THE PHILOSOPHICAL NEED FOR GOD

Image

Thank you Adam Wolfe for the photoshop..

.https://en-gb.facebook.com/pages/Adam-Wolfe/383505548376524?ref=stream&hc_location=stream

I would like to point out that the concept of god was arrived at philosophically and out of necessity.  First of all if you want to make a positive rational assertion for why people should have inalienable rights or why you shouldn’t be allowed to force people to work seven days a week you cannot hinge that assertion on science or evolution for that matter.  You have to assume a universal force or law on which to peg it.

Image

Image

The original concept of god was created to prevent the problem of infinite regression.  What was the cause of that? well what was the cause of that? Well what was the cause of that?  GOD!  It became obvious that there needed to be a cause that was not in the linear world, a causal world.  Which makes sense in a way.  Because if the big bang created time as we know it then time is an illusion.  There must be a time before time and that time is the real time, since time was created and didn’t exist before the big bang.  Time itself is an illusion.  Somewhere the universe is completely intact and unexploded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover

Philosophically speaking god cannot move and must not move, any movement of god is a negation of godself.  This is why you have meditation.  In sitting in contemplation you are being like god.  Making yourself like god.  Image

So how does he work his will on the world?  Through the agency of the holy spirit.  If you examine Plato’s cave and he being the father of religion.  The forms of the cave, the forms of the good, the ideas or idols are the philosophical uncorrupted concepts.  Only the philosopher king can see anything but the shadows, he beholds the shapes.  He is free and he observes the stark naked epiphany of the universe.  What is needed to succeed in relationship, the praxis of the rational.  The law is immutable, unchanging, and pre existent.  You are doing it right if you are surviving well and succeeding together.

Image

Image

Advertisements

76 thoughts on “THE PHILOSOPHICAL NEED FOR GOD”

  1. I dont really see how all that follows. One can base rights and laws on compassion and empathy, and on understanding consequences and things like how we are interconnected (our actions affect each other, no man is an island to himself) . Laws are not unmovable or absolute, they fluctuate upon culture, understanding, and the gain gain

    1. Apologies for the cut off. The gain of new information.
      Is time an illusion? Part of our dimension? Does not understanding something mean “god did it”?
      you are working off of too many assumptions. . Unsupported assertions and conclusions..

    1. Please illustrate how I appealed to emotion? I think perhaps you are missusing the fallacy. Our laws (and rights) have evolved as our understanding has. Consider slavery, womens rights, childrens rights etc.
      i am able to base my own moral standards on my interconnectedness to others. No deity necessary

      1. still waiting for that positive rational assertion (taps foot)
        here is how it works I will start you out.
        “mankind should have inalienable right because we learn from science and evolution that………” and then you fill in the blank. the rest of this conversation is just intellectual faggotry.

      2. Back when the concept of god was brought in people would have had limited understanding. Therefore those few who were able to understand this had to relay a narrative to the masses that they could follow (and would – make them fear the consequences). I would think that humans at this time were impulsive.

        At this time people are using brute force to get what the desire, often. Use of brute force causes resentment, not that the person feeling so had a true grasp of that in such a way to understand the emotion.

        When the advanced thinkers of the time understood that close bloodline mating caused issues religious rules are entwined into this narrative. As such information is gained the narrative encompasses more.

        I am thinking of a time prior to the development of the ancient civilizations, when some of humanity grouped together in scales beyond the village. Within village community (perhaps 150 people or so) relations are forged and bonds are made. Reciprocal relationship prosper (such village community is not so far ahead from societies of apes – I do not mean to disparage or demean such villages, they had many benefits over and above larger scale civilizations). Forming larger groups has benefits too, you can divide labour tasks better and implement ideas that facilitate living. Also a larger group can work collectively if organised and build defenses to protect against danger. However when social groups exceed 150 the naturalistic village society breaks down, still functions but problems exist that have repercussions. The ability to be anonymous exists in larger groups, therefore the opportunity to partake untoward & malicious activities against others at whim exists.

        http://generosityresearch.nd.edu/assets/17634/
        http://listverse.com/2013/09/16/10-forgotten-ancient-civilizations/

  2. You’re going to end a conversation pretty quickly when you use terms like “intellectual faggotry”.
    But to finish your question “… other people suffer and can feel happiness; mistreating others has impacts on relationships and our own psychology; things function more efficiently in socially cooperative environments”

    From a perhaps facetious perspective, consider Sam Harris’ words: “There is a circle here that links us to one another: we each want to be happy; the social feeling of love is one of our greatest sources of happiness; and love entails that we be concerned for the happiness of others. We discover that we can be selfish together.”

    Tell me, though, how you finish the sentence “Mankind should have inalienable rights because from God we know…”

    1. and that is an appeal to emotion and is not accepted by logic. It assumes that you recognize the equality of the suffering of others. It is illogical and is not accepted by science. God is a sense of self that transcends the individual. That is what people don’t understand. You argue for the validity of god and for the validity of emotional thinking. self referrentially inconsistent. lrn2logic.

      1. Nothing I said is an appeal to emotion. The recognition that emotion exists is entirely different from an appeal to emotion.
        On top of that, you didn’t answer my challenge. I answered yours…

  3. lol. now I am beginning to think you are a poe. (a durn good one).
    mankind should not have inalienable rights. We want them, therefore we grant them to others. I don’t see the problem of infinite regression.
    Tis it a waste of time to attempt a discussion? would you prefer a boisterous mention of Hitler so you have another logical fallacy to rant about? 😉

      1. Why do you say we have earned them? what makes them earned?
        I say that we value for others, (and rather claim them as rights) because we want them for ourselves.
        One can easily use science in such a manor.
        Back in biblical day it was “law” to send lepers to isolation.
        What were there rights? Why did this become law?
        Today we have a cure for leprosy, why would this change such a law?
        How would this change their rights?

      2. you are presupposing a pleasant environment and the correctness of pleasantness. Is nature pleasant? pleasant environments are irrational environments artificial environments. Go ask leading questions to a hungry siberian tiger. Your leper analogy makes no sense.

    1. All people are not created equal. Some are born into poverty, and some into wealth; some into sickness and some into health; some into opportunity and some into slavery.
      There is nothing about the words “God is a sense of self that transcends the individual” has any bearing on inalienable rights.
      I don’t even know what “inalienable right” means. I can alienate rights.
      Rights are things that authorities afford us. In a democracy we can demand the rights we want. In a dictatorship we have whatever rights we are given.
      (According to you, which are we in? The democracy or the dictatorship)

      1. We are in a dictatorship, we have negative freedoms, freedom from we do not have positive freedom, which is freedom to. In order to make an assertion for why people would have inalienable rights you would have to invoke a universal law or a sense of self that transcends the individual. You can experiment and get back to me. But thank you for your honesty.

  4. “The original concept of god was created to prevent the problem of infinite regression.”

    I categorically disagree. Firstly, you’re just making an assumption without any evidence. The problem of infinite regression first appeared on the human radar, so to speak, with the Greeks… and the concept of the gods is not rooted to that era. It’s more than likely that the first concepts of the gods (of a supernal realm) was first scratched at with the first ancestor cults which presumably sprung up around the first Paleolithic burials with grave goods. Grave goods, items only useful to the living, are direct evidence people could perceive of a life outside the physical… a place where the dead had some use for their tools and trinkets. Ancestors looked back from this newly minted ethereal realm and continued to influence events on the earthly plateau. The spirits could see, hear, feel, understand, and communicate with the living. They made moral judgments, were wishful, wilful, joyful, furious, stern, permissive, kind, cruel, even capricious, and keeping them happy through the observance of rituals became paramount. Suspension of reality is what it’s called today; a well-practiced cognitive trick used by audiences when imagining a story in the process of being told or remembered. Quite literally, to buy into a fictional story an individual has to suspend their rational idea of the world around, and the more fanciful the tale the deeper the suspension of reality needs to be. Remarkably, this act of deliberate denial comes more easily to us than labouring through rational scepticism. We are, at a genetic level, more prone to accept a false casual association with perceived long-term benefits than wrestle with more costly scepticism. In a word, denying reality is cheaper. Believing ancestors lived on as authority figures still somehow protecting the clan from some unearthly landscape empowered the Paleolithic band. It was imagined, a dream, but it was also real if the audience just gave themselves over to the vagary, which they evidently did (we have the evidence in the burial sites), and haven’t stopped doing for the last 6,600 generations.

      1. Well, your position is in error. The problems of infinite regression are a relatively modern phenomena, something that came into our thought processes after the invention of numbers. Paleolithic burials identify the source of all supernal dreams.

      2. You’re saying the Vedas predate Paleolithic burials with grave goods?

        I remind you, your statement was: “The original concept of god was created to prevent the problem of infinite regression.” This statement is in error.

      3. No, they don’t predate the paleolithic burials, I was starting from the beginning of the age of what we perceive as modern philosophy and the reason god was kept in philosophy and wasi ndispensable. All human being universally anthropomorphize not all human beings reason.

      4. Fair enough, although you didn’t make that point at all clear in the statement… but it’s still a stretch to think philosophy (the philosophy of the gods) started with the Vedas. As magnificent as they are I’d say it’d be quite foolhardy to suggest they represent a sharp partition delineating an era of non-thought from thought when its clear (by the evidence evidence) that humans had made a tear in the natural canopy 100,000+ years before.

      5. Oh, I agree, shepherds in the fields probably created a lot of the original philosophy of astrology, but the ideas and concepts started being reviewed by the supergenii, my interest was in why the philosophers kept and used god as a metaphor or thought tool.

      6. Probably because cause and effect seemed logically inescapable. God di it, though, doesn’t answer anything, but all that doesn’t matter anymore, anyway. Retrocausality was demonstrated in the lab last year as a spin-off from experiments in quantum entanglement at the University of Vienna. Effects can indeed proceed the cause.

