Your Perception of God?

Coherent
Posts: 15
Joined: 2013-01-16
User is offlineOffline
Your Perception of God?

 

First, I am not a theist or an atheist, I'm a free thinker.  I do not follow any religion, and seek to understand God spiritually.  All my ideas are generated from my own perception of life, so yes I have my biases and beliefs.  All I wish to do is share them with you and discuss them.  I don't want to argue about who is right or wrong, because know one knows.  I'm simply discussing the idea of God; what he is, what he can do, and how we should perceive him.

God is the universe; a conscious entity that creates all matter.  Some of this matter can create life, and God is consciously aware of all this matter and life; omniscient of his creation.  His laws are that of which science can prove, some of which science still does not understand (physics, meta-physics, biology, chemistry, etc.)  He instills in life natural law; what these natural laws entail is to be discussed, and a good definition has not been provided for this theory.  Nonetheless, without natural law, instinct and intuition are obsolete, and we know these exist within all life (at least in life with brain function).

Does God have morals?  From what we know about God, nothing would suggest he controls morality.  The divine-command theory is contradictory, so I believe other forces, mainly our own forces (spirit), constitute our rational of morality, while fairness, good, peace, and love helps to compose morality into spirit.  So does God have morals?  Maybe.  Human morality is a necessity to sustain co-existing life, so for that reason God may influence morality into natural law, may.  We know that other forces dumb down the consciousness of morality, and desensitize us to immorality.  But, for no reason should we assume that God follows our morality, and commands certain acts as good or bad, he leaves that for our interpretation.  We learn what is good and bad from our parents and society.  If you grow up sitting in front of a TV watching violent movies and playing gruesome video games, and no one tells you that that is wrong and immoral, you will grow up thinking that is okay, because it is a common perception of your reality.  If our reality was comprised of love, peace, humility, forgiveness, and sympathy for everything that God has given us, we would follow those principles.  Morality is not a paradigm, and is reflective upon one's interpretation of reality, and the consciousness of the reality in which they live.

I believe this conflict with God's morality is the main cause of atheism, because many cannot fathom a moral God allow such atrocities to plague humanity or his creation itself.  That'd why I challenge that maybe God doesn't affect or establish our morality.  Like God, we are able to manipulate the world around us and create infinite amounts of tools, events, etc.  These events not only can manipulate nature, but our thoughts, beliefs, and interpretations towards each other.  It's a matter of knowing and learning what is moral and practicing that.  We think much differently than God, because God plays on a higher plain than us, where the rules of morality do not affect his laws.  We as humans have to create these laws to live under, the same way God has laws to which he controls over.

If you have any questions you would like to ask me, I'd be happy to when I have the time.  I'm not a philosopher, just a human being who is trying to understand like the rest of us.  All comments are welcome, and other ideas are welcome.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Coherent wrote: First, I am

Coherent wrote:

 

First, I am not a theist or an atheist, I'm a free thinker.  I do not follow any religion, and seek to understand God spiritually.  All my ideas are generated from my own perception of life, so yes I have my biases and beliefs.  All I wish to do is share them with you and discuss them.  I don't want to argue about who is right or wrong, because know one knows.  I'm simply discussing the idea of God; what he is, what he can do, and how we should perceive him.

God is the universe; a conscious entity that creates all matter.  Some of this matter can create life, and God is consciously aware of all this matter and life; omniscient of his creation.  His laws are that of which science can prove, some of which science still does not understand (physics, meta-physics, biology, chemistry, etc.)  He instills in life natural law; what these natural laws entail is to be discussed, and a good definition has not been provided for this theory.  Nonetheless, without natural law, instinct and intuition are obsolete, and we know these exist within all life (at least in life with brain function).

Does God have morals?  From what we know about God, nothing would suggest he controls morality.  The divine-command theory is contradictory, so I believe other forces, mainly our own forces (spirit), constitute our rational of morality, while fairness, good, peace, and love helps to compose morality into spirit.  So does God have morals?  Maybe.  Human morality is a necessity to sustain co-existing life, so for that reason God may influence morality into natural law, may.  We know that other forces dumb down the consciousness of morality, and desensitize us to immorality.  But, for no reason should we assume that God follows our morality, and commands certain acts as good or bad, he leaves that for our interpretation.  We learn what is good and bad from our parents and society.  If you grow up sitting in front of a TV watching violent movies and playing gruesome video games, and no one tells you that that is wrong and immoral, you will grow up thinking that is okay, because it is a common perception of your reality.  If our reality was comprised of love, peace, humility, forgiveness, and sympathy for everything that God has given us, we would follow those principles.  Morality is not a paradigm, and is reflective upon one's interpretation of reality, and the consciousness of the reality in which they live.

I believe this conflict with God's morality is the main cause of atheism, because many cannot fathom a moral God allow such atrocities to plague humanity or his creation itself.  That'd why I challenge that maybe God doesn't affect or establish our morality.  Like God, we are able to manipulate the world around us and create infinite amounts of tools, events, etc.  These events not only can manipulate nature, but our thoughts, beliefs, and interpretations towards each other.  It's a matter of knowing and learning what is moral and practicing that.  We think much differently than God, because God plays on a higher plain than us, where the rules of morality do not affect his laws.  We as humans have to create these laws to live under, the same way God has laws to which he controls over.

If you have any questions you would like to ask me, I'd be happy to when I have the time.  I'm not a philosopher, just a human being who is trying to understand like the rest of us.  All comments are welcome, and other ideas are welcome.

 

Do you have any evidence that such a being exists?

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
@ Coherent: I'd delete this

@ Coherent:

I'd delete this as you requested in the copy, but it was already responded to. I wouldn't be concerned about the specific forums' activity. It will be seen no matter where you put it.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Our understanding of ---God

The over-all concept of God from our studies is---it gets right down to being--"people". We don't see God as a free floater, that is, he, it, she, other, add your own, must be attached to something physical or material. Without material God cannot exist. The term "god" can be related to several ideas--which actually are mentalities, and natural cosmic and planetary phenomenon. What it gets down to is God = force or that which governs. We see all applications of force as God. He, it, she, they, other, all the forces one is under. It is forces that are greater then one's own self, and forces that are less then one's own self. It is the forces of a wind storm or an ocean tide,--anything that has an effect on life. One must also consider that "the self" is also a force within all the other forces - that is--you also have an effect on life around you. There-fore then --you are God as well as anyone else or any other force. But, beware of tampering with forces that are greater then you, it's referred to as, tempting God.

