|
Smudgie Buggler posted:No, it's an absurd post. The imprecision of the social sciences means causality doesn't apply to human behaviour? And also 'rationality' is a property written into the fabric of the universe and not at all a concept humans made up and define as they please, apparently. That was not what I read. The first passage below is my understanding of his argument, the second my reply. The brain has some troubles using a reductionist approach to itself. Perhaps this could be because it is bigger than itself? A question my jungian definition of God would be a possible, maybe even viable, answer to.
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 10:08 |
|
|
Quift posted:
This doesn't follow, honestly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
Quift posted:A question my jungian definition of God would be a possible, maybe even viable, answer to. lol, no
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 11:48
|
|
|
Quift posted:That was not what I read. The first passage below is my understanding of his argument, the second my reply. One of us must be having a stroke because no matter how many times I read this it's still meaningless.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 14:05
|
|
|
Imagine a conversationsation of two statements when your read the last two paragraphs. Still not clear? If not I'll start with the first sentence. I have a tendency to condense my thinking to much. Bad habit maybe since many on the Internet just assume I'm insane instead of asking questions to clarify.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:This doesn't follow, honestly. No man is an island. We are all standing on the shoulders of giants etc. we do not store that much of the knowledge we have as a species in our individual brains. Most of the stuff we Google or go to a library. You know, that vast repository of knowledge that we use on a daily basis to think for us. Our collective consciousness if you will is that thing you use when you ask someone else for the time. The mundane life and practicability aspect of it impedes you to see its vast greatness. it is not infinite, but I guess it is larger than your own brain. Could I have a name for that thing? Any name other than God will do as long as it is not too small.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 01:12
|
|
|
Quift posted:No man is an island. We are all standing on the shoulders of giants etc. we do not store that much of the knowledge we have as a species in our individual brains. Most of the stuff we Google or go to a library. This has nothing to do with anything. You seem to be confusing brains and civilization at large in your initial quoted post, then.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
Quift posted:No man is an island. We are all standing on the shoulders of giants etc. we do not store that much of the knowledge we have as a species in our individual brains. Most of the stuff we Google or go to a library. Are you thinking of zeitgeist?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 02:38
|
|
|
Quift posted:Our collective consciousness if you will is that thing you use when you ask someone else for the time. The mundane life and practicability aspect of it impedes you to see its vast greatness. it is not infinite, but I guess it is larger than your own brain. Could I have a name for that thing? We already have a name for it. It's called society you dumbass
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 07:41
|
|
|
Defining God as the thing that happens when you ask someone for the time or Google for schizophrenia symptoms after reading a forums post is a trivialization of the term, at best. Humanity, taken at the societal or species level, does have more going on than any one person could possibly know, and that is interesting and worthy of consideration, but really has nothing to do with any common concept of God. Sounds more like it has something to do with weed, frankly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 07:59
|
|
|
grate deceiver posted:We already have a name for it. It's called society you dumbass Society is part of it, yes. But as stated I shouldn't accept a tern that is smaller than the the concept I describe. I think society is a limited term meaning it does not include everything my concept does. Do you think it does or do you disagree with my assessment?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 14:09
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Are you thinking of zeitgeist? Zeitgeist would be a part if it. But not all of it. Zeitgeist is quite temporary after all while we as a species are a bit older.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 14:10
|
|
|
Trent posted:Defining God as the thing that happens when you ask someone for the time or Google for schizophrenia symptoms after reading a forums post is a trivialization of the term, at best. I did say that the sheer mundane aspect hides it's true glory 😉 It is the simplest possible answer. I tend to like simplicity. We take it so much for granted that we cannot see it. Yet we wouldn't be able to physically survive without it. It is the simplest possible definition of the term. Trivial even. Sort of exactly the word of Jesus himself on the subject? Actually yes! I do understand the need to make things bigger and more theoretical, but that is a need that arises out of you. I have a hard time to think God himself tries to make things as complicated as possible given that the rest if creation can be reduced to such beautiful simple concepts. Because nature tends to be lazy the easiest way is most often the one followed. I claim that our specific human God was created by evolution, since we created the concept in both words and actions. Unless we can agree on the smallest of possible gods how can we discuss possible bigger ones? This is the reductionist approach and I'm quite certain reduction to first principles is not a "weed" thing. Quift fucked around with this message at 14:29 on Oct 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 14:27
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:This has nothing to do with anything. You seem to be confusing brains and civilization at large in your initial quoted post, then. I'm intentionally mixing gods, brains and civilizations. It is very hard to extract one of the concepts from the others.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 14:31
|
|
|
Quift posted:Society is part of it, yes. But as stated I shouldn't accept a tern that is smaller than the the concept I describe. Quift posted:I'm intentionally mixing gods, brains and civilizations. It is very hard to extract one of the concepts from the others. Quift posted:I tend to like simplicity. Lol, no you don't, shut the gently caress up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 14:45
|
|
|
