God is not a solution, but a problem

@dpmartin,

dpmartin wrote:

The experience of gravity would be the observed manifestation of fact, would you agree?

Epistemologically speaking, I would not agree. The fact is what we conclude lies behind the observed instances. But that's all a fact is, in the end -- it's a cognitive conclusion.

Quote:

The Fact: illustration, (illumination), of forms that are.

Plato might agree with this. But I don't see much basis for metaphysical ideals (or metaphysics period). The "forms that are" are a presumption, not a truth.

Quote:

Would not man need be conscious of the Fact in order to have the Perfect View?

Is there such a thing as a fact outside human cognition? Is there such a thing as perfect view outside our idealism and imagination?

Quote:

If man is self-conscious only surely his view can not be perfect.

It's not perfect, I agree. But that doesn't mean that there IS a "perfect view" out there, whether or not we idealize it.

Quote:

And since there is power man does not have, and can not have, then it must be Fact.

I don't follow this logic, or this "necessity", nor do I accept the whole notion of a Fact to begin with. We can't flap our arms and fly, but that doesn't make birds God. We're finite creatures. So what?

Quote:

If man complies with, or performs the bidding of the Fact, then the result will be reality. but if man does not comply with, or perform the bidding of the Fact, the conceived result does not exist.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. We are beholden to the physical and biological properties held by all our constituent parts. So sure, I cannot "disobey" by commanding my cells to produce chocolate or commanding my eyes to see through walls. But along your lines, God is one example of where a "conceived result" might not exist by being a creation of the human imagination.

Quote:

Is not awareness of Fact the capacity of judging rightly in matters relating to life and conduct; soundness of judgement in the choice of means and ends?

What "Fact" are you talking about in particular?

Quote:

All flesh lives in fear, and trembles at the Fact, and remains the power of manifestation of the visage of the Most High.

What's your basis for saying this? I'm made of flesh just as you are -- and yet I seem to be able to reject 1) a fact, 2) a "Most High", and 3) a visage of #2. And I don't live in fear -- and I'm glad I don't. I'd hate to spend my life fear of a metaphysical concept.

Quote:

Then it would be a fool who imposes his will(self-conscious view) before the Fact, when it is the Fact the Perfect View given that should be sufficient.

To paraphrase a lawyer's objection: "Assumes facts not in evidence". You've got preconceptions here that I don't share. How do we reconcile this?

Quote:

added note here: If there exist forgiveness in man, then would it not be true that forgiveness is of Fact?

Forgiveness is of an offense. An offense is perceived, and forgiveness is a reciprocal gesture of rapprochment.

Quote:

Not to be presumptuous just for my understanding, do you mean....

1. but the attractive force itself is nothing other than the entirety of all a recurring occasions in which pertaining to, or caused by gravitation's strength, power to meet with encounters. In other words, it's a to the action or process of knowing predicaments that do not exist independently.

The reality and universality of any law or force, including gravity, is something we don't have access to. We can only access the observed instances and presume universality. But the electromagnetic attraction between two ions on earth is NOT the same single force that attracts two ions on Alpha Centauri -- it's a common process that occurs independently in two discrete instances.

Quote:

2. but the quality of being itself is nothing other than the whole of all impelling motives in which attraction between overcomes the resistance of, occurs. In other words, it's a reason, understanding the different kinds of notions corresponding to the definite forms of existence that does not exist independently.

I'm not sure what you're saying here -- but it doesn't appear to be what I mean.

Quote:

3. but the degree of relative heaviness characteristic of any kind or portion of matter itself is nothing other than the moment of occurrence or time of all the present times in which caused by gravitation's influence occurs. In other words, it's a empirically verifiable, it is an individual thing and real substance that does not exist independently.

See my explanation in #1. Very briefly, gravity is not something that "exists" independently -- it's a physical process that describes a relationship between all bodies that exhibit gravitational attraction.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes
thanks for the reply

"Epistemologically speaking, I would not agree. The fact is what we conclude lies behind the observed instances. But that's all a fact is, in the end -- it's a cognitive conclusion."

Though it can seem like it, I am not trying to beat you. It's my belief that you believe most of what you say, or have considerable confidence in it, which makes the debate/conversation valuable. We might agree or disagree but the Truth is the Truth no matter what we say or do. Smile

And as you have mentioned in one of your postings you felt that it was on God to reveal that He is so. On one had yes, and I mentioned that one has to ask. But if the Lord God was to give you revelation, would you deny Him? And if not, why then, would He withhold what you would need to know Him. It is my hope and prayer that He does give you revelation.

That said............
**************
"Plato might agree with this. But I don't see much basis for metaphysical ideals (or metaphysics period). The "forms that are" are a presumption, not a truth."

I am not trying to agree with Plato (if you will). Though it may seem abstract or speculative , I do believe it would be a unwarrantable claim to dignity, authority, or knowledge to insist that if one is not conscious of something, then it is not.
**********
"Is there such a thing as a fact outside human cognition? Is there such a thing as perfect view outside our idealism and imagination?"

Why not?
**************
"It's not perfect, I agree. But that doesn't mean that there IS a "perfect view" out there, whether or not we idealize it."

Something is correct. No matter what the question.
*********
"I don't follow this logic, or this "necessity", nor do I accept the whole notion of a Fact to begin with. We can't flap our arms and fly, but that doesn't make birds God. We're finite creatures. So what?"

Or is it your argument that since you can't fly with your arms, you can't know flying. But man flies because he believed he can know flying though when he believed it, he never experienced flying.
************
"I don't understand what you're trying to say here. We are beholden to the physical and biological properties held by all our constituent parts. So sure, I cannot "disobey" by commanding my cells to produce chocolate or commanding my eyes to see through walls. But along your lines, God is one example of where a "conceived result" might not exist by being a creation of the human imagination."
&
"What "Fact" are you talking about in particular?"

Simple.....
If one is to build a building, one must follow the correct instructions or the building will fail.
***************
"What's your basis for saying this? I'm made of flesh just as you are -- and yet I seem to be able to reject 1) a fact, 2) a "Most High", and 3) a visage of #2. And I don't live in fear -- and I'm glad I don't. I'd hate to spend my life fear of a metaphysical concept."

The fact is that with out a power greater then your self conscious then you will discontinue to be conscious and you ain't kidding me if you have ever been in a situation where you were sure death was imminent that fear of discontinuance wasn't there. All flesh fears the fact.
***********

"To paraphrase a lawyer's objection: "Assumes facts not in evidence". You've got preconceptions here that I don't share. How do we reconcile this?"

If parent tells child, don't stick hand in fire it will hurt, what does child do?
*****************
"Forgiveness is of an offense. An offense is perceived, and forgiveness is a reciprocal gesture of rapprochement."

If one forgives one has before hand expect one's own will to be respected therefore taking offence. But to achieve the ability to not be offended, knowing nothing is required to respect one's own will takes some doing. But denying the Truth is that forgiven?
***************
"The reality and universality of any law or force, including gravity, is something we don't have access to. We can only access the observed instances and presume universality. But the electromagnetic attraction between two ions on earth is NOT the same single force that attracts two ions on Alpha Centauri -- it's a common process that occurs independently in two discrete instances."

Not to disregard your point, but this part stands out to me "The reality and universality of any law or force, including gravity, is something we don't have access to. " Just because your not conscious of it don't mean it's not there, does it?

1 Reply

@dpmartin,

dpmartin wrote:

Though it can seem like it, I am not trying to beat you.

I know

Quote:

It's my belief that you believe most of what you say, or have considerable confidence in it, which makes the debate/conversation valuable. We might agree or disagree but the Truth is the Truth no matter what we say or do.

I'm not so sure about this Truth. There may well be a Truth out there, but so long as none of us has access to it, there's no point in talking about it. Epistemology has only to do with how we convince ourselves of something, not about actual truth.