For instance--an eggzample--- You go out side your tent, hut, cave, other, and encounter a violent wind and hail storm which causes you to stay inside. That means that the storm has rulership over you to govern whether you are to be indoors or out, of course temporarily. BUT---Persons that have more say or power in your life can also make you stay indoors or exact consequences for not obeying them, it, her, him, other.

Simple ain't it. The one exerting power over you is----lording it over you, and, that same then is acting as---god, right. God then--- reduces to--good and evil, that is what is or isn't harmful or helpful. We can exact evil upon each other --or we can exact good upon each other. OR-- we can designate others to be government where-by "they" decide the basics of right and wrong, good or evil for you. In this case those who acquire the most power become----yup---God. And if they get it wrong you pay--right. If you allow them to create evil to bring about good then you'll have twice the evil happening then what would normally come about by nature--right. Under that idea you'll eventually have the situation that exists now--more evil is being done then good---so more evil has to be done to cause more good and-------you get the picture. Eventually--there's no way out. So-- choose you god/way carefully. Yup, God can also mean "way".

Or you can throw out the idea of "God, and go hog wild---which eventually happens anyway, OR--you can be self regulatory and get it right on your own and find a "way" to avoid the consequences of the "other" God's/people's thinking, just like you had to avoid the wind and hail storm. Now you may find that living can be more easy by learning which forces to go with and which tom avoid. If you want others to lord it over then you have no choice and accept the evils they produce.  Simple but not so.

Or- you can throw out the idea of God as a free floater which would be correct and become self regulatory. But---self regulatory in which you needn't be willingly harmful to anyone. I'm thinking the latter would be the "way" to go.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Coherent
Posts: 15
Joined: 2013-01-16
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: Do you

Beyond Saving wrote:
 

Do you have any evidence that such a being exists?

Frankly, it's just a theory.  We do know we were created, life as it exists, by a conscious Force/Being/God/Nature/Universe, whatever you wanna call it. That is fact.  Theory come in when describing its attributes, but all life was created from it, and it consciously controls the matter in which sustains this life.  Essential, my ideology is Pantheistic/Spinoza.  It is very interesting theory, and it leaves a lot to be desired as far as exploring his ideas.


Coherent
Posts: 15
Joined: 2013-01-16
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:The over-all

Old Seer wrote:

The over-all concept of God from our studies is---it gets right down to being--"people". We don't see God as a free floater, that is, he, it, she, other, add your own, must be attached to something physical or material. Without material God cannot exist. The term "god" can be related to several ideas--which actually are mentalities, and natural cosmic and planetary phenomenon. What it gets down to is God = force or that which governs. We see all applications of force as God. He, it, she, they, other, all the forces one is under. It is forces that are greater then one's own self, and forces that are less then one's own self. It is the forces of a wind storm or an ocean tide,--anything that has an effect on life. One must also consider that "the self" is also a force within all the other forces - that is--you also have an effect on life around you. There-fore then --you are God as well as anyone else or any other force. But, beware of tampering with forces that are greater then you, it's referred to as, tempting God.

For instance--an eggzample--- You go out side your tent, hut, cave, other, and encounter a violent wind and hail storm which causes you to stay inside. That means that the storm has rulership over you to govern whether you are to be indoors or out, of course temporarily. BUT---Persons that have more say or power in your life can also make you stay indoors or exact consequences for not obeying them, it, her, him, other.

Simple ain't it. The one exerting power over you is----lording it over you, and, that same then is acting as---god, right. God then--- reduces to--good and evil, that is what is or isn't harmful or helpful. We can exact evil upon each other --or we can exact good upon each other. OR-- we can designate others to be government where-by "they" decide the basics of right and wrong, good or evil for you. In this case those who acquire the most power become----yup---God. And if they get it wrong you pay--right. If you allow them to create evil to bring about good then you'll have twice the evil happening then what would normally come about by nature--right. Under that idea you'll eventually have the situation that exists now--more evil is being done then good---so more evil has to be done to cause more good and-------you get the picture. Eventually--there's no way out. So-- choose you god/way carefully. Yup, God can also mean "way".

Or you can throw out the idea of "God, and go hog wild---which eventually happens anyway, OR--you can be self regulatory and get it right on your own and find a "way" to avoid the consequences of the "other" God's/people's thinking, just like you had to avoid the wind and hail storm. Now you may find that living can be more easy by learning which forces to go with and which tom avoid. If you want others to lord it over then you have no choice and accept the evils they produce.  Simple but not so.

Or- you can throw out the idea of God as a free floater which would be correct and become self regulatory. But---self regulatory in which you needn't be willingly harmful to anyone. I'm thinking the latter would be the "way" to go.

 

Yeah, the scales weighing good and evil are plunged toward the latter.  The Maya actual predicted cycles of this happening (Dark Ages/Golden Ages).  I think if we just dropped the dogma and rationalized what we are, instead of complicating and separating, we could create peace.  Just realize that we are all one.  That we were given this intelligence to not conquer and destroy each other, but to come together and explore the mysteries of our existence and develop our consciousness of the world around us. "You may say that I'm a dream, but I'm not the only one" - John Lennon


Coherent
Posts: 15
Joined: 2013-01-16
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:The over-all

Damn double post.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
The idea of evolution

Coherent wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
 

Do you have any evidence that such a being exists?