Quift posted:I did say that the sheer mundane aspect hides it's true glory 😉 It is the simplest possible answer. I tend to like simplicity. How is it possible to say so much without saying anything at all. Ok, assuming you aren't just a lazy troll, start over. As clearly as possible, explain who or what you believe God to be.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
Quift posted:The brain has some troubles using a reductionist approach to itself. quote:Perhaps this could be because it is bigger than itself? Onanistic rhetorical obscurantism is all you seem to be interested in. Speak your thoughts as clearly as you can or be silent.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
Ok. I'll restart. The subject is to find out if there truly is a God. Before we can discuss this we need to agree on a definition. The definition used in this thread for this purpose does not need to correspond to the faith of grandmothers everywhere. This thread should deviate from that format in order for the debate to progress beyond an Internet slugfest. I propose that we try to find the smallest possible God. Something which would require the minimum amount of faith to accept as existing. Albeit some faith is probably necessary. So we need something that an atheist can almost find believable. If God later turns out to be bigger that is a separate discussion and we can then contest any additions to this minimal God. My suggestion is trivial. God is basically an entity we as humans are physically, spiritually and culturally a part of. Collective consciousness being a commonly used term to describe what I propose can be called the minimum amount of God that can still be called an entity bigger than ourselves. It may be a different approach but I think it quite rational.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
Quift posted:Ok. I'll restart. I don't think that a good answer to "does X exist" is "this other thing exists and I'm going to call it X so yes" I also don't really see why it's very rational. The question "does god exist" is not answered if you get both sides to agree that something completely different does exist and then call it god. Especially when neither side agrees with doing that. I'm pretty sure my balls exist, I bet I can get a few other posters to have faith in the existence of my balls, but calling my balls god doesn't really say much. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 18:59 on Oct 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
Quift posted:I'm intentionally mixing gods, brains and civilizations. It is very hard to extract one of the concepts from the others. That's what makes your concept bogus. They are extremely easy to separate from each other. You especially need to consider that the interconnectedness of people was also much smaller back in the days of most fervent religious belief - no asking a dude from the other side of the world a question in AD 204.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
Quift posted:My suggestion is trivial. God is basically an entity we as humans are physically, spiritually and culturally a part of. Collective consciousness being a commonly used term to describe what I propose can be called the minimum amount of God that can still be called an entity bigger than ourselves. Yeah, no. This is still called society. You can play dumb word games all day long. It still won't prove poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
It is sort if exactly the way Jesus christ explains it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
Quift posted:It is sort if exactly the way Jesus christ explains it. No, not at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
Considering as people are dying they tend to see exactly what they expect, even if that is simply losing consciousness, I'm fairly sure its all the work of some extra dimensional life. The idea of spirits in general is freaky to me and I don't see how anyone could be anything but scared of the idea of an afterlife.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:No, not at all. So tell me, how does the dude superior talk about his daddy?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
Quift posted:So tell me, how does the dude superior talk about his daddy? He doesn't ever claim his father is "kinda like all the humans in the world communicating, maaan"
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
Personally, I believe God exists, and love Him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:He doesn't ever claim his father is "kinda like all the humans in the world communicating, maaan" That's a negation. Not a proposition.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
Quift posted:That's a negation. Not a proposition. And? You got a point there or what? Jesus clearly indicates that "God" is some manner of single being able to be personalized, not "humans".
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
Quift posted:Ok. I'll restart. That's a very complex construct, actually. If you want to know about the concept of God as the simplest possible being as it already stands in Catholicism, read the first few chapters of Aquinas. tl;dr: God is simply Being and nothing more. That is, he is and has no other attributes byond that. All other beings inherit their state of being from God as the furthest, purest being, and add some accidents to this fundamental property of being, which makes them less simple than God. And since the fact of being is undeniable, this concept of God on its own (that is without the following cosmology) seems as close to what an atheist might admit as possible as anything else, though it's obviously not impervious to criticism. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 00:32 on Oct 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 00:30
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:And since the fact of being is undeniable, this concept of God on its own (that is without the following cosmology) seems as close to what an atheist might admit as possible as anything else, though it's obviously not impervious to criticism. The fact of being is absolutely deniable in the sense of it being a magical property which has some platonic ideal somewhere which is God. It's also deniable in every specific sense you can imagine because we have no way of knowing if what we are observing is correct. So the concept of "being" would seem to be pretty deniable because it's entirely metaphysical. It's asking if the world is real and whether the thing asking the question is real, to which the only answer is "impossible to know" possibly followed by "assume yes for both, it's easier"
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
Who's winning? did we find god yet?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 02:07
|
|
|
gohmak posted:Who's winning? did we find god yet? He's right behind you!
