Atheism in the world

Moreover i think your idea of pantheism is a pleasant, but fluffy, attempt at reconciling your logical brain's acceptence of atheism, with your social need to blend in to an at least semi-theist context. If everything is God, then God becomes fairly meaningless... unless, of course, you assert that there is still some sort of omniscient intelligent intent amongst all this oneness.  Ie, that theres some sort of master plan, or 'bigger moral picture' that this pervasive God has purposefully created.

 

Definitely. To say 'God is everything' is the same as saying 'God is nothing'. Germans say An agnostic is a polite atheist. Pantheists and deists are even politer.

Originally posted by Halevi Moreover i think your idea of pantheism is a pleasant, but fluffy, attempt at reconciling your logical brain's acceptence of atheism, with your social need to blend in to an at least semi-theist context. If everything is God, then God becomes fairly meaningless... unless, of course, you assert that there is still some sort of omniscient intelligent intent amongst all this oneness.  Ie, that theres some sort of master plan, or 'bigger moral picture' that this pervasive God has purposefully created.

God is totally meaningless.

God is the ultimate cause of all (this is not Pantheistic, just a general definition acceptable to all - except radical atheists which dislike even the use of the term "God")...

And... ?

That's why they invent closed doctrines. Becuase they need to have some certainty - of course a false certainty but...

Yes: God is irrelevant. If God wasn't irrelevant we would be in a permanent state of pleasure. Unless God wouldbe evil.

Becuase if God is indiferent, as in the case of Pantheism, then God is irrelevant.

But a Total God can only be amoral and therefore indiferent and therefore trivial.

And God can't be but Total. You can't say that only some things are divine: all must be divine either by divine creation (for exotheists) or divine identity (for pantheists). You can't say caressing is divine and flogging isn't. You can't say Quran or Bible is divine and The Satanic Verses or the Last Temptation of Christ aren't. Manicheism is false and all monotheisms that I know of are manichean.

Of course falsehood is also divine... so they are divine too but not in the straight approach one would expect.

Originally posted by Mixcoatl Originally posted by Maju God is the ultimate cause of all and what is the cause of God?

Excellent question but the ultimate cause is that which is not caused by anything else. So I believe that you have your answer already there.

The basic question is why anything exists at all? Some logic or intuition seems to suggest that there's no reason for anything to exist. But the fact is that the Universe (including us) does exist. Why?

Big Bang, blah-blah...

But beyond the Big Bang and all that? Which is the ultimate reason for the existence of anything?

We have no idea but we call it God.

God is just a phislosophcal convention, a common point of speech and reason.

Now, how exactly is God has caused many troubles. This had one idea and the other another, all thought theirs was better and more dierectly inspired by God but, as I have demonstrated above, that's false (at least partly). Yes, they may have a PARTIAL REVELATION but as good as these lines you are reading now, your dream of this night or the babbling of a bay when eating... as good as any TV program, any book any plant any view... as good as anything else.

So what's worth a partial revelation that is exactly as meaningful as anything else? Nothing.

Does anybody has a total revelation? Yes but it is not expressable, not practicable and even not memorable.

So better forget about God.

Originally posted by Maju The basic question is why anything exists at all? Some logic or intuition seems to suggest that there's no reason for anything to exist. But the fact is that the Universe (including us) does exist. Why?

BINGO.

This is why religions are still so popular. Because most ppl cant accept that there doesnt have to be a 'why'.

We have likely evolved to have a penchant for asking 'why' (investigating the cause of phenomena), as it allows us to better harness nature, and thus perpetuate our survival and spread of our genes.

However, this backfires on our search for truth, when we then feel compelled to ask why about the very existence of everything.

The (most likely) misguided search for a greater 'why' leads to the philosophical need for an 'ultimate cause', which leads to a 'god' or 'cosmic consciousness', which can lead to prophets (special interpreters of that consiosuness.. a pretty good job, if you think about it, as no one can prove you wrong, but no one is as right as you are), which can lead to heirarchical organized religion, which can lead to the stagnation of knowledge, etc.

Its amazing so many people feel compelled to buy into the result of this chain of events, regardless.



Edited by Halevi

Originally posted by Halevi Originally posted by Maju The basic question is why anything exists at all? Some logic or intuition seems to suggest that there's no reason for anything to exist. But the fact is that the Universe (including us) does exist. Why? BINGO. This is why religions are still so popular. Because most ppl cant accept that there doesnt have to be a 'why'. We have likely evolved to have a penchant for asking 'why' (investigating the cause of phenomena), as it allows us to better harness nature, and thus perpetuate our survival and spread of our genes. However, this backfires on our search for truth, when we then feel compelled to ask why about the very existence of everything. The (most likely) misguided search for a greater 'why' leads to the philosophical need for an 'ultimate cause', which leads to a 'god' or 'cosmic consciousness', which can lead to prophets (special interpreters of that consiosuness.. a pretty good job, if you think about it, as no one can prove you wrong, but no one is as right as you are), which can lead to heirarchical organized religion, which can lead to the stagnation of knowledge, etc. Its amazing so many people feel compelled to buy into the result of this chain of events, regardless.

Why doesn't necessarily leads to a cosmic consciousness, that's just one possible conclussion among many.