Quote:

And as you have mentioned in one of your postings you felt that it was on God to reveal that He is so. On one had yes, and I mentioned that one has to ask. But if the Lord God was to give you revelation, would you deny Him?

Not if I believed it. But that's the problem. Not everyone has the same standards for belief.

Quote:

And if not, why then, would He withhold what you would need to know Him.

If he exists, then he would withhold a convincing revelation either a) because he doesn't want me to believe, b) because he doesn't care if I believe, or c) if he wants me to believe without having experienced a revelation. Alternatively, he might not exist -- and thus every received revelation was simply a misinterpretation.

Quote:

I do believe it would be a unwarrantable claim to dignity, authority, or knowledge to insist that if one is not conscious of something, then it is not.

I haven't made that claim. But please admit this to me: lack of consciousness of something doesn't affect something's existence any more than it affects something's lack of existence. I'm not aware of universal truths -- but that is different than my contention that there is no such thing. As far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing as a universal truth. If someone proves me wrong, then so be it -- I'll stand corrected.

Quote:

"Is there such a thing as a fact outside human cognition? Is there such a thing as perfect view outside our idealism and imagination?"

Why not?

Because it would be a matter of pure faith. There is no intellectual argument, no empirical argument, and no rational argument that supports the presence of a perfect view. And a fact is only supported by preponderance of empirical evidence, which by definition is finite.

Quote:

"It's not perfect, I agree. But that doesn't mean that there IS a "perfect view" out there, whether or not we idealize it."

Something is correct. No matter what the question.

You hope so. But you'll never know. There probably is truth. But we can't access it.

Quote:

The fact is that with out a power greater then your self conscious then you will discontinue to be conscious and you ain't kidding me if you have ever been in a situation where you were sure death was imminent that fear of discontinuance wasn't there. All flesh fears the fact.

Again, statements of faith that I find completely incongruous with my view of the world. I respect your views. But I don't agree with them. I don't give a rat's ass about what happens to my consciousness after I die. The only reason I fear death is on behalf of the people I love who are alive. But if I didn't love a single person in this world, I'd have zero fear of death or its discontinuity. Furthermore, I don't see how my own consciousness requires "a power greater than [my] self consciousness". I don't need a greater power, and without some compelling reason to believe in a greater power, then it's little more to me than an abstract topic of discussion.

Quote:

If parent tells child, don't stick hand in fire it will hurt, what does child do?

Previous quote:

Quote:

Then it would be a fool who imposes his will(self-conscious view) before the Fact, when it is the Fact the Perfect View given that should be sufficient.

When I objected to "facts not in evidence", I was referring to my rejection of "Fact" and "Perfect View" as anything logical, sensible, or in any way philosophically tenable. I reject them. You are making points that assume them. So I simply can't respond to this point. As for your question about a parent telling a child not to stick a hand in the fire, well, some children listen and some don't. So what?

Quote:

If one forgives one has before hand expect one's own will to be respected therefore taking offence. But to achieve the ability to not be offended, knowing nothing is required to respect one's own will takes some doing. But denying the Truth is that forgiven?

There are two possible scenarios that I entertain here:
1) There is Truth, but since I'm not omniscient I don't have access to it
2) There is no Truth at all

In scenario 1, I'd be forgiven because I cannot know the Truth. And in scenario 2, it doesn't matter.

The real question for you is whether could God forgive the hubris of a human assuming themself so omniscient as to claim he knows the Truth? That would be to compare yourself to God.

I think my scenario is a reasonable one for someone who is humble, which happens to be a religious virtue.

Quote:

Not to disregard your point, but this part stands out to me "The reality and universality of any law or force, including gravity, is something we don't have access to. " Just because your not conscious of it don't mean it's not there, does it?

Nor does it mean it is. Try on this argument: you believe in one god, but there are twelve other gods you aren't aware of. So you may vehemently deny polytheism, but your lack of awareness doesn't mean that all those other gods aren't real.

