God is an ignorant, stinky human?Originally Posted by T'S' Formidable
God is an ignorant, stinky human?
http://www.westernrevival.org
"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." - George Orwell
I have my own Deistic interpretation of God, and if he exists than it becomes a matter of irreducible complexity. This means that if he exists he is too great to prove or make any sense of in the empirical world. The empirical or phenomenal world is the "limit" of all being in the world, and it is the limit upon which all limits are delimited in a calaculable fashion.
Beyond this we just have a vast unknowable space of being, and it has yet to occur what this being is. This void is interpreted as a nothingness in Eastern traditions, and takes on the value of something in more Western traditions or Westernized traditions like Christianity. This being has already been there, but its merely a static force, which coincides with the dynamic flow of natural events in the succession of time.
The succession of time is a causal movement of natural events, which are determined on the basis of certain fundamental and basic laws. The degree of fundamentally which a law contains depends on a phenomenal world, for a universal rule to be applicable whatsoever. This means that if supernatural or divine beings or laws did exist, they would have to conform to the possibilities of the empirical and phenomenal world.
This means that this being would be negated merely by the fact that the succession of time merely appears as a phenomenal convergence and divergence of natural events and forces. This negates and squeezes any divine or supernatural force from possibly existing or being capable of being applied to the reaction, motion, and momentum of phenomenon.
This phenomenon co-exists in the temporal plane of space-time, and it is space time, which is that which is the conceptual framework of this temporal plane in which all phenomenon is contained. This phenomenonal existence is all that their exists of this being of beings, and this being of beings is negated by the dynamic succession of natural events and forces.
This means that if a divine force created this empirical world then he naturally negated himself from that which he created, and thus we are left with a God of the gaps dilemna. This dilemna is pointed out by multiple scientific findings during and after the Enlightenment, and it was with Nietszche that this reality of the God existing in a divine chasm began to exist, in his proclamation God is dead.
There have only been two movements to solve this spiritual break from the material world, which puts the nature of the material world into question. Is reality merely a glitch of consciousness, which is covered up by self-consciousness and the dynamic succession of natural events as they appear to us through our senses in the phenomenal world?
I think its highly probable, and if this is the case then I think we can celebrate in part, despite the seeming tragedy of this situation. The universe's gift to mankind is his rational capacity, which allows him to act in accordance with moral laws. There is no moral laws to be derived in the actions of man without a certain degree of rational capacity, which is contained within him.
Since man's rational capacity is a conjunctive part of self-consciousness, which exists in a natural disjunctive state, between itself and its other then morality in large part is merely an anthropological projection of self. In large part the ontological concepts and ideas of God are anthropological projections of self, and this is only natural to the human condition.
This is because we live simply in the phenomenal world, and anything beyond this is incapable of being known or applied by reason to the dynamic forces of nature determined by the succession of time.
Our subconscious makes projections of anything beyond itself in the imagination as it is captured by our senses, and it re-directs this imagery of the world in an anthropological manner. This is not something I merely reasoned to, but something I experience quite vividly in my day to day life around other people.
Psychologically people have an anthropological projection of the world, and everything else is just an illusory image, which is projected by the sensibility. Christianity has tried to overcome in this quite a one sided, but anthropological manner, by latching onto the claim that God came manifested in the body of a man.
This means that Christianity tries to solve the God of the gaps by bridging our reason to something, which can not perceived by the senses. Thus the concept of faith plays an integrable role in believing in dogmatic and doctrinal codes in Christianity, but alas Christianity fails, because its runs into a contradiction.
If reason is needed to bridge the gap with faith, which exists in a union with reason, and which manifests itself purely in that which is rational and phenomenal, then there is no point from which we can define that which is rational from that which is faith. This is because the distinction in the Christian tradition derives from Reason, which man can not exist without in order to reach the hallmark of faith.
This means faith is merely something which is reduced to a hierarchy or linear array of subjective thought and determination, and anyone would claim to act with the spirit of faith is a charlatan and hypocrite. Buddhism offers us something more fundamental and authentic than what Christianity has tried to offer us. It asks us to see this God of the gaps as a mystical enanamation of self, which projects itself in a void of nothingness.
I think this is a more viable way of perceiving anything supernatural, because it does not ignore the ignorance of humans to such a matter. It does not attempt to construct a hierarchy of self or project an anthropological self onto this void, but merely lets it be.
Our moral duty is to reach a point of moderation and rationality, by approaching the world around us through the middle way. This means that we attempt to approach it from a rational approach, so that we do not end up in acting in excess or in a defected manner in accordance with moral laws, which are in large parts abstractions we make from our consciousness.
Its comes down to a matter of probability statistics, and I think it would be good if you read into chaos theories. Its important to understand how the systems of the world work, and the mechanisms that cause them to operate as such. It can't be all understand, but technic has been constructed in order to uncover a greater depth about the poesis of man.
That said the Poesis of man can not be re-constructed in a positivic way unless it conforms with the dynamic succession of time in nature. This dynamic force determines all things towards growth, and then to a decline. If an organism or being is unfit or uncapable of adapting to the environment, then it will fade and die out.
This is called natural selection, and I think its the best way to understand how the Poesis of mankind works. This poesis compels man in a rather telelogical manner to re-construct and uncover himself and his surroundings by delineating the structures of the phenomenal world through the use of technic. Its not about understand everything about each structure, but its about understanding the parts in part, and this is how we and nature comes to uncover the Poesis already contained within man and nature.
If you're looking for a nice book to read that's within the God vs. faith question let me suggest this book written by an astrophysicist:Yep.
I never understood why so many people seem to think that science and faith are incompatible. Wilful ignorance, I suppose.
http://www.thegodtheory.com/
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
Cheers! That looks interesting.