Another possible conclussion is that it must exist for material laws. God is a materialistic principle.

Or that God is an idiot (some Oriental theologies go in that line: there's a supreme someting but has no mind, no consicence - we are the conscience of God).

Finally my own conclussion is that there can't be any creation (cause is not creative force necessarily: a poem is created by a mind but a flower is born without any intelectual influence) but that any sort of God must be in everything. One reason is the triviality of time beyond this Universe's existence (probably the Universe goes back to the past once it "Big Crunches") that makes irreal any sequence of cause->effect.

But still it is convenient to call the ultimate cause in some way and that is normally God. If the ultimate cause is a meta-temporal self-contained physical Universe, that's also God.

What we do with science, reason, philosophy, etc... is to study God. You may find it irreverent but knowledge and ove are intimately related: you can't love without knowing and the more you know about X the less you can hate or fear it.

So, even if it is conventionally disrespectful to study God like a natural phenomenon (what It is anyhow, we like it or not), in fact it is an act of love and an act that makes God more lovable and less fearful. And an act that makes us and God closer to each oher.


Edited by Maju

Not just if God is everything (pantheist logic) but also if God is behind everything (exotheist or creationist logic) - because you can't take apart the artist and his/her work.

You can study the soul of Picasso or van Gogh by studying their paints. Equally you can study the soul of God by studying Nature (in the creationist paradigm).

What you can't (or at least shouldn't) do is to pretend that God is opposite to Nature, because in either case, Nature is divine.

...

Is there intent or a greater intelligence (be it moral, evil or idiotic) to your concept of God  or not?

I don' know. Do you? Why? Show me evidence, please.

...

It sounds like you havent come to terms with this issue in your own mind, yet.

Does it matter?

I think it is important to talk directly of God as the ultimate cause of the universe, whatever the nature of God. This is not just correct but also denies the monopoly of the big word to the fanatics of all religions restoring the theological question to the plane of philosophy.

This is something that Spinoza did and did well. And it is something that most Atheists and Agnostics fail to understand. The question is ot if God exists but what sort of God actually exists.

I must say I don't have the definitive answer to that question... but neither does anyone else, no matter how much they want to lie to themselves.

...

(As you ask, my father is religious but he's overall a pragmatic. Intelectually he's very open. The fanatic in my home is my mother: the only person I know who sticks to the myth of Adam and Eve - out of intelectual laziness only. )

I think that time is irrelevant when we wonder about God or the Ultimate Cause. So, yes, at some level, the Universe could be eternal (atemporal).

I built a 3+i dimensional model by which the Universe "after" the Big Crunch goes back in time to the Big Bang. But the answer may be much more complex, after all there seem to be more dimensions than just 3+t, as per Superstrings theories, nowadays more and more probable.

In any case God and the Universe, like energy, isn't created nor destroyed, just transformed- though the ultimate energetic balance could well be 0 - creating the paradox that something is born out of nothing.

It's a very complex matter but modern physics are a better way to study it than just reading an old an obsolete mythology book, don't you think?

Originally posted by Maju I think that time is irrelevant when we wonder about God or the Ultimate Cause. So, yes, at some level, the Universe could be eternal (atemporal). I built a 3+i dimensional model by which the Universe "after" the Big Crunch goes back in time to the Big Bang.

Kind of a Hindu model?

But the answer may be much more complex, after all there seem to be more dimensions than just 3+t, as per Superstrings theories, nowadays more and more probable. In any case God and the Universe, like energy, isn't created nor destroyed, just transformed- though the ultimate energetic balance could well be 0 - creating the paradox that something is born out of nothing. It's a very complex matter but modern physics are a better way to study it than just reading an old an obsolete mythology book, don't you think?

Yes.

Originally posted by gcle2003 Originally posted by Cezar Maju, you posted somewhere that God is irrelevant? Thus us being a part of God are irrelevant too, aren't we? Moreover, existence is irrelevant, since God, that is all, is irrelevant. So there's nothing relevant, since if it would be it would make God relevant. Therefore what you say is irrelevant, even to yourself. Or aren't you a part of all? What's really interesting there is whether you could say all that out loud, and still be able to untwist your tongue (let alone your mind) afterwards. (That is of course by way of being an irrelevant comment.)

I think Maju should have answered.

*I'm working on untwisting my tongue. Trouble is it doesn't mix with my fingers typing. 

*you too are irrelevant!!!!!

Originally posted by gcle2003 Originally posted by Maju I think that time is irrelevant when we wonder about God or the Ultimate Cause. So, yes, at some level, the Universe could be eternal (atemporal). I built a 3+i dimensional model by which the Universe "after" the Big Crunch goes back in time to the Big Bang. Kind of a Hindu model?

Dunno.

What kind of Hindu model?

I based my logic in gravity being the creator of time. Some years ago, after reading to some of the brightest physicians of our time, I wrote the following:

X: VIRTUAL inverted time arrow. VIRTUAL because, seemingly Time is part of the Universe. (...) Shall it be Gravity the causant of Time? Shall temporal flux be implicit in Gravity?

Some days I understand it "deeply" - some days it seems just a ranting.

Today, for instance it makes no sense to me. Maybe it does to you.


Edited by Maju