our time as He performs activity in that time.

And there you have the nub of the matter. We have no idea what your God got up to before the Big Bang (if it happened), but he did not “recognize” the passage of our time – according to you he created it! So it's HIS time. And he used it. And if he is still alive, he exists in it.

DAVID: What you do not seem to understand is the separation. Timeless God can enter our time and remain timeless as He manipulates within our time. It is not pointless trying to make you understand Feser's concepts.

Again, what do you mean by “timeless”? I have no problem accepting the idea that he is eternal, but what do you mean by he “entered our time”, when you believe that he himself began the sequences of cause and effect, past, present and future, evolution etc. If by “timeless” you mean that he has always been one vast blob of pure energy, that’s fine with me, but it doesn’t mean that his work does (did) not depend on cause and effect, before and after. And if by timeless you simply mean “eternal”, then all you are saying is that your eternal God has always been there in HIS past and will always be there in HIS future. This whole discussion is meaningless unless you define your terms! Why are you so reluctant to do so? And what exactly is the point that you are trying to make?

Concepts of God: God does not exist in time

by David Turell @, Tuesday, March 02, 2021, 15:14 (1121 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: All you have done is discuss the human concept of time and tried to apply that to God. God is unchanging all through eternity, and not being different ever He is timeless.

dhw: Why do you refuse to define time and timeless? And unchanging in what way? For instance, do you think he is incapable of learning? You believe he is interested in us, so does that mean he watches us but his mind remains a total blank?

I refuse nothing. You don't like my answers. God works in human time. Is that difficult to understand? Your questions do not fit the quality of this discussion. God doesn't need to learn. His mind is so much more than ours.


DAVID: What you have described are things that God does for us or for evolution in our time. Obviously God recognizes the passage of our time as He performs activity in that time.

dhw; And there you have the nub of the matter. We have no idea what your God got up to before the Big Bang (if it happened), but he did not “recognize” the passage of our time – according to you he created it! So it's HIS time. And he used it. And if he is still alive, he exists in it.

No. He works His creations in our time, but outside our time He is timeless. The time He created is for us, not for him.


DAVID: What you do not seem to understand is the separation. Timeless God can enter our time and remain timeless as He manipulates within our time. It is not pointless trying to make you understand Feser's concepts.

dhw: Again, what do you mean by “timeless”? I have no problem accepting the idea that he is eternal, but what do you mean by he “entered our time”, when you believe that he himself began the sequences of cause and effect, past, present and future, evolution etc. If by “timeless” you mean that he has always been one vast blob of pure energy, that’s fine with me, but it doesn’t mean that his work does (did) not depend on cause and effect, before and after. And if by timeless you simply mean “eternal”, then all you are saying is that your eternal God has always been there in HIS past and will always be there in HIS future. This whole discussion is meaningless unless you define your terms! Why are you so reluctant to do so? And what exactly is the point that you are trying to make?

God created our time and entered it for His creations of our reality. Outside the universe there is no time and God is there, timeless. Pure panentheism. To answer your question, to explain to you God's relationship to 'time' after you questioned Feser.

Concepts of God: God does not exist in time

by dhw, Wednesday, March 03, 2021, 11:11 (1120 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: All you have done is discuss the human concept of time and tried to apply that to God. God is unchanging all through eternity, and not being different ever He is timeless.

dhw: Why do you refuse to define time and timeless? And unchanging in what way? For instance, do you think he is incapable of learning? You believe he is interested in us, so does that mean he watches us but his mind remains a total blank?

DAVID: I refuse nothing. You don't like my answers. God works in human time. Is that difficult to understand?

I have defined time as the sequence of cause and effect, of past, present and future, of before, now and after. I have suggested that timeless means eternal, i.e. with no beginning and no end. This leaves us with an eternal God who created all the causes and effects that depend on the sequence of past, present and future and which constitute my definition of time. (Humans did not exist when this process began.) “Is that difficult to understand?” If you disagree with my definition of time, then please supply your own.

DAVID: Your questions do not fit the quality of this discussion. God doesn't need to learn. His mind is so much more than ours.

Nobody could possibly doubt that if he exists, his mind is “so much more than ours”. How does that mean he can’t learn? Supposing, for instance, he had never created humans before. Is it not possible that he would have needed to experiment? You have no more idea of God’s “mind” than I have, so I don’t know why you come up with these authoritative descriptions of what he does and doesn’t need or want.

dhw:. We have no idea what your God got up to before the Big Bang (if it happened), but he did not “recognize” the passage of our time – according to you he created it! So it's HIS time. And he used it. And if he is still alive, he exists in it.

DAVID: No. He works His creations in our time, but outside our time He is timeless. The time He created is for us, not for him.

We did not even exist when he started to “work his creations”, i.e. to build effects upon causes, i.e. to proceed from a before to a now to a future (which according to you he constantly “anticipates”). What do you mean by “timeless” if you don’t mean eternal? And what do even mean by “outside our time”. What is “our” time? Do you mean the human classifications of days, months, years? Then I agree – I don’t imagine your God saying “I’ll do such and such on Friday”. All this is meaningless unless you define your terms, which you keep refusing to do.

DAVID: God created our time and entered it for His creations of our reality. Outside the universe there is no time and God is there, timeless. Pure panentheism.

If your God created and entered our time, then he exists in his/our time and has worked through all the sequences that make up my definition of time. I’m reluctant to speculate on what “outside our universe” might entail, but if he’s there as well as here and is doing nothing, then time is irrelevant and he might just as well not be there. You still have him here, though, and since you think he is here, inside the time he created, he “exists in time”. So what? I still haven’t got a clue what you and Feser are trying to prove.

Concepts of God: God does not exist in time

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 03, 2021, 16:01 (1120 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I refuse nothing. You don't like my answers. God works in human time. Is that difficult to understand?

dhw: I have defined time as the sequence of cause and effect, of past, present and future, of before, now and after. I have suggested that timeless means eternal, i.e. with no beginning and no end. This leaves us with an eternal God who created all the causes and effects that depend on the sequence of past, present and future and which constitute my definition of time. (Humans did not exist when this process began.) “Is that difficult to understand?” If you disagree with my definition of time, then please supply your own.

Your definition is just fine.


DAVID: Your questions do not fit the quality of this discussion. God doesn't need to learn. His mind is so much more than ours.

dhw: Nobody could possibly doubt that if he exists, his mind is “so much more than ours”. How does that mean he can’t learn? Supposing, for instance, he had never created humans before. Is it not possible that he would have needed to experiment? You have no more idea of God’s “mind” than I have, so I don’t know why you come up with these authoritative descriptions of what he does and doesn’t need or want.

Again the difference between us is our individual perceptions of God. God knew exactly what He was producing when humans arrived as I view Him. You have again described Him as learning, a human characteristic


dhw:. We have no idea what your God got up to before the Big Bang (if it happened), but he did not “recognize” the passage of our time – according to you he created it! So it's HIS time. And he used it. And if he is still alive, he exists in it.

