|
|
| Page 7 of 8 |
|
|
 Posted: Mon, 11th Mar 2013 23:00 Post subject: |
|
 |
| Frant wrote: | | We're simply squabbling about the definition of the word "god" and I believe ChinUp is simply trolling. So far he's been successful since nothing has come out of this thread (as to be expected). |
Like I said, semantics. As for nothing coming from the thread, that was inevitable. It's an argument as old as time itself and has been pondered by men with far bigger brains that us, and yet, here we are. I doubt there will ever be a cure for dogma. Must be some sort of genetic flaw.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DXWarlock
VIP Member
Posts: 11422
Location: Florida, USA
|
| Posted: Mon, 11th Mar 2013 23:09 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
couleur
[Moderator] Janitor
Posts: 14354
|
| Posted: Tue, 12th Mar 2013 08:33 Post subject: |
|
|
@DXWarlock: You will forgive me if I only quote part of your post.
| DXWarlock wrote: | | I guess the best example would be like a jigsaw puzzle. all its pieces exist regardless if you know what they all are. its picture as a whole is and always will be static to itself. even if we can only see 2 of the 500 pieces and guessing at what is a picture of. |
This part of you answer is extremely intriguing. You presuppose that the universe is static to itself, because the concepts you use to describe it are static. I, on the other hand, think that reality is fluid, a constant "becoming" ever changing, and therefor ultimately undescribable in static concepts. Just like in evolution, every new species is somehow based on another lifeform, yet adds something different and therefor is new to the whole. In that aspect, evolution is constantly creative, because it is always new. There is not one single repeated moment in the history of evolution. I suppose this is true for the universe itself.
This is, of course a deduction from observations, and it can be wrong. I guess we are still in the same basic opposition held between Heraclitus vs. Parmenides here. 
| DXWarlock wrote: |
I reallllly hope my rambling of horrible examples gets the point across. As I said, the concept is elegantly simple, its the using human language to share it that's making it complicated. |
I fully agree. Whether fluid or static the universe, or rather existence in itself, when explained through language becomes very much complicated. Its just that with a static underlying, you open up a possibility to understand it all, I, on the other hand, cannot say as much, as it will be impossible to explain something that is fluid.
It's interesting also, becaus I had a very similar discussion with my physician this saturday eveneing (over wine and lasagne). He has a similar opinion than you about the universe, and just like here, we did not come to a mutual agreement on what existence is, but just discussing it was fun and enriching. Just like here.
"Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment."
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChinUp
Posts: 5503
Location: 51.7° N ' 1.1° W
|
| Posted: Tue, 12th Mar 2013 12:57 Post subject: |
|
|
| OG wrote: | | Semantics. I do not see how you conclude using the term god as a foot shooting exercise. Nor does its use form any sort of acceptance in a belief. It is used "for the sake of argument". Other than that, I have no idea what you're even talking about. |
Arriving @ the meaning of religious terms is a personal journey .. to adopt somebody else's meaning for religious terms is the mode of a follower. Surely you can see the folly in allowing others to dictate to you what to call God, what to call faith ..
Perhaps i am simply the first person you have encountered who has more faith in his own ability to discern meaning from religious terms than faith in the theist establishment. To me theism isn't religion its anti-relgion it destroys peoples self respect, morality, faith ect .. the less exposure to theist nonsense about relgion, God, faith, prayer, soul the better ..
Theists deserve to be treated like the backwards fools they are .. we no more need theism to cultivate altruism than we need cosmetics industry to cultivate beauty.
"Most of the change we think we see in life is due to truths being in & out of favor." ~ Frost
Last edited by ChinUp on Tue, 12th Mar 2013 17:28; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DXWarlock
VIP Member
Posts: 11422
Location: Florida, USA
|
| Posted: Tue, 12th Mar 2013 14:31 Post subject: |
|
|
| couleur wrote: | @DXWarlock: You will forgive me if I only quote part of your post.
| DXWarlock wrote: | | I guess the best example would be like a jigsaw puzzle. all its pieces exist regardless if you know what they all are. its picture as a whole is and always will be static to itself. even if we can only see 2 of the 500 pieces and guessing at what is a picture of. |
This part of you answer is extremely intriguing. You presuppose that the universe is static to itself, because the concepts you use to describe it are static. I, on the other hand, think that reality is fluid, a constant "becoming" ever changing, and therefor ultimately undescribable in static concepts. Just like in evolution, every new species is somehow based on another lifeform, yet adds something different and therefor is new to the whole. In that aspect, evolution is constantly creative, because it is always new. There is not one single repeated moment in the history of evolution. I suppose this is true for the universe itself.
|
No didn't mean static, as in pieces that needed to fit the same way all the time.
