Is the concept of "God" necessary, let alone real?

[Greta]

why ask when you are an ant? all questions you have are irrelevant.

I ask because I am a human and not an ant. Ants don't ask questions, humans do.

I appreciate that how I feel about my conditioning is irrelevant to you. You don't know me However, I see value in trying to break out of one's mental conditioning and that is my interest here.

you should not take my post as personal - i'm an ant too (did you read Sheckley's story - if so you are fast reader (I have dyslexia and slow reader - not implying you did not).

I ask because his story is my view of our "Reality" and shows hubris of man's nature - thinking he is not an ant when he is just that! - and less even.

Sagan's pale blue dot etc, sure - it's my favourite philosophical prose. Still, this pale blue dot contains the most complexity and sentience for trillions of kms around, so it's not so insignificant in a sense.

While one may consider stars to be uncaring and thus effectively "cold-hearted", I cannot feel comfortable with any statement saying that the hottest things in the universe are cold

[gaffo]

I'm "Lek"

in this realm (the here and now) - there is only one Truth (be it a lower case or upper case) - Solipsism.

I know I exist - right now.

I take you and all others and "all outside reality" - as being real outside of my mind's input of stimulus - via "Faith"

in no way do i affirm your reality by conviction by reason.

reason offer no proove of your reality outside of me talking to myself.

for sanity's sake i assume you and 7 billon other and the Earth/universe actually exists...............but reason offer no prove of.

..........

as for a higher Truth than what Human Reason offers (more the Solipsism) - not able to find in my current form at present time.

[gaffo]

I ask because I am a human and not an ant. Ants don't ask questions, humans do.

I appreciate that how I feel about my conditioning is irrelevant to you. You don't know me However, I see value in trying to break out of one's mental conditioning and that is my interest here.

you should not take my post as personal - i'm an ant too (did you read Sheckley's story - if so you are fast reader (I have dyslexia and slow reader - not implying you did not).

I ask because his story is my view of our "Reality" and shows hubris of man's nature - thinking he is not an ant when he is just that! - and less even.

Sagan's pale blue dot etc, sure - it's my favourite philosophical prose. Still, this pale blue dot contains the most complexity and sentience for trillions of kms around, so it's not so insignificant in a sense.

While one may consider stars to be uncaring and thus effectively "cold-hearted", I cannot feel comfortable with any statement saying that the hottest things in the universe are cold

????????Sagan was a brilliant man and a nice guy - have his show Cosmos on DVD (remake was trash).

but he was not a "thinker" Sheckley was.

did you read the link of his story i provided?

[Reflex]

For me it's not fear but a wish not to commit to my ideals. I think they have more evolving to do before I commit to any notion that I have. Maybe that will always be the case.

I go with what works until something better comes along. Mistakes are a powerful learning tool.

I think the universe is comprised of a vast hierarchy of qualitative variations of interpenetrating fields, processes and systems.

Nicely put.

I mistakenly omitted "of the same thing."

Well, I would like to see these under-appreciated entities put on their rightful pedestals I can very much relate to Earth worship, for instance. That we live on a world in space is terribly abstracted and unappreciated concept while we remain distracted by life's exigencies.

I sometimes wonder how close to extinction human beings would come if they were put on their rightful pedestals.

When you think about what stars and planets actually are, especially their scale and layers, and then how especially weird the Earth is compared with everything else we've observed in space - the whole situation is so trippy and mind-boggling that there is no way our little heads can properly wrap around it. Yet human attempts to understand are heroic in their determination against impossible odds, and that persistence has brought us further than our ancestors would have thought possible.

Why does progress look so much like destruction?

and that is similarly "ambitious". Humanity are also getting some adverse press. By contrast, the Earth and galaxy are seen more or less as die - random elements in the game of survival - but they may well be the main players and most blame-worthy

By now, you should know that I regard the material universe as little more than the shadow of a deeper, more fundamental reality that is largely unappreciated by human beings.

[Dubious]

Sure, the Earth might end up being overrun with paperclip optimisers..

More likely than paper clips would be gamma ray radiation from very far away but actually I was thinking of neither of these!

[-1-]

(I don't know who wrote these, because the quote referencing was a bit sloppy:)

When you think about what stars and planets actually are, especially their scale and layers, and then how especially weird the Earth is compared with everything else we've observed in space - the whole situation is so trippy and mind-boggling that there is no way our little heads can properly wrap around it. Yet human attempts to understand are heroic in their determination against impossible odds, and that persistence has brought us further than our ancestors would have thought possible.

and that is similarly "ambitious". Humanity are also getting some adverse press. By contrast, the Earth and galaxy are seen more or less as die - random elements in the game of survival - but they may well be the main players and most blame-worthy

I don't know. With my committment to a weltanschauung, wrapping my head around this is not a problem. Maybe my head is larger and flatter (like a sheet of newspaper.)

