If in the beginning there is only god...

[SteveS]

Hi easytrak,  let's see, a couple things

SteveS:
But we experience life on the subjective plane as well as the objective, therefore our regular experience of life can also include God since He is subjective.

I guess I'm not really sure what you mean by this, but couple it with

I think the answer to the time question is that you perhaps content yourself with the fact that God is all eternity at once, timeless.

and it seems like you are just defining things so that they work.  I can't content myself with the fact that god is all eternity at once, or that I can't get an objective experience of god because god is subjective, because to me these are just explanations for holding what I believe to be an irrational belief.  I would need an objective reason to believe god is all eternity.  How can I possibly acquire this?  In other words, it seems to me like you are saying "If you wanted to believe, you'd be able to".  I don't doubt this, but I'm not wired that way.  I don't think I "want" to believe anything.  I think my beliefs are a consequence of my knowledge and experience.  I hope this made sense.

At any rate, I don't think you actually have to see God to get an idea what He is like. You can't see a black hole but you can get an idea what it is like i.e. you know its there.

Exactly, but I "know" it's there because of measurable, consistent effects of it's presence, and they are effects for which we can reasonably claim no other known physical cause (i.e. when we see a star react gravitationally to what looks like empty space, why would we not conclude there is an object of large mass causing it, instead of some weird alien gravity ray for which we have never found any evidence?).

To apply this analogy to god(s) seems impossible to me.  What are the effects of a "faith field" or a "god field"?  And if the claimed effect is something like love or altruism, then how do you know that those affects are due to god(s) and not due to something else (evolved social behavior, for example) for which we already have some objective evidence?

[easytrak]

tom62, you would agree if i were to say that the only reason the bible seems complicated is if you try to take it seriously. but if you see it as an absolute mess then you can understand the bible?

actually i don't really read the bible all that much. like you, i find problems with it. personally, i think the problems with the bible, particularly the OT, is the fact that it is very old and very primitive, in terms of grammar, theology etc., and yes, because it was written by many people over many years. still, i quite like the story of Christ, though even that i believe is written in a primitive style. it seems theology is improving over the years?

i do believe though that everybody has an eternal destiny, despite how meaningless life may seem for some at times.

as to the bible being used to brainwash people, well that is why people should think for themselves.

yeah i agree with you that when people try to form moral standards based solely on the bible they are doomed to faliure. the bible was written 000's of ya and those who try to make it relevant today have a difficult time. i don't really think the bible was written for that purpose, but the bible can assist.

so where are we supposed to go for truth? personally I think that truth is like anything. it has to be studied. you have to keep an open mind, and be prepared to be wrong at times. again, the bible is not entirely without worth in this instance.

---

steveS, when I say God is subjective, read "spiritual". we are spirits because we possess consciousness.

there are other things in this world which are subjective. courage is a subjective thing. kindness is a subjective thing. these are things which cannot be defined in time or space. the existence of God is like the existence of courage. it cannot be proven to actually exist.

evolution can only work on things which occupy time and space. consciousness does not occupy time and space. for instance, I cannot make you more courageous by giving 5mL of courage. that is why these things are not coming from evolution.

i know of course that when we think it is registered on our brains as impulses of electricity. that is because of the link between subjective (spiritual) and objective (flesh). that is also why a person who has brain damage can no longer think. you could argue it is because thought is an objective thing.

yes, you are free not to believe in God, and I think that is the whole reason why we are in this world. for if God were revealed, would you truly feel free? in this world, if you don't want to believe, you don't have to.

but can you truly find out what the true purpose of your existence is outside God?

[Tom62]

easytrak, I like your comments regarding my previous post. I fully agree with you.

[easytrak]

thanks very much

[SteveS]

Hi easytrak, I lost track of this conversation (because I've been jumping into so many lately, ).

we are spirits because we possess consciousness.

But, I don't think this can be asserted beyond all sorts of very reasonable doubts.  Until our science of mind/brain progresses to a point where we have a better understanding of what consciousness is, how can I accept that it must be spiritual?  I can't, so I don't.  I do, however, understand there is a lot left to learn about our physical existence.

When you say something like,

the existence of God is like the existence of courage. it cannot be proven to actually exist.

This is kind of weird to me.  It seems like we're arguing more about what "existence" is, philosophically, then anything else.  What I mean is courage exists as a human judgment of actions.  It's an abstract concept.  Courage does not have weight, color, smell, physical composition.  I can't give someone 5ml of courage, but sometimes a few ounces of ethanol can inspire courageous behavior.  Courage isn't a physical thing, it's a type of behavior.  It can be said to have effects, as in it can inspire courage in others.  So, in this way, if god exists as "godly actions", and has effects, like "inspiring kindness or altruism" in others, then I could certainly agree that god exists in this abstract way.  We could call it "godly behavior".  But, this is far different than god existing as creator of the universe, eternal judge of morality, etc.

but can you truly find out what the true purpose of your existence is outside God?

