God and religion and beliefs

[just me]

It's been my experience that if you can't agree on the key definition in a premise you just and up arguing about to different things. And making false assumptions about what the person was talking about.

You sound experienced. I am not. I simply do not discuss these things readily anywhere but my keyboard and that is limited to here and maybe a there or two.
I have found I could learn more here than a lot of classes could teach with just basic communication. I am not here to argue. Never been in an actual live debate before, either, that I can remember.
I have also learned there is an art to debate unlike I ever thought of. There seem to be many ways of leading, distracting, confusing, belittling, and the sort that have an impact on a debate. To just me, the point of a debate is not to win but to better understand. I dislike hearing who won, but that seems to be the ways of the world nowadays. Ex:
Two men running for public office on TV are having a debate. I do not look for a winner; I rather look at techniques, styles, politeness or dastardliness, concern, truth to the way I understand it to be regarding the issues, and in the end I judge which of the two I would rather sit in a conversation with someone like Putin discussing things for our government.
I allowed a friend to hire a girl many years ago. He chose one. I asked what he based his decision on. His answer? She had a pretty smile. I was the one had to fire her one day.
I have learned another thing here about debate: almost what type responses to expect from different types out there. What seemed to bother me at first I now look forward to, and what seemed to make me grit my teeth I now read with a smile. All these interactions are helping me to learn about people in general, as life has been a teacher of sorts. I see new young folk coming up in my industry and they act specific ways I can spot miles away, as I have seen that many times before only in much more dastardly ways. I shake my head sometimes at other people's actions, as I have bought the t-shirt many miles ago. I am learning about debate now. It is interesting, but(debate is) not for me. I interact for the learning and challenge, but it is more of a personal challenge for me than it is most likely for most out there. I have gotten to where I do enjoy watching a debate when it is about something that doesn't test me.

 

[Satya]

So if God is the universe, why do we need to call it God? It seems redundant.

Because human brains are programmed to think teleologically not causally. We need to find purpose in everything. We need to believe we have a purpose within this universe and to this universe. So this personal relationship we have to the universe in which we seek our purpose is what delineates "God" from just the universe as a whole. It's basically the same meaning but a different connotation.

Plus, "God" usually implies some kind of supernatural power, as well as consciousness. The universe is neither of these...it is not a conscious entity nor does it possess anything but natural powers.

Collective human conscious is the consciousness of God. That is generally where our morals and ethics comes from and what maintains them.

 

[kaworuchaos]

Because human brains are programmed to think teleologically not causally. We need to find purpose in everything. We need to believe we have a purpose within this universe and to this universe.

I think you bring up a good point Satya. The supernatural is where many people look to answer questions that cannot be answered by the mere physical world. It also gives people the closest thing to objectivity that they can get since they are usually appealing to the "ultimate authority".


As for me, I am the sole vote so far for "No God". I think the debate about consciousness is interesting and important but I'm just gonna go with my belief that there is only the natural world and that there is nothing supernatural. If there is something supernatural I think it is unintelligible to us. For these reasons I consider myself both an atheist and agnostic. Just my two cents.

 

[Zero]

Collective human conscious is the consciousness of God. That is generally where our morals and ethics comes from and what maintains them.

What about animals? Why is only human conscious the only means of a consciousness of God? What if there is another alien race aside from humanity, with a higher degree of consciousness than our own? Would they be "closer" to God as a unified consciousness? Are we more "worthy" than animals of such a God consciousness, simply because we're more conscious of it?

Other animals have shown a form of conscious thought, though of course no where near the capacity of a human. My biggest question though is, if consciousness is something supernatural, then why when our brain stops functioning does (our awareness of) consciousness end?

I realize that asking that could open up tons of metaphysical or spiritual questions about "what we perceive". However to say that it is only a collection of human consciousness, and not the rest of the lifeforms in the universe as well, is completely selfish. If that were true, then why should I care if I run over animals with my shiny car, or mutilate them. After all, they're not part of the God consciousness, only we are. What conscious meaning is there in me caring about other lifeforms? Is it my morals? But then, why do we have morals? Some other social animals show a higher degree of ethics than we do(scratch my back, I scratch yours mentality).

