Renewing God

[Altariva]

I think everyone registered in this forum - or at least any majority - would agree with me if I say that it is almost necessary to develop a definition of "God" and whatever is divine able to include and integrate what is purely scientific. This because a mere religious meaning of God is no longer exhaustive if referred to our contemporary: by now, human societies need a spiritual ideal able to sublime science, art and philosophy into the same "being". In other words, we need to redifine what is divine in order to create a system more comprehensive of everybody's acception of life: simply, the solution is a web of ideas which considers every kind of discipline and integrate different notions and opinions in the name of omnicomprehension and totality, and again, unity.

 

My personal hint is to organize the establishment of a comunity which interest is to "renew God": I think traditions are no more able to hold the weight of such a definition, and what we need for is exactly to let our soul, reason and personal ethics shout "what we think God should be"; and this without the fear of any solemn judgement, because the prerogative of "God" is go(o)dness - irony.

 

I hope some of you would like this enterprise, so to "forge" a sort of study commettee

 

P.S.: obviousluy, I will write my personal opinion about God very soon, but first I'd like to read some comments.

[John Cuthber]

I think God should be ...

retired to the history books.

 

Seriously, aside from a rather minor branch of psychology, why do you think science needs to consider God at all?

[tomgwyther]

There are nearly as many gods as there are people who believe in god. In any case, why would we wish to attribute properties to something which does not exist?

[Phi for All]

I think we call something "divine" or "sacred" when we don't want anyone to question it.

 

God is just supposed to be accepted without questioning the person who is describing Him, or the way the person is describing Him. Whoever is telling you about God is absolutely correct about Him, always and forever, even if they change their mind or realize that something about their belief doesn't make sense.

 

The best part about being divine is that any inconsistencies aren't really inconsistent, they're just incomprehensible to those who don't understand the Truth.

[Altariva]

I agree with you when you speak about the dogmatism which is frequently attributed to "God" and everything concerning the divine sphere... but, the reason I started this topic is effectively to go over this idea: you all are right when speak about inconsistecy of this particular conception of "God", then why not try to redefine it in a modern and acceptable way? You say it isn't necessary to describe the world or other things, and OK, I agree, in fact I appreciate science because of its capacity to reveal what physically concern the reality, and also psychology for its progresses in studying mental ones, and the integration between them I personally think is quite brilliant! Then, as lot of intellectuals affirm, "what is the place of God?", and also "does still exist leftovers for him?" Probably I know what you are going to answer, so I clarify: if we assume the inexistence of something which could be called "God", the only action we'll make is to not consider the whole range of possibilities ("it does not exist, so why should I deepen such absurd ideas?"), but in this case you won't achieve any enlightenment; on the other hand, you know you cannot accept a definition of God such the traditional one, this becouse of your scientific (or simply, more rational) background, so you would ask yourself about its eventual necessity for explaining something, but you know that apart few advices or spiritual consolations it would be completely pointless... and this because, effectively, we have still a instrument to fathom the reality (a fantastic one: science!), so any extra one seems to be useless, eventually self-defeating. In this way we understand that "God" isn't precisely something able to help us to describe the fact of things: if it want to exist, it must be something different...

I say: maybe. As it seems, some of you says something like: "when we don't want anyone to question it"... well, very well kick-off! I mean that if we want to answer in a precise way to the question on its reality (not perfect, but precise will be enough), we must question it, and whenever it seems to not exist, keep questioning: because, as it happens in science, if we stop deepening the fact, no answer would be able to satisfy our rationality (but also our ethics)!

In a way it would sound somewhat epic, I appeal to you: let's find the last corner left for God! Just keep seeking, because our freedom derives from our capability of believing!

[Arete]

How does "finding the last corner left for God" differ from the "God of the Gaps" logical fallacy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

 

Why does freedom derive from belief? I would have thought freedom derives from a lack of restrictions - independent of belief of lack thereof.

