If only "One thing" exists, then...

[Bubbles]

I realize that this is just a statement of how you feel and not intended to be a proof, but if I may ask, on what do you base the assumption that God exists?

Well, for this argument (argument in the sense of 'I began with these asumptions and end up here'), it was just that, an assumption.

As far as why I believe the assumption to be true:

I do not consider the 'un-caused cause' argument to refute atheism. I do, consider it, however, to be a reasonable explanation of an evident fact (evident facts, of course, are not of nessecity (no matter how I spell that it looks wrong) true).

There is a general experience of absolute right and wrong. By that I mean that most people speak as if there were things that are wrong and right, quite apart from what any of us think. Again, that belief may be wrong. I think it right. I think God to be a reasonable explanation of the observation.

Finally, I believe that God exists because I believe that I have had, on some level, an experience of God. Now, I do not say that you should believe something because of my subjective experiences, but I will say that I am quite free to consider them myself.

 

[Bubbles]

And why can't pantheism be merely a manifestation of The One? And what does the first commandment say, "Thou shalt have no gods before me?" So what else could that possibly imply, but one God in essence? And, so long as you understand this, maybe the other gods don't have to become quite such a big issue? Also, if Jesus were the son of God and, by believing in Jesus we become "sons of God," what might that imply? That there's room for more than one? This is none other than what an angel is by the way, someone who is deceased and gone to heaven. And who knows, maybe some of the other gods which have approached men, were actually angels?

Calm down. I didn't say 'You are wrong!' I didn't say 'Pantheism is incorrect!' All I said is that it wasn't what I expected, having read your thoughts on related topics, you to say. Thats it.

 

[Iacchus]

Calm down. I didn't say 'You are wrong!' I didn't say 'Pantheism is incorrect!' All I said is that it wasn't what I expected, having read your thoughts on related topics, you to say. Thats it.

And who says I'm not calm about it? There was nothing defensive in the least about why I wrote it. I just thought it might be good to introduce how both ideas can be compatible.

 

[Tricky]

Of course we are referring to different religions here, where one is more concerned with an essential God, and the others are more humanistic, hence archetypal. Either way, they each have their merits. As far as mythology is concerned, most myths are based upon something actual.

I see nothing in the various religions that suggests an essential God. If anything, they suggest that such a concept is inherantly self-contradictory, since what is "true" in one religion may be an anathema in another. And are you sure you mean "archetypal"? That is supposedly the perfect model against which all others are based. If you think pantheistic religions are archetypal, that suggests that Christianity is a poor version of the perfect religion, having only one (or three, depending on how you count them) gods.

Some myths are based on actual things. For example, unicorns are based on a combination of horses and birds, both of which are real. This does not suggest, however, that unicorns are real. Similarly, Jesus may be based on a real person (or several), but it does not follow that all the things ascribed to him are real, including his divinity.

Originally posted by Bubbles
Well, for this argument (argument in the sense of 'I began with these asumptions and end up here'), it was just that, an assumption.

Yes that was clear.

Originally posted by Bubbles
I do not consider the 'un-caused cause' argument to refute atheism. I do, consider it, however, to be a reasonable explanation of an evident fact (evident facts, of course, are not of necessity (no matter how I spell that it looks wrong) true).

There is a general experience of absolute right and wrong. By that I mean that most people speak as if there were things that are wrong and right, quite apart from what any of us think. Again, that belief may be wrong. I think it right. I think God to be a reasonable explanation of the observation.

I'm not sure about "evident facts". My experience teaches me that even the things I regard as most evident have at least a small chance of being untrue in some very unusual situation. Neither to I subscribe to the concept of absolute right and wrong. For example, killing humans. I think we can all easily conceive of situations where we would kill, such as to protect our family. But that is not murder, you say. But if you saw a man outside your house pointing a gun at your child, would killing him then be murder? He hasn't done anything yet, so you are just killing him because you strongly suspect he is dangerous. That's murder, however justified.

I believe it is possible to formulate an exception, however farfetched, to any example of right and wrong, hence, it is not an absolute.

By the way, one thing I find a "necessity" on these boards is a dictionary link. This link will let you install a dictionary button on your taskbar which lets you check spelling, definitions and thesaurus on any word of a web page that you highlight.

Originally posted by Bubbles
Finally, I believe that God exists because I believe that I have had, on some level, an experience of God. Now, I do not say that you should believe something because of my subjective experiences, but I will say that I am quite free to consider them myself.

