Religion The God Question (continued in Part 2 - link in last post)

[RobbieGray17]

I'm not doing what you want here mate. You're going to have to tell what is suppose to happen.

You should do it bro.

The idea is, that you've already made up your mind what thumb goes on top. Try the other thumb and its all ****ed up.

 

[Boston tiger]

You should do it bro.

The idea is, that you've already made up your mind what thumb goes on top. Try the other thumb and its all ****** up.

That's great. Would have been awkward if I didn't have thumbs. Never assume anything.

 

[Boston tiger]

not intentional, sorry. the coming 'across as dick' [sic] part that is.

but i just i don't know how to address differently what appears to me to be glaring fundamental problems of logic.

i'm surprised at your reaction. i would think you've had worse treatment in here before. i try to conduct myself in here mostly in a decent manner.

No worries. I'm just here to rabbit on about the God question and give out a few theories on how things might run. Looking forward to reading your posts in the future as they are quite interesting.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

I guess I mean if there is no God ie something beyond this reality... Then the whole business .. The first atom( anything .. the first nothing ) came by sheer luck no order.. but is that possible?
Then we go to the well nothing was created because it was always here model and so that always here model has come from blind arsed luck aswell?

I'm not of course talking about what happened after the Big Bang etc as I just see that as ( fish in a fish tank) we are getting around to explaining what's in the tank and how the tank was made, what rules govern the tank. Alright so now the tank is expanding for eternity...
But a lot more to go before we even touch the big picture.

There you go a bit of philosophy on the fly.

sorry to jump in again but you're hung up on a subject that doesn't fit.
Space and Time are one and the same. Space Time was created WITH the big bang that's where the calendar starts.

To ask what happened before time itself existed is like asking what its like to literally not think.
you're asking for an answer using the concept of time and want to apply it outside the restrictions of time.
It can't be answered with such notions.

It is beyond our comprehension, It is a concept that can not be answered there is no way to observe anything before the big bang, we can produce workable models based on what we know but there's no way to know.

Sadly this is why "gods" haven't yet been eliminated as a possibility for some people, so long as there is an unknown people can cling to their gods.
but slotting in a god to account for it is, well its just a cop out. its the go to deus ex machina answer "oh there was just a god and he did things" it's a poor argument and the lack of input or supporting evidence, would suggest if there was such a being it certainly hasn't interacted with us since.

Now at the risk of delving into the philosophical myself, I find it rather amusing for all the theories on god and god's and higher power's and all that in actual fact it is the classical greek creation myth that most accurately reflects what science understands (speaking purely philosophically)

Science tells us in laymans terms is that the universe was created when the singularity expanded in what we call the big bang.
Now when most people with an understanding of even the basics pictures that singularity as a very,very, very tiny circle that contained everything just packed into to one small point.

and what is the creation story in ancient greek myths?
Chronos and Ananke cracked the world egg and out spewed the Ordered universe.

This is important because Chronos and Ananke are not considered beings merely personifications of concepts.
these concepts are Time (chronos) and Inevitability (ananke)

there was no creator god there was just the egg and it split because it had to, This actually does not conflict with modern science (from a philosophical point of view) and doesn't require a being that doesn't fit with our universe.

which itself is rather poetic when you consider much of our modern civilisation, stems from greek culture rather than the the middle east where the singular creator god notions such as the abrahamic religions stem from.

it is rather ironic that people today reason that it is logical that there was some sort of creator god, when the civilisation most renowned for both reason and logic didn't have one.

 

[Nankervis brothers]

No need to apologise for singling me out, I have no problem with having my ideas and views tested and/or challenged.

I would be happy if people accepted that the bible, the koran and other religious texts be relegated to the fiction section at book shops and at libraries and that people read these texts as such, though I doubt that they would as they are poorly written and pretty poor stories.

I disagree that the texts are dangerous when taken to an extreme. They are dangerous when taken at face value. If all adherents to these faiths, actually followed the texts, the current situation with ISIS/ISIL/IS would look like a picnic.

Well, by taken to an extreme I largely mean when taken literally.

The bolded is interesting. Through the comparison to the extremity of ISIS/ISIL/IS you are essentially saying that most adherents to these faiths do not follow them literally. Therefore there is a more common understanding of religious texts as a truth by way of faith in representation (or fiction, if you like). Fundamentalist religion certainly reads these things literally, as facts, but religion more broadly much less so.

 

[Nankervis brothers]

Had you been human this post might have been of more interest. Had you been human, you would have been aware of the absurdity of attributing 'truth' to ideas, which you admit, are based on fantastic lies. The lies of religion have none of the wit associated with those of art, and none of their 'truth'. You are yet another victim of the 'truth' that we need lies to make our lives bearable, which seems to be the objective of religion.

On the other hand, I disagree with Kynge when he says the religious texts are poor stories. I find them to be rattling yarns, which still inform much of the Western canon. Despite this, their truth is illusory, and they lack the universality and necessity of all moral prescriptions, which is what they attempt to be, and is how they are almost invariably (falsely) interpreted.

You seem to be saying I'm not human. Bizarre. Not human: have you mistaken me for God? I'm flattered, but no thanks.....

As for the rest:

a/ Plato was certainly human, and he certainly attributed 'truth' to ideas. Perhaps you are better taking the above criticism of my post up with his theory of forms.

b/ My post was not concerned with the comparative worth of Religious texts v art and literature. Straw men are good for scaring crows, but useless in the context of debate.

c/ I am not saying we need 'lies' to make life bearable, but simply that we use narratives. The value or otherwise of the narrative is open for debate, but not the need. Not even Nietzsche would disagree with that.

d/ Make up your mind: are these religious texts s**t or are they "rattling yarns". You claim both, outdoing yourself in contradiction through the process.

 

[skilts]

You seem to be saying I'm not human. Bizarre. Not human: have you mistaken me for God? I'm flattered, but no thanks.....

As for the rest:

a/ Plato was certainly human, and he certainly attributed 'truth' to ideas. Perhaps you are better taking the above criticism of my post up with his theory of forms.

b/ My post was not concerned with the comparative worth of Religious texts v art and literature. Straw men are good for scaring crows, but useless in the context of debate.

c/ I am not saying we need 'lies' to make life bearable, but simply that we use narratives. The value or otherwise of the narrative is open for debate, but not the need. Not even Nietzsche would disagree with that.

d/ Make up your mind: are these religious texts s**t or are they "rattling yarns". You claim both, outdoing yourself in contradiction through the process.

You call yourself an atheist, rather than a human. Your nomenclature. If you insist on using one word to describe yourself, a broader application will serve you better. Unless of course, you have such an appalling, one-dimensional opinion of yourself

Plato was hopelessly wrong. It was he who first posited the existence of an other world, that of Forms. The beginnings of christianity and its ludicrous foibles.

My post was concerned with the comparative value of religious texts versus those of arts and literature.

These religious texts are s**t because people take these lies as a moral imperative. The stories themselves are splendidly wrought and devised, for their time.

Nietzsche would tear you a new one. Our tendency to weakly succumb to the need for the comfort of these lies is an admission of our rejection of the 'truth' of our lives.

If truth be known, I quite enjoyed your post. Though, I'm not about to say so (oops). Pedant trees are really difficult to cultivate and maintain.

 

[skilts]

Space and Time are one and the same.

Is time also a physical, palpable extension?

 

[skilts]

Not most things. All things.

You little relativist you. Love it.

 

[Contra Mundum]

Is time also a physical, palpable extension?

What is time - is it not a construct of man?

 

[Contra Mundum]

You call yourself an atheist, rather than a human. Your nomenclature. If you insist on using one word to describe yourself, a broader application will serve you better. Unless of course, you have such an appalling, one-dimensional opinion of yourself

Plato was hopelessly wrong. It was he who first posited the existence of an other world, that of Forms. The beginnings of christianity and its ludicrous foibles.

My post was concerned with the comparative value of religious texts versus those of arts and literature.

These religious texts are s**t because people take these lies as a moral imperative. The stories themselves are splendidly wrought and devised, for their time.