Frankly, it's just a theory.  We do know we were created, life as it exists, by a conscious Force/Being/God/Nature/Universe, whatever you wanna call it. That is fact.  Theory come in when describing its attributes, but all life was created from it, and it consciously controls the matter in which sustains this life.  Essential, my ideology is Pantheistic/Spinoza.  It is very interesting theory, and it leaves a lot to be desired as far as exploring his ideas.

looks like reality to me. The evidence is overwhelming. If it's not so then one would be hard pressed for any other explanations as how we got here. One can look at evolution and see it as "God", and as the forces that created one's own self. But should one bow down to evolution or co-exist with it. No need to make a thing of worship because the only one's knowing about it is "us". One can say that ---being we evolved then we are evolutionaries trying to figure out evolution---which in turn means that evolution is trying top understand itself. Everything about us is ---evolution, even the ability of intellect. But--even as evolutionaries we can see that we evolved as the universe itself which is a matter of good and evil. To understand the "self" one then is compelled to study the self, and from that one then can comprehend the good and the evil and make a choice of which to pursue  as----life. You'll also come the the understanding that God means ---life ---itself.  There is no good and evil unless there are one's to make the distinction between the two. Good and evil is a matter of "us", and without us, good or evil is moot. The universe cannot harm itself. So harm then, becomes what is detrimental to life or ------ happiness. Without life and intellect there is no good or evil. The universe is not physically alive, it is "we" and our compodrays "the other beings" that the effects can be measured upon. It's kinda hard  or impossible to harm iron.   Smiling

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3360
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Welcome Aboard

Welcome aboard Coherent.

Atheist myself, who sees no evidence of a creator or a force.

Post early and post often

All opinions welcome here

Trolls are another story.

But you do not strike me as a troll.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


neptewn
neptewn's picture
Posts: 296
Joined: 2007-06-25
User is offlineOffline
Coherent wrote:First, I am

Coherent wrote:

First, I am not a theist or an atheist, I'm a free thinker.

This statement assumes several propositions.

I am not a theist - This is either true or false. 

True = Atheist

False = Theist

I am not an Atheist - This is either true or false

True = Theist

False = Atheist

Trying to indicate you are neither an Atheist or a Theist, is as logical as saying you are both an Atheist and a Theist.

 

And welcome to the forums...

 

 

Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3360
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Coherent wrote: If you have

Coherent wrote:

 

If you have any questions you would like to ask me, I'd be happy to when I have the time.  I'm not a philosopher, just a human being who is trying to understand like the rest of us.  All comments are welcome, and other ideas are welcome.

How do you come by the belief of Spinoza's god ? How did you formulate these ideas ? Were they through experiences ? Logic ? Conclusions that were formulated by searching ?

I am actually curious and not trying to be sarcastic here, but I would also like to know why you would use the word "god" to describe your viewpoint ?

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


GodsUseForAMosquito
Moderator
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
Coherent wrote: We do know

Coherent wrote:

 We do know we were created, life as it exists, by a conscious Force/Being/God/Nature/Universe, whatever you wanna call it. That is fact.

 

That's not a fact at all.

 

We know we are here, but we definitely don't know we were created by a conscious entity. You can't call this a fact until you can prove the universe is conscious - that's your presupposition.

We may well have gotten to our current level of consciousness merely by random processes that have no consciousness behind them. How do you so easily discount this possibility in lieu of your own panentheism?

 

Welcome

 


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
It is also

Coherent wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
 

Do you have any evidence that such a being exists?

Frankly, it's just a theory.  We do know we were created, life as it exists, by a conscious Force/Being/God/Nature/Universe, whatever you wanna call it. That is fact.  Theory come in when describing its attributes, but all life was created from it, and it consciously controls the matter in which sustains this life.  Essential, my ideology is Pantheistic/Spinoza.  It is very interesting theory, and it leaves a lot to be desired as far as exploring his ideas.

why an Apostle says --God is all things to all people. They have a different understanding of the term then what is normally applied. There's nothing in the book that makes a God a free floater--a free floater is the assumption by those misunderstanding and have the right of force to pattern things to the accordance of their own concept---by police or military force. All people are under the same forces of life---bar none. What happens to one can happen to all, there-fore then -- god is that which rules/governs. There's no getting around it. How could it be denied that one is not under the same force as all others. There is no free floater, but there is "God" as --force. All are under the same universal law (universal construction), be it material or what can be/is understood as mental. There is no "way" out of it.

Edit-- replaced construed with understood.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Coherent wrote:Beyond Saving

Coherent wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
 

Do you have any evidence that such a being exists?

Frankly, it's just a theory.  We do know we were created, life as it exists, by a conscious Force/Being/God/Nature/Universe, whatever you wanna call it. That is fact.  Theory come in when describing its attributes, but all life was created from it, and it consciously controls the matter in which sustains this life.  Essential, my ideology is Pantheistic/Spinoza.  It is very interesting theory, and it leaves a lot to be desired as far as exploring his ideas.

I prefer to believe in theories that have supporting evidence rather than just because they are interesting. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Coherent
Posts: 15
Joined: 2013-01-16
User is offlineOffline
I don't discount it, you

I don't discount it, you have every right to feel that way, and everything is a possibility, but it does not seem rational to me.  You're implying that our species randomly appeared on this mass of matter one day, poof, lets walk and talk and control each other?  You are not thinking rationally if you cannot perceive some force behind our creation.  To deny a creator is to deny that you exist.  Science can prove this force is the Universe, and that is God.  The universe is conscious because we are conscious; in fact it is indeed more conscious than we. Carl Sangan once said, "humans are the stuff of the cosmos examining itself." The elevation of our own consciousness could enlighten us to this simple revelation, and the continued heightening would allow us to better understand this phenomenon, and possibility even be in touch with it.  Again, all theory, but we need to test these questions and propositions to find out the truth; something can be unproven, but still be true.  Consciousness is just part of our evolutionary path.  But first, we must wake up and stop believe 2000 year old shit. Would should be adding on and testing the ideas of Decartes, Spinoza, etc. or at the very least, rationally thinking about them to slowly uncover our understanding.  It's all consciousness.

Now, I don't believe that God tries to dictate what we do, give us rules, and control how we act.  That is what human tries to do to human, male nature is to dominate.  We as a species have developed as male natured, right brained people.  Our intellect is a beautiful thing, but the forces of evil have been manipulating it for their own selfish desires (imperialism, global fascism)  I believe God just puts all the substance in place, and allows to live the way we do, and govern our own laws in this realm.

 

 Is the Universe Conscious?

