Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

[Limbo]

Your own words contradict you. You have already stated you believe in God, perhaps of your own personal definition. Show anyone here how to replicate your results consistently, and you could be a teacher. Otherwise, you're just another huckster, a member of a long lineage of self-serving liars.

Yeah, I could show anyone here how to replicate my results, but it would require them to read certain books and practice certain spiritual exercises. Time-consuming stuff. It requires commitment and perhaps lifestyle changes.

In theory you could do it. The only thing stopping you is yourself.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Yeah, I could show anyone here how to replicate my results, but it would require them to read certain books and practice certain spiritual exercises. Time-consuming stuff. It requires commitment and perhaps lifestyle changes.

In theory you could do it. The only thing stopping you is yourself.

There's another word for that. I'll let others here substitute their own appropriate metaphor.

 

[Limbo]

There's another word for that. I'll let others here substitute there own appropriate metaphor.

If I am to be a teacher then the student has to give me the authority to assign homework and tasks. Otherwise the teacher-student relationship just doesn't work. Only you can give me or deny me that authority.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

If I am to be a teacher then the student has to give me the authority to assign homework and tasks. Otherwise the teacher-student relationship just doesn't work. Only you can give me or deny me that authority.

OK, I'll meet you halfway. You give me the title of the work that you think is most important for my education, and I promise to at least try to read it. However, I never gave you the title of "teacher." I am not your student; I am a peer willing to give you time against my better judgement.

 

[Limbo]

OK, I'll meet you halfway. You give me the title of the work that you think is most important for my education, and I promise to at least try to read it. However, I never gave you the title of "teacher." I am not your student; I am a peer willing to give you time against my better judgement.

OK.

Living Deeply: The Art and Science of Transformation in Everyday Life

 

[annnnoid]

To propose a god you have to propose a god.

...sorry Piggy...this thread gallops along and I should respond to your earlier responses and I've got my challenge to Wasp to flesh out (re-define the universe no less) but you just keep sayin stuff that annoys me and that is my name after all so I write stuff and out it comes in a big puddle of mangled meanings. I still think you're mistaken...and here's why...

Again, Piggy, your argument is predicated on the firm assumption that we have the ability to definitively rationally understand our experiences. You do not allow for the fact that this is indisputably not the case. You argue that because this God cannot be defined in terms that we can rationally understand, therefore this God cannot exist (and those who insist on it must be neurotic or psychotic)…because every rational ‘God’ can be argued out of existence (except the ones Wasp has proposed [which you disagree with anyway]…which, IMO, do not include the full range of possibilities)

Can you prove that we have the capacity to understand all the terms within which God can be defined (.....this does not automatically allow for pink unicorns etc. etc. [explained below])? Can you prove that we understand even the terms of our own existence?

I gave you an example of one (a ‘God condition’…a description of God). God has all our dreams in mind. Your argument basically amounts to…because this is meaningless to your level of strictly rational comprehension, it must therefore be false. You completely ignore the indisputable fact that there are legitimate varieties of understanding that rational understanding has no understanding of. IOW…to expect to achieve an accurate understanding of a non-rational condition by imposing a rational template is a category error.

Ever heard the phrase…’the heart has reasons that reason knows nothing of’. Does this phrase accurately reflect the reality of human nature…or not? Does the ‘heart’ have an epistemology that your rational epistemology simply cannot effectively adjudicate…or not?

What all this means, simply, is that there is a vast area of human activity that you cannot simply rationalize out of existence because neither you nor anyone else has any way of rationally understanding what is going on there. Only the person who is experiencing themself knows what is going on there. It is precisely there where individual people discover their own ‘meaning of God’. Insisting that it must be suspect because it cannot be resolved within your narrow over-rationalized interpretation of religious psychology is an indictment of your reasoning, not their experiences.

What it boils down to is you insist that the rational template that you refer to has to be the same rational template that everyone refers to (….’the God they are talking about has to be the same ‘God’ I am insisting does not exist therefore since I can prove this ‘God’ does not exist they must be somehow deluded’…). Perhaps you could cite the stone tablets whereupon this is inscribed….but before you bother, consider, again, the basic fact of human existence. Life is not rational. There is another epistemology. We have ways of reaching entirely legitimate conclusions…note that word LEGITIMATE …that are effectively ineffable…even contrary, to our rational minds. Thus…’the heart has reasons that reason knows nothing of.’

