Concept of God arising in multiple, different cultures

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by rodereve, Jan 21, 2013.

  1. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    All these things are already happening, even as we don't live in a theocracy.

    You still haven't answered my question.

    If you've indeed have training in Buddhist meditation, it shouldn't be a problem for you to go into the details of one's intentions.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U Valued Senior Member


    Ref #399, 400
    Because I have no time to engage in a meaningless semantic go-around. It has nothing to do with OP.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    You're coming from a position you won't defend, and as you refuse to defend it, you shift the blame on others.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    What position is that? Reminding you that Heaven is generally considered to be inherently happy?
  8. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member


    Can you explain how the desire to find security and happiness could arise in a world that is inherently insecure and unhappy?

    If the world would indeed be inherently insecure and unhappy, people would be miserable - and leave it at that. They wouldn't come up with ideas and desires to transcend that misery.
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Why does a squirrel gather nuts in storage for winter? What gave him the idea and desire to have a little stash for winter comfort? Does a squirrel need god and heaven (regardless of the semantics of Inherent qualities and Relativity), or is this just another evolutionary process?
    (This has nothing to do with comparative values of inherent this, inherent that. Forget it, I'm not going to debate that here).

    If God is inherently omnipotent, It cannot be benevolent. If God is inherently benevolent, It cannot be omnipotent. The idealized semantic representation of God is theoretically impossible.

  10. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    same here

    If you are saying that there is no good reason to say god exists based on the mechanisms of tacit investigation, it is my point that there is no good reason to think that tacit investigation is capable in the first place.

    You don't require that conviction to comprehend what tacit investigation is and isn't capable of

    hence small/large scale understandings of the universe don't offer any leverage

    whether it is philosophical or scientific depends on what grounds one is saying "there is no evidence of god/god is false/etc etc".

    once again, if you base such reasoning on the endeavors of tacit investigation, its simply circular

    so, once again, one has to look at what are the reasons someone doesn't think explicit terms exist
  11. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    In the sense that they start establishing values, as opposed to being the sum quality of values

    My point is that direct inspection of an object is tacit and necessarily incomplete and dependent on the explicit.

    Compare reading a book on how to play the piano compared to learning how to play the piano.
    Compare looking at a map of an island to the island itself

    its a quality of education to have such narrative qualities.

    Just compare what you know about science and what you have actually carried out in a lab setting.

    All that aside, the standard definition of god is necessarily explicit

    One question is how human beings could possibly have learned about the the kind of supernatural properties that this "standard definition of God" bestows on its 'God' character. [/QUOTE]
    Much in the same way that you found out who your parents are, or who the president is or any other person/institution that dramatically contextualizes your existence

    I guess it depends whether they want to actually launch a criticism of the philosophy or simply redefine key words of it for the sake of an easier argument (technically I think they call it a straw man)
  12. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    So you are saying that there is no way to contextualize these developments from the simple to the more complex ?
    That there is no way to think about the question of god that contextualizes all these different approaches?

    In short, animism involves understanding that there is something greater than one's self, polytheism involves attributing narratives to such greater entities and monotheism involves detailing the philosophical positions of such a position.

    Fit all this into differing cultures and their attendant needs interests and concerns and you have a variety of responses to the question of god

    Its not really that different.
    Theory always precedes practice ... what to speak of conclusions.

    And for the sake of succinct knowledge distribution, one can talk of certain conclusions despite not having done the groundwork for them (even if one happens to be a professional in the field ... since its the nature of specializing that other paths are not open to one).

    tacit investigation, by its very nature, demonstrates its limits.
    What to speak of god, even the president of america (in a certain sense) defies "standard empiric investigation" (IOW you only get to see him on his terms ... and not, say, on your personal skill an d aptitude in opening a dozen doors and catching 3 elevators (or whatever the schematics of the building he is residing in demands).

    IOW the power of tacit investigation starts to diminish when you start talking about things that contextualize the seer on account of its superior qualities.

    that is the best, but if you can talk somewhat confidently about exactly who the president is, what his duties are and a host of other things despite never having met him in person, you can understand other channels through which such knowledge is distributed.

