Meaning of God
Page 1 of 1 [ 9 posts ]
14 Jan 2010, 1:39 pm
(Apologies, I think I feel a bit of an odd mood)
Does the existence or non-existence of God have a real meaning for the world? Why? What is different about a reality in which God exists? What is different about a reality in which God is non-existent?
Is "God" just a word? Or is the presence or absence of God something profound, that deeply speaks about human nature? Is the religious impulse merely an impulse to create gods, or is it an impulse that covers and colors all of perceptions, with divinity as its ultimate expression?
Is it the same thing to say that man is a flesh and a spirit, and to say that man is only flesh? Should we predict that flesh-spirit hybrids act differently than mere meatbags? Is it different to say that God lovingly sculpted man from his breath and the earth, and to say that the earth excreted man as a matter of accident?
What does the meaning of God have to do with the absurdity of the earth? Is our absurdity enough to cast down the spirits? Or is our desire for meaning enough reason to clothe ourselves with those spirits?
Why do we invent God? Why do we deny God? Etc.....
Thoughts? Need for clarification? (once again, my mood was odd)
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
14 Jan 2010, 1:57 pm
Pascals wager?
Aside from that, the "appearance" of all living creatures being design seems to imply that there is some sort of a designer. Even though "entropy" is the wrong term for the concept that was in creationist materials in the late 70's and the 80's, things just don't every appear to build themselves. Perhaps you can mention crystal formation and snowflakes and such other ordered processes which always produce the same result within the limits of their parameters. But in general, things tend to break down. And the more working parks in a machine/system, there are more parts to malfunction. I do not wish to argue so much with the older arguments as I would just like to point out that people tend to notice things like this, such as not getting something for noting because there is no such thing as a free lunch. It may not be compelling to those who have been thoroughly inoculated, but features of design in nature tend to compel some people to, at least, think there is design in nature.
14 Jan 2010, 2:47 pm
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Pascals wager?
Irrelevant to the issue.
Quote:
Aside from that, the "appearance" of all living creatures being design seems to imply that there is some sort of a designer. Even though "entropy" is the wrong term for the concept that was in creationist materials in the late 70's and the 80's, things just don't every appear to build themselves. Perhaps you can mention crystal formation and snowflakes and such other ordered processes which always produce the same result within the limits of their parameters. But in general, things tend to break down. And the more working parks in a machine/system, there are more parts to malfunction. I do not wish to argue so much with the older arguments as I would just like to point out that people tend to notice things like this, such as not getting something for noting because there is no such thing as a free lunch. It may not be compelling to those who have been thoroughly inoculated, but features of design in nature tend to compel some people to, at least, think there is design in nature.
Ok, look, let's put it this way:
Are you saying that in ALL LOGICALLY POSSIBLE WORLDS (assuming for a moment that atheism is logically possible) that living creatures will need to be designed by a designer? That some variation of evolution is not only not actual in this world, but not logically possible, period? Even if the laws of physics and everything else were different that an evolutionary process, or random abiogenesis (as in the kind that Pasteur disproved) is impossible in a world that accounts for most of our observed non-scientific facts? (let's ignore the findings in this specific world like atomic theory, cell theory, etc, especially since they are rather recent discoveries in our species' history anyway)
The reason I ask is because you seem to suggest that theories are just innate things from observation. I tend not to agree with this kind of perspective because of the widespread nature of disputes. Y'know, there are a *lot* of issues where disputes can occur (even among experts), and where people conveniently overlook evidence. And if it is logically possible that things weren't intelligently designed, then what is *really* responsible for the fact that people might tend to assume that they are? They certainly can't just be performing induction, because life forms are very dissimilar to things such as tools, most tools don't self-replicate or anything like that. Not only that, but problems of dysteleology also would have to be taken into account.