So I am proposing a God. I am proposing a God who is known through the primary epistemology of human nature. This is a variety of knowing that we each practice in our own unique way…and is therefore impossible to rationalize. The ‘God’ that I know is not the ‘God’ that the person immediately beside me knows. IOW…my description is not their description. Many would simply have no description. The fact that it can be abstractly referred to as ‘the creator of the universe’ is actually about as meaningless to many a believer as it is to you (IOW…who cares!). Those things that are meaningful are meaningful precisely because they are ineffable. The fact that it is widely accepted that ‘ineffable’ is a legitimate quality of human nature lends substantial credence to these experiences…contrary to your insistence that ‘if it can’t be described then how can they (or I) know what the hell they’re talking about’. It is precisely because it can’t be described that people do know what they’re talking about (I mentioned Wittgenstein before and his famous quote: ‘…there are those things that must be passed over in silence…’…assuming he was right [he was a stupid philosopher, but he was a pretty smart guy], what might these ‘things’ be and why must they be passed over in silence?)

What the hell is anyone ever actually talking about anyway? We don’t actually know (literally…personally I think it’s somehow related to all that ‘tower of babel’ stuff…but that’s another story) when it comes right down to it…and that precise area…’when it comes right down to it’…is exactly where people encounter what God means to them (that is, of course, a generalization).

 

[laca]

Ah, so because you don't get it, I don't know what I'm talking about, (deja vu).

No. Because you are unable to express yourself precisely, you said something you apparently did not mean. You need to rephrase.

The idea of the Mona Lisa exists, many millions of people entertain ideas about the mona Lisa, does none of this exist? I am not suggesting that there exists a painting for each of these ideas, or that any other ideas which exist are also present in physical form.

That is typical useless mystic talk. Who cares about whacked up ideas some idiots thought up over the ages? What do those have to do with reality?

 

[laca]

Yeah I do mean that it's evidence for me and that's good enough for me.

Good luck buying anything with your pretend money. Oh, that involves other people and reality so it doesn't work? Uh-huh...

Also, I don't think that claims of a 'world' or a 'metaphysical energy' or a something behind this world is an 'extraordinary' one. It's an ordinary one given the experiences of most people, and given the fact that it's a universal common denominator in world religion and myth. It's a part of human experience. It's an archetypal pattern, a part of our psyche.

Yes. Possible causes: delusion, wishful thinking, confirmation bias, etc. Take your pick. Unless you got some evidence, that is.

Take UFOs for instance. Extraordinary? Not really. Not to me. Cultures have been having sightings for thousands of years, and so UFOs are a part of world religion and myth. A culture that doesn't have sightings would be extraordinary. Who are we to say what's ordinary and what isn't?

Wonders in the Sky: Unexplained Aerial Objects from Antiquity to Modern Times

Yeah... So, let me ask you what is extraordinary to you?

 

[laca]

Yeah, I could show anyone here how to replicate my results, but it would require them to read certain books and practice certain spiritual exercises. Time-consuming stuff. It requires commitment and perhaps lifestyle changes.

I've got a commitment for reality and reason. Is that not enough?

In theory you could do it. The only thing stopping you is yourself.

No. The thing that's stopping me is reality and reason. But don't let those get in your way, carry on.

 

[laca]

If I am to be a teacher then the student has to give me the authority to assign homework and tasks. Otherwise the teacher-student relationship just doesn't work. Only you can give me or deny me that authority.

You can't teach someone who is your peer? Sounds like you don't have any arguments, you need the authority to get past uncomfortable questions. Reminds me of religion. Oh, wait...

 

[punshhh]

Go ahead and stare at me.

But let me ask you this, then... if you think it's a god, then describe that god to me.

You can't do it, because the god has no description.

It's been de-defined, and all that's left is what it supposedly did... and we know the universe was created, so unless you say what this deistic god is supposed to be, we're left with "something created the universe" just as if I'd claimed that fluxnor created the universe.

The deistic fallacy is to believe that the claim "god created the universe and then didn't interfere with it" can be a claim about god if you don't say (or know) what you mean by that term.

In other words, it doesn't change the terms of the debate one whit.

If you simply take a known even and attribute it to <whatever>, you have not produced any argument in favor of the reality of <whatever>.

Those hoofprints behind my house might have been made by a unicorn I'll never see.

So do those hoofprints constitute evidence (much less an iron-clad argument) in favor of the existence of unicorns?