Of Course The Universe is Conscious

 


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Coherent wrote:male nature

Coherent wrote:

male nature is to dominate

If the above statement is correct, I am not male-natured...despite being both biologically (sex) and socially (gender) male. Though...I do sometimes prefer to label myself "human", rather than "man" or "woman", because of how restrictive some ideas about masculinity are.

 


Coherent
Posts: 15
Joined: 2013-01-16
User is offlineOffline
Female natured people do

Female natured people do exist as well, ut our species is dominated by the male presence, naturally possibly?  By some theories, Female nature/Left brained humans did exist on this planet at one time, typically in correlation with theories of Atlantis and Lumeria.  It is the Male/Left that has taken over through political/economic/imperial means; if we took the left brain intellect, and the nurturing nature of the female, humanity could provide peace to our Earth.  Or, maybe nature did not intend it to be that way?


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3360
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Coherent wrote:Now, I don't

Coherent wrote:

Now, I don't believe that God tries to dictate what we do, give us rules, and control how we act.  That is what human tries to do to human, male nature is to dominate.  We as a species have developed as male natured, right brained people.  Our intellect is a beautiful thing, but the forces of evil have been manipulating it for their own selfish desires (imperialism, global fascism)  I believe God just puts all the substance in place, and allows to live the way we do, and govern our own laws in this realm.

So exactly how did you come to this conclusion about "god" or I should say, your concept of what a god is ?

Where did you formulate these ideas and what do you mean by "evil forces ?"

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Coherent wrote:and the

Coherent wrote:

and the nurturing nature of the female

Can males not also have a nurturing nature? Am I automatically female if I have no interest in dominating people?

 

Coherent wrote:

Or, maybe nature did not intend it to be that way?

Since a lot of natural processes are not directed by anything conscious, I'm not sure how nature can "intend" anything.

 


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1831
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Coherent wrote:You are not

Coherent wrote:

You are not thinking rationally if you cannot perceive some force behind our creation.  To deny a creator is to deny that you exist.  Science can prove this force is the Universe, and that is God.  

Welcome to the forum.  firstly, I would say that you are a theist.  Allow me to tell you why:

Oxford dictionary wrote:

Definition of theism

noun

[mass noun]

belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe:

there are many different forms of theism

Secondly, you are wrong, science cannot prove that we were created.  To deny a creator is not to deny that I exist, that is faulty logic, not all things that exist have a personified creator.  If you define "a creator" as a natural unconscious force, such as gravity and momentum, then yes, everything that exists has some sort of force as as it's catalyst for changing from one previous form of matter to the current form of matter.  There is no point in calling this "god" or "a creator" we already have a word for it, we call it nature.

Coherent wrote:

The universe is conscious because we are conscious; in fact it is indeed more conscious than we. Carl Sangan once said, "humans are the stuff of the cosmos examining itself."

This is called a fallacy of composition.  Where you attribute properties of a system's elements to the system itself.  That quote is ironic considering it comes from Carl Sagan, one of the original four horseman, I was also unable to place it, do you know where it was from? 

Coherent wrote:

The elevation of our own consciousness could enlighten us to this simple revelation, and the continued heightening would allow us to better understand this phenomenon, and possibility even be in touch with it.  Again, all theory, but we need to test these questions and propositions to find out the truth; something can be unproven, but still be true.  

Can you give me an example of something that has been proved to be untrue, and is still true?

Coherent wrote:

Consciousness is just part of our evolutionary path.  But first, we must wake up and stop believe 2000 year old shit. Would should be adding on and testing the ideas of Decartes, Spinoza, etc. or at the very least, rationally thinking about them to slowly uncover our understanding.  It's all consciousness.

The pivotal Cartesian motto "cogito ergo sum", is the epitome of absolute skepticism.  Descartes would roll in his grave at such assertions.

Coherent wrote:

Now, I don't believe that God tries to dictate what we do, give us rules, and control how we act.  That is what human tries to do to human, male nature is to dominate.  We as a species have developed as male natured, right brained people.  Our intellect is a beautiful thing, but the forces of evil have been manipulating it for their own selfish desires (imperialism, global fascism)  I believe God just puts all the substance in place, and allows to live the way we do, and govern our own laws in this realm.

Is the Universe Conscious?

Of Course The Universe is Conscious

You have not made a compelling case for your concept of "god" and therefore arguing properties of a yet to be reasonably assumed being, hardly seems rational. 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1506
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
According to the book

Adam is denoted as "God". He was not a theist, he/they didn't worship them self. He had no concept of god. The term becomes applied further down in their ancestory. The term replaced "creator" or "Aleph". Those claiming to be Christian are within the up to date classification of God. In the book it doesn't apply.    Smiling

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


neptewn
neptewn's picture
Posts: 296
Joined: 2007-06-25
User is offlineOffline
Coherent wrote:I do not

Coherent wrote:

I do not follow any religion, and seek to understand God spiritually. 

All my ideas are generated from my own perception of life, so yes I have my biases and beliefs.

God is the universe; a conscious entity that creates all matter.

His laws are that of which science can prove, some of which science still does not understand (physics, meta-physics, biology, chemistry, etc.) 

He instills in life natural law; what these natural laws entail is to be discussed, and a good definition has not been provided for this theory. 

Nonetheless, without natural law, instinct and intuition are obsolete, and we know these exist within all life (at least in life with brain function).

Religion - The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.

So you have beliefs, God is the universe, he has laws, and those that do not follow him have no brains.

You may not have a name for your reglion, but a name is not a requirment.

Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5130
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Hi Coherent

 

Coherent wrote:

I do not follow any religion, and seek to understand God spiritually.  

 

I think this statement really outlines the problem you have. How can you understand something undefinable using something...undefinable? It's just adventures in assertion. 

You seem a nice person Coherent but your avatar title is probably incoherent. 

Welcome to the site, eh. 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Coherent
Posts: 15
Joined: 2013-01-16
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:Coherent

blacklight915 wrote:

Coherent wrote:

and the nurturing nature of the female

Can males not also have a nurturing nature? Am I automatically female if I have no interest in dominating people?

 

Coherent wrote:

Or, maybe nature did not intend it to be that way?

Since a lot of natural processes are not directed by anything conscious, I'm not sure how nature can "intend" anything.

