Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Jack Knave on December 08, 2015, 08:02:02 PM
-
I'll just throw this argument for God into the arena.
In Descartes Cogito ergo sum his reason for believing in God was based on a supposedly necessary principle to the effect that the lesser cannot give rise to, or be the cause of, the greater. So because we can conceive of God, and God is taken to be greater than us and thus beyond our capacity to conceive of It, the only way that such an idea could enter our minds is by God placing it there in the first instance.
What arguments would the non believers give for showing this to be a bad reason for believing in God.
-
Define 'lesser.' In what sense? In physical size? That's patent balls; electrons, protons and neutrons give rise to human beings. And mountains. And planets. And stars. And galaxies. So it can't be that. In power? That happens all the time too, so it can't be that.
The phrase 'God is taken to be greater than us' is the weak link in the chain. It's the ontological argument isn't it - assertion by definition - and is as specious as it ever was. You can magic anything into "existence" by defining it to exist; unfortunately the universe doesn't actually operate like that. Saying that we could only have the idea of God if there's actually a God to implant the idea of God is one of the best - or worst, depending on your viewpoint - examples of begging the question/circular reasoning/petitio principii going. I hope they put this sort of thing into undergraduate philosophy textbooks these days; I'd be horrified if anyone who has gone through years of training to become in effect a professional clear thinker thinks this is a valid argument.
-
Define 'lesser.' In what sense? In physical size? That's patent balls; electrons, protons and neutrons give rise to human beings. And mountains. And planets. And stars. And galaxies. So it can't be that. In power? That happens all the time too, so it can't be that.
But electrons, protons and neutrons aren't human beings or mountains, planets or universes, Shakes. They are component parts of said things. Andd the term component part can be used synonymously with lesser. It isn't a judgement of value of importance,; but usually relates to scale. In the same way that a human being isn't a society, but without a human being a society can't exist.
The phrase 'God is taken to be greater than us' is the weak link in the chain.
And how might that be? Using my explanation above, God may well exist, but without the natural world that he created what does that existence consist of? To refer to a post I made earlier and 'purpose' on another thread, the Bible suggests that the natural world was made to enjoy existence with God.
It's the ontological argument isn't it - assertion by definition - and is as specious as it ever was.
Only if you want it to bean ontological argument.
You can magic anything into "existence" by defining it to exist; unfortunately the universe doesn't actually operate like that.
Doesn't it? What about the Big Bang? Isn't that 'magicing' something into existence? If not, how did the process start otherwise?
Saying that we could only have the idea of God if there's actually a God to implant the idea of God is one of the best - or worst, depending on your viewpoint - examples of begging the question/circular reasoning/petitio principii going
Is that why science has come up with the Big bang Theory? After all, it is no different to existence being conjured out of nothing.
I hope they put this sort of thing into undergraduate philosophy textbooks these days; I'd be horrified if anyone who has gone through years of training to become in effect a professional clear thinker thinks this is a valid argument.
You are very good at conjuring 'valid' arguments out of very little, Shakes. What makes you any better than anyone else?
-
Define 'lesser.' In what sense? In physical size? That's patent balls; electrons, protons and neutrons give rise to human beings. And mountains. And planets. And stars. And galaxies. So it can't be that. In power? That happens all the time too, so it can't be that.
The phrase 'God is taken to be greater than us' is the weak link in the chain. It's the ontological argument isn't it - assertion by definition - and is as specious as it ever was. You can magic anything into "existence" by defining it to exist; unfortunately the universe doesn't actually operate like that. Saying that we could only have the idea of God if there's actually a God to implant the idea of God is one of the best - or worst, depending on your viewpoint - examples of begging the question/circular reasoning/petitio principii going. I hope they put this sort of thing into undergraduate philosophy textbooks these days; I'd be horrified if anyone who has gone through years of training to become in effect a professional clear thinker thinks this is a valid argument.
I was interested in your notion of an argument where God implants the idea of God in us,. I'm not sure how this can be somehow more circular than the argument for materialism or naturalism.
What fascinates me though is the idea of perfection. Many atheists I have spoken to try to get rid of the idea of perfection stating that nothing can be perfect......that doesn't get rid of the idea of perfection but rather reinforces it.....I would have thought.
-
Which atheists say nothing can be perfect? Can you define perfection? Can perfection change, create, bring about imperfection?
-
But electrons, protons and neutrons aren't human beings or mountains, planets or universes, Shakes. They are component parts of said things. Andd the term component part can be used synonymously with lesser. It isn't a judgement of value of importance,; but usually relates to scale. In the same way that a human being isn't a society, but without a human being a society can't exist.
This is just a restatement of everything I'd already said.
And how might that be? Using my explanation above, God may well exist, but without the natural world that he created what does that existence consist of? To refer to a post I made earlier and 'purpose' on another thread, the Bible suggests that the natural world was made to enjoy existence with God.
Do you not think then that this god of yours could/would exist without the natural world? As far as I can see the natural world (I assume you mean a universe of matter-energy) exists perfectly well without any gods.
Doesn't it? What about the Big Bang? Isn't that 'magicing' something into existence? If not, how did the process start otherwise?
Don't know. It's one of those many, many things where the phrase "Currently unknown - need more data" applies. "I don't know" is a perfectly valid response until more facts become available; filling the gaps with any old nonsense isn't.
Is that why science has come up with the Big bang Theory? After all, it is no different to existence being conjured out of nothing.
Science "came up with" the BBT for precisely the same reason as other theories are born: as over-arching umbrellas under which are gathered together disparate observations which are explained by the theory.
You are very good at conjuring 'valid' arguments out of very little, Shakes. What makes you any better than anyone else?
I know a shitty, fallacy-riddled non-argument when I see one, as many here - you included - do not.
-
But electrons, protons and neutrons aren't human beings or mountains, planets or universes, Shakes. They are component parts of said things.
And gods are a concept created by the component thoughts of human communities. Peope's thoughts are component parts of the idea god; as yet, that's all gods have been shown to be, an idea.
And the term component part can be used synonymously with lesser. It isn't a judgement of value of importance,; but usually relates to scale. In the same way that a human being isn't a society, but without a human being a society can't exist.
Which suggests that without humanity, god can't exist... and if we can exist without gods, but gods can't exist without us, how can gods be considered 'greater'? In scale, you say, fine, but as some sort of claim of 'worth' or something?
Doesn't it? What about the Big Bang? Isn't that 'magicing' something into existence? If not, how did the process start otherwise?
The big bang is a conclusion from the available evidence. How it started is something that we currently don't have sufficient evidence to determine, though there are some hypotheses out there.
We don't presume there's a universe because we've decided it must be, we presume there's a universe because we can reach out and touch it, breathe it in, look at its expanse through telescopes.
Is that why science has come up with the Big bang Theory?
