Jump to content

Western Civilization’s Last Stand

The Art of The Argument

Available Now | artoftheargument.com

Freedomain Radio Amazon Affiliate Links: United States - Canada - United Kingdom

Sign up for the Freedomain Mailing List: fdrurl.com/newsletter

Kohlrak

Is God really a paradox? (Omnipotence and Omniscience)

Recommended Posts

RichardY    24
4 minutes ago, Gavitor said:

It's useless in the sense that unknown and undefined are already words. we don't need the word god.

If it can't be described then how do you know there is an it in the first place. People attempt to describe god all the time, and when you point out how what they describe isn't god they change the description.

What if what they try to describe is God to them though. "If you think you can or think you can't you're right". By using the word God or "X" as a label/name for something that is undefined and unknown, but in someway has self referential benefits/abilities/dangers, if it didn't then why use the concept God? More primitively would be perhaps having a pantheon of cultural Gods that are self referential to various aspects of a persons psyche. If a primitive saw the Northern Lights they might identify it as God or Human Souls, until they had the benefits of modern science.

Grail quest. If you knew thyself, why would someone need to know God.

40 minutes ago, Gavitor said:

I don't understand what you are saying here, can you clarify for me?

If you knew the outcome/s of the Game, i.e Tic-Tac-Toe. Why would you play?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gavitor    31
2 minutes ago, RichardY said:

What if what they try to describe is God to them though. "If you think you can or think you can't you're right". By using the word God or "X" as a label/name for something that is undefined and unknown, but in someway has self referential benefits/abilities/dangers, if it didn't then why use the concept God? More primitively would be perhaps having a pantheon of cultural Gods that are self referential to various aspects of a persons psyche. If a primitive saw the Northern Lights they might identify it as God or Human Souls, until they had the benefits of modern science.

Grail quest. If you knew thyself, why would someone need to know God.

If you knew the outcome/s of the Game, i.e Tic-Tac-Toe. Why would you play?

Here is the thing, if it is unknown or undefined then by definition you wouldn't be talking about it. To talk about something unknown means you know something about it otherwise why would you bring it up? Especially when you say that unknown thing exists. In other words people who say god exists are saying they have knowledge they couldn't possibly have.

To answer your game question, yes i would play. The act of playing the game is fun for me even if I know the outcome. I don't really see how this is relevant to the discussion though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RichardY    24
15 hours ago, Gavitor said:

Here is the thing, if it is unknown or undefined then by definition you wouldn't be talking about it. To talk about something unknown means you know something about it otherwise why would you bring it up? Especially when you say that unknown thing exists. In other words people who say god exists are saying they have knowledge they couldn't possibly have.

When you meet a new person, unconsciously you assume something about that person, maybe that's right or wrong.  "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet". But what happens when you meet something/an entity not known to man? You have nothing to go by and thus creation takes place, knowledge known only to the man who creates or experiences it, non-referenced to existing culture. But if his knowledge is exterior to man, how can it be considered man?

16 hours ago, Gavitor said:

To answer your game question, yes i would play. The act of playing the game is fun for me even if I know the outcome. I don't really see how this is relevant to the discussion though.

But if you know the outcome or rewards of the game, its not a game anymore but a pastime. In which case are you still playing for social reasons or is the game playing you. The same way that if people knew God, why would they need to look for or experience something they perceive as God(the self).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gavitor    31
7 hours ago, RichardY said:

When you meet a new person, unconsciously you assume something about that person, maybe that's right or wrong.  "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet". But what happens when you meet something/an entity not known to man? You have nothing to go by and thus creation takes place, knowledge known only to the man who creates or experiences it, non-referenced to existing culture. But if his knowledge is exterior to man, how can it be considered man?

But if you know the outcome or rewards of the game, its not a game anymore but a pastime. In which case are you still playing for social reasons or is the game playing you. The same way that if people knew God, why would they need to look for or experience something they perceive as God(the self).

When you meet a new person you know that its a person and you don't refer to that person as god. People find new species all the time, they don't call those things god and they are able to describe in detail what it is they met.

God is always a vague description if any description is given at all, and changes when people question it. This is not the case for everything else we find.