    Once again, that's fine, for as long as one is dealing with tacit ideas.

    IOW when one starts trying to borrow from the authority of electrons, quarks and black holes in order to say something about the "larger reality" (such as "god doesn't exist), its then one has a problem.

    I am simply saying that there is a great deal that not only isn't proved by tacit investigation, but can't be proved by tacit investigation ... IOW tacit investigation simply doesn't work on problems of "greater reality"

    a cup of flour is explicit (or more specifically, "flour" is ... since "a cup" is a tacit qualifier).

    In principle?
    I'm guessing you mean "in general" ... which is what tacit terminology is all about ...

    On what authority do you say "cannot yet"?
    Especially since a cup of flour cannot be "fully investigated", much less "fully reproduced" (much less the apparatus which grants you cognitive awareness of a cup of flour ... which must be an infinite number of times more complex).

    Many people make many sorts of claims about many things.
    Generally there are frameworks we use to determine the integrity of such claims but that's kind of a separate and quite involved topic ... but needless to say there is no basis for saying variety in such claims automatically translates into "they are all right" or "they are all wrong".

    Even an explanation of smelling a rose is limited.

    For instance if a person smells a rose and says "that smells nice" and if a computer has a sensor that detects the aroma of a rose which in turn activates a voice response that says "that smells nice", has the same thing occurred, in principle?

    Much like every metonymic investigation of a subject leaves something out

    I'm not sure you have understood the point.
    The explicit offers everything of an object.
    The tacit offers something of an object.

    So whatever technological manner you may wish to frame the subject of a rose, the rose itself will have superior qualities (on account of it actually being a rose - ie the explicit article) compared to whatever you manage to scrape together empirically.

    IOW it exists as the object of your perceptions and has (practically) unlimited qualities

    Learning how to play the piano is the basis for a book on how to learn to play the piano.

    IOW its technically not possible to get more (at least in terms of learning how to play the piano) from reading a book about it as opposed to actually learning it.
    IOW the tacit follows the explicit ... simply because the explicit is the actual reservoir of qualities for the "realness" of an object.

    I was using it as an example of it not being practical to break down our experience of them into parts ... and how our experience of them shape values ( as opposed to being the sum quality of values)

    So if I spat on a jacket that you associate with your beloved on account of them regularly wearing it , you don't think you would in any way be "superstitiously swayed" by that?

    One of which is that there is only "one child" but "numerous mechanics".

    IOW in one scenario there is only one active principle giving rise to all other values ("I love my child") but in the other there are numerous (" I need someone to fix my car")

    The fact that we are finding newer and newer qualities from a cup of flour (or problems with the existing qualities we previously didn't have problems with) clearly indicates that there is some "essence" beyond what we see, touch, taste, smell and so on

    This notion has a long, long history .... but that aside, this sounds more like a philosophical assertion than a scientific one (IOW it doesn't draw from the authority of empiricism)

    the tacit discontinuity is simply when one asserts something explicit on its authority.
    For instance you just made an explicit claim/statement above :

    I don't think that matter is a bottomless heirarchy; in fact I suspect we're about one step from the bottom at our current state of knowledge.

    If you are making this statement on the authority of empiricism, you have made a mistake since metonyms never give you the whole picture (granted you are of the opinion that science will bust this someday, somehow ... but as things stand at the moment, it hasn't).

    I never said I could ... Infact I even likened it to a dog swimming the length of the pacific ocean without assistance

    Actually there are several different ways of approaching the notion/problem/nature of explicit terms.

    For instance you just made an explicit claim above that is certainly unprovable by direct perception (reaching the limit of the micro-cosm etc etc) ... and I guess you didn't require God (at least in a way that you are conscious of) to do it.

    So how did you do it?

    Actually my point about tacit investigation, the role of metonomy etc has simply been to show how these things really don't play a major role in determining how we frame the essential problem of "reality".
  13. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    I think we have many elements of a theocracy already. I was being as revealing as possible. I don't know what else you want me to say.
  14. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    It is ridiculous to say that scietific investigation of the physical properties of god never can lead to god. What nonsense is that?
    If there is communication between god and people, then it can be quantified. How is the communication performed, what is the connection that connects the person's mind with the cosmic mind.

