I believe in God, I'm not an aithiest, not anymore at least, but what I want to know is where did God come from? I mean, where did he come from? Who put him here? Did he do it and how? How long HAS this slick dude been around? lol, crazy isn't it? I'm looking for opinions form people with and without faith.

~Mai Ancora

No one really knows for sure, it's impossible to answer, we can only speculate. Many believe that God, or whatever you would like to call this being/ entity/ energy/ whatever willed itself into being, or that it simply always has been, and always will be into the infinite depths of time and space. I do not think we will ever know for sure in this lifetime, and if you do figure it out it will probably be the equivalent of moksha or nirvana ro something simalar.

God in a metaphysical sense comes from the natural tendency of the mind to combine particular categories into general categories, the tendency of the mind to attribute all events to causality, and the tendency of the mind to think it can actually know things beyond its own ability to sense.

God in a religous sense comes from the above facts, coupled with unimagitive patriarchial explanations of simple people for the sake of avoiding existential dissonance. Humans cant deal with the uncertainty of reality, so they turn to fables to comfort themselves. They attribute, anthropomorphically, the same characterisitcs to the absoute that they do the father figure of their traditions. It gives a sense of security knowing that if they're really good, they'll get to stay up late and watch the A-team in heaven.

[This message has been edited by dagnabitt (edited 11-24-2002).]

God arbitrarily happened to exist. I don't find that weak attempt at logic useful in the slightest, however.

It takes one unknown (the origin of the universe) and attributes it to a greater unknown (God); but furthermore the greater unknown has absolutely no chance whatsoever of being known because God is supposeably unknowable.

I call bullshit, but then again, that's just my opinion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dark_Magneto:
God arbitrarily happened to exist. I don't find that weak attempt at logic useful in the slightest, however.

It takes one unknown (the origin of the universe) and attributes it to a greater unknown (God); but furthermore the greater unknown has absolutely no chance whatsoever of being known because God is supposeably unknowable.

I call bullshit, but then again, that's just my opinion.

---

What exactly are you calling bullshit on? What is a weak attempt at logic? Do you mean randomly deciding to believe in God, or what I was saying about God's epistemic nature?

in my opinion he came from his mothers womb because i am god. or rather you are god, but of your world. i dont think there is any ultimate evaluator and we are as individuals the most powerfull being in our existance. but this really just comes down to our definition of god.

Matter exists, energy exists, and science has no idea why. They are allowed to take things on faith without having to justify their idea that it always existed. How come people who believe in gods cant without these same fuck-ups pretending to be intelligent?

No-one made God. He is eternal and has no beginning, and no end.
Remember, God isn't bound by time because He created it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spirit of '22:
Matter exists, energy exists, and science has no idea why.

---

More importantly Will exists. We are driven forward by force that is not intimately ours. Procreation, hunger, shitting, pissing etc... they are not choices, but commands. This says something about our nature (just nothing af any particular value unfortunately). Our will is not free, it is expressed through us, if you follow. I see reality as sort of like watching a movie, projected on a screen. I can see why people intuit a greater force to reality. We did not choose to exist, so wtf. Our minds force us to ponder this. The problem is going from this intuition to a religion, with specific tenets as if one can actually know the answer to the above questions. God maybe, like Syphon says it depends on your definition. But as soon as you say anything positive about characteristics etc...you have overstepped your epistemic bounds.

quote:

---

Originally posted by margeri26:
No-one made God. He is eternal and has no beginning, and no end.
Remember, God isn't bound by time because He created it.

---

But wouldn't he be bound by causality?

Interesting!

quote:

---

Originally posted by TigerJK:
But wouldn't he be bound by causality?

---

God would only be bound by causality if he was caused to exist. Conversely if he is the first cause (old argument) of all things after, then presumably god created causality in the same we god creted time. By the same argument (spinoza's) god would also be the only free will that existed (not caused), and as a part of this freedom could will reality to exist as he saw fit. (ie the cause of causality cannot itself be caused.

Interesting question, but the question is unknown to religious figures and atheists. It is like saying, How was the universe created, and whatever created that, what created that, and so on.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pink spid3r:
Interesting question, but the question is unknown to religious figures and atheists. It is like saying, How was the universe created, and whatever created that, what created that, and so on.

---

Totally. But this way of thinking is intrinsic to the concept of god in many repects. Many who believe in god, believe in the "first cause" argument. I think its a product of the way the mind works to attribute causality to everything (as alluded to above), there fore it makes sense people would believe this. Although your right, just becasue we understand something doesnt make it true.

[This message has been edited by dagnabitt (edited 11-25-2002).]