No.

To propose a god you have to propose a god.

Talk about what it does later, but first say what it is.

Attributing a known event to it doesn't move anything along.

And if you say you can't know what it is... at all!... then how in the world can we be talking about it?

You are not taking the time to consider the definitions of god, you are just dismissing them. Wasp is right in saying that you assume the materialist position and require that everything which can be entertained as existing must first be understood through this philosophy.

We are discussing a subject which cannot be understood via materialism, simply because it is about the context in which materialism resides.

We are considering the origin of existence as we know it and the basis of, or how it is, the way it is.

"To be or not to be"

What can materialism say about this?

 

[punshhh]

No. Because you are unable to express yourself precisely, you said something you apparently did not mean. You need to rephrase.

Yes it is a simplified model and could be refined.

That is typical useless mystic talk. Who cares about whacked up ideas some idiots thought up over the ages? What do those have to do with reality?

I'm not suggesting anything mysterious about the painting of the Mona Lisa. I'm giving an example of the existence of thoughts, like the internet they may not occupy 3D space, but they do exist do they not?

More precisely the subjective content/concept of thoughts does exist. Or is it a mirage?

 

[Belz...]

My point is, that any intelligent being must have a nervous system.

Or at least some physical aparatus that does the thinking, like a circuit board.

 

[Belz...]

Again, Piggy, your argument is predicated on the firm assumption that we have the ability to definitively rationally understand our experiences. You do not allow for the fact that this is indisputably not the case.

Fact ? Science works precisely because we CAN rationally understand our experiences.

 

[zooterkin]

I'm not suggesting anything mysterious about the painting of the Mona Lisa. I'm giving an example of the existence of thoughts, like the internet they may not occupy 3D space, but they do exist do they not?

Yes, the thought exists.

More precisely the subjective content/concept of thoughts does exist. Or is it a mirage?

I have no idea what you mean.

The fact that I can think about something has no effect on whether that thing exists or not.

 

[dafydd]

Yes it is a simplified model and could be refined.

I'm not suggesting anything mysterious about the painting of the Mona Lisa. I'm giving an example of the existence of thoughts, like the internet they may not occupy 3D space, but they do exist do they not?

More precisely the subjective content/concept of thoughts does exist. Or is it a mirage?

What does this have to do with agnostics being welcome here or not?

 

[dafydd]

The fact that I can think about something has no effect on whether that thing exists or not.

Perhaps it does in the imaginary and wacky world of mysticism. Not in reality though.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

It is perfectly correct historically because I don't dispute that.

I mean, look at ancient India. They had a sufficiently urban and scholarly culture to intellectualize god.

But the thing is, the sliding scale still goes from the earliest conceptions of god (which are false) to conceptions which are de-defined in various ways. That tactic didn't wait for Galileo.

If you have a god to propose which isn't somewhere on that scale, then what is it?

OK, that's fine. It simply isn't the case, as commonly portrayed, that de-defining god was an attempt to 'put god out of harm's way'. It was a philosophical enterprise that served a different purpose. It grew out of the move from animism to polytheism to monotheism. Animistic and polytheistic gods were in this world not the cause of it. It was the move to understand existence that drove what I would call a change in conception of god. I think de-defining is a bit too value laden.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Yeah I do mean that it's evidence for me and that's good enough for me.

OK, not much for me to say about that.

Also, I don't think that claims of a 'world' or a 'metaphysical energy' or a something behind this world is an 'extraordinary' one. It's an ordinary one given the experiences of most people, and given the fact that it's a universal common denominator in world religion and myth. It's a part of human experience. It's an archetypal pattern, a part of our psyche.

Take UFOs for instance. Extraordinary? Not really. Not to me. Cultures have been having sightings for thousands of years, and so UFOs are a part of world religion and myth. A culture that doesn't have sightings would be extraordinary. Who are we to say what's ordinary and what isn't?

Wonders in the Sky: Unexplained Aerial Objects from Antiquity to Modern Times

That people see things in the sky or see things in strange experiences is not what is extraordinary. It is the interpretation that makes the claim ordinary or extraordinary.

 

[Limbo]

That people see things in the sky or see things in strange experiences is not what is extraordinary. It is the interpretation that makes the claim ordinary or extraordinary.

There is an esoteric current running throughout world religion and myth. An interpretation consistent with it can't be extraordinary, because it is universal and experiential.