[Phi for All]

I agree with you when you speak about the dogmatism which is frequently attributed to "God" and everything concerning the divine sphere... but, the reason I started this topic is effectively to go over this idea: you all are right when speak about inconsistecy of this particular conception of "God", then why not try to redefine it in a modern and acceptable way? You say it isn't necessary to describe the world or other things, and OK, I agree, in fact I appreciate science because of its capacity to reveal what physically concern the reality, and also psychology for its progresses in studying mental ones, and the integration between them I personally think is quite brilliant! Then, as lot of intellectuals affirm, "what is the place of God?", and also "does still exist leftovers for him?" Probably I know what you are going to answer, so I clarify: if we assume the inexistence of something which could be called "God", the only action we'll make is to not consider the whole range of possibilities ("it does not exist, so why should I deepen such absurd ideas?"), but in this case you won't achieve any enlightenment; on the other hand, you know you cannot accept a definition of God such the traditional one, this becouse of your scientific (or simply, more rational) background, so you would ask yourself about its eventual necessity for explaining something, but you know that apart few advices or spiritual consolations it would be completely pointless... and this because, effectively, we have still a instrument to fathom the reality (a fantastic one: science!), so any extra one seems to be useless, eventually self-defeating. In this way we understand that "God" isn't precisely something able to help us to describe the fact of things: if it want to exist, it must be something different...

I say: maybe. As it seems, some of you says something like: "when we don't want anyone to question it"... well, very well kick-off! I mean that if we want to answer in a precise way to the question on its reality (not perfect, but precise will be enough), we must question it, and whenever it seems to not exist, keep questioning: because, as it happens in science, if we stop deepening the fact, no answer would be able to satisfy our rationality (but also our ethics)!

In a way it would sound somewhat epic, I appeal to you: let's find the last corner left for God! Just keep seeking, because our freedom derives from our capability of believing!

 

God loves gaps, especially paragraph breaks.

[Saint Graal Bringer]

Please, don't answer if you just exclude the idea of a principle at the base of universe. We can call it God, Allah, Buddha... but we must considere the possibility that there's something inapprehensible out there.

I would specify that i'm tend atheist, but not because i think that life sucks and then there's nothing like God.

[Moontanman]

Please, don't answer if you just exclude the idea of a principle at the base of universe. We can call it God, Allah, Buddha... but we must considere the possibility that there's something inapprehensible out there.

 

Why?

 

 

 

I would specify that i'm tend atheist, but not because i think that life sucks and then there's nothing like God.

 

 

This is incomprehensible...

[Saint Graal Bringer]

Why?

Because we have to talk about a possible principle that rules the universe. Can seem not scientific, but philosophy it's not science.

 

 

This is incomprehensible...

some people state themselves atheist because if there's a god, he shouldn't permit the existance of evil on earth, or just because the religions often have been contradictory with the reality. I'm not one of them

[Moontanman]

 

Why?

Because we have to talk about a possible principle that rules the universe. Can seem not scientific, but philosophy it's not science.

 

No we do not have to consider a god that rules the universe, trying to slip in the concept of god as some sort of ruling principle is dishonest...

 

 

 

 

 

This is incomprehensible...

some people state themselves atheist because if there's a god, he shouldn't permit the existance of evil on earth, or just because the religions often have been contradictory with the reality. I'm not one of them

 

 

I count my self as an atheist because i see no evidence of god, the other things you mention rule out specific gods or pantheons of gods...

[Altariva]

Sorry for the extreme continuity of the paragraphs ^^"

I think I must clarify something: when I say "freedom derives from our capability of believing" I do not implicitly mean "in God". You say it depends on lack of restrictions: I thought it was something like that, but if you are simply free form any kind of limit, well, it is just a lower interpretation of Freedom. Try to reflect: I kill someone because I can do it, I'm free to do it, no one obstacles me (apart probably the one who in being killed, maybe), but effectively this is just a "decision" (to kill) I do in order to do something. Taken apart, a decision is just a product of freedom: just think about recent neuroscientific theories on the free will (i.e.: Gazzaniga), it seems to be a product of some biological interchange of substances and processes in brain which anticipate the consciousness of the decision. I mean, if you base your freedom on the consciousness of being free to decide something indipendently from others (persons, but also law), consciousness which is maximized much less are the limits to your capability to act, well, your interpretation of freedom is merely built on your "perception" of liberty.