So have I, Bubbles. I used to be a Christian, and I know about "religious experiences". I think it is good though, that you know that they are subjective. I was just curious, not critical. You may find it interesting that the "atheist experience", the "aha moment" when the scales fall from your eyes, is every bit as wonderful and exciting, though I admit that it is a bit of a bummer that I had no God to thank for it.

 

[Iacchus]

I see nothing in the various religions that suggests an essential God. If anything, they suggest that such a concept is inherantly self-contradictory, since what is "true" in one religion may be an anathema in another. And are you sure you mean "archetypal"? That is supposedly the perfect model against which all others are based. If you think pantheistic religions are archetypal, that suggests that Christianity is a poor version of the perfect religion, having only one (or three, depending on how you count them) gods.

The Greek gods were all human archetypes, in terms of first patterns of human behavior. Which, is what makes it so interesting, because it allows us to study the psychology of the relationship -- between people -- rather than the relationship between God and man which, will only take you so far before you begin to sound like a broken record repeating itself. And, while Christianity is more of a purist's religion, it really doesn't offer much in a psychological sense (you either follow God or you don't) and understanding ourselves. In other words the human relationship was illustrated in the interaction between the gods, as well as man.

 

[Tricky]

The Greek gods were all human archetypes, in terms of first patterns of human behavior.

Hardly the first. In fact, isn't it you who has the thing about sun worship? That surely preceded the anthropomorphic gods. People worshipped the sun, the rain, the ocean, and all of the things that were beyond their power. Turning them into man-like deities came much later.

So there isn't really any archetype for God, either most primative or most perfect.

Which, is what makes it so interesting, because it allows us to study the psychology of the relationship -- between people -- rather than the relationship between God and man which, will only take you so far before you begin to sound like a broken record repeating itself.

LOL. I was wondering if you noticed that.

And, while Christianity is more of a purist's religion, it really doesn't offer much in a psychological sense (you either follow God or you don't) and understanding ourselves.

Absolutely incorrect. Christianity is a hodge-podge, borrowing liberally from Judaism and various pagan mythologies, like the Sumarian flood story and the Mithran birth story.

And the idea that you "either follow God or you don't" is obviously wrong, since even Christians cannot agree how to follow God. In some places, they kill each other over these differences. Christianity is used to justify hatred of homosexuals and members of other religions. I cannot find any definition of "purist" that fits Christianity as a whole. It is a "one size fits all" religion that allows you to hold practically any moral positions you like because somewhere in that archive of contradictions called The Bible, you can find justification for it.

In other words the human relationship was illustrated in the interaction between the gods, as well as man.

In other words, as time passed, we became more adept at creating our gods in the image of ourselves. The ancients had natural objects as gods, imbuing them with man-like qualities such as anger, pleasure and greed. The Greek gods were man-like, having many human qualities, but not human and caring only a little for the affairs of humans. Christianity took that one step further by creating a human version of their God.

 

[Bubbles]

I see nothing in the various religions that suggests an essential God. If anything, they suggest that such a concept is inherantly self-contradictory, since what is "true" in one religion may be an anathema in another. And are you sure you mean "archetypal"? That is supposedly the perfect model against which all others are based. If you think pantheistic religions are archetypal, that suggests that Christianity is a poor version of the perfect religion, having only one (or three, depending on how you count them) gods.

Some myths are based on actual things. For example, unicorns are based on a combination of horses and birds, both of which are real. This does not suggest, however, that unicorns are real. Similarly, Jesus may be based on a real person (or several), but it does not follow that all the things ascribed to him are real, including his divinity.


Yes that was clear.

I'm not sure about "evident facts". My experience teaches me that even the things I regard as most evident have at least a small chance of being untrue in some very unusual situation. Neither to I subscribe to the concept of absolute right and wrong. For example, killing humans. I think we can all easily conceive of situations where we would kill, such as to protect our family. But that is not murder, you say. But if you saw a man outside your house pointing a gun at your child, would killing him then be murder? He hasn't done anything yet, so you are just killing him because you strongly suspect he is dangerous. That's murder, however justified.

I wasn't clear on something. I do not mean by objective right or wrong that some actions are always right and some actions always wrong. Suicide, I would argue, is generally wrong. If one was, in World War II, part of the French resistance, was captured, and knew that one would be tortured until one gave the names of other reisitance members (leading to them being captured, tortured, and killed) it could very well be argued that one would have a moral duty to commit suicide. Generally wrong isn't always specifically wrong. But that isn't what I meant at all.

