More Religious Nutters

[GePap]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Everybody knows that beauty doesn't exist as an objectively descriptible object, yet people believe in beauty. Why should things be different when it comes to God ?

"beauty" describes a concept (like 0). "God" is supposed to describe a specific entity with a history, aims, goals, beliefs, desires and so forth. The two are not comparable.

Why "God" and not "god" or "Gods" or "gods"?

Even if you believe in the divine, how do you justify "Yehova" and not "Odin" or "Quetzacoatl"? becuase I am told "Odin" is just some silly superstition, but "Yehova", He is certainly out there, possibly.

[Perfection]

Originally posted by GePap
(like 0)

While I agree that beauty is a concept (like redness), I'm not convinced that 0 and other mathematical/logical entities lack external existance because of the profound correspondance between the universe and mathematics.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Perfection
Religious experience and Zen are considered highly related. That "God node" can induce both.
But you've given me no descriptiono f what it is, so how could I?

I've been saying for a while that the phenomenon is not describable (at least not accurately), which is why, as GePap just said and I've been maintaining, there's no use talking about it if you haven't had one. Judging by the fragmented descriptions from others, it may vary considerably. I'd like a source on that claim of Zen, though, and I find Agathon's bit about LSD and colors interesting too.

I think it's rather silly to think that God couldn't engineer a message to convince Aga. For example, He could include very accurate predictions of the future or the like.

Aga just wouldn't go for such an experience because it would be vivid, bizzare or contain religious elements.

So he wouldn't go for something vivid containing religious elements, but he would go for an accurate prediction of the future from God? What is that if not vivid and religious?

No, I'll tell you what I think Agathon would do in such a case. First he would replicate what he was doing when the vision or experience came, in the hopes that it would happen again. If it did, he would do it yet again while inside an MRI machine/having a CAT scan, and continue to do it until he had a good description of the phenomenon.

Then he would talk to some neuroscientist friend who would excitedly publish a paper on the scientific laws governing precognition, hold a number of conferences, and discuss how interesting it is that the brain's latent psychic power incorporated the quaint and archaic notion of a god into the mix, no doubt from confused childhood memories of going to church. Certainly that's more probable than an omnipotent, eternal, invisible being! He's just said that he values logic more than his senses, with "logic" meaning "the prejudices inculcated in me by my present worldview."

Or, if it was a one-off thing, he would dismiss it as a fluke (was it you who used that word?), an aberration of brain chemistry, and the supposed prediction it brought about a curious chance not outside the realm of probability. You see the logic at work? If it happens enough for science to describe it, it's a natural phenomenon, not supernatural, and there is no God. If it doesn't happen enough, there's no scientific evidence for it, and there is no God. I've encountered it before, and it's a stacked deck. It's also why I usually don't bother arguing with atheists. I don't know what possessed me this time.

[Perfection]

What kind of crapass God can't convince some random philopher He exists?

He can create the universe but he can't do that?

Come on, that's silly.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by GePap
"beauty" describes a concept (like 0). "God" is supposed to describe a specific entity with a history, aims, goals, beliefs, desires and so forth. The two are not comparable.

I think that God, if he exists, is absolutely indifferent to humanity. As to why the Bible refers to an object God with aims and earthly apparitions, I'd say that it is due to the Ancient Hebrews routing everything to God. As such, God is a tool of language that describes superior things, like for instance Moses' political talent, or some mystics' insight.

As for the question of God being a distinct entity like human intelligence can conceive it, it's mostly impossible to say. We are in front of the universe like a mouse in front of the Mona Lisa.

Why "God" and not "god" or "Gods" or "gods"?

Greek myths have their own truth, in the sense that they are rich with wisdom and reflexions on human nature.

Even if you believe in the divine, how do you justify "Yehova" and not "Odin" or "Quetzacoatl"? becuase I am told "Odin" is just some silly superstition, but "Yehova", He is certainly out there, possibly.

Any notion of the divine is bound to be ethnocentric, but that doesn't mean there isn't some underlying truth. It's all a question of language. People who have abnormal experiences describe them with the tools they have at their disposal. For instance, Nietzsche had some mystical experiences, and his originality is to have not assumed that they were a sign of God, and to have explained them differently.

The problem here is probably one of philosophical prejudice. People assume that words are the reflexion of natural objects, while it's actually the opposite : it's the objects that are reflexions of our own words and minds.

