God, gods, or none of the above?

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
A_Seagull
Posts: 860
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:09 pm

Re: God, gods, or none of the above?

Post by A_Seagull » Tue Mar 31, 2015 5:44 am

Immanuel Can wrote:[We're happy to have input, but we're trying to figure out how to avoid the discussion become derailed by the local trolls and scavengers that occasionally crop up in places like this.
Well one thing you could try is answering serious questions such as I posted previously. Maybe they are too hard for you? I don't know.

But if you can't answer serious questions, your discussion is no more than that of two little pixies sitting on a toadstool.

marjoram_blues
Posts: 1629
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:50 pm

Re: God, gods, or none of the above?

Post by marjoram_blues » Tue Mar 31, 2015 8:29 am

A_Seagull wrote:
Immanuel Can wrote:[We're happy to have input, but we're trying to figure out how to avoid the discussion become derailed by the local trolls and scavengers that occasionally crop up in places like this.
Well one thing you could try is answering serious questions such as I posted previously. Maybe they are too hard for you? I don't know.

But if you can't answer serious questions, your discussion is no more than that of two little pixies sitting on a toadstool.
The thing is, both can answer serious questions but this time round they really want to pose their profound positions, after having chewed the fat elsewhere. It's an exclusive set-up, designed to annoy. They already have their well-rehearsed answers. What's 'experimental' - or philosophically engaging - about that kind of exchange?

The response from IC to my questions, so far, has been pretty predictable. I wish I could remember a similar 'experimental' thread which was attempted here - it involved an exchange of money...

On an open forum, interjections are to be expected. How it is managed is important. To discuss implications of God, gods - fair enough.
Then be honest - and remove the apparent invitation in the thread title to include 'none of the above'.

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: God, gods, or none of the above?

Post by Greylorn Ell » Wed Apr 01, 2015 5:24 am

A_Seagull wrote:
Immanuel Can wrote:[We're happy to have input, but we're trying to figure out how to avoid the discussion become derailed by the local trolls and scavengers that occasionally crop up in places like this.
Well one thing you could try is answering serious questions such as I posted previously. Maybe they are too hard for you? I don't know.

But if you can't answer serious questions, your discussion is no more than that of two little pixies sitting on a toadstool.
A.S.

I hope that I.C. will not respond to you, or your ilk. Your "serious questions" were snarly rants with no content-- aggressive attempts to put someone with something to contribute on the defensive. Pretty much like this follow up, where you bitch and whine about being ignored, like a spoiled 4-year old girl.

I like your toad stool analogy. Are you upset that I.C. and I occupied a favorite perch?

Greylorn

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: God, gods, or none of the above?

Post by Greylorn Ell » Wed Apr 01, 2015 5:53 am

marjoram_blues wrote:
A_Seagull wrote:
Immanuel Can wrote:[We're happy to have input, but we're trying to figure out how to avoid the discussion become derailed by the local trolls and scavengers that occasionally crop up in places like this.
Well one thing you could try is answering serious questions such as I posted previously. Maybe they are too hard for you? I don't know.

But if you can't answer serious questions, your discussion is no more than that of two little pixies sitting on a toadstool.
The thing is, both can answer serious questions but this time round they really want to pose their profound positions, after having chewed the fat elsewhere. It's an exclusive set-up, designed to annoy. They already have their well-rehearsed answers. What's 'experimental' - or philosophically engaging - about that kind of exchange?

The response from IC to my questions, so far, has been pretty predictable. I wish I could remember a similar 'experimental' thread which was attempted here - it involved an exchange of money...

On an open forum, interjections are to be expected. How it is managed is important. To discuss implications of God, gods - fair enough.
Then be honest - and remove the apparent invitation in the thread title to include 'none of the above'.
M.B.

There is no set-up behind this thread. I.C. agreed to give it a try at my invitation. He had no idea what he was getting into, and I'd not have invited him into this kind of thing without considerable respect for his intelligence, independence, and best-possible objectivity.

He is one of the few highly educated individuals whom I respect. May I suggest that you do the same, whether you agree with him or not. He's one of the good guys. And no, I do not share his beliefs. So what? He holds them well and honestly. If you want to bitch and whine, I'm your flawed target.

"None of the above" is and will remain a part of this thread, although we've not developed the conceptual base needed to address that option. I put it into the thread title-- I.C. okayed it.

