If God Exists...

[Polymirize]

Oneiron, must you constantly redefine my terms? sigh....



Ok, I'm going to readdress some things. But first, I'd like you to qualify your statement that god, if he existed, would have to exist in an objectively real sense. why?
You seem to think that subjectivity doesn't exist in the world. But I think, and could quite eloquently argue, that subjectivity is the heart of world-formation.
Since this matter cannot be proven, even in your own objective sense, isn't rather fundamentalist to refuse to allow for other possibilities beyond your current scope of thought?

Second, with the physics example, I wasn't attempting to make any claims about the unified force being god. My point is that we can perceive this force as seperate, or as unified. All that really changes is the math. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure a unified theory will do wonders for physics, but we won't abandon our earlier conceptions of it, just as we still use newtonian physics today.

Yes, Einstein was apparently right, or at least, more right than Newton, but we still use Newton's system. Why? Hasn't Einstein rendered it utterly false?

Polymirize Reviewed by Polymirize on 02-22-2007. If God Exists... do you really think he would limit his presence to one single religion? I know there are many Atheists who have no belief at all. Do you really think that because of thier disbelief, that God, if he exist would deny them if thier heart was in the right place? God is many things, imo but above all else he is Love. I realize that the Bible states that none come to the father but by Christ, but couldn't this just mean that if we do as Christ did, and embrace the father as love, that we can Rating: 5

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

I was gonna give poly rep myself, but it was turned off at the time, then when it was turned it back on, I found that I have to spread more rep around before I can give it again, lol!

We should be able to rep who we want when we want to...

i agree, cuz i dont actually care if anyone wants to rep or de rep 500 times in a row...

i mean, say you REALLY REALY loove a post, and want to rep the person approperiately? i mean come on, dont some good posts deserve like 5 rep points? lol or some that deserve 50 dereps? lol

[PatrickHenry]

Ah, the eternal question that nobody really knows the answer to. Focus on what works for you, that's all that matters. It will only be revealed to you upon death.

Live a good life and help others!

[jdmarcus59]

do you really think he would limit his presence to one single religion? I know there are many Atheists who have no belief at all. Do you really think that because of thier disbelief, that God, if he exist would deny them if thier heart was in the right place?

God is many things, imo but above all else he is Love. I realize that the Bible states that none come to the father but by Christ, but couldn't this just mean that if we do as Christ did, and embrace the father as love, that we can come to him in this manner? Isn't this what Jesus did? Surrender to his fathers will? To me God's will is obvious; he wants us to love one another, just as christ loved us, and embrace this unifying spirit.

Just a question to ponder, as I'm getting frustrated with all the exclusion and/or division created in God's name. If he exists, I believe he wants unity, and peace among mankind...


Junk~

jesus said, I,am the way the truth, and the life.
He also said, my sheep hear my voice, and they follow him. He is the good
shepard, His sheep will follow no other vocie.

[Oneironaut]

Oneiron, must you constantly redefine my terms? sigh....



Ok, I'm going to readdress some things. But first, I'd like you to qualify your statement that god, if he existed, would have to exist in an objectively real sense. why?

First of all, define "God". When you use the word God, you are referring to a specific subset of possible entities which presumably excludes watermelons and black holes. What attributes does this subset of possible entities have that watermelons and black holes do not have? When you can define the term "God" for me without evoking some kind of objective attributes, please tell me what that definition is. Without some kind of preliminary definition of "God", all discussion of God's existence is completely meaningless. So far, the only attribute you have given to this God concept is the attribute of subjectivity.

All subjectivity stems from some complex arrangement of objective things. Your thoughts and emotions are neuronal patterns in your brain, which are, in principle, objectively quantifiable, because your brain is a physical object and your subjective consciousness is just a complex emergent phenomenon of the trillions of neurons firing around in your brain in response to trillions of internal and external stimuli. Consciousness is complex, sure, but everything it entails can essentially be boiled down to subatomic particles following the laws of physics.