Why would they need to look for or experience such a thing to begin with? Can you describe in detail exactly what they/you are experiencing/finding when you say its god?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kohlrak    1
On 5/24/2017 at 0:54 PM, Donnadogsoth said:

In what way does an illiterate peasant living in Greater Moravia in 913 AD lack the freedom of will to steal an apple or refrain from stealing it?

 

By that standard, free will exists in every society, inevitably. Free will is the ability to make choices, regardless of punishment. While the church threatens us with hell, neither God nor Jesus threatened us with Hell. We were told of the concept (and even still, whether or not Jesus supported the idea of Hell instead of simple death is questionable). The moment you use threats, coercion, and/or force to manipulate someone, you're trying to remove their free will. It's one thing to present choices and outcomes for those choices, it's something else entirely to make threats and make good on those threats. Presumably, if Hell is to exist, it's better than to simply cease to exist (by standards we just don't have the context for, but it assumes Hell exists).

 

On 5/26/2017 at 11:18 PM, Brainwright said:

I haven't been following this conversation very closely, so let me be short and sweet :

Omniscience and omnipotence intersect.  That is, one does not know what will happen until one decides what will happen.

In reference to God, omniscience and omnipotence are retained because God makes promises (a covenant) and sticks to them.   All actions are iterations of the original promise and remain self-consistent.

 

That's another interesting angle on it. Not sure that really solves the logic issue, though. Issue being, if the future already exists, it cannot be changed, else it's not the future. I think what this really boils down to is that if the future exists already, then we believe in fate and determinism. I can already see a conflict in Stefan waiting to rise. But him aside, that really is what Stefan's argument boils down to. If you can know the future, that means it's already determined, which means you are then powerless to change it, since it's already determined. Therefore, one also cannot be non-deterministic while believing in the future as a concurrently existing thing. If you really delve into it, it seems less likely that we're deterministic, as well, which just adds to the idea that time probably does not exist outside of the human mind.

 

On 5/28/2017 at 0:14 PM, RichardY said:

Is God really a paradox?

I think this might be covered in the Book of Job. Also there is a scene from the Matrix Reloaded with "The Architect" that kind of copies it. Carl jung "Answer to Job". Don't really fully comprehend its significance but seems interesting.

 

Do me a favor and point me a little closer.

 

On 6/2/2017 at 8:41 AM, RichardY said:

What if God is an experience? Some type of Archetypal experience. "Nature herself has imprinted on the minds of all the idea of God" Not just a cultural phenomenon, but some form of primitive unconsciousness, like a kind of facial recognition software or the very heart of the unconscious mind. Kant's Apriori knowledge, Plato's theory of forms, Wittgenstein's Elementary Principle and Jung's Archetypes. Mostly with out empirical evidence, but perhaps can be inferred intuitively through psychological studies. 

"Speak of the Devil and he will appear" the idea of cause and effect, and sensation. Not sure what the equivalent for God would be.

 

This idea has been gaining alot of traction, lately. However, at this point, God as we describe Him would be an inaccurate definition of this, while this would be a plausible explanation for everything other than events.

 

On 6/1/2017 at 2:20 AM, Gavitor said:

The funny thing with god debates is that whether or not god exists depends entirely on the definition of god being used.

If god is defined a something that doesn't or can't exist then it does not exist, if it is defined as something that exists then it does.

The thing is that if god is defined as something that already exists, that definition is already used by another word and therefore cannot be god. So god by definition cannot exist because everything that exists is not god by definition.

 

A self-defining entity?

 

On 6/3/2017 at 3:26 PM, RichardY said:

I guess that would depend on what you consider useful. God is an unknown and has no definition, to me as well. I think the word God is a "reference pointer" to "the self".

 

I don't think you can describe it. "No words can describe it. Might as well ask Heaven what it sees. No human can know." But in Christian tradition God is Paternal, a certain incompleteness/wholeness of concept.

 

"All right: the concept of number is defined for you as the
logical sum of these individual interrelated concepts: cardinal numbers,
rational numbers, real numbers, etc.; and in the same way the concept
of a game as the logical sum of a corresponding set of sub-concepts."—
—It need not be so. For I can give the concept '.number' rigid limits
PHILOSOPHICAL INVESTIGATIONS I 33«
in this way, that is, use the word "number" for a rigidly limited concept,
but I can also use it so that the extension of the concept is not
closed by a frontier. And this is how we do use the word "game".
For how is the concept of a game bounded? What still counts as a
game and what no longer does? Can you give the boundary? No.
You can draw one; for none has so far been drawn. (But that never
troubled you before when you used the word "game".)
"But then the use of the word is unregulated, the 'game' we play
with it is unregulated."——It is not everywhere circumscribed by
rules;
but no more are there any rules for how high one throws the
ball in tennis, 

 

Ever see the movie "The Game" with Michael Douglas. There is a certain incompleteness of character when people play games, otherwise why would they play? But not to play and want to, who's fooling who.

