Are all discussions of God speculative nonsense?

reply to post by dbates


My own reality-seeking is done similar to how you play chess (without the winning-aspect though). I try to operate from a variety of optional scenarios.


A/ On the observable order of cosmos:

1/ It's an orderly inter-action between differently charged polarities ('dualism'). These polarities will attract each other and grow into increasing complexity. But the polarities are basically somewhat asymmetric, otherwise entropy would go much faster.

Complexity will eventually reach a level of some self-organization, which can reverse cosmic laws/natural phenomena to some extent. This is 'individuality' with 'free will'.

As part of the 'dualism' there are different levels of energy, being part of cosmic dynamics.

2/ Strict empiricism is not a requested part of science/objective procedure. Abstractions and even irrational/imaginary elements have been axiomatically demonstrated to be valid, e.g. in mathematics. But it's important to remember, that this doesn't open for all irrational/imaginary elements to be valid. Assumptions are not axioms.



B/ On the non-observable options (chaos, non-order, total entropy, beyond-event-horizon, the void etc):

1/ The non-observable can be static ultimate reality. But then it wouldn't give rise to anything dynamically.

2/ The non-observable could be dynamic ultimate reality (like e.g. in some versions of the 'awareness/consciousness' model: "It's all in the mind" thingy). A dynamic ultimate reality would have intent; such intent being either purposely directed towards an aim or just for experiental/experimental reasons.

It could be objected, that a dynamic ultimate WOULDN'T be ultimate. Personally I can grasp the concept of "everything changes" as an optional ultimate. Though it's tempting to believe in the ultimative being static, nothing actually says, that ultimate reality must be static.

3/ The non-observable could be a part of a self-contained cosmos (cosmos being the ultimate reality), which just isn't observable presently.



C/ The border-area between A and B.

1/ The most significant example is the double-slit experiment, where the consequence is (if we can trust the experiment), that the observed and tested cosmic laws of space/time can be transcended. A dynamic process (information) takes place 'outside' the known order of cosmos. So whatever this unknown existence level turns out to be, it exists and is dynamic.

2/ Zero-point physics, M-brane and string theory hypothize in a virtual reality, beyond the known and observable cosmos.

3/ Heisenberg's 'uncertainty' principle (beloved amongst cottage-industry religionists and new-agers) is on the other hand not the philosophers' stone. Not as an abstraction, but as a logical 50/50 chance it could be either total chaos (non-order) or it could be infinite complexity, LOOKING like chaos. It's value is undecided in a metaphysical context, and often overrated.

3/ The asymmetry of cosmos is actually the best argument in a 'design' reasoning. Though it can't be taken as a 'proof' of anything except and unknown existence-level also being dynamic.



D/ The pragmatic approach.

1/ We have a demonstrated (and somewhat apart from that hypothized) unknown existence-level, where the usual cosmic laws are void (faster-than-light manifestation).

2/ Observation of this unknown existence-level requires new measure-tapes.

3/ The possibility of self-organizing complexity to reverse cosmic laws COULD lead to transcendence of the dualistic dynamics of cosmic laws, and this enahnced human perception could be the new measure-tape.

And that is exactly what the transcendental branch of metaphysics does (though I must emphasize, that while many claim to be transcendentalists, not everybody are).



To put it in another way: It's a question of what enhanced perception-potential mankind has. Which leads us back to the 'awareness' model of the non-observable. IF 'awareness' is the correct model, it would contain the potential of experiencing 'awareness' per se ('outside' dualistic cosmic dynamics). Such a claim would be worthless, if there didn't exist substantial claims of such transcendent experiences.

And here is where the difference from parallel theist claims manifests. The transcendent experience is rather uniform and independent of culture and period; whereas the theist experiences are rather un-uniform, and clearly show signs of the subjective impact from local culture and religious doctrines.

BUT, this doesn't mean, that conclusions can be made. My suggestion is one small step at a time, and no predetermined answers. A first step would be a comparative analysis with the standard procedures from the 'soft' social sciences; simply to establish if transcendence as a category has sufficient uniformity to deserve a closer examination.

And, I'm sorry to say, theists: This is nothing you can try to hang your hat on, as when theism has grown up around transcendent individuals and turned them into founders of religion. Even as a 'mystic'/metaphysicist I consider theist speculations as futile.

Finally: If the whole thing turns out to be a state-of-mind instead of an external 'reality', it won't disturb me greatly. The idea is to find 'truth'.

Originally posted by bestintentions
Why do you even need to ask. You are the greatest, as you know, do you really think anybody knows more about God than you ? Don’t you know that we are all the same and some pretend to be more cloaking themselves to impress ?