Again, the Big Bang theory is an explanation for the available evidence. All objects in the universe are moving away from each other, which means that at some point in the distant past they were all in close proximity. Deduction from that produced the notion of a 'Big Bang', with associated predicted phenomena which subsequent tests and experiments have verified. We have the Big Bang theory because that's where the evidence has taken us.
After all, it is no different to existence being conjured out of nothing.
No, it's very different: you go from evidence of the existence through examination of that evidence to deduce from it a predicted model of how it came to be. By contrast, with gods, you are deciding there is a god and then attempting purely linguistic assertions to try to demonstrate that it 'must' be the case. The methodology is the difference: you are trying to justify claiming something for which there is no evidence, the big bang tries to explain something for which there is ample evidence.
O.
-
I was interested in your notion of an argument where God implants the idea of God in us,. I'm not sure how this can be somehow more circular than the argument for materialism or naturalism.
Reach out and touch god. Demonstrate a methodology for measuring god. Then do the same for material.
That's why there's a qualitative difference.
What fascinates me though is the idea of perfection. Many atheists I have spoken to try to get rid of the idea of perfection stating that nothing can be perfect......that doesn't get rid of the idea of perfection but rather reinforces it.....I would have thought.
Perfect is situational, and subjective. One of the ontological arguments rests on the idea that an 'actual' god must be better than an imagined one, and therefore because you've defined god as the greatest thing imaginable it must be real: forgetting, for a moment, that your definition could be wrong, it's a subjective opinion on whether an actual god is better than an imaginary one, and it depends on the circumstances you're considering.
O.
-
I'll just through this argument for God into the arena.
In Descartes Cogito ergo sum his reason for believing in God was based on a supposedly necessary principle to the effect that the lesser cannot give rise to, or be the cause of, the greater. So because we can conceive of God, and God is taken to be greater than us and thus beyond our capacity to conceive of It, the only way that such an idea could enter our minds is by God placing it there in the first instance.
What arguments would the non believers give for showing this to be a bad reason for believing in God.
The main problem with the 'something complex must be created by something more complex' argument is it is totally self defeating - as everything would need to have been created by something more complex and that thing created by something more complex again and so on ad infinitum.
-
The main problem with the 'something complex must be created by something more complex' argument is it is totally self defeating - as everything would need to have been created by something more complex and that thing created by something more complex again and so on ad infinitum.
The usual way out of this, of course, is to completely arbitrarily terminate the infinite regress at the point you want ;)
-
Dear Jack,
the only way that such an idea could enter our minds is by God placing it there in the first instance.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1211511/Why-born-believe-God-Its-wired-brain-says-psychologist.html
His work is supported by other researchers who have found evidence linking religious feelings and experience to particular regions of the brain.
They suggest people are programmed to receive a feeling of spirituality from electrical activity in these areas.
The findings challenge atheists such as Richard Dawkins, the author of The God Delusion, who has long argued that religious beliefs result from poor education and childhood 'indoctrination'.
Professor Hood believes it is futile to try to get people to abandon their beliefs because these come from such a 'fundamental level'.
'Our research shows children have a natural, intuitive way of reasoning that leads them to all kinds of supernatural beliefs about how the world works,' he said.
'As they grow up they overlay these beliefs with more rational approaches but the tendency to illogical supernatural beliefs remains as religion.'
We are born believers, we are all religious, yes even atheists.
Gonnagle.
-
Speak for yourself Gonners ;)
-
Dear Jack,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1211511/Why-born-believe-God-Its-wired-brain-says-psychologist.html
We are born believers, we are all religious, yes even atheists.
Gonnagle.
I'm not religious.
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1211511/Why-born-believe-God-Its-wired-brain-says-psychologist.html
Daily Mail story about science - I wonder whether this causes cancer or cures cancer this week? :)
His work is supported by other researchers who have found evidence linking religious feelings and experience to particular regions of the brain. They suggest people are programmed to receive a feeling of spirituality from electrical activity in these areas.
The findings challenge atheists such as Richard Dawkins, the author of The God Delusion, who has long argued that religious beliefs result from poor education and childhood 'indoctrination'.
It actually doesn't contradict the idea at all. Firstly, it can't, because the evidence of the negative correlation between education and religiosity is well-established and significant (Note: Professor Dawkins is at pains in several places to note that this correlation doesn't necessitate causation, and that it's equally likely that people will seek formal education in the absence of a sense of god.) Secondly, of course, we suppress any number of natural tendencies - the urge to violence, for instance - in the course of our everyday lives, and it's entirely plausible that formal education and actual understanding of thing would help in suppressing the activity of that part of the brain.
Professor Hood believes it is futile to try to get people to abandon their beliefs because these come from such a 'fundamental level'.
Indeed - methods of thinking are ingrained very early in the brain's development, which is why secularising education is such a hot-button topic.
'Our research shows children have a natural, intuitive way of reasoning that leads them to all kinds of supernatural beliefs about how the world works,' he said. 'As they grow up they overlay these beliefs with more rational approaches but the tendency to illogical supernatural beliefs remains as religion.'
Yep. The whole 'survival benefit' argument of false-positive presumptions of agency over false-negative presumptions of agency.
We are born believers, we are all religious, yes even atheists.
Not quite - we are born with a propensity to see patterns and presume deliberate agency within them. That tendency can lead to belief and religiosity, but it doesn't need to. We can't be born as believers because, when we're born, we have no idea there's anything out there to believe in.
And, of course, even if we believe that's no guarantee that we're right - just look at Liverpool supporters... :)
O.
-
It could be that the concept of a god is used to fill in the gaps to explain the powerful forces which have confronted man and over which he had no control like Thor for lightening strikes, Vulcan for volcanoes, Neptune for sea surges, Sol for the sun god etc. and the need was to placate those gods or evoke their favours. It gradually became unmanageable for the priesthood to manipulate the worshippers, that it was easier to have one god with absolute qualities which was inconceivable and unimaginable (perhaps why one of the Commandments advocated 'no images'). An anointed high priest could then position himself as the intermediary between the worshippers and a God who works in mysterious ways.
-
Dear Outrider,
Okay! it is the daily wail and it can't help having a pop at Vlads favourite pin up boy.
It actually doesn't contradict the idea at all. Firstly, it can't, because the evidence of the negative correlation between education and religiosity is well-established and significant (Note: Professor Dawkins is at pains in several places to note that this correlation doesn't necessitate causation, and that it's equally likely that people will seek formal education in the absence of a sense of god.) Secondly, of course, we suppress any number of natural tendencies - the urge to violence, for instance - in the course of our everyday lives, and it's entirely plausible that formal education and actual understanding of thing would help in suppressing the activity of that part of the brain.
Sorry but I need help in understanding just what you are saying here.
because the evidence of the negative correlation between education and religiosity is well-established and significant
What!! what evidence?
and that it's equally likely that people will seek formal education in the absence of a sense of god.
