Should 'God' be taught is school? (Non religiously)

[Immanuel Can]

Yes, science can eventually verify the necessity of a conscious source for creation.

Well, I suppose we agree on that much.

[seeds]

you are choosing an ideology that in your thought experiment there is an assumption of some real knowledge about it, when there isn't any 'real' knowledge.

Yes, a thought experiment that attempts to explain why any “real” (irrefutable) knowledge of God would be prohibited.

So of course there isn’t going to be any “real” knowledge of God.

The purpose of the thought experiment was to create a plausible reason that would counter the atheist’s complaint concerning the problem of why God does not reveal himself.

That, and to offer a perspective on this particular issue that hardcore atheists may not have considered due to their inherent biases - biases that preclude them from even thinking of such things to the necessary degree.

you say that's by design. but its just as easily there is no design.

There is absolutely nothing easy (or logical) in assuming that the fantastic order of the universe is something that occurred without any design input, or teleological impetus.

the truth is no one knows. that's the point of the class.

A class overseen and taught by whom?

I mean, we already have secular based university courses in comparative religions (i.e., comparative concepts of God). So what, exactly, are you suggesting would be different than that?

assuming you will never 'find' such an entity that exists is the same as saying mankind will never fly to the moon.

No, it’s not the same.

Granted, as future humans gain greater control over the fabric of reality through the study of quantum physics, along with a deeper understanding of molecular biology (DNA) and the like, we will no doubt achieve things that, from our present perspective, will seem miraculous.

However, I highly doubt that any of those future accomplishments will affect humans in quite the same way as it would if they discovered that there exists a higher context of livable reality “above and outside” of the corporeal bounds of their bodies and the universe.

In effect, as far as each individual human is concerned, the overwhelming importance of that discovery would render the abovementioned accomplishments (and the universe itself) meaningless.

And if you doubt that, then you just haven’t applied any critical thought to the issue.

(Continued in next post)
_______

[seeds]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

(Btw, Tesla, just for the record, I think that the inherent spirit and intent of your thread is excellent, so try not to take my argumentation the wrong way. We’re just having a little philosophical fun here. )

today's species is young, and growing in communication and knowledge and technology exploding at a scary rate. soon different methods of modifying DNA could create the next 'homo' series of evolution, and what will more advanced brains and potential Artificial intelligence (true intelligent singularity type) think of our silly monkey like (comparatively) reasoning here when they exist and not us?

Right. And I completely agree with you.

Now just take that theme of ever-advancing consciousness and ever-advancing levels of capabilities that you have suggested above, and then project it back into the eternal past – infinitely before the beginning of this one measly (13.8 billion year old) universe.

Now imagine the possibility of consciousness existing as far back as eternity itself, with literally forever to advance into a state of being where living minds have evolved to acquire the ability, not only to create a universe within - and out of - the inner mental fabric of their very own being,...

...but also, to pass on that ability to their very own inwardly-conceived offspring (such as humans, for example), as is vaguely implied in certain religious scripts (try not to have a cow ):

“...For in him we live, and move, and have our being...for we are also his offspring...”
“...Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.”
“...it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.”

Now I am not even remotely suggesting that I can’t be wrong, and it goes without saying that you are in no way obligated to accept any of the ideas I am offering.

However, if you can try to picture the infinite potential of life and consciousness in the way I described it above, then you will at least have a better idea of where I am coming from.

You make the mistake that all do when discussing the idea of God. You assume to know something about it. and that is the tragedy. and the point of such a class.

And the mistake that you are making is assuming that just because you yourself have not experienced anything in your life that might make you more receptive to the God hypothesis, then, likewise, no one else has.

The crazy irony of this conversation is that I am attempting to convey to you a completely speculative vision of what God might (“MIGHT”) possibly be, while you...

(the one who is so interested in creating a class that is designed to discuss the possibilities of what God might be, and where to “look” for God if such an entity exists)

...are practically hostile to my suggestions.