Being a Gnostic Christian, my closest label, and believing that we are all God WIPs, I want to thank you for speaking of things you know nothing about based solely on a name.
That tells me all I need to know about you.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by PheonixOD
This video is one of the best i have ever seen on the subject. It starts off with a lot of talk about christianity and then goes on to some very in depth concepts about god. I found all the arguments and concepts put forward in this video very respectful and well thought out.

edit on 20-6-2011 by PheonixOD because: (no reason given)

Thanks for this. Long but good.

I did a quick scan and will get back to it.

For now, I paraphrase your clip with this.

www.youtube.com...

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Slawth
Yes.


No one can honestly claim to know the will of a god and if they do.. well that's hubris at it's finest.

Ah. A clear, honest and true answer.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
So wait, I can envision a God that can call the known universe into existence out of nothing and create the operating laws of nature and Physics in the blink of an eye but cannot envision a way for this God to reveal Himself or get a message system to us?

Gotcha.

edit on 21-6-2011 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

All you have for God is hear say and Bible say unless you have had direct contact.
Which have you. Hear say or contact?

Regards
DL

Originally posted by dbates

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Are all discussions of God speculative nonsense?

That depends on your view of the universe. If you believe that we're all here as a cosmic coincidence then it's nonsense. If you believe that the universe and man's existence has a purpose then no, not nonsense. The discussion of God comes into play anytime you choose to consider the Meaning of Life.

Where Do We Come From?

What Are We?

Where Are We Going?

If we were a gleam in God's eye when he created the universe, then you would think bible God would quite killing us and threatening to destroy the earth.
Perhaps his planning department need an overhaul.

God's morals sure do.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

These discussions are not "speculative" nonsense, these discussions are the sharing of ideas and opinions, and for that reason alone they are important.

To form a positive claim without sufficient evidence or reasoned logic would be speculative.

Are you suggesting that in discussion of God, someone we think we know without sufficient evidence or reasoned logic, can be anything but speculation?
If non-speculative, that would make the conclusion fact.
What fact can we possibly know of an un-knowable fact. Even that un-knowable quality is speculation for God's sake.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by LHP666

Originally posted by Greatest I am

Are we all just spinning our wheels in discussions.

Regards
DL

In my opinion, no.

Sometimes there are things that make others question their beliefs, especially if both people are honest. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen. That questioning is the first step in reclaiming ones freedom from the religions that stole it from them,

I agree that it is our duty to our society to try to get those who are not thinking to think and not just follow blind faith.

Regards
DL
It's amusing at times to play with the fundies. I just wish it was more challenging. They don't like opposition. They usually take it personally.

Finally, it's a fun way to kill time.

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by dbates

 

How do we reach the point of picking a path to follow? Can we ever know or be sure of any of the answers to the great questions?

I would say you go with what you feel is correct in your heart. Everyone knows what is right and what isn't. We all know how we should treat others, but various emotions/feelings/experiences get in the way of the correct action. Your bias towards things grows as you age due to your experiences.

Everyone without exception has a conscience, its wether they chose to follow it or not... that determines your path

Are these children determining their path or is this indoctrination at work on young minds?

.
African witches and Jesus
www.youtube.com...

Jesus Camp 1of 9
www.youtube.com...

Regards
DL

reply to post by bogomil

The idea is to find 'truth'

So what do we have that is truth?

Are you happy saying "there might be a God, i don't know" Or do you just prefer to avoid such conversations because they eventually lead to religious dogma and assumptions... and of course the usual talk of absolutes and definitives, which most know there are very few.... if any.

Personally i like to look for answers, and most of them come from a time where everyone believed in a God. I think many people were more "spiritually in tune" back then... a lot less distractions ye know?

Can we really say that the texts we've translated from long ago are all nonsence? Even many new age "masters" tend to fall in line with what is written about long ago.

How is it that theres so many religious texts from across the world that all have one message in common?

Originally posted by Greatest I am

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by dbates

 

How do we reach the point of picking a path to follow? Can we ever know or be sure of any of the answers to the great questions?

I would say you go with what you feel is correct in your heart. Everyone knows what is right and what isn't. We all know how we should treat others, but various emotions/feelings/experiences get in the way of the correct action. Your bias towards things grows as you age due to your experiences.

Everyone without exception has a conscience, its wether they chose to follow it or not... that determines your path

Are these children determining their path or is this indoctrination at work on young minds?

.
African witches and Jesus
www.youtube.com...

Jesus Camp 1of 9
www.youtube.com...

Regards
DL

what exactly does that have to do with anything...

Does that look like a "correct path" to you?

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by Greatest I am

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by dbates

 

How do we reach the point of picking a path to follow? Can we ever know or be sure of any of the answers to the great questions?