0 Replies

@BRbeliever,

Aedes

If one was to proclaim to be the source of Truth, then yes one would be proclaiming himself god. But that does not mean the Truth can not be known. FYI the Truth is much higher then I. But if one should hear and come to know, then surly he could repeat it to others.

Thanks for the response.

1 Reply

@BRbeliever,

Well what constitutes a god? Being a creator? If so, we are gods because we create. Being a higher form of existence? We pretty much dominate our planet through superior intelligence, and we created computers and the cyber dimension. However, we do not demand computers to sacrifice gigabites of information to us, or set aside 10% of hard drive space in appreciation of us. we create legitimate forms of AI, which is actual intellegence, but dubbed artificial because we synthesize it, or create it. Do you think we would know any better if we were actually programed, and do you think we are exempt from 'viruses'?

0 Replies

@dpmartin,

dpmartin wrote:

Aedes

If one was to proclaim to be the source of Truth, then yes one would be proclaiming himself god. But that does not mean the Truth can not be known. FYI the Truth is much higher then I. But if one should hear and come to know, then surly he could repeat it to others.

Thanks for the response.

By you proclaiming to know the Truth by comparison to me, one who proclaims to have no access to Truth (if it exists at all), then you are elevating yourself to a state of omniscience that is above what a human can know. If I were a priest taking your confession, I'd suggest that you admit lack of knowledge of Truth, and simply pray that it be given you one day. To claim to know Truth seems heretical to me.

0 Replies

@BRbeliever,

Aedes

(You truly are a Jewish man, God bless you and keep you.
Let me get bact to you on that in the hope of understanding.)

*************

The Truth, I suspect you might agree, is not divined of one's own mind. However, in the presents of the Lord my God, (known in and through Jesus), if one has to much pride to ask, then one has to much pride to listen. (No offence intended). Therefore the promise, ask in His name and you shall receive.

In other words God proves God to those that ask in the name of Jesus.

1 Reply

@dpmartin,

dpmartin wrote:

Aedes

(You truly are a Jewish man, God bless you and keep you.
Let me get bact to you on that in the hope of understanding.)

Not exactly sure what you mean here, and I'm a lot more of an atheist than a Jew when it comes to my intellectual arguments. But thanks -- I think?

Quote:

The Truth, I suspect you might agree, is not divined of one's own mind. However, in the presents of the Lord my God, (known in and through Jesus), if one has to much pride to ask, then one has to much pride to listen. (No offence intended). Therefore the promise, ask in His name and you shall receive.

In other words God proves God to those that ask in the name of Jesus.

According to some who follow a religion in which Jesus is a central figure. Not according to all Christians, even. Kierkegaard was a religious Christian who would not have agreed with you.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

charles m young
sorry I almost miss your posting.

"Well what constitutes a god? Being a creator? If so, we are gods because we create. Being a higher form of existence? We pretty much dominate our planet through superior intelligence, and we created computers and the cyber dimension."

This all true but we did not give our selves or make, life, earth, seas, sky, hands, brain cells, so on and so forth all things that are available to us to exercise these abilities. And we can not sustain our selves any longer than this life's circumstances and the body will allow (of our own power, if you will).

"However, we do not demand computers to sacrifice gigabites of information to us, or set aside 10% of hard drive space in appreciation of us."

I do, what:eek:, your not supposed to do that? Wink

I get what your saying. But in that context they do serve our will (to a point)

(I threaten to fix mine with a sledge hammer, but it still don't listen.:mad:)

"we create legitimate forms of AI, which is actual intelligence, but dubbed artificial because we synthesize it, or create it. Do you think we would know any better if we were actually programed, and do you think we are exempt from 'viruses'?"

Programed? No, of corse not. But made for a purpose is something one might consider. Exempt from 'viruses'? I don't think we are,If I understand you correctly, but if there be no purpose what would a 'viruses' be preventing or hindering one from.