Think about this, what if God came from some parellel universe or something and he was a big loser there and had no friends or money so he decided to create a newer much smaller universe than the one he was currently residing in using the magic of technology beyond our world. So now he just plays around with us humans all day because he doesn't want to go to work.

quote:

---

Originally posted by margeri26:
No-one made God. He is eternal and has no beginning, and no end.
Remember, God isn't bound by time because He created it.

---

What, your opinion, binds an organism not living in or separate of time? For instance we (our universe) are the center from which God revolves around and can't be affected by a black hole of time. Or is it in reverse? Do you suppose that neither of us have the power to break our bonds and leave mess up that rotation? Maybe God does but won't because it will cause our universe to spin out of existance into that world of his. Or maybe it would give all existance equal power. Eh? lol

quote:

---

Originally posted by phender:
Think about this, what if God came from some parellel universe or something and he was a big loser there and had no friends or money so he decided to create a newer much smaller universe than the one he was currently residing in using the magic of technology beyond our world. So now he just plays around with us humans all day because he doesn't want to go to work.

---

Read The Ellimist Chronicles by K.A. Applegate. That's kinda what you seem to be talking about.


~Mai Ancora

Where DIDN'T god come from?

dagnabitt I've decided I really like your view on things.

Thanks. I dont get that very often

no me either.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dagnabitt:
What exactly are you calling bullshit on?

---

Allaying a question with a non-answer which propagates more questions about itself than the initial question.

quote:

---

What is a weak attempt at logic?

---

Attempting to explain an unknown with an even greater unknown that is not knowable.

quote:

---

Do you mean randomly deciding to believe in God, or what I was saying about God's epistemic nature?

---

The epistemic nature. Defined God's I call bullshit on time and time again. If you don't define a godforce, then one or many exist by neccessity since we exist if you define God as TFC (The First Cause).

TFC has to exist for us to exist, so it exists by neccessity, whatever it may be. Just as this post has to have something to generate it by neccessity, we have to have something generate us, whatever that something may be.

God(s) could be an abstract or beyond all human comprehension. I'm against assigning unneccessary attributes to TFC (i.e. anthrpopmorphosizing, omni-traits, perfection, etc.) and cutting away as much excess baggage tacked to the notion away as possible with Occam's Razor.

One of the biggest things that got me about the Christian God though is the persomification of it into the imageof man.

Much of this is thouroughly addressed in The Homeric Gods and Xenophanes' Opposing Theory of the Divine

"If cows and horses or lions had hands and made works of art like men, then horses' gods would look like horses, the cows' like cows; and they would model the bodies of the gods upon their own."

quote:

---

Allaying a question with a non-answer which propagates more questions about itself than the initial question.

---

That does'nt make any sense to me. Please eloborate using specific examples from the discussion.

quote:

---

Attempting to explain an unknown with an even greater unknown that is not knowable.

---

Who is trying to do this? The question was where does god come from - the concept of god. We know the concept of god exists. My argument is how the mind comes to know this concept - your not reading close enough.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dark_Magneto:
The epistemic nature. Defined God's I call bullshit on time and time again.

---

Do you know what epsitemic means? I'm refering to the way people think, not the true nature of a metaphysical entity.

quote:

---

If you don't define a godforce, then one or many exist by neccessity since we exist if you define God as TFC (The First Cause).TFC has to exist for us to exist, so it exists by neccessity, whatever it may be. Just as this post has to have something to generate it by neccessity, we have to have something generate us, whatever that something may be.

---

The first cause argument has been around forever and confuses the operation of the mind with the actual reality of the universe. Just becasue you can posit a first cause doesnt mean there in fact exists a first cause, and not an infinite regression of events. However you will never know because such truths are unaccessable to us. All your doing here is contradicting yourself by "trying to explain an unknown with a greater unknown". First cause is no less an unknown than God itself.

quote:

---

TFC has to exist for us to exist, so it exists by neccessity, whatever it may be.

---

While many people believe that, it has no real weight in philosophy. Talking about a first cause in a metaphysical sense implies that 1) The universe actually exists as we comprehend it. (Which we know it does not, independent of our minds interaction) 2) that we can somehow "know" the absolute as a totality of causalities which we can then apply a final cause to. It's a self serving philosophy and has no metaphysical merit (like all metaphysical philosophies). Philosophers did away with first cause in the 17th century. Only Theologians consider it of any value today

quote:

---

Just as this post has to have something to generate it by neccessity, we have to have something generate us, whatever that something may be.

---

Why because you say so? There is no evidence of this.

quote:

---

God(s) could be an abstract or beyond all human comprehension. I'm against assigning unneccessary attributes to TFC (i.e. anthrpopmorphosizing, omni-traits, perfection, etc.) and cutting away as much excess baggage tacked to the notion away as possible with Occam's Razor.

