- MBTI
- INTJ
Anyway I like this. It fits very well into the battle between good and evil, yin and yang. I really have never heard a better definition.
How do/don't you rationalize God
- Thread starter Lerxst
- Start date
Anyway I like this. It fits very well into the battle between good and evil, yin and yang. I really have never heard a better definition.
- MBTI
- INTP
- Enneagram
- 5
Belief in god cannot be rationalised
In fact, the reason religious people so often get angry when their beliefs are questioned is their brains protecting themselves from rational thought. It activates the fight or flight response making it harder for logic based decisions and easier for emotion based decisions.
Coping strategy. Plain and simple
In fact, the reason religious people so often get angry when their beliefs are questioned is their brains protecting themselves from rational thought. It activates the fight or flight response making it harder for logic based decisions and easier for emotion based decisions.
Coping strategy. Plain and simple
- MBTI
- INTP
- Enneagram
- 5
This "logic" couldn't be more circular
I could rename my elbow "Dave". That doesn't mean my elbow takes on any of the properties of my mate Dave and I certainly couldn't hold my elbow up as proof that I have a mate called Dave.
Spiderman is another name for toothpaste. Toothpaste exists therefore spiderman exists. See, it works with anything
God is not another name for energy. You just made that up.
cvp12gh5
What a lovely way to burn...
- MBTI
- Intui
- Enneagram
- Thinking
That's just silly. There's no connection between spiderman and toothpaste. Other than the fact that they were both made with energy...
When one mentions GOD the most common thought that runs through a persons mind is that He (meaning that people see him as a male individual) is our "Creator." God is (supposedly) responsible for creating EVERYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE, right? Hmm..I'm not so sure. Let me use some energy to create a thought to think about that for a minute.
Yeaaa...no. No, it doesn't make sense at all. But what does indeed make sense is that ENERGY is responsible for making everything in the Universe.
Without it, everything single thing we know would cease to exist. Call it what you want but at the end of the day, the math tells me I'm correct. "God"(quite literally) is just another word for energy.
And what about the people who don't believe in God? Whether you do or not, not one person can deny that a constant transfer of energy is what created our Universe and everything in it.
Energy is neither created nor destroyed. It's constant and transferable from one form to another. Constant. It is written in the bible that 'God never changes; he is constant.' See the connection?
And the Bible! Examples on how we should use our energy wisely! The energy you put out is the energy you get back. Why do you think the world is in a constant battle to find balance? Too much or too little of anything (energy) is not good for you.
God is in everything. ENERGY IS IN EVERYTHING.
Energy is our Creator. GOD is a synonym for ENERGY.
Last edited:
- MBTI
- INTP
- Enneagram
- 5
Erm.... No actually it isn't.
Circular logic proves precisely nothing.
You cant prove that god created anything at all so how is the fact that things exist proof that god created them?
I refer you back to my elbow named Dave.
- MBTI
- INTP
- Enneagram
- 5
Spiderman wears red and blue. My toothpaste is red and blue. See the connection?
No of course you don't because there isn't a relevant connection.
Just like your so called connection, it simply uses the same word. Doesn't mean a thing
No of course you don't because there isn't a relevant connection.
Just like your so called connection, it simply uses the same word. Doesn't mean a thing
just me
Well-known member
- MBTI
- infj
You are wrong.
- MBTI
- INTJ
Who is you?
- MBTI
- INTJ
Are you Sam I am?
Artisan
Dares, Dreams, Does
- MBTI
- INFJ-A
- Enneagram
- 1w2
I see with my own eyes and therefore have a personaly verified truth about what is and what is not part of my current reality.
That said, considering the majority of the modern day religions with a single god, are relatively new to humanity, there is little reason to believe that these are more accurate than the gods of the past. Even though I do enjoy and find comfort in some modern text such as the psalms. 144:1, 23:4. Though ultimately, I will know the situation with certainty when I come to pass. Untill then I am not part of any religion, I just do what I believe is the right thing to do. If a benevolent god exists, then such a god would not condemn me for that. And if there is none, than neither will I have wasted my time pretending that I believed one religion to be more true than an other. ;p
That said, considering the majority of the modern day religions with a single god, are relatively new to humanity, there is little reason to believe that these are more accurate than the gods of the past. Even though I do enjoy and find comfort in some modern text such as the psalms. 144:1, 23:4. Though ultimately, I will know the situation with certainty when I come to pass. Untill then I am not part of any religion, I just do what I believe is the right thing to do. If a benevolent god exists, then such a god would not condemn me for that. And if there is none, than neither will I have wasted my time pretending that I believed one religion to be more true than an other. ;p
cvp12gh5
What a lovely way to burn...