You seem to think that subjectivity doesn't exist in the world. But I think, and could quite eloquently argue, that subjectivity is the heart of world-formation.
Since this matter cannot be proven, even in your own objective sense, isn't rather fundamentalist to refuse to allow for other possibilities beyond your current scope of thought?

Fundamentalist? Are you sure that's the right word?
Fundamentalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't see what's wrong with only accepting propositions which are logically coherent and evidence-based. Purely subjective entities which have no objective corollaries in the material world and which cannot influence the material world in any directly observable manner (whatever the hell those entities supposedly are...) are indistinguishable from non-existent entities, so I don't see why I should make any kind of distinction between unprovable unmeasurable entities and non-existent entities.

Existent subjective phenomena like love and morality and sadness can be observed by their effects on the real world. We can observe the loving care a mother provides a newborn baby, we can observe that the vast majority of people follow basic moral principles like refraining from murder, and we can see the physiological effects of sadness and hear the first-person testimony of a sad person. We can make logically coherent theories about the sociological, psychological and neurological principles that underly these phenomena. Whatever this "God" thing is you're talking about, it is not anything like the subjective phenomena that actually exist and affect the real world.

I'm not a close-minded individual. I really honestly am not. My belief that God doesn't exist is just as fragile as my belief that unicorns don't exist. Show me enough real evidence that unicorns exist (a living specimen, a corpse or some good fossils) and I will be forced to change my beliefs. Same goes for God, but first you will have to define what kinds of attributes this God entity has so we can determine what kinds of things count as evidence of God's existence.

My inability to cram the idea of God into my head is comparable to my inability to cram the idea of unicorns into my head, but further complicated by the fact that I can't even conceive of a logically coherent entity that would be worthy of the name "God", whereas unicorns are not logically implausible entities and I could easily conceive of what a unicorn might be. Any entity, subjective or not, that has no observable corollary in the material universe is, to me, as unintelligible as the idea of a round cube.

Second, with the physics example, I wasn't attempting to make any claims about the unified force being god. My point is that we can perceive this force as seperate, or as unified. All that really changes is the math. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure a unified theory will do wonders for physics, but we won't abandon our earlier conceptions of it, just as we still use newtonian physics today.

Yes, Einstein was apparently right, or at least, more right than Newton, but we still use Newton's system. Why? Hasn't Einstein rendered it utterly false?

We still use Newton's system because most of the speeds we travel at are way too slow to be affected by Einsteinian relativity. Newton's laws are very simple to use and applicable for pretty much all the speeds we need to worry about here on Earth. Unless you're launching a satellite into space of something, ignoring Einstein's equations isn't going to do much harm. Nobody really cares if they experience a time dilation of a fraction of a nanosecond on their flight to Hong Kong.

[JunkYard]

jesus said, I,am the way the truth, and the life.
He also said, my sheep hear my voice, and they follow him. He is the good
shepard, His sheep will follow no other vocie.

How does one come to embrace, or believe in the Christ man? You do it by embracing his ways, man! Christ was all about the love of father, who is defined as love, and love for mankind...even enemies. None come to the father but by love, bro. This was the message of the Christ.


His sheep are those who live by the law of love,


Junk~

[Pass That Shit]

JY,

Faith comes by hearing the word of God. Hearing his voice is believing in his word. As it is written, man shall not live by bread and water alone but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Just as your body needs a daily feeding, so does your soul. imp:

[JunkYard]

How do you know his voice when you hear it, PTS? Assuming for a minute that he is a personal God, and not an impersonal - personal God, how do you know when he speaks to you? Do you hear his voice, can you identify his sheep?

If you limit yourself to the words in a book, then you have cut off the phone line. But, If you do as the Christ man did, and embrace him (God) as love, then that love will speak to you on a daily basis. "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God"

The Christ man is speaking of Spirit here, not a book, bro. You know that tho, don't you? :rasta:


Junk~

[Polymirize]

That was a very good post Oneironaut, I'm going to attempt to break it up and speak to the main points, and you'll have to let me know if I miss anything.

All bold text my own.