What!! again.
in the course of our everyday lives, and it's entirely plausible that formal education and actual understanding of thing would help in suppressing the activity of that part of the brain.
Suppress, yes, but not eradicate ( we are born believers, okay not religious, calm down Berational )
we are born with a propensity to see patterns and presume deliberate agency within them.
Why, why are we born to see patterns.
We can't be born as believers because, when we're born, we have no idea there's anything out there to believe in.
No, we are born as believers, the ideas come later.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear ekim,
It could be that the concept of a god is used to fill in the gaps
That concept, where did that come from?
Gonnagle.
-
Sorry but I need help in understanding just what you are saying here.
Ok, so there is plenty of data from various sources, accounting for social and economic effects, which shows that as formal educational achievement increases, so tendency towards religious belief decreases - 'smart people' (by one measure) are less likely to be religious. That's just a statement of the fact of the situation.
Some people have presumed that, therefore, education is a counter to religion, and that if we educate people better they'll be less likely be religious. Professor Dawins has gone on record as saying the data doesn't show that, but it's his personal opinion that he thinks that's at least part of the explanation.
It could be, though, that people who don't find religion look for something else - like education - to explain things. It could be that both effects are a product of something else - formally educated people, for instance, are more likely to be earning well, and that also correlates negatively with religiosity.
Suppress, yes, but not eradicate ( we are born believers, okay not religious, calm down Berational )
The tendency to see patterns will always be there - I think it's part of the reason that otherwise rational people who are against the idea of religious belief still hold to conspiracy theories about aliens, UFOs and vaccine-induced autism, or why people follow astrology or homeopathy.
Why, why are we born to see patterns.
One of humanity's ancestor species is in the long grass, and hear something rustling. If they recognise that rustling as possibly a predator, they flee: if they're wrong, they've run from nothing, if they're right they've run from death, and either way they live to have more children. If they don't recognise the rustling as possibly a predator, they don't run: if there isn't a predator, they live and if there is a predator, they die, so only some of them survive to have children. Over time, that pattern-recognition ability is selected for in the gene pool. (This is the 'Survival benefit of false-positive pattern recognition over false-negative pattern recognition').
O.
-
Dear Outrider,
Ok, so there is plenty of data from various sources, accounting for social and economic effects, which shows that as formal educational achievement increases, so tendency towards religious belief decreases - 'smart people' (by one measure) are less likely to be religious. That's just a statement of the fact of the situation.
Some people have presumed that, therefore, education is a counter to religion, and that if we educate people better they'll be less likely be religious. Professor Dawins has gone on record as saying the data doesn't show that, but it's his personal opinion that he thinks that's at least part of the explanation.
Ah right! well I can't argue with Prof Dawkins, I agree it is in least part, I think least is the operative word here, small, very small part of the explanation.
Economics is also a part of the explanation, chasing the dollar sign, we all do it.
Education, does it make you smart? make you intelligent, does educated mean intelligent?
I have to go winging all the way back to Prof Dawkin's, a very highly educated man, but intelligent, is a sign of intelligence, the ability to see both sides of the argument, the ability to walk a mile in another man's shoes?
I don't think we become less religious as we become more educated, education does lift you from one cycle into another, how we use that education, we replace one kind of religion for another, jumping out of aeroplanes with a bit of clothe strapped to your back, climbing mountains, shooting guns, football :o sport in general, anything that gives us a high, drugs, drink, this all comes from having a better economy.
Education is a very small part of why we turn our backs on God.
Gonnagle.
-
Just looking at the OP, another awful argument, which I doubt is taken seriously by anybody. It's a kind of sleight of hand, which uses linguistic tricks (lesser/greater) to conjure something up. I can imagine a giant, who is greater than me, but I haven't brought him into existence.
But nobody (as far as I'm aware) actually takes these arguments seriously, do they?
-
Dear Jack,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1211511/Why-born-believe-God-Its-wired-brain-says-psychologist.html
We are born believers, we are all religious, yes even atheists.
Gonnagle.
I think many people look for something beyond themselves. For example, a lot of political ideas such as socialism have a kind of utopian aspect, which appeals to some. Or some people find something in music or art, which takes them 'out of themselves'.
And then there's football.
-
Ah right! well I can't argue with Prof Dawkins, I agree it is in least part, I think least is the operative word here, small, very small part of the explanation.
I think, personally, that the modes of thought required to excel in factual regurgitation (which is, historically, the essence of formal education) and the modes of thought required to put faith in the unevidenced have very little cross-over.
Economics is also a part of the explanation, chasing the dollar sign, we all do it.
Economic situation presses strongly on educational achievement and religiosity, and although statisticians try to mitigate that influence when making their determinations, statistics tends to be subjective.
Education, does it make you smart? make you intelligent, does educated mean intelligent?
That's one that's been raised repeatedly, with this issue and in other places. Intelligence is a vaguely defined term, at best, and incredibly difficult to measure. When the correlation is reported, therefore, it's specifically formal educational achievement - some people will see that as indicative of intelligence, or at least one form of intelligence, that's why I tried to qualify the idea with 'at least by one measure'.
I have to go winging all the way back to Prof Dawkin's, a very highly educated man, but intelligent, is a sign of intelligence, the ability to see both sides of the argument, the ability to walk a mile in another man's shoes?
I'm pretty sure that, in the main, Professor Dawkins can see both sides of the argument, but that's because one of the sides doesn't really have an argument - they don't think in terms of 'arguments' and 'evidence', that's why they take things on faith. The likes of William Lane Craig and the deep-thinking theologians aren't typical of people of faith, they're in the crossover group capable of thinking both ways. As to which of those ways demonstrates 'intelligence' - who knows.
Regurgitating facts could be considered intelligence, or it could be redundant now that we have google. Seeing things from another point of view is considered by some to be part of 'emotional intelligence', but how intelligent is it to be able to understand the wrong answer - and some of them will be wrong. It's more important to understand that the people who have the 'wrong' answer aren't necessarily bad people because of that.
And walking that mile, that's not any sort of intelligence at all, that's empathy, compassion and plain old human decency - unfortunately, given that you can't measure it, and can't charge for it, it doesn't seem to get a let of attention from anyone these days.
I don't think we become less religious as we become more educated, education does lift you from one cycle into another, how we use that education, we replace one kind of religion for another, jumping out of aeroplanes with a bit of clothe strapped to your back, climbing mountains, shooting guns, football :o sport in general, anything that gives us a high, drugs, drink, this all comes from having a better economy.
Well, the evidence is against you - the more educated we become the less religious we become, in general. Which precedes the other, which causes the other, whether they're both caused by something else, that's a different issue.
If you want to 'redefine' religion as seeking the excesses of human experience fine, but I suspect most believers wouldn't recognise that any more than most non-believers would. Seeking some sort of 'fulfilment', that's something we all do, but I think religion is one particular way of doing it, not the whole of it.