- MBTI
- Intui
- Enneagram
- Thinking
You're right. I can't prove that god created anything BECAUSE HE DIDN'T. ENERGY DID. And I believe there is evidence to back it up.
The idea of God was created by people who were trying to make sense of Our Universe (of Life). Their search for meaning led them to their belief in a higher power. It's comforting to think that we were intentionally created out of love by something or someone bigger than us. Our lives are meaningful when you see it that way. We must have a purpose. So they gave this 'creator' an identity and then began to worship it: GOD. But at the end of the day, it's good ole' energy.
As for your concerns...doesn't every fact (in a roundabout way) begin with circular logic? This is what our minds do. They take in tons information and to make sense of it they begin to make these connections that help us grasp the 'truth' of a situation.
We can test these conclusions to see if they hold any weight but even we observe the outcome (and want to call the result fact) how can we be sure we aren't working with false positive results?
A fact is suppose to be something indisputable; a reality. But what is reality? It most certainly is perceived differently by every individual. So while a fact can seem solid, there will always be several different interpretations that come with it. That would make 'reality' disputable. And since 'reality' is the literal definition of a 'fact', then that would make a fact disputable, no? Imo, it's a flawed definition.
At the end of the day, we work with what we have. I'm not trying to prove or convince you of anything. I'm just sharing my connections.
Oh, and Hello, Dave.
Last edited:
cvp12gh5
What a lovely way to burn...
- MBTI
- Intui
- Enneagram
- Thinking
Ted? Is that you?
- MBTI
- INTP
- Enneagram
- 5
Saying energy created energy isn't saying anything at all. Stuff created stuff. Well yes obviously. Everything is energy so however it happened, energy was involved. This proves nothing in regards to god. God is not another word for energy. It is the name of a coping strategy. Energy is measurable. God is not.
You make some good points but fail when you try to force god into this concept.
In regards to what you said about circular logic, I don't agree. Some things have been tested and verified ti such an extent that it is highly likely (not guaranteed) that they are correct. These things we call "facts". This does not justify youre attempt to claim that even the clumsiest of circular logic carries the same weight. It doesnt
You make some good points but fail when you try to force god into this concept.
In regards to what you said about circular logic, I don't agree. Some things have been tested and verified ti such an extent that it is highly likely (not guaranteed) that they are correct. These things we call "facts". This does not justify youre attempt to claim that even the clumsiest of circular logic carries the same weight. It doesnt
cvp12gh5
What a lovely way to burn...
- MBTI
- Intui
- Enneagram
- Thinking
God is not part of my concept. I'm simply explaining how people misinterpret energy.
- MBTI
- INTP
- Enneagram
- 5
Ahem....
Well there are 2 things one can do with folk intuitions:
a) Try to use pseudoscience to defend them
b) Try to see what someone's folk intuition *could* correspond to
I think given ABH's clarification, she's probably doing b) rather than a), even if originally it may have seemed a).
Just a bystander's attempt at clarification.
As to my personal view, the gist is that there are 2 categories of God-belief:
1) Totally unsophisticated fairy tales
2) Based on genuinely baffling philosophical questions -- attempts at explanation which ultimately won't IMHO be resolved rationally anyway, as all attempts appear to lead to paradoxes.
I think 2) are interesting, but ultimately I find the leap from wrestling with 2) to subscribing to e.g. "hey so and so worked miracles => proof that they resolve the unintelligible" leads you back to 1) rapidly.
Most attempts at reasoning in territory 2) are woolly as hell, but still, one can arrive at interesting intuitions. My problem is ultimately that they're like woolly versions of mathematical existence claims that are non-constructive: that is, they show (through much less logically secure means) the "existence" of something, and then leap to saying we can have contact with that something in so and so ways -- it's a large leap from positing the existence of a transcendent being to showing how precisely your OBSERVABLE, PHYSICAL ACTIONS can actually relate to that being.
I guess people like Jung were very interested in this stuff, and thus took on the task of creating a theory of mind whereby contact with the transcendent is feasible -- this was the idea of transcending the ego, through means such as the transcendent function and so on (bridging the conscious and unconscious).
