Instead of a political topic, this one is about god/religion/the spiritual/the supernatural.
Being a sensitive topic, feelings can be easily hurt, so to minimize emotional discomfort and aid discussion, I request everyone be polite (no insults).
I don’t believe in any spiritual, supernatural phenomena. I see no persuasive evidence for it, but I am open to being persuaded. Any takers?
Well you would have to define “spiritual/supernatural” because otherwise…
but its easy to say that. I mean, obviously a green lantern power ring doesnt contradict any known laws of physics. What is your argument, that Earth is boring? Or are you askng to be convinced of something supernatural like miracles?
“What is your argument, that Earth is boring?”
So lack of belief in the supernatural means life is boring? I reject that argument. Sex, war, humor, music, literature, and many other things make life interesting.
“Or are you askng to be convinced of something supernatural like miracles?”
If possible, I would like a religious/spiritual person to try to persuade me that their beliefs are right.
For any religious people on here, I’m interested in knowing your response to Mises’ argument in HA:
Sex, war, music, literature, humor and the rest all have spiritual components. This statement is true as long as “spiritual” remains undefined ITT.
Do you like the Doors?
“Sex, war, music, literature, humor and the rest all have spiritual components. This statement is true as long as “spiritual” remains undefined ITT.”
Spiritual: relating to the spirit or soul and not to physical nature or matter; intangible
ITT?
“Do you like the Doors?”
What is it?
Mises imagines a being that is subject to the laws of the universe. But the laws of the universe are a function of the mind of God. Contentment and discontent existed as ideas in God’s mind before anyone experienced those emotions. Likewise, the creation of the universe as an act de facto disproves Mises arguments: “If he were contented, he would not act, and if he were almighty, he would have long since radically removed his discontent” He did. God acts on His own schedule, not Mises’ or anyone else’s. He is outside the arrow of time.
basically, my argument is that the deity that Mises disproves is too anthropic.
ITT: in this thread. Sorry.
I meant the band, the Doors, with jim morrison the singer, he was able to make crowds riot. Basically, if youre into music, you would be open to my use of arguments in that area. And the interaction between performers and audiences is quite spiritual, and defies materialistic explanations. This is what they discovered when the field of group psychology died out in the 1930s. It couldnt be a SCIENCE because the phenomena were inexplicable from a materialist perspective.
“And the interaction between performers and audiences is quite spiritual,”
A person being excited by a musician does not require a spiritual explanation. The person may jump up and down, joyfully. There is no mystery.
Spiritual: relating to the spirit or soul and not to physical nature or matter; intangible
There is nothing spiritual about what you are describing.
Oh yes there is. When a performer interacts with an audience, some of the information passes through audio, some through visual, some through kinesthetic (to include vibrations and taste/odor) and some information passes through spiritual means. Particularly signals from the audience back to the performer. Jim morrison could make crowds riot. Jazz musicians improvise together as if they are of one mind-because they are. Successful performers such as stage comics become adept at spiritual communication. Thats why they are successful.
“When a performer interacts with an audience, some of the information passes through audio,”
Ok.
“some through visual,”
Ok.
“some through kinesthetic (to include vibrations and taste/odor)”
Ok.
“and some information passes through spiritual means.”
Not ok. Audio, visual, and kinesthetic are all scientifically provable. Spiritual means? Prove it.
“Particularly signals from the audience back to the performer. Jim morrison could make crowds riot.”
Becoming excited by music or drugs or sex or another physical thing is outside the spiritual definition: relating to the spirit or soul and not to physical nature or matter; intangible
Tunk,
Mises argument can be tackled in a least three ways.
Firstly, nowhere does Mises establish that felt uneasiness is the cause of action, he merely asserts it; he probably assumes a causal link between demonstrated preference and felt uneasiness when in fact the latter could just be a conditional justification for that particular action.