*********
Aedes
"According to some who follow a religion in which Jesus is a central figure. Not according to all Christians, even. Kierkegaard was a religious Christian who would not have agreed with you."

I apologize for not being familiar with Kierkegaard, but now I will at lest have to look him up. But I would probably agree with you. Unfortunately there are many churches that don't seek, and are considered as "dead" churches to the born in Spirit. It is a problem with the "religious" indeed, but not a new one.

0 Replies

@BRbeliever,

Kierkegaard was one of the first existentialists, and he believed that religious belief was not accessible to reason. It was a "leap of faith" (I think he actually said leap to faith) that allowed one to believe, not some logical, rational process.

If so, then one can never KNOW that one can find truth through religion or God. One has faith in that prospect, but never knowledge.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes

Though I most certainly don't know the hearts of others, but I would say one would have to be willing to believe before coming to the knowledge. But "faith": I can't say it any better then this so I am going to use a quote "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". Abraham would of have had to be willing to believe, before God said to Abraham and what God said to Abraham is the knowledge that Abraham had confidence in and relied on. And if Abraham was not willing to believe, none of the following would have happened, (at lest to him). (making ref. To Abraham because he is commonly understood as a man of faith)

You seem to have confidence in, or rely on logic or what you perceive as reason, I don't see you leaping any where, or at lest not anything you have admitted to. Smile

People have confidence in, or rely on a whole gamete of things I don't see any one leaping.

(If a contractor puts his hand on your shoulder and says trust me, now that would take a leap of faith :rolleyes:) just kidding, no offence to anyone in the construction industry.

But truly in that might be seen why it can be perceived as a leap. Any one who has unfortunate dealings or experiences with those that proclaim you should have confidence in, or rely on, and they did, and where disappointed or worse. Then most likely they will not put any confidence in, or rely on such again. Even if it is a different person, whether that person is honest or not. Therefore the willingness to believe has diminished.

In the "christian" community it has been unfortunate that many put confidence in, or rely on the religion (organized) added doctrines, the church itself, rather then the Word of God, Jesus. If I tell you to have confidence in, or rely on me, you will sooner or later be disappointed for I am no more then a creature, animated matter, or maybe in your view a thing, that has the unearned privilege, of receiving the Salvation of God through and in Jesus, His Word. In other words have confidence in, or rely on the Word of God not me.

0 Replies

@BRbeliever,

I don't have any particular confidence in logic or reason, actually. But I have MORE confidence in them than I have in inherited mythologies. Logic and reason work perfectly well until experience overturns them. And there is a lot about this universe we don't know. I DO NOT believe that reason is capable of answering every unknown. But at the same time I think it makes no sense to answer unknowns using religious myths. I see religious myths for what they are -- they have cultural symbolism and allegorical meaning, but that's it.

Secondly, you lament the "added doctrines" to Christianity, though without realizing it you embrace many of them yourself. NOWHERE in the Old or New Testament is a Trinity mentioned. The orthodoxy of the Trinity idea comes from the Council of Nicea. So you adhere to the Trinity because of added doctrine. Your theological feelings are most likely highly informed by St. Augustine's notions, as he was deeply influential to all subsequent divisions within Christianity -- and yet St. Augustine's writings are an added doctrine. Moreover, unless you're fluent in the ancient tongues of the Bible, then any translation you read has added and altered things that inform your understanding. You may not have EVER read the actual words of the Bible, for all you know -- you are reading translation errors, and you don't know where they occur and where they don't.

0 Replies

@BRbeliever,

Aedes

1. Did I say something rude to you? Did I offended you personally in some way that I am not aware of? If you don't put confidence in logic or what ever you could have easily explained otherwise.

2.I will get back to you on the rest.

0 Replies

@BRbeliever,

I'm not sure what you're reacting to. I was giving first an honest explanation of how I regard logic and reason by themselves and in relation to faith-derived ideas. And secondly I commented that for you to criticize certain Christian beliefs as "non-doctrinal" requires that you make an arbitrary determination of what is or is not doctrinal. These aren't personal attacks or reflexes on my part, and I wish you wouldn't read them as such.

