| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"mike bishop" |
| Date: |
09 Mar 2007 04:06:00 AM |
| Object: |
Ockham's Razor against unfalsifiable hypotheses |
From
<http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentViewArticle.asp?article=1475>:
| But just suppose, for the sake of argument, that there was no more evidence
| for God¢s existence than there was against. What would it then be rational
| to believe? Many would say: you should be agnostic. The rational thing to
| do would be to suspend judgment either way. You should remain neutral on
| the issue of whether or not God exists. But this is a mistake. In the
| absence of good evidence either way, the rational position to adopt is
| to believe that there is no God. Why is this?
|
| William of Ockham (1285-1349) points out that, where one is presented
| with two hypotheses that are otherwise equally well-supported by the
| available evidence, you should always pick the simplest hypothesis.
| In particular, we shouldn¢t gratuitously introduce any superfluous
| entities. This principle, known as Ockham¢s razor, is very sensible.
| Take, for example, these two hypotheses:
|
| A: There are invisible, intangible and immaterial fairies at the bottom
| of the garden, in addition to the compost heap, flowers, trees, shrubs,
| and so on.
|
| B: There are no fairies at the bottom of the garden, just the compost
| heap, flowers, trees, shrubs, and so on.
|
| Everything I have observed fits both hypotheses equally well. After
| all, if the fairies at the bottom of my garden are invisible, intangible
| and immaterial, then I shouldn¢t expect to observe any evidence of their
| presence, should I? Does that the fact that the available evidence fits
| both hypothesis equally well mean that I suspend judgement on whether or
| not there are fairies at the bottom of the garden?
|
| Of course not. The rational thing to believe is that there are no fairies.
| For that¢s the simplest hypothesis. Why introduce the unnecessary fairies?
I understand the gist of what's being said here, but I always thought that
Ockham's Razor couldn't be used against unfalsifiable hypotheses, in which
case we *would* have to withold judgement on the fairy thing, even though
that's undesirable. Am I wrong?
Also, assuming that I *am* wrong and that the razor takes out the fairies,
would it be possible to make an inductive argument against the fairies: an
argument concluding that probably there are no fairies in the garden?
Thanks!
.
|
|
| User: "DougC" |
|
| Title: Re: Ockham's Razor against unfalsifiable hypotheses |
09 Mar 2007 11:07:43 PM |
|
|
mike bishop wrote:
I understand the gist of what's being said here, but I always thought that
Ockham's Razor couldn't be used against unfalsifiable hypotheses,
Ockham's Razor is much simpler than that. Forget about the term
"unfalsifiable."
OR comes into play when we design an experiment or list the facts to
support a theory. If we want to see why ice remains frozen, we can
vary the temperature and note when the ice begins to melt. OR says to
ignore facts like "today is Friday" or "the dog is barking outside" or
"this freezer is white on the exterior." There are many irrelevant
things which may be falsifiable - or not- but the thermometer reading
is the only data we need for this experiment.
Doug Chandler
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Schwartz" |
|
| Title: Re: Ockham's Razor against unfalsifiable hypotheses |
12 Mar 2007 04:09:40 AM |
|
|
On Mar 9, 10:07 pm, "DougC" <priga...@aol.com> wrote:
OR comes into play when we design an experiment or list the facts to
support a theory. If we want to see why ice remains frozen, we can
vary the temperature and note when the ice begins to melt. OR says to
ignore facts like "today is Friday" or "the dog is barking outside" or
"this freezer is white on the exterior." There are many irrelevant
things which may be falsifiable - or not- but the thermometer reading
is the only data we need for this experiment.
The problem is, how do we know what we need?
And the answer is that the simplest explanation if the one we prefer.
If we performed an experiment on only Friday, but have no reason to
believe the results would differ on another day, we leave Friday out.
If someone wants to propose, for no reason at all, that the results
would be different on Saturday, he has the burden to demonstrate that
it matters. Until then, we provisionally accept a conclusion with no
dependency on the day of the week.
We can only measure the force of gravity up to a certain distance.
Whatever is the largest distance we have ever measured, someone could
propose that above that different gravity behaves completely
differently. But we reject that conclusion as arbitrary and
unsupported and retain the conjecture that it behaves as he have
observed it to over increasingly large distances.
Note that OR is not an optional convenience. We cannot do science
without it. For any hypothesis we currently accept, one can create an
unlimited number of more complex hypotheses with equal evidentiary
support. OR is the basis for accepting and repeating the hypothesis we
in fact do accept and ignoring the others.
For example, I say, "gravity is a 1/R^2 force" not "gravity is a 1/R^2
force up to 13,000,000 light years and for all we know is a 1/R^3
force thereafter".
