What Assumptions Would You Make Regarding God?

[jgh7]

This is a hypothetical for skeptics. You can only answer it if you're able to humour me with this hypothetical. It need not be your actual belief.

Let's say, for whatever reason, you acknowledged the possibility of one God who (at least) created the universe. In addition, this God also has extreme wisdom & power, and He knew when He created the universe that we humans would come about. This is all that you have acknowledged and you don't pay any strong regard to religion.

With this in mind, do you have any assumptions or inklings towards what this God is like? Examples includes assumptions/inklings regarding whether this God is good/bad, whether He cares about us or not, whether He expects something from us or not, and many more ideas that I can't list. Also, do you have a judgment of this God in any way? Do you think of Him fondly, do you think of Him with criticism, or do you genuinely not have opinions on the matter?

If you don't have any inklings/assumptions/opinions whatsoever when entertaining this hypothetical, that's fine too. I'm just curious what people's opinion is of God when they don't ascribe to any religion but still entertain the possibility that God exists.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 30 by hoghead1]

[center]
Blastcat knows nothing. Hoghead seems to know a lot.[/center]

Oops. I meant to say the Bible is not a book in metaphysics. Some do use the term "metaphysics" to denote simply referring to God. I use it in a more exact sense, as a branch of philosophy. In that sense, no, the Babble is not a book in metaphysics. Compare Scripture sometime with Aristotle's metaphysics, and you'll see what I mean.

Ok, so that was perhaps one of the funniest typos I've ever read in here. I agree. that the "Babble" isn't a book exploring metaphysics, but it sure does espouse metaphysical ideas, if as a right mess.

It's like this really bad analogy.. I will compare all metaphysics as an ice cream shop with ALL the flavors.. and the Bible as a competing ice cream shop across the street that only sells it's own mysterious, secret flavor with unknown ingredients.. and for some reason, the Christian Biblical shop is wildly popular. I guess they really did hit on that right formula and marketing.

To mix the metaphor even more.. Christianity has been like Coke. A great marketing campaign. Both stores are trying to get us to buy their confections.

As I said before, only certain polarities are in view here, not any and all that you can come up with.

Yeah, and as I said before, I don't how how that's being very consistent. To IGNORE some kinds of polarities?... You haven't defended the charge of cherry picking

I say the idea doesn't hold water. If we extend the idea to OTHER polarities, it doesn't make a lick of sense. So, to me, process theology is cherry picking.

To me, that makes the whole project fail.

Given love vs. cruelty, I would be hesitant to say both apply to God, both represent perfections.

Your hesitancy indicates a contradiction. This polarity business is a bust.
You can't look at all the data.. because it would disprove your thesis.

Perfection is perfection. Perfect hate is perfection. Perfect concepts are perfect. Anything with the word "perfect" in front of it is perfect.

By the way, I own a perfect 1998 Honda Accord.
How do I know? It's imperfections are perfectly in accord with the nature of 1998 Honda Accords. It's an ambulatory polarized perfection. Only fools can't appreciate.

The closest I might come is to say something like some degree of pain is pleasurable and even healthy.

A silver lining to every cloud.. great.
Now we are talking about truisms.

I view God as continually bringing in new possibilities, jarring us out of our complacency and comfort zone.

You have views.
I'm trying hard to be enthusiastic.

That means some degree of chaos is acceptable, as creativity always involves a breaking down of structure, which can be painful.

These are truisms.
I can agree without invoking a god.

Creativity also means using known structures.. which can be fun.

Yes, the fact you get out of bed affirms meaningfulness. Any action you perform is an affirmation of your value.

That's not an explanation, but a repetition or your belief.
The fact that I get out of bed is that I woke up and have to pee. ( among other reasons ) Hardly the meaning for my life.

The fact that all reality is interrelated does not make for the "butterfly effect," the notion that if you wave your arms, you can crate a huge tornado. Rather, it means your waving is felt throughout the universe, has an effect, though it may be extremely slight, near impossible to measure. But slight effects are still effects.

You're pretty good at making spectacular, if completely unsupported claims.
But I have no evidence that my waving is "felt" throughout the universe" or what you actually mean by that, frankly.

It sounds like something Deepak Chopra would say.. ( for a fee )

The fact you remember others is an affirmation of their meaningfulness, true.

Daniel Dennett calls that kind of statement a "deepity".
A deepity is a proposition that seems to be profound because it is actually logically ill-formed. It has (at least) two readings and balances precariously between them. On one reading it is true but trivial.