But seriously speaking, I don't see a hidden, unseen, undetectable meaning behind all this. I do believe in determinism, which means that each consequent state of the universe is determined by the forces, movements, and motivations of some parts of it, in the previous state.

If you believe that, if you can believe that, then the whole thing congeals philosophically like a well-placed tetris game. No surprises, no gaps to fill in by a god or by any other invisible unknowable.

My system is not perfect; it can't explain the consciousness of biological beings. The pleasure principle. The experiences animals are capable of. I hold, however, a belief that that can be explained very well and will be. Except not just yet.

-------------------------

Bringing in the blame... ay, vey. Is that Jewish blame, Christian blame, or Blame blame? We are a system where each unit has motivations that when added all up among the species, it leads to a self-destructive pattern. We blame ourselves and others for not getting rid of our stripes like some tigers. WE can't, and that is a natural process. If you want to attach an adjective to human core values, they are unfortunate; but it's not something we can change, because we can't change a dictate not to kill children, not to divide ourselves into who can breed and who can't, and not to stop hoarding.

What worked for us as a species for over a hundred thousand years, is not going to work forever. Blame is useless. It will not solve any problems. Only changing core human values can, and I am skeptical if that is a real possibility.

[Nick_A]

IN a recent work, Henri Nouwen emphasizes the essence of spirituality in a most succinct fashion: “To whom do we belong? This is the core question of the spiritual life. Do we belong to the world, its worries, its people and its endless chain of urgencies and emergencies, or do we belong to God and God’s people.”

This can be taken as a very elitist statement but what if it is true? What if people guided only by their senses are psychologically attached to the earth at the present time? Under these circumstances the question of God must be based on idolatry. However, what if a person is not only guided by their senses but becomes open to conscious intuition as it relates to the question of God. Maybe then, defining idolatry loses its importance in favor of opening the vertical psychological path which leads to our source. This attitude doesn’t devalue our senses but introduces a quality of intelligence beyond what the senses can reveal. From this perspective arguing God is meaningless and meaningful intelligence is a reflection of remembrance.



From Wiki

The Cloud of Unknowing (Middle English: The Cloude of Unknowyng) is an anonymous work of Christian mysticism written in Middle English in the latter half of the 14th century. The text is a spiritual guide on contemplative prayer in the late Middle Ages. The underlying message of this work suggests that the way to know God is to abandon consideration of God's particular activities and attributes, and be courageous enough to surrender one's mind and ego to the realm of "unknowing", at which point one may begin to glimpse the nature of God.

Whatever debases the intelligence degrades the entire human being. ~ Simone Weil

The role of the intelligence - that part of us which affirms and denies and formulates opinions is merely to submit. ~ Simone Weil

The intelligent man who is proud of his intelligence is like the condemned man who is proud of his large cell. ~ Simone Weil

So from this perspective, secular intelligence defined by what the senses reveal should not be degraded. It is valuable. However for questions pertaining to the Source of creation and our Source in particular, it is insufficient.

This leads me to Plato’s Divided Line. It is an excellent description of intelligence reflecting the senses as compared to intelligence based on remembrance

http://www.john-uebersax.com/plato/plato1.htm

We learn of the essential differences between above and below the line from the introduction

The Divided Line is supplied at the end of Book 6 of the Republic, with additional remarks in Book 7 (Rep 6.509d–6.511e; 7.533c–7.534b).
The basic features are as follows:

• Using a line for illustration, Plato divides human knowledge into four grades or levels, differing in their degree of clarity and truth. First, imagine a line divided into two sections of unequal length (Figure 1, hash mark C). The upper level corresponds to Knowledge, and is the realm of Intellect. The lower level corresponds to Opinion, and concerns the world of sensory experience. Plato says only that the sections are of "unequal" length, but the conventional view is that the Knowledge section is the longer one.

• Then bisect each of these sections (hash marks B and D). This produces four line segments, corresponding to four cognitive states and/or modes of thinking. From highest to lowest, these are:
o noesis (immediate intuition, apprehension, or mental 'seeing' of principles)
o dianoia (discursive thought)
o pistis (belief or confidence)
o eikasia (delusion or sheer conjecture)

The visible realm and the domain of our senses argues our source by opinions and beliefs while those having experienced the inner path become capable of noesis.