I would say you go with what you feel is correct in your heart. Everyone knows what is right and what isn't. We all know how we should treat others, but various emotions/feelings/experiences get in the way of the correct action. Your bias towards things grows as you age due to your experiences.

Everyone without exception has a conscience, its wether they chose to follow it or not... that determines your path

Are these children determining their path or is this indoctrination at work on young minds?

.
African witches and Jesus
www.youtube.com...

Jesus Camp 1of 9
www.youtube.com...

Regards
DL

what exactly does that have to do with anything...

Does that look like a "correct path" to you?

Do try to think.

Does what I put up not refute "I would say you go with what you feel is correct in your heart. Everyone knows what is right and what isn't."

Regards
DL

reply to post by Greatest I am


Good idea, try to think about what i said...

Everyone knows whats morally right, Not everyone follows whats morally right.

Greed, hatred, anger, jealousy... things like that get in the way.

Im sure if you try to "think" as you said... You can figure out the motivations of the people in those videos.

Btw try not to talk down to me, alright. I know its hard in these debates but have some respect for others.

Geez...

Originally posted by Akragon
Everyone knows whats morally right, Not everyone follows whats morally right.

That's one of the reasons I'm all for open discussions of God and religion in general. Morally right can be speculative and relative to differing conditions. I think there needs to be an absolute moral standard to help people navigate. Every direction people take is relative to something. Left, right, up, down. So we would ask "left of what?" or "west of which location?". Now you're back to discussing morality and it's base cause I think.

Originally posted by dbates

Originally posted by Akragon
Everyone knows whats morally right, Not everyone follows whats morally right.

That's one of the reasons I'm all for open discussions of God and religion in general. Morally right can be speculative and relative to differing conditions. I think there needs to be an absolute moral standard to help people navigate. Every direction people take is relative to something. Left, right, up, down. So we would ask "left of what?" or "west of which location?". Now you're back to discussing morality and it's base cause I think.

Well this discussion is about the title, "Are all discussions of God speculative nonsense?"

Buddy threw up those videos along with this question... "Are these children determining their path or is this indoctrination at work on young minds?"

Which has nothing to do with this discussion. Two seconds into both videos i knew exactly what they were about. And they have nothing to do with Jesus or what he taught. Lack of understanding of the words of christ creates garbage like what you'll see in those videos. Theres nothing moral about it, and the children are not to blame, but the ones who taught those children are. They are innocent nieve minds, and of course they will grow up to either resent the "so called" teachings... Or even worse perpetuate them in their future.

Morality is something you feel is correct inside, not something you're taught. Though sometimes the things you're taught in your life can alter your perception of what is morally correct. But again this is a different discussion.

reply to post by Akragon


You wrote:

["So what do we have that is truth?"]

Rather than answering with (more) specific examples of 'truths' than those in my former post, I'll look at it from an epistemological perspective. I am in western terms a kind of philosophical scepticist, but with the difference, that there are 'local truths' associated with specific positions in existence.

Gravity is such a 'truth' in cosmos (if there is a trans-cosmos, it's probably not including gravity) and in cosmos gravity undisputed functions 99,9999999999...% of the time (the missing part relating to alleged examples of hearsay anti-gravity).

Basically I regard 'truth' from Jain philosophy, ranging situations from containing only truth or only falseness. But usually with a mix somewhere between.

Quote: ["Are you happy saying "there might be a God, i don't know" Or do you just prefer to avoid such conversations because they eventually lead to religious dogma and assumptions... and of course the usual talk of absolutes and definitives, which most know there are very few.... if any."]

In contact with the more insistent, but un-informed claims of theism, where absolutes manifest like a rain of frogs, some of these 'absolutes' can be disacarded right away. For the rest an 'agnostic position' will do.

With informed theists etc. I have no problems about communication on the subject 'god'.

Quote: ["Personally i like to look for answers, and most of them come from a time where everyone believed in a God. I think many people were more "spiritually in tune" back then... a lot less distractions ye know?"]

Just as the active theist will 'see' 'proofs', signs and wonders everywhere, the active non-theist will filter away possible indications pointing towards anomalies or trans-cosmic existence.

Quote: ["Can we really say that the texts we've translated from long ago are all nonsence?"]

Depends. Some religions etc have a special corner, where existential and philosophical questions are considered. Some of them can be pretty good, as the abovementioned Jain on 'truth' and the buddhistic on cosmology.

The specific characters, and associated rituals etc, of 'gods' are imo nonsense.

Quote: ["Even many new age "masters" tend to fall in line with what is written about long ago."]

My opinion of new-age masters is unprintable.

Quote: ["How is it that theres so many religious texts from across the world that all have one message in common?"]

They don't; that's one of my main-points. Ofcourse except for platitudes, which would turn up in any context.

