(November 15, 2016 at 6:44 pm)Whateverist Wrote: I just don't see how else to understand a 'god' in an objective sense except as a more advanced being(s). [1]

My inclination is to remove gods from the objective exterior world and put them where we feel their presence, in  interior life. [2]  Do you follow what Jorgy was saying about the subjective/midjective distinction?  From our conscious subjective perspective, there are features of our interior life which we do not directly control.  From our conscious point of view it can be difficult to distinguish between the outer-other and the inner-other. [3]

Really, it is better to think of the brain/mind as producing a number of consciousness phenomenon, some portion of which is what we call 'us'.  What we claim as our personal identity is really made up of both, but we tend to be most aware of that which we experience and participate in consciously. [4]

Anyhow, I think what makes gods so popular is the brain/mind's capacity to produce them, especially if we expect to experience them.  When gods are produced they really aren't just projections of repressed aspects of the conscious mind.  Even when gods are not produced the mind is still a cauldron of desires, meanings and concerns.  The mind has a capacity to detect and solve problems without involving the conscious mind, it's been doing it for longer than we've had one. [5]

Most of my thinking about it is from Jungian psychology, most of it through James Hillman but other sources contribute. [6]

This was a jokey reference to the star trek stories. [7]

1) Well sure, if it helps you to start there, fine. However, I would invite you to consider that this carries with it the most fundamental error that many theists (especially deists) make: God understood as just another "thing", even if more advanced/"higher"/more intelligent "thing". The moment this is imported into god, then you'd be right to reject it's meaning or its reality.

2) I think it is good to do this, but at the "interior life" of ALL things.

3) Right. There are things about ourselves that we don't directly control, even things that influence what we think and how we think. But those, on my account, are aspects of what-we-are-as-objects. In other words, knowing about those things is part of our subjective knowledge of ourselves as objects, and the struggle to approach an adequate account of objects remains.

4) Right, and the more we know about the distinctions and aspects which go into making-us-us, the fuller picture we have of what-we-are

5) Fair enough.

6) I'm not familiar, but I'm glad they have helped you.

7) Totally missed it =)

Rhythm, I am not interested in nor do I have the intellect capable of discussing this topic, or any topic, with you. You made it perfectly clear to me that you have no interest in seeking to understand what I'm saying, even if I try to do that for what you're saying:

Rhythm Wrote:

Ignorant Wrote:Will it work both ways?

Not with me, no. I'm not interested in setting a different tone. I'm very much aware of how I come across, and it's completely intentional.

If I don't even have your good will towards "getting" what I am trying to say, then I don't think talking about this will be beneficial for either of us. Thanks for your thoughts, but clearly I am not the sort of person who can give you what you are seeking.

Can you tell us what it is you do, that I don't, given the knowledge you supposedly have? Can you give me any real example, and of what benefit it is?

Except marvelling at how important this thing supposedly is, I don't know what I could possibly do about it even if I wanted to.

(November 17, 2016 at 6:12 am)Ignorant Wrote: Rhythm, I am not interested in nor do I have the intellect capable of discussing this topic, or any topic, with you. You made it perfectly clear to me that you have no interest in seeking to understand what I'm saying, even if I try to do that for what you're saying:

Turning into a regular Hugster, now, aren't you, lol?  I never told you that I wasn't interested in seeking to understand you.  That;s your convenient reading of what I told you, convenient only in that you feel it absolves you of any onus to explain what you clearly wish for us to understand.  

Quote:If I don't even have your good will towards "getting" what I am trying to say, then I don't think talking about this will be beneficial for either of us. Thanks for your thoughts, but clearly I am not the sort of person who can give you what you are seeking.

You don't have my good will because you don't deserve it,  you say roundly dismissive things about people who don't believe in what you can't coherently articulate.  Apparently, I don't live a full and whole human life, lol. My tone and manner of response is a return in kind. You don't realize it because your absurd superstitions have had the sort of privilege required to sweep that under the rug and scuttle any chance at honest introspection. More broadly, I'm not interested in hiding my disdain for a person who self identifies with the criminal organization you call a church. Would you prefer that I lied to you, and whispered pleasant nothings into your ear?

 I'm not seeking anything other than how you rationalize this whole business.  As I've repeatedly told you, my objection to your religion -assumes it's truth-.  Nevertheless, you seem to think there's a reason to care, you seem to want to express that reason to others, and I'm providing you with the platform to do so with my responses.  Trying to help you move past the endless arguments for god, and onto the subject of the question. This is where it gets really, really simple. If you had such a reason, if you could compel me to care or change my position on the faith you hold..........then you'd have something worthwhile, worthwhile in ways that arguments from necessity in threadbare disguise just aren't.

Well, do you?

Well, Rhythm, I am confused. Which is it:

Rhythm Wrote: I never told you that I wasn't interested in seeking to understand you . . . I'm not seeking anything other than how you rationalize this whole business.

OR

Rhythm Wrote: You don't have my good will because you don't deserve it

OR

You want to understand how I rationalize this whole business, but only on your terms?

OR

Some other meaning. I don't understand.

You're presenting those statements as if they were contradictory or in competition.  They aren't, lol.  

You can use your own terms as well, just get on with it for fucks sake?

Or, I guess, you can bicker with me about this that and the other thing until the end of days. All for what? To avoid answering a question you don't actually have an answer for, imo. You know what, though, I'm ready to be wrong....and you can make me wrong about that just as soon as you stop arguing for it's existence by necessity and start explaining why anyone should care? Here it is, it;s that magic moment you never thought would materialize. You don't have to arue your god in. It's been granted, even if only for the purposes of discussion. This is your opportunity to waste.

Now what, so what?

This is at least original. It's the most bizarre definition of "God" I've ever heard. If I was to use a reverse appeal to popularity fallacy, I'd say it must be false because no one else in the world believes it. I'd be interested to know how you came up with it. Or why. At first glance, it appears to be a way of protecting the concept of "God" at all costs by making the definition evidence of its own "existence"; although in what way it actually exists, or does anything at all, I have no idea. I don't know why you even picked the word "God" and didn't make up a new term for it, as it seems to have nothing at all in common with anyone else trying to talk about God, or the entirety of the bible.

It does go to show that the word means absolutely nothing out of context, doesn't it?

(November 17, 2016 at 5:11 am)Ignorant Wrote: Are you now asking me how would we otherwise arrive at the knowledge that there is indeed a creator?

Yes. Because step 1 is knowledge. Even though I care about the truth, and even if a god exists I'd care about that truth, I can't care about a truth I have no knowledge of. To say the OP should care because they should care about the truth doesn't work because "ought" implies "can". It makes no sense to say that someone ought to care about the truth if they cannot care about it. To care about it first they must have awareness of it.

(November 17, 2016 at 6:22 am)robvalue Wrote: Can you tell us what it is you do, that I don't, given the knowledge you supposedly have? Can you give me any real example, and of what benefit it is? [1]

Except marvelling at how important this thing supposedly is, I don't know what I could possibly do about it even if I wanted to. [2]

1) From one aspect, the knowledge does not give the ability to do "new" things that people without the knowledge can't do. The knowledge, instead, gives new REASONS for which to do things, reasons which more accurately correspond to reality.

From another aspect, the knowledge moves me to do things that people without that knowledge don't do, e.g. prayer. IF there is a god with whom I and everything else relates, then EVERYTHING communicates something about god through that relation simply by being-what-the-things-they-are. "Listening" to that communication is a very very basic form of prayer. "Listening" to that communication coming from your own personal relation to god is another. The benefit is knowledge of a reality upon which real communion/community may be built.

2) Well, perhaps the marvelling will lead you to other conclusions which might have import for the way and the REASONS for which you act within reality. Perhaps the knowledge about that relation will lead you to a life which is not merely fully human, but fully human in a way that overflows with god's own fullness?

By the way this is all devil's advocate because I'm actually a gnostic atheist, lol. Gods are impossible. But I'm more than happy to play along anyways.