I remember a lot of trivial things...
And sometimes, I have very trivial conversations.

The problem is that the past fades, the memories grow dimmer and dimmer.

Another truism. We forget things over time. Even nice things.

Given certain neurological conditions, some people completely lose their memories of their loved ones.

Yep.
And you say that this is the "evil of evil"?

Loss of memory?

Deepities are easy to make.. hard to prove.

In 100 years, your loved ones will be almost completely forgotten about. So our memory is no solution to the problem of meaningfulness.

I''m still reading about Socrates and Jesus.. We have memory aids.
Some are called "books".

One of the reasons I hold with panpsychism is that there is no hared-and-fast divining line between the living and the nonliving.

We don't know everything that there is to know.
Does that surprise you?

Science once thought a virus was not alive, then changed its mind.

That's why we say that science progresses.
Are you being critical of science as a way of knowing?

Also, we have been so busy extending mechanical principles up the evolutionary scale, to explain things, that we have forgotten we should also extend psychological ones down the scale.

Not everyone has.
We have progressed since the Industrial Revolution.

What is at the top of the scale is generally the case at the bottom, though to a significantly lesser extent.

Sounds you would agree with Hermes Trismegistus:

"That which is above is like that which is below and that which is below is like that which is above, to achieve the wonders of the one thing." Therefore, "This is the foundation of astrology and alchemy: that the microcosm of mankind and the earth is a reflection of the macrocosm of God and the heavens."

Are you a fan?

In speaking about anthropomorphizing, I think you may have missed my point.

I'm almost certain that I have.

I am saying all knowing is analogous knowing.

I think that I tentatively agreed with that proposition.

We generalize from the familiar to the unfamiliar.

And some imaginative people go the other way around. They go from very unfamiliar observations and try to generalize. I give Einstein and Newton as examples.

Some people are very imaginative.
They create imaginative and completely unfamiliar ( hence original ) hypotheses and then test them.

I add that to know the thing, you have to become the thing.

I have to become a rock to know what a rock is?
This sounds like nutty talk.

I can't become a rock.
"Be the light bulb"... the punch line of a bad Buddhist joke.

I can only IMAGINE being the light bulb or the rock.

Dispassioned contemplation from the sidelines teaches nothing.

Tell that to the scientists and engineers.
You seem to think that BIAS should be encouraged when evaluating a claim.

You have to participate, share in it.

DO you mean study?
I would agree with that.. but your language is extremely vague.

Empathy is the highest form of knowing.

Do you think we need empathy for math in order to know it? if we want to understand people's feeling, then yes, empathy is the way to go. And then, it takes a little more than JUST empathy.

And that my friend, was another "deepity".

I also think it important to remember that all perceived-of characteristics are characteristics of feeling.

I don't take it that rocks display a lot of feeling.
Deepity.

So unless the is also feeling out there, we are simply locked into our own minds and can know nothing.

Well, it's trivially true to say that there are feelings "IN HERE"... but that's another deepity. I suppose you could fill a book with those.. and not explain a thing.

Are you saying that I actually know "nothing"? Because I think that your "emphatic epistemology" is preposterous. and I would never use it.

This is Blastcat.. Blastcat always has lots and lots of questions.
Hope you don't mind.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to Blastcat]

The fact that a book such as the Bible talks about God does not qualify it as a work in metaphysics. Metaphysics is a detailed inquiry into the basic structure of reality. It is all spirit, matter, both, what? Is there a God? If so, what is God like? Does God change or no? Is God dependent or independent of creation? The Bible, in contrast, tells us very little about how God is constructed. All we have are snap shots that often conflict. The Bible says almost nothing about the basic structure of reality. Hence, traditional theological concepts such as "substance" were imported from Hellenic metaphysics.

Yes, just getting out of bed is an affirmation of your meaningfulness. You are taking action. That alone says you see yourself as meaningful, valuable. You can make things happen, contribute.

You may well remember something abut Plato or some other major person. But really only very little about them and their lives. As for others, they are almost completely forgotten. So no, human memory is no solution to the problem of ultimate meaningfulness.

You are going to overkill with the polarities. As I said before, only certain polarities are relevant here, essentially cause-effect, independent-dependent, immutable-mutable.