    If we follow the reasoning employed here, one can make the argument that god only existed in the past because everyone "believed" in god from ignorance. There is a clear pattern becoming apparent of people losing their "faith" in or connection with the classical god and that new interpretations of god is becoming apparent in the small new religions springing up and terms used to speak on the subject of god. The question cannot be solved philosophically. If there is a "mechanism" it is only science that can calculate its function and specifically the science of Potential.

    I submit that rather inventing new qualities of the nature of god which will never be shared by all, the establishment of a doctrine that equates God with the definition of Potential as "A Latent Excellence which may become Reality".

    The language of Potential is the language you seek. It allows consideration of man's relationship in all aspects from infinitely subtle implicate to gross explicate and the connection between everything in the Universe.

    I propose a UOP (unit of potential) as the measurement of a single bit of metaphysical information which uses the same function of how god spreads information.

    Reinforcing Potentials become reality. Mass prayer works? If not, why pray?
  15. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    On the contrary, its ridiculous to expect tacit investigation to reveal anything beyond the metonymic ... much like its ridiculous to expect dividing a whole number with value by two to ever arrive at the answer of zero.

    I'm not sure how you would propose to quantify this unless you worked on either a definition of god or a principle of science that has no philosophical or practical precedent.

    I've already gone to great pains to explain how this is not feasible and also how your interpretation of god as some scientific principle of "Potential" is flawed

    The irony is that you are already inventing "new" qualities of the nature of god.

    already explained how using metonymic investigation doesn't actually allow for such an investigation

    Sounds bogus.
  16. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Again semantics.

    Obviously you still haven't given attention to Bohm's propositions.
  17. lightgigantic Banned Banned

  18. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Using your debating strategy I could call your and everyone else's attention to the incorrect spelling of the word "think". I find that a useless pastime. State you position, don't try to nitpick mine to death. It will advance your position one bit.
    BTW. what is your position on the OP again?
  19. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    I've already given you examples earlier:


    Apples or oranges - nevermind, it's all just semantics.
  20. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Could you explain this?

    How is the standard definition of "God" necessarily explicit?
  21. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    That may have worked in the past as it still works in monocultures for people born and raised in them, but in a secular society, it doesn't work that way anymore.

    When there is a vital and socially widely recognized connection between religion and daily life (notably work and family), such as in a country with a state religion, the process as you describe above can surely apply.

    But in secular societies, religion has lost it's official legitimacy, its official credibility, and has become a kind of subculture or counterculture.

    For an adult who was born and raised outside of a subculture or counterculture, it tends to be practically and metaphysically difficult to enter it. Ie. it probably requires a leap of faith.

    Basically, I think you are proposing that people should do something that cannot be done deliberately.

    Two of the problems with the analogy of how difficult it is to meet the president is that
    1. absolute power is given to the lowest guard in the hierarchy,
    2. absolute trust is required that the people in the hierarchy leading up the to the President or God are doing their job properly.

    The lowest guard in the White House can make it impossible for a person to enter the White House. Even if one has an appointment, even if the President wants to see one: if the lowest guard refuses to let one in, one won't get it, and that's it.

    Your president analogy is a negative and a restrictive one: according to it, the guru, the disciplic succession and the sangha appear to be compulsory intermediaries between oneself and God, obstacles and hurdles that one has to climb over; and if one fails to master these hurdles, one will never get to God.

    Rather than presenting the guru, the disciplic succession and the sangha as guides, teachers and supporters on the path of realizing proper God consciousness.
  22. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    How does one do an "explicit investigation" of God (or anything else, for that matter)?

    It looks to me that, once we drop "tacit investigation", by which you mean empiricism, all that can be left is what is more commonly called faith. Faith is just belief in the absence of evidence.

    Is it your argument that we should just have faith that God exists, and not hope for any actual evidence? If so, why should we have faith?

    Right. i understand that your claim is that tacit investigation can never connect with "explicit terms". But if there are no explicit terms, I can't see a problem with that.

    I base it on the fact that you have given me no reason, based on tacit investigation or anything else to believe that explicit terms exist. Maybe you have a reason that I should believe in such things, but I don't think you've expressed any such reason so far in this discussion.