On the other hand, the act of believing in something (example: you believe that F=m*a) expresses a hypothesis, and I think that is precisely this which allow us to assert our freedom: I'm not free because of my unbounded decisions, but whereas I am able to theorize (make a hypothesys in order to verify a thesys I thought before) something only me myself can understand in that particular way. I have to answer to my "why" if I want to comprehend the reality of free will: then, if I believe in something, it means I have understood it in a personal way, so the next step is to get others sympathetic to my vision, and this not by imposition of will, but with cooperation. The key to understand freedom, I think, is effectively to see it not just in a individualistic way, but more like a matrix (please, do not quote the movies...), something which expects a sort of interconnection beetwen individuals. There, the capability of believing is the capability of expressing in a deeper way our ideals (from "banana is yellow" to "God is love").

I would like to end with "Simple, you don't say?", but it would sound quite ironical...

[Moontanman]

Sorry for the extreme continuity of the paragraphs ^^"

I think I must clarify something: when I say "freedom derives from our capability of believing" I do not implicitly mean "in God". You say it depends on lack of restrictions: I thought it was something like that, but if you are simply free form any kind of limit, well, it is just a lower interpretation of Freedom. Try to reflect: I kill someone because I can do it, I'm free to do it, no one obstacles me (apart probably the one who in being killed, maybe), but effectively this is just a "decision" (to kill) I do in order to do something. Taken apart, a decision is just a product of freedom: just think about recent neuroscientific theories on the free will (i.e.: Gazzaniga), it seems to be a product of some biological interchange of substances and processes in brain which anticipate the consciousness of the decision. I mean, if you base your freedom on the consciousness of being free to decide something indipendently from others (persons, but also law), consciousness which is maximized much less are the limits to your capability to act, well, your interpretation of freedom is merely built on your "perception" of liberty.

On the other hand, the act of believing in something (example: you believe that F=m*a) expresses a hypothesis, and I think that is precisely this which allow us to assert our freedom: I'm not free because of my unbounded decisions, but whereas I am able to theorize (make a hypothesys in order to verify a thesys I thought before) something only me myself can understand in that particular way. I have to answer to my "why" if I want to comprehend the reality of free will: then, if I believe in something, it means I have understood it in a personal way, so the next step is to get others sympathetic to my vision, and this not by imposition of will, but with cooperation. The key to understand freedom, I think, is effectively to see it not just in a individualistic way, but more like a matrix (please, do not quote the movies...), something which expects a sort of interconnection beetwen individuals. There, the capability of believing is the capability of expressing in a deeper way our ideals (from "banana is yellow" to "God is love").

I would like to end with "Simple, you don't say?", but it would sound quite ironical...

 

 

I see no connection with any of this and the idea of God, it would also sound quite nonsensical...

[Altariva]

No we do not have to consider a god that rules the universe, trying to slip in the concept of god as some sort of ruling principle is dishonest...

 

Mh, I'm interested to deepen the comprehension of the verb "rule": could it be that everything we do in predestinated or strictly decided or redirected by "God"? No, I think not. In fact I intend that verb more likely "observing what happens, without directly interfering to everyone's will": could it be that God is like a sort of giant eye? Please, no. This definition is not so exhaustive to define this entity as "God"!

So it must be something higher, if we want to assume its existence: not just a supervisor, but something higher, mh... what about a resonance between relativity, absoluteness and a sort of vector which interconnects them (in a mere mixture they will mutually annihilate themselves) generating armony between contraries, also operating a sort of absolution of the relative?

 

Obviously, I will explain this better in a second time

[Moontanman]

Mh, I'm interested to deepen the comprehension of the verb "rule": could it be that everything we do in predestinated or strictly decided or redirected by "God"? No, I think not. In fact I intend that verb more likely "observing what happens, without directly interfering to everyone's will": could it be that God is like a sort of giant eye? Please, no. This definition is not so exhaustive to define this entity as "God"!

So it must be something higher, if we want to assume its existence: not just a supervisor, but something higher, mh... what about a resonance between relativity, absoluteness and a sort of vector which interconnects them (in a mere mixture they will mutually annihilate themselves) generating armony between contraries, also operating a sort of absolution of the relative?

 

Obviously, I will explain this better in a second time

What about there is no evidence for the existence of a god so there is no god? Edited February 7, 2013 by Moontanman

[Saint Graal Bringer]

No we do not have to consider a god that rules the universe, trying to slip in the concept of god as some sort of ruling principle is dishonest...

 

I agree. but it's dishonest even excluding regardless its possible existence. We have to prove it with a good reasoning, or we would not be different from who obtusely believes in god just because his family educated him so

 

I count my self as an atheist because i see no evidence of god, the other things you mention rule out specific gods or pantheons of gods...

 

in fact, but what i want to say is just that i don't think this way when i say "i don't believe in a god ruler of the universe". I don't believe i'm the "chosen one" that has all the answers... i have to consider opinions of others, even if i don't agree. And if i don't agree, i explain why i don't. This is the base of philosophy

[Altariva]

I see no connection with any of this and the idea of God, it would also sound quite nonsensical...

 

Please, underline what precisely you don't understand of my reflection: I will clarify, but I need to know what you need to be clarified of.

[Moontanman]

Please, underline what precisely you don't understand of my reflection: I will clarify, but I need to know what you need to be clarified of.

 

How about I underline what does make sense?

 

Sorry for the extreme continuity of the paragraphs ^^"

I think I must clarify something: when I say "freedom derives from our capability of believing" I do not implicitly mean "in God". You say it depends on lack of restrictions: I thought it was something like that, but if you are simply free form any kind of limit, well, it is just a lower interpretation of Freedom. Try to reflect: I kill someone because I can do it, I'm free to do it, no one obstacles me (apart probably the one who in being killed, maybe), but effectively this is just a "decision" (to kill) I do in order to do something. Taken apart, a decision is just a product of freedom: just think about recent neuroscientific theories on the free will (i.e.: Gazzaniga), it seems to be a product of some biological interchange of substances and processes in brain which anticipate the consciousness of the decision. I mean, if you base your freedom on the consciousness of being free to decide something indipendently from others (persons, but also law), consciousness which is maximized much less are the limits to your capability to act, well, your interpretation of freedom is merely built on your "perception" of liberty.

On the other hand, the act of believing in something (example: you believe that F=m*a) expresses a hypothesis, and I think that is precisely this which allow us to assert our freedom: I'm not free because of my unbounded decisions, but whereas I am able to theorize (make a hypothesys in order to verify a thesys I thought before) something only me myself can understand in that particular way. I have to answer to my "why" if I want to comprehend the reality of free will: then, if I believe in something, it means I have understood it in a personal way, so the next step is to get others sympathetic to my vision, and this not by imposition of will, but with cooperation. The key to understand freedom, I think, is effectively to see it not just in a individualistic way, but more like a matrix (please, do not quote the movies...), something which expects a sort of interconnection beetwen individuals. There, the capability of believing is the capability of expressing in a deeper way our ideals (from "banana is yellow" to "God is love").

I would like to end with "Simple, you don't say?", but it would sound quite ironical...

[Saint Graal Bringer]

 

How about I underline what does make sense?

 

Sorry, have you understood that this is a serious discussion?

[Moontanman]

Sorry, have you understood that this is a serious discussion?

 

I am well aware this is a serious discussion.. are you?

I agree. but it's dishonest even excluding regardless its possible existence. We have to prove it with a good reasoning, or we would not be different from who obtusely believes in god just because his family educated him so

No we do not have to prove god does not exist, when faced with something that has no supporting evidence the default position is that "something" does not exist...

 

in fact, but what i want to say is just that i don't think this way when i say "i don't believe in a god ruler of the universe". I don't believe i'm the "chosen one" that has all the answers... i have to consider opinions of others, even if i don't agree. And if i don't agree, i explain why i don't. This is the base of philosophy

No, opinions do not matter, only evidence matters and there is no evidence of a "god"

 

Do you feel the need to consider the existence of the flying spaghetti monster because I am of the opinion it exists?

Edited February 7, 2013 by Moontanman

[Saint Graal Bringer]

I am well aware this is a serious discussion.. are you?

I am. But i don't mock the others, then i think i'm barely more serious than you...

[Moontanman]

I am. But i don't mock the others, then i think i'm barely more serious than you...

I am not mocking anyone, if you can defend his position feel free to do so, but I think he should be the one to defend his position...

[Altariva]

Ahw, the old "seeing is believing" school, I see.

Quoting Einstein: "we may think nothing is a miracle, or we may think everything is a miracle".

Tell me, what kind of evidence would you like to touch? A man who tell you "I'm God" and materialize a floating city in fornt of you? It would be quite shocking, you don't say?, even considering that that circumstances would probably make you thinking him more like a demon... Or would you prefer him to show you what you want to see? I think it would be a glorious troll for you!

The problem is that any tangible demonstration of its existence would violate your own free will, and this because of the theoretical assumption that God is almighty.

But I think that also in those circumstances you will be skeptical... but even this wouldn't be a bad thing, mh...

[Saint Graal Bringer]

I am not mocking anyone, if you can defend his position feel free to do so, but I think he should be the one to defend his position...

Are you kidding me?

He asked what we didn't get and you put that phrase? I defend him because he's trying to start a theological discussion, and you're not taking him seriously

[Moontanman]

Sorry for the extreme continuity of the paragraphs ^^"

I think I must clarify something: when I say "freedom derives from our capability of believing" I do not implicitly mean "in God". You say it depends on lack of restrictions: I thought it was something like that, but if you are simply free form any kind of limit, well, it is just a lower interpretation of Freedom. Try to reflect: I kill someone because I can do it, I'm free to do it, no one obstacles me (apart probably the one who in being killed, maybe), but effectively this is just a "decision" (to kill) I do in order to do something. Taken apart, a decision is just a product of freedom: just think about recent neuroscientific theories on the free will (i.e.: Gazzaniga), it seems to be a product of some biological interchange of substances and processes in brain which anticipate the consciousness of the decision. I mean, if you base your freedom on the consciousness of being free to decide something indipendently from others (persons, but also law), consciousness which is maximized much less are the limits to your capability to act, well, your interpretation of freedom is merely built on your "perception" of liberty.

It has been suggested that I have mocked you, if this is your perception then i suggest you explain what any of this has to do with the reality of god... or the need to have a god.

 

 

On the other hand, the act of believing in something (example: you believe that F=m*a) expresses a hypothesis, and I think that is precisely this which allow us to assert our freedom: I'm not free because of my unbounded decisions, but whereas I am able to theorize (make a hypothesys in order to verify a thesys I thought before) something only me myself can understand in that particular way. I have to answer to my "why" if I want to comprehend the reality of free will: then, if I believe in something, it means I have understood it in a personal way, so the next step is to get others sympathetic to my vision, and this not by imposition of will, but with cooperation. The key to understand freedom, I think, is effectively to see it not just in a individualistic way, but more like a matrix (please, do not quote the movies...), something which expects a sort of interconnection beetwen individuals. There, the capability of believing is the capability of expressing in a deeper way our ideals (from "banana is yellow" to "God is love").

Again, I see no connection with this and the concept of god... or the need for the concept of god...

I would like to end with "Simple, you don't say?", but it would sound quite ironical...

It would also sound quite nonsensical...

 

Are you kidding me?

He asked what we didn't get and you put that phrase? I defend him because he's trying to start a theological discussion, and you're not taking him seriously

No, he made the assertion that we need a god or the concept of a god, he then went on to defend this with assertions and ideas that have no connection with the need for a god or the concept of a god...