|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Would you look in the box?
|
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048
|
Posted
quote:
Well for me it would save me my giving to my church and the hours I spend there each week... if there was no God, I really wouldn't be there each week
I still think there's a lot of point-missing going on. I personally would still attend church, even if I knew for sure that there wasn't any God.
For me, the reason why I'm interested in religion is death. The death of friends and relatives who have already died and who I grieve, the future death of friends and relatives who haven't died yet, but who are perhaps ill or elderly (or just plain mortal) - and, not least of all, my own future death (seeing as I think I'm mortal too).
Science doesn't solve the question of how we feel about death. Okay, religion doesn't entirely solve it either, but unlike science, at least religion tries.
The story of the death of Jesus on the cross and his subsequent resurrection, plus the stuff in Revelation too about his future return and judgement, is useful to me because it helps me to articulate the way I feel about death. As a result, it also helps me grapple with existential questions like "What's the purpose of life?" and "Why do we do the things we do?" and "Will anyone remember us after we've died?" and "Do we care whether they do remember us or not?"
Whether God actually exists or not - and whether Jesus really died on the cross and rose again from the dead or not - doesn't actually make any difference to that, because either way, the story is still useful as a source of metaphor and imagery to help us talk about life and death. And for me, that's the whole point.
It's true that a lot of people bang on about how important it is that God really does exist, and that he can be conceived of in a certain way, and that the historical facts of Jesus are this, that and the other. But for me, that's missing the point. I don't want to put people off indulging in their messianic fantasies - however, when people start telling me that the resurrection of Jesus means that we don't have to worry about death any more, it can come across as though they're trying to shut us up.
It's as though death is a taboo subject, and they want to keep it a taboo subject. When we try to raise the issue of grief and bereavement, they shout us down about the resurrection, as though the fact that we still want to talk about death somehow implies that we don't believe in the resurrection, which in turn somehow implies that we are "bad people". Personally, I find that rather irksome.
Though I can't prove it, I suspect that all religion and mythology has its origins in people's attempt to come to terms with issues like honour and shame, and life and death. And that includes the Christian concept of "God". But those concerns don't go away just because you conceive of "God" in a particular way. That's why I don't think it's possible to prove whether God exists or not. I also suspect that to attempt to prove it one way or the other is to miss the point of why people thought up the idea of "God" in the first place.
Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
My answer's yes, but I like Wilson's observation that a 1-person-only proof looks quite a lot like 'faith' anyway.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Foxy
Shipmate
# 2409
|
Posted
A one-person-only proof looks like faith only if you are lucky enough to possess a faith that never fails you. My faith is disconcertingly likely to shimmer and vanish like a mirage for periods of time, and then mysteriously "firm-up" again, sometimes having shifted a little this way, or a little that....
Posts: 499 | From: 11 blocks west | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
The OP is hypothetical in the extreme, but I think for those of us who have faith that God exists, it begs for the very real question of why, if God does exist, does he not give us more and stronger evidence of that fact?
To me, the answer is partly that when our faith comes and goes because we lack conclusive proof and sensory evidence, we think about it more and struggle to hang on to it, which makes it all the more important to us. Also, earlier posts have touched on what seem to me to be other parts of the answer, like Eliab: "... there is spiritual benefit to be had in the process of looking for God while you are still uncertain." fletcher christian: "It might have a negative effect on my sense of freedom if I looked and the answer was 'yes'" and MiceElf: "I do not want to be faced with my stubborn refusal to embrace all that believing in an Immortal Invisible God only Wise would involve"
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
Mousethief is, as usual, very perceptive about the realistic limitations of the OP. However, in the spirit of what I think IbP meant, my answer is:
No, I would not open the box.
There's a lot of baggage in that, obviously. Please forgive me while I unpack it a bit.