So far, your attitude seems to stand in stark contrast to the stated purpose of your proposed class.
_______

[Atla]

There is absolutely nothing easy (or logical) in assuming that the fantastic order of the universe is something that occurred without any design input, or teleological impetus.

Btw, why do you ignore the problem that to explain the existence of the designer, we would need an even more fantastic order than we already have? A being whose complexity and reach far exceeds what's available within our universe. You're just adding even more orders of magnitude of improbability, and call it easier and more logical?

[henry quirk]

"A Way is an inner path leading in the direction of the source of our being. I think there is only one Way but several paths which at some point merge at the Way."

I get it, and agree.

#

"We are living in chaotic times leading to the loss of inner direction."

Agreed. But is this new, these chaotic times, or just the same old, same old. I can argue for either.

#

"I agree with you that a man has to defend himself and his family."

I think most folks think the same, even the ones who'd put us all in chains to save us.

#

"But what I read of going on in Chicago isn't defensive killing; it is offensive reactions of lost souls which secularism is powerless in front of."

I think secularism is largely responsible.

#

"I hope you can keep your feet and your powder dry as well."

Tryin' hard.

[Immanuel Can]

#
"But what I read of going on in Chicago isn't defensive killing; it is offensive reactions of lost souls which secularism is powerless in front of."

I think secularism is largely responsible.

I think that's true -- at least negatively, by way of things-not-done, or things-secularism-cannot-do, if not by any active contribution.

Secularism, because it clears the field of beliefs and denies any particular values, leaves a gigantic vacuum that human beings will fill with something...and that something is bound to be an aggressive secular ideology of some kind.

And I'd say the same is true for all forms of socialism: nice idea in theory, but no darn good at all if human beings aren't the fairness-seeking, equality-loving, peace-inspired, unselfish and brotherly beings by nature that the socialists need them to be, in order for socialism to become something more than an opportunity for massive, aggressive, collective evil.

[henry quirk]

It's an empty shell. It doesn't feed, quenches no thirst, offers nuthin' but dust.

[Tesla]

Now imagine the possibility of consciousness existing as far back as eternity itself, with literally forever to advance into a state of being where living minds have evolved to acquire the ability, not only to create a universe within - and out of - the inner mental fabric of their very own being,...



So far, your attitude seems to stand in stark contrast to the stated purpose of your proposed class.
_______

I'm basing a future on what is. Your looking back to what can be imagined to be. That's the difference.

now imagine:

In the beginning was a singularity. Everything was very dense and very small. There is nothing outside it, only it exists in one form.

That was sciences big bang model. easy to reject because how can it change without influence? the universe 'apparently' comes from 'nothing'.

But, that's science. It knows its probably wrong, it needed a placeholder. That's all the data that expansion can lead them too. an appearance.

Now lets imagine God creating everything. What created the God? another God? and that one? another?

Eventually logically there is a start to what is now because change is happening. So the earlier wasn't the same. it was earlier, and gathering data on that isn't easy, but it is happening. There isn't any data that is digging up 'God or 'gods'. The original hunter gatherers were all atheist by all data. cosmic research also fails to find a being more intelligent than us, for now.

So is it a chicken or an egg? well. let data decide but we need to stop chasing the thousands year old beliefs that have proven effective at gaining believers, but ineffective at giving science any data considering the possibilities of an actual entity. Your looking in the wrong place. but you were taught to. and believe the 2000 year old ideas--so well ingrained--that even attempting to think outside it becomes impossible.

When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change -Alistair Begg
If Jesus wasn't resurrected, then we are all victims of the greatest scam in the history of mankind -Alistair Begg

When you have a room full of wise men, and one fool, everyone knows who the fool is. When you have a room full of fools and one wise man, everyone knows who the fool is.

Wisdom starts with knowing where ones knowledge ends.