 

 

R.W. Connell proposed the idea of multiple masculinities, rather than just a single set of traits that are recognizable in all men.  He claimed many variables can effect one's masculinity or femininity , such as: culture, hormones balances, age, etc.  He had four categories of masculinity - I have provided a link to this theory.  You may fall under complicit masculinity, but the prototypical masculinity in nature is hegemony.  

 

Hegemonic Males tends to be more agressive, dominant, courageous and persevering, lacks emotion, while Females are typically passive, submissive, nurturing, and more emotional.  We all range within these characteristics.  Some people may be completely hegemonic, but the majority can fall within the middle of all these traits


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Coherent wrote:You're

Coherent wrote:

You're implying that our species randomly appeared on this mass of matter one day, poof, lets walk and talk and control each other?

pretty much.

Coherent wrote:

You are not thinking rationally if you cannot perceive some force behind our creation.  To deny a creator is to deny that you exist.

so now thinking rationally means thinking presuppositionally?  there is absolutely no evidence for creation ex nihilo, and any other sort of creation is not creation at all but modification.  existence is purely relative.  heraclitus can tell you that.  lucretius can tell you that.  so can nagarjuna, and stephen hawking for that matter.  i see no evidence for "existence" in either the platonic or cartesian sense.  even if you believe things have some abiding essense or there is such a thing as a "thing-in-itself," even kant will tell you we can't possibly perceive it, and i agree with the indian carvakas when they say that any epistemology based on anything other than perception is untenable, and even that epistemology is shaky, since perception itself cannot be perceived objectively. 

Coherent wrote:

The universe is conscious because we are conscious; in fact it is indeed more conscious than we.

oh please.  we don't even know what consciousness is.  if the universe is "conscious" in any sense meaningful to us, we cannot possibly perceive that, and therefore it is outside the pale of all science except bad science.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Coherent wrote:R.W. Connell

Coherent wrote:

R.W. Connell proposed the idea of multiple masculinities, rather than just a single set of traits that are recognizable in all men. He claimed many variables can effect one's masculinity or femininity , such as: culture, hormones balances, age, etc. He had four categories of masculinity - I have provided a link to this theory. You may fall under complicit masculinity, but the prototypical masculinity in nature is hegemony.

Thanks for the link. I read the wikipedia page, but I had a hard time placing myself in any one of the four categories--none seemed to really fit.

 

Coherent wrote:

Hegemonic Males tends to be more agressive, dominant, courageous and persevering, lacks emotion, while Females are typically passive, submissive, nurturing, and more emotional.  We all range within these characteristics.  Some people may be completely hegemonic, but the majority can fall within the middle of all these traits

Exactly: they are not so much masculine or feminine characteristics as they are human characteristics.

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15497
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I believe this

Quote:
I believe this conflict with God's morality is the main cause of atheism,

 

See if you can spot the pattern.

 

I believe this conflict with Allah's morality is the main cause of atheism.

I believe this conflict with Yahweh's morality is the main cause of atheism.

I believe this conflict with Vishnu's morality is the main cause of atheism.

I believe this conflict with Joseph Smith's morality is the main cause of atheism.

I believe this conflict with The Force's morality is the main cause of Darth Vadar.

I believe this conflict with L Ron Hubbard's morality is the main cause of atheism.

I believe this lack of understanding of how Ouija Boards work is the main reason people reject them.

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Coherent
Posts: 15
Joined: 2013-01-16
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:Secondly, you

Ktulu wrote:

Secondly, you are wrong, science cannot prove that we were created.  To deny a creator is not to deny that I exist, that is faulty logic, not all things that exist have a personified creator.  If you define "a creator" as a natural unconscious force, such as gravity and momentum, then yes, everything that exists has some sort of force as as it's catalyst for changing from one previous form of matter to the current form of matter.  There is no point in calling this "god" or "a creator" we already have a word for it, we call it nature.

This is called a fallacy of composition.  Where you attribute properties of a system's elements to the system itself.  That quote is ironic considering it comes from Carl Sagan, one of the original four horseman, I was also unable to place it, do you know where it was from? 

Can you give me an example of something that has been proved to be untrue, and is still true?

The pivotal Cartesian motto "cogito ergo sum", is the epitome of absolute skepticism.  Descartes would roll in his grave at such assertions.

You have not made a compelling case for your concept of "god" and therefore arguing properties of a yet to be reasonably assumed being, hardly seems rational. 

 

If living organisms (including man) came from unconscious matter or energy; considering that we are all essentially stardust, couldn't you say that our consciousness came from unconsciousness? And if that's correct then couldn't the unconsciousness that created our consciousness be a product of some original consciousness? And if all it takes is a certain chemical reaction to make conscious beings out of unconscious energy, then couldn't I make something unconscious conscious with a certain chemical reaction? It's really a tough call when trying to figure our if nature is in fact conscious.  It is also possible that God is both unconscious and conscious, as we can see both elements being played in the universe and in our own lives.  

Thank you for that fallacy definition, and I agree with you that it is only an assumption that the universe is because we are, and I can't prove that.  Keep in mind, I'm only 20 years old, my understanding of logic may not be as high as yours, and I still have a lot to learn before I can really centralize my ideas.  I am a skeptic though; I can believe certain things, but I'm always looking for new ideas that contradict my own theory, and I can easily let go of a belief when provided with prominent information.  If I do suffer from cognitive dissonance, it is in very small amounts haha.  By that definition though, Decartes wasn't an absolute skeptic because he held ideologies that his perception assumed was factual.

I said something unproven can still be true.  Unproven is much different than disproven. Something disproven cannot be true.

My concept of God is essentially - everything that is.  The universe, nature, natural law, unconscious, conscious, matter, energy, life, etc.  Very broad, but still rational is my views.  I'm not trying to pin things down, just trying to understand, and gauge other peoples perception.  May I ask what you believe?

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15497
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
There is absolutely no need

There is absolutely no need to insert any type of deity in as a starting point. Not only is there no need, but in doing such you create the problem of infinite regress. If god is more complex then something even more complex had to create that god, and something even more complex had to create that god, and something even more complex had to create that god ect ect ect ect.

Does a hurricane need the ocean god Posiden to occur? Does a volcano need a god to erupt?