 

 

 

 

On 6/3/2017 at 5:33 PM, Gavitor said:

It's useless in the sense that unknown and undefined are already words. we don't need the word god.

If it can't be described then how do you know there is an it in the first place. People attempt to describe god all the time, and when you point out how what they describe isn't god they change the description.

I don't understand what you are saying here, can you clarify for me?

 

I'm responding to both at the same time.

Abstraction is the word. The "reference pointer" implies to me that you'd have a computing background. All programming languages above assembly are abstractions, and, as such, are existing proof that such words are important and useful. They loose their use when specifics are required, but outside of specifics, abstractions are important and useful. Otherwise, every thing in our universe down to each and every atom would require individual and unique names. I think this is fundamentally why language is so important: we can make abstractions of the world around that are simple enough for us to manipulate in our minds and communicate information about, but the abstractions don't include all the details of the object, thus when more specific details are necessary, we need more abstracted terms or to reproduce the object in question. Abstractions themselves do not exist, but the things they reference often do. For example, "time" is an abstraction of causality. I would argue that time does not exist, but causality does. The problem with abstractions is that, usually, the details that are lost can easily become necessary, but they often become lost. For example, if time does not exist, but causality does, the logic we built around time explains causality, but in so far as our logic is concerned, the existence of what we think of when we think of time presents logical errors with the universe around us. Our abstractions can gain qualities that the object or effect that they reference did not actually have.

 

On 6/3/2017 at 6:23 PM, RichardY said:

What if what they try to describe is God to them though. "If you think you can or think you can't you're right". By using the word God or "X" as a label/name for something that is undefined and unknown, but in someway has self referential benefits/abilities/dangers, if it didn't then why use the concept God? More primitively would be perhaps having a pantheon of cultural Gods that are self referential to various aspects of a persons psyche. If a primitive saw the Northern Lights they might identify it as God or Human Souls, until they had the benefits of modern science.

Grail quest. If you knew thyself, why would someone need to know God.

If you knew the outcome/s of the Game, i.e Tic-Tac-Toe. Why would you play?

 

On 6/3/2017 at 6:30 PM, Gavitor said:

Here is the thing, if it is unknown or undefined then by definition you wouldn't be talking about it. To talk about something unknown means you know something about it otherwise why would you bring it up? Especially when you say that unknown thing exists. In other words people who say god exists are saying they have knowledge they couldn't possibly have.

To answer your game question, yes i would play. The act of playing the game is fun for me even if I know the outcome. I don't really see how this is relevant to the discussion though.

 

Rather, people change their definition because they believe the thing they're referencing exists, but they don't know the details, because they know the abstraction (the word) with more experience than the thing it references. If i change my description, it just means it's probably more accurate than it was before. They can have other abstractions as well that act as evidence to the person that the abstraction of God exists, but that doesn't mean that the thing they're imagining is right. I could tell you all about my car, for example, and you would know alot about it and know it exists, but if someone were to ask you to describe it, you would fail to describe the details that I have not told you.

15 hours ago, Gavitor said:

When you meet a new person you know that its a person and you don't refer to that person as god. People find new species all the time, they don't call those things god and they are able to describe in detail what it is they met.

God is always a vague description if any description is given at all, and changes when people question it. This is not the case for everything else we find.

Why would they need to look for or experience such a thing to begin with? Can you describe in detail exactly what they/you are experiencing/finding when you say its god?