Finally, the statement: "getting something for noting because there is no such thing as a free lunch." is IRRELEVANT to metaphysics. TANSTAAFL is a statement in economics about the difficulty in finding Pareto optimal improvements(improvements that make all parties better off), and thus the existence of opportunity costs, and it tends to go hand in hand with assertions of efficient markets(if markets are efficient, then Pareto optimal improvements don't exist because all have already been exploited. Even as the term applies to the sciences, it is arguing for the closure of physics, which is irrelevant if one is arguing that God intervenes in physical processes as God is the free lunch that TANSTAAFL is denying: "In the sciences, TANSTAAFL means that the universe as a whole is ultimately a closed system -- there is no magic source of matter, energy, light, or indeed lunch, that does not draw resources from something else, and will not eventually be exhausted". God is to some extent "magic" if anything is(note I am not trying to deny a sociological distinction here) and he will not ever be exhausted due to the definition of omnipotence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_ain' ... free_lunch
In any case, your concern doesn't seem the direction that I am trying to head. Very few people actually study creation science or ID, so it really isn't their secret inspiration, and creation science isn't creation philosophy, and it certainly doesn't come close to creation mysticism or creation existentialism, even creation psychology (perhaps I don't know the field as well as you do though for that last one), so it really has no bearing on the questions: "What is the meaning of God?" "What is different about a reality in which God exists?" "Is the religious impulse one that covers and colors all perceptions, with divinity as the ultimate expression?"
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
14 Jan 2010, 4:07 pm
Thank you for replying to all my points, and then some. Sorry this is not the direction you wish for your topic to head. However, it does not take studying creationist materials to recognize design. Bring a knife to anywhere in the world, and see if anyone doubts that the knife is designed (they might question what your designs are if you keep showing it around though.) Or on the more high tech end, a flashlight. Recognition of design is present in everyone, though for the most part it is subconscious and ignored.
14 Jan 2010, 6:31 pm
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Thank you for replying to all my points, and then some. Sorry this is not the direction you wish for your topic to head. However, it does not take studying creationist materials to recognize design. Bring a knife to anywhere in the world, and see if anyone doubts that the knife is designed (they might question what your designs are if you keep showing it around though.) Or on the more high tech end, a flashlight. Recognition of design is present in everyone, though for the most part it is subconscious and ignored.
Look, I'll be straightforward, a weird mood doesn't mean a good mood.
To recognize design? Ok, here are the first few things I will say:
1) Life forms aren't designed. So, no, these people aren't recognizing design. If you want to go dispute that, then go start your own thread, I am utterly disinterested in doing this here.
2) There is not a property to the world known as "designed-ness". Instead, there is induction and abduction. The issue is that there is nothing really setting the hypothesis of a "designer" above something like spontaneous generation, or evolution, or even the eternal existence of all species.
3) The intuition of "designed-ness" which is sub-conscious, actually gets closer to one of my points. But the issue is that an intuition of "designed-ness", if it is universal, would mean that an instinct or set of instincts exist. The issue then becomes about the instinct or set of instincts and how these instincts, whether true or false relate to the rest of our perception of reality and ourselves.
4) If the intuition of patterns, which likely related(even perhaps a part of the intuition of "designed-ness"), is pretty easily fooled. http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... l-patterns , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clustering_illusion Then it tends to seem that our intuitions of design would then likely also be overactive, and this has real implications for how we engage the world. And if you want to get involved in an argument over how crazy people all are, then that's fine, but if it crosses the line too much for it to be relevant to the OP, I would recommend that you move it to another thread.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
15 Jan 2010, 3:08 am
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
(Apologies, I think I feel a bit of an odd mood)
So you say. I suggest either coffee of sleep.
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Does the existence or non-existence of God have a real meaning for the world? Why? What is different about a reality in which God exists? What is different about a reality in which God is non-existent?
This part is the one related to
Blaise Pascal wrote:
Pascal's Wager
A Selection from Pensées
If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is. This being so, who will dare to undertake the decision of the question? Not we, who have no affinity to Him.