You fail to consider that "all this" is no different than the seasons changing. This is the cause of a "what", not a cognitive "who", by any name.

The only place we find cognition is in biological evolution. Complexity is an emergent property, out of biological processes, not magical woo super heros. Otherwise if a super hero manufacturer is required then we can make up any character we want. The newest woo out is si fi crap speculating that "all this" is a giant simulation. But that too would be subject to the same baggage of infinite regress. If this is a simulation, then a bigger more complex simulation started this simulation, and that simulation was started by an even more complex simulation, ect ect ect ect.

 

The reality is that gods are merely inventions of humans. The sun was never a god, like the Egyptians falsely believed for 3,000 years. Volcanos were never gods, and Allah and Yahweh and the Christian god are all superstitious concoctions of human's wishful thinking.

 

The universe was around before humans and our stupid fantasies and it will continue way after our species goes extinct and there will be no record of our existence and the universe will continue on without us.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15497
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Coherent wrote:My concept of

Coherent wrote:

My concept of God is essentially - everything that is.  The universe, nature, natural law, unconscious, conscious, matter, energy, life, etc.  Very broad, but still rational is my views.  I'm not trying to pin things down, just trying to understand, and gauge other peoples perception.  May I ask what you believe?

 

This is merely conflating your sense of awe(which is fine) to comic book status(which is dangerous, and not fine). Having a sense of awe is fine. Turning that sense of awe into woo is intellectually dangerous.  There is no need to use a gibberish concept to say "the universe is big and has some really neat stuff in it".

"God" is a stupid, and not only stupid concept, it is a divisive concept precisely because humans keep revising it in order to feel special, but in that they create much more gullibility and division because of such.

Just say "the universe is really big", but it also has mostly really nasty shit that is hostile to biological life and it has absolutely no cognition because it is not living itself, it is a process and a thing, not a living thing.

I can appreciate the vastness of the universe and the potential and kinetic energy in it. I can appreciate things like black holes and red giants, and even the weather and nature on this planet. What I don't do is assign a woo or a superstition to any of it.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


GodsUseForAMosquito
Moderator
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
Coherent wrote:I don't

Coherent wrote:

I don't discount it, you have every right to feel that way, and everything is a possibility, but it does not seem rational to me.  You're implying that our species randomly appeared on this mass of matter one day, poof, lets walk and talk and control each other?  You are not thinking rationally if you cannot perceive some force behind our creation.

Yes, of course there are forces behind our creation, but it's you who is acting irrationally by somehow deciding that these are conscious forces. 

Coherent wrote:

 To deny a creator is to deny that you exist.  Science can prove this force is the Universe, and that is God.

The force of creation 'is' the universe? Not really. the force of creation 'resides within' the universe would be more accurate. The universe has a lot more going on than just creating our consciousnesses. So why is this force God?

Put it this way. Before our solar system was recognisable as it is today, it was a big cloud of dust. over billions of years this dust clumped together to make the sun, planets, asteroids etc. This was necessary to happen before conditions were suitable to sustain or allow life (let alone conscious life). So was this coalescing of dust a 'conscious' happening? It can be explained with a few equations within our current understanding of physics. Which bit of the universe is looking at itself and consciously assessing this dust moving about? If you agree that abiogenesis is a possibility, and darwinian evolution turned us from single celled creatures to humans, then somewhere along that road from dust to us, consciousness did indeed pop into existence.

 

Coherent wrote:

 The universe is conscious because we are conscious; in fact it is indeed more conscious than we. Carl Sangan once said, "humans are the stuff of the cosmos examining itself." The elevation of our own consciousness could enlighten us to this simple revelation, and the continued heightening would allow us to better understand this phenomenon, and possibility even be in touch with it.

So by your statement above, if the universe contained no conscious life, then it wouldn't be conscious. but the early universe cannot have supported conscious life, it's been proven by physics that at a point in the past the whole universe was made merely of elementary particles rapidly inflating outwards. So again, by your own admission consciousness did just occur at some point, from no consciousness. Since you appear to be agreeing on this point, I'm puzzled why your first paragraph in the post  I'm responding to appears to question this. You're being self-contradictory, unless you believe that the lepton epoch of the universe was conscious somehow...

 

Coherent wrote:
 Again, all theory, but we need to test these questions and propositions to find out the truth; something can be unproven, but still be true.  Consciousness is just part of our evolutionary path.  But first, we must wake up and stop believe 2000 year old shit. Would should be adding on and testing the ideas of Decartes, Spinoza, etc. or at the very least, rationally thinking about them to slowly uncover our understanding.  It's all consciousness.

Yes, something unproven may be true, but the burden of proof lies on the positive claim, otherwise it's just Russell's teapot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot).

Which 2000 year old shit are we believing here? Why do you think we're stuck in the past with philosophy? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Western_philosophers) And let's not forget that our understanding of Physics has revolutionised the way we think.. Some say Philosophy is dead because of it (I saw Stephen Hawking state this in person).

Coherent wrote:

Now, I don't believe that God tries to dictate what we do, give us rules, and control how we act.  That is what human tries to do to human, male nature is to dominate.  We as a species have developed as male natured, right brained people.  Our intellect is a beautiful thing, but the forces of evil have been manipulating it for their own selfish desires (imperialism, global fascism)  I believe God just puts all the substance in place, and allows to live the way we do, and govern our own laws in this realm.

 Is the Universe Conscious?

Of Course The Universe is Conscious

Look, just because I am aware of my leg, doesn't mean my leg is aware of me. Most of my body is unconscious; it's only a set of special cells in my brain that allow me to think about my leg. Daniel Dennett, proponent of eliminative materialism, believes that one day we will be able to understand how we have consciousness purely in understood physical terms, raising the question whether we really are conscious at all. It really depends how you define consciousness, which isn't as simple as it first appears. 


Coherent
Posts: 15
Joined: 2013-01-16
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Coherent

iwbiek wrote:

Coherent wrote:

You're implying that our species randomly appeared on this mass of matter one day, poof, lets walk and talk and control each other?

pretty much.