O.
Education is a very small part of why we turn our backs on God.
Gonnagle.
[/quote]
-
Dear Outrider,
I think, personally, that the modes of thought required to excel in factual regurgitation (which is, historically, the essence of formal education) and the modes of thought required to put faith in the unevidenced have very little cross-over.
Factual regurgitation, I like it ;) well that's one of the reasons I dislike Dawkin's approach, he only regurgitates facts to back his case, for a more unbiased approach to theology ( which is not his subject ) I would say, read Armstrong, she gives all the facts, backed up by years of research, a very intelligent woman who does try to walk in another mans shoes, which I do think is a very intelligent thing to do, understanding another man's argument, his point, is a highly intelligent thing to do ( although walking a mile in an atheists shoe's, you don't give much away ).
Economic situation presses strongly on educational achievement and religiosity, and although statisticians try to mitigate that influence when making their determinations, statistics tends to be subjective.
No argument, the evidence is out there, the more economically we become the less we need Church, but that does not say anything about what we replace our religious feelings with, do we agree that we never totally rid ourselves of violent urges, we do suppress them, is it the same with our religious feelings.
That's one that's been raised repeatedly, with this issue and in other places. Intelligence is a vaguely defined term, at best, and incredibly difficult to measure. When the correlation is reported, therefore, it's specifically formal educational achievement - some people will see that as indicative of intelligence, or at least one form of intelligence, that's why I tried to qualify the idea with 'at least by one measure'.
No argument again, what makes a person intelligent, what is intelligence.
I'm pretty sure that, in the main, Professor Dawkins can see both sides of the argument, but that's because one of the sides doesn't really have an argument - they don't think in terms of 'arguments' and 'evidence', that's why they take things on faith. The likes of William Lane Craig and the deep-thinking theologians aren't typical of people of faith, they're in the crossover group capable of thinking both ways. As to which of those ways demonstrates 'intelligence' - who knows.
Regurgitating facts could be considered intelligence, or it could be redundant now that we have google. Seeing things from another point of view is considered by some to be part of 'emotional intelligence', but how intelligent is it to be able to understand the wrong answer - and some of them will be wrong. It's more important to understand that the people who have the 'wrong' answer aren't necessarily bad people because of that.
And walking that mile, that's not any sort of intelligence at all, that's empathy, compassion and plain old human decency - unfortunately, given that you can't measure it, and can't charge for it, it doesn't seem to get a let of attention from anyone these days.
I think I have covered this part of your post, only to say, don't mention WLC, leave him for when our Alan ( Alien returns ) ;)
Gonnagle.
-
And gods are a concept created by the component thoughts of human communities. Peope's thoughts are component parts of the idea god; as yet, that's all gods have been shown to be, an idea.
Do you have any evidence for this assertion, O?
-
This is just a restatement of everything I'd already said.
Havng readf your original post again, twice, I find this claim rather far-fetched, Shakjes. It might be similar to what you wrote, but it actually extends and ultimately contradicts what you said
-
Factual regurgitation, I like it ;) well that's one of the reasons I dislike Dawkin's approach, he only regurgitates facts to back his case, for a more unbiased approach to theology ( which is not his subject ) I would say, read Armstrong, she gives all the facts, backed up by years of research, a very intelligent woman who does try to walk in another mans shoes, which I do think is a very intelligent thing to do, understanding another man's argument, his point, is a highly intelligent thing to do ( although walking a mile in an atheists shoe's, you don't give much away ).
I have Ms Armstrong on my reading list, but that list is growing rather than shrinking and has been for many years...
The thing is, claims are either right or wrong. People dislike Professor Dawkins' delivery, at times, because he's not sympathetic - he lectures and instructs, because that's his background, and the environment from which he's come. Others dislike his message, but rarely do they actually address his fundamental arguments.
By contrast, for instance, very few of them rail against Christopher Hitchens commentary, which seems strange to me as he doesn't very often actually make any sort of coherent case, he cites anecdotes and experiences which sound horrendous but are actually fairly easily dismissed: the difference is, of course, that he's talking in the language of emotion and feeling and sentiment, not of deductions and demonstrable facts.
No argument, the evidence is out there, the more economically we become the less we need Church, but that does not say anything about what we replace our religious feelings with, do we agree that we never totally rid ourselves of violent urges, we do suppress them, is it the same with our religious feelings.
I don't think so - I think you either think in a religious fashion or you don't. I think very few of the individual people change, it's that the children of people who are educated are more likely to be taught in the fashion that suits that education, which is not conducive to religion. It's generational shifts, not individual. It seems that the US is going through something along that sort of a shift at the moment, as more and more of the younger generation turn their back on any sort of spirituality or mysticism, and even those that don't are increasingly disinterested in formalised religious practice.
I think I have covered this part of your post, only to say, don't mention WLC, leave him for when our Alan ( Alien returns ) ;)
WLC is, of course, our Professor Dawkins :)
O.
-
Do you have any evidence for this assertion, O?
It's the logical deduction from the fact that in thousands of years of trying no-one's yet produced any evidence for gods, but we have any number of examples of the idea of them.
It was stated in this fashion to mirror the original contention (by Alan?), otherwise I wouldn't have simply presented it in that fashion.
O.
-
Havng readf your original post again, twice, I find this claim rather far-fetched, Shakjes. It might be similar to what you wrote, but it actually extends and ultimately contradicts what you said
Point out the alleged contradiction, by all means.
-
Dear Shaker,
By contrast, for instance, very few of them rail against Christopher Hitchens commentary, which seems strange to me as he doesn't very often actually make any sort of coherent case, he cites anecdotes and experiences which sound horrendous but are actually fairly easily dismissed: the difference is, of course, that he's talking in the language of emotion and feeling and sentiment, not of deductions and demonstrable facts.
Steady!! steady! Outrider is a jolly nice chap, leave him, down boy, heel :P :P :P
Gonnagle.
-
Dear ekim,
That concept, where did that come from?
Gonnagle.
A suggestion is that the human mind creates the concept rather than a god. It might come about this way. A small child learns how to submit to the authority of the father for survival purposes, which is the beginning of this particular concept formation. It later recognises that there is a more powerful 'father' who has authority over the tribe, who he has to obey on pain of punishment and the concept is reinforced. He later realises that the tribal leader or king cannot control all elemental forces, so the concept extends to more powerful gods and goddesses (i.e. otherworldly fathers and mothers) or to a single tribal god. If a tribe is defeated by another tribe then the superior tribe 'encourages' the defeated tribe to acknowledge worship of the superior tribe's God (the father almighty) without question. After being impressed upon following generations, perhaps using the 'stick and carrot' method, the indoctrination is complete and unquestioned belief is treated as truth.