The line image lets Plato point out instructive ratios concerning truth quality amongst the states. Specifically:
1. As Being is to becoming, so Knowledge is to Opinion.
2. As Knowledge is to Opinion, so noesis is to pistis,
3. And dianoia is to eikasia,
4. And (though Plato does not say this explicitly, but rather lets us see it ourselves) noesis is to dianoia.

It seems to me then that there is an obvious hierarchy of intelligence. Where secularism defines intelligence in relation to our senses, universal intelligence includes our capacity for noesis. For the transition to take place a person must be willing to surrender their ego and defense of its preconceptions. This is of course easier said than done which is why arguments about God are so persistent and so negative.

The rest of the article offers food for thought as to the value for recognizing the hierarchy of intelligence but for now I only wanted to point out the essential difference rather than their implications for both individuals and society. The God concept can be unnecessary for a person absorbed in social life and acquiring prestige. Yet for those in need of the experience of meaning not provided by societal life, the God concept and the inner direction furthering it is essential.

[Reflex]

The God concept can be unnecessary for a person absorbed in social life and acquiring prestige. Yet for those in need of the experience of meaning not provided by societal life, the God concept and the inner direction furthering it is essential.

I like that!

[-1-]

The God concept can be unnecessary for a person absorbed in social life and acquiring prestige. Yet for those in need of the experience of meaning not provided by societal life, the God concept and the inner direction furthering it is essential.

I like that!

Sure. I agree, too. With two provisions:

1. The life that is busy is not concerned with god or with philosophy. True. But you need not be restricted to socializing and to gain prestige to keep busy. Some people collect stamps, or go and bitch on the Internet, or play computer games, or watch movies, or have a family and are involved with it full time. Etc.

2. Life, when it's boring and has gaps of free time, need not be (but it sometimes is, as it is one of the many ways of philosophizing) concerned with god and meaning. After all, god is not giving meaning; it is promising an eternal life full of happiness. That is not meaning, if you ask me... that is Hedonism. So if you've figured out that searching for meaning, any meaning, is futile, then chances are you branch out to other areas of philosophy. Including meditation, daydreaming, rehashing old parts of life.

[Dubious]

IN a recent work, Henri Nouwen emphasizes the essence of spirituality in a most succinct fashion: “To whom do we belong? This is the core question of the spiritual life. Do we belong to the world, its worries, its people and its endless chain of urgencies and emergencies, or do we belong to God and God’s people.”

Not being slaves, we don't belong to anyone; but if we do belong to something it would be the society in which we exist. Most societies allow for both the secularization of thought, it's "moving parts" so to speak and those of a more entrenched variety usually denoted as theism with fewer or no moving parts. God never claimed ownership unless a society was built on that idea for the benefit of those able to capitalize on it. History shows just how successful that objective turned out to be.

God can be analyzed backward into Motive which turns out to be more of a political and economic expedient meant to enhance "secular power", the very state in which God is born. Even if not completely true in all instances, within the main religions, god was a power grab.

God's people...reminds of that old mantra of divine justification God with us! applied as a smokescreen among battling nations whose goals were nothing but secular camouflaged as God's intent. The lust for power ruled then as much as as it rules now, the main difference being god is never mentioned except in Muslim societies.

[Greta]

Well, I would like to see these under-appreciated entities [galaxies, the Sun, the Earth, even humanity - our ancestors] put on their rightful pedestals I can very much relate to Earth worship, for instance. That we live on a world in space is terribly abstracted and unappreciated concept while we remain distracted by life's exigencies.

I sometimes wonder how close to extinction human beings would come if they were put on their rightful pedestals.

We will never know. I'm not one for the new age but I'm with Lovelock on the Gaia concept, except that I don't think we are destroying the planet but more likely doing its bidding as agents of change.

When you think about what stars and planets actually are, especially their scale and layers, and then how especially weird the Earth is compared with everything else we've observed in space - the whole situation is so trippy and mind-boggling that there is no way our little heads can properly wrap around it. Yet human attempts to understand are heroic in their determination against impossible odds, and that persistence has brought us further than our ancestors would have thought possible.

Why does progress look so much like destruction?

I think the Hindus worked that one out - Brahma the creator, Vishnu the preserver and Shiva the destroyer. Shiva is also known as "the renewer", and that's the point. Without destruction there is stagnation.

I like to think that life, or whatever life may become, can potentially find ways of gentrifying existence, rendering it ever more gentle on both itself and and others. To operate with ever more of a "light touch", which would ideally seem to most respectful way to treat everyone and everything around us. However, with sentience comes responsibility, and sometimes destruction is necessary - again, ideally no more than is necessary.

and that is similarly "ambitious". Humanity are also getting some adverse press. By contrast, the Earth and galaxy are seen more or less as die - random elements in the game of survival - but they may well be the main players and most blame-worthy

By now, you should know that I regard the material universe as little more than the shadow of a deeper, more fundamental reality that is largely unappreciated by human beings.