DAVID: No. He works His creations in our time, but outside our time He is timeless. The time He created is for us, not for him.

dhw: We did not even exist when he started to “work his creations”, i.e. to build effects upon causes, i.e. to proceed from a before to a now to a future (which according to you he constantly “anticipates”). What do you mean by “timeless” if you don’t mean eternal? And what do even mean by “outside our time”. What is “our” time? Do you mean the human classifications of days, months, years? Then I agree – I don’t imagine your God saying “I’ll do such and such on Friday”. All this is meaningless unless you define your terms, which you keep refusing to do.

God is eternal and timeless. He works in the time that exists in our universe. And He might decide to do something on our Friday. Are you purposely confused? I've been quite clear as in my statement above.


DAVID: God created our time and entered it for His creations of our reality. Outside the universe there is no time and God is there, timeless. Pure panentheism.

dhw: If your God created and entered our time, then he exists in his/our time and has worked through all the sequences that make up my definition of time. I’m reluctant to speculate on what “outside our universe” might entail, but if he’s there as well as here and is doing nothing, then time is irrelevant and he might just as well not be there. You still have him here, though, and since you think he is here, inside the time he created, he “exists in time”. So what? I still haven’t got a clue what you and Feser are trying to prove.

Obviously. Simply, God is timeless (eternal) but despite that, He can and does work in our time in our universe which is time as you define it.

Concepts of God: God does not exist in time

by dhw, Thursday, March 04, 2021, 11:16 (1119 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I refuse nothing. You don't like my answers. God works in human time. Is that difficult to understand?

dhw: I have defined time as the sequence of cause and effect, of past, present and future, of before, now and after. I have suggested that timeless means eternal, i.e. with no beginning and no end. This leaves us with an eternal God who created all the causes and effects that depend on the sequence of past, present and future and which constitute my definition of time. (Humans did not exist when this process began.) “Is that difficult to understand?” If you disagree with my definition of time, then please supply your own.

DAVID: Your definition is just fine.

Thank you. First step towards agreement.

DAVID: Your questions do not fit the quality of this discussion. God doesn't need to learn. His mind is so much more than ours.

dhw: Nobody could possibly doubt that if he exists, his mind is “so much more than ours”. How does that mean he can’t learn? Supposing, for instance, he had never created humans before. Is it not possible that he would have needed to experiment? You have no more idea of God’s “mind” than I have, so I don’t know why you come up with these authoritative descriptions of what he does and doesn’t need or want.

DAVID: Again the difference between us is our individual perceptions of God. God knew exactly what He was producing when humans arrived as I view Him. You have again described Him as learning, a human characteristic.

This exchange arose because you said your God was unchanging, and I have challenged your definitive statement. You are simply answering with another definitive statement, as if you knew God personally (whereas I offer alternative possibilities – not rigid beliefs.) And the fact that learning is a human characteristic ties in with your agreement that he and we may have thought patterns etc. in common, though you keep trying to forget it.

dhw:. We have no idea what your God got up to before the Big Bang (if it happened), but he did not “recognize” the passage of our time – according to you he created it! So it's HIS time. And he used it. And if he is still alive, he exists in it. […]

DAVID: [….] God created our time and entered it for His creations of our reality. Outside the universe there is no time and God is there, timeless. Pure panentheism.

dhw: If your God created and entered our time, then he exists in his/our time and has worked through all the sequences that make up my definition of time. I’m reluctant to speculate on what “outside our universe” might entail, but if he’s there as well as here and is doing nothing, then time is irrelevant and he might just as well not be there. You still have him here, though, and since you think he is here, inside the time he created, he “exists in time”. So what? I still haven’t got a clue what you and Feser are trying to prove.

DAVID: Obviously. Simply, God is timeless (eternal) but despite that, He can and does work in our time in our universe which is time as you define it.

Thank you. Let’s summarize our findings: God, if he exists, is eternal. He created the universe and life in a sequence of causes and effects continuing through the sequence of past, present and future that we call time. We do not know what he might have done before he created the universe, but since there must have been a “before” if he is eternal, he exists in time (contrary to the heading of this thread), although his time has no beginning and no end. We appear to be in total agreement, though whether this leaves us any the wiser I leave you to judge.

Concepts of God: God does not exist in time

by David Turell @, Thursday, March 04, 2021, 15:09 (1119 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Again the difference between us is our individual perceptions of God. God knew exactly what He was producing when humans arrived as I view Him. You have again described Him as learning, a human characteristic.

dhw: This exchange arose because you said your God was unchanging, and I have challenged your definitive statement. You are simply answering with another definitive statement, as if you knew God personally (whereas I offer alternative possibilities – not rigid beliefs.) And the fact that learning is a human characteristic ties in with your agreement that he and we may have thought patterns etc. in common, though you keep trying to forget it.

I have granted you only logical thought. Stop backpedaling.


dhw:. We have no idea what your God got up to before the Big Bang (if it happened), but he did not “recognize” the passage of our time – according to you he created it! So it's HIS time. And he used it. And if he is still alive, he exists in it. […]

DAVID: [….] God created our time and entered it for His creations of our reality. Outside the universe there is no time and God is there, timeless. Pure panentheism.

dhw: If your God created and entered our time, then he exists in his/our time and has worked through all the sequences that make up my definition of time. I’m reluctant to speculate on what “outside our universe” might entail, but if he’s there as well as here and is doing nothing, then time is irrelevant and he might just as well not be there. You still have him here, though, and since you think he is here, inside the time he created, he “exists in time”. So what? I still haven’t got a clue what you and Feser are trying to prove.

DAVID: Obviously. Simply, God is timeless (eternal) but despite that, He can and does work in our time in our universe which is time as you define it.

dhw: Thank you. Let’s summarize our findings: God, if he exists, is eternal. He created the universe and life in a sequence of causes and effects continuing through the sequence of past, present and future that we call time. We do not know what he might have done before he created the universe, but since there must have been a “before” if he is eternal, he exists in time (contrary to the heading of this thread), although his time has no beginning and no end. We appear to be in total agreement, though whether this leaves us any the wiser I leave you to judge.

As usual, you slip into human thinking about God. We view His possible previous events as indicating 'time', but it is OUR view, not His. Spacetime is a property of this universe, not outside of it, where is where I view God as existing.

Concepts of God: God does not exist in time

by dhw, Friday, March 05, 2021, 11:34 (1118 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Again the difference between us is our individual perceptions of God. God knew exactly what He was producing when humans arrived as I view Him. You have again described Him as learning, a human characteristic.

dhw: This exchange arose because you said your God was unchanging, and I have challenged your definitive statement. You are simply answering with another definitive statement, as if you knew God personally (whereas I offer alternative possibilities – not rigid beliefs.) And the fact that learning is a human characteristic ties in with your agreement that he and we may have thought patterns etc. in common, though you keep trying to forget it.

DAVID: I have granted you only logical thought. Stop backpedaling.

