[Cold Iron]

Finally. I thought no one was going to take this thread any further. Thanks skywalker.

Skywalker, on Feb 10 2009, 07:33 PM, said:

Reading through your initial post, I can't help but think it has very Cartesian roots... Like Descartes, you start out with a simple "I am" and proceed to use that as an axiom to project everything else. Also like Descartes, you are a Theist; here the similarities end because you take the undefinable but palpable/ possibly quantifiable force of influence (at some point in the future, through science) as God.

(let's assume that reading of mine is accurate - tell me if not - and continue)

Yes this is about right, scientifically quantifiable, however, has a caveat - quantum uncertainty.

Skywalker, on Feb 10 2009, 07:33 PM, said:

My problems with this definition are (and I wont repeat what has been said about lumping the undefinable together and calling it god already):

1. If you admit "you" exist, do you also admit that "others" exist? Or a) do you not care or b ) are you to some degree a solipsist? This is important, because if you allow that others exist that are not part of DM's "physical environment" but rather your peers, they (and their perceived realities) have an influence on you... I'd submit that in interacting with them you become part of a huge... call it biosphere because I shy away from "hive mind" like concepts... where there will be things like emergent trends etc. that will influence you at times imperceptibly... and in your definition you might be mixing these with "God".

2. As DM said, there is a physical environment out there that affects everything - your perception, your emotions, your peer's perceptions/ emotions, and often determines whether you live or die. This is too small a factor in your analysis methinks...

3. You are assuming the same Duality that was the basis of all Cartesian philosophy. That the material "you" is different from the spiritual "you" and that you and those other being like you, are in turn separate from the environment/ universe you "sense". Why can't the whole damn shebang be "God" with you playing the role of a super-microscopic, self aware cog in a transcendent machine?

I think I'm going to have to put much effort into defining a self (back to koan "who are you?"). I'll get back to you. Thanks!

This post has been edited by Cold Iron: 10 February 2009 - 11:44 AM

[Skywalker]

Ok... BTW I went and dug up the old thread... for old times sake:

http://www.malazanempire.com/IPBforum/inde...=11332&st=0

CI and Terez sitting in a tree A-R-G-U-I-N-G

[Satan]

This is a theological/ontological debate which I wont partake in. But I still feel the need to nitpick on your different premisses.

Cold Iron, on Jan 9 2009, 11:32 PM, said:

From the study of religion that I have done, it is clear to me that one of it's primary purposes is to commune with out subconscious emotional responses through imagery. We can see that there is a way to influence this emotional response, but it is not controllable because we don't know how or what the ultimate effects will be, so it remains out of the sphere of our direct control, separate yet connected. God.

It's important, I think, to separate between religion and religiosity/spirituality. There's a lot more to religion than just to "commune with out subconscious emotional responses through imagery." Durkheim, Marx and Weber show this well enough with their analysis on religion in society. I would argue that its social role is a lot more important than any spiritual one.

Dolorous Menhir, on Jan 11 2009, 02:17 PM, said:

2. Your division is between "conscious" and "other". This makes it easy to define "other" as unconscious mental processes, which can no doubt be affected by religious practices. In fact, that is a given. Religious rituals are designed to work on this level, not an intellectual one. That's the whole point of repititive prayers, chanting, kneeling, etc. It alters your mental state. To get to my actual point, this can all be covered by the statement that these are still "internal," by which I mean they are mundane things going on in your head. You are able to invoke a mysterious religious influence because you are not exploring what "other" actually is. You're just partitioning it from more easily understood things and saying "here is my line in the sand, this is where my curiousity ends and my mysticism starts".

2000 years of Christian theology, 3000 years of Jewish theology, 1500 years of Muslim theology, and 2500 years of Buddhist meditation would probably disagree with the above emphasised statement.

[Cold Iron]

Brynjar, on Feb 12 2009, 02:50 AM, said:

It's important, I think, to separate between religion and religiosity/spirituality. There's a lot more to religion than just to "commune with out subconscious emotional responses through imagery." Durkheim, Marx and Weber show this well enough with their analysis on religion in society. I would argue that its social role is a lot more important than any spiritual one.

To be fair, I did say "one of it's primary purposes".

Brynjar, on Feb 12 2009, 02:50 AM, said:

Dolorous Menhir, on Jan 11 2009, 02:17 PM, said:

2. Your division is between "conscious" and "other". This makes it easy to define "other" as unconscious mental processes, which can no doubt be affected by religious practices. In fact, that is a given. Religious rituals are designed to work on this level, not an intellectual one. That's the whole point of repititive prayers, chanting, kneeling, etc. It alters your mental state. To get to my actual point, this can all be covered by the statement that these are still "internal," by which I mean they are mundane things going on in your head. You are able to invoke a mysterious religious influence because you are not exploring what "other" actually is. You're just partitioning it from more easily understood things and saying "here is my line in the sand, this is where my curiousity ends and my mysticism starts".

2000 years of Christian theology, 3000 years of Jewish theology, 1500 years of Muslim theology, and 2500 years of Buddhist meditation would probably disagree with the above emphasised statement.

Italics changed to bold so ppl can see it.

This post has been edited by Cold Iron: 12 February 2009 - 03:18 AM

[GanoesSavesTheWorld]

Interesting discussion. Unfortunately for me a lot of it is above my level of intellect.

I'd like to throw in a couple of thoughts, however (I should probably mention that I do believe in God, so as to establish my dog in the fight). There seems to be an assumption that when science explains something, then God is out of the picture. Why is that? If God indeed created everything, would it not be the case that he also created science, and in fact likey used scientific process in the creation of things? Why do "God" and "Science" have to be separate and opposing factions? I would think that God was the first scientist.

And no, I'm not arguing for Intelligent Design, mostly because I don't know what it is, other than the name and that is has something to with with Christianity and science. Maybe I am arguing for it and I just don't know it, I should probably go look it up!

Also, I think the point of belief in God is not that we "prove" his existence by logical thought and means. It's first and foremost about faith, and connecting with Him in a spiritual, emotional, and very personal manner. No one will ever be able to completely "explain" God. To know if He exists, one needs to make their own "spiritual" journey. And I think God meant it to be that way. I have done that for myself, and have created a very personal relationship with God. If my belief is nothing more than my imagination, synapses firing in my brain, or extreme emotional response to my environment, than I am among billions of people across the world and throughout history that have been seriously duped. And if that were to be the case, I would be OK with it, because it indeed brings myself and my family a lot of peace and happiness in our lives.

[Slow Ben]

Sorry to bring up such an old thread, but i wanted to throw this at Ganoes.

Everytime i saw this discussion i tried to think of EXACTLY what you just said but could never put it together. So thanks.

Its impossible to argue against science and the fact that things are evolving, but that doesn't mean God had nothing to do with it.

This post has been edited by Slow Ben: 01 March 2009 - 04:30 PM

[GanoesSavesTheWorld]

np, Ben, I'm glad you brought this back up because I think its a very interesting discussion.

I'm a Christian, and I believe God is the creator of all things, but I don't think He just conjured things into existence like magic. I think He used/uses the very processes of nature (created by Him) to accomplish His will, whether it be creating the planet and everything on it, or things that are happening today.

I don't think this is a connection that we will ever be able to "prove" while here in this life, but then I don't think we're supposed to. If God were to just lay everything in front of us and say "this is how it is", that would eliminate any need for faith, which is a necessary part of our existence here and essential for our salvation. Those of you who don't believe in God will read this and say "what a crock of @#$%!" and I don't blame you. Convenient explanation for not being able to prove God's existence, right? It does sound like that, absolutely. Again, it's a matter of belief.

[TeddyGraham]

All i can say about religeon, is that it was used to explain what men didnt understand, since they didnt have science, the figured everything was supernatural. Before christianity there were simpler beliefs, such as zeus the god of lightening, poseidon, and so on. These are the same people who burned witches when unexplained things happened. Christianity was forced by the romans, and that is the only reason it is so dominant now. God is not real, it is a pleasant fiction, but still a fiction.

[GanoesSavesTheWorld]

TeddyGraham, on Mar 2 2009, 01:51 PM, said:

All i can say about religeon, is that it was used to explain what men didnt understand, since they didnt have science, the figured everything was supernatural. Before christianity there were simpler beliefs, such as zeus the god of lightening, poseidon, and so on. These are the same people who burned witches when unexplained things happened. Christianity was forced by the romans, and that is the only reason it is so dominant now. God is not real, it is a pleasant fiction, but still a fiction.