Much of our knowledge is knowledge "about." It is second-hand information at best. Therefore, it is very limited. It is very inferior to what I call knowledge 'with," participation, sharing in the event. It is one thing to stand up and lecture on the Battle of Gettysburg. it is something wholly other to have been there, fought in it. Those tour guides, what do they know? They were never there. Indeed, what do we really know? We were never there. To give a more concrete example, I am a life-long train-buff. I am one of the lucky train-buffs that gets to run a real steam locomotive. Hence, my nym, Hoghead, which is old-time railway slang for an engineer. I took a tour of the San Diego Railway Museum. The guide, who never had worked a day on a steam locomotive, came up with the biggest BS job I've ever heard on a steam locomotive, really couldn't identify basic parts. Well, how could he? He had no actual experience. Actually, I had to jump in and help him out. Knowledge from the sidelines, knowledge "about," is no substitute for knowledge "with." So no, dispassioned intellect from the sidelines is a very weak form of knowing. If you want to know what it's really like to be a locomotive engineer, you have to become one. If you want to know what a rock is like, then also you have to become one. Since science does not operate that way, science is a very limited form of knowing.

When we talk about rocks, we are talking about our sensations, our feelings. A rock feels hard, for example. All we have are our feelings. That's it. If there are no feelings out there, then we haven't got an inkling what's going on.

Modern science has shifted our whole paradigm of reality, from seeing reality as static, as the realm of independent facts, to seeing reality as dynamic and interrelational. Everything is related to everything else. So yes, waving your arms is felt throughout the universe. Some sci-fi writers, such ad Ray Bradbury, then played into what is sometimes called the "butterfly effect," the notion that waving your arms could start a tornado. I'm simply saying it doesn't work that neatly, though everything is felt.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 32 by hoghead1]

!

[center]
Some people claim to know nothing but the ultimate truth.[/center]

The fact that a book such as the Bible talks about God does not qualify it as a work in metaphysics.

Better put than my feeble attempt.

In fact, I would say that the Bible requires a work in metaphysics to be at least comprehensible to our modern, skeptical minds.

Metaphysics is a detailed inquiry into the basic structure of reality. It is all spirit, matter, both, what? Is there a God? If so, what is God like? Does God change or no? Is God dependent or independent of creation?

The Bible is like a good smorgasbord...you can get anything you want at Alices' Restaurant.

The Bible, in contrast, tells us very little about how God is constructed. All we have are snap shots that often conflict. The Bible says almost nothing about the basic structure of reality. Hence, traditional theological concepts such as "substance" were imported from Hellenic metaphysics.

Makes sense.

Yes, just getting out of bed is an affirmation of your meaningfulness. You are taking action. That alone says you see yourself as meaningful, valuable. You can make things happen, contribute.

You've said that before.
It must be true of YOURSELF. I suggest that you DO speak for yourself.

You may well remember something abut Plato or some other major person. But really only very little about them and their lives. As for others, they are almost completely forgotten. So no, human memory is no solution to the problem of ultimate meaningfulness.

You've repeated that, too.
I don't know why you insist on an "ultimate meaningfulness".

Ordinary meaningfulness is meaningful enough for me. I guess you require ( or claim to have ) some "super-duper" meaningfulness.

You are going to overkill with the polarities. As I said before, only certain polarities are relevant here, essentially cause-effect, independent-dependent, immutable-mutable.

Explain why you don't want to examine all polarities.
It seems to me that you aren't "killing" quite enough.

Do you think that ignoring problems with your theory is going to make them go away?

Much of our knowledge is knowledge "about." It is second-hand information at best. Therefore, it is very limited.

Humans are limited.
Granted.

It is very inferior to what I call knowledge 'with," participation, sharing in the event.

Humans are limited, remember?
Knowledge "about" or knowledge "with" is still going to be limited.

It is one thing to stand up and lecture on the Battle of Gettysburg. it is something wholly other to have been there, fought in it.

Does one have to die at Gettysburg to understand the strategy?

Those tour guides, what do they know? They were never there.

Do you believe that those who have studied the subject know nothing about it?

Indeed, what do we really know?

Are you a knowledge skeptic?
Then what do you really know about anything at all, and why do you presume to lecture?

You either know something or you do not.
Which is it?

Since science does not operate that way, science is a very limited form of knowing.

Since science is a human endeavor, science is also limited.

When we talk about rocks, we are talking about our sensations, our feelings. A rock feels hard, for example. All we have are our feelings. That's it. If there are no feelings out there, then we haven't got an inkling what's going on.

Yep.

So what kind of knowledge are you talking about?
The kind that doesn't use senses at all?

No memory, either.
You don't seem to think that using our limited minds is of any use...