A common theme of mine is that I'm not sure there is any purpose of my existence.  If not, then I have a strong sense of freedom, because my purpose is whatever I make it.  I get to decide my purpose.  This makes me happy and helps me find peace and stability in my life, the same way a belief in "God" and "Jesus" helps other people.  Which is why I agree with you so strongly when you say we are free to believe what we want.  I would never dream of making atheism mandatory in a society.  Besides, it's really boring if we always agree with everyone all the time  :wink:  .

[easytrak]

steveS, spirituality can and never will be proven beyond reasonable doubt in this world. otherwise people would feel compelled to acknowledge God and thus lose freedom.

I think you are asking me: Is God courage itself, or is courage something possessed by God? Maybe it is both. We speak of God as one and infinite, but we also speak of God as having an inner life i.e. the Trinity. So God as the source of all life is himself living.

Yes you get to decide the purpose of your own existence. Choose the best purpose you can think of - one that lasts forever.

[McQ]

To tag on to what SteveS said about 'purpose' to existence...

I can completely understand with the wondering if there is any purpose to it. I often wondered the same thing, although not any more.

The one thing I think we (humans) do too much of is anthropomorphize everything. I no longer wonder if there is any purpose to 'life', existence, what have you, because there doesn't need[/i] to be any purpose to it.

Purpose is a human construct. We're the only ones, it seems, that try to put human feelings or ideas to the rest of the universe in order to find meaning. I don't believe it's necessary, and in fact, is counter-productive to learning how things really work in nature. The history of science has shown that the more we learn, the less we need to put human attributes on the natural world.

Think about Victorian Era science, and how everything in biology and evolution was trying to be compared to the "pinnacle" of evolution - humans. They learned, through Darwin and others, that evolution isn't a linear process, aimed at making more and more complex forms. It just is what it is: change. More complex forms do evolve, but so do simple organisms, like bacteria and viruses.

I'll stop here before I wander off on too much of a tangent, but my point is that I find great satisfaction in knowing that I don't have to scratch my hominid skull trying to find purpose in my existence. I can just enjoy it, and appreciate it.

[SteveS]

Hey McQ, thanks for sharing this.  This was really well stated --- I've been struggling with how to articulate the lack of purpose idea --- is it lack of external purpose?  Lack of absolute purpose?  Lack of divine purpose?  But putting it like this

Purpose is a human construct. We're the only ones, it seems, that try to put human feelings or ideas to the rest of the universe in order to find meaning.

is "spot on".  Anthropomorphization, as you say, is a great way to describe this problem.

The history of science has shown that the more we learn, the less we need to put human attributes on the natural world.

Exactly!

[SteveS]

easytrak, you're losing me mate.  I'm having a hard time following this:

I think you are asking me: Is God courage itself, or is courage something possessed by God? Maybe it is both. We speak of God as one and infinite, but we also speak of God as having an inner life i.e. the Trinity. So God as the source of all life is himself living.

I'm having trouble making logical sense out of some of these statements.  I wasn't really asking anything.  I'm just trying to point out that some of these god discussions involve an uncomfortable blur between "concrete" and "abstract" reality.

[easytrak]

ok, fair enough steveS, forget what i said.

i'll say it again though, that i doubt there will ever be conclusive concrete evidence of God. that would diminish free-will.

---

mcQ i have no problem with your philosophy of enjoying and appreciating life. but don't you desire MORE?

[McQ]

ok, fair enough steveS, forget what i said.

i'll say it again though, that i doubt there will ever be conclusive concrete evidence of God. that would diminish free-will.

---

mcQ i have no problem with your philosophy of enjoying and appreciating life. but don't you desire MORE?

Free-will, as it is used in the sense of most debates, is ALSO a human construct. Every time I hear someone start jabbering on about whether or not we have "free will" I have to get them to start from the beginning, i.e. DEFINE what they mean by free will. Until that is done, any debate over it is totally pointless.

As far as desiring more, I can't think of what you mean. When I talk about appreciating life, I'm talking the whole shebang. The smallest microbe to superclusters of galaxies. From the origin of the universe, to the the origin of life on earth, to the origin of the first Seinfeld episode, to whatever else I can think of. There is no "more" beyond "everything that exists".

I've looked for "more" if you mean "more" in the sense of god or religion, and found it to be a comforting lie. To paraphrase an adage, "I'd much rather believe an uncomfortable truth than a comfortable lie."

[easytrak]

free will is the ability to control what things we live for and to what degree. i believe that it is influenced but not dominated by that pleasure we receive from those things.

isn't it true to say that no-one can really be sure whether God is a lie or the truth? the more important question perhaps is what is the difference between a world with God and a world without God. perhaps you could say that God was a comforting "possible" lie.

[McQ]

free will is the ability to control what things we live for and to what degree. i believe that it is influenced but not dominated by that pleasure we receive from those things.

isn't it true to say that no-one can really be sure whether God is a lie or the truth? the more important question perhaps is what is the difference between a world with God and a world without God. perhaps you could say that God was a comforting "possible" lie.

That seems to be a very broad and thus, slippery definition of "free will. It's exactly why I ask that it be defined prior to discussing the subject. Too often have I found that either I or others have assumed a meaning of free will that is either too broad, or too different than others' definitions.