More as in the pieces referencing what we can see/explain and we cant.
I meant static to itself in it will be what it is, regardless of what we say it is". Sort of like what the universe is isn't right or wrong, just our answer of what it is can be.
Perhaps 'mirror' or 'true to itself' would have been better wording than static.
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DXWarlock
VIP Member
Posts: 11422
Location: Florida, USA
|
| Posted: Tue, 12th Mar 2013 14:40 Post subject: |
|
|
| ChinUp wrote: | | Perhaps i am simply the first person you have encountered who has more faith in his own ability to discern meaning from religious terms than faith in the theist establishment. |
Nope I've met a LOT people just like that that was also wrong in assuming by defining god without a building to collect in to do so, made their answer right.
You aren't the first to go decide you like the idea of god, just not the way the church says it
.
I really an shocked that you think this rebellious, bucking the system, 'thinking outside the box' form of an anti-authority mindset on religious means is new and fresh..You want to define religion in new terms as an 'eye opener' when you don't even know that that paths been so walked down the cobblestones are worn.
If you want to redefine god in new non established ways as how you view it...be my guest! But stop pitching it like its so new and radical that its going to blow our minds. We just see it as "oh, hes one of those..got it".
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
Last edited by DXWarlock on Tue, 12th Mar 2013 16:42; edited 2 times in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24642
Location: Your Mom
|
| Posted: Tue, 12th Mar 2013 16:33 Post subject: |
|
|
The concept of the word god is taught. We learn the meaning of it in school. If we lived in a society with no word like god or supernatural being we'd never have this discussion. Even ChinUp learnt the word from somewhere. At some point he rejected the theist version and redefined it to fit his own wishes, turning the word into something else. It's like me not accepting the meaning of the word light and changing it to mean the way the grass moves when you blow on it.
It's semantically flawed and just as irrational as theistic dogma. There are better words to describe non-deistic views. The word spiritual/holistic/whatever is a better way to describe something that isn't "god" but share some archetypal likeness.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
"The sky was the color of a TV tuned to a dead station" - Neuromancer
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChinUp
Posts: 5503
Location: 51.7° N ' 1.1° W
|
| Posted: Tue, 12th Mar 2013 17:39 Post subject: |
|
|
Frant .. as children we are taught being skinny & caked in make-up = beauty .. are we fools to disregard this as soon as we are able to reason for ourselves ?
DXWarlock .. where is the sense in protecting theist presumptions upon the word God & faith ? Do you support pharmaceutical firm presumptions on words like heath ?
The way forward is eradication of theist pretensions over religious matters .. the sooner people address intuitive matters via reason rather than devotion to theist doctrine the better.
Any illusions that society has no need for faithfulness or reverence is a foot shooting exercise what society needs is to cut off the parasitic theist institutions feeding on peoples unwillingness to go it alone on matters of the heart.
"Most of the change we think we see in life is due to truths being in & out of favor." ~ Frost
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DXWarlock
VIP Member
Posts: 11422
Location: Florida, USA
|
| Posted: Tue, 12th Mar 2013 18:18 Post subject: |
|
|
Its got to be trolling, hes not even trying anymore..now hes trying to argue the meaning of the words to pick at straws while ignoring we aren't asking what words he uses..but what hes using that word on, and why that thing is needed.
Show me how god is needed(not like you keep doing of defining it), theist or no theist, or how its existence is quantified as part of us. and we can go from there. We don't care how you define it, we want to see why it needs defining...
edit: I change my mind...hes either trolling, or stuck in a loop of dogma dismission.. either one is just as pitifully painful to read.
I'm leaving this drain circling debate to the ones that want to argue what got means to them..while avoid answering what it i,s or why they think it exists, but still explaining why its important we see god as they do.
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
Last edited by DXWarlock on Tue, 12th Mar 2013 18:29; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
couleur
[Moderator] Janitor
Posts: 14354
|
| Posted: Tue, 12th Mar 2013 18:29 Post subject: |
|
|
| DXWarlock wrote: |
I meant static to itself in it will be what it is, regardless of what we say it is". Sort of like what the universe is isn't right or wrong, just our answer of what it is can be.