I would like to see it addressed later, in the context of alternative ideas that have not been evaluated by those who see God/no God as the only alternatives. If you have some genuine interest in philosophical concepts, consider supporting the potential of ideas you've yet to read or consider.

Time your bitching. No point complaining about the quality of the bird while mother is warming her egg.

Greylorn

marjoram_blues
Posts: 1629
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:50 pm

Re: God, gods, or none of the above?

Post by marjoram_blues » Wed Apr 01, 2015 8:45 am

Lol - bitching and whining and it's all in the timing.
Carry on.

PS How long does it take to produce a pickled, hard-boiled egg?

Gee
Posts: 373
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 12:22 am
Location: Michigan, US

Re: God, gods, or none of the above?

Post by Gee » Wed Apr 01, 2015 12:29 pm

Greylorn and Immanuel;

I have been gone from this forum for a while and don't usually post in the Religion section, but your thread has drawn my interest.

After reviewing your posts, I must say that I honestly respect your positions and even see some truth in your statements, but I just can not buy the "God" or "Gods" idea and doubt that there was an Intelligent Designer. For most of my life, I accepted the idea of an Intelligent Designer because there was no other possibility that I could imagine. But philosophy is not based upon what I can imagine; it is based upon valid premises and a reasoned logical argument.

I can find no evidence of any beings that could be a "God" or "Gods" that existed prior to the Big Bang, and no logical argument to support the reasoning that great intelligence would exist, then go dormant for billions of years, in order to reassert itself in the form of humans. We do have evidence that humans evolved from less intelligent species, so I can accept that intelligence evolves, I just can not see where it would be, then not be, then appear again. This looks like a game of Peek-a-Boo.

It is my position that Laws of Physics/Laws of Nature are the reasons why the Big Bang, or whatever, occurred. But unlike science, I also suspect that there is another player in this scenario, and that player is motion. Motion is a part of everything, from the motion of photons to the motion of galaxies to the motion in life, and I suspect that this motion is what is interpreted as "God" or the Intelligent Designer. But this motion is not magic -- it is also constricted by the Laws of Physics/Nature -- and I see no reason to think it is intelligent.

I suspect that life actually feels this motion, and as long as we feel it, we are aware. When we feel it strongly, we call it e-motion. There are a lot of reasons why I think this -- too many to produce in this post -- but I will give an outline of some of my thoughts.

I have been studying consciousness for most of my life, and like most people I accepted science's conclusions, and philosophy's, that consciousness is thought. I no longer believe that. Thought is like a leaf laying on the ground, or a word in a book; it has no ability to do anything. Consciousness is like that same leaf swirling through the air. We see the leaf moving and think that it (thought) has the ability to move, but it only moves because the wind (emotion) is moving it. We can not see the wind, only the leaf, so it appears that the leaf is active; it is not. Neither is thought active, it only moves because of awareness, emotion. Consciousness is emotion.

If one actually studies emotion, what it can do, how it works, then things become much clearer.

Emotion can not be known, only felt, like the wind. Our conscious rational aspect of mind, the Ego, works with our five senses -- this is how we know things; but our sub/unconscious is where we feel emotion. In order to know the emotion embedded in the SuperEgo, we must give it form and substance, so we must interpret it in order to know it.

A good example of this concept is art. Artists use music and dance, paintings and drawings, sculpture and architect, etc., to interpret emotion and give it form so that we can look at or hear something and know the feeling of that emotion. If "God" is actually emotion, then we would also have to interpret "God" in order to understand and know "God". This is why people of different cultures and religions know "God" in different ways, but there are also similarities.

Religions state that "God" has no beginning and no end. It is interesting to note that the sub/unconscious aspect of mind, that processes emotion, does not know time. It has absolutely no regard for time and space. So it is possible that emotion also has no regard for time and space.

Religions often state that "God" is unknowable. I think that I explained that above.

Religions are deeply involved in morality. Morality is rooted in emotion.

Religions use faith and belief as teaching tools. Emotion requires the stability of faith and belief as it does not accept change easily.

Religions almost always have rites and sacraments centered around life changes, ie. birth, coming of age, marriage, and death. These are also times of hormonal change and relate to emotion.

Religions bond societies. Emotion bonds people in small and large groups.

Religions connect people in spirituality. Emotion is spirituality and works between people or things, not within them.

Religions concern themselves with charity and compassion. These are motivated by emotion.

I suspect that emotion is simply a stronger form of awareness -- that they are essentially the same thing. So I think that the only discipline that has actually been studying consciousness is religion, because religion studies emotion -- they just call it "God".