Having already discarded the tedious realities associated with Mousethief's concerns, I am still left with a profound sense that fundamentally it should not matter whether or not there is a god. To me, personally, I mean. Because - duh - if I can roll out this proof to the whole world, I'm just enough of an attention whore to do so. But since IbP cleverly nested the idea inside the realm of the purely personal, I have to face my own self-contained relationship with this particular Big Unknown.
That relationship is a complicated one - one that has been refined considerably during my time here, actually. I'm not sure if I can adequately convey my appreciation for the way different, even conflicting, viewpoints have come to play an active part in my Ultimate Outlook. Perpendicular weaves of "am I being the best person I can be" and "what cognitive bias am I blind to right now" have me questioning pretty much everything I think and feel and do, in a myriad of ways. But there is one constant that I have discovered about myself:
I like figuring it out for myself.
And there it sits. Egotism. I have my own self-constructed ideals, and I like forming plans and arguments from them. And patting myself on the back for not screwing up too badly (I lie to myself).
So what does opening IbP's box get me? Well, essentially, it means that my pretty little set of ideals can be measured against an Absolute Truth - but I don't get the feeling that I get to fathom that Absolute Truth beyond just the existence of god thing. Meh. All I find, when it gets right down to it, is that I know whether or not I can address a specific entity in my thoughts about... well, everything. Not sure if I care about that, really. I'll give it a pass. Probably mostly because I lack the required humility.
In the end, I'd just give the box to somebody else who needs it more than I do.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
I just had this nasty thought:
What if you didn't open the box, and after a while it started to smell?
Acht! I spoiled The Truth!
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Smell, you mean like dead cat?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
RooK: quote:
I just had this nasty thought:
What if you didn't open the box, and after a while it started to smell?
You mean that our human apprehensions of the Truth of God have a sell-by date? Now, there's a thought!
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Foxy:
A one-person-only proof looks like faith only if you are lucky enough to possess a faith that never fails you. My faith is disconcertingly likely to shimmer and vanish like a mirage for periods of time, and then mysteriously "firm-up" again, sometimes having shifted a little this way, or a little that....
I sympathise - because my faith certainly didn't "never fail". However when I said it looks like faith I meant by that either:
a) those times when your faith hasn't vanished
or
b) those times when it has but you kept up the practice of religion anyway.
In these times I would argue that the only difference between looking in the box and a)/b) above is the degree of personal felt certainty.[*]
I suspect it's actually more similar than that because I suspect that unless we're allowed to keep the box constantly with us and constantly open then we'll tend to lose the feeling of certainty anyway - similar to the feeling of "have I left the gas on?" when you know perfectly well you switched it off.
In that sense I do think it has a sell-by date.
[*]the case where one's faith vanishes and one gives up practising (assuming this is more than a brief blip) certainly doesn't look like 1-person-proof but I'm not sure how it can be called faith either.
Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
I personally would still attend church, even if I knew for sure that there wasn't any God.
Really? Amazing. Well, perhaps not so amazing, I guess church can serve a social and/or entertainment function. Perhaps more precisely: Would you still attend church if you knew that there wasn't a God and there were better opportunities to socialize, hear good music, etc. readily available to you?
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
No, I would not open the box. ... I am still left with a profound sense that fundamentally it should not matter whether or not there is a god.
Clearly it matters a lot to you whether there is a god or not, if that decides so clearly your course of action (namely, to not open the box). It's difficult to demonstrate indifference, just as it is difficult to follow a command to be spontaneous. Nevertheless, if you decisively didn't care, then you should rather think something a la Psyduck above: "But if it's a good box, it could be useful for storage..."
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Piglit
Apprentice
# 15612
|
Posted
I'd open it.
My doubt over whether God's there or not has been a major reason my life has had so little impact. If I had proof, everything would change, knowing for certain what I struggle to believe.
Admitedly, it would leave an awful lot of interesting questions unanswered!
Posts: 35 | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
What's the point, I have the answer already.
Apologies if anyone has beaten me to that.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Martin!! Good to see ya! ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
No, I would not open the box. ... I am still left with a profound sense that fundamentally it should not matter whether or not there is a god.