 

 

Actually, we change descriptions of things all the time. God is not unique in this, but, rather, God is the thing that meets the most skepticism when the changes are noticed. For example, T-rex's definition changed numerous times. We discovered it, defined it, and now we can't decide if it was a hunter or a scavenger. Yet, we don't question that the T-Rex existed. In fact, we're still trying to define gravity. We know objects of smaller mass are drawn closer to objects of larger mass, yet the universe is spreading apart, and we can't explain why either thing is true. We don't question these, though. Frankly, unlike other things, God is fairly inconvenient for people, especially nihilists, which seem to make up the majority of the atheist cultists (as opposed to atheists themselves, though it might be the majority of them, too).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RichardY    24
On 6/5/2017 at 0:37 AM, Gavitor said:

Why would they need to look for or experience such a thing to begin with? Can you describe in detail exactly what they/you are experiencing/finding when you say its god?

On 6/5/2017 at 3:41 PM, Kohlrak said:

Do me a favor and point me a little closer.

I think a form of increased consciousness(enlightenment), or transcendence of personality. How to trigger it who knows, perhaps a near death experience or a acclimatisation to extreme conditions. There is a video on Youtube (Carl Jung answer to Job "son of man"), the music is a bit annoying but I guess it skims the surface. In terms of who might know, Carl Jung maybe Wim Hof, fishing for references myself really.

On 6/6/2017 at 8:00 PM, RoseCodex said:

  God is the super-ordinate principle

In terms of being outside the hierarchy? Was looking at a Norse mythology story on wikipedia with the Wolf Fenrir(Dominance Hierarchy) killing Odin(Father/God archetypal figure). The wolves drool "Von" means hope, which is a christian theological virtue.

    

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoseCodex    520
On 6/9/2017 at 4:20 PM, RichardY said:

 

In terms of being outside the hierarchy? Was looking at a Norse mythology story on wikipedia with the Wolf Fenrir(Dominance Hierarchy) killing Odin(Father/God archetypal figure). The wolves drool "Von" means hope, which is a christian theological virtue.

    

It's explained in detail here.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Donnadogsoth    47
On 6/5/2017 at 9:41 AM, Kohlrak said:

By that standard, free will exists in every society, inevitably. Free will is the ability to make choices, regardless of punishment. While the church threatens us with hell, neither God nor Jesus threatened us with Hell. We were told of the concept (and even still, whether or not Jesus supported the idea of Hell instead of simple death is questionable). The moment you use threats, coercion, and/or force to manipulate someone, you're trying to remove their free will. It's one thing to present choices and outcomes for those choices, it's something else entirely to make threats and make good on those threats. Presumably, if Hell is to exist, it's better than to simply cease to exist (by standards we just don't have the context for, but it assumes Hell exists.

Jesus very clearly threatened us with Hell.  "Pluck your eye out if it offends thee"?  "Cut your hand off if it offends thee"?  "Better to enter into the kingdom maimed than who with a whole body into hell."?  Then there's the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, besides the other verses about the wailing and gnashing of teeth and the worm that dieth not."  No, Jesus was very clear that Hell existed, unless we're going to postmodernise everything into a nothingness.

 

What you're describing in diminishing free will is what I call "negotiation"--pressing people's neural buttons to change their thoughts and behaviours.  But when applied to Heaven and Hell, these descriptions, recommendations, and allusions by Jesus do not negotiate fully with our brains.  There remains room for doubt, for intuition, for choice, or else none would be worthy of being saved because none would be in God's image including possessing free will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
steljarkos    12
On ‎5‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 5:03 PM, Kohlrak said:

Stefan Molyneux, in one of his books, makes the claim that the Gods of old are logically impossible, because omnipotence and omniscience, he argues, cannot co-exist within the same entity.

Stefan's rationale makes good sense, but for most believers, commonsense has little part to play in their beliefs. Ultimately, ALL mainstream interpretations of god are logically impossible for many more reasons than the impossibility of reconciling omnipotence with omniscience. By "mainstream interpretations" I am alluding to anthropocentric interpretations... man made in god's image, and all that.

Taking the anthropocentric literal to its most absurd... why would god need hands, legs and eyes? What is he standing on, and where does he walk to? What does he need to pick up and hold with his hands? Etc. Of course more rational believers are quick to respond that this is not what they mean by "man made in god's image", but still, the argument then becomes one of scale. Why are humans "special", why should god single out humans as the most representative of his creation? The latest estimate puts the number of galaxies in the universe at the trillions, with the number of stars in each galaxy at of the order of about 200 billion (my null hypothesis being that life throughout the universe is the given). That humans should be singled out as most representative of godly nature is self-indulgent, anthropocentric nonsense.