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:He's right behind you! img-densely packed Hitlers
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 02:28
|
|
|
Quift posted:
Defining god as a thing most people would believe and then looking for that thing doesn't really reveal any truths about the universe outside of our own perceptions and biases.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
gohmak posted:Who's winning? did we find god yet? Yeah, you just missed Her. She was handing out the last few spots in heaven and we got them all. Sorry 
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 03:35
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:And? You got a point there or what? I do not get points. You however didn't make any proposition to argue against yourself. You only negated mine. So I will have to continue to argue that my Definition of God not only is valid, but also has basis in scripture. Actually Jesus doesn't indicate that God is a personalized entity. I argue that Jesus talks about God and Heaven in almost the same way. A place of community within everyone. A state of mind filled with love rather than the burdensome tolls required by the priesthood. Matthew 22 and Luke 20. "Jesus said, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.” "The kingdom of God is within you.” He also quite clearly refutes being the son of an omnipotent deity and speaking as the son of god instead seeing himself as Jesus of Nazareth, a mere carpenter who others call the messiah. But they call him the messiah because he was babtised by John the true prophet. He himself never refers to an omnipotent deity that specifically made him the son. We are all the children of God and the Kingdom of God is within all of us as long as we can forgive ourselves. No need to refer to tertiary sources sush as Anselm, Augustine or Bertrand Russel when it comes to the Nature of God. Jesus himself speaks quite clearly about something which is human, within us, and a state of mind filled with love for creation that we can choose to partake in at any moment. Something which quite closely resembles the story of the Buddha. The awakened that could release himself into Brahma. The World Consciousness. So my proposed definition of god. THE ACTUAL WORDS OF JESUS. Also the related to the definition used in Buddhism and Hinduism and the Sufi branch of Islam. (which is clearly the coolest islam). The Anselm definition is not only boring and meaningless, it makes no functional difference if it exists or not. It is as useful a god as Bertrand Russel invisible teapot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 10:34
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:Yeah, you just missed Her. She was handing out the last few spots in heaven and we got them all. Sorry I heard it was a particle that scientist were looking for at that large facility in Europe.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 12:12
|
|
|
Quift posted:THE ACTUAL WORDS OF JESUS Why are you treating these writings as likely to be an accurate recounting of what one of Roman-occupied Galilee's apocalyptic preachers really taught, when (a) we have good evidence to indicate that these stories have been altered both accidentally and deliberately and (b) you're basing your ideas off of English translations of ancient Greek script? But, frankly, all that is eclipsed by that fact that you've stated that you're arguing for a "smallest possible god", but you're attempting to shoehorn "had a kid 2000 years ago and we should totally believe everything this book says he said" into the mix without any sort of justification. Just give it up, crazy dude. You're terrible at this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 12:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 10:08 |
|
|
"God" as you're describing Quift is a functionally impossible / incomprehensible concept in analytic philosophy, and since analytic philosophy has been trending in the Anglo world since the ~20s you're not going to get anywhere with your approximations. (*Refer to Russell and his pathological obsession with having a precise description of the world.) Might as well be talking about Hegel's "World Spirit." Afaik, the gap between analytic and continental philosophy is (philosophically) unbridgeable. A much more interesting approach comes from Plantinga, who doesn't argue for the existence of God as such, but instead argues that belief in the existence of God is about as rational as belief in the existence other minds. We don't have direct evidence for the existence of other minds (btw this doesn't refer to brains or behaviours, but the mental process or phenomena you're experiencing right now, the incredibly complex thing we commonly refer to as "mind" or "consciousness"), but we don't think it's irrational to believe in other minds. Plantinga calls this "a properly basic belief," a belief that's not irrational despite having no evidence. Belief in God sits in the same category for him. Obviously, this isn't a proof for God's existence. Plantinga's very point is that there can be no proof, but that the rationality of something cannot be determined solely on evidentialist grounds. Fun times, stay smug dnd.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 12:40
|
|