DS
.
|
|
|
| User: "tg" |
|
| Title: Re: Ockham's Razor against unfalsifiable hypotheses |
12 Mar 2007 09:43:59 AM |
|
|
On Mar 12, 5:09 am, "David Schwartz" <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote:
On Mar 9, 10:07 pm, "DougC" <priga...@aol.com> wrote:
OR comes into play when we design an experiment or list the facts to
support a theory. If we want to see why ice remains frozen, we can
vary the temperature and note when the ice begins to melt. OR says to
ignore facts like "today is Friday" or "the dog is barking outside" or
"this freezer is white on the exterior." There are many irrelevant
things which may be falsifiable - or not- but the thermometer reading
is the only data we need for this experiment.
The problem is, how do we know what we need?
And the answer is that the simplest explanation if the one we prefer.
If we performed an experiment on only Friday, but have no reason to
believe the results would differ on another day, we leave Friday out.
If someone wants to propose, for no reason at all, that the results
would be different on Saturday, he has the burden to demonstrate that
it matters. Until then, we provisionally accept a conclusion with no
dependency on the day of the week.
We can only measure the force of gravity up to a certain distance.
Whatever is the largest distance we have ever measured, someone could
propose that above that different gravity behaves completely
differently. But we reject that conclusion as arbitrary and
unsupported and retain the conjecture that it behaves as he have
observed it to over increasingly large distances.
Note that OR is not an optional convenience. We cannot do science
without it. For any hypothesis we currently accept, one can create an
unlimited number of more complex hypotheses with equal evidentiary
support. OR is the basis for accepting and repeating the hypothesis we
in fact do accept and ignoring the others.
For example, I say, "gravity is a 1/R^2 force" not "gravity is a 1/R^2
force up to 13,000,000 light years and for all we know is a 1/R^3
force thereafter".
DS
I don't suppose you are going to listen this time either, but you have
it wrong. You are obviously confusing hypothesis and theory, and don't
understand what a theory is.
You can't apply OR unless you have two different *theories*, equally
supported by evidence. Your gravity example doesn't qualify as a
theory.
Gravity provides an example as follows:
1) We have a theory that there is a force acting instantaneously at a
distance, characterized by the form r^-2.
2) We discover that it doesn't predict correctly near a star.
Theory A might be that the mathematical form is different near a star,
because there is an accretion of invisible matter near the star,
which modifies the effect of the force acting at a distance.
Theory B might be that there is a different mathematical model, and
that the idea of force acting instantaneously at a distance is
incorrect---instead gravity is the result of a curvature of space and
time.
PLEASE NOTE: The two predict equally well---you plug in the data, and
the right numbers come out.
Which theory should we pursue? Remember, *not* accept as gospel, but
devote our energies to testing.
We pick the one which has fewer assumptions----we don't start trying
to disprove the existence of the invisible matter, as long as the
other theory holds up.
The difference between this example and yours is that the invisible
matter *explains something*, it isn't just an arbitrary statement like
ice freezing on Friday or r^-3 at some distance. There are two
entirely different conceptual frameworks involved. If you were to
suggest to a physicist that r^-3 is what works at some distance we
haven't measured, she would not invoke OR, she would just tell you to
grow up.
-tg
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Schwartz" |
|
| Title: Re: Ockham's Razor against unfalsifiable hypotheses |
12 Mar 2007 03:59:23 PM |
|
|
On Mar 12, 7:43 am, "tg" <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
The difference between this example and yours is that the invisible
matter *explains something*, it isn't just an arbitrary statement like
ice freezing on Friday or r^-3 at some distance. There are two
entirely different conceptual frameworks involved. If you were to
suggest to a physicist that r^-3 is what works at some distance we
haven't measured, she would not invoke OR, she would just tell you to
grow up.
You are missing the forest for the trees. One would hope she can come
up with a rational justification rather than just saying "grow up",
and that justification would be OR.
DS
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Schwartz" |
|
| Title: Re: Ockham's Razor against unfalsifiable hypotheses |
12 Mar 2007 04:53:24 PM |
|
|
On Mar 12, 7:43 am, "tg" <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
The difference between this example and yours is that the invisible
matter *explains something*, it isn't just an arbitrary statement like
ice freezing on Friday or r^-3 at some distance. There are two
entirely different conceptual frameworks involved. If you were to
suggest to a physicist that r^-3 is what works at some distance we
haven't measured, she would not invoke OR, she would just tell you to
grow up.
You are missing the forest for the trees. One would hope she can come
up with a rational justification rather than just saying "grow up",
and that justification would be OR.