---

Occam's razor means not adding any unneccesay dimensions to a problem unnecasarily. It is not necessary that you posit a first cause, it is desired, but it is not necessary.

quote:

---

One of the biggest things that got me about the Christian God though is the persomification of it into the imageof man.

---

Yeah, I mention that above. I also imply that it is no less an athropomorphism to assign a first cause. You are using a necessary function of the mind to interpret a non-mind (metaphysical) entity. It cannot be done. Argument from First cause is no exception regarding metaphysics.



[This message has been edited by dagnabitt (edited 11-26-2002).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by dagnabitt:
Who is trying to do this? The question was where does god come from - the concept of god. We know the concept of god exists. My argument is how the mind comes to know this concept - your not reading close enough.

---

Ah, the concept of God. My mistake.

I think the concept of God comes from mankinds desire to know everything. If we don't know something, we make a conjecture and formulate theories on it. God is one of these theories, but it got taken out of the circuit of rational thought with the introduction of dogmatic "faith" to unconfirmable and unfalsifiable principles that supposeably were revealed in the past.

I noticed that's a big trend amongst religions. You say that some really important shit went down back in the day, and then deny them any modern day revelation or validation in favor of "faith". So you get them to the point where they vehemently believe in something, could be wrong the entire time, and would never know it due to mind conditioning.

L Ron Hubbard did pretty much the same thing with scientology. It's bullshit, he knows it's bullshit, he's even been confirmed to have been talking on several occasions about organizing some 2 bit cult and getting bigger than Christianity, yet people still believe in the shit.

Same thing with Bob Dobbs. Some people are just gullible morons that will fall for anything you take the time to invent.

quote:

---

I'm refering to the way people think, not the true nature of a metaphysical entity.

---

I originally thought you were referring to the cognitive nature of a metaphysical entity.

quote:

---

The first cause argument has been around forever and confuses the operation of the mind with the actual reality of the universe. Just becasue you can posit a first cause doesnt mean there in fact exists a first cause, and not an infinite regression of events.

---

Infinite regressional existences are a logical impossibility, but then again I am reasoning along the lines of what we known being reflected throughout the rest of existence.

It looks like your taking the "incomprehensibility principle" approach. Says that anything is possible out there since we know nothing about it and it could be beyond all realms of rational discourse.

quote:

---

While many people believe that, it has no real weight in philosophy. Talking about a first cause in a metaphysical sense implies that 1) The universe actually exists as we comprehend it. (Which we know it does not, independent of our minds interaction) 2) that we can somehow "know" the absolute as a totality of causalities which we can then apply a final cause to. It's a self serving philosophy and has no metaphysical merit (like all metaphysical philosophies). Philosophers did away with first cause in the 17th century. Only Theologians consider it of any value today

---

Again, it only works if the universe operates under what our current logical and scientific mdels have discovered thus far. The things your talking about are the logical equivalent of throwing ones brain out the window, because they superceede rational thought. Just like oscillating universe models or our universe being a product of a "steady state" universe that has just always happened to have an arbitrarily acausal infinite existence.

quote:

---

Yeah, I mention that above. I also imply that it is no less an athropomorphism to assign a first cause. You are using a necessary function of the mind to interpret a non-mind (metaphysical) entity. It cannot be done.

---

It seems to make rational discourse an impossibility. We can't comprehend the incomprehendible, so if we use the ol' "incomprehensible principle" then we won't get much of anywhere. We might have a conjugation of commonly agreed upon abstract principles, but that's probably the best case scenario.

Since we're going that route, I will posit our means of existence being totally and completely beyond any and all things rational and worldly. It is so far out there, that you couldn't even get the slightest inkling as to how the shit went down in your wildest imaginations. The collective imagination of all human minds could not even dream up anything even remotely close to the enigmatic conundrum that is the foundation for existence.

Take the most awesome thing you can imagine. Whatever this thing is that I am postulating is always infinitely ahead of anything you could even imagine. Our brains are so insignifigant in contrast to whatever this is, that they basically don't even exist. Yeah, the reductionism when contrasting is that fucking stupendous.

Now where did that get us? Absolutely nowhere. If that actually was the case though, there could be no firm discussion or anything along those means in reguards to it because it's just one big conjugation of incomprehensible confusion.




[This message has been edited by Dark_Magneto (edited 11-27-2002).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dark_Magneto:
Same thing with Bob Dobbs. Some people are just gullible morons that will fall for anything you take the time to invent.

---

Oh-oh, Z3m is gonna be pissed!

Isn't this just satire though?

I think its interesting you brought discourse into the equation. I agree the absolute subjectivity of everything (loose generalization) makes communiaction an awkward philosophical issue. I see the nature of discourse as intrinsically entwined with power. Attempts to engage in discourse are attempts to force ones reality on another by will, using logic and reason as the tools they are. (I have never been able to shake Nietszche). Discourse acheives nothing when answering ultimate questions, given the easy deconstruction of rationality. But it is a way to "swap facts", or the agreed upon conventions you mentioned above. It enables people to feel good about themselves when they can assert the world as they see it (will to truth). When people argue about philosophy, rather than facts, the discourse itself becomes a battle of wills and nothing more (if nothing is true than no one is right, only more right, so to speak. Discourse itself is good for very little other than trying to assert propositions one holds true, and then arguing about them in some way. But no proposition is ultimately justified. We never speak the truth independent of our use of it. Life is Will to Power .

Also, the fact that infinite regressions are logically impossible begs the specifc question of what I was addressing above. Just because something makes sense in logic (or does not) doesnt mean we can use logic to make statements about entities outside of precisely that logical or reasoned system (systems themselves included). IE the system itself cannot be justified from within (lacking the Meta-axiom necessary for deductive or inferential validation) or without (being able to transcend reason to validate reason). Therefore logic always ultimately fails regarding "truth". It is only a tool for solving more relevant problems - like those of discourse (syntax, grammer etc...). As such, the first cause argument is NO LESS fallacous than to posit infinite regression (a Kantian contribution), as it relies on the same limited faculties.

It has everything to do with the logical systems we employ (like you said), but more importantly the philosophies surrounding those systems of logic. IE whether we view reason as a tool of human evolution and will to power, or as tool capable of bridging the gap into the metaphysical. My stance is firmly the former, which it seems yours is as well.

Anyway, good post.

dagnabitt after you embraced the subjectivity of everything what (and why) did you choose afterword?

if like Nietszche it was to further evolution of man (in a better direction at least)... why? I ask this of him too but can never find a good reason other than him turning from nihilism... i guess really I just want to know if your reason is the same

quote:

---

Originally posted by govinda:
dagnabitt after you embraced the subjectivity of everything what (and why) did you choose afterword?

---

I embraced the deconstruction of all things propositional, at least in a philosophical sense. I dont really have any philosphical affirmations I hold sacred, I just tend to get annoyed when I see that someone is asserting their will (life view) in some arrogant way, and I feel i can disprove it using philosophy or logic. I feel that ultimatelty all people find some solice in the world they come to know, and that world is always different from others, and always "un-true" in any logical way. However, I believe that in discourse people battle for dominance, trying to assert their position for some temporary feeling of control. Therefore logic and reason do become important, as there are certain characterisitics about them that can manipulate the thoughts of others. This is not always violent, its simply that when something makes sense to a person it has a clarity that is difficult to negate without further insight.

I would never argue against someones belief in god unless they tried to convince me, in some way, that they are somehow a better person for their belief. And people rarely make this affirmation in god unegotistically. Sometimes I'll get all socratic and start asking questions to provoke them, but sometimes its clear that someone has taken comfort in something and simply isn't interested in sharing it, or being challenged by it. Which is a right in my opinion. It's only when someone tries to control with propositions, that those propositions should be deconstructed, in my opinion, to save face. I do thnk Nietszche was bang on with his will to power idea) I have not embraced this though as if I chose it, I just am this, I have not yet been convinced otherwise. Where Nietszche would say a strong will to dominate is the essence of good health, i do not believe this means going around pissing people off over essentially trivial matters that most people simply are comforted by, which is what I ususally do. Obsessing over philosophy all day does not make you a hit a cocktail parties, people just look at you weird. I dont embrace the things I think in and of themselves, they are forced upon me in urge no seperate from the rest the forces beyond our control that negate the possible freedom of our will. Attitudes like this Nietszche really hated calling them decadent and "exhausted". But i cant escape existential angst by means of philosophy (or religion). I only do this by feeling something at any time and knowing it is ok ultimately that I feel this way. That I can behave in any manner that feels right and risk only human judgement, which is no more correct, albeit more or less powerfull. There is some piece of mind that goes with that.

Anyway thanks for the invitation to do a little personal rant.



[This message has been edited by dagnabitt (edited 11-27-2002).]

you are more than welcome.
it reassures me to find someone with similar views

quote:

---

Originally posted by govinda:
it reassures me to find someone with similar views

---

ditto

the human mind cant understand. this is how the human mind thinks:if something exists then somebody or something made it for what ever reason. one(maybe theres more) thing isn't like that (G-d).