“Never forget what you are, for surely the world will not. Make it your strength. Then it can never be your weakness. Armour yourself in it, and it will never be used to hurt you.” -Tyrion Lannister, A Game Of Thrones
Throwing insults is no way to win an argument.
I tolerate other positions; I just take pity on them.People who claim to take pity on others are themselves pitiful, because they're incapable of tolerating other positions than their own. They're trapped by their own ignorance and judgmental attitude.
How so? I humble myself before my deities and serve them. What's arrogant is that atheists think of themselves as the only beings in the world (humans, that is) that matter and that no higher power exists above them.No, the arrogance is in thinking you - as a human being - are so special that some invisible deity/deities in the sky care about you.
Who's the one that can't tolerate other positions now?The arrogance is in insisting we non-believers need pity and that you hold the truth.
No, that is humbling. How, in any way, is believing in a higher power greater than you arrogant?The arrogance is in expecting something you believe created or guides the universe, to listen to you and your needs.
Who said humanity was the only species out there? Going back to your making fun of me for believing in the fey, are they not a whole different species entirely?The arrogance is in believing that humanity is the only species out there and that religion can answer every question.
I turn a blind eye to a lot of science because a lot of science thinks it can play as the gods.The arrogance is in turning a blind eye to science and reason because you're "too good" for it.
Is this what spirituality is degenerating to?
I think it's naive to assume just by chance something exists rather than nothing. The complexity of the Universe is amazing, no one could possibly deny that. And the fact that we are here today, as Homo Sapiens, opposed to the BILLIONS of organisms we could've been, is what-- a 1 in a trillion chance? I am sorry but I do feel that Atheism does have the burden of proof when they assert there is no God.
With that said I feel much closer with Atheists, Agnostics, Deists, and the like who constantly question the supernatural and a non-scientific Deity. Sorry, but I don't take people like Christians, Muslims, and Jews seriously when they claim they are the only ones capable of understanding God.
Last edited by Mercury; 03-02-2012 at 02:05 AM.
Correct, and telling someone you pity them is a personal insult.
Then you don't know what tolerating other people's positions really means. You lack a fundamental respect for other people and their viewpoints.I tolerate other positions; I just take pity on them.
You "humble yourself", as you call it, but don't you want something in return?How so? I humble myself before my deities and serve them. What's arrogant is that atheists think of themselves as the only beings in the world (humans, that is) that matter and that no higher power exists above them.
Say what? I don't pity you, kid, even though I may be justified in doing so. I just don't show that level of arrogance and disrespect towards the beliefs of others.Who's the one that can't tolerate other positions now?
It's all a matter of perspective and personal opinions, but generally people seek something, which is why they believe in deities in the first place. It could be comfort, power, a sense of unity etc.No, that is humbling. How, in any way, is believing in a higher power greater than you arrogant?
Belief that a god cares about you and your needs also expresses immense self-importance on the part of the believer.
I'm speaking of the universe, and not the little spherical lump of material we're anchored to.Who said humanity was the only species out there? Going back to your making fun of me for believing in the fey, are they not a whole different species entirely?
Science cannot "think", nor is its place to measure the metaphysical (at least not now). Science is merely an instrument of knowledge and reason. It's a tool used to differ fact from fiction. Nothing more and nothing less.I turn a blind eye to a lot of science because a lot of science thinks it can play as the gods.
If you consider yourself spiritual, then you should consider strengthening your spirit by not going around pitying others and being patronising. It seems desperate on your part. Be happy with what you are and what you believe in.Is this what spirituality is degenerating to?
Most Atheists don't assert there is no god.
As for the burden of proof, non-belief is the default position, and Theists are generally the only ones making positive claims about deities and the afterlife.
The ones who make the claims are the ones who have the burden of proof, and extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.
In addition, non-belief isn't a claim. I can't "prove" than I'm a non-believer. It makes no sense. However, I can ask believers if they can prove whether a god exists or whether there is an afterlife. That makes sense.
There is no rational basis or doctrine for such a thing, and if so it can be directly proven ever. I think a lot of people have a healthy soul, and they can't look at the world in any other way then to see a God. This is despite the fact that it ignores a basic and fundamental understanding of reality, and obstructs us from understanding the empirical world in all of its profoudness.
Christians, Muslims, and Jews all have shallow and undeveloped perspectives of the world, which are in today's world either too grounded in seeing the world as a fixed order, or as something which can be subjectively interpreted anyway they want to it. Another disgusting thing about these three religions, and especially Christianity, is their tendency to anthropologize the divine and mysterious.
Its pure blasphemy I must say, its basically like saying I believe in God, but because I am God. Its a self righteous attitude to have, and it tries to stamp out anything that is good or sublime in the human mind. These people feel so ensured that what they are commanding others to do is a divine imperative.
This is truly the sickest mentality to exist in, and Nietszche decried it as a result of the shiftiness of the theologian. The theologian is nothing without the pagan and rational traditions of the Graeco-Roman, and yet he uses the Graeco-Roman traditions to usurp them. I think these people are extremely egotistic, and they live in a darkened world where the intellect has been twisted and warped.
A lot of Christianities problems I blame on the Semitic roots that it has, and there is nothing sicker than the Abrahamic religions, which have arisen. I find the Buddhist tradition to be the noblest of the religious traditions in the world.
Judeo-Christian principles and ideals have used Graeco-Roman thoughts to justify their own rational principles to be divine maxims, when they are nothing more than their anthropological projections. At the same time they wish to stress the appearance of divine into the anthropological and physical, because it allows them to justify their own contradictory and hypocritical claims.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks