That's interesting because (to me, at least) it underscores how a negative value (what we deny) can itself become a sort of belief, with folks attached to the verity of their position (for example--God does not exist) as being "correct." Seems like the flip side of fundamentalism, with folks out there actively asserting their atheism with ecumenical resolve.

My sense of all this is that if you ever hope to experience anything transcendent (greater than yourself) you have to let go of most everything you believe in and don't believe in and wait till the void is filled by something (for lack of another word) beyond your own thoughts and memories. Just because you haven't struggled with the letting go process doesn't mean there isn't more out there to experience, some of which requires no belief structure whatsoever.

JL

My sense of all this is that if you ever hope to experience anything transcendent (greater than yourself) you have to let go of most everything you believe in and don't believe in and wait till the void is filled by something (for lack of another word) beyond your own thoughts and memories.

I do not deny god, I know it does not exist.quote]

How do you "know" that??

JL

I just do. How do you know what you believe to be true? I suspect your answer will be the same.

"I just do" is simply another version of "Because I said so." "I just don't know," would likely be a more accurate answer given what your experience has so far provided you.

My sense of this is that when someone cannot reason out "God," or when he or she can find no immediate evidence of a "thing" purported to be God as defined by various religious texts, many people conclude God is therefore a fiction or merely an idea which they "know" is bogus. The reason this is a perspective working from ignorance is that the person has never really taken the question seriously, and has either gone down the standard paths and found nothing, or has never got jiggy with the idea that the lack of evidence doesn't necessarily mean there is nothing there, rather that the person is not searching in the right way on in the right place–and can't be bothered in any event given his current perspective.

Another way to look at this is to consider your consciousness as being a borderless circle, infinite in scope. There are two very small slivers in this circle. The first is what you know you know: You know English, how to tie a figure eight, how to pump gas, etc. The other sliver is what you know you don't know: You know you don't know how to write Aramaic, or to fly, or to perform open heat surgery. The rest of the circle consists of what you don't know that you don't know. That's where you'll find God.

Wanna go there? Fair enough–you just have to leave behind what you know that you know and what you know that you don't know.

It's the first star on the left, then on till forever . . .

JL

"I just do" is simply another version of "Because I said so." "I just don't know," would likely be a more accurate answer given what your experience has so far provided you.

My sense of this is that when someone cannot reason out "God," or when he or she can find no immediate evidence of a "thing" purported to be God as defined by various religious texts, many people conclude God is therefore a fiction or merely an idea which they "know" is bogus. The reason this is a perspective working from ignorance is that the person has never really taken the question seriously, and has either gone down the standard paths and found nothing, or has never got jiggy with the idea that the lack of evidence doesn't necessarily mean there is nothing there, rather that the person is not searching in the right way on in the right place–and can't be bothered in any event given his current perspective.

Another way to look at this is to consider your consciousness as being a borderless circle, infinite in scope. There are two very small slivers in this circle. The first is what you know you know: You know English, how to tie a figure eight, how to pump gas, etc. The other sliver is what you know you don't know: You know you don't know how to write Aramaic, or to fly, or to perform open heat surgery. The rest of the circle consists of what you don't know that you don't know. That's where you'll find God.

Wanna go there? Fair enough–you just have to leave behind what you know that you know and what you know that you don't know.

It's the first star on the left, then on till forever . . .

JL

Decartes offered his belief in God thusly:

Doubt implies uncertainty. Uncertainty implies imperfection. But if there is imperfection, then that implies there must be something perfect. That perfectness is what he inferred to be God.

Rene Decartes... quite probably the greatest thinker ever, and one who influenced more rational thought than most people, still believed in God (in fact, his "Discourse on the Method" was edited and revised several times for fear that he'd offend his Church.)

His error is in thinking that the existence of a thing implies the existence of its opposite.

I have seen a donut. Does that mean I can infer the existence of an anti-donut?

I have seen a donut. Does that mean I can infer the existence of an anti-donut?

Not really.... if you can lable something as imperfect, then that means there must be something "perfect," else the first thing would not be imperfect.

Depends... was it a perfect donut? ;)

was because I anticipated your judgmental, preachy rant,

styndall wrote:
I have seen a donut. Does that mean I can infer the existence of an anti-donut?


Nope, you can however infer the existence of a hole.

"I just do" is simply another version of "Because I said so." "I just don't know," would likely be a more accurate answer given what your experience has so far provided you.

My sense of this is that when someone cannot reason out "God," or when he or she can find no immediate evidence of a "thing" purported to be God as defined by various religious texts, many people conclude God is therefore a fiction or merely an idea which they "know" is bogus. The reason this is a perspective working from ignorance is that the person has never really taken the question seriously, and has either gone down the standard paths and found nothing, or has never got jiggy with the idea that the lack of evidence doesn't necessarily mean there is nothing there, rather that the person is not searching in the right way on in the right place–and can't be bothered in any event given his current perspective.

