If I am not mistaken the ‘Jewish tribe’ is accredited with creating God. That is one God (singular).
However, gods have been created before a complex writing sysytem has existed. basically pre-manuscripe.
But then again : So is the universe unimaginable… what is the universe made of, what is the source of its existence? When we say “universe” we don’t even really know what we mean when we say that, we just project out that it’s a big empty environment with “stuff” in it, well, wtf is that?
No one knows we are not advanced enough.
Exactly, hence my last quotation.
God only exists in the minds of men, yet God is beyond the grasp of human thinking by any stretch of the imagination. A paradox.
God does not only exist in the minds of men.
There can never have been a time when there was nothing, as everything came from something prior to itself.
Thus, there must be some substance that houses the potential for all things.
This is a common attempt to deny the infallibility of such a substance. Sin, or evil, is not a substance. It is the lack of a substance, namely good, or the attainment of the human final cause, which is the contemplate that than which nothing greater can be thought.
In order for the prime mover to create beings who are able to understand him, there must be the capacity for choice. God creates the capacity, not the evil act. Thus, evil is not a substance, and is not created.
[quote=“Ade”]
God does not only exist in the minds of men.
There can never have been a time when there was nothing, as everything came from something prior to itself.
Thus, there must be some substance that houses the potential for all things.
Yes, but did you not just say this with your mind? I mean, the mind of a man? By existence I only mean a consciousness of man to make the assertion that “God is” and the self-consciousness that makes the claim that it was man who made the assertion that “God is.” What I mean does not contradict your statement of a"substance that houses the potential for all things". But without consciousness, this substance would not be God, it would simply be ------ (Being). If being were not able to be made thinkable, would being still be? You are inclined to say yes, of course - all that is, is, whether or not man is here to make it thinkable. Well, ok, this is true, but to call this substance God is a little misleading. Energy is more correct I think - the energy that propels the potential energy of entities into substantive kinetic energy. Ok, this is God (oreindfauthi in my language); but does this idea still only exist in the minds of men? For it is, after all, only an idea. So long as God is pure Idea, then he will always exist in the minds of men alone.
[quote=“Ade”]
God does not only exist in the minds of men.
Oh yeah, and you forgot the other part of the quote. It was a two sided paradox. The second part apparently contradicted the first statement - that ‘God only exists in the minds of men.’ It’s ok, I will forgive you.
What? No. There is no paradox.
Everything that exists came from something.
To the person who contested, “Well yes, there must be something that houses the potential for all other things that exist, but that doesn’t mean its God.”…
God is a word we assign to this logically necessary being. You are getting hung up on the idea of gods that are part of a specific religion. There must be a substance from which all other things came, and it would necessarily understand all that comes from it (because understanding is a part of human beings, and all things came from something that housed all qualities, thus understanding and consciousness must be part of this being).
This isn’t rocket science, it’s Medieval philosophy.
Is that fact that “you exist” something that only exists in the minds of men? I would think you would say, “No, I am certain I exist in an objective way.” By doing that, you acknowledge the nature of existence, and you realize that you came from some other thing. By agreeing upon this, then you admit that there cannot have been a time when there existed nothing, and the rest of the argument falls into place.
The attempt to de-construct this essence, of which nothing greater can be conceived, is a confusion, and is often the result of one person trying to justify an ethic he knows is objectively incorrect.
The person who sits around and plays “devil’s advocate,” fascinated with his ability to argue for the side of evil, acknowledges that he must exist in an ethical society to even have the luxury to have the time for such fallacies.
He would be forced to agree that he came from somewhere, and that truth is superior to falsehood (as truth is what allows him to operate on the propagation of falsehood, not the other way around). Because of this, he would be forced to agree upon his origins, and that a “greatest thing” must exist. Since the mind holds truth higher than falsehood, the greatest activity of humans would be to understand this essence.
This, Aquinas was correct when he stated that the felicity of man comes from the contemplation of the divine. All other actions are inferior.
To back up and say, “Well, that’s not REALLY the best thing a human can do,” is to forget all of the steps leading up to the point.
If the contemplation of the divine is the highest activity in which sentient beings can participate, then the antiquated and embattled realm of human ethics is justified as correct, as it allows for such activity. All attacks on convention and ethics are, essentially, attempts to demonstrate that a temporal truth is superior to an absolute truth, which is impossible.
If there exists a greatest thing, then all human achievements and discoveries cannot surpass it, and the contemplation of this “greatest thing” remains the highest activity a man can perform, despite the technological and “sociological” advances of his temporal society.
To think that science and psychology can one day remove the logical necessity of a “greatest thing” is to deny the nature of gradations. There would be no point in calling something “good” or “bad,” or even “good for me” and “bad for me” as all such terms would be completely subjective, and would be at the mercy of an infinite flux. All philosophical pursuits and all other derivate works would be pointless. Without an objective overseer, the systems under which we operate would be subject to completely change at any moment.
Actually, Zoroaster (Iranian region) proclaimed one god above all others. The “jewish tribes” took the idea from there.
The fact that Judaism is given this credit is just another example of the lies perpetuated by the judeao-christian propaganda masters.
How can you be the ‘chosen ones’ when someone else invented/discovered you?
Can mindless entities know God then? I think there has been a misunderstanding.
Well, first of all, let me get back to this. You have misunderstood me, have not made the effort to think for yourself and counteract my reasoning as I stated it, but simply replied with a philosophy that is not your own. For that, I am contemptuous. I am vaguely familiar with Medieval Philosophy, mainly that of Augustine and al-Farabi. But yet, I still feel relegated to speak of God in purely religous terms, for only the religous God, as that in the Christian tradition, offers to answer the question to the “Why?” If you are going to refer to God outside the realm of a religous sense, then surely you cannot think of God as an objective seer. Still, this does not make the pursuit of philosophy pointless, for the point of philosophy is not to defend God, but to find the truth - alaethia. For that, I do not agree with your stance on the pursuit of philosophy - philosophy should want to make a change in the system, not protect it, although it is vague what system you are speaking of. Nature? If so, what do you mean by nature? This is vague.
For al-Farabi, this contemplative act as a higher grade of thinking God, is the equivalent to happiness. For Augustine, this God is the good, the light - that is, the absence of evil, of darkness. But yet, I still ask you, what is good and evil? To think of good and evil in purely ethical, societal terms, is to steer away from the truth. Yes, I do have a subjective ethical account. These terms, if you are going to refer to a 'system,' are completely conditional as far as I am concerned. The Id, in Freud's terms, is demonic simply because society forces the repression of the libidinal instinct. Therefore, evil occurs in dreams as a result of forced repression in civilized society. If one day the laws of civilized living were to change, would evil then become good and good become evil? If rape were to become the law, would chastity then be considered evil? It is all a matter of perspective and authority. If terrorism of corruption were to become the law, would letting a corrupted official in service of evil, in my view, let live become evil? In whose terms? In God's? If so, then how could different religions, such as Christianity and Judaism, have different conceptions of good and evil when they believe in the same God? Who is the judge to make it objective? Aquinas? I think not.
But yes, I concede, in the law of nature, there is an absolute dichotomy of good and evil I think, but why must we speak of God so long as this entity does not satisfy our answer to our “Why?” Eternal life? Happiness? An infinite causal chain with God as the enabler of the active intellect? We could ask an infinite number of “Why’s” and “Whereto’s.” It is not this civilization that has made it possible for me to contemplate, not the existence of God imposing his demands on civilization for me to contemplate his great work. Man is in error for letting civilization become what it has become, but is this just not the absence of light, in place of the absence of darkness, of light?
But perhaps happiness, eudomonia, is just this justification for that which is good and evil. Is it perhaps the recognition and attainment of the ideal of beauty? But who is to judge? Is it us, as those who can contemplate, as active intellects thinking in the abstract? Maybe. If I have acheived eudamonia, then is it not I who is the judge of that which is good and evil, of that which is beautiful and ugly? But then again, who is the judge of absolute eudamonia? Well, I just know it. I intuit it. But is this satisfactory for me to judge and make laws, impose them upon others?Therefore, it is not God as an objective seer who sets the laws, but those who know God, who acheived perfect contemplation of his work, who have authority - but only over themselves. Still, I do not think it right to impose your laws onto others. The only thing the enlightened can do is show them the way. All judgement claims that want to impose are shaky from then on.
Still, I am a little confused as to your conception of God. If it cannot satisfy the question “Why” or “whereto,” then I find it empty. As the being who houses the potential of all things? I find this to be the worst conception of God, because it does not attempt to answer the “Why” but simply states that ‘God is.’ Maybe you can enlighten me this time without making assumptions and being offensive.
Next time, if you want to earn respect in an argument, show that you can think for yourself, in clear terms, and ask questions. Without asking me questions, you are inevitably leading this argument into a net of artificiality and misunderstanding. You have the personality of a Medieval philosopher too. Yes, I have read those texts, unfortunately - you are not original. The Socratic personality, calling people fools - get over it, that’s not healthy. You will be made a fool if you underestimate the ability of others to think for themselves. Scholarly oxen I despise the most to be honest. Step out of bounds and think for yourself, lest you prove yourself a coward.
Love + Peace. R.
p.s. I have my own teleology, my own conceptions that do not necessarily contradict all of yours, but I know it is healthy to take an opposing view for the sake of balance, so if you want to continue, please do.
Then we have nothing to talk about. All ethicals counts would be equal.
If we want to argue about who’s “ethical account” is more logically based, then we have to agree that there is objectivity in logic. Otherwise we will digress again into thinking that we have “Subjective logical accounts,” as well. Then we won’t be able to compare anything.
If we agree to the existence of objective logic, then we should hopefully agree that all things that exist came from another thing. And from this we lead back to the substance that houses the potential for all existence.
Am I being “unoriginal” if I agree with things that must be true? Am I unoriginal to agree with the theorems of mathematics? If I find a philosopher who writes something and then I agree with him, should I disregard what is said for fear of not being original?
Also, this particular “God” that is found by considering that which houses the potential for all existence leads to a few other things. First, it would be possible for this God to manifest itself in human form. Because of this, the Christian viewpoint should not be discounted too quickly. This God would have to have perfect understanding of all it creates, as well as perfect understanding of itself. If truth is superior to falsehood, then the objective of humans would be to understand the greatest thing. Thus, all actions that lead to the contemplation of this thing would be ethical, and all actions that prevent people from doing so would be evil.
There are some specifics for you.
I wasn’t trying to be an “ox,” I just found the Medieval perspective to be compelling, and better than anything I can think of myself. I may lack the intelligence to create original thoughts, but I can still look to see if things make sense.
To me, it makes no sense to assume that all morals are subject to change. Eventually black will be white and white will be black, so all of our arguments about moral standards would be for nothing. We have to hold onto something that is beyond the ever-changing world of social indoctrination and psychological influence. There must be something about morals that never changes, otherwise it is an empty term. In order to have a source of morals that is unaffected by all human change, the existence of a higher consciousness is absolutely necessary.
nevermind
Ethics and logic do not go together. Ethics, like morality, is nothing but an individual expression of the will to power.
What a load of garbage. The only reason why people desire to latch onto ‘objective-unchanging-morality’ is due to personal insecurity issues. Stagnant moralities are only for those who despise change, difference, and pain.
Anyway, Philosarapper has your number.
Please excuse me for trying to work this out. Bear with me. Socratic dialogue is good, very good. Appreciate it.
So long as morality is subjected to logic, then I think moral standards are subject to change. It is like at the end of 1984, which basically stated, implicitly, that logic is grounded in tradition, authority and conformity to certain laws upon which that authority stands. Winston, in the midst of being tortured at the stretcher, is harassed with the question : what does 2+2 equal? Is it four or five? He hurls back and forth between different answers, when he simply cannot understand that the answer lies in whatever the authority says it is. He simply cannot understand this, but is forced to conform in the end, is punished for trying to push the laws of totalitarian reason to its limits.
Well, I believe in the absolute laws of mathematical reasoning, but not merely in the abstract. The problem, I think, lies in the ability to refer to concrete representation. To say that God then, is an infinite creator, the being that houses the potential for all things, is a little shaky. In one sense, this is true, for it can refer back to concrete representation. The empirical experience to see all things in motion, as potential and then actual, only provides the basis upon which that God is posited and understood. But yet, it is problematic in that it refers to an eternal, perpetual, creation without reverting back to a singularity. Or is it just a singularity outside the laws of causation to which you refer? I think maybe it is faulty to think of God as a first mover in this instance, if it is the being that houses the potential for all things, because this would imply an ever present entity. So I think it would be more logical to say God is a transcendent mover rather than a first mover, no? Well, in the case of mathematics, I know 2 + 2 to equal four for fact, because I can see its logical validity on an abicus. I simply move two and two together and I have four. These number are simply representations of abstract conceptions, which are proven to be true in the concrete representation. This is the primary dichotomy, as mutually dependent realms of the abstract and concrete, proven true.
But taken to the next level, which I think is more relevant to the God problem, refers more to the negative numerical system in mathematics - i.e - 4, - 5. I can see in the physical realm the motion of all things, can make abstractions based on the laws of physics, but yet how do I experience the coming into being in my self, into a higher realm in the active intellect? The question here is “how?” It is as Nietzsche says, or rather the inverse of what Nietzsche says, I don’t remember exactly: "As soon as we have an answer to our “how?” we should get along easily with any “why” (something like that, or maybe the inverse of that, but i am changing it). The question then is how is God this first, or transcendent, mover? Must it then be logically proven that there is a cause behind all these things, and if yes, then how and then why? Without an idea of nessecary connexion, the causal laws in physics simply cannot carry over into the metaphysical, be the basis upon which to make logical statements about the metaphysical. It is the same case here.
Well, in the case of numbers, a negative number system which counteracts positive numerals cannot be shown on an abbicus, yet we know them to follow logically based on the primary arithmetic laws. But what laws have we grounded to be able to make the claim that God is the being that houses the potential for all things? What absolute law of causality have we proven to be true? We have no concrete representation of this mathemtical abstraction, but yet it seems valid.
But this brings into question the validity of certain logical systems. Is induction a valid basis upon which we can make true claims? This is where I think the moral argument suffers the most. If by morality, you mean mere utility of the human race to get by, to progress, then surely logic can provide an answer. But this is not the morality in question. I think here, what is required, is a certain leap of faith to find truth. Logic, I think can only take one so far, but from then on it is up to a certain feeling. In summation, I think our moral foundations are built upon an intuitive feeling, or sentiment, as Hume declares. It is only the role of logic to help us climb to the highest rung of the ladder; but as for absolute morality, all I think it takes from there is the consentual agreement of the elite to confirm their sentiments. As to who the elite is, I do not know. Certainly not the ones in power these days. Philosophers? Maybe so, maybe not. Anyway, any thoughts? Respond if you wish to do so. Sorry for the negative remarks before. My mistake. Peace out.
Good remarks. I’m going to have to go over this for awhile before I can try answer any of your questions, so I apologize if the response after this pseudo-responses isn’t prompt.
You’re talking about the christian god, there are many gods, all invented by men. But if we take the concept of god and derive it from thinking about ourselves and nature, if god exists, he allows us to choose our own path and doesn’t force himself on us with rules: He says: Here’s life, do what you want with it. And doesn’t ask anything of you. I think that is the way a truly rational god would act.
The theory of God was created to explain things man couldn’t explain through scientific means and to provide security in the insecure world that we live in.