Clearly it matters a lot to you whether there is a god or not, if that decides so clearly your course of action (namely, to not open the box). It's difficult to demonstrate indifference, just as it is difficult to follow a command to be spontaneous. Nevertheless, if you decisively didn't care, then you should rather think something a la Psyduck above: "But if it's a good box, it could be useful for storage..."
I feel as if my rambling disclosure about my egotism was wasted in your case.
Yes, I do care. While I feel that whether or not there is a god should not matter (in terms of my philosophical methodology), it is clearly possible that it could matter. As clearly demonstrated by those who claim with certainty that they already know. And, burdened as I am by my ego, I want to be able to work it out myself. For the SAKE of working it out myself.
"Is it possible to climb that mountain?"
I'd rather be the guy who climbed the mountain to find out than to be the guy who waited in the pub eating pickled eggs until the first guy got back and told him the answer.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048
|
Posted
RooK says
quote:
Because - duh - if I can roll out this proof to the whole world, I'm just enough of an attention whore to do so. But since IbP cleverly nested the idea inside the realm of the purely personal, I have to face my own self-contained relationship with this particular Big Unknown.
Interesting observation.
While I'm personally of the opinion that pretty much all afterlife myths are an allegory for honour and shame, it's quite likely that the reason I think that is because I try to rationalise the way I personally feel about life and death, and the things which I think would give my life a purpose, and the things which I think wouldn't. The questions I face go like this: What gets me so excited that I think death wouldn't matter? And what other ambitions do I have that I think the fear of death would put a dampener on?
Basically I'm just an attention whore myself too. In fact, I'm so much of an attention whore, that I'd like people to pay attention to me not just now, but in the future too. Forever! Assuming I'm not doing anything embarrassing, of course - but the point is, I wouldn't want some pesky inconvenience like "death" getting in the way.
What that means is that for me, there's no such thing as a purely personal spirituality. To me, the "Big Unknown", and other people's opinion of me, are one and the same thing.
So is it any surprise that I consider all hero legends and afterlife myths to be an allegory for some aspect of honour and/or shame?
Whenever someone tries to explain that myths and/or religious texts ought to be interpreted some other way, it just sounds .... well .... wrong. But besides, the people who say that honour and shame don't matter are generally weirdoes with few or no friends, so I don't tend to rate their opinions that highly. That doesn't mean I'm not a weirdo myself, though.
Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Foxy
Shipmate
# 2409
|
Posted
Jessie, I didn't get much sleep last night and my thinking is admittedly fuzzy today, but I can't quite get a bead on what you're saying--I feel like I'm missing something. Do you have a belief in a God of any sort? It sounds to me like your main points are that you have fear of death/annihilation, and that that fear is mitigated by thinking that people won't forget you when you're dead. But it doesn't sound like you have any belief in an actual "Other" greater than yourself. Is that right? If you did have concrete, undeniable proof that there was a "person" called God would that change your worldview?
Or have I totally misread you?
Posts: 499 | From: 11 blocks west | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
I feel as if my rambling disclosure about my egotism was wasted in your case.
Rambling about one's egotism is generally a waste to all but oneself. That's why one has to pay good money to see a shrink...
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
And, burdened as I am by my ego, I want to be able to work it out myself. For the SAKE of working it out myself.
As scientist I've made some kind of career out of "working things out myself". And I've never ever had the impression that the world was running out of mystery just because I obtained some additional piece of information about it. To the contrary, the more knowledge I have obtained about anything, the deeper and more beautiful the mystery became.
So I doubt that this is about the informational content (does God exist or not) as such for you. Clearly gaining that bit of information can only broaden the general playing field for "working things out".
Rather, I reckon this is more subtly about a kind of mental voodoo. By working things out one becomes a kind of master over the subject, even if that's not so practically speaking. I may drown in the tsunami I correctly predicted. Yet though the tsunami can still kill me, I somehow have taken its measure by understanding when and how it will.
And so I reckon your desire to work out yourself whether God exists has to do with the desire to be on a level with God, or even His master, in that same mental voodoo sense. Yes, the Creator He may be, all powerful etc. But at least you would have found that out yourself, rather than having it revealed to you by Him (whether by a box or otherwise).
In that sense then perhaps it would be good if one would get such a box only once one had come the believe in God by faith in what has been revealed. For then one has already accepted some failure of mental mastery, one has already accepted that as human one requires assistance, mental alms from the Holy Spirit...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Eutychus, I've missed you guys. Life has been ... interesting. Keep away from that window!
As no one has taken my bait, which wouldn't have been worth the bite to all the rhetoricians, I'll wait.
You never know, one of the denizens might rise to snap the line.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Rationally, irrefutable proof is the negation of faith. Knowing God exists would destroy my faith, and destroy me too most likely.
OK, I haven't read through the whole thread so someone may have addressed this, but...
Rationally, irrefutable proof is the negation of not knowing. There is no such thing as "faith" in purely rational categories. That's probably why rationalists reduced the meaning of faith to believing in something you lack proof for.
Faith is much more than that - it's trust. You have to have faith in reason to even be a rationalist. You have to then have faith in all the sense data and in all the conclusions you draw from that data, and in all the processes whereby you draw those conclusions.
Nothing can be proven to the point that it's outside the realm of faith. Faith is a prerequisite for reason, not its negation.
I would open the box, because I'm a curious person. But whatever the "irrefutable proof" might be (and I seriously doubt there could be such a thing), it would raise questions and require interpretation, just as the irrefutable proof that the sky is blue requires interpretation. Once we all look up at the sky, we're not going to argue about whether the sky is blue or orange; we're going to discuss what that means: how it is that our sense perceptions register blue; what it is that is blue (what is the sky, anyway?); how is it we know we all see the same thing when we say we're seeing blue; questions like that.
If the box contains proof that God exists, then some of the questions it would raise might include:
--How should we then live?
--Why isn't this existence obvious to everyone? Why is it possible to disbelieve?
--What sort of God is this God who/that exists? And what does that mean?
--What does it mean that God's existence can be proven?
If the box contains proof that God does not exist, then some of the questions it would raise might include:
--How should we then live?
--Why isn't this lack of existence obvious to everyone? Why is it possible to believe in God?
--What sort of God is this who/that doesn't exist? Why do people believe in God, in the kinds of gods they do, and what is really being expressed by those beliefs if there really is no God? I.e., what function does a mythological, non-existent God fill in the human psyche, in human society, and so forth? And what can take its place?
--What does it mean that we can prove no God exists?
And either way, any use one might make of the information requires faith in the box and its contents!
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Rambling about one's egotism is generally a waste to all but oneself. That's why one has to pay good money to see a shrink...
Or cleverly marries one...
But the rest is a reasonable regurgitation of my essential stance, albeit somewhat masticated. Egotism or insufficient humility; either works.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
But the rest is a reasonable regurgitation of my essential stance, albeit somewhat masticated. Egotism or insufficient humility; either works.
Problem is that you've become self-reflective. Your self-deprecation is parading an internal fight of "is" with "ought": you are putting yourself down to justify your status quo - justifying it mostly to yourself, not to us. But you cannot return to being innocently egotistic or prideful once you've noticed that you are. You doubt, and doubt is only metastable...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048
|
Posted
Foxy says
quote:
But it doesn't sound like you have any belief in an actual "Other" greater than yourself. Is that right?
Not quite; my answer to that question would be to question the concept of "greatness". How do we decide what is great and what isn't?
Are kings, sportspeople and celebrities "greater" than people who modestly live out their lives in a one-bedroom apartment, doing a mundane 9-5? If not, then why do we talk about them as though they are?
And what about war heroes who get memorials built for them? And what about saints who come to be recognised in the Roman Martyrology?