If you are truly a knowledge skeptic, you don't KNOW anything.
I might as well be talking to the rocks. They also seem to know nothing.

Everything is related to everything else. So yes, waving your arms is felt throughout the universe.

You repeat that as if you had demonstrated it.

Some sci-fi writers, such ad Ray Bradbury, then played into what is sometimes called the "butterfly effect," the notion that waving your arms could start a tornado. I'm simply saying it doesn't work that neatly, though everything is felt.

Yes, you are simply saying that, aren't you?

[hoghead1]

[Replying to Blastcat]

No, you do not fully understand the battle if you just know its strategy. There is far more to a battle than strategy. The full reality of the battle includes all the experiences of all the participants. Unless you can empathically share in all those experiences, you do not know the full reality of the battle.

I did not say we shouldn't use our senses. Where did you get that idea?

By "ultimate meaningfulness," I mean all our experiences are preserved and enjoyed in God forever. We may well blow ourselves off teh planet and be almost completely forgotten about. But our selves, our experiences, all that will live on in God forever. And to use your term that is a super-doper meaningfulness, I think.

The polarity issue specifically addresses the fact the early fathers unduly stripped God of dynamic, contingent attributes, viewing these as something inferior. Process calls this the "monopolar prejudice," as contingency and change are part of any real entity and denote perfections. Influential here is the work of the famous American philosopher Morris Cohen, who did argue that any polarities could be ascribed to something real and denote perfections, provided they are properly integrated. For example, something could be both good and bad or creative and destructive. Well, in order to create, you do have to destroy. That does not mean, however, that guys like Hitler were all OK. You have to properly integrate the poles, which the bad guys don't do. That is why I said that the love-cruel polarity might represent virtue if you were thinking of the cruelty as analogous to the tough coach drilling them in the no-pain-no-gain philosophy, making them strain, sweat, and feel pain in order to become better team players. Should a teacher be kind or strict? Actually both go together.

I noticed you refer a lot to Deepok. Problem is, I am working from a wholly different perspective, out of process theology. For example, when I am speaking of reality as a sensitive matrix, I am working with Whitehead's principle of relativity. not Deepok. So le's forget Deepok for the moment.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 34 by hoghead1]

!

[center]Newspeak[/center]


"The aim of Newspeak is to remove all shades of meaning from language, leaving simple concepts (pleasure and pain, happiness and sadness, goodthink and crimethink) that reinforce the total dominance of the State. Newspeak root words serve as both nouns and verbs, further reducing the total number of words; for example, "think" is both a noun and verb, so the word thought is not required and can be abolished. The party also intends that Newspeak be spoken in staccato rhythms with syllables that are easy to pronounce. This will make speech more automatic and unconscious and reduce the likelihood of thought. (See duckspeak.)

In addition, words with negative meanings are removed as redundant, so "bad" becomes "ungood". Words with comparative and superlative meanings are also simplified, so "better" becomes "gooder", and "best" becomes "goodest". Intensifiers can be added, so "great" becomes "plusgood", and "excellent" or "splendid" becomes "doubleplusgood". This ambiguity between comparative/superlative forms and intensified forms is one of the few examples of ambiguity in Newspeak."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak

No, you do not fully understand the battle if you just know its strategy. There is far more to a battle than strategy. The full reality of the battle includes all the experiences of all the participants. Unless you can empathically share in all those experiences, you do not know the full reality of the battle.

Are you saying that we cannot know the "full reality" of anything?
How about "partial", or "fallible" knowledge...not good enough?

I did not say we shouldn't use our senses. Where did you get that idea?

If I ask questions , it's because I'm struggling to understand your point of view. Sorry for my bad guess, and thanks for clarifying. I am trying to figure out how you say humans can know things. So... we use our senses to know things. I agree. Now, what is wrong with that?

Do you think that we have to have "ultimate" knowledge or "absolute knowledge" in order to know anything at all?... Why do you insist on a kind of knowledge that doesn't seem to be accessible to humans?

By "ultimate meaningfulness," I mean all our experiences are preserved and enjoyed in God forever.

I'm an atheist, and have no such belief. You make it sound as if only a god can have ultimate meaningfulness. I'm not sure at all that you mean that humans are God. Do you have any evidence that your belief in "God" as an eternal memory bank is a true one?

We may well blow ourselves off teh planet and be almost completely forgotten about. But our selves, our experiences, all that will live on in God forever. And to use your term that is a super-doper meaningfulness, I think.

If it were true, I suppose, it would, yes.
Do you have any evidence that it is true?