DAVID: (Saturday 6 February) All we can be sure of is logic on his part. His thought patterns and emotions are possibly similar, but that possibility cannot be used to give him human desires.

Apart from your censorship of what sort of thought patterns and emotions you will allow him to have, you agreed that similar thought patterns etc. are possible. And I still don’t know what gives you the authority to state that your God is unchanging and cannot learn. Do please tell us the source of your inside information.

DAVID: God is timeless (eternal) but despite that, He can and does work in our time in our universe which is time as you define it. (dhw’s bold)

dhw: Thank you. Let’s summarize our findings: God, if he exists, is eternal. He created the universe and life in a sequence of causes and effects continuing through the sequence of past, present and future that we call time. We do not know what he might have done before he created the universe, but since there must have been a “before” if he is eternal, he exists in time (contrary to the heading of this thread), although his time has no beginning and no end. We appear to be in total agreement, though whether this leaves us any the wiser I leave you to judge.

DAVID: As usual, you slip into human thinking about God. We view His possible previous events as indicating 'time', but it is OUR view, not His. Spacetime is a property of this universe, not outside of it, where is where I view God as existing.

How on earth do you expect to know God’s view? Of course these are our views. We have no idea if there is an “outside” of our universe, but you have just stated that “He can and does work in our time in our universe which is time as you define it.” If he works inside our time and our universe” (the only universe we know of), it is patently absurd to tell us that he does not exist in our time and universe! And I still haven’t a clue what is the point of this discussion.

Concepts of God: God does not exist in time

by David Turell @, Friday, March 05, 2021, 15:06 (1118 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I have granted you only logical thought. Stop backpedaling.

DAVID: (Saturday 6 February) All we can be sure of is logic on his part. His thought patterns and emotions are possibly similar, but that possibility cannot be used to give him human desires.

dhw: Apart from your censorship of what sort of thought patterns and emotions you will allow him to have, you agreed that similar thought patterns etc. are possible. And I still don’t know what gives you the authority to state that your God is unchanging and cannot learn. Do please tell us the source of your inside information.

The general view of God is all-knowing. Again your concept is humanizing.


DAVID: God is timeless (eternal) but despite that, He can and does work in our time in our universe which is time as you define it. (dhw’s bold)

dhw: Thank you. Let’s summarize our findings: God, if he exists, is eternal. He created the universe and life in a sequence of causes and effects continuing through the sequence of past, present and future that we call time. We do not know what he might have done before he created the universe, but since there must have been a “before” if he is eternal, he exists in time (contrary to the heading of this thread), although his time has no beginning and no end. We appear to be in total agreement, though whether this leaves us any the wiser I leave you to judge.

DAVID: As usual, you slip into human thinking about God. We view His possible previous events as indicating 'time', but it is OUR view, not His. Spacetime is a property of this universe, not outside of it, where is where I view God as existing.

dhw: How on earth do you expect to know God’s view? Of course these are our views. We have no idea if there is an “outside” of our universe, but you have just stated that “He can and does work in our time in our universe which is time as you define it.” If he works inside our time and our universe” (the only universe we know of), it is patently absurd to tell us that he does not exist in our time and universe! And I still haven’t a clue what is the point of this discussion.

It is God's duality: He can work in our time/universe but He is timeless outside of it. In a weird way it is like the coven of witches around the boiling cauldron, creating.

Concepts of God: God does not exist in time

by dhw, Saturday, March 06, 2021, 09:50 (1117 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I have granted you only logical thought. Stop backpedaling.

DAVID: (Saturday 6 February) All we can be sure of is logic on his part. His thought patterns and emotions are possibly similar, but that possibility cannot be used to give him human desires.

dhw: Apart from your censorship of what sort of thought patterns and emotions you will allow him to have, you agreed that similar thought patterns etc. are possible. And I still don’t know what gives you the authority to state that your God is unchanging and cannot learn. Do please tell us the source of your inside information.

DAVID: The general view of God is all-knowing. Again your concept is humanizing.

You have agreed that his thought patterns etc. may be similar to ours, and I’m sorry, but I do not regard what you consider to be the general view as evidence that you and the large numbers of your fellow believers have any more inside knowledge of your God’s patterns of thought than I do.

DAVID: As usual, you slip into human thinking about God. We view His possible previous events as indicating 'time', but it is OUR view, not His. Spacetime is a property of this universe, not outside of it, where is where I view God as existing.

dhw: How on earth do you expect to know God’s view? Of course these are our views. We have no idea if there is an “outside” of our universe, but you have just stated that “He can and does work in our time in our universe which is time as you define it.” If he works inside our time and our universe” (the only universe we know of), it is patently absurd to tell us that he does not exist in our time and universe! And I still haven’t a clue what is the point of this discussion.

DAVID: It is God's duality: He can work in our time/universe but He is timeless outside of it. In a weird way it is like the coven of witches around the boiling cauldron, creating.

Why do you keep agreeing with me and pretending you disagree with me? If he can and does work in our time/universe, then it is absurd to say he does not exist in our time and universe. What do you mean by he is “timeless” if you don’t mean he is eternal? How does eternal-ness come to mean that he does not exist in time? It simply means he has no beginning and no end. That does not exclude the “passage of time”, as evinced by what you believe was the creation of the universe from an unknown “before” through sequence after sequence of time-dependent causes and effects. The coven of witches can’t possibly create without being in the same place as the cauldron, using the sequence of past, present and future, cause and effect, to work their magic. I still don’t know what this discussion is about, except that you can’t bear to contradict Feser, even though you agree with me.

Concepts of God: God does not exist in time

by David Turell @, Saturday, March 06, 2021, 15:14 (1117 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The general view of God is all-knowing. Again your concept is humanizing.

dhw: You have agreed that his thought patterns etc. may be similar to ours, and I’m sorry, but I do not regard what you consider to be the general view as evidence that you and the large numbers of your fellow believers have any more inside knowledge of your God’s patterns of thought than I do.

We don't humanize.


DAVID: As usual, you slip into human thinking about God. We view His possible previous events as indicating 'time', but it is OUR view, not His. Spacetime is a property of this universe, not outside of it, where is where I view God as existing.

dhw: How on earth do you expect to know God’s view? Of course these are our views. We have no idea if there is an “outside” of our universe, but you have just stated that “He can and does work in our time in our universe which is time as you define it.” If he works inside our time and our universe” (the only universe we know of), it is patently absurd to tell us that he does not exist in our time and universe! And I still haven’t a clue what is the point of this discussion.

DAVID: It is God's duality: He can work in our time/universe but He is timeless outside of it. In a weird way it is like the coven of witches around the boiling cauldron, creating.

dhw: Why do you keep agreeing with me and pretending you disagree with me? If he can and does work in our time/universe, then it is absurd to say he does not exist in our time and universe. What do you mean by he is “timeless” if you don’t mean he is eternal? How does eternal-ness come to mean that he does not exist in time? It simply means he has no beginning and no end. That does not exclude the “passage of time”, as evinced by what you believe was the creation of the universe from an unknown “before” through sequence after sequence of time-dependent causes and effects. The coven of witches can’t possibly create without being in the same place as the cauldron, using the sequence of past, present and future, cause and effect, to work their magic. I still don’t know what this discussion is about, except that you can’t bear to contradict Feser, even though you agree with me.