-
A suggestion is that the human mind creates the concept rather than a god. It might come about this way. A small child learns how to submit to the authority of the father for survival purposes, which is the beginning of this particular concept formation.
That, of course, assumes a god who is into punishment, ekim. What if a god isn't into all the concepts you have outlined?
-
Define 'lesser.' In what sense? In physical size? That's patent balls; electrons, protons and neutrons give rise to human beings. And mountains. And planets. And stars. And galaxies. So it can't be that. In power? That happens all the time too, so it can't be that.
I would guess, as it is just, as I said, throwing this into the arena, about the mind and ideas. As our mind is what defines us as human beings, our greatness, then, as we are not gods then the idea of a God emanating from our minds would presuppose that our minds have been given something greater than us.....?
Atoms etc. do nothing of the sort. It is the laws or patterns of physics that do that.
I'd like to see your power claim being argued out....
The phrase 'God is taken to be greater than us' is the weak link in the chain. It's the ontological argument isn't it - assertion by definition - and is as specious as it ever was. You can magic anything into "existence" by defining it to exist; unfortunately the universe doesn't actually operate like that. Saying that we could only have the idea of God if there's actually a God to implant the idea of God is one of the best - or worst, depending on your viewpoint - examples of begging the question/circular reasoning/petitio principii going. I hope they put this sort of thing into undergraduate philosophy textbooks these days; I'd be horrified if anyone who has gone through years of training to become in effect a professional clear thinker thinks this is a valid argument.
Well, yes, it is another version or love child of the ontological argument. But here the definition of God is a little stronger. One could argue that 1) it is not in reference to a specific religious God and 2) other words could replace it like "Something". But either way it would imply that it was more than us, more than what would constitute being human. Even the laws of physics could be categorized like that, they are 'above' us. We supervene on them.
The problem with your impassioned argument is that you would need to explain fully and in detail where such 'more than us' ideas come from. If products are a function of the previous case conditions, i.e. an effect of their causation then an account would need to be proffered to detail how the 'less complex' becomes the 'more complex'.
-
That, of course, assumes a god who is into punishment, ekim. What if a god isn't into all the concepts you have outlined?
Certainly wouldn't be a god as depicted in any monotheistic scriptures, then.
-
I was interested in your notion of an argument where God implants the idea of God in us,. I'm not sure how this can be somehow more circular than the argument for materialism or naturalism.
Though that is true the difference being that we all experience the phenomena of the material whereas God is nothing more than words on a page the rest is for each persons fancy.
Whether some take materialism etc. beyond the boundary of that phenomena is a different issue, which does encroach into the fantasies of the theists.
What fascinates me though is the idea of perfection. Many atheists I have spoken to try to get rid of the idea of perfection stating that nothing can be perfect......that doesn't get rid of the idea of perfection but rather reinforces it.....I would have thought.
Perfection is a mere word which lacks clarification and definition (the only definition it does have is a perfect one; i.e. a tautology), very much like the word God.
-
Jack Knave wrote:
The problem with your impassioned argument is that you would need to explain fully and in detail where such 'more than us' ideas come from. If products are a function of the previous case conditions, i.e. an effect of their causation then an account would need to be proffered to detail how the 'less complex' becomes the 'more complex'.
One flaw in all these arguments is that they go from conceiving of something to it actually existing. But there is no link like that. I can imagine an 8-tentacled purple octopus on Venus, which controls the universe, but that doesn't bring it into existence.
I think also the argument uses a very mechanical view of 'products', as if there is a linear kind of adding up of previous experiences. But I can synthesize from all kinds of ideas.
-
The main problem with the 'something complex must be created by something more complex' argument is it is totally self defeating - as everything would need to have been created by something more complex and that thing created by something more complex again and so on ad infinitum.
No. The point of the argument is a teleological one. It starts with an a prior. The complexity, potentially at least, was there from the beginning and it is now being worked out. This of course raises some other problems which are just as heavy as any others in this type of scenario.
-
Isn't teleology different from 'complexity being worked out'? Teleology means that there is a purpose in the universe, whereas an inbuilt complexity is different, it's just a complexity. We don't say that the water cycle shows purpose, but it shows complexity.
Actually, this is part of the creationist argument, that nature is so complex that it must have purpose, and where you have a purpose, you have a planner.
-
Dear Jack,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1211511/Why-born-believe-God-Its-wired-brain-says-psychologist.html
We are born believers, we are all religious, yes even atheists.
Gonnagle.
The first part of that is really anthropology and our natural social make up. Originally religious feeling was just a bonding of tribal affiliation through cultural commonality. The bonding force having to be supra-the-individual. It has to override the personal whims etc. and as such comes across as being more power or like a parent guiding the whole tribe.
The latter bit about children is really psychology but all these things raise uncomfortable questions about their nature and their cause etc.
(hint: don't quote mark quotes as they won't show in the reply. Some one should change this so that at least one level of quotes gets transferred to the reply)
-
It could be that the concept of a god is used to fill in the gaps to explain the powerful forces which have confronted man and over which he had no control like Thor for lightening strikes, Vulcan for volcanoes, Neptune for sea surges, Sol for the sun god etc. and the need was to placate those gods or evoke their favours. It gradually became unmanageable for the priesthood to manipulate the worshippers, that it was easier to have one god with absolute qualities which was inconceivable and unimaginable (perhaps why one of the Commandments advocated 'no images'). An anointed high priest could then position himself as the intermediary between the worshippers and a God who works in mysterious ways.
That wouldn't necessarily explain why we conceive of gods as such. Chimps have to put up with forces etc. greater than themselves, as do other animals, but do they allocate this phenomena to some supernatural being? Actually coming up with such an idea is something else apart from the encounter with overwhelming power and events etc.
-
Dear Outrider,
Ah right! well I can't argue with Prof Dawkins, I agree it is in least part, I think least is the operative word here, small, very small part of the explanation.
Economics is also a part of the explanation, chasing the dollar sign, we all do it.
Education, does it make you smart? make you intelligent, does educated mean intelligent?
I have to go winging all the way back to Prof Dawkin's, a very highly educated man, but intelligent, is a sign of intelligence, the ability to see both sides of the argument, the ability to walk a mile in another man's shoes?
I don't think we become less religious as we become more educated, education does lift you from one cycle into another, how we use that education, we replace one kind of religion for another, jumping out of aeroplanes with a bit of clothe strapped to your back, climbing mountains, shooting guns, football :o sport in general, anything that gives us a high, drugs, drink, this all comes from having a better economy.
Education is a very small part of why we turn our backs on God.
Gonnagle.
Perhaps one reason why many have given up on religion is because our ability to see patterns has made them realise that religion has failed them. Someone said that the early years has a powerful effect on the child but if social/tribal/cultural bonding and make up is weak then the child will intuitively see that it is not so great and will, with time and age, break from any early years imposed attitudes. It is not the family that is important here but the strength of the social/tribal cohesion.