So I choose the "none of the above", if you will let me in the discussion.

Gee

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5685
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: God, gods, or none of the above?

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Apr 01, 2015 12:42 pm

I can see now that mb has a point. We have been, perhaps, too deferential to the Atheist option in including it in the spectrum. That can indeed be misleading, and can seem inviting to those who are interested in doing nothing other than reproducing the many sorts of Atheist -Theist debates we already find on this site.

Those debates have merit, and I certainly am not reluctant to engage in them, as you probably know: it's just that we wished to do something a little different here. A less-inclusive declaration of purpose might have been more desirable after all, as it would have made our purpose more clear. In respect to those who hold that view, and in regard to keeping that option open at the conclusion, we left it in. But we should perhaps not have done so.

However, hindsight is 50-50, as they say. Mea Culpa, and let's move on.

User avatar
GreatandWiseTrixie
Posts: 1547
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:51 pm

Re: God, gods, or none of the above?

Post by GreatandWiseTrixie » Wed Apr 01, 2015 1:13 pm

marjoram_blues wrote:
A_Seagull wrote:
Immanuel Can wrote:[We're happy to have input, but we're trying to figure out how to avoid the discussion become derailed by the local trolls and scavengers that occasionally crop up in places like this.
Well one thing you could try is answering serious questions such as I posted previously. Maybe they are too hard for you? I don't know.

But if you can't answer serious questions, your discussion is no more than that of two little pixies sitting on a toadstool.
The thing is, both can answer serious questions but this time round they really want to pose their profound positions, after having chewed the fat elsewhere. It's an exclusive set-up, designed to annoy. They already have their well-rehearsed answers. What's 'experimental' - or philosophically engaging - about that kind of exchange?

The response from IC to my questions, so far, has been pretty predictable. I wish I could remember a similar 'experimental' thread which was attempted here - it involved an exchange of money...

On an open forum, interjections are to be expected. How it is managed is important. To discuss implications of God, gods - fair enough.
Then be honest - and remove the apparent invitation in the thread title to include 'none of the above'.
I agree. This conversation seems like this would be better suited as a PM fest between Greylorn and Immanuel. It seems like they wish for us to watch this broadway spectacle of theirs.
If an entity is created by a conscious being, its properties are built into it by its creators. E.g. automobiles, robots, and God-created souls. It is impossible for such entities to have complete freedom of choice, i.e. "free will." If it's a robotic or human jerk, that's because it was designed to be a jerk.

However, if the component of consciousness was the consequence of a natural event, as I propose, it can have free will.
Makes no sense. If a human creates a robot, the robot was created by a human, humans are part of nature, humans are a force of nature. If nature creates nature, how is the robot any different than a human, by definition? If humans were created by nature, by definition how could they have freewill, but robots could not?

marjoram_blues
Posts: 1629
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:50 pm

Re: God, gods, or none of the above?

Post by marjoram_blues » Wed Apr 01, 2015 3:45 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:I can see now that mb has a point. We have been, perhaps, too deferential to the Atheist option in including it in the spectrum. That can indeed be misleading, and can seem inviting to those who are interested in doing nothing other than reproducing the many sorts of Atheist -Theist debates we already find on this site.

Those debates have merit, and I certainly am not reluctant to engage in them, as you probably know: it's just that we wished to do something a little different here. A less-inclusive declaration of purpose might have been more desirable after all, as it would have made our purpose more clear. In respect to those who hold that view, and in regard to keeping that option open at the conclusion, we left it in. But we should perhaps not have done so.

However, hindsight is 50-50, as they say. Mea Culpa, and let's move on.
Misleading title will still mislead. But, then again, it will probably attract a wider audience...
Carry on.

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: God, gods, or none of the above?

Post by Greylorn Ell » Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:09 pm

marjoram_blues wrote:Lol - bitching and whining and it's all in the timing.
Carry on.

PS How long does it take to produce a pickled, hard-boiled egg?
M.B.

About as long as it takes to answer three hard questions, one tequila shot for each.

Greylorn

User avatar
A_Seagull
Posts: 860
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:09 pm

Re: God, gods, or none of the above?

Post by A_Seagull » Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:36 pm

Greylorn Ell wrote:
A_Seagull wrote:
Immanuel Can wrote:[We're happy to have input, but we're trying to figure out how to avoid the discussion become derailed by the local trolls and scavengers that occasionally crop up in places like this.
Well one thing you could try is answering serious questions such as I posted previously. Maybe they are too hard for you? I don't know.

