|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Dawkins Theistic Probability Scale
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
As Angloid has said previously, God is reality. God is not part of reality.
Isn't that Pantheism? You're doing well Evensong - that's two heresies in one week! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) (the other was Nestorianism)
No sweetcheeks, that's not pantheism. It would be if God is only reality.
And no, the other wasn't Nestorianism unless two different natures in one hypostasis is what you call Nestorianism.
Do I detect a teeny bit of squirming there, evensong? ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Karl: Liberal Backslider: Is it really difficult to understand the question "is there a God?"
Yes, to me it is. Like I said, my position can probably be described as Panentheistic, meaning that the Universe exists within God but that God also transcedes the Universe (as you probably know).
To me, this means that we have to be very careful when we are using words to describe God. Words and language are our human way of trying to understand the world and the Universe around us. Since God isn't restricted to that Universe, these words lose their applicability somewhat.
This doesn't mean that we can't talk about God at all --we wouldn't have a Bible if we couldn't-- but I feel much more comfortable trying to talk about what God does (within the Universe) than about who He is.
However you try to define the verb 'to be' (and after centuries of ontology, I think no philosopher has ever completely succeeded), its meaning is restricted to within the Universe. Outside of it, all bets are off.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Karl: Liberal Backslider: They mean that there is such a being for them to be applied to.
You realize that you're using a circular definition here? What you're saying comes down to: "To be means that there is such a being..."
Maybe, but the problem is that the question seems deliberately obtuse. Is it really difficult to understand the question "is there a God?"
But people want to unpack such a question. It does raise many interesting issues to do with the whole concept of God - for example, are we talking about a being, or about being itself; are we talking about 'is' as empirical existence, and if not, then what?; are we talking about an item in the universe, or an item outside the universe; what does it mean to be 'outside' the universe?
I tend to assume that forums such as this actually encourage this kind of debate and examination, and not simply accepting things uncritically.
In fact, I was trained as a professional academic, when faced with a particular argument or proposition, to examine its premises and presuppositions, to see if the terms used make sense and are consistent, to look for 'covert' stuff, that is sneaked in, and so on.
Others might see this as quibbling, I suppose!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
No sweetcheeks, that's not pantheism. It would be if God is only reality.
Panentheism then?
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
angelfish
Shipmate
# 8884
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
To me, this means that we have to be very careful when we are using words to describe God. Words and language are our human way of trying to understand the world and the Universe around us. Since God isn't restricted to that Universe, these words lose their applicability somewhat.
This doesn't mean that we can't talk about God at all --we wouldn't have a Bible if we couldn't-- but I feel much more comfortable trying to talk about what God does (within the Universe) than about who He is.
However you try to define the verb 'to be' (and after centuries of ontology, I think no philosopher has ever completely succeeded), its meaning is restricted to within the Universe. Outside of it, all bets are off.
Well, when asked His name God famously said "I AM" so He doesn't seem to have a problem with applying the verb to be to Himself. I don't think asking the question "does God exist?" is as nonsensical as, say, "how big is God?".
--------------------
"As God is my witness, I WILL kick Bishop Brennan up the arse!"
Posts: 1017 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
angelfish: Well, when asked His name God famously said "I AM" so He doesn't seem to have a problem with applying the verb to be to Himself.
Do you really understand what God meant with this answer, when he was asked about His name? I interpret this as God being deliberately vague or poetic. His use of the verb without a predicate is already an indication of that.
In any case, when I said that we have to be careful when using words trying to describe God, my use of 'we' explicitly doesn't include God.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
angelfish: Well, when asked His name God famously said "I AM" so He doesn't seem to have a problem with applying the verb to be to Himself.
Do you really understand what God meant with this answer, when he was asked about His name? I interpret this as God being deliberately vague or poetic. His use of the verb without a predicate is already an indication of that.
In any case, when I said that we have to be careful when using words trying to describe God, my use of 'we' explicitly doesn't include God.
Maybe, but perhaps we can frame the question is "is there someone to talk from the burning bush, or can it not have happened because there is no god to do it?"
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
quote:
So you think that a naturalistic 'theory of God' is possible? Well, obviously it is - it's called Mormonism. But the standard Christian view has been that God is 'without body, parts, or passions'.
If the standard Christian view is that God is 'without body, parts, or passions' and also has no effect whatsoever on the natural world, your objection might hold water and Dawkins would not have included Christianity in his book. As it is, he uses, as I said before, the same sort of reasoning used in Evidentialist Apologetics, aimed in the opposite direction, of course.
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
I've not really been following this thread, as I renounce Dawkins and all his works and empty promises. But on In Our Time on Radio 4 this morning, the discussion was of the ontological argument for the existence of God. I was particularly interested in the argument of Alvin Plantinga. I'm pretty clueless about S5 modal logic, but the argument seems to be that if it is possible that God exists, and has all the usualy godly attributes, then he necessarily exists.
If this argument holds water, it suggests to me that the probability of God's existence is either 0 or 1 - nothing in between.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Karl: Liberal Backslider: Maybe, but perhaps we can frame the question is "is there someone to talk from the burning bush, or can it not have happened because there is no god to do it?"
FYI, I take the story of the burning bush metaphorically. But putting it more broadly, I have no problem at all with the question "Does God talk to us?" because that concentrates on what God does, not on whether/if/who He is.
Of course, you'll argue that God has to exist first before He can do anything, but that argument is only valid for beings within our Universe.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Karl: Liberal Backslider: Maybe, but perhaps we can frame the question is "is there someone to talk from the burning bush, or can it not have happened because there is no god to do it?"
FYI, I take the story of the burning bush metaphorically. But putting it more broadly, I have no problem at all with the question "Does God talk to us?" because that concentrates on what God does, not on whether/if/who He is.
Of course, you'll argue that God has to exist first before He can do anything, but that argument is only valid for beings within our Universe.
Not as far as I can see. If there's no god, he can't talk to us. Is there one or not? I really, really don't get the difficulty with this. Inside the universe, outside it - is he there at all?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Karl: Liberal Backslider: Inside the universe, outside it - is he there at all?
Can you give me a definition of what the verb 'to be' might mean outside of the Universe?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Karl: Liberal Backslider: Inside the universe, outside it - is he there at all?
Can you give me a definition of what the verb 'to be' might mean outside of the Universe?
Exactly the same as it means inside it. Is there a God there or not? Surely that's a yes/no question?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Karl: Liberal Backslider: Exactly the same as it means inside it.
![[Confused]](confused.gif) I really don't understand this. Every possible definition of 'to be' is linked to this Universe. I see no way how you can extrapolate them beyond it.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Karl: Liberal Backslider: Exactly the same as it means inside it.
I really don't understand this. Every possible definition of 'to be' is linked to this Universe. I see no way how you can extrapolate them beyond it.
![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif) Tell me what question to ask, please!
Pretend I'm 8. Pretend I've come to you and said "Dad, you talk about God but some people say he doesn't exist. He does, doesn't he?"
And frame your answer for this imaginary 8 year old.
[ 27. September 2012, 12:47: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Karl: Liberal Backslider: Exactly the same as it means inside it.
I really don't understand this. Every possible definition of 'to be' is linked to this Universe. I see no way how you can extrapolate them beyond it.
I think there's an odd distinction being made between "inside" and "outside" here. The Universe isn't a goldfish bowl with God looking in from outside. Contrary to Mark Betts's implication upthread, panentheism isn't a heresy.
Of course there is a disctinction between creator and created. But it's easy to apply the verb "to be" to the creator: "'to be' is to be that upon which all created things are contingent".
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I have no problem at all with the question "Does God talk to us?" because that concentrates on what God does, not on whether/if/who He is.
Well if there is no God, how can He possibly talk to us?
All you're trying to do is take it for granted that God is, and then talk about what He does. But the question is about whether He is in the first place! At least have the honesty to say you think He definitely exists!
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Karl: Liberal Backslider: Tell me what question to ask, please!
Maybe it would help, if you gave me an idea of what you mean by 'to be' (it doesn't need to be full-fledged definition, just an idea of which direction you are thinking in). Then I'll try to tell you if I think it could apply outside of the Universe or not.
quote:
Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Pretend I'm 8. Pretend I've come to you and said "Dad, you talk about God but some people say he doesn't exist. He does, doesn't he?"
And frame your answer for this imaginary 8 year old.
"Dear Karlie, God is really big. So big, that we can't completely understand Him. So, I don't really know what it means if God exists or not. But what I do know, is that He really, really loves you."
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Karl: Liberal Backslider: Tell me what question to ask, please!
Maybe it would help, if you gave me an idea of what you mean by 'to be' (it doesn't need to be full-fledged definition, just an idea of which direction you are thinking in). Then I'll try to tell you if I think it could apply outside of the Universe or not.
Is not just a nice idea or a silly delusion but actually refers to some kind of objective reality.
quote:
quote:
Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Pretend I'm 8. Pretend I've come to you and said "Dad, you talk about God but some people say he doesn't exist. He does, doesn't he?"
And frame your answer for this imaginary 8 year old.
"Dear Karlie, God is really big. So big, that we can't completely understand Him. So, I don't really know what it means if God exists or not. But what I do know, is that He really, really loves you."
Sorry, my 8 year old can spot empty flannel at a hundred paces, and that's exactly what he'd see there. In fact, he'd probably interpret that as "that so doesn't answer my question that what I think you're saying is 'no, not really, but I can't admit it'"
[ 27. September 2012, 12:56: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Karl: Liberal Backslider: Sorry, my 8 year old can spot empty flannel at a hundred paces, and that's exactly what he'd see there. In fact, he'd probably interpret that as "that so doesn't answer my question that what I think you're saying is 'no, not really, but I can't admit it'"
That's his prerrogative. But my experience is that most children understand quite well that 'to exist' can have fluid meanings, perhaps even better than adults.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Karl: Liberal Backslider: Is not just a nice idea or a silly delusion but actually refers to some kind of objective reality.
Whoa, care to define 'objective reality' outside of our Universe?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Karl: Liberal Backslider: Sorry, my 8 year old can spot empty flannel at a hundred paces, and that's exactly what he'd see there. In fact, he'd probably interpret that as "that so doesn't answer my question that what I think you're saying is 'no, not really, but I can't admit it'"
That's his prerrogative. But my experience is that most children understand quite well that 'to exist' can have fluid meanings, perhaps even better than adults.
Well, perhaps you'll have to try again explaining the answer to that question to this obviously very stupid 44 year old, because at the moment you just seem to be evading a very simple question.
"God loves me" means absolutely fuck all if God is just an idea. Is he just an idea, or is he an objective reality of some kind?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Karl: Liberal Backslider: Is not just a nice idea or a silly delusion but actually refers to some kind of objective reality.
Whoa, care to define 'objective reality' outside of our Universe?
Yes. For the purposes of this discussion, "Is not merely something people just made up for some reason" will do.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Karl: Liberal Backslider: Well, perhaps you'll have to try again explaining the answer to that question to this obviously very stupid 44 year old, because at the moment you just seem to be evading a very simple question.
I'm not sure if I can. I think that no-one can ever explain God.
quote:
Karl: Liberal Backslider: Is he just an idea, or is he an objective reality of some kind?
I'm sorry, but like I said, I don't know what the word 'objective reality' means when applied to a Being outside of the Universe.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Karl: Liberal Backslider: Well, perhaps you'll have to try again explaining the answer to that question to this obviously very stupid 44 year old, because at the moment you just seem to be evading a very simple question.
I'm not sure if I can. I think that no-one can ever explain God.
I'm not asking you to explain God. The question is whether there's a God to explain or whether it's all a load of bollocks.
quote:
quote:
Karl: Liberal Backslider: Is he just an idea, or is he an objective reality of some kind?
I'm sorry, but like I said, I don't know what the word 'objective reality' means when applied to a Being outside of the Universe.
This is starting to sound like "I'm sorry, Dave, I can't do that."
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Contrary to Mark Betts's implication upthread, panentheism isn't a heresy.
You called? In Orthodoxy, there may be a case for discussing the Energies of God as Panentheism, but to ascribe it to the Essence of God most certainly is a heresy of the most extreme kind.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Karl: Liberal Backslider: For the purposes of this discussion, "Is not merely something people just made up for some reason" will do.
I'm sorry, this again has the flavour of a circular definition.
Tbh, when it comes to beings that exist outside of our Universe, I'm not even sure if there is an distinction between 'it exists' and 'we made it up'. Does love exist or is it an idea we made up?)
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
(LOL, I seem to be lagging one post behind.)
quote:
Karl: Liberal Backslider: I'm not asking you to explain God. The question is whether there's a God to explain or whether it's all a load of bollocks.
If we want to answer the question "is there a God?", we'd have to explain a couple of things about God first. Because that determines the meaning of the word 'is'.
The verb 'to exist' can have different meanings, depending on the domain you apply it to. In all of sentences below, the word 'exists' has different meanings, because it is applied to different ontological domains:- The computer I am writing on exists.
- England exists.
- Love exists.
- The variable x exists.
So if you want to understand the meaning of the word 'exists', you first have to determine what ontological domain you're talking about.
Now what is the ontological domain that God belongs to? I have no idea. That's why I don't like apply the verb 'to exist' to Him.
quote:
Karl: Liberal Backslider: This is starting to sound like "I'm sorry, Dave, I can't do that."