Our society is barely focused on the family let alone the social, communal bonding, communality and accepted cultural norms, and this may be one reason why the individual has seen that religion has failed to hold society together, that bond that works 'above' the individual whim and selfish wishes.
-
Jack Knave wrote:
One flaw in all these arguments is that they go from conceiving of something to it actually existing. But there is no link like that. I can imagine an 8-tentacled purple octopus on Venus, which controls the universe, but that doesn't bring it into existence.
I think also the argument uses a very mechanical view of 'products', as if there is a linear kind of adding up of previous experiences. But I can synthesize from all kinds of ideas.
But the question is how do you do that and why? That is the essence of the OP. Why should we even think these things. Where do they come from. Do chimps have gods? They experience very much the kind of fears and emotions in their 'tribal' context etc. as us, as do other animals, so do they have gods? We seem to have stepped beyond the natural experiences and come up with metaphysical ideas.
-
Isn't teleology different from 'complexity being worked out'? Teleology means that there is a purpose in the universe, whereas an inbuilt complexity is different, it's just a complexity. We don't say that the water cycle shows purpose, but it shows complexity.
Actually, this is part of the creationist argument, that nature is so complex that it must have purpose, and where you have a purpose, you have a planner.
In all this one would have to explain where the laws of physics have come from. Teleology, entelechy, whatever the potential has to be there in the first place for any progress to take place and potential needs some form of action to get it started and that action needs laws of force to progress it in an orderly fashion, else the ensuing chaos would break it up.
-
In all this one would have to explain where the laws of physics have come from. Teleology, entelechy, whatever the potential has to be there in the first place for any progress to take place and potential needs some form of action to get it started and that action needs laws of force to progress it in an orderly fashion, else the ensuing chaos would break it up.
It's OK to say that we don't know, isn't it?
-
But the question is how do you do that and why? That is the essence of the OP. Why should we even think these things. Where do they come from. Do chimps have gods? They experience very much the kind of fears and emotions in their 'tribal' context etc. as us, as do other animals, so do they have gods? We seem to have stepped beyond the natural experiences and come up with metaphysical ideas.
We have metaphysical ideas, therefore God? That's a terrible argument. We also have numbers and breakfast and video games and the offside rule - are they arguments for God? Humans have the power of abstract thought, I can't see how this is particularly peculiar.
-
It's OK to say that we don't know, isn't it?
We know what the phenomena is, and that it is real, and that there is regularity in things but in the end we can't get beyond the phenomena to the thing-in-itself.
-
We have metaphysical ideas, therefore God? That's a terrible argument. We also have numbers and breakfast and video games and the offside rule - are they arguments for God? Humans have the power of abstract thought, I can't see how this is particularly peculiar.
But just saying we have abstract thought doesn't explain how we manage to step outside of our limited experience to such thoughts. Also, in the context of the philosophical argument here the word God is not attached to any particular religion, in fact it is areligious. As I have said else where you could use the term "Something" just as well. It is there to account for the way things are not to back up a particular religion or the theistic position.
-
I'll just through this argument for God into the arena.
In Descartes Cogito ergo sum his reason for believing in God was based on a supposedly necessary principle to the effect that the lesser cannot give rise to, or be the cause of, the greater. So because we can conceive of God, and God is taken to be greater than us and thus beyond our capacity to conceive of It, the only way that such an idea could enter our minds is by God placing it there in the first instance.
What arguments would the non believers give for showing this to be a bad reason for believing in God.
Descartes was wrong, we can conceive something we think is greater.
Where on earth did he get that assumption?
:-\
Why is it a supposedly necessary principal?
IMO
Given enough time, the human race could improve itself, to be better in every sense, than the original.
-
Dear Jack,
(hint: don't quote mark quotes as they won't show in the reply. Some one should change this so that at least one level of quotes gets transferred to the reply)
Cheers thanks, I had forgotten all about the quote thing. ;)
And this is a nice little thread, just folks putting their thoughts down, no body jumping on anybodies head, Plato and Aristotle would be most impressed :)
Gonnagle.
-
Dear ekim,
A suggestion is that the human mind creates the concept rather than a god. It might come about this way. A small child learns how to submit to the authority of the father for survival purposes, which is the beginning of this particular concept formation. It later recognises that there is a more powerful 'father' who has authority over the tribe, who he has to obey on pain of punishment and the concept is reinforced. He later realises that the tribal leader or king cannot control all elemental forces, so the concept extends to more powerful gods and goddesses (i.e. otherworldly fathers and mothers) or to a single tribal god. If a tribe is defeated by another tribe then the superior tribe 'encourages' the defeated tribe to acknowledge worship of the superior tribe's God (the father almighty) without question. After being impressed upon following generations, perhaps using the 'stick and carrot' method, the indoctrination is complete and unquestioned belief is treated as truth.
It's a good theory backed up by historical evidence, actually theory is the wrong word, hypothesis, a good hypothesis, but historical evidence also tells us we have been doing this god stuff since day dot, why did early man weep for the animal he had just killed to feed his tribe, why did early man pray over his prey to help it into the spirit land. ( pray over his prey :o )
Gonnagle.
-
That, of course, assumes a god who is into punishment, ekim. What if a god isn't into all the concepts you have outlined?
That's part of the point of my reply, 'assumptions' and 'what ifs' which could be the result of human values projected on to an imaginary external entity e.g. if being a strong warrior is the desired quality then a Odin style god is worshipped, if love is the desired quality then a Venus is projected. The source of the word 'god' stemmed from a word meaning 'that which is to be evoked' but somehow it seems to have evolved into 'man writ large'.
-
That wouldn't necessarily explain why we conceive of gods as such. Chimps have to put up with forces etc. greater than themselves, as do other animals, but do they allocate this phenomena to some supernatural being? Actually coming up with such an idea is something else apart from the encounter with overwhelming power and events etc.
Well, I don't remember ever experiencing what it is to be a chimp but perhaps they have some low level imagery equivalent to a leopard god to be feared. I believe there are instances of mal imprinting at birth where an animal imprints upon a human and follows him as if he is a leader, like the flock of geese which followed in formation behind a man in his microlite, the beginning of primitive worship perhaps.
-
Descartes was wrong, we can conceive something we think is greater.
Where on earth did he get that assumption?
:-\
Why is it a supposedly necessary principal?
IMO
Given enough time, the human race could improve itself, to be better in every sense, than the original.
So you can explain why you can even think, let alone why you can conceive of things beyond this material universe?
-
So you can explain why you can even think, let alone why you can conceive of things beyond this material universe?
Imagination.
;)
It doesn't mean it's right.
But I can conceive it.
Just like some people like speculating what alien life could look like.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/what-will-extraterrestrial-life-look-180950029/
People do that sort of thing all the time in science fiction, they create their own worlds.