Well, then. Glad you sorted that out for me, so that myself and all those millions (perhaps billions) of other religious people across the globe can stop wasting our time on this silliness!

[Cold Iron]

Can I request that this thread remain on a level at least slightly above most of the religious threads on the internet? Please make an attempt to prove your statements, using evidence and rational argument. There is no value in the bald assertions that faith is essential for salvation or god is not real.

Anyway to come back to Skywalker and the definition of the self. I'm looking into something at the moment that I stumbled across in new scientist link. Apparently:

Quote

Bloom and colleagues have shown that babies as young as five months make a distinction between inanimate objects and people. Shown a box moving in a stop-start way, babies show surprise. But a person moving in the same way elicits no surprise. To babies, objects ought to obey the laws of physics and move in a predictable way. People, on the other hand, have their own intentions and goals, and move however they choose.

.

I'll post when I have a theory to present.

This post has been edited by Cold Iron: 02 March 2009 - 10:24 PM

[GanoesSavesTheWorld]

Cold Iron, on Mar 2 2009, 04:23 PM, said:

Can I request that this thread remain on a level at least slightly above most of the religious threads on the internet? Please make an attempt to prove your statements, using evidence and rational argument. There is no value in the bald assertions that faith is essential for salvation or god is not real.

The problem is, you can't talk about God and/or religion using only evidence and logic. You cannot "prove" that God exists or does not exist. Any discussion of religion has to include the concept of faith and belief.

Sure, there are all kinds of "evidences", ranging from scientific studies that religion has a positive effect on health, to the many miracles as yet unexplained by science, to the fact that mankind has always searched for a higher power, regardless of race, culture, or time period, to C.S. Lewis "trilemma" argument about Jesus Christ, to physical evidences of the Bible, to the fact that trillions of people throughout history have come to a belief and a personal relationship with God. The list goes on and on.

I consider these evidences. An atheist or someone who swears by science would not. And that is because every "evidence" of God, is inextricably tied to a degree of belief. That is really the point of God, the reason why we are here on earth. He wants us, of our own free will, to come to a decision that we believe He exists and that we want to do what He asks of us, which will make us happy in this life anyway, so that we can also be happy in the next life. Anyone who has to be "convinced" through science or hard evidence that God exists is searching Him out for the wrong reasons, and goes against what God wants of us and for us.

I say, if anyone really wants to know if God exists, kneel down and pray, with an open heart and real intent. He will give you and answer, if you are open to it.

I don't hold it against anyone who does not believe in God, that is their right and their choice. I get frustrated with two kinds of people: the ones who belittle religious people for their beliefs, and the religious people who look down their noses at those who are not. I do wish that others could also come to know God, because it has brought so much happiness to my family and I, and I wish others could experience the same thing.

I hope that made sense.

[Cold Iron]

GanoesSavesTheWorld, on Mar 3 2009, 10:22 AM, said:

The problem is, you can't talk about God and/or religion using only evidence and logic.

You can, I have been.

GanoesSavesTheWorld, on Mar 3 2009, 10:22 AM, said:

You cannot "prove" that God exists or does not exist. Any discussion of religion has to include the concept of faith and belief.

That depends entirely on your definition of god. I am attempting to present a definition of god that can not only be proven to exist but also demonstrated to fit the commonly accepted definitions of god better than the common conception. Ego much?

The rest of your post I have no interest in replying to. I am looking for help with developing my theory, so far DM and skywalker have helped me to reach a point where I need to do more research in order to progress further.

I appreciate the expression of your beliefs and wholly respect them, but you have not even attempted to address the original post or the discussion as it currently stands.

[GanoesSavesTheWorld]

You're right, CI, you can define God without coming to know Him as a "believer". I think with my Christian mentality, I always see it from a perspective of getting to know God personally, so I misunderstood your point from the start.

I do maintain, however, that you cannot prove that he does or does not exist outside of belief. You can definitely make a strong case for it, though. Unfortunately I won't be much help to you, due to my aforementioned perspective and bias. Good luck!

[Skywalker]

GanoesSavesTheWorld, on Mar 3 2009, 04:52 AM, said:

The problem is, you can't talk about God and/or religion using only evidence and logic. You cannot "prove" that God exists or does not exist. Any discussion of religion has to include the concept of faith and belief.