DS
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "1Z" |
|
| Title: Re: Ockham's Razor against unfalsifiable hypotheses |
12 Mar 2007 08:58:48 AM |
|
|
On 9 Mar, 10:06, mike bishop <m...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
From
<http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentViewArticle.asp?article=3D147=
5>:
| But just suppose, for the sake of argument, that there was no more evid=
ence
| for God=A2s existence than there was against. What would it then be rat=
ional
| to believe? Many would say: you should be agnostic. The rational thing =
to
| do would be to suspend judgment either way. You should remain neutral on
| the issue of whether or not God exists. But this is a mistake. In the
| absence of good evidence either way, the rational position to adopt is
| to believe that there is no God. Why is this?
|
| William of Ockham (1285-1349) points out that, where one is presented
| with two hypotheses that are otherwise equally well-supported by the
| available evidence, you should always pick the simplest hypothesis.
| In particular, we shouldn=A2t gratuitously introduce any superfluous
| entities. This principle, known as Ockham=A2s razor, is very sensible.
| Take, for example, these two hypotheses:
|
| A: There are invisible, intangible and immaterial fairies at the bottom
| of the garden, in addition to the compost heap, flowers, trees, shrubs,
| and so on.
|
| B: There are no fairies at the bottom of the garden, just the compost
| heap, flowers, trees, shrubs, and so on.
|
| Everything I have observed fits both hypotheses equally well. After
| all, if the fairies at the bottom of my garden are invisible, intangible
| and immaterial, then I shouldn=A2t expect to observe any evidence of th=
eir
| presence, should I? Does that the fact that the available evidence fits
| both hypothesis equally well mean that I suspend judgement on whether or
| not there are fairies at the bottom of the garden?
|
| Of course not. The rational thing to believe is that there are no fairi=
es.
| For that=A2s the simplest hypothesis. Why introduce the unnecessary fai=
ries?
I understand the gist of what's being said here, but I always thought that
Ockham's Razor couldn't be used against unfalsifiable hypotheses, in which
case we *would* have to withold judgement on the fairy thing, even though
that's undesirable. Am I wrong?
Surely it is only of use against unfalsifiable hypotheses.
Falsifiable hypotheses can be falsified directly.
Also, assuming that I *am* wrong and that the razor takes out the fairies,
would it be possible to make an inductive argument against the fairies: an
argument concluding that probably there are no fairies in the garden?
Thanks!
.
|
|
|
| User: "AKA gray asphalt" |
|
| Title: Proof of God ? |
29 Nov 2007 08:49:32 PM |
|
|
I shall attempt to prove that God exists and then to prove that God doesn't
exist.
Since "God" at the very least is a sound, a word, a concept ... then God
exists in
at least one of those forms, if not in a more real form.
God does not exist because if He wanted for me to know that He exists He
would
reveal Himself, so I respect His choice that I don't believe in Him.
I believe in a spiritual God that exists in man. But I do not belive in a
God that created
sharks and has condemned all of us to die because Eve ate an apple ... that
one of God's
creations, a snake, tricked her into.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doc Smartass" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of God ? |
30 Nov 2007 07:13:33 PM |
|
|
"AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in
news:EWL3j.10394$Rw3.6226@newsfe06.phx:
Subject: Proof of God ?
No?
--
Doc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Heckling
aa # 1939
No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices.
--Edward R. Murrow
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of God ? |
30 Nov 2007 12:09:10 AM |
|
|
"AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in message
news:EWL3j.10394$Rw3.6226@newsfe06.phx...
<snip>
I believe in a spiritual God that exists in man.
Well isn't that special.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of God ? |
30 Nov 2007 07:01:23 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 22:09:10 -0800, "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!"
<this@aint.me> wrote:
"AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in message
news:EWL3j.10394$Rw3.6226@newsfe06.phx...
<snip>
I believe in a spiritual God that exists in man.
Well isn't that special.
No, it is common amongst the philoso-wankers.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Miller" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of God ? |
30 Nov 2007 03:07:24 PM |
|
|
"AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in message
news:EWL3j.10394$Rw3.6226@newsfe06.phx...
I shall attempt to prove that God exists and then to prove that God
doesn't exist.
Why?
Scott
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of God ? |
30 Nov 2007 03:10:41 PM |
|
|
On Nov 30, 1:07 pm, "Miller" <chumley...@chartermi.net> wrote:
"AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1...@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in messagenews:EWL3j.10394$Rw3.6226@newsfe06.phx...
I shall attempt to prove that God exists and then to prove that God
doesn't exist.
Why?
Scott
Good question. I think he intends to confuse the heck out of all of
us.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of God ? |
30 Nov 2007 05:08:56 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 13:10:41 -0800 (PST),
wrote:
On Nov 30, 1:07 pm, "Miller" <chumley...@chartermi.net> wrote:
"AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1...@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in messagenews:EWL3j.10394$Rw3.6226@newsfe06.phx...