No, it sounds more like: "Please, Dave, can you explain to me what 'objective reality' could mean outside of our Universe?"
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Karl: Liberal Backslider: For the purposes of this discussion, "Is not merely something people just made up for some reason" will do.
I'm sorry, this again has the flavour of a circular definition.
Tbh, when it comes to beings that exist outside of our Universe, I'm not even sure if there is an distinction between 'it exists' and 'we made it up'. Does love exist or is it an idea we made up?)
Unlike love, which is a concept, God is meant to be a person. Well, three of them. The question is is there such a person, inside or outside the universe?
If he's just an idea then I'm really not that interested.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Karl: Liberal Backslider: Unlike love, which is a concept, God is meant to be a person.
Don't worry, I do believe in a personal God, a God that reveals Himself to us in different ways, and whom we can adress as a person.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Karl: Liberal Backslider: Unlike love, which is a concept, God is meant to be a person.
Don't worry, I do believe in a personal God, a God that reveals Himself to us in different ways, and whom we can adress as a person.
Way. We get there. Now, all the Theistic Probability Spectrum is asking is "how sure are you of that belief"?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Karl: Liberal Backslider: Way. We get there. Now, all the Theistic Probability Spectrum is asking is "how sure are you of that belief"?
Exactly. I had to mentally reinterpret the definitions of the TPS somewhat, trying to bring them a bit closer to my frame of understanding, before I could give some kind of answer to it. This is how I arrived at my answer that I'm probably in position 1 on the scale.
(Like others have said on this thread, how this reflects on the way I lead my life is an entirely different question.)
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Contrary to Mark Betts's implication upthread, panentheism isn't a heresy.
You called? In Orthodoxy, there may be a case for discussing the Energies of God as Panentheism, but to ascribe it to the Essence of God most certainly is a heresy of the most extreme kind.
But that's precisely the distinction between pantheism and panentheism: creation is not identified with the creator (pantheism), but continues in existence insofar as it is suffused with his Energies (panentheism).
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
My question again to the 1s is - why are you so certain - I genuinely want to know, because if God is real then I'd like to know it for certain myself.
Whenever I'm doubting and starting to lean toward atheism, I stop when I consider the wonder of self-awareness. As far as I'm concerned, there's no way it could emerge out of inert matter and therefore constitutes proof enough for me that there is more to creation than just the physical universe. I've enjoyed contemplating my own self-awareness and letting it boggle my mind since I was a young teenager.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Contrary to Mark Betts's implication upthread, panentheism isn't a heresy.
You called? In Orthodoxy, there may be a case for discussing the Energies of God as Panentheism, but to ascribe it to the Essence of God most certainly is a heresy of the most extreme kind.
Which 'Orthodoxy'? The denomination(s)? Or 'orthodoxy' as opposed to heterodoxy?
I don't think panentheism is heretical.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
But that's precisely the distinction between pantheism and panentheism: creation is not identified with the creator (pantheism), but continues in existence insofar as it is suffused with his Energies (panentheism).
Exactly. God's Energies ARE God. They are uncreated. If God's Energies suffuse the created realm (which they do), then what we have is panentheism, even if God's essence does not suffuse the created realm. Inasmuch as you can talk separately about God's essence and energies (and I understand some people don't think it a meaningful or orthodox (small-o) way of talking about God), the question of panentheism is exactly the sort of thing that the distinction is meant to apply to.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
My question again to the 1s is - why are you so certain - I genuinely want to know, because if God is real then I'd like to know it for certain myself.
Whenever I'm doubting and starting to lean toward atheism, I stop when I consider the wonder of self-awareness. As far as I'm concerned, there's no way it could emerge out of inert matter and therefore constitutes proof enough for me that there is more to creation than just the physical universe. I've enjoyed contemplating my own self-awareness and letting it boggle my mind since I was a young teenager.
"I think, therefore I am," yes that's one way of looking at it. The problem is that if you say you are a '1' some will require you to justify it, whereas anything else is accepted without question. No-one ever seems to ask you to explain why you are a '7'.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
My question again to the 1s is - why are you so certain - I genuinely want to know, because if God is real then I'd like to know it for certain myself.
Whenever I'm doubting and starting to lean toward atheism, I stop when I consider the wonder of self-awareness. As far as I'm concerned, there's no way it could emerge out of inert matter and therefore constitutes proof enough for me that there is more to creation than just the physical universe. I've enjoyed contemplating my own self-awareness and letting it boggle my mind since I was a young teenager.