This is the hard part about having intellectual conversations about religion. Someone is always at risk of being offended, since beliefs are fervently held. I apologize if my points of view or my tone seem offensive to you, but if so it's not because of any intention of mine to assail things you believe strongly in. I could take offense to many things that are written based on some assumption of Christian truths, but I don't. It's just a conversation.

0 Replies

@BRbeliever,

Step back and breathe, guys...it's easy to lose focus when you're using emotion to try to debate, instead of a proper thought process.

Back to the topic. Smile

Quote:

...NOWHERE in the Old or New Testament is a Trinity mentioned. The orthodoxy of the Trinity idea comes from the Council of Nicea...

True.

The church came up with the idea to placate the masses that they were trying to sway to their ideals, so that the church could absorb new cultures into their numbers. The only way to do this was to adapt to some of the new cultures' beliefs to make it easier for them to believe the teachings of the church.

Many of our holidays today are of pagan or otherwise non-Christian origin due to this reason.

Religion is such a touchy subject, isn't it.

1 Reply

@Aristoddler,

Aristoddler wrote:

Religion is such a touchy subject, isn't it.

And it means a lot more to the believer than the skeptic. But as dpmartin and everyone should know, my intellectual feelings about religion do not have any bearing on my respect for him/others as independent thinkers, and I'm happy to value the importance that religious thought has for him.

0 Replies

@BRbeliever,

As an aside - the notion of the Trinity is not an invention of the Council of Nicea.

From the Gospel of Thomas, written well before Nicea:

'Jesus said, "Whoever blasphemes against the Father will be forgiven, and whoever blasphemes against the son will be forgiven, but whoever blasphemes against the holy spirit will not be forgiven, either on earth or in heaven."'

Perhaps the Trinity, as a matter of church doctrine, comes from Nicea, but the notion of the Trinity is not an invention of that event, and has some basis in scripture.

1 Reply

@BRbeliever,

To be skeptical is fine, it is to be expected. But if your going to claim and intellectual view then would not be wise to read it first before saying what it does not say. I am quit use to accusation. But from a respected collogue I would hope would at lest read it first. But I myself should be wise enough not to be offended. But human nature always creeps in, though that is not an excuse.

I have found that the word "faith" seems to mean many things to many and most classify if you will the word "faith" as organized religion when the true definition is confidence in or rely on.
Therefore the act of confidence in or relies on is one's faith, not necessarily organized religion.

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

...'Jesus said, "Whoever blasphemes against the Father will be forgiven, and whoever blasphemes against the son will be forgiven, but whoever blasphemes against the holy spirit will not be forgiven, either on earth or in heaven."'

Perhaps the Trinity, as a matter of church doctrine, comes from Nicea, but the notion of the Trinity is not an invention of that event, and has some basis in scripture.

Then why does scripture take such effort to differentiate between God and Jesus, speaking of them as 2 separate entities on so many occasions?
The God that the bible speaks of is a god of order, not a god of chaos.
It seems to me that if the trinity were an actual creation of God, then he would have mentioned it as such in the bible, instead of letting us stumble over it for 2,000 years.

When I explain something to my children, I explain it to them as clear as possible so they do not get frustrated with confusing and contradicting facts. If we are truly God's children, do you not think he would have shown us that same respect?

0 Replies

@BRbeliever,

Aedes
I forgot this part
As some would say "ain't na'thin but a thing". I always find it a privilege to watch your mind at work. Something we both might keep in mind when such comes to pass. Failure is not an option, but merely a need for correction.
*******
Aristoddler
If I may in short
if you remember; and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters and then God said (not a quote mind you) there is the Spirit(His presents) and the Word (Son), the expression of the Will (Father).

In other words all creation knows the Will of God(Father) through the Word of God(Son) and His Spirit (His presents) that power executes the Will expressed by the Word.

If that helps at all.

1 Reply

God is not a solution, but a problem

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know