To take an extreme example, we would say that the Holocaust (I looked it up; is it really spelled that way?) was wrong. The way we speak suggests that there is an objective standard by which the thing is to be judged apart from the subjective views of any of us. The problem that a great many people run into (from my perspective) is that they fail to destinguish the objective from the subjective knowledge of the objective. If there is an objective right and wrong, that does not mean that I know what it is or even that it is. It only means that it is.

Does the way of speaking reflect an objective fact? If so, what does that mean?

 

[TheERK]

It seems that a lot of Lifegazer's ramblings come from one giant misunderstanding: what does it mean to be "one thing?"

Anybody can claim that there is only one thing, but they are wrong. If I have a jar of peanut butter, and a piece of bread, I can claim they are one collective set--the combination of peanut butter and bread. This can be applied to any set of objects--just lump them together as a set and call it 'one', and voila, irrational mysticism abounds.

So, the universe is one thing, huh? Well, I guess you could say it that way, but it's totally meaningless in the context of the way humans differentiate objects. You can call any set of objects you want one thing, but that doesn't mean they are one to anybody else; rather than making a declaration about the nature of things, you're just modifying your definitions of what constitutes a meaningful set of objects.

 

[Beleth]

Even science seeks to unite everything to "one thing" - a theory of everything (a "TOE") seeks to relate all things to a single thing.
However, I contend that if One Thing is the cause of everything that proceeds it, then that "One Thing" must be 'God', by default.

Welcome back, lifegazer.

I see that you are still having an issue with the word thing, in that you still feel the need to put it in quotes when you are referring to God as a thing, i.e. an entity which exists.

We should get that issue squared away before we proceed with the points of your philosophy that depend on it, don't you agree?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Re: Re: If only "One thing" exists, then...

Welcome back, lifegazer.

I see that you are still having an issue with the word thing, in that you still feel the need to put it in quotes when you are referring to God as a thing, i.e. an entity which exists.

We should get that issue squared away before we proceed with the points of your philosophy that depend on it, don't you agree?

Good idea.

Ask him to define "exists" while you are at it....

 

[Wudang]

Re: Re: Re: If only "One thing" exists, then...

INo thing within awareness is acausal. So spare me the lecture about the acausality of things which exist within our awareness. It's a complete crock.

You ran away from that discussion in the "scientific empire" thread because you were unable to argue this point.

 

[lifegazer]

Re: Re: If only "One thing" exists, then...

Okay, so I keep reading this, but all I see is "I don't want to hear factual points that contradict my claim."

But then, lifegazer talks about the "only thing that exists" creating other things, which would necessarily make the "only thing that exists" not the only thing that exists which, ironically contradicts his claim.

Actually, you've been talking to me long enough to know that when I talk about the creation of other "things", that I'm talking about the awareness of things. Those things are not real - they just exist within the awareness of the only real entity that constitutes existence itself.

Imagine some things. They exist within your awareness, but are not real in themselves.
The "things" we sense are not real in themselves either. Only the senser is.

 

[lifegazer]

Re: Re: If only "One thing" exists, then...

Welcome back, lifegazer.

I see that you are still having an issue with the word thing, in that you still feel the need to put it in quotes when you are referring to God as a thing, i.e. an entity which exists.

We should get that issue squared away before we proceed with the points of your philosophy that depend on it, don't you agree?

I make a distinction between the "things" within awareness and the thing that is having the awareness of those things. Clearly, our language does not do justice to this distinction.

 

[Wudang]

welcome, see you in the "scientific empire" thread where we can get back to the acausality issue you had to drop

 

[Beleth]

Re: Re: Re: If only "One thing" exists, then...

I make a distinction between the "things" within awareness and the thing that is having the awareness of those things. Clearly, our language does not do justice to this distinction.

Actually, it does. A thing is an entity which exists. There are numerous words that mean "an entity which does not exist but is perceived." "Mirage," "illusion," and "phantasm" immediately spring to mind. If you don't find any of those to your liking, perhaps there is another word you can find that is more suited to your needs.

It's just that when you use the terms thing and "thing" interchangeably to mean both "an entity that exists" and "an entity that does not exist," you are bound to be misunderstood.