Much like the Atheist’s claim concerning their degree of faith that there is no God, Theists come in both “soft” and “hard” forms. The “soft-theist” believes that possibly there is a God and the “hard-theist” is certain that there is a God. They both believe in the method of having faith for at least a while in order to find out the Truth (often noted to be God himself).
But Theists can’t actually get any harder than me. I might be called “The Theist”, because I am well beyond merely faith or emotional certainty (which the Christians and Jews don’t like because they are primarily seeking loyalists). I am a graduate from the university that proposes “seek and ye shall find”, or “have faith and you will end up discovering Truth”. I hold a PhD in Theology from ULR (not to be confused with “URL”), The University of the Logic of Reality.
So unlike ye ole typical theist, I KNOW there is a God. And frankly, the whole issue seems kind of silly to argue (C.S.Lewis).
Of course, you still doubt or merely have faith without knowing and thus basically believe that a person cannot know and must live, struggling eternally, in uncertainty. I know that to NOT be the “Truth”, through direct personal experience - graduation is possible.
But perhaps interestingly, I am also the accursed Rationalist (not to be confused with Espinoza, although under the same Judist curse), also holding a high degree from that same university. I recommend that dual major if interested in either one.
As a Rationalist, I am willing to listen very closely to any challenges from either camp; the Atheists, or the Theists who demand that knowing is impossible or even unfavorable. And I offer a challenge to either camp, but do be warned to avoid embarrassing yourself because I am very familiar with both camps.
I will be a taker…I don’t think you are paying attention to my theory of god…I don’t think you understand…the theists and the atheists are both not being rational…and you aren’t really presenting your position so that anyone can understand you…
All light in the universe moves at basically the same speed.
Even though we only see a tiny bit of it.
Something similar is the idea that God has certain qualities, even though we only perceive a small amount of God or God’s work.
After seeing a small bit, which is probably all we will ever see in our life, logical and rationality may dictate the presence of a principle.
Reality, in all its mechanism, beams with principle. Almost all things have a principle.
Even without directly seeing God, we can deduce a lot from the emanating works.
You got into the game after others started a war. You now propose that those who came first step back and change their wording to fit modern rebellious wording as if their original wording was wrong. What do you think would come from replacing the word “God” with the word “Nature” (as if that hadn’t been suggested and tried long before now)?
A theist doesn’t propose that you attend to or seek of (“pray to”) Nature. He proposes that you attend to and seek of the underlying Principle that governs nature, not nature itself. You are suggesting a step backward.
Why don’t you just correct your wording rather than ask millions of others to correct theirs to something that isn’t exactly correct?
First … let me share a little light hearted personal contemplation on your ILP name tag.
Are you familiar with the Camino Santiago?
What does Santiago Mean In English? It actually means Saint James
James and Tiago don’t sound at all alike but apparently they both have roots in the Hebrew name Ya’akov.
Now on to your new thread … I tell some people that I have a PhD from the “School of Hard Knocks” … some people actually graduate from this school … few perhaps … but some nonetheless.
Most people who attend the “School of Hard Knocks” drop out and later fall into a cesspool of anger bitterness etc etc
My experience tells me “personal familiarity” with who/what we refer to as ‘God’ is by invitation only … those who do not receive a personal invitation simply can not ‘know’.
Some would argue that everyone receives an ‘invitation’ every day … I’m not convinced.
My understanding is that “Camino Santiago” literally means “in the form of a saint” (a cameo), often thought of as “the way of a saint”. And yes, “James” is mildly related to “Jacob” or “Ya’akov” or “Akiba” in Hebrew.
But don’t let names mislead you.
As far as personal invitations … well, it kind of depends on how personal you mean that. God is available to be known, but very seldom to those blind of heart and mind. So the “invitation” isn’t in the personal language of such people, thus it isn’t all that personal. A lustful, presumptuous heart blinds the mind and thus reading any invitation becomes greatly impaired.
And as per the little story I relayed on the “Have We Lost Our Way” thread (The Guardrail), the “School of Hard knocks” is related to and a part of ULR.
First of all … if you are wondering about the delay in my response to your post … it’s a tribute to your intellect. You are one of the few people … still living that is … who actually inspire me to think. I decided to ponder your post over breakfast … I always think better on a full stomach.
Now back to the game!
Thanks for the warning
Seriously though … the spoken and written components of human communication rest solely on consensus within ‘naming conventions’. We use names for persons, objects, places, feelings, actions etc . Some people argue that that the sound of our name is the sweetest sound in the world … it is one of the first sounds we come to recognize.
Albeit there is so little consensus on ‘naming conventions’ in the world … and it (naming conventions) change like the ‘weather’ as you noted in an earlier post.
Confucius … considered by many to be one of the great sages on the landscape of human history … recognized the weaknesses inherent in naming conventions 2,500 years ago with his work titled “Rectification of Names”
I am of the age when after getting a full stomach, I fall asleep.
Actually ALL “knowledge” and “truth” is no more than naming of things into categories (epistemology). To know something merely means that one knows what to call it and what category to place it into. The descriptions of the categories are merely still more names to relate to those categories. “Understanding” (ontology) is when all of the associated names fit coherently into the associated categories.
In Hebrew texts, personal names (parent given labels) were actually never used. Every Hebrew scripture name was a title indicating a behavior or a station in life. The person’s childhood label could have been “Rugrat Three”. Many cultures have done that throughout history, such as Michelangelo (Michael de Angelo), or Nostradamus (literally “Our Damnation”). And in ancient Hebrew, quite often there was no individual person being referred to, but rather a general spirit or behavior. The literal reading of the Bible gives the impression today that they are referring to individual people, such as Ahdam, a governance, the first Man(ifestation) or Man(ager). And “human” actually means the “hue-of-Man”. Adham was not a “human”, but rather a “Man”.
But very many items, not just people, are metaphoric names, not literal or physical item labels, such as “water”, “bread”, or “tree”, none of which referred to the physical form those labels represent today, but rather to their spiritual significance, such as “Jesus walked on the water” or “The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil”.
No, they don’t. The “names” or “labels” within the mind are not the words you speak. The mind doesn’t use such words except on a cognitive level, 90% (if not more) of your thinking is not cognitive at all, “subconscious”.
Even when a computer stores information, all it ever does is store labels at labeled locations in memory (categories). The binary code is simply a label that represents a value to someone, somewhere. A neural network, similar to a human brain, does that same thing but in a very different manner. No memory is ever “knowledge” other than being a properly categorized label.
nonetheless let me and my ‘small mind’ attempt to catch up with your shadow.
Back to the term ‘naming conventions’ …
If you speak to me in Latin or send me a post written in Latin there is “0” communication between us … other than perhaps your use of “Cap Locks” or emoticons.
How many times have the words “Oops … I misunderstood you … I apologize” … been spoken between 2 people with the same mother tongue.
Seems to me that unless the ‘sender’ and the ‘receiver’ in any human communication have “absolutley” identical understanding and intention with each and every ‘sound’ or ‘written word’ they use … the communication between them is “muddy”.
JSS, do you think of God as a conscious agent that caused the universe to exist? Or do you also think it may be a natural process/laws which caused everything?
According to your definition, I think it could be both (“The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is”).
I can see how latter may make sense, but the former doesn’t, at all. Not only do we have no empirical basis for claiming that there exists an incredibly powerful, intelligent etc. creator of the universe, but all empirical date we do have available suggests that complex minds and beings only occur as a result of a long process of evolution, which starts with simpler organisms and gradually builds in complexity, adding God to the equation doesn’t make sense, since it puts an extremely complex and intelligent being at the beginning, which goes against all reliable scientific knowledge we have. Also, all minds we do know require a functioning physical brain, so the idea of a disembodied mind doesn’t hold up either.
…