I like that a lot, and I have also been contemplating the I since I was a nipper. I don't think there is a rational argument from 'I am an I' to 'There is a divine I am', but somehow, they seem to squeeze up close to each other. I suppose the nature of the I seems to invite one to plunge deeper into its mysteries, where one might encounter a universal I.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
Whenever I'm doubting and starting to lean toward atheism, I stop when I consider the wonder of self-awareness. As far as I'm concerned, there's no way it could emerge out of inert matter
Not in one go, no. It took billions of years of chemical interactions followed by evolution to get there.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
Yes, it did take billions of years of evolution to get to a brain complex enough to support our self-awareness, but I do not believe that what I experience can be caused in any way by a purely physical process. A lot of smart people have postulated that complexity is sufficient for self-awareness to emerge, but I don't buy it.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
Yes, it did take billions of years of evolution to get to a brain complex enough to support our self-awareness, but I do not believe that what I experience can be caused in any way by a purely physical process.
Why not?
I mean, I'm not claiming to fully understand how our central nervous systems came to be or how they work, but it doesn't seem so impossible to me that they're the product of a whole load of incremental developments from more basic structures.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
My question again to the 1s is - why are you so certain - I genuinely want to know, because if God is real then I'd like to know it for certain myself.
Whenever I'm doubting and starting to lean toward atheism, I stop when I consider the wonder of self-awareness. As far as I'm concerned, there's no way it could emerge out of inert matter and therefore constitutes proof enough for me that there is more to creation than just the physical universe. I've enjoyed contemplating my own self-awareness and letting it boggle my mind since I was a young teenager.
"I think, therefore I am," yes that's one way of looking at it. The problem is that if you say you are a '1' some will require you to justify it, whereas anything else is accepted without question. No-one ever seems to ask you to explain why you are a '7'.
I would, but I've never met anyone who identifies as a 7.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
In the original poll, on the Richard Dawkins Forum, now alas closed down, I think that 7 got about 25% of the vote. I doubt if it can be accessed now, as everything went down the pan, but I will have a look at the archive.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
Yes, it did take billions of years of evolution to get to a brain complex enough to support our self-awareness, but I do not believe that what I experience can be caused in any way by a purely physical process.
Why not?
I mean, I'm not claiming to fully understand how our central nervous systems came to be or how they work, but it doesn't seem so impossible to me that they're the product of a whole load of incremental developments from more basic structures.
I can accept that everything can, in theory, be explained by physical mechanisms, except for awareness. I don't see how a physical mechanism can possibly contribute anything to explaining the subjective experience of being aware of my own thoughts. Memory and complicated behavior, yes, but awareness is a completely different category.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
I wouldn't have wasted your time. Self-selecting sample is self-selecting, the options were stark choices between integers (I know lots who would call themselves 6.9 and would probably find 7 a better fit than 6 if pushed), and whatever the nature of the poll, I don't know any of the people involved, so it's irrelevant to my statement.
If you or Mark or anyone else is huffy because you know someone who's a genuine 7 but never gets asked how they can be so certain there's no God, the person to blame is sat at your keyboard right now. Otherwise, I don't see what the problem is.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I don't have a problem with it at all. As far as I remember, on RDF, the 7s expounded at great length why they voted 7. I thought they were being honest really, and the 6s were really not expressing a genuine doubt, so much as a kind of intellectual point. I don't have a problem with that either.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
I wouldn't have wasted your time. Self-selecting sample is self-selecting
Gee, lots of atheists on a Richard Dawkins forum. Who'd'a thunk?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
If you or Mark or anyone else is huffy because you know someone who's a genuine 7 but never gets asked how they can be so certain there's no God, the person to blame is sat at your keyboard right now. Otherwise, I don't see what the problem is.
I'm not a 7, but I'm very happy to explain why I'm vacillating between belief and unbelief. And although I see that atheists are under no compulsion to explain why they don't believe in something (and that can be quite hard anyway), it is an interesting discussion point.
I find it hard to believe that a God who is real is more bothered about someone's left leg than the pain caused by a tsunami. And it isn't just about pain, it is about a God who appears to be far more concerned with being opaque, making statements which can be misunderstood, being mysterious and whatnot than actually doing something good and useful.
Today I'm mostly feeling like a Deist - if there is a Creator God, he is not knowable, involved or particularly bothered by what is going on down here.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Sometimes, the existence of God seems so real and palpable to me, that I am staggered at my own inability at other times to see it. So, I veer between 1 and 7.
I also have a 1*, which is beyond certainty, where there is no condition or via or mental attitude, of someone being certain about something; there is just God.
[ 27. September 2012, 18:05: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