I sometimes wonder if maybe animals are more aware of God than we are.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

What about animals? Why is only human conscious the only means of a consciousness of God? What if there is another alien race aside from humanity, with a higher degree of consciousness than our own? Would they be "closer" to God as a unified consciousness? Are we more "worthy" than animals of such a God consciousness, simply because we're more conscious of it?

As long as it is possible that there are beings with a higher degree of consciousness than us, why not postulate that there is a being with utter personal consciousness? Collective consciousness, as Satya describes it is tenuous - how collective is our consciousness? But the more unified a consciousness, the more perfect - so if there were telepathic beings, their consciousness would seem more perfect than ours.

Arguement: if degrees of consciousness are possible, then a single perfect consciousness is at least possible.

 

[Satya]

What about animals? Why is only human conscious the only means of a consciousness of God? What if there is another alien race aside from humanity, with a higher degree of consciousness than our own? Would they be "closer" to God as a unified consciousness? Are we more "worthy" than animals of such a God consciousness, simply because we're more conscious of it?

I gave a simplified answer. I'm sure animals and aliens could probably contribute to the collective consciousness if they aren't already.

Arguement: if degrees of consciousness are possible, then a single perfect consciousness is at least possible.

Perfect perception is not possible in the physical universe. Measurement error and cognitive bias always exist. Even between highly sophisticated computer systems there is communication error. Only mythical, supernatural Gods are described as "perfect" because they are based on abstract ideals and symbols.

 

[just me]

I agree with an explanation.....therefore, to a certain extent.
I believe all things are possible. If I can exist and think with my mind the things I think, there must be immeasureable possibilities. jmo

 

[Zero]

Imagination is the presence of infinity.

 

[Duty]

Because human brains are programmed to think teleologically not causally. We need to find purpose in everything. We need to believe we have a purpose within this universe and to this universe. So this personal relationship we have to the universe in which we seek our purpose is what delineates "God" from just the universe as a whole. It's basically the same meaning but a different connotation.

I'm going to accept, for the moment, that it is true that humans have a psychological condition that impels them to seek purpose.

However, this would be non sequitar if we're trying to describe how the universe actually IS. The truth of the matter is that the only purpose in the world is that which is given by humans. If one is attempting to view the universe through an objective lens, then it seems redundant to equate God with the universe. If you add to the definition of God anything supernatural or conscious, then it seemingly because just completely untrue, and not just redundant/subjective.

Collective human conscious is the consciousness of God. That is generally where our morals and ethics comes from and what maintains them.

I would contend that our morals have a basis in psychology. Once again, the natural world has no ethics or morals, they're human creations. They are rooted in the principled love of mankind by mankind. "To be a man is to learn to hate evil and love that which is just and fair." The roots of ethics are just that: hating the disgusting acts that happen in the world, and loving the good and just acts that happen in the world. One does not need God to do that.

 

[just me]

I would contend that our morals have a basis in psychology. Once again, the natural world has no ethics or morals, they're human creations. They are rooted in the principled love of mankind by mankind. "To be a man is to learn to hate evil and love that which is just and fair." The roots of ethics are just that: hating the disgusting acts that happen in the world, and loving the good and just acts that happen in the world. One does not need God to do that.

Watched a movie where a dog team was abandoned in Antarctica because of weather. The Huskies were a pack and had compassion for each other. They tried to feed each other. They watched over the weak. They survived. They were rescued.
Ethics and morals may be human creations or conceptions. Love is not.
Love exists all around us. Actions caused from love may be called morals or ethics, but maybe they shouldn't be; who am I to say?
As far as needing God goes, there are those that actually do need God to survive, would not have survived without God, and actually view the universe through, and please try to understand the thought, the eyes of God.
I may not need knife to cut a rope, but it does make cutting it a bit easier to some folk, while not to others. Cutting a one inch thick rope can be done quite easily if the knife has been hardened and sharpened and is fit for the job. A butter knife may get the job done, but the sharper the edge the easier the job.
Someone that hasn't sharpened their sword may not see things as easily as one that constantly sharpens his.

