Concept of God arising in multiple, different cultures

That's not how people determine who their parents are. For those who never question their parentage, it's simply an assumption, not a determination. For those who do, more steps need to be taken than simply identifying the party or parties raising you.

As usual, you're more interested in obfuscating than debating. Make up your fucking mind already.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

perhaps you can market this

"Do you know who your parents are? I mean do you REALLY REALLY REALLY know?"

Good luck

I'm just curious why you thought of foster parents when I mentioned witnessing one's parents copulating ....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In other words, you don't have a good answer.

I brought up foster parents (or related guardians; I was raised by my maternal grandmother) because you said parentage can be determined reliably just by identifying who raised you. Your claim was untrue. Plenty of people are raised by people other than their biological parents.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm still waiting for a good answer from you.

Just try to engage the general public in rethinking their ideas on reliably determining who their parents based on your idea that they don't infact "know" who their parents are.

IOW its pretty clear you are just playing at being a spurious jerk
:shrug:

so exactly how did you reliably come to conclude all this?
dna testing?

 

This view depends entirely on how one defines "God."

I can make you a sweater, bring it to your house, cook you a meal and clean your house, and then leave your house. I'm not there anymore in person, but you can see that I am indirectly present through what I did, ie. sweater, meal, cleaned house. Ie. I'm not really absent.

Actually, it's you who is making a big deal about it.
You could shoo off the theists and other people with an idle hand gesture - but you don't. Why not? That's the real question.

Why entertain only such definitions of God in which you come out the loser?

Again, this view depends entirely on how one defines "God."

The scenario you are describing is already happening anyway, just at different speeds and in different modes. Some people die a quick death when an airplane engine falls on them from the sky; and others die a gruesome slow death from cancer, and there are all the other ways to die.

IOW, there isn't really anything that would stop one from holding God as the most important one in one's life already, as opposed to only in a time of crisis.

And again, this view depends entirely on how one defines "God."

The difference is in whether one makes an explicit effort not to tolerate bad faith.

I can't show that my ideas about spirituality are anything but man-made; in fact, I have often expressed my frustration over the relative nature of human thought and how it leaves one hanging in a metaphysical void.

However, there is a point to be made about bad faith. Even if man-made ideas are all we have, then why not practice such reasoning that is beneficial for us? Why insist that ideas of bad faith (such as "we live in a hostile, or at least indifferent Universe") are somehow more true, more realistic?

Talking specifically about Mormons, initial Mormon doctrine is the work of one man, and by contemporary standards, he didn't have it all that bad in life.

For example? That the Universe is out to get us?

 

And many more. And where do they come from, where do they get their sustenance? People, plants, animals, planets - none of them are self-sufficient.

So you should retract your earlier claim that you are the one in control and provision:

So you'd like to argue for partial or total chaotism?

If it wouldn't be, everyone would have a job, there would be enough food for everyone at all times, there'd be no shortage of oil and other natural resources, there'd be no disease, no aging, no death, no separation, and on the whole, things would be precisely the way people would want them to be.
Clearly, this is not happening.

Unless, of course, you believe that the way things are on Earth - with unemployment, disease, death, peak oil etc. etc. is all fine and well.

 

there are several and they are all are reliable in certain circumstances (and unreliable or even straight-out not applicable in others)

Given that the fundamental of empiricism is the senses, how on earth could possibly think that it wasn't limited????

a figure of speech that consists of the use of the name of one object or concept for that of another to which it is related, or of which it is a part, as “scepter” for “sovereignty,” or “the bottle” for “strong drink,” or “count heads (or noses)” for “count people.”

IOW empiricism is (forever) relegated to dealing with parts (ie the tacit) as opposed to the whole/fundamentals/essences (ie the explicit).

So in this sense, what to speak of god, empiricism cannot even tell us what a cup of flour is essentially (although it can tell us in a tacit sense that it was produced from grains, can be used to make a cake etc etc)

 

what empirical test is the basis for all humans being equal?

(actually empirically speaking, you have a very good reason for all humans not being equal and hence all humans not deserving of equal rights ... which certainly might explain why charters of uniform human rights are derivative from transcendental treatises as opposed to empirical ones ...)

 

the best path of intelligence is always that of simply hearing from the right authority. However, given that this path may not be open to us for various reasons (like for instance we might be puffed up with our own supposedly great intellectual prowess), there are more "scenic" routes available through practically any of the avenues given

I'm guessing you saw the word "figure of speech" and suddenly thought "this word has nothing to do with science"

Modern literary theory has often used ‘metonymy’ in a wider sense, to designate the process of association by which metonymies are produced and understood: this involves establishing relationships of contiguity between two things,

:shrug:

As long as you are up to speed that's the main thing I guess ,,, but then I did explain in about three different ways about the problem relating to parts and wholes ... and despite all that it appears that you still haven't go it

There is another, less well known, process that seems to be equally fundamental to language and cognition, that of metonymy. Metonymy enables us to use one part or aspect of an experience to stand for some other part (or the whole) of that experience. Unlike metaphor which involves two domains of experience, metonymy only requires one. Unlike metaphor which is based on similarity, metonymy requires contiguity, i.e. 'closeness' of association. Most metonymies are so common we never notice them.