God works in our time, which means a portion of His consciousness is here at work. But that is just an extension from His real existence which is eternal andoutside the universe He created. We agree.

Concepts of God: God does not exist in time

by dhw, Sunday, March 07, 2021, 15:47 (1116 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: If he can and does work in our time/universe, then it is absurd to say he does not exist in our time and universe. What do you mean by he is “timeless” if you don’t mean he is eternal? How does eternal-ness come to mean that he does not exist in time? It simply means he has no beginning and no end. That does not exclude the “passage of time”, as evinced by what you believe was the creation of the universe from an unknown “before” through sequence after sequence of time-dependent causes and effects.

DAVID: God works in our time, which means a portion of His consciousness is here at work. But that is just an extension from His real existence which is eternal andoutside the universe He created. We agree.

I don’t know what you mean by his “real” existence. Being eternal does not mean that he is unreal when he is busy creating sequences of causes and effects, which he could hardly do if he did not exist inside the universe and inside time. But I’m glad you agree, and we can make our way out of this particular cul de sac.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I will have to return later to answer yesterday's remaining posts. I'm very pressed for time, which is all too real at the moment!

Concepts of God: God does not exist in time

by David Turell @, Monday, March 08, 2021, 01:00 (1115 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: If he can and does work in our time/universe, then it is absurd to say he does not exist in our time and universe. What do you mean by he is “timeless” if you don’t mean he is eternal? How does eternal-ness come to mean that he does not exist in time? It simply means he has no beginning and no end. That does not exclude the “passage of time”, as evinced by what you believe was the creation of the universe from an unknown “before” through sequence after sequence of time-dependent causes and effects.

DAVID: God works in our time, which means a portion of His consciousness is here at work. But that is just an extension from His real existence which is eternal andoutside the universe He created. We agree.

I don’t know what you mean by his “real” existence. Being eternal does not mean that he is unreal when he is busy creating sequences of causes and effects, which he could hardly do if he did not exist inside the universe and inside time. But I’m glad you agree, and we can make our way out of this particular cul de sac.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I will have to return later to answer yesterday's remaining posts. I'm very pressed for time, which is all too real at the moment!

OK

Origin of God?

by dhw, Friday, April 15, 2016, 14:37 (2903 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID (under "Bacterial motors)": Why is it then that all civilizations have suggested that there must be God/gods? It is an idea built into our consciousness, as a recognition that the mysteries of nature and life require a mind to plan it. - You are asking me to tell you the origin of religion, which of course I can't do. Maybe it originated because God or gods exist. That's a nice simple positive answer. So here are a few scattered thoughts to present the negative case. With our additional layers of consciousness (a) we wanted explanations, and (b) we wanted reassurance. We depended on the sun, so we worshipped it. We saw terrifying events in the sky, and we attributed them to superpowers fighting. We didn't like the idea of dying, or of being all alone in our misery (if we were miserable). We liked to have hope. There were gods all over the place, in every nook and cranny, cave and river, and up every mountain. In fact, any old thingummy would do (even a man-made idol) so long as we could say “The Blobbies did it” and “The Blobbies will look after us”. But then some folk decided it was simpler to have a single god who was everywhere. Good for priests too, if the plebs needed someone clever to gain them access to a God who was beyond their reach. And so although I don't think our prehistoric ancestors would have been asking themselves how chance could possibly have assembled the components of the cell, I would suggest that early religion may have been the product of wanting answers to unsolved mysteries and wanting reassurance. However, as I said at the beginning, the origin may have been simply that there is such a thing as God/gods. Voltaire summed it all up: - “If God did not exist, we would have to invent him.” - So does he exist, or did we invent him?

Origin of God?

by David Turell @, Friday, April 15, 2016, 16:00 (2903 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: You are asking me to tell you the origin of religion, which of course I can't do. ....However, as I said at the beginning, the origin may have been simply that there is such a thing as God/gods. Voltaire summed it all up:
> 
> “If God did not exist, we would have to invent him.”
> 
> So does he exist, or did we invent him? - Great answer. In sort humans accept cause and effect and want to believe in a first cause.

Origin of God?

by dhw, Saturday, April 16, 2016, 09:26 (2902 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You are asking me to tell you the origin of religion, which of course I can't do. ....However, as I said at the beginning, the origin may have been simply that there is such a thing as God/gods. Voltaire summed it all up:
“If God did not exist, we would have to invent him.”
So does he exist, or did we invent him? - DAVID: Great answer. In s[h]ort humans accept cause and effect and want to believe in a first cause. - In short, humans want to know the answers to unsolved mysteries, and want hope and reassurance. “Want to believe”, however, would be an atheistic explanation of why people “invented” God. (First cause does not have to be your God.) As an agnostic, I must naturally point out that belief in a God or gods may be founded on the existence of such a being/beings! I need to add a rider to this, though. The OT teaches us that God need not be the object of hope and reassurance. He can also be the object of fear, which applies whether he exists or not. He serves as a means for well-meaning humans to instil discipline into their society, or for less well-meaning humans to exploit the weakness and gullibility of their fellow humans. Like so many things in this wonderful world, the concept of God is open to different interpretations, whether he exists or not.

Origin of God?

by David Turell @, Saturday, April 16, 2016, 16:07 (2902 days ago) @ dhw


> DAVID: Great answer. In s[h]ort humans accept cause and effect and want to believe in a first cause.
> 
> dhw: In short, humans want to know the answers to unsolved mysteries, and want hope and reassurance. “Want to believe”, however, would be an atheistic explanation of why people “invented” God. (First cause does not have to be your God.) As an agnostic, I must naturally point out that belief in a God or gods may be founded on the existence of such a being/beings! The OT teaches us that God need not be the object of hope and reassurance. He can also be the object of fear,.... Like so many things in this wonderful world, the concept of God is open to different interpretations, whether he exists or not. - The OT has a forceful fearful god, the NT preaches love, a good advance. The Koran tells us to look for God is His works, a final more mature approach. It shows us that humans had to mature in their appreciation of who or what God might be. Whether mature religious folks realize it or not, they follow the Koran and look at works.