Who then will blame Christians for not being able to give a reason for their belief, since they profess a religion for which they cannot give a reason? They declare, in expounding it to the world, that it is a foolishness, I Cor. 1. 21. ["For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe."]; and then you complain that they do not prove it! If they proved it, they would not keep their word; it is in lacking proofs that they are not lacking in sense. "Yes, but although this excuses those who offer it as such and takes away from them the blame of putting it forward without reason, it does not excuse those who receive it." Let us then examine this point, and say, "God is, or He is not." But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager? According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other; according to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.
Do not, then, reprove for error those who have made a choice; for you know nothing about it. "No, but I blame them for having made, not this choice, but a choice; for again both he who chooses heads and he who chooses tails are equally at fault, they are both in the wrong. The true course is not to wager at all."
Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. "That is very fine. Yes, I must wager; but I may perhaps wager too much." Let us see. Since there is an equal risk of gain and of loss, if you had only to gain two lives, instead of one, you might still wager. But if there were three lives to gain, you would have to play (since you are under the necessity of playing), and you would be imprudent, when you are forced to play, not to chance your life to gain three at a game where there is an equal risk of loss and gain. But there is an eternity of life and happiness. And this being so, if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would be for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for you, if there were an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain. But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. It is all divided; where-ever the infinite is and there is not an infinity of chances of loss against that of gain, there is no time to hesitate, you must give all. And thus, when one is forced to play, he must renounce reason to preserve his life, rather than risk it for infinite gain, as likely to happen as the loss of nothingness.
For it is no use to say it is uncertain if we will gain, and it is certain that we risk, and that the infinite distance between the certainly of what is staked and the uncertainty of what will be gained, equals the finite good which is certainly staked against the uncertain infinite. It is not so, as every player stakes a certainty to gain an uncertainty, and yet he stakes a finite certainty to gain a finite uncertainty, without transgressing against reason. There is not an infinite distance between the certainty staked and the uncertainty of the gain; that is untrue. In truth, there is an infinity between the certainty of gain and the certainty of loss. But the uncertainty of the gain is proportioned to the certainty of the stake according to the proportion of the chances of gain and loss. Hence it comes that, if there are as many risks on one side as on the other, the course is to play even; and then the certainty of the stake is equal to the uncertainty of the gain, so far is it from fact that there is an infinite distance between them. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain. This is demonstrable; and if men are capable of any truths, this is one.
"I confess it, I admit it. But, still, is there no means of seeing the faces of the cards?" Yes, Scripture and the rest, etc. "Yes, but I have my hands tied and my mouth closed; I am forced to wager, and am not free. I am not released, and am so made that I cannot believe. What, then, would you have me do?"
True. But at least learn your inability to believe, since reason brings you to this, and yet you cannot believe. Endeavor, then, to convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God, but by the abatement of your passions. You would like to attain faith and do not know the way; you would like to cure yourself of unbelief and ask the remedy for it. Learn of those who have been bound like you, and who now stake all their possessions. These are people who know the way which you would follow, and who are cured of an ill of which you would be cured. Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed, taking the holy water, having masses said, etc. Even this will naturally make you believe, and deaden your acuteness. "But this is what I am afraid of." And why? What have you to lose?
But to show you that this leads you there, it is this which will lessen the passions, which are your stumbling-blocks.
The end of this discourse.-- Now, what harm will befall you in taking this side? You will be faithful, humble, grateful, generous, a sincere friend, truthful. Certainly you will not have those poisonous pleasures, glory and luxury; but will you not have others? I will tell you that you will thereby gain in this life, and that, at each step you take on this road, you will see so great certainty of gain, so much nothingness in what you risk, that you will at last recognize that you have wagered for something certain and infinite, for which you have given nothing.
A Selection from Pensées
If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is. This being so, who will dare to undertake the decision of the question? Not we, who have no affinity to Him.
Who then will blame Christians for not being able to give a reason for their belief, since they profess a religion for which they cannot give a reason? They declare, in expounding it to the world, that it is a foolishness, I Cor. 1. 21. ["For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe."]; and then you complain that they do not prove it! If they proved it, they would not keep their word; it is in lacking proofs that they are not lacking in sense. "Yes, but although this excuses those who offer it as such and takes away from them the blame of putting it forward without reason, it does not excuse those who receive it." Let us then examine this point, and say, "God is, or He is not." But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager? According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other; according to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.
Do not, then, reprove for error those who have made a choice; for you know nothing about it. "No, but I blame them for having made, not this choice, but a choice; for again both he who chooses heads and he who chooses tails are equally at fault, they are both in the wrong. The true course is not to wager at all."
Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. "That is very fine. Yes, I must wager; but I may perhaps wager too much." Let us see. Since there is an equal risk of gain and of loss, if you had only to gain two lives, instead of one, you might still wager. But if there were three lives to gain, you would have to play (since you are under the necessity of playing), and you would be imprudent, when you are forced to play, not to chance your life to gain three at a game where there is an equal risk of loss and gain. But there is an eternity of life and happiness. And this being so, if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would be for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for you, if there were an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain. But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. It is all divided; where-ever the infinite is and there is not an infinity of chances of loss against that of gain, there is no time to hesitate, you must give all. And thus, when one is forced to play, he must renounce reason to preserve his life, rather than risk it for infinite gain, as likely to happen as the loss of nothingness.
For it is no use to say it is uncertain if we will gain, and it is certain that we risk, and that the infinite distance between the certainly of what is staked and the uncertainty of what will be gained, equals the finite good which is certainly staked against the uncertain infinite. It is not so, as every player stakes a certainty to gain an uncertainty, and yet he stakes a finite certainty to gain a finite uncertainty, without transgressing against reason. There is not an infinite distance between the certainty staked and the uncertainty of the gain; that is untrue. In truth, there is an infinity between the certainty of gain and the certainty of loss. But the uncertainty of the gain is proportioned to the certainty of the stake according to the proportion of the chances of gain and loss. Hence it comes that, if there are as many risks on one side as on the other, the course is to play even; and then the certainty of the stake is equal to the uncertainty of the gain, so far is it from fact that there is an infinite distance between them. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain. This is demonstrable; and if men are capable of any truths, this is one.
"I confess it, I admit it. But, still, is there no means of seeing the faces of the cards?" Yes, Scripture and the rest, etc. "Yes, but I have my hands tied and my mouth closed; I am forced to wager, and am not free. I am not released, and am so made that I cannot believe. What, then, would you have me do?"
True. But at least learn your inability to believe, since reason brings you to this, and yet you cannot believe. Endeavor, then, to convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God, but by the abatement of your passions. You would like to attain faith and do not know the way; you would like to cure yourself of unbelief and ask the remedy for it. Learn of those who have been bound like you, and who now stake all their possessions. These are people who know the way which you would follow, and who are cured of an ill of which you would be cured. Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed, taking the holy water, having masses said, etc. Even this will naturally make you believe, and deaden your acuteness. "But this is what I am afraid of." And why? What have you to lose?
But to show you that this leads you there, it is this which will lessen the passions, which are your stumbling-blocks.
The end of this discourse.-- Now, what harm will befall you in taking this side? You will be faithful, humble, grateful, generous, a sincere friend, truthful. Certainly you will not have those poisonous pleasures, glory and luxury; but will you not have others? I will tell you that you will thereby gain in this life, and that, at each step you take on this road, you will see so great certainty of gain, so much nothingness in what you risk, that you will at last recognize that you have wagered for something certain and infinite, for which you have given nothing.
And if you wish to call it "irrelevant", ... go ahead, what does that do anyway? Verbal negation is cheap. Argue for obscure religions if you like too.
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Is "God" just a word? Or is the presence or absence of God something profound, that deeply speaks about human nature? Is the religious impulse merely an impulse to create gods, or is it an impulse that covers and colors all of perceptions, with divinity as its ultimate expression?
God is a word, as is "love" and "time". Is God just a word? If God does not exist, then "God" is only a word. But if God does exist, then the word "God" is not "just a word".
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Is it the same thing to say that man is a flesh and a spirit, and to say that man is only flesh? Should we predict that flesh-spirit hybrids act differently than mere meatbags? Is it different to say that God lovingly sculpted man from his breath and the earth, and to say that the earth excreted man as a matter of accident?