As to the question of whether or not god is a lie or truth, it depends on our definition of god too. For the xtian god of the bible, as written therein, I would say it's pretty east to know that it's a myth.

If you redefine god to mean something that started all existence and can't be pinned down, then it's more difficult. Do I believe such a being exists? No. Do I have proof no such being exists? No, but then again, it's not up to me to prove what I think doesn't exist. That would be analogous to asking someone to prove that santa doesn't exist.

So, in any event, we still would have to nail down and agree on what is meant by free will in order to discuss it without misunderstanding.

[easytrak]

i would like to see how you define free-will.

[McQ]

i would like to see how you define free-will.

Again, that is why I suggested that you define what you mean by free will. That way, we are not arguing about something we don't even agree on a definition of.

This is a topic gone over a great deal in internet forums, among other venues. In every case, I watched it deteriorate to nothing but name-calling when the term wasn't defined. I said your definition was broad. It is. Very. So it's hard to discuss. What I can do is put in some information shared on another forum by a friend of mine who elaborated on the topic. He is also a member of this forum. I don't think he'll mind me sharing this, and I agree very closely with what he discusses. So, what follows are two posts by Huxley (his forum name, not THE Huxley):

First post:

Free will is difficult to define because it can be anything and all you want it to be.

Consciousness and free will is, in my opinion, a manifestation of our big brains and the threshold is language. Whether we think out loud or write it down it is vast computation; constant examination of options and opportunities.

Whilst as sentient beings we know we will die but we now understand that our mechanical shells do not prevail; the DNA continues (if we leave children). We don't have cartesian type souls; no experiencer, just physical manefestation of all the sensory input. Free will is a common conception and as long as we do not mistake determinism for inevitability, we are in a good position, culturally and biologically to override much of the natural processes. Contraception being a good case.

It requires no knowledge or input of an imaginary creator; indeed all the evidence of our experience points to human intervention in the affairs of other humans. The universe isnt striving towards anything on purpose and neither is evolution of which we are (in this part of the universe) keen observers. I think if we understand that life has no 'meaning' other than what we attribute to it, then free will becomes a tool for thinking with, just as does morality and ethics. And I think all the faults we have tripped over and the way we have historically disposed towards one another points more to natural biological flourishing than the flawed fiat of an omnipotent being.

If I'm wrong then I haven't a bloody clue.


and a second post...

As animated, free moving, sensory creatures, we respond to stimuli and irritations and react accordingly. We have hardwired options far in excess of the hardwired instincts that simpler creatures exhibit. The strongest is the ability to project the future and assess the outcomes. We empathise, sympathise, calculate and experiment. A computer chess game does not 'think ahead' of what its moves may be. It responds to its opponent by a series, albeit a vast series, of pre ordained moves. If we are the chess program, we are a product of unintentional software expansion that calculates the moves ahead, considers possible outcomes, assesses the consequences before the moves and still retain the ability to completely ignore (should we choose)the conclusion.

We cannot arrest evolutionary pressure upon our DNA but the knowledge of evolution allows us the unique position of ignoring or defering it. Antibiotics and advanced medicine with technology is a fine example of our ability to prevent an evolutionary 'purchase'.

We identify these 'advanced' options, not in some hubristic way or without arrogance, as 'consciousness' and, in our case' free will'.

That's where it gets tricky. It is not a cut and dried issue that the universe 'knows' anything, or that there is a 'knower' or an observer. There does not appear to be any such thing as inevitabilty or predetermination. Of course, our 'free will' may be no more than an illusion to us, no more 'real' than our thoughts. Yet if it is a projection in some cartesian theatre, without an observer, it works very well and the illusion of being able to select which picture to watch, or criticise, in our own 'Multiplex' on a particular level, works practically, very well.

In some sense, if free will and consciousness is not 'real' or true, then in practical terms it matters not one jot. We still need to respond and to make our way around irritations and stimulations just like every other quirk of biological history. There is no certainty that were that tape of history replayed, it would play in the very same fashion. There is no certainty that there might even be a biology to speak of.


I find it difficult to talk with christians about free will, if they simply mean it in terms of a god-given (or withheld) attribute of humans. Since I don't start from the assumption of any god existing, then I don't follow free will as an attribute of us given by god. Make sense? If it is defined as the ability of humans to make certain choices, such as whether or not to sit up, walk over to the other side of the room, or type a sentence on the computer, I say, yes, we have the ability to make those choices, within the given constraints of physics, chemistry and biology. Some of our actions are regulated by biological processes via the autonomic nervous system, which we don't control (with the exception of being able to control breathing to some extent). I don't have the free will to regulate glands, or ion passage in and out of heart muscle cells, for instance. It's all done for automatically. But I can make the choice to reach for a door with one hand or the other, despite my left-handedness.

Anyway, that's a long-winded version of why I like to try and nail down definitions first. I hope it helps answer your comment on what I think of free will, easytrak.

BTW, as usual, I'm in a huge hurry. This is not spell-checked, reviewed, or otherwise carefully done!