Someone could write a book and a story about things outside this material universe.
Look at the film "ghost " and others that deal with another realm.
Some films have different dimensions.......
Yes it's fiction, but people can conceive some good yarns........ And mystery.
Imagination is the answer.
You can use that to create imaginary places you have never experienced or been.
Even scientists do it, speculating what quantum mechanics might lead to.
Conceiving something though doesn't mean it's real, but I definately think we can conceive something greater than us.
-
Isn't this one way scientists try and imagine the greater?
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/the-basic-elements-of-string-theory.html
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/why-is-string-theory-so-important.html
:-\
-
Imagination.
;)
It doesn't mean it's right.
But I can conceive it.
Just like some people like speculating what alien life could look like.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/what-will-extraterrestrial-life-look-180950029/
People do that sort of thing all the time in science fiction, they create their own worlds.
Someone could write a book and a story about things outside this material universe.
Look at the film "ghost " and others that deal with another realm.
Some films have different dimensions.......
Yes it's fiction, but people can conceive some good yarns........ And mystery.
Imagination is the answer.
You can use that to create imaginary places you have never experienced or been.
Even scientists do it, speculating what quantum mechanics might lead to.
Conceiving something though doesn't mean it's real, but I definately think we can conceive something greater than us.
Observing the phenomena does not explain why it exists or how it comes about. You can observe birds flying without knowing anything about how they do it aerodynamically. Just as people centuries ago observed chemical reactions without knowing what was going on to cause them.
-
Observing the phenomena does not explain why it exists or how it comes about. You can observe birds flying without knowing anything about how they do it aerodynamically. Just as people centuries ago observed chemical reactions without knowing what was going on to cause them.
It's a start 🌹 ;)
-
It's a start 🌹 ;)
But a rather meagre one.
-
But a rather meagre one.
You see imagination as meagre? :o
-
You see imagination as meagre? :o
No, your exiguous explanation for it or lack of an adequate understanding of its unusual nature to go beyond everyday experience.
-
No, your exiguous explanation for it or lack of an adequate understanding of its unusual nature to go beyond everyday experience.
I just don't agree with the assumption in the OP. (that a lesser agent can't conceive of a greater one)
It looks to me like people just accept it, without question, because someone else has.
-
I'll just through this argument for God into the arena.
In Descartes Cogito ergo sum his reason for believing in God was based on a supposedly necessary principle to the effect that the lesser cannot give rise to, or be the cause of, the greater. So because we can conceive of God, and God is taken to be greater than us and thus beyond our capacity to conceive of It, the only way that such an idea could enter our minds is by God placing it there in the first instance.
What arguments would the non believers give for showing this to be a bad reason for believing in God.
If it [that than which nothing greater can be conceived] can be conceived at all it must exist. For no one who denies or doubts the existence of a being a greater than which is inconceivable, denies or doubts that if it did exist its nonexistence, either in reality or in the understanding, would be impossible. For otherwise it would not be a being a greater than which cannot be conceived. But as to whatever can be conceived but does not exist: if it were to exist its nonexistence either in reality or in the understanding would be possible. Therefore, if a being a greater than which cannot be conceived, can even be conceived, it must exist.
Well I expect even the religious, can work out the problem with this........ ::)
People have many different ideas of God in their head and in some ways they conflict, even within the same religion.
If God who was greater and perfect put it there, in people's heads, then there wouldn't be so much arguing and strife and morons like Isis wouldn't exist.
The assertion that you can't imagine greater, is rubbish, I see no evidence for this......and to draw the conclusion God exists because of it, is nonsense and doesn't logically follow.
That is if you can twist your brain round the convoluted. argument he makes. ( or maybe because I've got the lergy, too many bloomin colds / sort throats about 😷)
The guy thought too hard and needed to be given something more practical to do, IMO
-
I just don't agree with the assumption in the OP. (that a lesser agent can't conceive of a greater one)
It looks to me like people just accept it, without question, because someone else has.
Perhaps it depends upon the nature of 'agent' and the lesser agent's store of information and ability to form a concept from that information. When it comes to the lesser agent's ability to form a concept of a greater agent that is clothed in absolutes e.g. omnipotent, eternal, omnipresent etc., the concept gets vaguer and virtually meaningless. This is probably why some religions choose the 'via negativa' and say 'you cannot know what God is, only what he is not'. Mystics within some religions choose the way of Henosis and seek union or oneness with the source/god and conceptualisation is dispensed with.
-
Perhaps it depends upon the nature of 'agent' and the lesser agent's store of information and ability to form a concept from that information. When it comes to the lesser agent's ability to form a concept of a greater agent that is clothed in absolutes e.g. omnipotent, eternal, omnipresent etc., the concept gets vaguer and virtually meaningless. This is probably why some religions choose the 'via negativa' and say 'you cannot know what God is, only what he is not'. Mystics within some religions choose the way of Henosis and seek union or oneness with the source/god and conceptualisation is dispensed with.
I guess to a knat, we would appear eternal 😉
Because we are still learning about the universe and especially time it doesn't do to be to sure about anything.
Eternal only means something, because we have ways of observing passing time.
If there was no time, it becomes meaningless.
I can imagine plenty, but it doesn't mean it exists or it was planted there.
If time was a constant everywhere, eternal has a meaning.
But time can vary from one place to another, so how do you decide something is really eternal?
i guess you would have to be eternal to find out.
🌹
-
Well I expect even the religious, can work out the problem with this........ ::)
People have many different ideas of God in their head and in some ways they conflict, even within the same religion.
If God who was greater and perfect put it there, in people's heads, then there wouldn't be so much arguing and strife and morons like Isis wouldn't exist.
The assertion that you can't imagine greater, is rubbish, I see no evidence for this......and to draw the conclusion God exists because of it, is nonsense and doesn't logically follow.
That is if you can twist your brain round the convoluted. argument he makes. ( or maybe because I've got the lergy, too many bloomin colds / sort throats about 😷)
The guy thought too hard and needed to be given something more practical to do, IMO
Firstly, what you have quoted in your post is the ontological argument but what I have presented in the OP is a step on from that; if you like ontological argument 2.0 (OA 2.0).
As I have said elsewhere on this thread and others God is just a word and could be replaced by the word "Something", and as such, because man is not perfect, his thinking beyond what is natural and beyond his experience will create imperfect 'images' which will not only conflict with others' ideas but with himself.
But my point with you has not been on this issue (OA 1.0) but on the fact that we humans do think beyond our natural conditions and experiences and as such this can't be explained by these natural conditions. This is what OA 2.0 says, that the lesser (natural experiences and conditions) can not give rise to our imagination's fantasies etc. which are 'above' the lesser conditions of our natural experiences. So how do we explain and give an account of how we have such an supranatural imaginational function?
