Definition of "god"?

[BillyJoe]

Hehe, "Imagine a thing which cannot be labeled. Call it X." We've heard this philosophically deep argument before.

That's a good one.
In fact, it made me laugh.

 

[beeksc1]

Not Maatorc; just beeks

Piggy, cannot follow the question?

Why does beauty, compassion, love exist, if atheistic evolution was how it happened?

I like Dawkins' definition: The most evil fictional character ever created.
And I'm quick to point out, the God of the Bible only just barely misses being the most evil creature possible even in theory, because Yahweh plans on torturing, for ever and ever, merely almost everybody who ever lived, rather than everybody who ever lived. And knowing almost all will end up this way, He allows them to be born, de facto creating them himself for the purpose of torturing them, for ever and ever.

Ugh, Beerina, try to drop all preconceived notions concerning a divine presence in our universe that come from organized religion, and see if you feel more comfortable with the idea. the characterization (a description) of god does not mean a condemning higher power.

God = physics, then.

Spot-on.

The creator of all things. Ruler of the universe. Source of all life.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

Why does beauty, compassion, love exist, if atheistic evolution was how it happened?

Well, they don’t!

That is to say: beauty, compassion and love do not exist as entities in their own right, but rather as linguistic conventions when we try to explain and communicate some parts of the processes we experience – there seems to be commonality in how we experience some aspects thou (although we can’t be absolutely sure). So, in other words, they cannot exist outside a relative framework.

 

[six7s]

they cannot exist outside a relative framework.

Serious question, cos - despite reading it umpteen times - I don't understand what the term means, in this sorta context...

What can exist outside a relative framework?

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

Serious question, cos - despite reading it umpteen times - I don't understand what the term means, in this sorta context...

What can exist outside a relative framework?

I would say that the thing we call the sun can pretty much exist without whatever framework we’re using. Love and compassion on the other hand, look like they need sufficient intelligence and experiential conventions in order for some actions/processes to be identified as that. It’s not like a person would get burned by their radiation.

So, if whenever I was hungry as a child, my parents would have interpreted my screaming signal as me experiencing love instead of hunger (and only fed me regularly because of a feeding schedule given to them by whomever), then it might be that when you and I (growing up in a different context, in relation to how "love" is perceived) would later be talking about love, we could mean different things by that word, or at least there would be different connotations associated with the usage of that word.

 

[six7s]

I would say that the thing we call the sun can pretty much exist without whatever framework we’re using.

Thanks

 

[Piggy]

Piggy, cannot follow the question?

Why does beauty, compassion, love exist, if atheistic evolution was how it happened?

Cannot follow your train of thought and/or syntax.

Anyway, this question is a very interesting one.

Love and compassion? They arise the way anything else does in an evolutionary system -- they provide a survival advantage.

In complex social species like primates, a certain amount of agression helps your group to not get wiped out, but love and compassion help the group bond so they help each other and care enough about each other to make an effort.

Beauty... I don't know if anyone knows. The natural world is usually beautiful, even when it's killing us. Why do we find it beautiful?

But the thing is, the existence of unanswered questions does not allow us to, in effect, ignore them and seek no answers by putting the label "God did it" on them.

 

[Paulhoff]

Why does beauty, compassion, love exist, if atheistic evolution was how it happened?

Ugh, Beerina, try to drop all preconceived notions concerning a divine presence in our universe that come from organized religion, and see if you feel more comfortable with the idea. the characterization (a description) of god does not mean a condemning higher power.

And why wouldn't evolution give rise to a brain that knows beauty, compassion and love.

And how does a three letter word "god" explain anything, being that it can mean anything you what that word to mean.

"Divine presence" I have found in my talking to people who buy into that, that they know next to nothing about what has been learned about the universe and/or just can get their mind around being a distant relative to the apes, as if there are not any exsamples of humans acting like ones on the news.

Paul

 

[BillyJoe]

...or just can't get their mind around being a distant relative to the apes, as if there are not any examples of humans acting like ones on the news.

Hmmm...I think those great apes might object to that comparison.