First of all, define "God". When you use the word God, you are referring to a specific subset of possible entities which presumably excludes watermelons and black holes. What attributes does this subset of possible entities have that watermelons and black holes do not have? When you can define the term "God" for me without evoking some kind of objective attributes, please tell me what that definition is. Without some kind of preliminary definition of "God", all discussion of God's existence is completely meaningless. So far, the only attribute you have given to this God concept is the attribute of subjectivity.

I would never be so arrogant to assume to be able to define god (and if you knew me, you'd realise that that's saying something). The nature of god is undefinable. it is all attributes, or more correctly perhaps, no attributes at all. I would suggest that all attributes are subjective aspects of the mind, much like kantian categories, whereas god both within and outside of mind, inherent also within the world.
Realise that this is a two edged sword of course, saying both everything and nothing. The existence of such a god necessitates the falsification of all doctrine. Any definition is right only in part, which is perhaps also to say, not at all.

All subjectivity stems from some complex arrangement of objective things. Your thoughts and emotions are neuronal patterns in your brain, which are, in principle, objectively quantifiable, because your brain is a physical object and your subjective consciousness is just a complex emergent phenomenon of the trillions of neurons firing around in your brain in response to trillions of internal and external stimuli. Consciousness is complex, sure, but everything it entails can essentially be boiled down to subatomic particles following the laws of physics.

But the labels you attach to these objective things of yours are subjective ones?
What does the thought "What does a thought look like?" look like?
Hmmmm, we may have to agree to disagree here. I have seen no evidence, despite the remarkable advances in neurobiology that supports a complete materialist reduction. I think it would be remarkably unscientific to assume as such until the evidence is in. And I suspect it never will be. I have a greatly developed faith in science's ability to describe the evolution of the universe, life, and perhaps even the human mind. But I find it curious that there seem to be corresponding gaps within all these diverse fields that allow for the unseen to slip through the cracks. The origin of the big bang, the first spark of life on earth, and human consciousness.
I wouldn't necessarily argue for a supernatural answer. But the answer exists outside of the current "facts" that create our reality. And I'm open to that, rather than attempting sweep these embaressing unknowns under the rug.
Science can only progess by exploring the unknown, never by hiding from it.

Fundamentalist? Are you sure that's the right word?
Fundamentalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes. Fundamentalism. As I use it, a strict adherence to central doctrine, often to the point of ignoring alternative claims or challenges. I know we're more used to seeing this concept applied to religious groups, but I find it remarkably apt to describe most atheistic and materialistic doctrines as well.

We still use Newton's system because most of the speeds we travel at are way too slow to be affected by Einsteinian relativity. Newton's laws are very simple to use and applicable for pretty much all the speeds we need to worry about here on Earth. Unless you're launching a satellite into space of something, ignoring Einstein's equations isn't going to do much harm. Nobody really cares if they experience a time dilation of a fraction of a nanosecond on their flight to Hong Kong.

Exactly. We can still use newtonian physics because it still does a rather accurate job of modeling our world for us. Relativity does an even better job, at an even larger scale. And currently physics is working to go even beyond Einstein, who's equations have been shown, like Newton's, to not match entirely to reality, despite how well they serve our purposes.
Physics serves to model our universe, but it doesn't describe it. It's another subjective lens that we use to interpret what we observe. Science is a tool for understanding reality, just as ancient cultures used religion. I'll go one futher and say that science is better because it's more adaptive. But these adaptations come from awareness of factors outside of the current scope, rather than simple meditation upon what "already is".

This is my point with physics, science, myth, and religion: it's all a subjective understanding. Your objectivity is subjective. So what are you asking for?

whoa, I think I lost myself somewhere in the middle there. But hopefully I made my point, or several of them, clear...

peace.

[JunkYard]

jesus said, I,am the way the truth, and the life.
He also said, my sheep hear my voice, and they follow him. He is the good
shepard, His sheep will follow no other vocie.

John 13:34-35

34. A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
35. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.


Love is the voice...


Junk~