Another way to look at this is to consider your consciousness as being a borderless circle, infinite in scope. There are two very small slivers in this circle. The first is what you know you know: You know English, how to tie a figure eight, how to pump gas, etc. The other sliver is what you know you don't know: You know you don't know how to write Aramaic, or to fly, or to perform open heat surgery. The rest of the circle consists of what you don't know that you don't know. That's where you'll find God.

Wanna go there? Fair enough–you just have to leave behind what you know that you know and what you know that you don't know.

It's the first star on the left, then on till forever . . .

JL

What was judgemental or rant like in Johns post?

It's fascinating that so many that propose a "godless" (lots of ways to define that) universe are so militant. If they really believed thieir view I'd suspect they'd care less about the opposing view and just chalk it up to superstition and leave it at that. The militancy makes sense only in terms of lingering doubt.

Phil hit it!

No, the reason I said "I just do" was because I anticipated your judgmental, preachy rant, and was not interested in a debate about faith and how I am wrong.

WHO SAID ANYTHING ABOUT FAITH OR BELIEFS? NEITHER HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH WHAT I WAS DRIVING AT.

I was not saying "because I say so" that would imply some sort of self-righteousness, I could care less about what people believe in, and would appreciate the same from others.
So I am ignorant because I do not think like you?

WHAT DOES THINKING HAVE TO DO WITH IT?? I SAID SPECIFICALLY THAT YOU HAD TO LEAVE BEHIND YOUR THOUGHTS ABOUT WHAT YOU KNOW AND THINK YOU DON'T KNOW--OR WHAT YOU THINK IS UNKNOWABLE FOR THAT MATTER.

I could say the same thing about your "faith" but would not do so out of respect.

AGAIN, FAITH WAS NEITHER MENTIONED NOR IS IT REQUIRED.

I am curious how you "reason" god.

YOU "REASON' GOD BY TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THAT WORD MEANS--USUALLY BY SCRUBBING THROUGH SECOND-HAND KNOWLEDGE CRIBBED FROM DOCTRINE, THEN REFUTING IT AS RIDICULOUS OR MADE UP. DOCTRINE IS NOT REQUIRED.

You said, "The lack of evidence does not always mean nothing is there", I agree with that statement, but the lack of evidence most certainly does not mean there IS something there.

INDEED IT DOES NOT. BUT IF YOU MOVE OUTSIDE THOSE TWO SLIVERS I MENTIONED YOU MIGHT FIND SOME YOUR EVIDENCE.

Is the only reason you are on the path of righteousness because it leads to eternal paradise? I have made a response to a similar question on the thread about Dostoevsky and God. I have also described how I have never found religion/god necessary to be a good person.

MY FEEL OF THIS IS THAT YOU ARE NOT REALLY RAILING AGAINST WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID SO MUCH AS DISPUTING WHAT MOST RELIGIONS SAY--AND ON THAT POINT I WOULD LIKELY AGREE WITH YOU.

AIN'T IT FUN . . .

jl

modern physics suggests that all matter and space come in discreet units of length called Planck lengths. Thus, the statement "This is not a perfect sphere" is correct for everything in the universe.

Thank you for making my primary point painfully obvious.


In other words we have gotten to the point where we can define the size of the pinhead, (that the angels dance on). boy will that get misinterpreted

Godel only posits (for the sake of this discussion) that all 360 degrees of Largos circle are fundamentally, simultaneously unknowable. No argument there.

"You don't believe in unicorns or leprechauns. I just go one step further and end up attacked for it."

Styndal--As a fellow devotee of the Olde, may I suggrest that you go one step further and leave off with the beliefs and proofs and just run the rope into the void.

Even beats counting the bubbles in the beer . . .

JL

In a more apropos example, modern physics suggests that all matter and space come in discreet units of length called Planck lengths. Thus, the statement "This is not a perfect sphere" is correct for everything in the universe. A perfect sphere, defined as the infinite set of points equidistant from a particular spot in three-dimensional space, cannot exist because the unit of building material for the universe is discreet. Thus, the existence of an imperfect specimen does not imply the existence in reality of a perfect specimen. This example is particularly telling because we can conceive of a perfect sphere without trouble. Such a thing, however, is necessarily imaginary. Sic deo est.

"Those slivers you spoke of, those unknowns can all be explained with science. Religion is future science, science is dead religion."

Such an either/or, all-or-nothing argument has been raging in philosophy for roughtly 4,000 years.

Science can measure and posit various aspect ratios about the qualities and proportions and values in things--but I'm not talking about a "thing."

It's fascinating to see two sides of the same fundamentalist coin--one uses sciencep; the uses the Bible, or some other sacred text. One leads to radical materialism; the other, dislocated, super duper spiritualism.

Both are either/or and both are what psychologists call "thought distortions." One speaks in absolute terms while denying any direct knowledge of an absolute, only measurable bits. The other clings to an absolute while denying discrete things.

What do you thing the man meant when he said, "Form is emptiness (God) and emptiness is form---exactly."

I think most everyone wrangles with the need to "know," be it through science or spirituality or even religion (very different matters). But the deeper you get the more provisional it all becomes, and when nothing is left whatsoever, the Game is officially ON.

JL