I shall attempt to prove that God exists and then to prove that God
doesn't exist.
Why?
Scott
Good question. I think he intends to confuse the heck out of all of
us.
Mr. Pot. Meet Mr. Kettle.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of God ? |
30 Nov 2007 07:06:10 PM |
|
|
On Nov 30, 3:08 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 13:10:41 -0800 (PST),
wrote:
On Nov 30, 1:07 pm, "Miller" <chumley...@chartermi.net> wrote:
"AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1...@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in messagenews:EWL3j.10394$Rw3.6226@newsfe06.phx...
I shall attempt to prove that God exists and then to prove that God
doesn't exist.
Why?
Scott
Good question. I think he intends to confuse the heck out of all of
us.
Mr. Pot. Meet Mr. Kettle.
What does pot have to do with kettle? Do you boil your pot in a
kettle?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of God ? |
30 Nov 2007 09:09:34 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 17:06:10 -0800 (PST),
wrote:
On Nov 30, 3:08 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 13:10:41 -0800 (PST),
wrote:
On Nov 30, 1:07 pm, "Miller" <chumley...@chartermi.net> wrote:
"AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1...@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in messagenews:EWL3j.10394$Rw3.6226@newsfe06.phx...
I shall attempt to prove that God exists and then to prove that God
doesn't exist.
Why?
Scott
Good question. I think he intends to confuse the heck out of all of
us.
Mr. Pot. Meet Mr. Kettle.
What does pot have to do with kettle? Do you boil your pot in a
kettle?
Bloody hell you are THICK.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AKA gray asphalt" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of God ? |
01 Dec 2007 01:02:01 PM |
|
|
Why?
Scott
Good question. I think he intends to confuse the heck out of all of
us.
That's a good question. Maybe I think it's just because the two things seem
to be true ... that in one sense God does exist and in another God doesn't.
The definitions of God are different in each so there isn't really a logical
conflict.
God as an idea can exist without revealing Himself to me and that which I
call
God as an inner experience, a transcendent experience may be called other
things
like Higher Self or True Self or Higher Power, etc, and a bunch of more
artful
terms, more inspiring and more intriguing.
But also it would be nice if people quit arguing about whether God exists
and
focus on what God is. It is not illogical and doesn't go against the sense
of truth
of an atheist to say that God is an idea or a traditon or a myth, rather
than God
doesn't exist at all, which is clearly untrue. It would also be unfair of
believers
in God as creator of the universe to say that if an atheist says that God is
an idea,
that means that He says there is the same kind of God. I'm not sure why I
capitalized "He" referring to atheist. Is it a fair question to ask if God
is an atheist
because he doesn't believe in a higher power than Himself?
.
|
|
|
| User: "L. Raymond" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of God ? |
01 Dec 2007 02:42:17 PM |
|
|
AKA gray asphalt wrote:
That's a good question. Maybe I think it's just because the two things seem
to be true ... that in one sense God does exist and in another God doesn't.
The definitions of God are different in each so there isn't really a logical
conflict.
...
But also it would be nice if people quit arguing about whether God exists
and focus on what God is.
Nonsense. When something doesn't exist, then it isn't anything, so
demonstrating its existence is of paramount importance if you want to
claim it's real.
It is not illogical and doesn't go against the sense
of truth of an atheist to say that God is an idea or a
traditon or a myth, rather than God doesn't exist at all,
which is clearly untrue.
"Clearly"? How so? There's been no evidence provided by anyone,
anywhere at any time that demonstrates the existence of any of the gods
worshipped by humanity.
Is it a fair question to ask if God is an atheist
because he doesn't believe in a higher power than Himself?
Is this your idea of profound? If a god is self-aware, then it accepts
the existence of gods, being one itself, so it would be theist.
--
L. Raymond
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of God ? |
01 Dec 2007 02:56:28 PM |
|
|
On Dec 1, 12:42 pm, "L. Raymond" <badaddress@....com> wrote:
Is it a fair question to ask if God is an atheist
because he doesn't believe in a higher power than Himself?
Is this your idea of profound? If a god is self-aware, then it accepts
the existence of gods, being one itself, so it would be theist.
--
L. Raymond
I think it is a profound question. Universal theology teaches us that
the Creator of this universe, Brahma, is a devotee of the Supreme
Lord, Krishna, so Brahma is not an atheist, but what about Krishna?
The fact is that every genuine God must acknowledge the possibility of
a God higher than himself, or else he is the source of a Cult of the
Personality. There is no reason to think that there is any upper
limit on spiritual attainment. Given the condition of this Creation,
I think it is obvious that the Creator of this world is far from
perfect, let alone absolute in any sense at all. It is for that
reason that he is insecure and must impose harsh punishments that are
inappropriate to the crime. In short, he is a tyrant. Christ came to
establish a new order of the worlds, in which the tyranny of the
Creator would be overcome. This is accomplished in part by revealing
the metaphysical truth of other worlds, higher worlds than the one
that is "created." Man has his true identity in these higher worlds,
where the tyranny of the Creator cannot despoil him.