Perhaps 'mirror' or 'true to itself' would have been better wording than static. |
Ok, then how are you going to find out if your answer about the universe is right or wrong?
There is no absolute right nor wrong in our answers about existence (or the universe, if you want, though I do not like that concept). Our theories are approximations that work to a certain degree according to our limited possibilities of observation. and that will always be the case. just like the infinite points on a line. With every new answer, a plethora of new questions are raised.
What would you say is the reason for this infinite limitation regarding the understanding of the universe?
"Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment."
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DXWarlock
VIP Member
Posts: 11422
Location: Florida, USA
|
| Posted: Tue, 12th Mar 2013 18:38 Post subject: |
|
|
| couleur wrote: | | DXWarlock wrote: |
I meant static to itself in it will be what it is, regardless of what we say it is". Sort of like what the universe is isn't right or wrong, just our answer of what it is can be.
Perhaps 'mirror' or 'true to itself' would have been better wording than static. |
Ok, then how are you going to find out if your answer about the universe is right or wrong?
There is no absolute right nor wrong in our answers about existence (or the universe, if you want, though I do not like that concept). Our theories are approximations that work to a certain degree according to our limited possibilities of observation. and that will always be the case. just like the infinite points on a line. With every new answer, a plethora of new questions are raised.
What would you say is the reason for this infinite limitation regarding the understanding of the universe? |
To try to find what we can grasp,we search for the answer..I never said we cant look. or that we can have a need to validate our answers.
I don't think there is any answer to out existence..we are a chemical fluke a haphazard accident that grew more complex..anything past that is just 'fluff for the ego of the self aware'.. I'm speaking of the universe strictly in a spacial occupying object. What defines the space it takes, and what defines the bounties of the actions its matter and energy can take. So in that sense, yes there is no 'right or wrong' answer. As there is no 'right or wrong' way for a universe to exist. I just does, but what CAN be right or wrong, is our observational conclusions of how it exists..Sure it can be said its not right or wrong as our answer, as it can only fit what we can observe. but it doesn't mean it cant be wrong to what its really measuring.
And the reason for our limitation to understand the universe? Its our amazingly low level of intelligence as a creature. We only think we are super smart, because we are the best thing we know to compare to, and that's only based on what we can find to compare to on one tiny fleck of rock around the star we call a sun. We are bound to our limited intellect, and sensory input range..to try to understand everything.
We manage to have a few blurbed of reactions that give us a from of deduction, and all of a sudden we assume we can know it all with enough work.
I guess the best way I can put it. the universe is, what it is. It was this long before we came around to question it.And it will be 'that' long after we are gone. We just showed up and started to try to make it make sense to us. The universe had no philosophy before we got here, and it existed just fine as what it 'was'. Why does it need it to still be that?
I think we are mixing the ideas of "the universe is whatever it is" and "what concepts can man use, understand, and explain to understand what the universe is."
Everything we ever experienced, explained, observed, and noted of the universe could be completely wrong. And its a HUGE revelation to us when that's found out. But in the end what changed? not a thing, other than a few tiny tiny moving lumps of meat on a rock realized something that was always there. The universe is unchanged, uncaring, or unknowing if our concept of what it is is correct.
You know why does it matter if what we have in our little heads is right, wrong, unknowable, beyond out scope? it doesn't apply to anything outside of our tiny little bodies, on a tiny little planet. The fact of the other 99.999~% of the universe still is regardless if we know what that is.
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
couleur
[Moderator] Janitor
Posts: 14354
|
| Posted: Tue, 12th Mar 2013 19:31 Post subject: |
|
|
By existence, I dont mean our existence, but the existence of everything. Reality if you want. but ok, I get your pov, I suppose. I just do not think that we are just a chemical fluke or a haphazard. I think we are part of the evolution of life and life is part of everything. In observing life it becomes quite obvious to me that there is more there than just a random chemical reaction. The chemical reaction is just the rationalized part of it. There is organisation, there is will to survive, to reproduce etc. and all these concepts will never make justice to what it really is. And whether we downplay it or or give it a value is a conscious choice.