It seems to me that you don't even have to exist in order to be considered great. How many of us believe that all of the gods and heroes of Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Norse, Celtic and Arthurian legend actually existed? In spite of their apparent non-existence, they still get poems written about them.
And I don't see why the Christian concept of God is any different. So, in answer to the next question:
quote:
If you did have concrete, undeniable proof that there was a "person" called God would that change your worldview?
Probably not, seeing as I don't believe that greatness is conditional upon existence alone.
IngoB says
quote:
In that sense then perhaps it would be good if one would get such a box only once one had come the believe in God by faith in what has been revealed. For then one has already accepted some failure of mental mastery, one has already accepted that as human one requires assistance, mental alms from the Holy Spirit.
I'm intrigued by the theory that that might have been the way the Eleusinian Mysteries in ancient Athens used to work. You used to have to have "faith" until the secrets were revealed to you. But once the secrets were revealed to you, there were state-sanctioned penalties for revealing them outside of the context of the formal initiation ceremonies.
So who got nailed for spilling the beans? And could this be part of the reason why only a small number of the Athenian tragedies that are thought to have existed have actually survived?
churchgeek says
quote:
Faith is much more than that - it's trust. You have to have faith in reason to even be a rationalist. You have to then have faith in all the sense data and in all the conclusions you draw from that data, and in all the processes whereby you draw those conclusions.
Good point. For example, I have some level of faith that if you sign up to join the armed forces, and you are killed in battle, then the government isn't going to slander you and your family in the national papers, by saying that it was your fault you died, because you failed to keep with the discipline, and you were somehow a coward (oh, and your mother was a whore).
But then - sometimes, I don't have that faith. It's okay to have doubts. But Christian belief isn't the only thing that counts as having "faith", in my opinion.
Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
DonLogan2
Shipmate
# 15608
|
Posted
No box opening for me, not a chance !
Putting all the highbrow arguments aside, as they boggle me grey cells, for the box to contain absolute proof that God exists would mean the Gospels were wrong, totally wrong and therefore so was Isiah etc. and therefore we all disappear up our own singularities.
If the contents of the box say God doesn`t exist then whats the point ?
However it is all academic as I too know the answer.
Many thanks to sharkshooter
quote:
I live in that box.
The existence of all we can see, of creation itself, is proof of the existence of God. The contents of such a box, thus, is the universe.
and for quoting Psalm 19, which has for some reason been following me about for the last wee while ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
“I have of late, but wherefore I know not, lost all my mirth... "
Posts: 359 | From: the very depths | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by DonLogan2:
No box opening for me, not a chance !
Putting all the highbrow arguments aside, as they boggle me grey cells, for the box to contain absolute proof that God exists would mean the Gospels were wrong, totally wrong....
How so?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048
|
Posted
quote:
How so?
I was wondering that too. But I was also wondering - what's wrong with being wrong?
Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
The box is open and the 'proof' is understood according to disposition.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Problem is that you've become self-reflective. Your self-deprecation is parading an internal fight of "is" with "ought": you are putting yourself down to justify your status quo - justifying it mostly to yourself, not to us. But you cannot return to being innocently egotistic or prideful once you've noticed that you are.
"Become" self-reflective? Let's just ignore that outrageously incongruent falsehood.
Putting myself down? You know, I'm really sort of not. I'm pretty OK with my current degree of humility-lacking, but can be humbly honest about it. And it has nothing to do with innocence - I've been completely conscious of this facet for some time now.
quote:
You doubt, and doubt is only metastable...
Actually, I doubt that.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
"Become" self-reflective? Let's just ignore that outrageously incongruent falsehood.
OK, sorry for overestimating your development.
Actually, I was interested in your current state rather than in how recently it came about. And I was praising by faint criticism. But feel free to take offense, it appears to exercise your vocabulary.
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Putting myself down? You know, I'm really sort of not. I'm pretty OK with my current degree of humility-lacking, but can be humbly honest about it.
Shrug. Even in this very reply you continue making self-deprecating excuses.