.
|
|
|
| User: "L. Raymond" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of God ? |
01 Dec 2007 03:28:33 PM |
|
|
wrote:
"L. Raymond" wrote:
Is it a fair question to ask if God is an atheist
because he doesn't believe in a higher power than Himself?
Is this your idea of profound? If a god is self-aware, then it accepts
the existence of gods, being one itself, so it would be theist.
I think it is a profound question. Universal theology teaches us that
the Creator of this universe, Brahma, is a devotee of the Supreme
Lord, Krishna, so Brahma is not an atheist, but what about Krishna?
This is hardly "universal". If Krishna is a god and knows it, then he's
theist. Theism is merely the belief that gods exist. It doesn't
require devotion to a god. Just the belief they exist.
The fact is that every genuine God must acknowledge the possibility of
a God higher than himself, or else he is the source of a Cult of the
Personality.
So it's turtles all the way down, and gods all the way up?
There is no reason to think that there is any upper
limit on spiritual attainment.
There is no reason to think there are any gods, either, but you're
accepting them. So why don't you accept there might be a limit?
Given the condition of this Creation,
I think it is obvious that the Creator of this world is far from
perfect, let alone absolute in any sense at all.
You say this as though it's a fact. What evidence do you have that
demonstrates the existence of a creator?
--
L. Raymond
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of God ? |
01 Dec 2007 06:19:34 PM |
|
|
On Dec 1, 1:28 pm, "L. Raymond" <badaddress@....com> wrote:
pjmutn...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
"L. Raymond" wrote:
Is it a fair question to ask if God is an atheist
because he doesn't believe in a higher power than Himself?
Is this your idea of profound? If a god is self-aware, then it accepts
the existence of gods, being one itself, so it would be theist.
I think it is a profound question. Universal theology teaches us that
the Creator of this universe, Brahma, is a devotee of the Supreme
Lord, Krishna, so Brahma is not an atheist, but what about Krishna?
This is hardly "universal". If Krishna is a god and knows it, then he's
theist. Theism is merely the belief that gods exist. It doesn't
require devotion to a god. Just the belief they exist.
The point is that no one is God, per se. God is an ideal. Persons of
very high spiritual attainment can become personifications of God, but
there is always the possibility of a person of higher attainment who
will be more God-like than the prior personification of God.
The fact is that every genuine God must acknowledge the possibility of
a God higher than himself, or else he is the source of a Cult of the
Personality.
So it's turtles all the way down, and gods all the way up?
Turtles?
There is no reason to think that there is any upper
limit on spiritual attainment.
There is no reason to think there are any gods, either, but you're
accepting them. So why don't you accept there might be a limit?
In this vast universe there is every reason to think that there are
beings of higher attainment than human. By the same principle, there
is no reason to assume a finite limit to spiritual attainment.
Given the condition of this Creation,
I think it is obvious that the Creator of this world is far from
perfect, let alone absolute in any sense at all.
You say this as though it's a fact. What evidence do you have that
demonstrates the existence of a creator?
The argument does not assert the existence, but only the necessary
consequence of such an existence.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AKA gray asphalt" |
|
| Title: Why I posted this |
01 Dec 2007 01:12:02 PM |
|
|
I had to fix the word wrap. I'm a little compulsive : -)
Why?
Scott
Good question. I think he intends to confuse the heck out of all of
us.
That's a good question. Maybe I think it's just because the two things seem
to be true ... that in one sense God does exist and in another God doesn't.
The definitions of God are different in each so there isn't really a logical
conflict. God as an idea can exist without revealing Himself to me and that
which I call God as an inner experience, a transcendent experience may
be called other things like Higher Self or True Self or Higher Power, etc,
and a bunch of more artful terms, more inspiring and more intriguing.
But also it would be nice if people quit arguing about whether God exists
and focus on what God is. It is not illogical and doesn't go against the
sense of truth of an atheist to say that God is an idea or a traditon or a
myth, rather than God doesn't exist at all, which is clearly untrue.
It could have been stated "I don't believe in a physical creator of the
universe because this God has never revealed Himself to me, so I
respect His desire that I not beleve in Him."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Why I posted this |
01 Dec 2007 08:47:03 PM |
|
|
"AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in
news:Qpj4j.5$XA6.4@newsfe09.phx:
I had to fix the word wrap. I'm a little compulsive : -)
Why?
Scott
Good question. I think he intends to confuse the heck out of all
of us.