Let me give you an example. If we have a sculptor in stone of a figure and it gradually over time erodes away into dust then that would be seen as natural; in effect the greater giving rise to the lesser - a created form going into an entropy of a pile of dust. This can be explained by natural means as it is a possible aspect of our experiences of our lives. However, if the reverse occurred this would be seen as supernormal. A pile of dust gradually forming together into a perfect intelligible stone figure. A lesser producing a greater. This would need an explanation beyond what was available to the natural order of things, and much more than what you have offered of the like, "Well, I've seen it happen, it just managed to come about." The same is true of our imaginations as they create much more than what is seen in the world of our experiences and as such must be the product of "Something" greater than our natural experiences of life on Earth.
-
I guess to a knat, we would appear eternal 😉
Because we are still learning about the universe and especially time it doesn't do to be to sure about anything.
Eternal only means something, because we have ways of observing passing time.
If there was no time, it becomes meaningless.
I can imagine plenty, but it doesn't mean it exists or it was planted there.
If time was a constant everywhere, eternal has a meaning.
But time can vary from one place to another, so how do you decide something is really eternal?
i guess you would have to be eternal to find out.
🌹
'Time' could be seen as a relative term invented to measure change of states and in that context, the word 'eternal' is used in the sense of a state lasting or existing forever, like eternal damnation, and is beyond measurement. Some religions express that absolute as 'timelessness' i.e. it is beyond time and form, and use practices like meditation in which it is consciously experienced together with formlessness.
-
Let me give you an example. If we have a sculptor in stone of a figure and it gradually over time erodes away into dust then that would be seen as natural; in effect the greater giving rise to the lesser - a created form going into an entropy of a pile of dust. This can be explained by natural means as it is a possible aspect of our experiences of our lives. However, if the reverse occurred this would be seen as supernormal. A pile of dust gradually forming together into a perfect intelligible stone figure. A lesser producing a greater. This would need an explanation beyond what was available to the natural order of things, and much more than what you have offered of the like, "Well, I've seen it happen, it just managed to come about." The same is true of our imaginations as they create much more than what is seen in the world of our experiences and as such must be the product of "Something" greater than our natural experiences of life on Earth.
Except that the theory of evolution coupled with a volcanic eruption gives us exactly that - a stone figure in the shape of a human. An entirely unthinking, natural progression of events, individually simple but complex in their number and interactions, that leads to a stone figure of a human.
These things in fact can happen from simple, natural forces.
O.
-
Except that the theory of evolution coupled with a volcanic eruption gives us exactly that - a stone figure in the shape of a human. An entirely unthinking, natural progression of events, individually simple but complex in their number and interactions, that leads to a stone figure of a human.
These things in fact can happen from simple, natural forces.
O.
Or the stone could have just accidentally looked like a stone figure because it weathered that way.
A bit like animals that appear to imitate others.
Atheists claim it was a progression of survival of the fittest, but it is also claimed to be too intricate a thing to have occurred in some cases.
Sometimes it is unbelievable that a seahorse can end up looking like a passable bit of weed, just by those more weed like, surviving.
Which one first looked weed like and why?
It's easy to draw the conclusion something else must be involved.
I think lots of people see that as being " super normal" I know I do sometimes.
But it isn't good as a proof God exists.
-
Perhaps it depends upon the nature of 'agent' and the lesser agent's store of information and ability to form a concept from that information. When it comes to the lesser agent's ability to form a concept of a greater agent that is clothed in absolutes e.g. omnipotent, eternal, omnipresent etc., the concept gets vaguer and virtually meaningless. This is probably why some religions choose the 'via negativa' and say 'you cannot know what God is, only what he is not'. Mystics within some religions choose the way of Henosis and seek union or oneness with the source/god and conceptualisation is dispensed with.
Via negativa is stupid because you just end up with God is God.
-
Except that the theory of evolution coupled with a volcanic eruption gives us exactly that - a stone figure in the shape of a human. An entirely unthinking, natural progression of events, individually simple but complex in their number and interactions, that leads to a stone figure of a human.
These things in fact can happen from simple, natural forces.
O.
What the hell are you talking about? I'd need details here to believe such rubbish.
-
Or the stone could have just accidentally looked like a stone figure because it weathered that way.
I'm talking about a sculptor like a Roman one. Well formed, smoothed and shaped, with the facial features well defined and normal. Not something that vaguely looks like a human figure. And I said from a pile of dust.
-
I'm talking about a sculptor like a Roman one. Well formed, smoothed and shaped, with the facial features well defined and normal. Not something that vaguely looks like a human figure. And I said from a pile of dust.
It could be in the eye of the beholder ;)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3326288/It-Face-God-MARS-UFO-hunters-claim-spotted-ancient-statue.html
-
It could be in the eye of the beholder ;)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3326288/It-Face-God-MARS-UFO-hunters-claim-spotted-ancient-statue.html
I'm talking about a process of cause and effect not some nutters making claims.
-
I'm talking about a process of cause and effect not some nutters making claims.
But Descartes is a nutter making claims.
That's the problem.
One persons cause and effect, is another persons "nutter"
-
But Descartes is a nutter making claims.
That's the problem.
One persons cause and effect, is another persons "nutter"
But I had moved on from talking about God and on to the phenomena that we can imagine things and ideas that are supernormal and supernal and this needs an explanation of its root and cause. You can say well it just happens, that's missing the point.
-
Via negativa is stupid because you just end up with God is God.
I expect that this is the idea ... don't waste time trying to form concepts of the inconceivable. It only agitates the mind, instead, 'Be still and know that I am God'.
-
What the hell are you talking about? I'd need details here to believe such rubbish.
I'm talking about the sort of remains you get at places like Pompeii after a volcanic eruption - entirely natural process that produces human-shaped statues.
O.
-
I'm talking about the sort of remains you get at places like Pompeii after a volcanic eruption - entirely natural process that produces human-shaped statues.
O.
But 1) humans were used as moulds and 2) they were not perfect representations of a human as a statue is, perfectly formed by an artist; as say like a Roman statue or the David sculptor by Michelangelo.
-
But 1) humans were used as moulds and 2) they were not perfect representations of a human as a statue is, perfectly formed by an artist; as say like a Roman statue or the David sculptor by Michelangelo.
OK, but Michelangelo's David is a statue produced by entirely natural events - humans, and tool use by humans, are entirely natural events.
O.
-
OK, but Michelangelo's David is a statue produced by entirely natural events - humans, and tool use by humans, are entirely natural events.
O.
You're moving the goal posts. I wasn't referring to David as an example but to explain what I meant by a pile of sand forming into a perfect statue. This being an analogy of the fact that the mind can create ideas that are not subject to the palette presented to it by nature and its past input but can come up with totally novel creations. In other words it can apparently conjure up the 'greater' from the 'lesser' (this being nature and the external world). If we couldn't do this we would still be swinging from tree to tree like the monkeys.