One can understand why this would be posited, because even some of the most serious scientists seem to believe the conscious-unconscious divide is something of a something-from-nothing like divide, in that a full rationally satisfying resolution appears to be potentially impossible, and naturally any version of creating something from nothing is the perfect territory to posit a God for those so inclined.
The trouble is, while it's attractive to say "all we have to do is transcend that divide," ultimately what one is doing is mysticism, and is woolly territory, which is why the game ends in authority and very little testability independent of authority.
As one can tell, my approach is to try not to be dismissive, but there's very little I can say which makes me feel this stuff isn't highly problematic.
a) Try to use pseudoscience to defend them
b) Try to see what someone's folk intuition *could* correspond to
I think given ABH's clarification, she's probably doing b) rather than a), even if originally it may have seemed a).
Just a bystander's attempt at clarification.
As to my personal view, the gist is that there are 2 categories of God-belief:
1) Totally unsophisticated fairy tales
2) Based on genuinely baffling philosophical questions -- attempts at explanation which ultimately won't IMHO be resolved rationally anyway, as all attempts appear to lead to paradoxes.
I think 2) are interesting, but ultimately I find the leap from wrestling with 2) to subscribing to e.g. "hey so and so worked miracles => proof that they resolve the unintelligible" leads you back to 1) rapidly.
Most attempts at reasoning in territory 2) are woolly as hell, but still, one can arrive at interesting intuitions. My problem is ultimately that they're like woolly versions of mathematical existence claims that are non-constructive: that is, they show (through much less logically secure means) the "existence" of something, and then leap to saying we can have contact with that something in so and so ways -- it's a large leap from positing the existence of a transcendent being to showing how precisely your OBSERVABLE, PHYSICAL ACTIONS can actually relate to that being.
I guess people like Jung were very interested in this stuff, and thus took on the task of creating a theory of mind whereby contact with the transcendent is feasible -- this was the idea of transcending the ego, through means such as the transcendent function and so on (bridging the conscious and unconscious).
One can understand why this would be posited, because even some of the most serious scientists seem to believe the conscious-unconscious divide is something of a something-from-nothing like divide, in that a full rationally satisfying resolution appears to be potentially impossible, and naturally any version of creating something from nothing is the perfect territory to posit a God for those so inclined.
The trouble is, while it's attractive to say "all we have to do is transcend that divide," ultimately what one is doing is mysticism, and is woolly territory, which is why the game ends in authority and very little testability independent of authority.
As one can tell, my approach is to try not to be dismissive, but there's very little I can say which makes me feel this stuff isn't highly problematic.
Last edited:
Hoodie
Community Member
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- Err
I always find these odd topics because everyone's always trying to prove things to one another, when it's pretty damn obvious that no one's going to be convinced on either front. I believe in a creator, but that doesn't mean you have to. You may believe that it's impossible for there to be a creator, but I don't have to believe that either. So what if my beliefs are fantasy? So what if they're not? It shouldn't matter to anyone what I believe if it's not what they believe.
I'm not a fan of how an awful lot of "non-believer's" (for lack of a better term) seem to look down their noses at religious people as though they're less intelligent (and I'm not saying that religious people haven't been known to do the same, but I'm addressing the other common issue in my opinion). People like to say that religion is not logical, and they're right in a sense, it's kind of "out there". But here's how I like to put it: "non-believer's" use a kind of logic, and thinking, that's more... concrete. They base their beliefs on what they can tangibly see, feel, etc. "Believer's" on the other hand, have a more abstract logic, that is very hard to explain to other people because a lot of the "evidence" is based on personal experiences. Just like it's hard to convince someone who's never seen a ghost, that ghosts are real.
I think that's all I have to say for now.
I'm not a fan of how an awful lot of "non-believer's" (for lack of a better term) seem to look down their noses at religious people as though they're less intelligent (and I'm not saying that religious people haven't been known to do the same, but I'm addressing the other common issue in my opinion). People like to say that religion is not logical, and they're right in a sense, it's kind of "out there". But here's how I like to put it: "non-believer's" use a kind of logic, and thinking, that's more... concrete. They base their beliefs on what they can tangibly see, feel, etc. "Believer's" on the other hand, have a more abstract logic, that is very hard to explain to other people because a lot of the "evidence" is based on personal experiences. Just like it's hard to convince someone who's never seen a ghost, that ghosts are real.
I think that's all I have to say for now.