Nietzsche would tear you a new one. Our tendency to weakly succumb to the need for the comfort of these lies is an admission of our rejection of the 'truth' of our lives.

If truth be known, I quite enjoyed your post. Though, I'm not about to say so (oops). Pedant trees are really difficult to cultivate and maintain.

Yep but there are those out there who take Nietzche as a sacred text too - he must be the most misinterpreted philosopher in all of Western philosophy. There is some good stuff in those books (by which I mean the Bible) and some pretty useful myths - they just have to be approached with humility rather than hubris and as basic understanding that you might be wrong about everything

Big fan of the pre-socratics myself

 

[skilts]

What is time - is it not a construct of man?

No argument from me on this.

 

[Contra Mundum]

No argument from me on this.

Does it exist or not - its a tough question really - obviously there is a temporal advance and things age but is that "time" - me brain hurts

 

[skilts]

Yep but there are those out there who take Nietzche as a sacred text too - he must be the most misinterpreted philosopher in all of Western philosophy. There is some good stuff in those books (by which I mean the Bible) and some pretty useful myths - they just have to be approached with humility rather than hubris and as basic understanding that you might be wrong about everything

Big fan of the pre-socratics myself

If anyone treats Nietzsche's works as sacred texts they have completely missed the point. They contain no such comfort, or attempts at accretion of unthinking followers. He correctly predicted the lack of understanding his writings would suffer.

The Pre-Socratics certainly seemed much less-affected by the hubris and fundamental lack of understanding of which you speak. Such a pity so much of their work is now lost.

 

[skilts]

Does it exist or not - its a tough question really - obviously there is a temporal advance and things age but is that "time" - me brain hurts

I'm not at all convinced that, other than as a convenient measuring device, time matters much at all. Thus, my wonder at people's obsession with those increments of 365 days they call anniversaries. Weird. That WW I began 100 years ago, for instance, seems irrelevant to me.

 

[Contra Mundum]

I'm not at all convinced that, other than as a convenient measuring device, time matters much at all. Thus, my wonder at people's obsession with those increments of 365 days they call anniversaries. Weird. That WW I began 100 years ago, for instance, seems irrelevant to me.

Its amazing that when they set up the railways in England they had to standardise time - because each village was on a different time fixed by the town clock - an argument that it does not matter.

 

[Contra Mundum]

If anyone treats Nietzsche's works as sacred texts they have completely missed the point. They contain no such comfort, or attempts at accretion of unthinking followers. He correctly predicted the lack of understanding his writings would suffer.

The Pre-Socratics certainly seemed much less-affected by the hubris and fundamental lack of understanding of which you speak. Such a pity so much of their work is now lost.

I have just read Hitler's philosophers - Fred's publicity whore sister Elisabeth did a lot of damage to him by sucking up to the Nazi enterprise - the conflation of Superman with Masterace is ******* laughable

 

[skilts]

I have just read Hitler's philosophers - Fred's publicity whore sister Elisabeth did a lot of damage to him by sucking up to the Nazi enterprise - the conflation of Superman with Masterace is ******* laughable

She and her lunatic husband have a lot to answer for. All subsequent use of the Superman myth/ideal, by those other than Nietzsche, has done immeasurable violence to his thought.

 

[Frodo27]

How can the question of 'God' be debated without definition?

In reality an abstract is only recognisable by the individual, so this is an impossible debate.

In reality there is spirituality, banished decades ago, and those that experience spirituality then understand and those without experience fail to understand. As such there is no point in debating spirituality. What can be said is those that profess spirituality and 'God" are most likely to have been brainwashed and really need to find their true selves.

 

[Contra Mundum]

How can the question of 'God' be debated without definition?

In reality an abstract is only recognisable by the individual, so this is an impossible debate.

In reality there is spirituality, banished decades ago, and those that experience spirituality then understand and those without experience fail to understand. As such there is no point in debating spirituality. What can be said is those that profess spirituality and 'God" are most likely to have been brainwashed and really need to find their true selves.

What is a "true self"

 

[evo]

What is a "true self"

For that rhetorical question I award you an A in Buddhism and F in existentialism

 

[skilts]

Its amazing that when they set up the railways in England they had to standardise time - because each village was on a different time fixed by the town clock - an argument that it does not matter.