Now god as the universal collective is somewhat easier to stomach, but this has its own problematics if one fails to take seriously the phenomenological questions that are relevant. For example, how does any entity, god or otherwise, define the things that matter? But I digress. To conclude, ANY anthropocentric god, from the sublime to the ridiculous Man Made In God's Image, defies all logic and commonsense, and I find it surprising that western civilization has advanced as far as it has despite this epistemological ball-and-chain. Still, given the current global situation in politics and religion, this bubble may be about to burst.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Donnadogsoth    47
7 hours ago, steljarkos said:

Stefan's rationale makes good sense, but for most believers, commonsense has little part to play in their beliefs. Ultimately, ALL mainstream interpretations of god are logically impossible for many more reasons than the impossibility of reconciling omnipotence with omniscience. By "mainstream interpretations" I am alluding to anthropocentric interpretations... man made in god's image, and all that.

Taking the anthropocentric literal to its most absurd... why would god need hands, legs and eyes? What is he standing on, and where does he walk to? What does he need to pick up and hold with his hands? Etc. Of course more rational believers are quick to respond that this is not what they mean by "man made in god's image", but still, the argument then becomes one of scale. Why are humans "special", why should god single out humans as the most representative of his creation? The latest estimate puts the number of galaxies in the universe at the trillions, with the number of stars in each galaxy at of the order of about 200 billion (my null hypothesis being that life throughout the universe is the given). That humans should be singled out as most representative of godly nature is self-indulgent, anthropocentric nonsense.

Now god as the universal collective is somewhat easier to stomach, but this has its own problematics if one fails to take seriously the phenomenological questions that are relevant. For example, how does any entity, god or otherwise, define the things that matter? But I digress. To conclude, ANY anthropocentric god, from the sublime to the ridiculous Man Made In God's Image, defies all logic and commonsense, and I find it surprising that western civilization has advanced as far as it has despite this epistemological ball-and-chain. Still, given the current global situation in politics and religion, this bubble may be about to burst.

Believing we are made in the mental image of the Creator tells us the Universe is comprehensible to us in that we are able to think God's thoughts after him.  It tells us we have a destiny beyond wallowing in the hedonistic mire.  It tells us we have hope for our immortal effects in this Universe, and hope for an immortal happiness in the next world.  Without God there is no reason for the Universe to be reasonable, and no reason for man to be Godly.  If there are other intelligent creatures in the Universe, they too will be made in God's image, and there we will have a basis for mutual understanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kohlrak    1
On 6/13/2017 at 10:43 PM, Donnadogsoth said:

Jesus very clearly threatened us with Hell.  "Pluck your eye out if it offends thee"?  "Cut your hand off if it offends thee"?  "Better to enter into the kingdom maimed than who with a whole body into hell."?  Then there's the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, besides the other verses about the wailing and gnashing of teeth and the worm that dieth not."  No, Jesus was very clear that Hell existed, unless we're going to postmodernise everything into a nothingness.

 

You give me 2 examples. Before we start talking about this, we need to understand that Greek philosophy, at this point in time, was viewed with so much reverence, it was considered to be just as true as modern scientific theories. Given that Jesus was not exactly in a position (for more reasons than one) to tell us where these things are flawed, it makes sense that he would threaten use Hades in his parables: hence the rich man and Lazarus. As for the three quotes (which is actually one, just one passage), it clearly is a reference to Hades, yet again. It is not inconceivable that these people appropriated greek philosophy to their interpretations of scripture. It is in Revelations that a place quite different from the greeks (the Lake of Fire), and even that seems to be symbolic, at best. Consistently throughout the new testament fire is used to describe removal of impurities, which, once again, is not unlike greek philosophy, however I would imagine it's natural to see fire this way (notice how we say "kill it with fire" for things we find repulsive). Were you not bothered or, at least, intrigued by John the Baptist suggesting that Jesus with cleanse him with the Holy Spirit and fire? Revelations stating that the lake of fire is eternal torment could support the "separation from God" theory, but it seems to make more sense, given the context, that that was one of the things that got changed in the constant translating, retranscription, etc, that we know happened. For the new testament, we know there were lots of differences in versions of the same scripture, but, given the situation (early Christians weren't exactly welcome, and they and their writings were frequently destroyed [Do you realize that we only have 4 of 11 gospels?]), it is understandable. The only way to view the new testament is by not nitpicking words, but viewing everything with the understanding that some things are going to be inaccurate and you have to look at the bigger picture. Me, personally, i think it makes most sense to see the lake of fire as representing a second death, which means to destroy the soul.