Ultimately, it boils down to wisdom and experience. There are some great minds who attained wisdom through a certain experience deemed to be divine. I don't have any issue with them believing in God, as long as they create meaningful propositions backed with real insight in their behavior. That's why I find Christ, Buddha, Aquinas, Spinoza, etc, to be fascinating figures.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Perfection
What kind of crapass God can't convince some random philopher He exists?

He can create the universe but he can't do that?

Come on, that's silly.

I'd say he just doesn't give a ****.

[Perfection]

What a caring and benevloent God

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Perfection
What a caring and benevloent God

The answer to this question is that we are immanently part of God. Thus the love God shows us is the love we show him. At least this is what Spinoza thought, and it seems to agree with Christ's teachings.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Omni Rex Draconis
On what basis do you postulate the existence of such entities? And even if such beings do exist, you yourself have stated that they are beyond our comprehension. Baseless propositions that lead to no useful conclusions? That is the opposite of reasonable.

Do yourself a favor and read some Plato, Aristotle, Leibniz, etc. Then tell me what's "baseless" about their propositions.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Perfection
What kind of crapass God can't convince some random philopher He exists?

He can create the universe but he can't do that?

Come on, that's silly.

3.5/10

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Elok

Also, Agathon has spent most of this thread showing that he would not appreciate such a phenomenon if it happened. I suspect Jesus could descend from heaven and jab him in the butt with a branding iron and he still wouldn't believe, because reason tells him that such an event is highly unlikely and reason > senses. Why should God waste His time and Agathon's with a message that won't be heeded?

Absolutely not. Why do you persist in making such ridiculous suggestions?

You should know that it has long been my belief that to believe in a creator god (at least the sort the deists believed in) was perfectly reasonable up until the theory of evolution was established. Before then, the argument from design was still a reasonable argument because it was the most likely explanation given the evidence.

Evolution blew that away with a better explanation. Belief in God now involves a "continual suicide of reason". It simply isn't credible. But then again, large portions of humanity are simply irrational beings who can't see further than their own warped desires, so this is to be expected.

That's not to say that belief in traditional religions was ever rational. Only a mindless idiot could believe in those. That's generally why intelligent people in previous societies were platonists or deists, while leaving burning trees that talked to the dopes.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris

I think that God, if he exists, is absolutely indifferent to humanity. As to why the Bible refers to an object God with aims and earthly apparitions, I'd say that it is due to the Ancient Hebrews routing everything to God. As such, God is a tool of language that describes superior things, like for instance Moses' political talent, or some mystics' insight.

It's always been a source of disappointment to me that our religious tradition descends from the Ancient Hebrews. Reading the Bible just convinces one that they were the worst possible people. All that grovelling in the dirt is just awful.

Why couldn't we have been Zoroastrians. Ahura Mazda is preferable to Yahweh in almost every respect. Yahweh is a neurotic *******.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Agathon
Absolutely not. Why do you persist in making such ridiculous suggestions?

You should know that it has long been my belief that to believe in a creator god (at least the sort the deists believed in) was perfectly reasonable up until the theory of evolution was established. Before then, the argument from design was still a reasonable argument because it was the most likely explanation given the evidence.

Evolution blew that away with a better explanation. Belief in God now involves a "continual suicide of reason". It simply isn't credible. But then again, large portions of humanity are simply irrational beings who can't see further than their own warped desires, so this is to be expected.

That's not to say that belief in traditional religions was ever rational. Only a mindless idiot could believe in those. That's generally why intelligent people in previous societies were platonists or deists, while leaving burning trees that talked to the dopes.

My dopey, idiotic brain cannot comprehend why you called what I said a ridiculous suggestion just before making a long speech essentially confirming it. Could you explain your reasoning, preferably without referring to any philosopher more obscure than Hume?

[Saras]

umm... Hume can't be obscure if an investment banker from Lithuania knows of him...

[Omni Rex Draconis]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Do yourself a favor and read some Plato, Aristotle, Leibniz, etc. Then tell me what's "baseless" about their propositions.

I already have, arrogant one, and I didn't see anything about Beasts labeling themselves with the number 666/616. Prime Movers and Ideal Forms are a long way from the hidebound superstition presented in the opening post.

Either way, it is obvious that your definition of God is not that of the fundamentalist Christian who is afraid of a number.