Origin of God?

by dhw, Sunday, April 17, 2016, 13:11 (2901 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Great answer. In s[h]ort humans accept cause and effect and want to believe in a first cause.
dhw: In short, humans want to know the answers to unsolved mysteries, and want hope and reassurance. “Want to believe”, however, would be an atheistic explanation of why people “invented” God. (First cause does not have to be your God.) As an agnostic, I must naturally point out that belief in a God or gods may be founded on the existence of such a being/beings! The OT teaches us that God need not be the object of hope and reassurance. He can also be the object of fear,.... Like so many things in this wonderful world, the concept of God is open to different interpretations, whether he exists or not. - DAVID: The OT has a forceful fearful god, the NT preaches love, a good advance. The Koran tells us to look for God is His works, a final more mature approach. It shows us that humans had to mature in their appreciation of who or what God might be. Whether mature religious folks realize it or not, they follow the Koran and look at works. - I wonder how you define “mature”. Two of the things in this wonderful world that are open to different interpretations are the books that are written about God, and the so-called works of God. All three books that you have quoted have been used to justify what you and I would consider some of the most barbaric acts in human history: wars, persecution, terrorism ("Therefore prepare against them [= the unbelievers] what force ye are able, and troops of horse, whereby ye may strike a terror into the enemy of God, and your enemy, and into other infidels besides them, whom ye know not, but God knoweth them” (Koran, Chapter 8). As for the works of God, let us by all means admire the beauty of nature, but let us not forget its indiscriminate violence and brutality. Maybe the three books and the works all capture the many different elements of God (if he exists). After all, if he made man in his image, then man must be his reflection.

Origin of God?

by David Turell @, Sunday, April 17, 2016, 15:26 (2901 days ago) @ dhw


> DAVID: The OT has a forceful fearful god, the NT preaches love, a good advance. The Koran tells us to look for God is His works, a final more mature approach. It shows us that humans had to mature in their appreciation of who or what God might be. Whether mature religious folks realize it or not, they follow the Koran and look at works.
> 
> dhw: I wonder how you define “mature”. .... All three books that you have quoted have been used to justify what you and I would consider some of the most barbaric acts in human history: wars, persecution, terrorism ("Therefore prepare against them [= the unbelievers] what force ye are able, and troops of horse, whereby ye may strike a terror into the enemy of God, and your enemy, and into other infidels besides them, whom ye know not, but God knoweth them” (Koran, Chapter 8). As for the works of God, let us by all means admire the beauty of nature, but let us not forget its indiscriminate violence and brutality. Maybe the three books and the works all capture the many different elements of God (if he exists). After all, if he made man in his image, then man must be his reflection.-Misuse of 'image'. Our consciousness and ability to think is the 'image', not what we decide to think. We have free will to be stupid if we wish. Yes, the Koran has some immature and dangerous passages if followed literally. Man's stupidity in reacting to the religious books is part of a human problem with being free to be stupid. In God's view (I think) humans have to evolve morality. "Do unto others'.

Origin of God?

by dhw, Monday, April 18, 2016, 14:09 (2900 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The OT has a forceful fearful god, the NT preaches love, a good advance. The Koran tells us to look for God is His works, a final more mature approach. It shows us that humans had to mature in their appreciation of who or what God might be. Whether mature religious folks realize it or not, they follow the Koran and look at works.-dhw: I wonder how you define “mature”. .... All three books that you have quoted have been used to justify what you and I would consider some of the most barbaric acts in human history: wars, persecution, terrorism ("Therefore prepare against them [= the unbelievers] what force ye are able, and troops of horse, whereby ye may strike a terror into the enemy of God, and your enemy, and into other infidels besides them, whom ye know not, but God knoweth them” (Koran, Chapter 8). As for the works of God, let us by all means admire the beauty of nature, but let us not forget its indiscriminate violence and brutality. Maybe the three books and the works all capture the many different elements of God (if he exists). After all, if he made man in his image, then man must be his reflection.-DAVID: Misuse of 'image'. Our consciousness and ability to think is the 'image', not what we decide to think. We have free will to be stupid if we wish.-I don't know where you get your authority from, to judge how the word is to be used. I find it difficult to imagine your God creating something which can think thoughts of which he is totally ignorant. “Gosh,” said God, “I knew there was goodness, kindness, love, beauty, harmony, joy, but I had no idea there could be such a thing as evil, greed, violence, cruelty, deceit, selfishness, hatred…I wonder who invented such things.”
 
DAVID: Yes, the Koran has some immature and dangerous passages if followed literally. Man's stupidity in reacting to the religious books is part of a human problem with being free to be stupid. In God's view (I think) humans have to evolve morality. "Do unto others'.-Of course I am all in favour of “Do unto others”. I'm surprised that you are defending these religious books, bearing in mind that they are written by humans who are “free to be stupid” and contain material that encourages “stupid” behaviour. The do-unto-others “morality” is basic to the functioning of human society, and for those who regard God and religious books as indispensable guides (this is not aimed at you, David), it is patently absurd to imagine that society was unable to function “morally” before the arrival of monotheism, let alone the invention of writing.

Origin of God?

by David Turell @, Monday, April 18, 2016, 18:20 (2899 days ago) @ dhw

dhw:After all, if he made man in his image, then man must be his reflection.[/i]
> 
> DAVID: Misuse of 'image'. Our consciousness and ability to think is the 'image', not what we decide to think. We have free will to be stupid if we wish.
> 
> dhw: I don't know where you get your authority from, to judge how the word is to be used. I find it difficult to imagine your God creating something which can think thoughts of which he is totally ignorant.-I can have my image of God and you can have yours. We are using a word from the OT which does not ever allow a picture of God. Therefore any image is allowed. Mine is consciousness, nothing more. -> DAVID: Yes, the Koran has some immature and dangerous passages if followed literally. Man's stupidity in reacting to the religious books is part of a human problem with being free to be stupid. In God's view (I think) humans have to evolve morality. "Do unto others'.
> 
> dhw: Of course I am all in favour of “Do unto others”. I'm surprised that you are defending these religious books, bearing in mind that they are written by humans who are “free to be stupid” and contain material that encourages “stupid” behaviour. -I'm simply following the analysis of Karen Armstrong in her book "A History of God", 1993, which follows the mature development of human concepts re' God as the religious books appeared.

Origin of God?

by dhw, Tuesday, April 19, 2016, 13:31 (2899 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: After all, if he made man in his image, then man must be his reflection.
DAVID: Misuse of 'image'. Our consciousness and ability to think is the 'image', not what we decide to think. We have free will to be stupid if we wish.
dhw: I don't know where you get your authority from, to judge how the word is to be used. I find it difficult to imagine your God creating something which can think thoughts of which he is totally ignorant.
DAVID: I can have my image of God and you can have yours. We are using a word from the OT which does not ever allow a picture of God. Therefore any image is allowed. Mine is consciousness, nothing more.-I thought yours was consciousness deliberately creating billions of solar systems, organisms, lifestyles and natural wonders that would supply the energy to produce and feed humans so that he could have a relationship with them by hiding himself and treasuring their faith. -DAVID: Yes, the Koran has some immature and dangerous passages if followed literally. Man's stupidity in reacting to the religious books is part of a human problem with being free to be stupid. In God's view (I think) humans have to evolve morality. "Do unto others'.
dhw: Of course I am all in favour of “Do unto others”. I'm surprised that you are defending these religious books, bearing in mind that they are written by humans who are “free to be stupid” and contain material that encourages “stupid” behaviour. 
DAVID: I'm simply following the analysis of Karen Armstrong in her book "A History of God", 1993, which follows the mature development of human concepts re' God as the religious books appeared.-A conversation-stopper if ever there was one. Please explain what you yourself understand by “mature”, and why you think the various authors of the OT got God all wrong and why the Koran got it right, although when we look at God's works we see a mixture of the NT's love and the OT's forceful fearsomeness. Or do you not see the mixture?