I understand that you do not want to ponder about these things, but I struggle against this killjoy (word by dict.leo.org) position, that nothing has a value, and everything is just random chemicals. It is a conscious choice to be pessimisitc about the value of it. Because what you attribute value to does not, and will never come up in a scientific point of view. Just go out in nature, and look at it, and tell me of the feeling you get. Why do we get such feelings? Because of chemical reactions in our neurons, but why would evolution lead to such reactions in complex animals?
I dont think its wrong to be positive about life and existence and give it a value. The other way aroung is sad imo.
I also do not think that our level of intelligence has anything to do with the fact that we will never be able to understand reality or the universe. Even a million times more intelligent beings will get so much closer, maybe they will be able to manipulate space like we manipulate water, but they will have infinite limits too. I think that intelligence is the wrong way to go about it.
Edit: I see, you edited your post, but I think what I wrote still applies.
"Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment."
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DXWarlock
VIP Member
Posts: 11422
Location: Florida, USA
|
| Posted: Tue, 12th Mar 2013 19:46 Post subject: |
|
|
Yea, i have a bad habit of that..editing posts..I think I edit more posts than I've made 
I'm not saying life cant have personal value, it just has no 'grand scheme' value. Enjoy your life, make it fulfilling Since its experience is all you have while still kicking..It can be as meaning full special, and rewarding as you want it to be.
.But any value beyond your own mind and those minds your mind effects..is nill. Life is no more special than a star forming, burning, and dying. A set of chain reactions.
The saying ""A man said to the universe: 'Sir, I exist!' 'However,' replied the universe. 'The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation.'" Sum it up well for me.
For the basis of value not coming up in a scientific view. That is true, value is a concept of man, and while it is very important to us as pattern seeking and labeling creatures in our own minds. its of no value to anything beyond us. While it is very very precious to us in our minds, its Value has no place beyond our own need of it.
Why do we get such feelings? Because of chemical reactions in our neurons, but why would evolution lead to such reactions in complex animals?
Because of the reward punishment actions of our brains to feel chemicals it likes to reward, and ones we don't like to punish. We have evolved as complex cause and effect machines. Just its slowly added onto for so long....We are all drug addicts. we are slaves to our reactions caused by chemicals released for good deeds, and such. We are no more that a dog getting a treat for sitting up, or hit for pissing on the rug.
Sure those feelings might be powerful, overwhelming, too big to explain...but that's the point of them. To invoke pleasure/displeasure on input out brains see as pleasing.Do you not think its very ironic that the landscape we evolved around, with flowers, and blue sky, and white clouds..etc is pleasing to us. When the landscape of say any other moon seems less "pleasing' to be around? Or the landscape of dangerous places, once we realize we are in danger in them..is less "pleasing' to look at and be in?
Its simply we have grown to like, and want, what we see as a healthy place to be.
how would you explain that the only landscape that invokes such an emotional response, is the very one we evolved in, and no others?
Like an individual brick is plain and easy to explain. But the complexity of the Sistine chapel is still able to be explained by bricks when looked at what makes it parts. What emotions it invokes looking at it is not needed to explain how it was built. They are only needed to explain how much you like how it was built.
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
Last edited by DXWarlock on Tue, 12th Mar 2013 20:13; edited 5 times in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DXWarlock
VIP Member
Posts: 11422
Location: Florida, USA
|
| Posted: Tue, 12th Mar 2013 19:56 Post subject: |
|
|
| couleur wrote: |
I dont think its wrong to be positive about life and existence and give it a value. The other way aroung is sad imo.
|
its not sad, I can be very positive about life, and how I live mine. and how much I care for my family and kids and such. Its no more dismal or less fulfilling than anyone elses life..
Only difference is I see me giving it value, as not extending beyond what I consider that value worth to me, or those other than me than use the concept of value.
Nothing outside this planet has one care (or even able to) for what value is, or what I place value in...so why would it mean I'm sad for thinking that?
The only value of life is what WE make of it. not of what value the universe gives it, as it doesn't do that. To try to assign a base value to it as the 'default' seems off to me. It means that you cannot find a starting place to give your live value..without a 'push'. You need some sort of outside 'basis level' to start with to be able to work with..or you just feel its 'useless to try'.
Make sense? If my life can just be as fulfilling, pleasing, and wonderful (even if meaningless in the end) as the other guys, without me needing a 'booster chair of default ego' to keep going..hes the one with the crutch to keep the will to live..not me.
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
Last edited by DXWarlock on Tue, 12th Mar 2013 22:08; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChinUp
Posts: 5503
Location: 51.7° N ' 1.1° W
|
| Posted: Tue, 12th Mar 2013 20:13 Post subject: |
|
|
DXWarlock .. clearly the concept of personal authority is lost on you .. just out of interest its invariably what makes a great scientist .. somebody who isn't afraid to rethink things .. has faith in their own intuition.
Bruce Lee ... "Without freedom, there can be no creativity"
"Most of the change we think we see in life is due to truths being in & out of favor." ~ Frost
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DXWarlock
VIP Member
Posts: 11422
Location: Florida, USA
|
| Posted: Tue, 12th Mar 2013 20:18 Post subject: |
|
|
| ChinUp wrote: | | DXWarlock .. clearly the concept of personal authority is lost on you |
Lets say it is, and leave it at that shall we? because you are right, I have not one desire to rethink the silly idea of a god in any capacity be it breaking the norms of theist, or pleasing myself with an internal one. Who said I haven't rethought it over and over, and every angle leads to "its all bullshit to me". is that not possible?
You keep missing the point of "I don't care if you found a new god outside church...you can keep it"
I mean whats your point? to get me to admit you found a god? I admit that..but you have not shown it to me, so I cannot adopt it as mine. I never said you didn't see it..I said that I DON'T see it.
You have your god, I don't have it..end of story here. No amount of you justifying why you like a god, will make me want one.
And will you quit quoting people randomly as if its a footnote. if you have something to say, use your own words, not other peoples in every post.
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChinUp
Posts: 5503
Location: 51.7° N ' 1.1° W
|
| Posted: Tue, 12th Mar 2013 23:28 Post subject: |
|
|
DXWarlock .. where is the sense in adopting somebody else's notion of God ?
"Most of the change we think we see in life is due to truths being in & out of favor." ~ Frost
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DXWarlock
VIP Member
Posts: 11422
Location: Florida, USA
|
| Posted: Tue, 12th Mar 2013 23:28 Post subject: |
|
|
ChinUp;.. where is the sense in adopting a notion of God ?
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24642
Location: Your Mom
|
| Posted: Tue, 12th Mar 2013 23:54 Post subject: |
|
|
| ChinUp wrote: | Frant .. as children we are taught being skinny & caked in make-up = beauty .. are we fools to disregard this as soon as we are able to reason for ourselves ?
|
Rather lame retort if I may say so. Pineapples and Mangos. Some words have specific meanings, god is one of them.
The definition from Merriam-Webster:
| Quote: | Definition of GOD
1
capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as
a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2
: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3
: a person or thing of supreme value
4
: a powerful ruler |
If you create your own personal meaning of the word god then it's got nothing to do with anybody else, you're just messing with definition and semantics and mutilating the meaning of language and words. Besides, I wouldn't be surprised in what you call "god" has a word of it's own, you just don't know it or can't see it for what it is because you're dead set that what you call "god" is true and there's no word that is better.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
"The sky was the color of a TV tuned to a dead station" - Neuromancer
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChinUp
Posts: 5503
Location: 51.7° N ' 1.1° W
|
| Posted: Wed, 13th Mar 2013 02:23 Post subject: |
|
|
| DXWarlock wrote: | | ChinUp;.. where is the sense in adopting a notion of God ? |
What notion would that be ? ..
| Frant wrote: | Rather lame retort if I may say so. Pineapples and Mangos. Some words have specific meanings, god is one of them.
The definition from Merriam-Webster:
| Quote: | Definition of GOD
1
capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as
a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2
: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3
: a person or thing of supreme value
4
: a powerful ruler |
If you create your own personal meaning of the word god then it's got nothing to do with anybody else, you're just messing with definition and semantics and mutilating the meaning of language and words. Besides, I wouldn't be surprised in what you call "god" has a word of it's own, you just don't know it or can't see it for what it is because you're dead set that what you call "god" is true and there's no word that is better. |
.. don't know about you but I'd rather have to go along with what others tell me to call beauty than what others tell me to call God .. but then liberty means more to me than image. fyi : the Webster family spearheaded Christian leaning in America ..
"Most of the change we think we see in life is due to truths being in & out of favor." ~ Frost
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DXWarlock
VIP Member
Posts: 11422
Location: Florida, USA
|
| Posted: Wed, 13th Mar 2013 02:59 Post subject: |
|
|
| ChinUp wrote: | | DXWarlock wrote: | | ChinUp;.. where is the sense in adopting a notion of God ? |
What notion would that be ? ..
|
I don't know, why we are asking you. your the one that has one, not us.
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24642
Location: Your Mom
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24642
Location: Your Mom
|
| Posted: Wed, 13th Mar 2013 03:24 Post subject: |
|
|
I guess I simply have to ask the question you've avoided so aptly so far:
What is GOD/God/god to you? What is your definition and meaning? How do YOU define your GOD/God/god?
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
"The sky was the color of a TV tuned to a dead station" - Neuromancer
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
couleur
[Moderator] Janitor
Posts: 14354
|
| Posted: Wed, 13th Mar 2013 09:21 Post subject: |
|
|
| DXWarlock wrote: | While it is very very precious to us in our minds, its Value has no place beyond our own need of it.
Why do we get such feelings? Because of chemical reactions in our neurons, but why would evolution lead to such reactions in complex animals?
Because of the reward punishment actions of our brains to feel chemicals it likes to reward, and ones we don't like to punish. We have evolved as complex cause and effect machines. Just its slowly added onto for so long....We are all drug addicts. we are slaves to our reactions caused by chemicals released for good deeds, and such. We are no more that a dog getting a treat for sitting up, or hit for pissing on the rug.
Sure those feelings might be powerful, overwhelming, too big to explain...but that's the point of them. To invoke pleasure/displeasure on input out brains see as pleasing.Do you not think its very ironic that the landscape we evolved around, with flowers, and blue sky, and white clouds..etc is pleasing to us. When the landscape of say any other moon seems less "pleasing' to be around? Or the landscape of dangerous places, once we realize we are in danger in them..is less "pleasing' to look at and be in?
Its simply we have grown to like, and want, what we see as a healthy place to be.
how would you explain that the only landscape that invokes such an emotional response, is the very one we evolved in, and no others? |
Maybe because I have not seen any other landscapes? You, again, like to reduce to purely logical, rationalist terms what feelings are. Just the idea, that life is purely a cause/effect machine that evolved into something more complex as millenia of millenia of time went by, is a proof of that. First and foremost, the cause/effect idea is within us not in nature itself. It is what we judge about nature. Secondly, the idea that life in all its forms is just machines, is again a very old, cartesian, rationalist idea that seems to perpetuate throughout history, but it is just an idea. The evolution took place, and still does, every moment is new and nothing that is happening now has happened before in the exact same way. Why would life want to organise matter? Why not just stay dead and be done with it? Strictly speaking, a simple cause/effect relation in matter is a dead materialistic or rationalistic concept. Its like the naive idea that the universe is made of simple atoms that collide with each other. That you could, like a good determinist, if you knew all the elements, know the outcome. But you dont, quantum physics have long since shown us that.
Reducing life to machines, is a radical rationalist devaluation, and again purely a choice, not a scientific must (it could aswell be materialistic, both do the same mistakes). The emotional aspects of life, the "inner" aspects of life are profoundly depreciated by such an "external" point of view. If you reduce life to pure cause effect relations, you reduce it to a human thought pattern (cause/effect is a concept of our mind) while, at the same time forgetting the psychological part. The consciousness part, which has as much reality to it than the materialistic part. I dont understand why someone would willingly do such a radical reduction.
As to why I appreciate a certain landscape. You say, the point of the landscapes is to invoke pleasure. I dont think so. The landscapes are not made for us (they are not made for anything, noone made them). We live in them. We have grown in them, so of course we are going to feel pleasure in contemplating them. You can, of course try to explain this with : "brain gets treat, when in right environment". But that again, is reducing it to something you like to think. Of course, when you feel good, from a materialistic point of view, its a neurochemical reaction in the brain. As to why you get that reaction, well how would you know? There is no apparent evidence to that except some hypothesis from biologists, sociologists, ethnologists, psychologists and psychoanalysts. What makes this specific environment right, can have a great number (infinite) of causes for a specifiv individual.
But reducing experience to a simple cause/effect relation is too easy and shows only that we fear the unknown. Its the same reason why people like to believe in god. Having a good reduced explanation for everything makes us feel in control again. We do not like the idea of god, therefor we have made ourselves gods in our way to rationalize nature, to eliminate all unknowns and reduce it to what we want to think it is. Just out of fear. (You see what I did there?) I dont mean this for you specifically. I dont think that you "fear" anything. It is a human trait I'm trying to describe. The fact that humans want to be in control through rationalisation.
| DXWarlock wrote: | | Like an individual brick is plain and easy to explain. But the complexity of the Sistine chapel is still able to be explained by bricks when looked at what makes it parts. What emotions it invokes looking at it is not needed to explain how it was built. They are only needed to explain how much you like how it was built. |
First, I'm not sure I understand this sentence: "But the complexity of the Sistine chapel is still able to be explained by bricks when looked at what makes it parts."
Its interesting that you like examples with bricks and puzzle pieces. How is the complexity of the sistine chapel explainable by bricks? And why are the emotions not needed? You could ask any architect, who designs something, they will say that the bricks are the least interesing thing in knowing how something is built. The form is partly an artisitic form from its creator, it is supposed to have a certain effect, it has a use, a function. Its not just built to be built. Why would it even be intresting to know how the Sistine chapel is built only by the bricks?
| DXWarlock wrote: | The only value of life is what WE make of it. not of what value the universe gives it, as it doesn't do that. To try to assign a base value to it as the 'default' seems off to me. It means that you cannot find a starting place to give your live value..without a 'push'. You need some sort of outside 'basis level' to start with to be able to work with..or you just feel its 'useless to try'.
Make sense? If my life can just be as fulfilling, pleasing, and wonderful (even if meaningless in the end) as the other guys, without me needing a 'booster chair of default ego' to keep going..hes the one with the crutch to keep the will to live..not me. |
I assign a base value to something that exists because it exists, simple as that, just like you assign values to things you like or appreciate. I dont assign any value to something that doesnt exist, like something metaphysical. For me, the fact that anything even exists, the universe, life in this universe, is a value in itself otherwise it wouldnt be there. That doesnt mean I will live on forever, it doesnt mean that this specific planet is meant for something special. But, the idea that everything is just pure randomness void of any value is a qualification in itself a choice you make. And I dont think that there is a grand scheme either. That would be a finalist approach to the question, which is just as naive as deterministic (cause/effect) approach. I prefer the idea, that every moment is completely new, that it is impossible to know all the elments, because there are no elements. I give it all a value simply because it is there, because it had some meaning to someone else, another person, another animal, another insect, or another molecule. Life gives itself meaning, it shows itself in organisation of matter. So this planet has a value, because life on this planet attributed a value to it. Not someone from the outside, no god, but the life on this planet. The universe has a value, because life needed it to have this planet. The value of the universe does not come from outside the universe or the universe istelf. I think you will like this idea.
Its interesting, you say you do not want to ponder about the meaning of life and everything, you like to leave that to others. But at the same time, you seem to have a very strong opinion about the meaning of life, its value etc. So you cannot say, you did not ponder about it. 
"Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment."
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChinUp
Posts: 5503
Location: 51.7° N ' 1.1° W
|
| Posted: Wed, 13th Mar 2013 17:21 Post subject: |
|
|
| DXWarlock wrote: | | I don't know, why we are asking you. your the one that has one, not us. |
How do you account for your perpetual reference to supernatural beings with the word God then ?
| Frant wrote: | | What is GOD/God/god to you? What is your definition and meaning? How do YOU define your GOD/God/god? |
Theism operates on the presumption people have to be told what to call God .. while atheism accommodates people liberty to decide for themselves. Similarly theists use the word faith in reference to blind devotion to what others say while atheists use the word faith in reference to peoples capacity to make up their own minds ..
"Most of the change we think we see in life is due to truths being in & out of favor." ~ Frost
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DXWarlock
VIP Member
Posts: 11422
Location: Florida, USA
|
| Posted: Wed, 13th Mar 2013 17:46 Post subject: |
|
|
@couleur
But we are comparing different things. I think why we cant agree. We are comparing apples to oranges..but yes, they are both a fruit. so they are somewhat the same type of thing, just different types of THAT thing.
So while you are going "the fruit is red, has a stem, and white inside" I'm going "the fruit is orange, no stem, and orange in the inside"
You are wanting to assign emotions to things that dont have them..because we have them for them. things like beauty, value, pleasure, etc. You talk about value, and meaning, and such. These are human concepts. And while yes you can say "well who else would be assigning them to things". No one would, the universe doesn't not need us doing that to exist..