A couple of points...

i) You can't talk about religion/ a personal God without including "faith" in the equation. Agreed. However, you can discuss the nature of reality independent of whether there is a prime mover or not. You can propose models that include or do not require such a prime mover and offer evidences to support or disprove said models. What Cold Iron is trying here is to present a model/ theory/ whatever that includes a God.

ii) You can also talk about a personal/ impersonal God, his omniscience/ omnipotence/ omnipresence/ prime mover status etc. separately from the question of whether you believe in him/ her.

GanoesSavesTheWorld, on Mar 3 2009, 04:52 AM, said:

Sure, there are all kinds of "evidences", ranging from scientific studies that religion has a positive effect on health, to the many miracles as yet unexplained by science, to the fact that mankind has always searched for a higher power, regardless of race, culture, or time period, to C.S. Lewis "trilemma" argument about Jesus Christ, to physical evidences of the Bible, to the fact that trillions of people throughout history have come to a belief and a personal relationship with God. The list goes on and on.

I consider these evidences. An atheist or someone who swears by science would not. And that is because every "evidence" of God, is inextricably tied to a degree of belief. That is really the point of God, the reason why we are here on earth. He wants us, of our own free will, to come to a decision that we believe He exists and that we want to do what He asks of us, which will make us happy in this life anyway, so that we can also be happy in the next life. Anyone who has to be "convinced" through science or hard evidence that God exists is searching Him out for the wrong reasons, and goes against what God wants of us and for us.

All excellent points, and I do agree that the very nature of what constitutes "evidence" will be questioned by people on both sides of the divide. As someone who straddles the wall in this issue, I find this very amusing (in a non-condescending way if you can believe that).

What amuses me is that in this debate everyone is always talking and no one ever listens. To listen is to respect/ allow for the possibility that the other might be right and you yourself might be wrong. When your axioms/ first principles are as opposed as they are on this issue however, admitting that possibility is giving ground on the issue. So the divide widens. I'm not saying I have a solution to said problem, just saying it is amusing as hell (and slightly tragic, as all good comedy should be), is all.

GanoesSavesTheWorld, on Mar 3 2009, 04:52 AM, said:

I don't hold it against anyone who does not believe in God, that is their right and their choice. I get frustrated with two kinds of people: the ones who belittle religious people for their beliefs, and the religious people who look down their noses at those who are not. I do wish that others could also come to know God, because it has brought so much happiness to my family and I, and I wish others could experience the same thing.

I hope that made sense.

A quest for truth, an inquiry into the true nature of reality and the universe we inhabit, an honest attempt to make sense of it all is never a waste of time. Nor is it ever something one does for solace and/ or to be 'happy'.

To those who are able to accept a personal God (Yahweh, or Jesus Christ, Allah, Ram, Vishnu, Shiva, Ahura Mazda, Ba'al, Buddha, or any other) I say good for you, and I envy you for the peace and fulfilment your decision grants you.

To those in the minority that rave against religion and all the ill it has wrought I say try and dispassionately detach organized religion from personal faith (the two are very different things) and try and focus on the dispassionate inquiry I called the quest for truth.

In the meantime, I (and others like me) shall wait for more civil discussions such as the one CI has going here...

This post has been edited by Skywalker: 09 March 2009 - 06:48 AM

[GanoesSavesTheWorld]

Excellent points all, Skywalker, I completely understand where you and CI are coming from.

Another interesting thought I wanted to add: I honestly don't know how other Christians feel about this, but although I believe that God created our world and many other things, I also believe that he is subject to laws of nature. An example I have heard many times before: Can God create something so heavy that he would be unable to lift it? Whatever the answer, it would reveal a "failing" of God.

I said in an earlier post that God created the processes of nature. What I meant, though, were the processes used to create this planet and whatever is on it, and whatever else God happened to create. I won't get more into this, because it would lead to a long religious discussion (at least from my part) but I believe that there is "more" out there than the God we speak of, and He needs to obey certain laws just like we do. One of the main differences being that He is perfectly obedient and we are not.

So, in addition to being religious, I am also completey fascinated by science, and the quest for truth, as you put it. I don't think that man should be content in letting God do and explain everything for them through religion, and I don't think God has it in mind to just give all knowledge to man. I think He WANTS us to be like we are, always searching and investigating, and I think He helps us along the way, whether we believe in Him or not.