Origin of God?

by David Turell @, Tuesday, April 19, 2016, 16:23 (2899 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I'm simply following the analysis of Karen Armstrong in her book "A History of God", 1993, which follows the mature development of human concepts re' God as the religious books appeared.
> 
> dhw: A conversation-stopper if ever there was one. Please explain what you yourself understand by “mature”, and why you think the various authors of the OT got God all wrong and why the Koran got it right, although when we look at God's works we see a mixture of the NT's love and the OT's forceful fearsomeness. Or do you not see the mixture?-That is Armstrong's interpretation which I accept. We can only tell about God and what he might be like from what we see He has created. In the OT He takes sides in wars and gives away land, threatens Abraham, turns Lot's wife into salt. Rather savage and immature concepts. In the NT finally love and honoring others comes to the fore. Certainly more mature, but we don't know that God loves us, that being a human hopefulness about God. So finally all we can do is look at that He created which included us and our lives.

Origin of God?

by dhw, Wednesday, April 20, 2016, 12:48 (2898 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I'm simply following the analysis of Karen Armstrong in her book "A History of God", 1993, which follows the mature development of human concepts re' God as the religious books appeared.-dhw: A conversation-stopper if ever there was one. Please explain what you yourself understand by “mature”, and why you think the various authors of the OT got God all wrong and why the Koran got it right, although when we look at God's works we see a mixture of the NT's love and the OT's forceful fearsomeness. Or do you not see the mixture?-DAVID: That is Armstrong's interpretation which I accept. We can only tell about God and what he might be like from what we see He has created. In the OT He takes sides in wars and gives away land, threatens Abraham, turns Lot's wife into salt. Rather savage and immature concepts. In the NT finally love and honoring others comes to the fore. Certainly more mature, but we don't know that God loves us, that being a human hopefulness about God. So finally all we can do is look at that He created which included us and our lives.-So the mature view of God should equal convincing ourselves that he represents love and honour, not war and fear, but that is a matter of hope, and all we can do is look at the mixture of love, honour, war and fear he created, and conclude that he is…? Well, what do you see as the “mature” concept of God?

Origin of God?

by David Turell @, Wednesday, April 20, 2016, 19:13 (2897 days ago) @ dhw

David: Certainly more mature, but we don't know that God loves us, that being a human hopefulness about God. So finally all we can do is look at that He created which included us and our lives.[/i]
> 
> dhw: So the mature view of God should equal convincing ourselves that he represents love and honour, not war and fear, but that is a matter of hope, and all we can do is look at the mixture of love, honour, war and fear he created, and conclude that he is…? Well, what do you see as the “mature” concept of God?-War and fear are human creations or haven't you noticed? Yes, He granted us free will, but it is not His fault that we screw it up; it is ours. Limiting our concept of God to what He created is mature per Armstrong.

Origin of God?

by dhw, Thursday, April 21, 2016, 13:44 (2897 days ago) @ David Turell

David: Certainly more mature, but we don't know that God loves us, that being a human hopefulness about God. So finally all we can do is look at that He created which included us and our lives.
dhw: So the mature view of God should equal convincing ourselves that he represents love and honour, not war and fear, but that is a matter of hope, and all we can do is look at the mixture of love, honour, war and fear he created, and conclude that he is…? Well, what do you see as the “mature” concept of God?-DAVID: War and fear are human creations or haven't you noticed? Yes, He granted us free will, but it is not His fault that we screw it up; it is ours. Limiting our concept of God to what He created is mature per Armstrong.-War is conflict, and the prey fears the predator, and it is not unreasonable to suppose that conflict and fear pervaded the natural world long before humans came on the scene, just as they still do, or haven't you noticed cats fighting, or the mouse running away from the cat? I agree that limiting our concept of God to what he created is the best way to imagine what he is like, and I am surprised that you consider all the natural disasters, destructions, diseases, conflicts and fears of life's history to be the fault of humans even before we were around. If God exists, I can find credible reasons why he would create the great mixture of “good” and “bad”, but they would not alter the fact that if we try to gauge his nature from what he created, it is difficult to suppose that as first cause he only created the “good” and had no knowledge of the “bad”.

Origin of God?

by David Turell @, Friday, April 22, 2016, 02:55 (2896 days ago) @ dhw


> DAVID: War and fear are human creations or haven't you noticed? Yes, He granted us free will, but it is not His fault that we screw it up; it is ours. Limiting our concept of God to what He created is mature per Armstrong.
> 
> dhw:I agree that limiting our concept of God to what he created is the best way to imagine what he is like, and I am surprised that you consider all the natural disasters, destructions, diseases, conflicts and fears of life's history to be the fault of humans even before we were around. If God exists, I can find credible reasons why he would create the great mixture of “good” and “bad”, but they would not alter the fact that if we try to gauge his nature from what he created, it is difficult to suppose that as first cause he only created the “good” and had no knowledge of the “bad”.-I'm sure God recognized the good and the bad. I was only commenting on humans badness, not under his control. The Earthquake in Ecuador killed many. But just like California, why build and live over fault lines when humans have the ability to identify them? Folks in California have chosen to live with danger. It is their choice. Besides why do you want to have God provide a danger free life? That is a religion's wish. We do not know if He loves us.

Origin of God?

by dhw, Friday, April 22, 2016, 15:00 (2896 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I agree that limiting our concept of God to what he created is the best way to imagine what he is like, and I am surprised that you consider all the natural disasters, destructions, diseases, conflicts and fears of life's history to be the fault of humans even before we were around. If God exists, I can find credible reasons why he would create the great mixture of “good” and “bad”, but they would not alter the fact that if we try to gauge his nature from what he created, it is difficult to suppose that as first cause he only created the “good” and had no knowledge of the “bad”.-DAVID: I'm sure God recognized the good and the bad. I was only commenting on humans badness, not under his control. The Earthquake in Ecuador killed many. But just like California, why build and live over fault lines when humans have the ability to identify them? Folks in California have chosen to live with danger. It is their choice. Besides why do you want to have God provide a danger free life? That is a religion's wish. We do not know if He loves us. -I did not say I wanted God to provide a danger-free life. I said, “I can find credible reasons why he would create the great mixture of “good” and “bad”.” We are discussing the nature of God as is to be deduced from what he created. You claimed that the fearful OT concept was less “mature” than the NT loving concept, but the Koran was most “mature” as it told us to “look for God in his works”. I have pointed out that his works, including but not confined to ourselves, are a mixture of what most of us would consider “good” and “bad”: e.g. the joys of spring, the miseries of disease. This is not a complaint, merely an observation, following your recommendation of the Koran's more “mature” view. If I extrapolate from God's works a mixture of the nice and nasty, may I take it that you will accept this as a “mature” concept of God?