But if you can't answer serious questions, your discussion is no more than that of two little pixies sitting on a toadstool.
A.S.

I hope that I.C. will not respond to you, or your ilk. Your "serious questions" were snarly rants with no content-- aggressive attempts to put someone with something to contribute on the defensive. Pretty much like this follow up, where you bitch and whine about being ignored, like a spoiled 4-year old girl.

I like your toad stool analogy. Are you upset that I.C. and I occupied a favorite perch?

Greylorn
I draw the conclusion that IC does not answer my questions because s/he is unable to do so.

And I also infer that neither can you.

So dream on :)

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: God, gods, or none of the above?

Post by Greylorn Ell » Wed Apr 01, 2015 11:02 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:I can see now that mb has a point. We have been, perhaps, too deferential to the Atheist option in including it in the spectrum. That can indeed be misleading, and can seem inviting to those who are interested in doing nothing other than reproducing the many sorts of Atheist -Theist debates we already find on this site.

Those debates have merit, and I certainly am not reluctant to engage in them, as you probably know: it's just that we wished to do something a little different here. A less-inclusive declaration of purpose might have been more desirable after all, as it would have made our purpose more clear. In respect to those who hold that view, and in regard to keeping that option open at the conclusion, we left it in. But we should perhaps not have done so.

However, hindsight is 50-50, as they say. Mea Culpa, and let's move on.
Immanuel Can,

Sorry to disagree. I don't see any need for a Mea culpa-- only some clarification. With luck you and I will present detailed and different God-concepts. Many individuals reject the Christian God because they find it an inherently illogical and often contradictory concept, as did I. Some do not understand the concept and do not really know what they are rejecting (e.g. Gee's post above). One of your jobs on this thread is to express that God-concept, ideally in such a way as to connect it to the realities of life, and to science, as you wrote in our OP.

My job is different. It is to present an alternative God-concept that no one has yet formally rejected, mainly because no one knows what it is. Perhaps if I can explain enough of it, well enough, a few people might regard it as sufficiently logical and consistent with physics to accept.

This is not a competition. If you convert a thousand people to the Christian God concept and no one thinks that my notions are worth a hoot, I'll have served a worthy purpose. People are losing their sense of the spiritual, and growing up without a sense of purpose, leaving or ignoring religions or anything that offers a purpose other than going through life comfortably and dying after 40 years of collecting retirement benefits. Western society is deteriorating as a result.

A God-concept is essential to the idea of soul, an entity that persists after biological death and has a higher purpose. God-concepts that are relevant mainly to theologians are gateways to soul-concepts that are relevant to regular people.

I want to resurrect God-- to restore the idea of a created universe and a soul that persists beyond single embodiments. That is my purpose on this thread and every other thread on which I post.

On this thread I hope to see you explain your God-concept eloquently, in the context of your complete understandings of reality. I'll do mine, not so eloquently, but according to my style. When we have finished, that will be time for thread participants to evaluate the results. "None of the above," will have his day, but the jury is not supposed to deliver a verdict until the trial is done.

Therefore I propose that we treat this thread much like an informal trial, except one in which any number of jurors are invited to participate by submitting questions-- provided that their questions are pertinent to the case.

The trial analogy is a bit of a stretch. There are two prosecutors, each presenting a different case against the lone defendant, NOTA. (None Of The Above) The jury can consist of any number of members, and the only participatory demands on them are to pay attention, be polite and thoughtful, and keep their questions relevant to the case.

Unlike conventional trials, jurors are invited to discuss the case with friends and drinking buddies outside the courtroom. There seems no reason why they should not discuss the case by softly muttering to one another within the jury box, provided that it is this case they are muttering about. We'll see how that works.

Jury members who find themselves inspired by this thread to voice their own innovative opinions are encouraged to leave this virtual courtroom and initiate a thread devoted to the explorations of those opinions. No prejudice. They are allowed to return, and invited to stay relevant. This is not the place to pitch your newly inspired threads.

Unlike a regular trial, jurors may express relevant objections. And since we have no judge, both I.C. and I must take turns at that duty. He'll be fair.

Perhaps the experiment is coming together?

If so, our respective jobs are to present our cases and get out of here, leaving any remaining jurors to deliberate the outcome. I really want to send NOTA to the clink.

Greylorn

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: God, gods, or none of the above?

Post by Greylorn Ell » Thu Apr 02, 2015 12:23 am

Gee wrote:Greylorn and Immanuel;

I have been gone from this forum for a while and don't usually post in the Religion section, but your thread has drawn my interest.

After reviewing your posts, I must say that I honestly respect your positions and even see some truth in your statements, but I just can not buy the "God" or "Gods" idea and doubt that there was an Intelligent Designer. For most of my life, I accepted the idea of an Intelligent Designer because there was no other possibility that I could imagine. But philosophy is not based upon what I can imagine; it is based upon valid premises and a reasoned logical argument.
Gee,

False last sentence. Philosophy is based upon premises worked over and talked to death by lots of blathering pseudo-intellectuals. "Valid" premises? How can a premise be determined to be valid at the onset of its introduction? That is determined, in theory, by the subsequent blathering. And ultimately what really determines the "validity" of an argument is that on which the majority of the blatherers agree.

Unless you know of a philosophy upon which all philosophers agree...
Gee wrote:I can find no evidence of any beings that could be a "God" or "Gods" that existed prior to the Big Bang, and no logical argument to support the reasoning that great intelligence would exist, then go dormant for billions of years, in order to reassert itself in the form of humans. We do have evidence that humans evolved from less intelligent species, so I can accept that intelligence evolves, I just can not see where it would be, then not be, then appear again. This looks like a game of Peek-a-Boo.
Of course you cannot find evidence for the nonsense proposed in the above paragraph, and I'd be dismayed if you could. What you've done here is set up a silly, absurd God-concept that seems to be derived from some goofy new-age church you've been attending, or Madame Blavatsky's mindless books, then claim that you don't accept it.

Big Deal. I can propose that the universe is the droppings of a passing Great Green Cat, left floating in space for lack of sand in which to bury it. Then I can easily disavow that idea without expecting much by way of argument--- but on this forum, who knows?

So, I agree that the God concept you've proposed here, by way of a little hijack attempt, is equally stupid and irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the God-concepts being presented here. So, why are you here?
Gee wrote: It is my position that Laws of Physics/Laws of Nature are the reasons why the Big Bang, or whatever, occurred. But unlike science, I also suspect that there is another player in this scenario, and that player is motion. Motion is a part of everything, from the motion of photons to the motion of galaxies to the motion in life, and I suspect that this motion is what is interpreted as "God" or the Intelligent Designer. But this motion is not magic -- it is also constricted by the Laws of Physics/Nature -- and I see no reason to think it is intelligent.
If you knew any of the laws or principles of physics, you would not have proposed this silly idea. There's no point in arguing with you, or with anyone who makes up physics to suit their argument-- including modern cosmologists or, as they are fond of calling themselves, astrophysicists. There's this: The alleged Big Bang was preceded by something that blew up. Originally this was conceived to be a tiny aggregation of mass and energy smaller than a proton. When that absurd notion was mathematically disproved, cosmologists resorted to the same trick used by religions and invented something that could not be physically or mathematically defined, and therefore cannot be disproved-- The silly physical "singularity," the stupidest concept accepted by physicists since phlogiston.

Motion is relative. Neither the micro-proton nor the singularity can move because there was nothing they could move with respect to.

I respectfully suggest that you learn some physics before offering your opinions on anything related to the subject.
Gee wrote: I suspect that life actually feels this motion, and as long as we feel it, we are aware. When we feel it strongly, we call it e-motion. There are a lot of reasons why I think this -- too many to produce in this post -- but I will give an outline of some of my thoughts.

I have been studying consciousness for most of my life, and like most people I accepted science's conclusions, and philosophy's, that consciousness is thought. I no longer believe that. Thought is like a leaf laying on the ground, or a word in a book; it has no ability to do anything. Consciousness is like that same leaf swirling through the air. We see the leaf moving and think that it (thought) has the ability to move, but it only moves because the wind (emotion) is moving it. We can not see the wind, only the leaf, so it appears that the leaf is active; it is not. Neither is thought active, it only moves because of awareness, emotion. Consciousness is emotion.
"E-motion? Really?

I've discussed this same old shtick with you before and found it to have been a waste of time. I don't think that you have studied consciousness at all. That's not the problem-- claiming to have done so is. Have you seriously studied Descartes? I invite you to peruse Consciousness and the Universe, a little compendium of papers edited and compiled by Roger Penrose, then get back to me in a year. Anticipate a quiz.
Gee wrote:If one actually studies emotion, what it can do, how it works, then things become much clearer.