We are already aware of some of those underpinning fractal layers, eg. the cellular/microbial level, the molecular level and the atomic levels, each underpinning the other. What might or might not be happening behind the subatomic scale? Which level is most fundamental? If we have nine, ten or more dimensions, what might be happening in the ninth? We don't know. Yet.

[Nick_A]

-1- writes of the power of distractions, the futility of the experience of objective meaning leaving us only with the goal of happiness.

Dubious asserts that we are not slaves. Perhaps the illusion that we are free is the greatest danger for the psych of Man.

None are so hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrong looks like right in their eyes.
-Johann von Goethe

The Eastern religions claim that we suffer from attachment to imagination. If this is true, isn’t that a damaging form of inner slavery?

'Attachment is the great fabricator of illusions; reality can be obtained only by someone who is detached.” ~ Simone Weil

The seeker of truth is in a difficult position. The power of imagination makes slaves of society which is why the potential for conscious Man within a secular collective devolves into the Great Beast striving to experience meaning through materialism.

It is through the God concept and recognition that there is a higher reality which is the true source of meaning and purpose for Man that can allow for the awakening experience of grace. The light of grace enables a person to experience their psychological slavery. But it is obvious how violently the concept of detachment is both perverted and/or opposed to make it acceptable for secularism.

We live in times where the remote is a glorified machine offering us the key to happiness. Maybe Nietzsche is right and its influence over us gives us good reason to despise ourselves. We are asleep to the potential for human being which the ways seek to awaken us to. Is it worth it to make the necessary efforts with the help of grace to awaken or is it better with the help of the remote just to try to enjoy psychological sleep and imagine ourselves as free? It is a personal decision. We have to honestly decide what we need.

"Man is a rope, tied between beast and overman--a rope over an abyss...
What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end: what can be loved in man is that he is an overture and a going under...
"I say unto you: one must still have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star. I say unto you: you still have chaos in yourselves.
Alas, the time is coming when man will no longer give birth to a star. Alas, the time of the most despicable man is coming, he that is no longer able to despise himself. Behold, I show you the last man. ` Nietzsche

[Reflex]

We are already aware of some of those underpinning fractal layers, eg. the cellular/microbial level, the molecular level and the atomic levels, each underpinning the other. What might or might not be happening behind the subatomic scale? Which level is most fundamental? If we have nine, ten or more dimensions, what might be happening in the ninth? We don't know. Yet.

You are talking about processes; I'm not. I'm talking about something deeper than that.

[Dubious]

-1- writes of the power of distractions, the futility of the experience of objective meaning leaving us only with the goal of happiness.

Dubious asserts that we are not slaves. Perhaps the illusion that we are free is the greatest danger for the psych of Man.

No, I don't assert; that tendency more properly belongs to you.

Not being slaves doesn't amount to being free; if you can't see the obvious difference (which you seemingly can't) then what credibility can you have with everything else you write.

None are so hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrong looks like right in their eyes.
-Johann von Goethe

Goethe is one to talk! His cute little aphorisms of which this is one, generally amounts to cliche; Nietzsche was far more astute in that respect; more psychologically precise by magnitudes. Goethe's status as poet and polymath is undeniable though not often read now even among Germans. He was so impressed by his superiority that he rarely gave credence to what others had to say, a habit that became worse as he got older, and not rarely fell victim to the faults he moralized against. As one wag said, he became his own statue! If it weren't for Faust, how much of Goethe, I wonder, would be left!

[Greta]

We are already aware of some of those underpinning fractal layers, eg. the cellular/microbial level, the molecular level and the atomic levels, each underpinning the other. What might or might not be happening behind the subatomic scale? Which level is most fundamental? If we have nine, ten or more dimensions, what might be happening in the ninth? We don't know. Yet.

You are talking about processes; I'm not. I'm talking about something deeper than that.

You are talking about simply being as fundamental. Being present. Here. Awake rather than dormant. I'm aware of the concept and my favourite iteration is with the much maligned John Hagelin's notion of the Unified Field, which is of course most speculative but an awesome concept. As with all of this thread - maybe, maybe not.

We remain locked behind the problem of other minds but I too have wondered if all life is just one life, experiencing through different senses, bodies and circumstances. It seems that way when I look into the eyes of other people or species - we all seem to go through the same things, just to different extents and with different emphases.

We have seemingly covered a lot of similar metaphysical terrain, just that you believe in that which I see as possibilities.