Origin of God?

by David Turell @, Friday, April 22, 2016, 19:28 (2895 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I have pointed out that his works, including but not confined to ourselves, are a mixture of what most of us would consider “good” and “bad”: e.g. the joys of spring, the miseries of disease. This is not a complaint, merely an observation, following your recommendation of the Koran's more “mature” view. If I extrapolate from God's works a mixture of the nice and nasty, may I take it that you will accept this as a “mature” concept of God? - What we are back to what is the problem of evil. And yes, the Koran is the most mature way to look at it. My answer to theodicy in my first book is the dangers in the environment and the disease causing organisms can be combatted by our intelligence as humans. They are challenges to be solved and we have solved many. We have no idea whether God wanted to protect us and make life a bed of roses, boring, or whether the evolutionary systems He employed did not permit him full control as religions seem to think He has.

Origin of God?

by dhw, Saturday, April 23, 2016, 13:04 (2895 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I have pointed out that his works, including but not confined to ourselves, are a mixture of what most of us would consider “good” and “bad”: e.g. the joys of spring, the miseries of disease. This is not a complaint, merely an observation, following your recommendation of the Koran's more “mature” view. If I extrapolate from God's works a mixture of the nice and nasty, may I take it that you will accept this as a “mature” concept of God? - DAVID: What we are back to what is the problem of evil. And yes, the Koran is the most mature way to look at it. My answer to theodicy in my first book is the dangers in the environment and the disease causing organisms can be combatted by our intelligence as humans. They are challenges to be solved and we have solved many. We have no idea whether God wanted to protect us and make life a bed of roses, boring, or whether the evolutionary systems He employed did not permit him full control as religions seem to think He has. - Evil is not the problem. I wrote that I could “find credible reasons why he would create the great mixture of “good” and “bad””, and you are simply offering those credible reasons. We are discussing the nature of your God as revealed in his works. Evil is only a problem for those who insist that God is all nice and good, and not nasty and bad. His works reveal a mixture, so why would anyone assume that they do not reflect his nature? The Bible tells us the same story of nice and nasty, and the Koran is far from being all sweetness and light, as I pointed out earlier. I have done as the Koran instructed, so is this mixed concept of God “mature” or not? (Frankly, I think the term is silly, but you and Karen Armstrong chose it.)

Origin of God?

by David Turell @, Saturday, April 23, 2016, 15:53 (2895 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: Evil is not the problem. I wrote that I could “find credible reasons why he would create the great mixture of “good” and “bad””, and you are simply offering those credible reasons. We are discussing the nature of your God as revealed in his works. Evil is only a problem for those who insist that God is all nice and good, and not nasty and bad. His works reveal a mixture, so why would anyone assume that they do not reflect his nature? -If by nature you are discussing God's innermost thoughts, I have said all along we cannot know them. If we stick to possible purposes, I think it is to create humans. We are not a rational result of the dangerous inorganic universe that appeared. Whether god is good or bad we really don't know. When you have suggested that God might be bored as a reason for His creations, I've always responded that you are placing human conditions on him. We do not why He did what He did. Basically I think our analysis has to come back to recognizing His acts are purposeful, but his underlying motives are hidden. We can be thankful we are here, nothing more. This is the maturity of thought Armstrong and I follow.

Origin of God?

by dhw, Sunday, April 24, 2016, 12:58 (2894 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Evil is not the problem. I wrote that I could “find credible reasons why he would create the great mixture of “good” and “bad””, and you are simply offering those credible reasons. We are discussing the nature of your God as revealed in his works. Evil is only a problem for those who insist that God is all nice and good, and not nasty and bad. His works reveal a mixture, so why would anyone assume that they do not reflect his nature? -DAVID: If by nature you are discussing God's innermost thoughts, I have said all along we cannot know them. If we stick to possible purposes, I think it is to create humans. We are not a rational result of the dangerous inorganic universe that appeared. Whether god is good or bad we really don't know. When you have suggested that God might be bored as a reason for His creations, I've always responded that you are placing human conditions on him. We do not why He did what He did. Basically I think our analysis has to come back to recognizing His acts are purposeful, but his underlying motives are hidden. We can be thankful we are here, nothing more. This is the maturity of thought Armstrong and I follow.-This discussion for some reason branched off from “origin” and should have remained under “concepts”. You referred to Karen Armstrong, who “follows the mature development of human concepts re God as the religious books appeared.” You explained that we can only say what God might be like ”from what we see He has created” (Koran), and the NT concept of “love and honouring others” was more mature than the OT's God who “takes sides in wars…threatens Abraham” etc. Not innermost thoughts, not purpose, not underlying motives, but simply what he is like (his nature). If you are now telling us that neither you nor Karen Armstrong can tell what he is like by seeing what he has created, and we should ignore the development of human concepts re God as the religious books appeared, and that “we can be thankful we are here, nothing more”, that's fine with me, though I can't help wondering what the rest of your Armstrong posts have been about.

Origin of God?

by David Turell @, Sunday, April 24, 2016, 15:04 (2894 days ago) @ dhw

David: We do not why He did what He did. Basically I think our analysis has to come back to recognizing His acts are purposeful, but his underlying motives are hidden. We can be thankful we are here, nothing more. This is the maturity of thought Armstrong and I follow.[/i]
> 
> dhw: If you are now telling us that neither you nor Karen Armstrong can tell what he is like by seeing what he has created, and we should ignore the development of human concepts re God as the religious books appeared, and that “we can be thankful we are here, nothing more”, that's fine with me, though I can't help wondering what the rest of your Armstrong posts have been about.-What you have seen is my interpretation of Armstrong's views. Armstrong describes how religions view God in their 'faith' proclamations, but I never find her own personal view of God's personality. When she left her nun's order, it was because she came to find Catholic theology so frightening. She presents how different theologians and religions approached a presentation of their faith in God, not an analysis of God's personality. I simply work from what I see has been created. As an example of my viewpoint is my observation that one of God's works is human beings.
Chance cannot produce humans or their consciousness. Therefore God exists. Just that simple. As a reminder, you keep wanting more detail, when none exists for analysis. God is concealed.