 

[beeksc1]

Anyway, this question is a very interesting one.
Love and compassion? They arise the way anything else does in an evolutionary system -- they provide a survival advantage.
In complex social species like primates, a certain amount of agression helps your group to not get wiped out, but love and compassion help the group bond so they help each other and care enough about each other to make an effort.
Beauty... I don't know if anyone knows. The natural world is usually beautiful, even when it's killing us. Why do we find it beautiful?
But the thing is, the existence of unanswered questions does not allow us to, in effect, ignore them and seek no answers by putting the label "God did it" on them.

Your definitely are right. I am not saying love, beauty is evidence for the existence for a divine fabric intertwined through the universe and within our psyche; just pointing out the sheer discussion of these topics (in some ways) is quite amazing.

Self-awareness is another one...

Yes, "reason" distinguishes humans from the greats apes; but, as you said, our most basic reasoning is to survive.

I think nature is beautiful because of local symmetry and the global asymmetry.

And the color green seems to resinate within our psyche.

Even though sometimes I may say that "humans have the ability to know a divine giver of life is present"; What I mean is that, many, many peoples and cultures feel that there is higher being that exists throughout all of creation.

An analogy is how I think about it. The rhythm of the music is more fully understood when a person lays down the beat or listens to it, rather than reading the scored music. You have to experience to get a feel for it.

Or like the wind, we cannot see the wind; but we can feel it and see its effects (tumbleweed; etc.). I see our ability of self-awareness as the leaves that are moved by a gust of wind.

Even though the concept we call our soul (spirituality) is important to me; I do not discount the possibility that life could have plausibly evolved without a theological entity. It is more like I feel and hope that, when our body ceases functioning, (eventually) we will be harmonized with the unified pool of consciousness and the original giver of life.

Carl Jung is a favorite.

 

[Paulhoff]

Even though sometimes I may say that "humans have the ability to know a divine giver of life is present";

Humans have the great ability to deceive themselves into thinking that there is a so-called divine giver of life. I see no need for one.

Paul

 

[beeksc1]

A divine being is not necessary?

Is beauty needed? Some animal creatures do not really appear to aesthetics, but they survive.

Or like the wind, we cannot see the wind; but we can feel it and see its effects (tumbleweed; etc.). I see our ability of self-awareness as the leaves that are moved by a gust of wind.

 

[BillyJoe]

It is more like I feel and hope that, when our body ceases functioning, we will be harmonized with the unified pool of consciousness and the original giver of life.

You start off with "feel and hope" and end up with new age religious nonsense.
I'm not surprised.
"Feel and Hope" always goes beyond the evidence of our senses and ends up as a personal interpretation of which there are a thousand similarly unsubstantiated and mutually exclusive alternatives.

 

[billydkid]

The fact that the OP can even be posted -- and make sense -- is yet another indication that "God" is a non-concept.

It is infinitely plastic.

If the definition of the concept is entirely up for grabs, if anyone feels free to define it any way they please, then obviously we're dealing with an empty term.

If it has infinite definitions, then it has no definition.

Most believers are wise to this - once you define God he disappears. That is why not defining him is fundamental to faith.

 

[six7s]

That is why not defining him is fundamental to faith.

Please pardon my ignorance when I ask if that statement is on a par with saying 'That is why turning your brain off is fundamental to faith'

 

[beeksc1]

Well, will not we all find when our body ceases to function, if there is a theological entity or not?

 

[Piggy]

Well, will not we all find when our body ceases to function, if there is a theological entity or not?

No.

We will not find out anything.

Because our minds are simply an activity of our bodies.

When our body stops, we stop.

 

[six7s]

Well, will not we all find when our body ceases to function, if there is a theological entity or not?

Going by the evidence, probably not

 

[BillyJoe]

Well, will not we all find when our body ceases to function, if there is a theological entity or not?

Only if there is one. If there isn't we won't. Goddamn!

 

[Foster Zygote]

Yes, "reason" distinguishes humans from the greats apes; but, as you said, our most basic reasoning is to survive.

Humans are great apes.