 

[Duty]

Ethics and morals may be human creations or conceptions. Love is not.
Love exists all around us. Actions caused from love may be called morals or ethics, but maybe they shouldn't be; who am I to say?

Sure, love is a specific physiological and/or psychological response to stimuli. However, ETHICS is a human concept, and was the topic of debate.

As far as needing God goes, there are those that actually do need God to survive, would not have survived without God, and actually view the universe through, and please try to understand the thought, the eyes of God.

This is blatantly untrue. No one will die because of lack of belief in God.

If you are referring to psychological trauma because of lack of belief, then you are telling me that God is a psychological dependence. Now, out of respect for your beliefs, I'm offering to not continue down that line of thought, because it reduces God to being an addiction or phobia.

I may not need knife to cut a rope, but it does make cutting it a bit easier to some folk, while not to others. Cutting a one inch thick rope can be done quite easily if the knife has been hardened and sharpened and is fit for the job. A butter knife may get the job done, but the sharper the edge the easier the job.
Someone that hasn't sharpened their sword may not see things as easily as one that constantly sharpens his.

What?

 

[Lucifer]

Boy I completely lost track of the debate. Grrrrr.

 

[Lucifer]

The point of philosophy is to debate it. I proposed a definition and if you have a problem with it, then you point out why it is flawed as respective to reality, not as respective as to if it agrees with the dictionary.

My basic problem with your definition is the inclusion of the word will. A gold fish is conscious but does it have a will? I take will to me the desire or ability to control your own destiny. It might be said to be a part of consciousness. But it would probably be wiser for the sake of this argument to only include only definite parts of the definition. Like being aware as being conscious.

At our current technology, no, we can't understand the entire universe. But that doesn't mean we can't understand it at all (which is what you asked, and if that is not what you meant, then perhaps you should rephrase your question).

That is a rather large leap of faith. I find it surprising that you are willing to see so far into the unknown when it comes to a scientific explanation but not a spiritual one. It seems from my perspective that they overlap anyway, the scientific and the religious.

I describe myself as nontheist...but not agnostic or atheist. The reason is that I think the God debate is generally meaningless because the terms commonly used in such discussion, such as, "God," "omnipotence" and the like are so insanely vague that saying, "God exists" or "God does not exist" is a meaningless statement.

Well those statements are logically non ambiguous. Why do you say those statements are vague they don't seem vague to me.

Instead, one must take each definition individually. An explicit definition of these terms must be debated, and then when the conclusion has been run for that set of definitions, attention is turned to another. It is the only way the discussion can be meaningful.

I again fail to understand. Would you please explain why the term god is non explicit?

 

[mayflow]

Boy I completely lost track of the debate. Grrrrr.

When I made the topic, it was meant to just discuss, and I tried to say that, but it turned into a debate anyways, and I lost interest then. But, why are you Wiccan? What do you feel it has currently to offer you or why do you like it and are currently attracted to you? I have no interest in the debate things here, but am just curious.

 

[Lucifer]

When I made the topic, it was menat to just discuss, and I tried to say that, but it turned into a debate anyways,

Awwwe I didn't mean it, I like debating these things.

and I lost interest then. But, why are you Wiccan? What do you feel it has currently to offer you or why do you like it and are currently attracted to you?

IT seems to me that Wicca has a method of accessing your phsycic powers that is most practical. And the Wiccan religion seems to be most in tune with nature.

DAMMIT I CANNOT SPELL!

 

[Duty]

My basic problem with your definition is the inclusion of the word will. A gold fish is conscious but does it have a will? I take will to me the desire or ability to control your own destiny. It might be said to be a part of consciousness. But it would probably be wiser for the sake of this argument to only include only definite parts of the definition. Like being aware as being conscious.