That's a good question. Maybe I think it's just because the two things
seem to be true ... that in one sense God does exist and in another
God doesn't. The definitions of God are different in each so there
isn't really a logical conflict. God as an idea can exist without
revealing Himself to me and that which I call God as an inner
experience, a transcendent experience may be called other things like
Higher Self or True Self or Higher Power, etc, and a bunch of more
artful terms, more inspiring and more intriguing.
But also it would be nice if people quit arguing about whether God
exists and focus on what God is. It is not illogical and doesn't go
against the sense of truth of an atheist to say that God is an idea or
a traditon or a myth, rather than God doesn't exist at all, which is
clearly untrue.
It could have been stated "I don't believe in a physical creator of
the universe because this God has never revealed Himself to me, so I
respect His desire that I not beleve in Him."
Gullshit. God is no more real than the tooth fairy.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological
concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or
goal outside the human sphere. ... Science has been charged with
undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior
should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and
needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way
if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after
death.
Albert Einstein, Religion and Science
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why I posted this |
01 Dec 2007 11:16:13 PM |
|
|
On Dec 1, 6:47 pm, Enkidu <fox_rgf...@trashmail.net> wrote:
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological
concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or
goal outside the human sphere. ... Science has been charged with
undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior
should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and
needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way
if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after
death.
Albert Einstein, Religion and Science
Alas, Albert was only a half-genius. Karl Marx, a real student of
societal development, had a much better understanding, as expressed in
the Grundrisse.
.
|
|
|
| User: "bob young" |
|
| Title: Re: Why I posted this |
02 Dec 2007 10:08:12 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On Dec 1, 6:47 pm, Enkidu <fox_rgf...@trashmail.net> wrote:
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological
concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or
goal outside the human sphere. ... Science has been charged with
undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior
should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and
needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way
if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after
death.
Albert Einstein, Religion and Science
Alas, Albert was only a half-genius. Karl Marx, a real student of
societal development, had a much better understanding, as expressed in
the Grundrisse.
Yes...... he said 'Religion is the opium of the masses'
Or words to that effect.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of God ? |
01 Dec 2007 02:23:34 PM |
|
|
On Dec 1, 11:02 am, "AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1...@hotmail.spam.com>
wrote:
Why?
Scott
Good question. I think he intends to confuse the heck out of all of
us.
That's a good question. Maybe I think it's just because the two things seem
to be true ... that in one sense God does exist and in another God doesn't.
The definitions of God are different in each so there isn't really a logical
conflict.
God as an idea can exist without revealing Himself to me and that which I
call
God as an inner experience, a transcendent experience may be called other
things
like Higher Self or True Self or Higher Power, etc, and a bunch of more
artful
terms, more inspiring and more intriguing.
But also it would be nice if people quit arguing about whether God exists
and
focus on what God is. It is not illogical and doesn't go against the sense
of truth
of an atheist to say that God is an idea or a traditon or a myth, rather
than God
doesn't exist at all, which is clearly untrue. It would also be unfair of
believers
in God as creator of the universe to say that if an atheist says that God is
an idea,
that means that He says there is the same kind of God. I'm not sure why I
capitalized "He" referring to atheist. Is it a fair question to ask if God
is an atheist
because he doesn't believe in a higher power than Himself?
Well, I think you may be getting a truism here. Let me try to clarify
it. There is no singular person who is God above all the rest. God
is an archetype, an ideal of Truth, Beauty, and Goodness. Such an
archetype, like all aspects of Eidos and Logos, tends to manifest
itself through, in this case, personifications of itself. Hence,
there are personalities, like Jesus and the Father of Jesus, who are
personifications of God. This does not detract from them, for they
are true personifcations of the highest Truth, Beauty, and Goodness.
However, they are not special in any absolute sense - every human
being has the same potential to become God and personify God as they
do.
.
|
|
|
| User: "bob young" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of God ? |
08 Dec 2007 08:21:01 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On Dec 1, 11:02 am, "AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1...@hotmail.spam.com>
wrote:
Why?
Scott
Good question. I think he intends to confuse the heck out of all of
us.
That's a good question. Maybe I think it's just because the two things seem
to be true ... that in one sense God does exist and in another God doesn't.
The definitions of God are different in each so there isn't really a logical
conflict.
God as an idea can exist without revealing Himself to me and that which I
call
God as an inner experience, a transcendent experience may be called other
things
like Higher Self or True Self or Higher Power, etc, and a bunch of more
artful
terms, more inspiring and more intriguing.
But also it would be nice if people quit arguing about whether God exists
and
focus on what God is. It is not illogical and doesn't go against the sense
of truth
of an atheist to say that God is an idea or a traditon or a myth, rather
than God
doesn't exist at all, which is clearly untrue. It would also be unfair of
believers
in God as creator of the universe to say that if an atheist says that God is
an idea,
that means that He says there is the same kind of God. I'm not sure why I
capitalized "He" referring to atheist. Is it a fair question to ask if God
is an atheist
because he doesn't believe in a higher power than Himself?
Well, I think you may be getting a truism here. Let me try to clarify
it. There is no singular person who is God above all the rest. God
is an archetype, an ideal of Truth, Beauty, and Goodness.
Then it is not a god, simply a state of mind
I knew that all along
Such an
archetype, like all aspects of Eidos and Logos, tends to manifest
itself through, in this case, personifications of itself. Hence,
there are personalities, like Jesus and the Father of Jesus, who are
personifications of God. This does not detract from them, for they
are true personifcations of the highest Truth, Beauty, and Goodness.
However, they are not special in any absolute sense - every human
being has the same potential to become God and personify God as they
do.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "L. Raymond" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of God ? |
01 Dec 2007 02:47:49 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On Dec 1, 11:02 am, "AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1...@hotmail.spam.com>
wrote:
Why?
Scott
Good question. I think he intends to confuse the heck out of all of
us.
That's a good question. Maybe I think it's just because the two things seem
to be true ... that in one sense God does exist and in another God doesn't.
The definitions of God are different in each so there isn't really a logical
conflict.
God as an idea can exist without revealing Himself to me and that which I
call
God as an inner experience, a transcendent experience may be called other
things
like Higher Self or True Self or Higher Power, etc, and a bunch of more
artful
terms, more inspiring and more intriguing.
But also it would be nice if people quit arguing about whether God exists
and
focus on what God is. It is not illogical and doesn't go against the sense
of truth
of an atheist to say that God is an idea or a traditon or a myth, rather
than God
doesn't exist at all, which is clearly untrue. It would also be unfair of
believers
in God as creator of the universe to say that if an atheist says that God is
an idea,
that means that He says there is the same kind of God. I'm not sure why I
capitalized "He" referring to atheist. Is it a fair question to ask if God
is an atheist
because he doesn't believe in a higher power than Himself?
Well, I think you may be getting a truism here. Let me try to clarify
it. There is no singular person who is God above all the rest. God
is an archetype, an ideal of Truth, Beauty, and Goodness. Such an
archetype, like all aspects of Eidos and Logos, tends to manifest
itself through, in this case, personifications of itself. Hence,
there are personalities, like Jesus and the Father of Jesus, who are
personifications of God. This does not detract from them, for they
are true personifcations of the highest Truth, Beauty, and Goodness.
However, they are not special in any absolute sense - every human
being has the same potential to become God and personify God as they
do.
In another post you claimed to be a true follower of Jesus, who taught
that no one comes to god except through him. He didn't teach that you
could be a god yourself, so where'd you get get that idea?
--
L. Raymond
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of God ? |
01 Dec 2007 03:03:49 PM |
|
|
On Dec 1, 12:47 pm, "L. Raymond" <badaddress@....com> wrote:
pjmutn...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
On Dec 1, 11:02 am, "AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1...@hotmail.spam.com>
wrote:
Why?
Scott
Good question. I think he intends to confuse the heck out of all of
us.
That's a good question. Maybe I think it's just because the two things seem
to be true ... that in one sense God does exist and in another God doesn't.
The definitions of God are different in each so there isn't really a logical
conflict.
God as an idea can exist without revealing Himself to me and that which I
call
God as an inner experience, a transcendent experience may be called other
things
like Higher Self or True Self or Higher Power, etc, and a bunch of more
artful
terms, more inspiring and more intriguing.
But also it would be nice if people quit arguing about whether God exists
and
focus on what God is. It is not illogical and doesn't go against the sense
of truth
of an atheist to say that God is an idea or a traditon or a myth, rather
than God
doesn't exist at all, which is clearly untrue. It would also be unfair of
believers
in God as creator of the universe to say that if an atheist says that God is
an idea,
that means that He says there is the same kind of God. I'm not sure why I
capitalized "He" referring to atheist. Is it a fair question to ask if God
is an atheist
because he doesn't believe in a higher power than Himself?
Well, I think you may be getting a truism here. Let me try to clarify
it. There is no singular person who is God above all the rest. God
is an archetype, an ideal of Truth, Beauty, and Goodness. Such an
archetype, like all aspects of Eidos and Logos, tends to manifest
itself through, in this case, personifications of itself. Hence,
there are personalities, like Jesus and the Father of Jesus, who are
personifications of God. This does not detract from them, for they
are true personifcations of the highest Truth, Beauty, and Goodness.
However, they are not special in any absolute sense - every human
being has the same potential to become God and personify God as they
do.
In another post you claimed to be a true follower of Jesus, who taught
that no one comes to god except through him. He didn't teach that you
could be a god yourself, so where'd you get get that idea?
--
L. Raymond- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
John 10:
10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye
are gods?
10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the
scripture cannot be broken;
10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into
the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
Psalm 82
1 [A Psalm of Asaph.] God standeth in the congregation of the mighty;
he judgeth among the gods.
2 How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the
wicked? Selah.
3 Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and
needy.
4 Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.
5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in
darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.
6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most
High.
7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
8 Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of God ? |
03 Dec 2007 12:07:21 AM |
|
|
On Dec 2, 7:23 am, wrote:
On Dec 1, 11:02 am, "AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1...@hotmail.spam.com>
wrote:
Why?
Scott
Good question. I think he intends to confuse the heck out of all of
us.
That's a good question. Maybe I think it's just because the two things seem
to be true ... that in one sense God does exist and in another God doesn't.
The definitions of God are different in each so there isn't really a logical
conflict.
God as an idea can exist without revealing Himself to me and that which I
call
God as an inner experience, a transcendent experience may be called other
things
like Higher Self or True Self or Higher Power, etc, and a bunch of more
artful
terms, more inspiring and more intriguing.
But also it would be nice if people quit arguing about whether God exists
and
focus on what God is. It is not illogical and doesn't go against the sense
of truth
of an atheist to say that God is an idea or a traditon or a myth, rather
than God
doesn't exist at all, which is clearly untrue. It would also be unfair of
believers
in God as creator of the universe to say that if an atheist says that God is
an idea,
that means that He says there is the same kind of God. I'm not sure why I
capitalized "He" referring to atheist. Is it a fair question to ask if God
is an atheist
because he doesn't believe in a higher power than Himself?
Well, I think you may be getting a truism here. Let me try to clarify
it. There is no singular person who is God above all the rest. God
is an archetype, an ideal of Truth, Beauty, and Goodness.
God is an archetype.
That much is true.
God is a deceiver, he is full of jealousy and hate.
It's all in the bible.
Such an
archetype, like all aspects of Eidos and Logos, tends to manifest
itself through, in this case, personifications of itself. Hence,
there are personalities, like Jesus and the Father of Jesus, who are
personifications of God.
Jesus Father is a deceiver and an evil violent malevolent being - so
you contradict yourself.
This does not detract from them, for they
are true personifcations of the highest Truth, Beauty, and Goodness.
No - read your bible!
God is one evil *****.
However, they are not special in any absolute sense - every human
being has the same potential to become God and personify God as they
do.
There certainly have been humans that have striven to be God- like.
Examples abound of god-like humans - Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Jong
Il
We can strive to avoid becoming "godlike" and seek wisdom, compassion
and honesty.
That is my path.
Cheers, Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof of God ? |
03 Dec 2007 02:42:10 AM |
|
|
On Dec 2, 10:07 pm, Richo <m.richardso...@gmail.com> wrote:
Well, I think you may be getting a truism here. Let me try to clarify
it. There is no singular person who is God above all the rest. God
is an archetype, an ideal of Truth, Beauty, and Goodness.
God is an archetype.
That much is true.
God is a deceiver, he is full of jealousy and hate.
It's all in the bible.
There is not just one God. The Creator God of the old testament is
Brahma. Jesus is Sananda, one of the mind-born sons of Brahma, but
Jesus rejected his father Brahma in favor his Heavenly Father
Mahavatar Babaji. Brahma worships another form of Krishna, who
supports his creation of this world. Jesus came to clean up the mess
created by Brahma, and He could have done that if people had not
rejected Him.
Such an
archetype, like all aspects of Eidos and Logos, tends to manifest
itself through, in this case, personifications of itself. Hence,
there are personalities, like Jesus and the Father of Jesus, who are
personifications of God.
Jesus Father is a deceiver and an evil violent malevolent being - so
you contradict yourself.
No, false. Where is your evidence for this? You don't even know His
name. It is Mahavatar Babaji. What do you know about Him?
This does not detract from them, for they
are true personifcations of the highest Truth, Beauty, and Goodness.
No - read your bible!
God is one evil *****.
Again, the new testament God is a different God, although the Apostles
and disciples often got confused as to which God they served.
However, they are not special in any absolute sense - every human
being has the same potential to become God and personify God as they
do.
There certainly have been humans that have striven to be God- like.
Examples abound of god-like humans - Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Jong
Il
False. You know none of the truly God-like persons. You have had
your head in the gutter or even in the toilet, one might say.
We can strive to avoid becoming "godlike" and seek wisdom, compassion
and honesty.
That is my path.
You are not following it. You have grasped very little of the
spiritual truth or the real situation surrounding spirituality.
Cheers, Mark
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