But what I'm saying, the 'beauty' or 'value' or 'appreciation' of those things are nothing more than what we make up of it.
I see your point, all those things are what make human lives so complex, meaningful, and purposeful..but its only explains how and why we see things.
Emotions, that again are human constructs, they only exist in our minds. The only difference between a living and a dead man is his ability to think. Dead men cannot do any of the above..so its points to that everyone of those things are simply in our thoughts and do not extend or apply to anything in any context other than what our minds use it for.
For example, an alien race will not think what we think is beautiful, or valuable, or such. So how is it a universal attribute.
Or a better question, if we all disappeared tomorrow. Would anything in the universe still be called beautiful? or valuable? no..we wouldn't be here to slap those labels on them. What would you call value without humans to use it? what would you define beauty without humans to need it?
And I did not imply the concept of "anything existing to create pleasure" as in the landscape..its merely dirt and a some plants. I meant it invokes pleasure because we have learned that it will. It itself has no beauty, value, or such..WE assign that to it. And it only applies to us to be able to experience it. With our without us..its makeup, structure, and such are exactly the same. just because we look at it and go 'oh that's beautiful!" doesn't change it, or mean its not beautiful, it means simply we apply our emotions to it and think it is what we would call 'pleasing to our eye'.
So everything you are describing are nothing more than the desires, fears, wants, dislikes, of one species of animal on one planet. An egocentric viewpoint based from that animal that everything in the universe only has a meaning, purpose, or reason in out own heads...
its the other way around, there is a small part of the universe that we assign meaning, purpose, and reason to..
And its not that I do not want to ponder the meaning of life, I just have nothing left to ponder on it. NOT that I know the start of life, just the meaning as its applies to me..(and isn't meaning of life a personal concept anyway? your meaning can only apply to you, there would be no 'bigger' meaning)
To me the meaning is "pure accident of chance and right place for the reactions to take hold". I have the "be created, make more of ourselves, and die. Anything between those are optional..so enjoy it while you can". concept.
Or if we are going into the "what is beauty, or value, or emotions"..then its simply something we created(maybe not on purpose but they are only in our head), unique to use, nothing more. Powerful and effeiceint thoughts and reactions to things that only we can experience...outside humans they are useless, non existent, and have no basis.
Im NOT saying we dont need them, or that they are petty to us and useless too use. Just they only exist in our thoughts.
I'm not disagreeing with what you are saying, I'm just saying we differ in the amounts of "human involvement' needed in the universe, and how important those humans are in what things 'are'. I don't agree that things are only what we can explain them as , its we can only explain things as well as we can, what we explain doesn't change. Saying that, I don't discredit the value, meaning, and need we have for those things. Just that despite how powerful, important, and meaningful they are to us as humans..they don't really mean much of anything anywhere else.
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
Last edited by DXWarlock on Wed, 13th Mar 2013 18:03; edited 5 times in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DXWarlock
VIP Member
Posts: 11422
Location: Florida, USA
|
| Posted: Wed, 13th Mar 2013 17:54 Post subject: |
|
|
| ChinUp wrote: | | DXWarlock wrote: | | I don't know, why we are asking you. your the one that has one, not us. |
How do you account for your perpetual reference to supernatural beings with the word God then ?
|
Again you are the one saying I am. I've already stated I mean in any form. your the one with the hangup assuming I mean 'God' with a capital G. I meant any from of a personal 'god'.
If you aren't going to put any effort into continuing to troll, I feel I'm wasting my time putting effort into mine in return. I think we both are trolled out here..and just going thru the motions..
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChinUp
Posts: 5503
Location: 51.7° N ' 1.1° W
|
| Posted: Wed, 13th Mar 2013 18:11 Post subject: |
|
|
DXWarlock .. Ever wonder why you think the word God is the problem rather than what people use the word for ?
"Most of the change we think we see in life is due to truths being in & out of favor." ~ Frost
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DXWarlock
VIP Member
Posts: 11422
Location: Florida, USA
|
| Posted: Wed, 13th Mar 2013 18:13 Post subject: |
|
|
| ChinUp wrote: | | DXWarlock .. Ever wonder why you think the word God is the problem rather than what people use the word for ? |
Nope its what they use it for that is.
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 7 of 8 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
 |
|