    Not at all. For example, the conclusion that man invented the idea of God to explain the unknown, to give comfort that death is not the end, etc. etc. can contextualise all these different approaches.

    Yes. The progression probably came about from a gradually realisation of the deficiencies in each of the less sophisticated approaches to God.

    Fit all this into differing cultures and their attendant needs interests and concerns and you have a variety of responses to the matter of the supernatural. (Damn those philosophers for making life hard!)

    In science, theory and practice often leapfrog one another. At one point, theory leads. At another, new findings of fact lead. Similarly, I think that in religion practice has often preceded a coherent philosophical picture.

    There's enough empirical evidence that the President exists to dispel any reasonable doubt. The same cannot be said of God.

    I have no idea what contextualising the seer means. Who or what is the seer?

    Personal experience is problematic, though. The mind can play tricks. As for these "other channels", you're talking about anecdotal evidence, are you? Do you think that anecdotal evidence is good evidence for God?

    As I said, I'm not convinced there is a "larger reality".

    What is there to the flour other than what is empirically accessible?

    I say "cannot yet" on the basis that science has a long and successful history of solving problems involving the investigation of the nature of reality.

    Be very careful of the word "infinite", too. Few, if any, things in nature are infinitely complex.

    That's an interesting question. The philosopher John Searle made an interesting comment on the question a long time ago (search for "Seale's Chinese Room"). I should say that I don't think I agree with his position.

    As far as I can see, there's no way to access the explicit, if it exists at all.

    But there's no way to ever know the rose in all its explicitness, is there? The only access we have to the rose is through our senses, which are empirical.

    Not superstitiously, no. I might well feel that you insulted me or my loved one. Not because the jacket has some mystical inner quality, but because your action shows disrespect to me and/or my loved one.

    Well, yes. Obviously a random "someone" is less specific and likely less significant to me than "my child".

    The atoms of the cup, for example, are beyond our immediate experience of touch, taste and so on. But they are still empirically accessible. There's no reason to think that there's anything in that cup that isn't empirically accessible, or at least won't be so at some time in the future.

    No. It's an educated guess, or a hypothesis based on my understanding of what science already knows. I'm making a scientific guess, not a philosophical one in saying that we're probably one step away from understanding what the base level of matter is. I could be wrong, of course.

    I didn't make the statement on the authority of anything. It's an educated guess, or hypothesis. Scientists do that all the time.

    Then how do you know it exists?

    I don't think I made a claim about anything "explicit", in your terms. I made a guess at what further "tacit" investigation might reveal.

    You've still given me no reason to think I should frame the essential problem of reality as anything other than a matter for detailed empirical investigation.
  23. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    And by "God exists," you think of things like "a rock exists" or "an electron exists"?

    This is actually a question that you should ask yourself, and provide an answer for yourself.
    Nobody can do that for you. Others may give you their reasons, or give suggestions, but in the end, it is up to you.

    Unless you are a devoted solipsist, you already believe that explicit terms exist.

    Sure. See how long you can live with that outlook, and under what circumstances.

    This is only partly true. If you'd grow up in a strict theistic monoculture, you'd probably have no doubts as to whether God exists or not; you'd per default believe He does. As many people have and do.


    You are contextualized by the workings of your mind and body, by the society you live in, and these are further contextualized by the environment, the Universe, which are eventually contextualized by God.

    At the end of the day, though, personal experience is precisely what one is left with.
    That is, one has to decide for oneself what one will reflect on, what one will stand for. Nobody else can do that for one.

    People sometimes resort to empiricism and science in an effort to avoid this personal responsibility.

    Do you have any other senses than the ones of standard empiricism?

    In part, this is logical conjecture, otherwise we're up to our nose in solipsism.

    We have to posit that explicit terms exist, otherwise we end up in solipsism. And solipsism is the refuge of madmen.

    From another perspective, the essential problem of reality can be framed as a matter of a detailed investigation of one's own intentions.

    And while detailed empirical investigation is limited to the relatively few who are capable of it and who can afford it, investigating one's own intentions is far more accessible.

Share This Page