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
And it has nothing to do with innocence - I've been completely conscious of this facet for some time now.
Time really doesn't matter that much here, except that you only have a finite amount. And I repeat: foundational searches never end by finding, rather it gives them a new lease of life.
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
You doubt, and doubt is only metastable...
Actually, I doubt that.
For now...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Time really doesn't matter that much here, except that you only have a finite amount. And I repeat: foundational searches never end by finding, rather it gives them a new lease of life.
In other words, the search is more important than the result - which implies a certain obsession with procedure over process. Like Martin PC said, the proof is understood according to disposition and it seems both our resident mental collosi would rather stroke themselves than see the light.
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
I just had this nasty thought:
What if you didn't open the box, and after a while it started to smell?
Acht! I spoiled The Truth!
I have smelled the smell and forsooth it is incense.
Yes, I would still attend church if you all opened the box and discovered there was nothing there (as previously stated I wouldn't open it myself, of course). But only if I can still have a choir.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
In other words, the search is more important than the result
That's not what I said. My point was that finding (fundamental) results always opens up new vistas. If I learn that a god exists, this immediately raises the question what kind of god this is. Etc.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IconiumBound
Shipmate
# 754
|
Posted
If the contents of the box is, as Sharkshooter has posted:
[QUOTE I live in that box.
The existence of all we can see, of creation itself, is proof of the existence of God. The contents of such a box, thus, is the universe. ] [/QUOTE]
Is it a large or small box? If small, then it contains that infinite small speck of energy and mass (e=mc2). And where is a god in that?
If it is large enough to contain the universe as we now see it, where does a god exist outside of it?
Posts: 1318 | From: Philadelphia, PA, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
...Is it a large or small box? ...
You are totally missing the point I was making.
There is no need to look in the box. The proof is all around you.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
it seems both our resident mental collosi would rather stroke themselves than see the light.
Quite so, especially in my case. I attribute it to my nocturnal nature: light hurts my wee beady eyes.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
In other words, the search is more important than the result
That's not what I said. My point was that finding (fundamental) results always opens up new vistas. If I learn that a god exists, this immediately raises the question what kind of god this is. Etc.
You're supporting my assertion. If you expect that 'learn[ing] a god exists' simply leads to more searching, with no interest in applying that knowledge, you're more interested in the search than the result. ISTM that to know god exists implies full knowledge of his attributes which makes the question "what kind of god this is, etc." rather moot.
But then, Purg has always been the place for semantic wordplay.
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
ISTM that to know god exists implies full knowledge of his attributes which makes the question "what kind of god this is, etc." rather moot.
I don't agree.
I know that my parents exist, but I'm still learning things about their personalities, even at 48 (me, not them).
I know that my car exists, but I recently learned a much better way of how to drive it, so clearly I didn't know all there was to know about how to operate with it. And I'm still learning things about the car itself; just yesterday I got a warning light on the dash that I'd never seen before.
I know that the Empire State Building exists but apart from going to the top once a long time ago, I know very little about it -- what kinds of businesses are housed in it, how many elevators it has, whether there's a restaurant there.
I know President Obama exists, but I don't know as much about him as I know about my sister.
Etc.
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
If you expect that 'learn[ing] a god exists' simply leads to more searching, with no interest in applying that knowledge, you're more interested in the search than the result.
You are making a distinction that I did not have in mind. As far as my argument is concerned, application a la "God exists. What does that mean for my life? What shall I do?" is simply another search that immediately suggests itself.
quote:
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
ISTM that to know god exists implies full knowledge of his attributes which makes the question "what kind of god this is, etc." rather moot.
As argued already by Autenrieth Road, this is certainly not the case for the regular inventory of the universe. But maybe you have some interesting philosophical ideas about "god" and "knowing" that would support this?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
Anthropomorphism with respect to describing god is a well-worn subject here. I can't appreciate the relevance of knowing god exists as a building or automobile or that there's always more to learn in that respect. To claim bits of knowledge about a concept so completely other as proof of existence is to lose oneself in a hall of mirrors. The whole premise of the OP is an impossible scenario. I can't see any other "proof" for existence of deity than knowing and understanding intimately the whole ball of wax - which suggests becoming.