Coherent wrote:

You are not thinking rationally if you cannot perceive some force behind our creation.  To deny a creator is to deny that you exist.

so now thinking rationally means thinking presuppositionally?  there is absolutely no evidence for creation ex nihilo, and any other sort of creation is not creation at all but modification.  existence is purely relative.  heraclitus can tell you that.  lucretius can tell you that.  so can nagarjuna, and stephen hawking for that matter.  i see no evidence for "existence" in either the platonic or cartesian sense.  even if you believe things have some abiding essense or there is such a thing as a "thing-in-itself," even kant will tell you we can't possibly perceive it, and i agree with the indian carvakas when they say that any epistemology based on anything other than perception is untenable, and even that epistemology is shaky, since perception itself cannot be perceived objectively. 

oh please.  we don't even know what consciousness is.  if the universe is "conscious" in any sense meaningful to us, we cannot possibly perceive that, and therefore it is outside the pale of all science except bad science.

I define consciousness as: the degree in which energy is aware of its properties and other existing properties.  We cannot perceive it at our current level of consciousness, correct, but that doesn't mean we will never.  It all depends if evolution and consciousness are in correlation.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Coherent wrote:We cannot

Coherent wrote:

We cannot perceive it at our current level of consciousness, correct, but that doesn't mean we will never.  It all depends if evolution and consciousness are in correlation.

fine, but until that day comes, it is outside the pale of science, so please don't say "science has proven."  and your definition of "consciousness" may be as good as any other, but since consciousness cannot apprehend itself in an objective sense, then your definition remains an axiom, ergo unfalsifiable, and thus, also, outside the pale of science.  at best you can call it philosophy.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Coherent
Posts: 15
Joined: 2013-01-16
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Coherent

iwbiek wrote:

Coherent wrote:

We cannot perceive it at our current level of consciousness, correct, but that doesn't mean we will never.  It all depends if evolution and consciousness are in correlation.

fine, but until that day comes, it is outside the pale of science, so please don't say "science has proven."  and your definition of "consciousness" may be as good as any other, but since consciousness cannot apprehend itself in an objective sense, then your definition remains an axiom, ergo unfalsifiable, and thus, also, outside the pale of science.  at best you can call it philosophy.

Ok, I understand. I'm ok with it just being philosophy, because science can't prove it.  I was under the impression it has been proven by science that the universe is conscious, but I was terribly mistaken.  Thanks for your input.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Coherent wrote:You're

Coherent wrote:
You're implying that our species randomly appeared on this mass of matter one day, poof, lets walk and talk and control each other?  You are not thinking rationally if you cannot perceive some force behind our creation.

This is a profound demonstration of your ignorance regarding much of science, from chemistry to biology to evolution, and probably physics and more too, but I don't feel like figuring out how many disciplines you are partially or completely ignorant of at this time.

To start learning about evolution, which is the one discipline you've demonstrated absolute ignorance of, I recommend reading every link on this web page:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html

Once you've done that, you should have enough to do some research on your own, which is always the best way to learn things.

Once you've learned what evolution is, and have done some experiments to prove it to yourself, you'll know why we accept it as true.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Coherent
Posts: 15
Joined: 2013-01-16
User is offlineOffline
 I accept evolution.

 I accept evolution.  Physics, I'm completely blind to the math involved to prove the theories; but I can comprehend the implications of those findings.  Same to a lot of science, but I will admit I'm not knowledgable of these topics.  I'm majoring in Education and Philosophy (Epistemology), and want to be a teacher, and eventually an administrator; in hopes of reforming our current policy.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3360
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Coherent wrote: I accept

Coherent wrote:

 I accept evolution.  Physics, I'm completely blind to the math involved to prove the theories; but I can comprehend the implications of those findings.  Same to a lot of science, but I will admit I'm not knowledgable of these topics.  I'm majoring in Education and Philosophy (Epistemology), and want to be a teacher, and eventually an administrator; in hopes of reforming our current policy.

Not trying to switch the topic here, but what sort of things would you like to see reformed ?

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1831
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Coherent wrote:If living

Coherent wrote:

If living organisms (including man) came from unconscious matter or energy; considering that we are all essentially stardust, couldn't you say that our consciousness came from unconsciousness? And if that's correct then couldn't the unconsciousness that created our consciousness be a product of some original consciousness? And if all it takes is a certain chemical reaction to make conscious beings out of unconscious energy, then couldn't I make something unconscious conscious with a certain chemical reaction? It's really a tough call when trying to figure our if nature is in fact conscious.  It is also possible that God is both unconscious and conscious, as we can see both elements being played in the universe and in our own lives.  

Of course it is possible.  It is also possible that we're all in a dog's dream.  Anything is possible, but things have degrees of certainty.  If science has taught us anything, it is to determine the probability of something occurring within a given paradigm.  One of the axioms of reality is the principle of least action.  To put that differently, nature is lazy.  Also, a theory only has merit if it either: simplifies our picture of reality; or explains observed discrepancies in reality.

For example, Newton's theory of gravitation combined seemingly unrelated phenomena, such as the orbit of planets/moon and the fact that everything falls towards the center of the earth.  Einstein's theory of gravitation complimented our paradigm by explaining discrepancies in our observation of certain orbits, such as Mercury (among other things, over-simplification to make a point).

The reason why I don't find your theory to have any considerable degree of certainty, is because it fails both of those criteria within our current paradigm.  If you have evidence to shift our paradigm in favor of your theory, the certainty would increase. 

Coherent wrote:

Thank you for that fallacy definition, and I agree with you that it is only an assumption that the universe is because we are, and I can't prove that.  Keep in mind, I'm only 20 years old, my understanding of logic may not be as high as yours, and I still have a lot to learn before I can really centralize my ideas.  I am a skeptic though; I can believe certain things, but I'm always looking for new ideas that contradict my own theory, and I can easily let go of a belief when provided with prominent information.  If I do suffer from cognitive dissonance, it is in very small amounts haha.  By that definition though, Decartes wasn't an absolute skeptic because he held ideologies that his perception assumed was factual.