I should have qualified my shallow analysis of 'time' thus: When it involves the moment before reflection, in its most immediate sense. When we are doing our Being, it comes into play, but in such a momentary fashion as to be, generally, ignored by most. What is Called (when we are) Thinking?

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Is time also a physical, palpable extension?

yes it's distortion of physical reality is measurable.

Once again reasoning fails this notion that time is invented by man and is merely a concept fails how do we know it fails?

Do you have a smart phone? turn location services on.
congrats you've just proved that time has a very real bearing on reality.

You see time is relative, time passes for us at a different rate than it does for those satellite's in a geosynchronous orbit that you rely on to tell you where you are the day after a bender without having to wake up the bird you've gone home with, without daily calibrations those satellites end up off track they could crash into each end up running out of fuel and worst of all now you have to stay for breakfast.

all thanks to time. in fact right now this post wouldn't be possible without a proper and very good understanding of time, Computers rely on time to function. your car doesn't run without time. time is real.

As always reasoning is a poor substitute for math and science, anyone can think up all the nice worded, well spoken, poetic s**t they want and if it sounds good people will nod in agreement. But no matter how well you waffle on, reality will not lend you it's ear.

 

[hardon]

yes it's distortion of physical reality is measurable.

Once again reasoning fails this notion that time is invented by man and is merely a concept fails how do we know it fails?

Do you have a smart phone? turn location services on.
congrats you've just proved that time has a very real bearing on reality.

You see time is relative, time passes for us at a different rate than it does for those satellite's in a geosynchronous orbit that you rely on to tell you where you are the day after a bender without having to wake up the bird you've gone home with, without daily calibrations those satellites end up off track they could crash into each end up running out of fuel and worst of all now you have to stay for breakfast.

all thanks to time. in fact right now this post wouldn't be possible without a proper and very good understanding of time, Computers rely on time to function. your car doesn't run without time. time is real.

As always reasoning is a poor substitute for math and science, anyone can think up all the nice worded, well spoken, poetic s**t they want and if it sounds good people will nod in agreement. But no matter how well you waffle on, reality will not lend you it's ear.

[nitpick] i hate to be a pedant, buuuuut, GNSS satellites are not in a geosynchronous orbit. the russian and US satellites orbit the earth twice a day. [/nitpick]

with regards to time, i think about time as just an effect of different relative energy states. it's not really meaningful to say that time passes at a different rate for the satellites. time passes pretty normally for the satellites. they would say time passes a bit funny for us. i think time is kinda like god in that many different people have different concepts of it and what it's implications are. i certainly don't think it can be an actual thing if, like god, it's different for all of us.

i've said it before, but, i can easily imagine that an alien race may have models explaining the workings of the universe that may not involve a variable representing time at all. i'm more about time as just a description of an effect on matter/reality/whatever. perhaps i haven't added anything to the discussion, and it may be a wordy way of saying pretty much what you said anyway?!?

 

[skilts]

yes it's distortion of physical reality is measurable.

Once again reasoning fails this notion that time is invented by man and is merely a concept fails how do we know it fails?

Do you have a smart phone? turn location services on.
congrats you've just proved that time has a very real bearing on reality.

You see time is relative, time passes for us at a different rate than it does for those satellite's in a geosynchronous orbit that you rely on to tell you where you are the day after a bender without having to wake up the bird you've gone home with, without daily calibrations those satellites end up off track they could crash into each end up running out of fuel and worst of all now you have to stay for breakfast.

all thanks to time. in fact right now this post wouldn't be possible without a proper and very good understanding of time, Computers rely on time to function. your car doesn't run without time. time is real.

As always reasoning is a poor substitute for math and science, anyone can think up all the nice worded, well spoken, poetic s**t they want and if it sounds good people will nod in agreement. But no matter how well you waffle on, reality will not lend you it's ear.

Does this mean that time, in itself, has a physical, palpable extension? Or does it mean that it has an effect on physical 'reality'? Other than it being what you say it is, what exactly is this 'reality' of which you write?