1st, yes. 2nd, it depends if animals have souls, but certainly there is a difference between "flesh-spirit hybrids" and plants. 3rd, yes.
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
What does the meaning of God have to do with the absurdity of the earth? Is our absurdity enough to cast down the spirits? Or is our desire for meaning enough reason to clothe ourselves with those spirits?
What The Farce are you talking about?
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Why do we invent God? Why do we deny God? Etc.....
I reject that "we invent God". Why do people deny God? Various reasons depending on life experiences. Sometimes for moral freedom, other times just due to indoctrination.
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Thoughts? Need for clarification? (once again, my mood was odd)
When will you conquer Canada?
15 Jan 2010, 11:04 am
I had a dream the other night that we were all machines. I was looking down on the earth and saw all the machines and the programmers were aliens of some sort.
It just makes me wonder how something can exist without being created since everything on earth must be created in order to exist. Perhaps there are rules that guide the immaterial world of dark energy and such, but on earth, the rule is that there needs to be a creator.
_________________
As long as man continues to be the ruthless destroyer of lower living beings he will never know health or peace. For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other.
-Pythagoras
15 Jan 2010, 11:33 am
Magnus wrote:
I had a dream the other night that we were all machines. I was looking down on the earth and saw all the machines and the programmers were aliens of some sort.
It just makes me wonder how something can exist without being created since everything on earth must be created in order to exist. Perhaps there are rules that guide the immaterial world of dark energy and such, but on earth, the rule is that there needs to be a creator.
It just makes me wonder how something can exist without being created since everything on earth must be created in order to exist. Perhaps there are rules that guide the immaterial world of dark energy and such, but on earth, the rule is that there needs to be a creator.
Well, ya gotta start small. Making zebras out of slime takes a bit of cleverness.
15 Jan 2010, 2:28 pm
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
So you say. I suggest either coffee of sleep.
I don't think it related to either.
Quote:
This part is the one related to Pascal's wager
And if you wish to call it "irrelevant", ... go ahead, what does that do anyway? Verbal negation is cheap. Argue for obscure religions if you like too.
And if you wish to call it "irrelevant", ... go ahead, what does that do anyway? Verbal negation is cheap. Argue for obscure religions if you like too.
Well, Pascal's wager is a game-theoretic argument based upon ideas that Pascal didn't invent, the notions of heaven and hell. Pascal's wager actually assumes that the existence of God lacks any significant impact on the workings of the rest of existence, and thus the only way to deal with this is a pragmatic argument.
So yeah, it is irrelevant. Especially given that Pascal's wager relies upon certain assumptions about the kinds of Gods that are likely, and thus really might not be relevant.
Quote:
God is a word, as is "love" and "time". Is God just a word? If God does not exist, then "God" is only a word. But if God does exist, then the word "God" is not "just a word".
Well, if morality didn't exist, would "moral" just be a word? I would think not.
Quote:
1st, yes. 2nd, it depends if animals have souls, but certainly there is a difference between "flesh-spirit hybrids" and plants. 3rd, yes.
Umm.... if you agree to 1, that there is no difference to say that man is just flesh or that man has a soul. Then you seem to have to say that there is no empirical difference.
Quote:
What The Farce are you talking about?
1) God is purposeful
2) God created and planned the world
3) The world is absurd and often seems purposeless
Here's the issue:
Either God is not purposeful, he is not the creator or planner, or the world really does have purpose and meaning despite what appearances indicate.
Well, God is purposeful as a matter of the nature of God, as God is perfect, and perfect things have purpose.
Or God didn't create or plan reality, but this goes against most notions of God, which may seem to indicate that no such being exists.
Or the world really isn't as purposeless and absurd as we tend to think.
Quote:
I reject that "we invent God". Why do people deny God? Various reasons depending on life experiences. Sometimes for moral freedom, other times just due to indoctrination.
Well, an atheist would say that they don't deny God, only they refuse to invent him.
Quote:
When will you conquer Canada?
Soon enough.