Emotion can not be known, only felt, like the wind. Our conscious rational aspect of mind, the Ego, works with our five senses -- this is how we know things; but our sub/unconscious is where we feel emotion. In order to know the emotion embedded in the SuperEgo, we must give it form and substance, so we must interpret it in order to know it.

A good example of this concept is art. Artists use music and dance, paintings and drawings, sculpture and architect, etc., to interpret emotion and give it form so that we can look at or hear something and know the feeling of that emotion. If "God" is actually emotion, then we would also have to interpret "God" in order to understand and know "God". This is why people of different cultures and religions know "God" in different ways, but there are also similarities.

Religions state that "God" has no beginning and no end. It is interesting to note that the sub/unconscious aspect of mind, that processes emotion, does not know time. It has absolutely no regard for time and space. So it is possible that emotion also has no regard for time and space.

Religions often state that "God" is unknowable. I think that I explained that above.

Religions are deeply involved in morality. Morality is rooted in emotion.

Religions use faith and belief as teaching tools. Emotion requires the stability of faith and belief as it does not accept change easily.

Religions almost always have rites and sacraments centered around life changes, ie. birth, coming of age, marriage, and death. These are also times of hormonal change and relate to emotion.

Religions bond societies. Emotion bonds people in small and large groups.

Religions connect people in spirituality. Emotion is spirituality and works between people or things, not within them.

Religions concern themselves with charity and compassion. These are motivated by emotion.

I suspect that emotion is simply a stronger form of awareness -- that they are essentially the same thing. So I think that the only discipline that has actually been studying consciousness is religion, because religion studies emotion -- they just call it "God".

So I choose the "none of the above", if you will let me in the discussion.

Gee
Repeating, because you obviously do not recall and have never addressed my comments from other threads: Emotion is an effect generated by the brain. Emotion and consciousness are not equivalent concepts. I'm sorry that you cannot get beyond this opinion of yours. Emotion is obviously important to you. That does not place it at the center of thought.

Re: my last post to I.C., it seems to me that having tried to introduce opinions of your own that have nothing to do with the ideas being explained here, and having already rendered a verdict without examining the evidence, and expressing explanations for consciousness derived from your own opinions rather than any of those presented here, you are ill-qualified to enter the jury box.

Peruse the Penrose book and get back to me then.
You seem well-intentioned.
High regards,
Greylorn

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: God, gods, or none of the above?

Post by Greylorn Ell » Thu Apr 02, 2015 12:34 am

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:
marjoram_blues wrote: The thing is, both can answer serious questions but this time round they really want to pose their profound positions, after having chewed the fat elsewhere. It's an exclusive set-up, designed to annoy. They already have their well-rehearsed answers. What's 'experimental' - or philosophically engaging - about that kind of exchange?

The response from IC to my questions, so far, has been pretty predictable. I wish I could remember a similar 'experimental' thread which was attempted here - it involved an exchange of money...

On an open forum, interjections are to be expected. How it is managed is important. To discuss implications of God, gods - fair enough.
Then be honest - and remove the apparent invitation in the thread title to include 'none of the above'.
I agree. This conversation seems like this would be better suited as a PM fest between Greylorn and Immanuel. It seems like they wish for us to watch this broadway spectacle of theirs.
If an entity is created by a conscious being, its properties are built into it by its creators. E.g. automobiles, robots, and God-created souls. It is impossible for such entities to have complete freedom of choice, i.e. "free will." If it's a robotic or human jerk, that's because it was designed to be a jerk.

However, if the component of consciousness was the consequence of a natural event, as I propose, it can have free will.
Makes no sense. If a human creates a robot, the robot was created by a human, humans are part of nature, humans are a force of nature. If nature creates nature, how is the robot any different than a human, by definition? If humans were created by nature, by definition how could they have freewill, but robots could not?
Trix,

Kindly consider my post of 1 April 11:02 pm. Perhaps it addresses some of your questions.

Greylorn

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5685
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: God, gods, or none of the above?

Post by Immanuel Can » Thu Apr 02, 2015 1:11 am

I draw the conclusion that IC does not answer my questions because s/he is unable to do so.

And I also infer that neither can you.
Look elsewhere, in other threads, and you'll draw better conclusions.

Glad I could help.
Last edited by Immanuel Can on Thu Apr 02, 2015 1:40 am, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Belinda and 6 guests