Secondly, speaking about God without creation you cannot argue the omnis are static as there is no space or time for them to be comparably static. Further why couldn’t some omnis, such as benevolence (love), have an analogous dynamism? Taking the Trinitarian model of the Father, Son and Spirit loving each other in eternity it would seem to be personable (not necessarily a human person- I see a distinction) love the only way it could be comprehendible would be to have a sort of dynamic edge.
As a side note the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity is not contradictory if we define God correctly: defined Biblically, God is the Father, the Son and the Spirit loving each other eternally. As such 1+1+1= 3. Each person is distinct but together are God; however since their names are relational ones it is difficult, but not impossible, to study one without the other- a Father implies a Son etc. (Not sure though how the Spirit works at this point) They also share a nature in the same way mankind shares a nature.
Thirdly, there’s Long’s argument:
Mises’ argument is essentially this:
My criticism is of premise 2. I claim that Mises is thinking only of
cases where means are external to the end. But what about the case
where the means is part of the end? In other words, suppose that God’s
goal is not just “to achieve X” but “to achieve X by means Y.” In that
case, even an omnipotent being couldn’t achieve that goal except by
means Y. Hence God could intelligibly choose Y as a means to X, and so
could act.
No he couldn’t. The crowds rioted on their own.
I remember seeing a show a few years back, where researchers believed they had found a gene which causes people to believe in God. I found a piece about it on wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene but I haven’t been bothered reading up on it.
Please explain this better. For Mises, felt uneasiness (or a desire in a sentient being for a more preferable state of the universe) is the cause of action (of said sentient being) because that’s inherent to his definition of action. What definition of action are you using above?
Please explain this better if you can, as well.
That’s a misrepresentation of Mises’ argument. With or without means, the very fact that a state of the universe X exists as something desired but not (yet) achieved by him makes him not omnipotent. Anything desired by a truly omnipotent being would have already been achieved, eliminating the cause for action (as defined by Mises).
It seems that all of these (God) discussions are about definitions and, in the end, probably prove nothing either way.
What I am saying is being thirsty isn’t the cause for you to drink a bottle of water but is the reason, or justification for your action. Human Action, even the way Mises forumlated, need not be deterministic.
My definition of action is the use of means to achieve an end.
God and Time- I would argue that God is atemporal without creation but temporal with. Note I don’t use before creation because there is no time to be before. Our concept of stasis are related to space and time. Now without space and time the omnis may not be static in the way we concieve of stasis. To say God is loving implies a plurarity in God since love is a relational concept. As such a personal relationship must have elements of dynamism of sorts otherwise their love would be totally different to our conception.
But supposing the desire can only be brought to fruition via a particular means? This doesn’t invalidate his omnipotence but raises a question regarding his value scale. Further there’s a question of when God desires and as above God and time isn’t the most straight forward of topics.
The deconstruction of a god is someone creating their argument of what a god is or ought to be, and then taking it a part on how it’s not possible by science. The focus in this thread is the monotheistic Abrahamic god. I can agree on how it’s not possible for such a god to exist, but if I turn the tables that a god isn’t a first creator, he’s created from the universe and at most is simply a demiurge while also not being all powerful the view of a god is changed. I’m making this case because the belief of this type of deity (all knowing, all powerful, etc.) wasn’t always the case.
Vladimir, I don’t really agree with the “God gene” theory, but I follow up more on Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell’s views that it’s something more subconscious and pyschological, and all these archetypes are projections from our inner self to more natural motivating powers/energy.
I think the classic proof is that we see that things are coming into being and since nothing can come to be except from what is, then there must be some supremely existent starting point called God (and we also know that there cannot be an infinite number of causes, again because nothing could come to be from things which are not).
It seems that the ancients believed that God was eternal so his actions are not successive but are accomplished at an ever-present “now”. I’m assuming then, that history and time are so present to God. Therefore, his actions are always being eternally accomplished and so God doesn’t just act; he super-acts.
a question: what do you mean by god then, if not all-powerful being or beings?