Ingo, I've attempted several times here over the years to explain my "take" on the creator. It's a mish-mash of principles cobbled together from kabbalism to zoroastrianism - christianity to hermetics and everything between. The truths I've understood are those that are common to all theologies and as such are abhorrent to rigid christian 'rules and regulations' type thinking. The principles that I "know" are those that I'm able to apply in my daily life - mostly through my limited understanding of the creative principle as described in the paths between the sephiroth.
"Proof" is intimate and personal in that all my physically creative action, simple or complex, has become vastly more predictable and efficient - like grease in the gears.
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Process Deist
Apprentice
# 15494
|
Posted
Religion hangs in the balance while we cast lots on the box. I guess that means that religion is about as predictable as the lottery.
--------------------
Purpose does not give life meaning.People give life meaning.
A Purpose Driven Life is a wasted life. A people driven life is a rich life.-Mickey Cooper
Posts: 20 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Process Deist:
Religion hangs in the balance while we cast lots on the box. I guess that means that religion is about as predictable as the lottery.
I swim.
Fish swim.
Therefore I'm a fish.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
To claim bits of knowledge about a concept so completely other as proof of existence is to lose oneself in a hall of mirrors. The whole premise of the OP is an impossible scenario. I can't see any other "proof" for existence of deity than knowing and understanding intimately the whole ball of wax - which suggests becoming.
Let's try to make this a bit more concrete. Say the proof in the box shows conclusively (at least to the one who opened it) that the existence of the universe requires the existence of an uncaused cause, a "creator". I would then say then that that person knows that there is a god. Clearly they don't know all that much about this god. But they do know about the existence of a god, because what they know points to something other and greater than the world.
You appear to disagree. In what way then would this person merely be lost in a hall of mirrors?
quote:
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
"Proof" is intimate and personal in that all my physically creative action, simple or complex, has become vastly more predictable and efficient - like grease in the gears.
And how would you know that this is not also just a hall of mirrors? To realize your "proof" still requires the activity of your mind judging things. Just in this case the modes and experiences of your life, instead of a more abstract proposition. But while you know more about your life, you are also more biased about it, and it is way more complicated. I see no a priori reason why judgment must be true in that case, but must fail about something like an "uncaused cause" argument.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
You appear to disagree. In what way then would this person merely be lost in a hall of mirrors?
The proposition is impossible as you well know - so speculation regarding the condition of knowing that god exists, by that hypothetical proof, is futile wordplay. Still, I would suggest any proof under your conditions would necessarily be filtered through mental/emotional biases and symbolic imagery (senses)... a hall of mirrors. quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
"Proof" is intimate and personal in that all my physically creative action, simple or complex, has become vastly more predictable and efficient - like grease in the gears.
And how would you know that this is not also just a hall of mirrors? To realize your "proof" still requires the activity of your mind judging things. Just in this case the modes and experiences of your life, instead of a more abstract proposition. But while you know more about your life, you are also more biased about it, and it is way more complicated. I see no a priori reason why judgment must be true in that case, but must fail about something like an "uncaused cause" argument.
I make no claim to objective proof for the existence of god. I said that it was intimate and personal. My personal bias requires that knowledge of god be expressible physically through creative action - and it is. "As above - so below", others have said.
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I always love how, when someone asks a hypothetical question with well-defined parameters, some people simply can't resist pointing out their problems with the initial parameters.
It's perfectly fine to question the basis for a question if the question purports to be about practical, real-life issues and aimed to come up with practical, real-life answers. But when something it explicitly acknowledged to be a hypothetical, there are two sensible options:
1. Answer the question as posed.
2. If you don't like the question as posed, don't answer it.
I suppose within option 2 there are two reasonable sub-options:
(a) go create a hypothetical question you DO like somewhere else.