        Or as Sean Carroll, said: “causes and effects aren’t really fundamental. It’s the laws of nature that are fundamental, according to the best understanding we currently have, and those laws don’t take the form of causes leading to effects; they take the form of differential equations, or more generally to patterns relating parts of the universe. So the question really is, ‘Can we imagine laws/patterns which describe a universe without God?’ And the answer is “sure,” and we get on with our lives.”

      7. The unmoved mover (οὐ κινούμενον κινεῖ, ou kinoúmenon kineî) or prime mover (primum movens) is a philosophical concept described by Aristotle as a primary cause or “mover” of all the motion in the universe.[1] As is implicit in the name, the “unmoved mover” moves other things, but is not itself moved by any prior action. In Book 12 (Greek “Λ”) of his Metaphysics, Aristotle describes the unmoved mover as being perfectly beautiful, indivisible, and contemplating only the perfect contemplation: itself contemplating. He equates this concept also with the Active Intellect.

      8. So?

        It’s a poetic thought that neither describes or explains anything… plus, as I just said, it’s unrequired. Retrocausality has been demonstrated. Despite all its failings the KCA is no longer even a valid thought exercise.

      9. “a prime mover unmoved”

        I’m sorry, but you’re not describing anything. First cause, prime mover, the unmoved actor; these are nothing but meaningless synthetic notions invented because no one can count to infinity. “God did it” doesn’t explain a thing, but that doesn’t even matter anymore. An effect has been shown to proceed the cause. This is real, unlike what you’re talking about. It happened, rendering all notions of strict causal relations invalid.

      10. I never assumed you were. You were making statements of causality which I demonstrated to you were unfounded. And that was before even dealing with the fallacy you’re committing by assuming causality. Who says there can’t be an infinite chain of cause and effect?

      11. And BTW, I’m not arguing with you either, just attempting to understand what you’re trying to claim. It started with a statement in error and now we’re onto designed universes and prime movers.

      12. Are you even listening to yourself? in a godless universe all of the causes would exist in the physical world and they would be laid out sequentially in a teleology. There would be no effect preceding the cause. The fact that the effect can precede the cause doesn’t support all of the causes being in the physical world, does it?

      13. You said “normal universe.” This is quite a statement. It presupposes that you know of at least one other universe against which you can compare ours, and from that make the claim that ours is “normal.” So, the question is: what is a normal universe? Evidently you know, or you wouldn’t have made the claim, correct?

      14. I hate it when people argue for positions they don’t believe. In my system, rational praxism, if you don’t believe it you can’t say it. Are you telling me that you don’t believe there is more than one universe?

      15. How can i say there is more than one universe? I don’t know. I wasn’t the one making the claim from design. You were… I just wanted to know how you were making it 🙂

      16. This is what I call bias disclosure in rational conversation. If your mind is made up you have to disclose that fact otherwise the relationship is irrational. I am not going to argue against an argument you don’t have for your amusement…Strategic communication is strategic.

      17. My mind is quite open, i assure you. Again, you made the statement of a “normal universe” which assumes you have another universe against which you can compare ours. Now, of course you don’t. We both know that, so your statement is in error. This doesn’t however make your statement incorrect. It could be right, we just don’t have any way of saying either way…. So I’m just drawing your attention to the fallacy you’re committing.

      18. and scientific materials are descriptive, predictive, and prescriptive. So unless you are going to have a philosophy or a science and not going to be able to describe it your argument makes no sense.

      19. Right, but you were playing with philosophical, synthetic word games, not science. As far as i recall i’m the only one so far to have actually pointed to something real, the experiments conducted last year in the University of Vienna.

      20. If if it predictive, prescriptive, and predictive it is science whether it was spawned of linguistic philosophy or not. You have a really interesting fetish with this dichotomy you have between real and not real…I am watching this play out right now. I am waiting for the next time you use your real not real dichotomy. It is interesting how people always find some way of telling you about their issues in some form…

      21. Sure, philosophy predated science, no doubt about it. Well, we could present the Thais Bone as evidence against this, but on the whole i agree. Science is not easy. It’s not instinctive. If it were it wouldn’t have taken us 200,000 years to discover it. We’re predisposed to making the cheaper and far faster false causal relation than labour through rational scepticism.

      22. Rabbi Ba’al Shiva means the master of meditation, one of my names is Shivah Solomon. i am friends with Lon Milo Duquette and he writes as Rabbi Lamed ben Clifford. He is a world renowned author.

      1. So you are saying that when they die their ideas become irrelevant? Could you state that as a positive rational assertion? (when you die your beliefs are falsified) or something to that effect?

  5. Interesting,but possibly irrelevant Man created gods to counter the unknown=fear As well as to blame mistakes om a god of some kind The fear of the post death unknown forced man to create a post death fairytale

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s