Or, as in the case of utilitarian morality, is a well-considered system, which in reality functionally surpasses most religious morality-systems (even buddhism has had its dark moments).

I have had all kinds of problems with translating Genesis, where you have a word that comes up in a sentence that, their eyes were opened and saw that they were eyrrmm (a transliteration of the Hebrew "consonants"). Hmm, what does that mean? Can't tell, really, since it is only found in this one story, they discover they are eyrmm, they hide because they are eyrmm, and the Lord asks who told them they were eyrmm. Well they made xgrt out of fig leaves because they were eyrmm, so what they made must have been some type of clothing, because what else would you make from fig leaves, right? So since they made clothes because the were eyrmm, that would mean, naked, right?
I think a text like this would be meaningless unless there was an oral tradition that went along with it and it was maintained in an unbroken manner. I don't see that as happening or there being any sort of evidence to support that.
Anyway, how I would translate it would be; Adam and Eve walked about the Garden in a carefree manner, totally without fear. (Later) They suddenly saw danger about them and created guards to protect themselves from potential hazards that they were now afraid of.
You may object, saying, But Adam answered the Lord by saying, We were eyrmm and afraid, so wouldn't your translation be redundant? My answer would be, Yes, but that is the convention of Hebrew text.
Edit for correction: That spelling I cited is actually found in the Bible once, I went back and checked. That one instance, where they had this discovery, would mean something like; they were both of them (as a group or pair) of that particular state, or quality.

reply to post by bogomil

Quote: ["How is it that theres so many religious texts from across the world that all have one message in common?"]

They don't; that's one of my main-points. Ofcourse except for platitudes, which would turn up in any context.

Im afraid you're very wrong... almost every ancient text about religious dogma has a similarity... and that is of course....Love

Im not going to quote the bible for an example, its there trust me...

The bhagavad Gita's three major themes are knowledge, action, and love.

Islam, has many examples of love for your fellow human beings...

Its obvious in Buddism, i'll assume you know this...

Shintoism details respect and love for nature, and of course we are a part of nature....

Its impossible to deny this FACT... all religious texts have one main theme in common. Though its not something thats widely practiced, its a theme thats echoed through the ages.

Hate to say it brother, but you're wrong.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
I have had all kinds of problems with translating Genesis, where you have a word that comes up in a sentence that, their eyes were opened and saw that they were eyrrmm (a transliteration of the Hebrew "consonants"). Hmm, what does that mean? Can't tell, really, since it is only found in this one story, they discover they are eyrmm, they hide because they are eyrmm, and the Lord asks who told them they were eyrmm. Well they made xgrt out of fig leaves because they were eyrmm, so what they made must have been some type of clothing, because what else would you make from fig leaves, right? So since they made clothes because the were eyrmm, that would mean, naked, right?
I think a text like this would be meaningless unless there was an oral tradition that went along with it and it was maintained in an unbroken manner. I don't see that as happening or there being any sort of evidence to support that.
Anyway, how I would translate it would be; Adam and Eve walked about the Garden in a carefree manner, totally without fear. (Later) They suddenly saw danger about them and created guards to protect themselves from potential hazards that they were now afraid of.
You may object, saying, But Adam answered the Lord by saying, We were eyrmm and afraid, so wouldn't your translation be redundant? My answer would be, Yes, but that is the convention of Hebrew text.
Edit for correction: That spelling I cited is actually found in the Bible once, I went back and checked. That one instance, where they had this discovery, would mean something like; they were both of them (as a group or pair) of that particular state, or quality.

edit on 30-6-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

The meaning is hidden in the Stone which the builders of the kingdom rejected, which is the Apocryphon of John: the direct Word of the True Light of Life, which he revealed to John after the resurrection. In rejecting his Word, which reveals the knowledge of all that is, they reject the Rock of Salvation; fumbling around in darkness.

They that fumble around the darkness that is the world, which includes the cosmos and all, never find the true meaning of life, neither do they understand what they are experiencing; they impress the impressionable with big words, which only reveal their true ignorance: the matters of life are simple enough for a child to understand, and can be perceived better from a child's perspective.

Find the Apocryphon of John: or better yet, go to the thread, "Revelations: The Secret of life, as revealed to John by the Only-begotten Light of the Father." It is unveiled to be understood by he that seeks.

Peace be with you JM!!!

I was reading the thread suggested in the post directly above, and was following along some texts brought up in it, in the Hebrew. Well, here I found an interesting word, eyr (a transliteration). Hmm, looks a lot like what I was talking about earlier, and this one, eyr, means, "of terror". So my above translation (I should mention that in my post above, I did not correct my post but only mentioned an inaccuracy within it. What that inaccuracy was, I should have written eyrmm once, and twice written, eyrm) could read; We were afraid with terror.