The polarity issue specifically addresses the fact the early fathers unduly stripped God of dynamic, contingent attributes, viewing these as something inferior. Process calls this the "monopolar prejudice," as contingency and change are part of any real entity and denote perfections. Influential here is the work of the famous American philosopher Morris Cohen, who did argue that any polarities could be ascribed to something real and denote perfections, provided they are properly integrated. For example, something could be both good and bad or creative and destructive.

Both good and bad at the same time?
Newspeak.

Both words lose meaning.

Here is a Cohenesque convesation:

Naive stove user: "Hello Mr. Cohen, I am new to stoves, is it good to put my hand on the burner when it's red?"
Mr. Cohen: "Yes and no."

Well, in order to create, you do have to destroy.

What did you have to destroy in order to create that idea?

That does not mean, however, that guys like Hitler were all OK. You have to properly integrate the poles, which the bad guys don't do. That is why I said that the love-cruel polarity might represent virtue if you were thinking of the cruelty as analogous to the tough coach drilling them in the no-pain-no-gain philosophy, making them strain, sweat, and feel pain in order to become better team players. Should a teacher be kind or strict? Actually both go together.

I don't like cruel people, and I don't care how much they know.

It seems that you coach analogy refers to "tough love"... where cruelty is seen as a good. The better coach would be more cruel, and the best coach with be the most cruel, and the perfect coach ( God, I suppose ) would be perfectly cruel. Makes sense when we read the Bible. Maybe that's why the god is so cruel. But is cruelty always kindness?

And are you sure a coach NEEDS to be cruel ?

You seem to want to conflate the opposites into ONE... so it's all blended together. When it comes to coaching, sometimes a little cruelty IS good. But that doesn't mean that cruelty has the identical meaning as kindness.

Do you think that "spare the rod, spoil the child" the state of the art in coaching techniques?

So, in other words, the way you are abusing the language, love BECOMES hate and vice versa. Cruelty BECOMES kindness. Both aspects of... emotions, but not polar opposites. Not if they are the SAME....

When I was a kid, I thought my music lessons were cruel.... all those cruel repetitions... You seem to be using words in a way that lose meaning. Black IS white?

Not the way that I use language... I don't use Newspeak.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak

I noticed you refer a lot to Deepok.

Yes, I do. He is a good example of someone who uses "deepities". Meaningless word salad that sound really profound. We have been going back and forth for a while, and I still have NO clue what it is you are trying to say.

Like when Deepak talks.

Problem is, I am working from a wholly different perspective, out of process theology.

As you keep reminding us.
I can see ways that process theology could be limiting your thinking about reality.
There might be other theories available.

For example, when I am speaking of reality as a sensitive matrix, I am working with Whitehead's principle of relativity. not Deepok. So le's forget Deepok for the moment.

That's exactly the kind of thing that Deepak with an "a" says all the time... reality as a sensitive matrix?...


Are there other ways to describe reality?

[hoghead1]

[Replying to Blastcat]

If you are going to get a better handle on where I am coming from, you need to forget all about Deepak and newspeak. I think you are reading that in here and I can see how it would throw you way, way off.

I didn't say there was anything wrong with knowledge through the senses. Instead, I was stressing all we have are feelings. If there are not feelings out there, then we can know nothing. I am showing why it is important to recognize a uniformity exists between ourselves and the rest of reality. That is what you were inquiring about.

Your example of a dialogue with Cohen is way off. I would strongly suggest you read his material before trying to comment. A better way to illustrate his point is to consider egotism vs. altruism. Should you be egotistical or altruistic? Many persons side with one over the other. Truth is, both are virtues. You can't help others if you don't take care of yourself first. If you are concerned with your own wellbeing, then you have to be concerned with the wellbeing of others. Given the social-relational nature of reality, you can't be happy unless they are happy.

One of my arguments for the existence of God is that it is a basic human need to seek meaningfulness, and this can be granted only by God. The system that generates the need, satisfies the need. Anything less than God won't work because all you get is a passing or fading meaningfulness. And that's the evil of evils. Look, if you bought a car and it fell apart on the way home, you'd be furious, say it was a hunk of junk, worthless, take it right back. Well, truth is, everything in this changing world does fall apart sooner or later. Nothing really lasts. And to have meaning, you need something to last forever. And only God can guarantee you that.

You asked what structure I had to destroy to make my statement about creativity. The answer is my previous thought processes, what I was thinking about immediately before reading your question. Moment to moment, we are different selves. No thinker thinks twice.