Sure, a goldfish has will because it desires to eat and so tries to do so. It has a will to preserve itself, obtain positive stimuli, and get away from negative stimuli. A rock does not desire anything, it does not have a will, it does not have instinct, it only has physical laws that bound it.

Well those statements are logically non ambiguous. Why do you say those statements are vague they don't seem vague to me.

I again fail to understand. Would you please explain why the term god is non explicit?

Well, go and try to define them. Is omnipotence the power to do ANYTHING, including the logically contradictory? Is omnipotence just the most power you can possibly have? Is omnipotence just the most powerful creature but not the most possible? It has tons of different definitions, each with very significant ramifications.

 

[mayflow]

Awwwe I didn't mean it, I like debating these things.



IT seems to me that Wicca has a method of accessing your psychic powers that is most practical. And the Wiccan religion seems to be most in tune with nature.

DAMMIT I CANNOT SPELL!

I also have probs not so much with my mind being able to spell, but it doesn't always transition to my fingers and the keyboard.

Wicca, as little as I know of it, does seem to be in tune with nature as some Shamanism does. My heart really believes that ALL religions have different aspects of some certain sort of WHOLENESS to all of this and all of us. Like we are all part of the mosaic, you know?

 

[Duty]

Wicca, as little as I know of it, does seem to be in tune with nature as some Shamanism does. My heart really believes that ALL religions have different aspects of some certain sort of WHOLENESS to all of this and all of us. Like we are all part of the mosaic, you know?

Including Satanism?

And I'm not talking the LaVey kind.

 

[slant]

-squeezes post in-

As far as I'm concerned, God is as irrelevant as what sort of apples you like best, or if you like apples at all. It's a mental frame of mind that people take up. If you suddenly notice a heart engraved in the sidewalk and start noticing hearts everywhere, it's because you are purposely noticing the hearts. They do not suddenly manifest because you were thinking about them; they were always there and you never noticed.

If you believe in 'evil', you will most certainly start to see a pattern of things you might consider 'evil'. Does this mean 'evil' exists or that your theory that everything is made up of evil is true? No. It just means you are noticing those events more frequently because you are looking for them, and eventually 'evil' is all you can see. Replace 'evil' with any word God, Love, etc. and you may begin to understand the point I'm trying to make here.

I think that believing in [a] God can be tricky, just as well as exclusively *not* believing in a God is. If you have a strong opinion on either end, it's going to backfire on you at one point or another to prove that the reason you see so many clear demonstrations and indications of 'evil' and how you are on the right 'evil' approving path is because it's the ONLY thing you notice.

 

[Satya]

I'm going to accept, for the moment, that it is true that humans have a psychological condition that impels them to seek purpose.

However, this would be non sequitar if we're trying to describe how the universe actually IS. The truth of the matter is that the only purpose in the world is that which is given by humans. If one is attempting to view the universe through an objective lens, then it seems redundant to equate God with the universe. If you add to the definition of God anything supernatural or conscious, then it seemingly because just completely untrue, and not just redundant/subjective.

A connotation is something that seems irrelevant via an "objective" lens. Hence why autistic people don't grasp the underlying significance of much of what is said in a conversation between two people. You have to remember that humans aren't just a rational component; they are also emotional beings. That is the psychological condition that impels us to seek purpose, and that is why it is not redundant for human beings to equate God to the universe.

I would contend that our morals have a basis in psychology. Once again, the natural world has no ethics or morals, they're human creations. They are rooted in the principled love of mankind by mankind. "To be a man is to learn to hate evil and love that which is just and fair." The roots of ethics are just that: hating the disgusting acts that happen in the world, and loving the good and just acts that happen in the world. One does not need God to do that.

Human beings don't need God to have morals and ethics. Human beings need God in order to have confidence in their morals and ethics. They need an absolute or standard by which to measure their morals and ethics, and that is the purpose God serves. However, once humans equate God to the universe, the standard becomes that which is observable and measurable in nature. Science and philosophy, not intuition and faith, can then be the means by which to obtain moral truths from God.