 

On 6/13/2017 at 10:43 PM, Donnadogsoth said:

What you're describing in diminishing free will is what I call "negotiation"--pressing people's neural buttons to change their thoughts and behaviours.  But when applied to Heaven and Hell, these descriptions, recommendations, and allusions by Jesus do not negotiate fully with our brains.  There remains room for doubt, for intuition, for choice, or else none would be worthy of being saved because none would be in God's image including possessing free will.

 

Is tax still charity? These things must all be decided by the people. Fortunately for rational thinkers, Jesus seldom spoke literally. I'm quite sure he did indeed mean that removal of body parts was better than defying God. However, we don't have writing about how an honorable group of people took his advice literally, right? It's because He expects us to have better control of our faculties than to need to be physically forced to no longer sin. By the logic you propose, it is better to commit suicide than to risk sinning again, is it not? But, then again, suicide is a sin, right? Where is the line drawn, why, and how do we know He feels that way? Of all things Jesus has addressed, you'd think this would not only be among them, but among the most important things, no?

 

On 6/17/2017 at 4:20 AM, steljarkos said:

Stefan's rationale makes good sense, but for most believers, commonsense has little part to play in their beliefs. Ultimately, ALL mainstream interpretations of god are logically impossible for many more reasons than the impossibility of reconciling omnipotence with omniscience. By "mainstream interpretations" I am alluding to anthropocentric interpretations... man made in god's image, and all that.

Taking the anthropocentric literal to its most absurd... why would god need hands, legs and eyes? What is he standing on, and where does he walk to? What does he need to pick up and hold with his hands?

 

There's two ways I could respond. I could respond in agreement that God does not need them, and I could respond that, perhaps, God simply likes those attributes? Naturally, God would be amorphous, and i cannot resist the urge to point out that everyone's well within the realm of understanding the idea that supernatural beings could be anything from amorphous to shape shifters and what not. Do not trinitarians believe that God came in the form of a dove? Or what about the burning bush? We could go on for a while. When God is the only absolute we could compare to (given that we would also then believe that He created the other animals which we compare ourselves to), we can't really nit-pick at the endless possibilities and ask "why does He need THAT form?" We don't know. We, honestly, don't care to. Whether God has a preference for that form, or He happens to be the universe itself, or if He's a blob that appears human when he feels like walking past Moses, who knows and who cares?

 

On a humorous note, I immediately thought of Hermaeus Mora.

 

On 6/17/2017 at 4:20 AM, steljarkos said:

Etc. Of course more rational believers are quick to respond that this is not what they mean by "man made in god's image", but still, the argument then becomes one of scale. Why are humans "special", why should god single out humans as the most representative of his creation? The latest estimate puts the number of galaxies in the universe at the trillions, with the number of stars in each galaxy at of the order of about 200 billion (my null hypothesis being that life throughout the universe is the given). That humans should be singled out as most representative of godly nature is self-indulgent, anthropocentric nonsense.

 

The decision to say that humans are the most representative is based on the assumption that humans existed before He chose to declare us so? Instead, it seems more rational (and consistent) that we are most representative of God simply because that's the very purpose of our being. For any other explanation I would indeed go as far as to say that it is arrogance to the degree of being a sin. That is not to say that we don't have a second purpose, but the fact that we were "made in His image" implies that the basis for our existence is to fulfill that role. This totally disregards that Genesis, or any other religion's equivalent (should it even have one), is more than mere parable. I would say that the average mainstream religion believer prefers to find comfort in this idea that all life was created in His image (hence, dog heave, cat heave, etc).

 

On 6/17/2017 at 4:20 AM, steljarkos said:

Now god as the universal collective is somewhat easier to stomach, but this has its own problematics if one fails to take seriously the phenomenological questions that are relevant. For example, how does any entity, god or otherwise, define the things that matter? But I digress. To conclude, ANY anthropocentric god, from the sublime to the ridiculous Man Made In God's Image, defies all logic and commonsense, and I find it surprising that western civilization has advanced as far as it has despite this epistemological ball-and-chain. Still, given the current global situation in politics and religion, this bubble may be about to burst.