Origin of God?

by dhw, Monday, April 25, 2016, 12:20 (2893 days ago) @ David Turell

David: We do not why He did what He did. Basically I think our analysis has to come back to recognizing His acts are purposeful, but his underlying motives are hidden. We can be thankful we are here, nothing more. This is the maturity of thought Armstrong and I follow. -dhw: If you are now telling us that neither you nor Karen Armstrong can tell what he is like by seeing what he has created, and we should ignore the development of human concepts re God as the religious books appeared, and that “we can be thankful we are here, nothing more”, that's fine with me, though I can't help wondering what the rest of your Armstrong posts have been about.-DAVID: What you have seen is my interpretation of Armstrong's views. Armstrong describes how religions view God in their 'faith' proclamations, but I never find her own personal view of God's personality. When she left her nun's order, it was because she came to find Catholic theology so frightening. She presents how different theologians and religions approached a presentation of their faith in God, not an analysis of God's personality. I simply work from what I see has been created. As an example of my viewpoint is my observation that one of God's works is human beings.
Chance cannot produce humans or their consciousness. Therefore God exists. Just that simple. As a reminder, you keep wanting more detail, when none exists for analysis. God is concealed.-The subject we started with on this thread was concepts of God. This branched out into origins when you raised the subject of why so many societies believe in a form of deity. For some reason, the thread then went back to concepts of God, and you brought in Armstrong's views, and the OT, NT and Koran. You have now switched from concepts of God to your reasons for believing that God exists. I hate to say it, but you have lost the thread.

Origin of God?

by David Turell @, Monday, April 25, 2016, 15:01 (2893 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: The subject we started with on this thread was concepts of God. This branched out into origins when you raised the subject of why so many societies believe in a form of deity. For some reason, the thread then went back to concepts of God, and you brought in Armstrong's views, and the OT, NT and Koran. You have now switched from concepts of God to your reasons for believing that God exists. I hate to say it, but you have lost the thread.-I think your conception of a lost thread is a realization that there can be no thread that brings a conclusion. God is concealed. God requires faith. God is a solution to 'why is there anything?'. God is the center of religions which Armstrong thinks are beneficial to orderly societies. God provides the mind to supply all the planning for the complexities for fine-tuning the universe, and then planning the overwhelming complexity of the biochemistry of living matter. The Koran says look at His works: my sentence about the f-t universe and complex biochemistry does just that. It is a hodge-podge of thought that brings an overwhelming impression to me. Your mind does not work that way, part of our disconnect. You like exactitude. You say you accept how complex things are, but I don't think you see the complexity in the way I do, because I know how hard it is to create the organic processes in the practice of biochemistry. I admit I'm fuzzy thinking. So this is not criticism but an attempt at analysis of our disconnect. But let's not start a thread of self-analysis. ;-)

Origin of God?

by dhw, Tuesday, April 26, 2016, 20:49 (2891 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I think your conception of a lost thread is a realization that there can be no thread that brings a conclusion. God is concealed. God requires faith. God is a solution to 'why is there anything?'. God is the center of religions which Armstrong thinks are beneficial to orderly societies. God provides the mind to supply all the planning for the complexities for fine-tuning the universe, and then planning the overwhelming complexity of the biochemistry of living matter. The Koran says look at His works: my sentence about the f-t universe and complex biochemistry does just that. It is a hodge-podge of thought that brings an overwhelming impression to me. Your mind does not work that way, part of our disconnect. You like exactitude. You say you accept how complex things are, but I don't think you see the complexity in the way I do, because I know how hard it is to create the organic processes in the practice of biochemistry. I admit I'm fuzzy thinking. So this is not criticism but an attempt at analysis of our disconnect. But let's not start a thread of self-analysis.;-) -Thank you for this thoughtful and generally fair analysis. I agree that we can never reach a conclusion, but I'd like to defend the pursuit of “exactitudes”. Firstly, though, the “disconnect” has nothing to do with complexity, which for me suggests design, just as it does for you. The disconnect arises from the fact that for me every statement you make about God not only throws up questions you cannot answer, but also invites different conclusions (which for me are equally hard to believe). For instance, you say “God is concealed”. Question: why? (Answer: he wants us to have faith. Why? Answer: we can't read his mind.) Different conclusion: no god is there. “Why is there anything?” Answering questions: “Why is there God?” or “Why shouldn't there always have been something?” (No answer.) Different conclusion: The something that has always been there could be energy and matter. Your question: how did life and consciousness arise then? (My answer: Nobody knows. How did God and his consciousness arise? Your answer: the great philosophical cop-out of “first cause”, but of course that does NOT have to be consciousness.) Your theory that God “guided” evolution has spawned post after post of anomalies which we needn't repeat here. Ultimately, you have to fall back on the unknowable. Where does this leave you? With a God whose presence, motives, nature, methods and attributes are unknown. He might just as well be called the unknown and unknowable solution to the mystery of life. All we are then left with is that your unknown solution is intelligent, while the atheistic unknown solution is mindless. There is no more to be said unless we pursue “exactitudes”, and it is this pursuit that has driven science and philosophy for thousands of years! Long may we and our fellow humans pursue exactitudes!

Origin of God?

by David Turell @, Wednesday, April 27, 2016, 00:54 (2891 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw:Thank you for this thoughtful and generally fair analysis. I agree that we can never reach a conclusion, but I'd like to defend the pursuit of “exactitudes”. ..... All we are then left with is that your unknown solution is intelligent, while the atheistic unknown solution is mindless. There is no more to be said unless we pursue “exactitudes”, and it is this pursuit that has driven science and philosophy for thousands of years! Long may we and our fellow humans pursue exactitudes!-Thank you for your view of where we are. You are right we are left with an intelligent or a mindless solution, nothing else! I know you won't choose one, but as science delves deeper and deeper into the morass of genome controls and the extreme complexity of living biochemistry I feel more and more confident in my position.

Origin of God?

by romansh ⌂ @, Sunday, April 24, 2016, 17:29 (2893 days ago) @ dhw

In her book "The Case for God", the primary mature thought, I found, went along the lines ... its not what you believe that matters, but what you do. She was aiming this at believers but I think is also quite apt for those that lack belief. - The rest of the book was not so much an argument for g(G)od or even belief, but more for an argument for religion.

Origin of God?

by David Turell @, Sunday, April 24, 2016, 18:55 (2893 days ago) @ romansh

Romansh:In her book "The Case for God", the primary mature thought, I found, went along the lines ... its not what you believe that matters, but what you do. She was aiming this at believers but I think is also quite apt for those that lack belief.
> 
> The rest of the book was not so much an argument for g(G)od or even belief, but more for an argument for religion. - In "A History of God" there is a strong tone of the importance of religion for a well-functioning society. There was story I read about her that she preferred to attend Jewish and Muslim services.

Origin of God?

by romansh ⌂ @, Sunday, April 24, 2016, 23:08 (2893 days ago) @ David Turell

David: In "A History of God" there is a strong tone of the importance of religion for a well-functioning society. There was story I read about her that she preferred to attend Jewish and Muslim services. - In her 2009 The Case for God, she describes herself as a Christian and from what I remember attending some innocuous Christian congregation. - My point being ... the book could have been called The Case for Religion.

Origin of God?

by David Turell @, Monday, April 25, 2016, 00:36 (2893 days ago) @ romansh


> Romansh: My point being ... the book could have been called The Case for Religion. - I understood that.

RSS Feed of thread
powered by my little forum