Take for example, someone showing you a photograph of the face of a little girl and saying "That's my daughter." You smile and never think that you've used a metonymic process to comprehend that the face of a person stands for the whole person. Imagine you had been shown a picture of the girl's foot and they had said "That's my daughter!"


So there are two domains - one is the photograph of the daughter and the other is the daughter herself. The photograph is the metonym (since its a part - the daughter can produce millions of photos but the photo can't produce a single daughter) and the experience becomes metonymic when you see the photo since it requires only one domain of experience (you've never seen the daughter before, just this photograph)

and voila!!
Thats contiguity for you
Comprendo?

Can you think of any empirical claim that isn't framed by a threshold of the macro or micro-cosm (like, say a portrait of one's daughter that isn't framed by the edge of the photo)?

A "tacit" term is one that exists purely in relation to other tacit terms . The fact that empiricism can only deal with things with a necessarily incomplete picture of things (much like a photo is an incomplete image... yet serves its purpose well enough to say "this is my daughter " or whatever) means that it deals (exclusively) with tacit terms. This is why all empirical definitions suffer from regress.

If I had to describe [this] right hand of mine, which I am now holding up, I may
say different things of it: I may state its size, its shape, its color, its tissue, the
chemical compound of its bones, its cells, and perhaps add some more particulars;
but, however far I go, I shall never reach a point where my description will be
completed: logically speaking, it is always possible to extend the description by
adding some detail or other.*
In his book The Tacit Dimension, scientist Michael Polyani writes that
perception has inexhaustible profundity containing boundless undisclosed,
perhaps yet unthinkable, experiences.* In other words, we always perceive more
than we can tell. Polyani argues that most of what we know in life is tacit as
opposed to explicit: it cannot be captured in words or even in symbols.

A common experience of something explicit could be a very dear and close friend to whom we are bound by affection - our experience of them is something indivisible (IOW there is no meaningful way to break down our experience of them into a series of parts which we could then extrapolate to other people or objects as a substitute) and even a partial experience of something of them (like say hearing their voice recorded) is capable of "taking us back" to the taste or savoring of our previous estimation of their essence.

Let me know if you need me to explain why hearing the recording is not technically a metonym (at least for a person who has had direct experience of the person speaking) and why someone viewing a photograph of another's daughter they have never met is a metonym.

Well I guess one would say it was made up of approximately x grams of grains which results in approximately x million particles of wheat flour and which then goes on and on to a guess at how many quarks, etc until the subject disappears into experimental ideas on advanced physics (ie we reach the threshold of our empirical micro-cosmic investigation of things.

Do you think it could be a very powerful microscope, which could detect the ultimate fundamental, totally indivisible element of existence?
Or do you think the boundaries of the microcosm are practically limitless?

 

There's nothing to suggest such a state is even possible, so how does one conclude that the material world is somehow limited? Am I limited because we can't disprove ESP?

Until you can show me that existence is possible without those things, then I have no reason to consider them anything more or less than a necessary aspect of existence, and therefore not "limiting" in any manner.

 

I don't agree with that symbolic form of presence as being real. I have to have actual real-time presence. Granted, the presence doesn't necessarily have to be continuous, like with people in our lives now. So, in that scenario, if you are coming back tomorrow, then your presence is real. If no future visits are going to come, then the presence isn't real anymore, unless we talk on the phone or interact in some other real-time way. So, right now your presence is real because we are interacting by written word. Therefore, even though you left things behind that affect me still, those don't qualify as your presence. It has to be continuing real-time interaction.

I'm not the one making up doctrines about God and selling them to the public as truth. The people doing that affect my life whether I ignore them or not. With activity like the one involving their stance against evolution being taught in schools, they hold society back.

Because life isn't about winning or losing but about things like doing good and finding truth. And if God is or not, definitions that we make up don't change whatever the reality is.

Aside from my issue with defining God, I mean what you've said there, but just used a stark scenario to illustrate it, and the reality of it is that this life is miserable for a lot of people and God isn't there to help, ever, as determinable by all available evidence. And a huge number of us wish things were different in that regard.

Seeing your focus on the definition of God, I recall that there is one we should say would have to be true, and that is that God would have to be good. Other than that, all the made-up things about God don't affect what the reality is or isn't, and if God doesn't exist, the the definition of being good doesn't really matter. In fact, that involves one way I have heard people explain why the world is awful, being that God doesn't exist anymore (I'm not saying God ever did).

How can one judge what is good or bad faith, except maybe based on the best good social ideals like love and compassion?

I appreciate that.

We should be honest with ourselves about the universe being a harsh place to exist in.

I can believe that.

 

They might say that yet it doesn't mean anything to me.

Ignorant really ought to mean what the spelling connotes, which is ignoring. I think they would try, and even have tried to find out. But life is short with things necessary to be done to survive.

I don't know why metonymics is relevant. Figures of speech don't change the reality of a thing. And empiricism is how we live. We have to evaluate cause and effect to survive. I don't accept that we have to drop that approach concerning what should be the most important concern in our lives--God.

And that is a real problem for us.

That doesn't make it good or acceptable.

The notion that God wouldn't help is a doctrine I feel no need to accept. For one, it contradicts the very meaning of God, which is the most good being. And I don't accept that pain and suffering has a greater purpose.

I don't think you know that about atheists and my guess is they would gladly serve a (good) God that they believed existed. However, that doesn't really matter because the idea of subservience to a deity is another doctrine that one doesn't have to accept. If it were true, I wouldn't have a problem with it, personally if it involved the (good) God. However, one could say, instead, that a good god actually wouldn't mind serving us. Service to others is a good trait.

 

The fact is that people are generally dissatisfied with things such as aging, illness, death, poverty, famine, peak oil, unemployment etc. etc. and try to undo them.

The fact that they are dissatisfied with those things suggests that they find them, and the material world, limited.

 

What other reasons can you think of?

I'm talking about entertaining particular ideas, not about conclusions or holding stances.

I have not concluded that God is a magnanimous being. Nor have I concluded that God is an evil being.

I am simply entertaining various notions of "God" that are available in our culture.

Read again: I said I don't have the concern about which religion is the right one or why.

Do keep up. That is the question I have been asking you and some others.

You are claiming that premise 2 applies, not I. And you are the one claiming the conclusion (3) applies; not I.

What issue do you take with the first premise?

The deist is arguing that a perpetuum mobile is possible: God created the Universe, and then stepped back, as the Universe runs automatically from then on, needing no input from God anymore.
This is the reasoning I objected.

Oh, you know damn well what I'm talking about.

Empirically, humans are most definitely not equal: they are not of equal size, weight, skin color, number of digits, limbs, eyes, ears etc., they are not of the same socio-economic background, they do not have the same education, they are not of the same sex etc.

The declaration of Human Rights is talking about human equality in an abstract ontological sense that is impossible to evidence empirically.

 

You're not being fair here.

It's not like an ordinary human can recognize who is an authority on God and who isn't.

There are all kinds of people walking around claiming to be the authority in matters of God; it's no wonder that the general population is confused.

(In fact, your acharya's concern was precisely these people who go around claiming to be God and such.)


Given all this confusion and there being so many pretenders to the throne of God's fully empowered representative, I think a seeker must find a different approach, something other than trying to figure out "which religion is the right one" before joining it.

 

To be clear: I don't "believe in" reincarnation; I consider it a morally beneficial outlook. There's an important difference between the two.

But I specifically do not believe that this one lifetime of 70 years or so is all there is to a person's life.

You were arguing for the possibility of a deist /G/od and a deist universe, and I objected it.
If I am in charge of cooking for you, and you regularly find meals ready at set times, then, even though I may not be in your house, you cannot but conclude that I was there, and real.
In a similar manner, if the Universe requires to be controlled, maintained, and we see that it is being controlled and maintained, then, even though we don't see the entity in charge of control and maintenance, we can infer that this entity exists, is real, does the job.

I'd like you to reply again to my question, this time in more detail.

I asked- Why entertain only such definitions of God in which you come out the loser?

Who we think God is or could be does affect how we go about life, though.

Bad faith creates scenarios in which the one thinking and acting in bad faith ends up being the loser, by their own standards.

The Universe is a mixed bag, and this is what can make life in it so confusing.
In many ways, it is harsh. And in many ways, it is delightful. This variety can be difficult to make sense of.

 

By that same logic, then your food is bad because I don't like it.

See why your reasoning fails? When you make a value judgment of an item, you are projecting your values onto that item's attributes, not the other way around; i.e. "This is good because it has walnuts." The walnuts are not inherently or necessarily good, they are simply walnuts. You happen to like the way they taste, their texture, their scent. And to you, they are good. That's a subjective truth. And if you find the world limited compared to your wildest fantasies, okay. I can't begrudge you that. But you can't define walnuts as objectively good, and you can't define the world as limited because you aren't happy that you get old and die.

Not necessarily. For one, why would you immediately conclude an entity is required? In the same way our nervous system controls and maintains itself, why can't the universe control and maintain itself? It could be entirely natural (as in, non-magical) processes allowing for our existence and even keeping it up. We just don't know, and assuming the presence of a god seems stupid. I feel like you can only infer a god if you already expect a god to be there.

So is what we think about heights, or certain kinds of food, or other races. Everything could theoretically affect how we live.

That doesn't change the fact that we should be honest with ourselves.