 

Humans being arrogant doesn't mean their ideas are illogical. I'm sorry, but this isn't an argument.

 

On 6/17/2017 at 0:09 PM, Donnadogsoth said:

Believing we are made in the mental image of the Creator tells us the Universe is comprehensible to us in that we are able to think God's thoughts after him.  It tells us we have a destiny beyond wallowing in the hedonistic mire.  It tells us we have hope for our immortal effects in this Universe, and hope for an immortal happiness in the next world.  Without God there is no reason for the Universe to be reasonable, and no reason for man to be Godly.  If there are other intelligent creatures in the Universe, they too will be made in God's image, and there we will have a basis for mutual understanding.

 

Not hedonism, but nihilism. Many would argue otherwise, that if we advance enough, maybe we could solve the problems of universal entropy and the like. I, personally, don't, but many would. This is a bit of a spin, but i think this is why the left believes that economy influences behavior: if "God is dead," then the thing separating us from nihilism is a belief in a better future for our offspring, but if our economic or social situation implies we can never improve, then you become fairly nihilistic fairly quickly, which devolves to hedonism, which is pure, utter waste of resources (which the ruling class then cannot use to fuel their own hedonism). That's not to say that religious people don't have their own excuses for hedonism ("eh, Jesus will forgive me for this," "allah is OK with me taking this women, as I will make them holy again," "meh, i can focus on ascension next time I get reincarnated, as i've already screwed up this life," etc), but nihilism guarantees it (else, suicide).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RichardY    24
6 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

There's two ways I could respond. I could respond in agreement that God does not need them, and I could respond that, perhaps, God simply likes those attributes? Naturally, God would be amorphous, and i cannot resist the urge to point out that everyone's well within the realm of understanding the idea that supernatural beings could be anything from amorphous to shape shifters and what not.

Man is the measure of all things." Protagoras

Chaos is amorphous. Morpheus(Captain of the Nebuchadnezzar) has form. You could consider Chaos a God, but then that would be like Satan devouring his son. I guess you could sleep with the demon like in the story of Beowulf to get the reward(power), though that usually goes badly.

8 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

Do not trinitarians believe that God came in the form of a dove? Or what about the burning bush? We could go on for a while. When God is the only absolute we could compare to (given that we would also then believe that He created the other animals which we compare ourselves to), we can't really nit-pick at the endless possibilities and ask "why does He need THAT form?" We don't know. We, honestly, don't care to. Whether God has a preference for that form, or He happens to be the universe itself, or if He's a blob that appears human when he feels like walking past Moses, who knows and who cares?

Here God has form. I think God is basically to do with the highest consciousness/awareness possible, to define consciousness seems like defining God, no one knows. Maybe the burning bush has something to do with the awareness of the forces of nature brush fires and the following plagues of Egypt. 

9 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

On a humorous note, I immediately thought of Hermaeus Mora.

Skyrim or Oblivion? I think Hermaeus Mora is probably the equivalent of Proteus in Myth and Legend, Grendal's Mother in Beowulf or the symbol for Spectre. Every piece of pop-culture seems to rip off lore from earlier sources.

9 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

Not hedonism, but nihilism. Many would argue otherwise, that if we advance enough, maybe we could solve the problems of universal entropy and the like. I, personally, don't, but many would. This is a bit of a spin, but i think this is why the left believes that economy influences behavior: if "God is dead," then the thing separating us from nihilism is a belief in a better future for our offspring, but if our economic or social situation implies we can never improve, then you become fairly nihilistic fairly quickly, which devolves to hedonism, which is pure, utter waste of resources (which the ruling class then cannot use to fuel their own hedonism). That's not to say that religious people don't have their own excuses for hedonism ("eh, Jesus will forgive me for this," "allah is OK with me taking this women, as I will make them holy again," "meh, i can focus on ascension next time I get reincarnated, as i've already screwed up this life," etc), but nihilism guarantees it (else, suicide).

I think Donnadogsoth is correct in saying Hedonism and not Nihilism, sometimes people are content with just pleasure, pain and following the crowd. Complaining about nihilism or even saying that someone is a nihilist is contradictory, because if they are who's going to care anyway and why should they.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.