[surreptitious57]

The singularity was not the beginning but the point at which physics can go back no further at this point in time
To go back further would require new physics that has yet to be discovered and so till then nothing can be done

The singularity as a point of zero volume and infinite density can not exist and is actually forbidden by quantum mechanics
But it could be a point of infinitesimal volume and finite density which can be represented mathematically as an asymptote
That would mean time could have existed before the Big Bang because the singularity did not actually experience it as such

[Atla]

Communism and capitalism were Judaist experiments, that's not atheism in itself. Just as Nazism wasn't Christianity in itself.
And the main problem today is that nuking the planet or unleashing global pandemics in the name of opposing major religions is more likely.
Secular or not, humanity will probably nuke itself in a few decades anyway, but if we try to unify the planet under soft atheism, and also accept the need for the genetic enhancment of the species, something that major religions may not allow, then we might have a chance at survivial.

But of course good values will be absolutely necessary. So first we have to deal with Judaism which forces the destruction of values on the planet. No I won't go into more detail abut the J word, because then the topic will surely be deleted.

[henry quirk]

"humanity will probably nuke itself in a few decades anyway"

cold assessment or wishful thinkin'?

#

"if we try to unify the planet under soft atheism"

you'll be resisted (and we whacky god-believers have all the guns, so...)

#

"accept the need for the genetic enhancment of the species"

stay the hell out of my DNA

[Atla]

"humanity will probably nuke itself in a few decades anyway"

cold assessment or wishful thinkin'?

#

"if we try to unify the planet under soft atheism"

you'll be resisted (and we whacky god-believers have all the guns, so...)

#

"accept the need for the genetic enhancment of the species"

stay the hell out of my DNA

I know very well that most people are like you, and will oppose anyone who wants to stop the apocalypse from happening. That's why humanity has to be tricked into genetic enhancment.
Like this ad: wouldn't you want your child to be smarter? Then buy our genetic enhancment programme.

(And once the newer generations are more intelligent and empathetic, theism should naturally fall away too.)

[henry quirk]

Crom said: I'm gonna make free men!

Man sez: freedom has got to go!

Crom is a bastid, but at least I'm free.

Man is well-intentioned, and he'd turn me into a Roomba.

What a world, what a world!

[seeds]

Now imagine the possibility of consciousness existing as far back as eternity itself, with literally forever to advance into a state of being where living minds have evolved to acquire the ability, not only to create a universe within - and out of - the inner mental fabric of their very own being,...


So far, your attitude seems to stand in stark contrast to the stated purpose of your proposed class.

I'm basing a future on what is. Your looking back to what can be imagined to be. That's the difference.

No, Tesla.

The difference between us is that I am attempting to address the question that you yourself posed in your OP:

IF an entity existed that could be considered 'God' where do we look?

While you, on the other hand, seem to be insisting that the parameters of the search must in no way include any thoughts or ideas that contain the slightest reference or allusion to any of the world’s religions.

Again, your self-limiting (blinkered) approach to the quest of “where do we look?” seems to stand in stark contrast to the stated purpose of your class.

(Continued in next post)
_______

[seeds]

______

(Continued from prior post)

now imagine:

In the beginning was a singularity. Everything was very dense and very small. There is nothing outside it, only it exists in one form.

That was sciences big bang model. easy to reject because how can it change without influence? the universe 'apparently' comes from 'nothing'.

But, that's science. It knows its probably wrong, it needed a placeholder. That's all the data that expansion can lead them too. an appearance.

Now lets imagine God creating everything. What created the God? another God? and that one? another?

No matter what our preferred view is in regards to the genesis of reality, be it a product of conscious design or of pure materialistic chance, infinite regress with respect to the question of how and why anything whatsoever exists, is unavoidable.

In other words, nothing we can think of can resolve that issue.

Indeed, I have often stated that that particular mystery is so profound that I wonder if even God knows the answer.

Eventually logically there is a start to what is now because change is happening. So the earlier wasn't the same. it was earlier, and gathering data on that isn't easy, but it is happening. There isn't any data that is digging up 'God or 'gods'.

Yes, Tesla, and I provided you with a fairly plausible reason as to why the data is unavailable.
_______