Just last week I watched two programs on the History channel (I think) about light speed and parallel universes. I LOVE that stuff!

Whether or not this will add to the discussion, I don't know, I just wanted to throw it in there.

[Cause]

I dont believe in god, but the paradox you describe I think would be more a failing of human understanding/language in terms of god than a failing of god. After all if gods power is limited he is not god, just a more powerful being than umans

[GanoesSavesTheWorld]

Cause, on Mar 9 2009, 01:48 PM, said:

I dont believe in god, but the paradox you describe I think would be more a failing of human understanding/language in terms of god than a failing of god. After all if gods power is limited he is not god, just a more powerful being than umans

Failing is not exactly what I meant, which is why I put it in quotes. I don't mean to say that God has flaws, but that even He is subject to certain laws, and He is perfectly obedient to them. Without laws, there is only chaos, and God is definitely a proponent of order, and obedience. Which is what He asks of us, and why would he do that, unless he also is obedient. That would be hypocritical, and I don't think God is a hypocrite! That's what I believe, anyway.

[Cause]

I disagree further. A parent gives its childrens laws which itself is not subject to. What is good for the goose is not always what is good for the gander. God is not subject to needing to keep kosher for example yet he asks jews to be. I also question your key ideas submission and obedience. I was taught that what gods asks us to do what he asks out of love because it is best for us, not because he wishes us to obey. Im jewish. I belive Islam takes the harder obedience line and christianity I have always viewed as a religeon of faith over action. However I think we are mostly concerned with personal god over religous ideas but I would still hesitate in apllying the views you espouse when so many people have so many different ideas.

Lastly does god champion order over choas. What evidence, reasons have you for suggesting this. Would the concepts even mean antyhting to an omnipotent omnipresent etc being. The idea of creation as order from choas is largly poetry Iwould think over literal meaning

[Dolorous Menhir]

Had a catch-up, was surprised that Cold Iron said something nice about me (or at least that I helped him). This is progress. I wanted to respond to a couple of points.

Brynjar, on Feb 11 2009, 03:50 PM, said:

2000 years of Christian theology, 3000 years of Jewish theology, 1500 years of Muslim theology, and 2500 years of Buddhist meditation would probably disagree with the above emphasised statement.

GanoesSavesTheWorld, on Mar 2 2009, 11:22 PM, said:

Sure, there are all kinds of "evidences", ranging from scientific studies that religion has a positive effect on health, to the many miracles as yet unexplained by science, to the fact that mankind has always searched for a higher power, regardless of race, culture, or time period, to C.S. Lewis "trilemma" argument about Jesus Christ, to physical evidences of the Bible, to the fact that trillions of people throughout history have come to a belief and a personal relationship with God. The list goes on and on.

I consider these evidences. An atheist or someone who swears by science would not.

These are appeals to authority (antiquity, popularity), not presentation of evidence. Though I would be interested to learn more about the scientific studies that religion has health benefits that you mention, as I'm assuming that's 1) a legit study and, if so, 2) related to psychological factors along the lines of the placebo effect.

GanoesSavesTheWorld, on Feb 17 2009, 05:22 PM, said:

I'd like to throw in a couple of thoughts, however (I should probably mention that I do believe in God, so as to establish my dog in the fight). There seems to be an assumption that when science explains something, then God is out of the picture. Why is that? If God indeed created everything, would it not be the case that he also created science, and in fact likey used scientific process in the creation of things? Why do "God" and "Science" have to be separate and opposing factions? I would think that God was the first scientist.

Why is that? Because when science explains something then there is no need for god. From reading your posts your belief arises from a personal need for a god and the benefits derived from that figure (which you describe in detail), not any kind of outside evidence or reasoning which you could use to convince others.

I skipped over a lot of the later entries because I wanted to address these two.

This post has been edited by Dolorous Menhir: 09 March 2009 - 08:09 PM

[Cold Iron]

Dolorous Menhir, on Mar 10 2009, 07:08 AM, said:

Had a catch-up, was surprised that Cold Iron said something nice about me (or at least that I helped him). This is progress. I wanted to respond to a couple of points.

While we at it, can I invite you to have a crack at defining a self? I haven't progressed much with the research, basically humans seem to be able to understand inanimate and animate objects differently from a very early age, almost instinctually. Now the question is whether this is what shapes our sense of self or if our sense of self enables our identification of other selves...