(b) SAY NOTHING.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I always love how, when someone asks a hypothetical question with well-defined parameters, some people simply can't resist pointing out their problems with the initial parameters.
It's perfectly fine to question the basis for a question if the question purports to be about practical, real-life issues and aimed to come up with practical, real-life answers. But when something it explicitly acknowledged to be a hypothetical, there are two sensible options:
1. Answer the question as posed.
2. If you don't like the question as posed, don't answer it.
I suppose within option 2 there are two reasonable sub-options:
(a) go create a hypothetical question you DO like somewhere else.
(b) SAY NOTHING.
Oooh. Look who wants to keep other people from openly voicing their opinions.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Only when the opinions aren't actually on point.
It's the height of intellectual wankery to respond to a hypothetical question by saying "THAT'S not the question you should have asked, here's what I think you should have asked..."
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
On the contrary. It is an extension of the discussion of the parameters. Not at all off-topic, and not at all wankery. You assume that the conditions as set up constitute everything that can be said on the subject, or at least the only conditions under which the subject can be discussed. Discussing the terms themselves IS discussing the OP. At worst, and I don't accept this but it is a possible reading, it is a tangent, but not a very tangential one, and even then avoiding such a tangent is not something the OPer can dictate.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You assume that the conditions as set up constitute everything that can be said on the subject, or at least the only conditions under which the subject can be discussed.
This is precisely why I made a distinction between hypotheticals and other situations.
There is plenty of room within the question to discuss WHY your answer would be 'yes' or 'no', and to discuss the merits of either answer. But when people start saying things along the lines of "I don't accept there is a box", it really does come across as wankery. No-one ever claimed there actually WAS a box, so why waste everybody's time arguing that there isn't a box?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
It clearly chafes you that people want to discuss the subject in ways other than what you want to straightjacket them into. Whatever.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
The proposition is impossible as you well know - so speculation regarding the condition of knowing that god exists, by that hypothetical proof, is futile wordplay.
No, I don't know that. In fact I believe that such argument can exist, and even that the ones we have now have a fair shot already at being compelling. That people are not as compelled by them as one might expect has many reasons, some of which are somewhat reasonable. Anyway, my point is that what I said wasn't intended as outrageously hypothetical...
quote:
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
Still, I would suggest any proof under your conditions would necessarily be filtered through mental/emotional biases and symbolic imagery (senses)... a hall of mirrors. ... My personal bias requires that knowledge of god be expressible physically through creative action - and it is.
So you are claiming that no knowledge of God is possible, which is not entirely conditioned on the person knowing? On what basis do you make that claim then? Clearly humans have managed to gather some knowledge that transcends their individual experience, so why is that not possible with God? In fact, is your claim not simply self-contradictory? After all, it is itself claiming to know something about God in an "objective" (valid for all) sense: namely that nothing "objective" can be known about God.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But when people start saying things along the lines of "I don't accept there is a box", it really does come across as wankery. No-one ever claimed there actually WAS a box, so why waste everybody's time arguing that there isn't a box?
Pointing out that there cannot be such a box is not wankery in the least. Because "there cannot be" is really not at all the same as "there is not".
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Pointing out that there cannot be such a box is not wankery in the least. Because "there cannot be" is really not at all the same as "there is not".
What? The effect,when dealing with a hypothetical, looks pretty much the same to me.
I agree that they are entirely different when dealing with a real-life question. One is about whether something exists in fact based on the available evidence, and the other is about whether something's existence can be ruled out as a matter of principle (therefore ensuring that existence won't be proved later on with better evidence).
But evidence for a hypothetical is an entirely irrelevant and meaningless consideration. The parameters of a hypothetical are axiomatic. They don't require evidence, nor can they be refuted by contrary evidence. That's what makes it a hypothetical. It's BUILT on an assumption, for the sake of argument.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