You're correct, Descartes was not an absolute skeptic, but he used absolute skepticism to build a most reliable epistemology.  It is an admirable effort, in "Meditations on First Philosophy"'s first two chapters are an impressive deconstructions of biases.  He then attempts to build it back up by using "god", ironically implicating the biggest bias of it all...  Descartes was not advocating solipsism by any means, he was simply using the extreme doubt as a most fundamental way to create certainty.  I find Hegel's criticism of the phenomenologically inclined lineage of philosophers, that include Hume and Kant as the more substantial approach.  We should likely discuss that in a different thread if you're interested.  

Coherent wrote:

I said something unproven can still be true.  Unproven is much different than disproven. Something disproven cannot be true.

I have misread that, I stand correct it.

Coherent wrote:

My concept of God is essentially - everything that is.  The universe, nature, natural law, unconscious, conscious, matter, energy, life, etc.  Very broad, but still rational is my views.  I'm not trying to pin things down, just trying to understand, and gauge other peoples perception.  May I ask what you believe?

Much like you, only I have a different name for everything that is, I call it everything that is, and not god Smiling .  I am an agnostic atheist.  I do not believe in any deity, but I allow for the possibility that our understanding is limited and flawed.  I am also trying to understand the universe and everything, I just find the concept of "god" as a major impediment.  

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Coherent
Posts: 15
Joined: 2013-01-16
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:Much like you,

Ktulu wrote:

Much like you, only I have a different name for everything that is, I call it everything that is, and not god Smiling .  I am an agnostic atheist.  I do not believe in any deity, but I allow for the possibility that our understanding is limited and flawed.  I am also trying to understand the universe and everything, I just find the concept of "god" as a major impediment.  

It is simply our minds natural way of simplifying things, much like taxonomy.  I'm taking everything that is, and putting it into one word called God.  

 

C. Scott Littleton defined deity as "a being with powers greater than those of ordinary humans, but who interacts with humans, positively or negatively, in ways that carry humans to new levels of consciousness beyond the grounded preoccupations of ordinary life." 

Obviously, the universe has greater power than us.  But does it interact with us?  Yes, our basic chemical bond with it is an interaction.  Positively and negatively?  You could name numerous things about the universe that have positive and negative effects on humans, along with good and evil.  The universes interaction with us through evolution, is carrying humans to new levels of consciousness, which I perceive as positive.  It is a possiblity that our perception of morality, is an interaction created from the universe to make us aware of these positives and negatives; good and evil.  Being aware of both good and evil expands your consciousness outside of our natural instinct to live. 

Nonetheless, beliefs aside, I admire your knowledge, truth seeking nature, and humility.

 


Coherent
Posts: 15
Joined: 2013-01-16
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster

harleysportster wrote:

Coherent wrote:

 I accept evolution.  Physics, I'm completely blind to the math involved to prove the theories; but I can comprehend the implications of those findings.  Same to a lot of science, but I will admit I'm not knowledgable of these topics.  I'm majoring in Education and Philosophy (Epistemology), and want to be a teacher, and eventually an administrator; in hopes of reforming our current policy.

Not trying to switch the topic here, but what sort of things would you like to see reformed ?

 

I would like to change the way knowledge is taught within schools, by getting rid of the memorization, and allowing them to critically think about topics.  So, get rid of all the vocabulary, "who did this" questions on tests, and just provide them with multiple sources of information to create their own ideologies, much like many of us have done ourselves.  Through teaching them the critical thinking method, they would be able to teach themselves about anything.  Instead, say in history (which is what I'd like to teach), they give you one story, "His Story," without allowing the students to interpret other historical data for themselves.  With this method, their is no reason, it just...is what it is.  And the sad thing is that this method of teaching is of imperialist design, and people are okay with that.  I'm not, and with a firm grasp on the concepts of effective teaching, and what knowledge is and how it is obtained, I believe I can formulate a successful blueprint for maximum school district achievement.  First, I must prove my method in the classroom.  All in due time.

I also would like to have a strong community feel in my district.  I and other administrators, are going to work with our staff first hand to teach this blueprint, and allow the parents to come in, watch, and discuss with us during our conferences.  Also, I'd like to our students to be aware of mental and physical disbilities, by explain why they happen, and explaining the symptoms, so they can at least grasp what a person is suffering from.  This would decrease a lot of bullying I believe, or at the very least, create a support system for those kids who do have these disabilities.

Along with creating a better teacher evaluation system (diminishing of high stakes standardized testing), I have a lot of other ideas, but I'll save them for the school board.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1831
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
You may have already heard

You may have already heard of Ken Robinson, he seems to be echoing your education methodology.

 

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Coherent
Posts: 15
Joined: 2013-01-16
User is offlineOffline
 Yes I have seen that video

 Yes I have seen that video before, and he is a influence of mine.  He is echoing, but doesn't really clarify what needs to be done; he simply just states the problem.  He is completely right though, and we think pretty similarly on the subject.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3360
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Coherent wrote:I would like

Coherent wrote:

I would like to change the way knowledge is taught within schools, by getting rid of the memorization, and allowing them to critically think about topics.  So, get rid of all the vocabulary, "who did this" questions on tests, and just provide them with multiple sources of information to create their own ideologies, much like many of us have done ourselves.  Through teaching them the critical thinking method, they would be able to teach themselves about anything.  Instead, say in history (which is what I'd like to teach), they give you one story, "His Story," without allowing the students to interpret other historical data for themselves.  With this method, their is no reason, it just...is what it is.  And the sad thing is that this method of teaching is of imperialist design, and people are okay with that.  I'm not, and with a firm grasp on the concepts of effective teaching, and what knowledge is and how it is obtained, I believe I can formulate a successful blueprint for maximum school district achievement.  First, I must prove my method in the classroom.  All in due time.

I also would like to have a strong community feel in my district.  I and other administrators, are going to work with our staff first hand to teach this blueprint, and allow the parents to come in, watch, and discuss with us during our conferences.  Also, I'd like to our students to be aware of mental and physical disbilities, by explain why they happen, and explaining the symptoms, so they can at least grasp what a person is suffering from.  This would decrease a lot of bullying I believe, or at the very least, create a support system for those kids who do have these disabilities.

Along with creating a better teacher evaluation system (diminishing of high stakes standardized testing), I have a lot of other ideas, but I'll save them for the school board.

I'd have to say that I agree with much of what you are saying.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno