Yes God Exists

[awty]

Your religious tripe isn't on a repeating loop?  Funny that it's the same, or at least similar, to all the other blowhards who come here to enlighten us.

It is not I who is interested or responsible for enlightening you, that is your own choice. This forum's expressed purpose for existing is for conversation, but it seems blowhards have turned it into a place to rant about hating dialogue, discussion, and enlightenment.

Find another place to be then.

This is when I love having the ability to flush the latest garbage with a couple of mouse clicks.

[Belacqua]

You make a lot of interesting points here. If this were a forum where we discussed this kind of thing, there would be a lot of food for thought. 

I can suggest how some of what you say makes valuable jumping-off points for further discussion. Maybe these are things you could develop when you find people who are interested.

First, about human-created concepts having independent reality:

It could also be argued that unicorns were born out of an idea conceived in the human consciousness and therefore does not exist independent of human intelligence or thought, but this same argument would invalidate the existence of every man-made object which would all arguably continue to exist even if every human being died out.

There's a wonderful paper by Karl Popper on this. He's better known for his idea that science is about falsification, not proof, but his explanation of how unicorns and many other concepts have independent existence is also important. Here is a link:

https://www.thee-online.com/Content/publications/external-authors/karl-popper-three-worlds.pdf

In a (too short) nutshell, he's saying that concepts created by people can take on existence that is independent of any individual mind. For example, Sherlock Holmes never existed as a person, but as a concept he is no longer simply a thought in one person's mind, but has a kind of being. Moreover, when we speak about him we can make statements which can be judged true or false. So for example if you said that he lived in London this would be true, and if you said he lived in Peru it would be false, even though as a material body he never lived anywhere. 

Popper includes different things in this category, some of them surprising. Numbers, for example. But also Beethoven's Fifth Symphony can be said to exist, even when no one is playing it at the moment. 

So I think you're on to something with what you say about unicorns, and Popper can help develop that.   

As Potential: In order for us to properly navigate our reality we must be aware of potentials and how they impact the outcomes. In quantum mechanics these potentials manifest as superpositions. If you cannot conceive of a version of you that fails at something then you will arrogantly and foolishly move forward without taking the proper precautions to avoid failure. Having humility is to admit or understand that the version of you that fails actually exists and you must proceed in a manner to avoid it manifesting into our physical reality, meaning you must learn from your mistakes. Pride can fool others for a time, but eventually the price of foolish decisions comes due. In the same respect, only those that can envision a reality where they overcome impossible odds are the ones capable of such feats.

Any mention of potentials and their eventual activation will point to Aristotle, and, if we're talking about religion, the application of his act/potency distinction to theology. It's a key point of Christian theology that God is entirely act (or in more common language, completed activation with no remaining potential for development) while the material world consists of potentialities in various stages of activation. 

This basic concept underlies just about everything he wrote. You are right, I think, to apply this to our own moral development, and our need for humility. His development of an ethical system, for example, is all about how we develop our potentials and how we are likely to sabotage our own proper development. 

Subconscious: There are many parts of the subconscious mind that we still don't understand and much of our subconscious dictates our everyday reality. Our instincts, our primal nature, our defense mechanisms, and most or our habits and behaviors are borne out of the subconscious. These things exist on such a level that we must grapple with them and are arguably the most important challenges of our generation. Whether we describe these as mental illness, demons, malfunctions, human nature, chaos, or original sin does not negate the reality of them. 

It's interesting to me that the Greeks apparently had no concept of a subconscious mind. They thought that the mind is simply the thoughts we are aware of. Apparently it was Plotinus who first introduced the idea that because people are a part of the universe, with no strict barrier between what is in us and what is outside us, then mind also consists of far more than we are aware. 

I think that the bigger issue for our own time is how mind arises from non-mind matter. This seems to be a problem that our current thinking is unable to solve. 

You might be interested in a book from a couple of years ago that addressed this issue in exhaustive detail. 

https://www.amazon.com/All-Things-Are-Full-Gods/dp/0300285493/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=8-3

The author is a Christian of the East Orthodox variety. He does NOT conclude that the problem of mind leads us to a belief in the Christian God, but he does make a strong argument that mind is primary. What we call the material world arises from mind -- reversing the more common idea (today) that material objects evolve until they develop mind. 

The book is written as a conversation among Hermes, Psyche, and Hephaestus, which sounds kooky, but it does work. It makes the very detailed arguments easier to follow. It's also amusing to read the Greek gods grappling with modern thinkers like David Chalmers. 

Every worldview, every religion, and every tradition seeks world peace.

I am more cynical than you are. I think that many traditions, and many individuals, desire conflict. Perhaps they will be satisfied when they have made a desert and call it peace. But I suspect at that point the people who made the desert will simply turn on each other. 

The only way we have conceived of accomplishing this is through submitting all people to one authority through conquest or cooperation.

A lot of people have agreed with you. It's commonly assumed that when a state descends too far into chaos (through corruption or maybe the failure of democracy) that the people will call for a strong man to save them. This may well happen again. 

I'm not sure it's inevitable or desirable. But history rolls on, so we'll have to wait and see. 

When you look at every tradition, every empire, every religion, and every worldview they are all attempting to accomplish the same goals. To create healthcare that will keep you alive indefinitely (eternal life), create a one world authority (God's kingdom), to place a good person in the seat of power over that authority (God), to make society a utopia for all (heaven), to bring back our loved ones (resurrection), and to establish fair laws (perfect justice).

This I think is questionable. Buddhists, for example, seek the extinction of the soul in nirvana. There is no eternal heaven of happiness, no resurrection once (after many reincarnations) nirvana is acquired. 

And again, there seem to be worldviews in which conflict is valued. The desire to defeat one's enemies, through mental or physical violence, has great appeal for some people. 

For example if we eventually programmed Google to know everything, our ability to ask Google questions would make us all-knowing. Simplify the transaction through neural link and it is not far fetched to imagine a future human with their mind having instant access to all the knowledge that exists. 

If we're using the theological definition of "omniscience," then a human individual having access to all knowledge would be different. 

Knowing things generally is thought to consist of two things: the knowledge and the person who knows. In Christian theology, God is said to be omniscient not because he knows everything -- this would imply that there are things that are not God -- but because all knowledge is contained within God, is part of God, and is not something God could learn or forget. 

As you can see, this is not a forum where people discuss this kind of thing. I'd be happy to talk about it some more, if you don't mind everyone else's disapproval.

[AFTT47]

I do hope there is at least one genuine human being here that is capable of objectively engaging scientific and philosophical ideas.

All you need to do to confirm that is to browse the serious threads.

You mistake capability with desire. Any atheist who has engaged online for any length of time has heard the kind of thing you posted a hundred times before. It's the kind of thing a 16-year-old atheist might want to discuss but not people who have been atheists for decades.

[awty]

And, there it is. The new person flare went up. And along came the one to bond with someone else who hates and insults us.

I knew it was coming...so damned predictable....more than the sunrise and the sunset.

[Angrboda]

I read it with due diligence. I discovered there was not one idea there worth discussion. So I gave it an appropriate response. None of what you claimed are necessary conclusions and thus are effectively moot.

[Nay_Sayer]

My apologies. I thought you wanted a serious discussion. I can be the straw man you're looking for if it helps?

[Nay_Sayer]

---

You make a lot of interesting points here. If this were a forum where we discussed this kind of thing, there would be a lot of food for thought. 

I can suggest how some of what you say makes valuable jumping-off points for further discussion. Maybe these are things you could develop when you find people who are interested.

First, about human-created concepts having independent reality:


There's a wonderful paper by Karl Popper on this. He's better known for his idea that science is about falsification, not proof, but his explanation of how unicorns and many other concepts have independent existence is also important. Here is a link:

https://www.thee-online.com/Content/publications/external-authors/karl-popper-three-worlds.pdf

In a (too short) nutshell, he's saying that concepts created by people can take on existence that is independent of any individual mind. For example, Sherlock Holmes never existed as a person, but as a concept he is no longer simply a thought in one person's mind, but has a kind of being. Moreover, when we speak about him we can make statements which can be judged true or false. So for example if you said that he lived in London this would be true, and if you said he lived in Peru it would be false, even though as a material body he never lived anywhere. 

Popper includes different things in this category, some of them surprising. Numbers, for example. But also Beethoven's Fifth Symphony can be said to exist, even when no one is playing it at the moment. 

So I think you're on to something with what you say about unicorns, and Popper can help develop that.   


Any mention of potentials and their eventual activation will point to Aristotle, and, if we're talking about religion, the application of his act/potency distinction to theology. It's a key point of Christian theology that God is entirely act (or in more common language, completed activation with no remaining potential for development) while the material world consists of potentialities in various stages of activation. 

This basic concept underlies just about everything he wrote. You are right, I think, to apply this to our own moral development, and our need for humility. His development of an ethical system, for example, is all about how we develop our potentials and how we are likely to sabotage our own proper development. 


It's interesting to me that the Greeks apparently had no concept of a subconscious mind. They thought that the mind is simply the thoughts we are aware of. Apparently it was Plotinus who first introduced the idea that because people are a part of the universe, with no strict barrier between what is in us and what is outside us, then mind also consists of far more than we are aware. 

I think that the bigger issue for our own time is how mind arises from non-mind matter. This seems to be a problem that our current thinking is unable to solve. 

You might be interested in a book from a couple of years ago that addressed this issue in exhaustive detail. 

https://www.amazon.com/All-Things-Are-Full-Gods/dp/0300285493/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=8-3

The author is a Christian of the East Orthodox variety. He does NOT conclude that the problem of mind leads us to a belief in the Christian God, but he does make a strong argument that mind is primary. What we call the material world arises from mind -- reversing the more common idea (today) that material objects evolve until they develop mind. 

The book is written as a conversation among Hermes, Psyche, and Hephaestus, which sounds kooky, but it does work. It makes the very detailed arguments easier to follow. It's also amusing to read the Greek gods grappling with modern thinkers like David Chalmers. 


I am more cynical than you are. I think that many traditions, and many individuals, desire conflict. Perhaps they will be satisfied when they have made a desert and call it peace. But I suspect at that point the people who made the desert will simply turn on each other. 


A lot of people have agreed with you. It's commonly assumed that when a state descends too far into chaos (through corruption or maybe the failure of democracy) that the people will call for a strong man to save them. This may well happen again. 

I'm not sure it's inevitable or desirable. But history rolls on, so we'll have to wait and see. 



This I think is questionable. Buddhists, for example, seek the extinction of the soul in nirvana. There is no eternal heaven of happiness, no resurrection once (after many reincarnations) nirvana is acquired. 

And again, there seem to be worldviews in which conflict is valued. The desire to defeat one's enemies, through mental or physical violence, has great appeal for some people. 


If we're using the theological definition of "omniscience," then a human individual having access to all knowledge would be different. 

Knowing things generally is thought to consist of two things: the knowledge and the person who knows. In Christian theology, God is said to be omniscient not because he knows everything -- this would imply that there are things that are not God -- but because all knowledge is contained within God, is part of God, and is not something God could learn or forget. 

As you can see, this is not a forum where people discuss this kind of thing. I'd be happy to talk about it some more, if you don't mind everyone else's disapproval.

---

And, there it is.  The new person flare went up.  And along came the one to bond with someone else who hates and insults us.  

I knew it was coming...so damned predictable....more than the sunrise and the sunset.

(Spoilered for size)

Don't you ruin my novella of bells' new bromance.

[awty]

---

---

And, there it is.  The new person flare went up.  And along came the one to bond with someone else who hates and insults us.  

I knew it was coming...so damned predictable....more than the sunrise and the sunset.

(Spoilered for size)

Don't you ruin my novella of bells' new bromance.
Well, he does have a type.

[Unapologetics]

Belacqua, thank you for your thoughtful response and will take the time to study the works you mentioned.

You make a lot of interesting points here. If this were a forum where we discussed this kind of thing, there would be a lot of food for thought. 

Quote:
As you can see, this is not a forum where people discuss this kind of thing. I'd be happy to talk about it some more, if you don't mind everyone else's disapproval.

A forum about philosophy seems appropriate enough, but it seems a much more narrow definition of philosophy may be employed here. Even if that is the case, trolls exist in every faith structure as a defense mechanism to ward off anyone that might threaten the loyalty of those weak in the faith. The commenters are oblivious to how identical their tactics are to the religious fanatics that have no logic or reason behind their words. I have been treated much worse by religious folks than any atheist could ever muster to do, so no I don't mind the disapproval at all.

I am more cynical than you are. I think that many traditions, and many individuals, desire conflict. Perhaps they will be satisfied when they have made a desert and call it peace. But I suspect at that point the people who made the desert will simply turn on each other. 

While I agree with you that conflict, war, and misery are the historical outcomes of certain worldviews and traditions; however, these are not the stated goals. I am judging them based on what they communicate, not what they do or result in. Some see the path to peace being conquest or destruction of all opposing worldviews, but again the purpose of that conflict is to achieve peace ultimately once all their enemies are brought to bear. I am not agreeing with or validating their desired path to peace, only commenting on the fact that all traditions promise peace as the ultimate end of the struggle.

It's commonly assumed that when a state descends too far into chaos (through corruption or maybe the failure of democracy) that the people will call for a strong man to save them. This may well happen again. 

I'm not sure it's inevitable or desirable. But history rolls on, so we'll have to wait and see. 

I wasn't specifically talking about a call for a strong man, but the systematic and automatic way that societies put one person as a head of state whether that be president, dictator, emperor, etc. One person being given the highest authority is the inevitability I speak of, not a prediction about how a person might rise to power in the eventual future where there is one governing body. History shows that trying to unite the world under one banner and putting one person in charge and calling that person divine has always been the model and continues to be the model. Trump recently posting himself as Jesus and North Korea worshipping their leader are two prime examples.

This I think is questionable. Buddhists, for example, seek the extinction of the soul in nirvana. There is no eternal heaven of happiness, no resurrection once (after many reincarnations) nirvana is acquired. 

And again, there seem to be worldviews in which conflict is valued. The desire to defeat one's enemies, through mental or physical violence, has great appeal for some people. 

While every religion likes to use different terms, they are all the same thing repackaged. Denial of self, destruction of ego, and extinction of soul are all the same concept. As well as nirvana, bliss, enlightenment, higher plane of existence, and heaven all possess similar language in describing these places or states of being. While conflict might be valued in some worldviews, even the violent Viking warriors looked forward to their eternal peace in Valhalla as a reward for their violence.

If we're using the theological definition of "omniscience," then a human individual having access to all knowledge would be different. 

Knowing things generally is thought to consist of two things: the knowledge and the person who knows. In Christian theology, God is said to be omniscient not because he knows everything -- this would imply that there are things that are not God -- but because all knowledge is contained within God, is part of God, and is not something God could learn or forget. 

While there are many theists and theologians that will mince words on defining omniscience, these are merely semantics regarding details that are unknown. But to entertain that thought for a moment, if one were to truly "know thyself" then their own personal being would also be contained within the knowledge that they knew therefore they would know all things and all knowledge would be contained in them. But we are also conflating the person of God vs the idea of God as an entity that contains within it all things. You can think of it as God Incorporated, otherwise known as the Kingdom of Heaven to some. God being the structure lead by the Heavenly Host, the Divine Counsel, the Godhead, the Trinity, or the Counsel of Gods. A god being defined as a being of immense power, and as you see in Marvel movies these heroes that possess such powers are referred to as Gods, like Thor, but admittedly his power is achieved through technology. If we apply a Christian understanding to this concept, Jesus is the COO and the Father is the CEO of God incorporated. All the mythical language used by religion confuses the obvious reality that everything we do as a society reflects and uses these same ideas.

[Nay_Sayer]

awww..love is def in the air.

Hey @Unapologetics Here is an idea. Discord is free, and you can make a little room invite Bels.

You can have a little echo chamber away from all the meanies and tough, unfair questions. Doesn't that sound nice?