Do it yourself, make your own god

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deeviant
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around the creative process of imagining one's own god, with participants sharing whimsical and personal interpretations of divinity. One user describes a large, furry god who enjoys bowling and embodies kindness, while others explore various concepts of godhood, including the idea that individuals can be gods themselves. The conversation touches on the philosophical implications of god's existence, the nature of belief, and the distinction between subjective experiences of divinity and empirical evidence. Participants debate the validity of personal knowledge of god versus the inability to quantify or prove god's existence through observable means. There is a recurring theme of skepticism towards religious authority and the notion that faith can sometimes lead to delusion. The dialogue highlights the tension between personal belief systems and the empirical standards of knowledge, ultimately questioning the nature of truth and understanding in relation to both science and spirituality.
  • #31
we're mostly all here to learn something and that makes us all worthy, in my humble opinion. people don't always rub one the right way, but that's life, folks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Originally posted by Deeviant
You don't find it awfully convient that your methods for "knowing god" don't work on anything except for "knowing god"? In physchology, this is called a self-reinforcing delusion. Its nice that you seem to have a direct connection with god himself, you must feel quite empowered.

Convenient for whom? You keep insisting that I have to prove to you what I know. Why is that? Maybe you need to have others put a stamp of approval on what you believe you know, but in terms of my inner life at least, I don’t need it.

In any case, I never said I had a direct connection to God. Where did you get that? I have not made any claims about my knowledge of God. My objection is to your claims that no one knows or can know. How the hell do you know that? You can’t come to a philosophy site and state epistimological opinions without justifying them.

Originally posted by Deeviant No, I'm saying its completely impossible to know ANYTHING about god, and whenever I ask anybody to prove me wrong, I get a load of "you must look within yourself" bull. I want there to be a being of infinite wisdom and love looking after us but EVERY piece of observational evidence I have ran into in my life has suggested there is none.

Because you know nothing about God you assume no one knows. Because you know nothing of value inside, you assume no one knows. You must be awfully taken with yourself to make your knowledge the standard for all truth.

Originally posted by Deeviant It is a total contridiction in terms and people claiming to be an expert on something that is completely intangible, unknowable and 100% unproven, giving absolutely zero proof is driven by ego, not intellect. Your not the enlightened one here if you really think ego-driven thought processes are in any way superior to ideas of intellectual origin, backed by observational evidence.
.

What does my ego have to do with rejecting your arbitrary statements, and asking you to properly make your case? For example, your statement “It is a total contridiction in terms and people claiming to be an expert on something that is completely intangible” is far from established as true. I again challenge you to make the love I feel for my wife tangible. Make it observable, prove it exists empirically.

Who said anything about one way being “superior to another”? It is you, not me, who is claiming the superiority of a method over all else. I have merely suggested there is evidence supporting claims that one can know through other means than empiricism. How much research have you done about these other ways? I’d be willing to bet a substantial sum that your education is about as broad as an anorexic’s behind.

Originally posted by Deeviant You have the classic bible-thumper attitude, the "Its in the book, I believe it, and that's that" view, you just express it in a different way.

For your information, I am not religious in the slightest. I am still objecting to your arbitrary statements. What do you know about the history of the inner experience, and those who have spoken from that experience? Nothing! Yet it doesn’t stop you from tossing out opinions like you are well-informed.

Originally posted by Deeviant It may not be possible to prove or disprove god but it is possible to prove that one can not know one. The very reason why the god claim is an unfalsifiable claim is the same reason this is true: in order for a god to exist it must have a excuse for basically all observational evidence pointing to the fact a god does not exist therefore people have claimed he is outside of normal reality, outside of physical reality, anything outside of a physical reality is untouchable and knowable, we can not observe god directely, indirectely, can not observe period.

I can’t believe you think that twisted bit of reasoning is a “proof.” If you can prove God is unknowable, I would love to see a proper proof of that. All that mess amounts to is a collection of your favorite opinions.

Originally posted by Deeviant . . . if you take just a little time to examine your tone on the majority of your posts, it would be quite clear that you are the one that "preachs to others how they don't know what they are talking about if they don't accept your belief system."

My tone is impatience with your condescending, opinionated posts. I may have beliefs, but at least I feel obligated to defend them logically and with evidence, which is a lot more than you are inclined to do.

Originally posted by Deeviant Perhaps you just didn't like the answer science gave you.

I love the answers science gives, but the nonsense you’re throwing around isn’t science. It is nothing more than physicalistic propaganda cloaked in the name of science. If I hadn’t seen so much of that here, guys who pop into preach materialism like it’s science, then maybe I wouldn’t feel so intolerant of the way you are talking.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
Originally posted by LW Sleeth

My tone is impatience with your condescending, opinionated posts. I may have beliefs, but at least I feel obligated to defend them logically and with evidence, which is a lot more than you are inclined to do.

That is by far the most hypocritcal statement I have ever ran across on these boards.

You offer no evidence, you have no position to defend(what is your position? I doubt you can even define it clearly)

There is no logic in your claims of "inner self" that is the nature of the entire concept of "inner self."

If you feel "obigated to defend(your ideas) logically and with evidence," why don't you do so?
 
  • #34
les is, i think, claiming that empericism is not a perfect tool to learn the truth and that there are other ways that one can have in addition to empericism that also work. i believe einstein used the "other tools" to come up with his ideas on relativity and when did anyone take him seriously? when he was proved correct by the standards of science. since God is an unfalsifiable claim, your emperical tools are USELESS.

edit: i think the other tools are also imperfect, don't get me wrong. the best way to go is to combine every single thing into one.
 
Last edited:
  • #35
Originally posted by Deeviant
That is by far the most hypocritcal statement I have ever ran across on these boards.

You offer no evidence, you have no position to defend(what is your position? I doubt you can even define it clearly)

There is no logic in your claims of "inner self" that is the nature of the entire concept of "inner self."

If you feel "obigated to defend(your ideas) logically and with evidence," why don't you do so?

In case you've forgotten, I gave you (in another thread) a rather lengthy (for a thread anyway) essay on the history of reported successes with inner experience practices. Do I have to repeat that every thread you and I talk in?

However, in this thread I am not the one making claims, it is you, so what is it I am required to prove? You claim one cannot know God, and you can actually prove that one cannot know God. My challenge is centered on that. Make your case please.

Part of the problem is what you seem to think constitutes proper logic. For instance, your statement "There is no logic in your claims of 'inner self' that is the nature of the entire concept of 'inner self.'" is an example of how virtually every one of your arguments go. Tell me, how exactly is that a legitimate refutation?
 
Last edited:
  • #36
*nods

it used to all be considered one single thing and it was called philosophy, which means love of knowledge. philosophy unfortunately divided like a cellular structure in biology and people stopped using the entire subject of philosophy, which is all knowledge currently known, as their tools to discern what truth is. in my mind, philosophy is one subject with various branches not unlike a ... tree of knowledge. ;P
 
Last edited:
  • #37
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
In case you've forgotten, I gave you (in another thread) a rather lengthy (for a thread anyway) essay on the history of reported successes with inner experience practices. Do I have to repeat that every thread you and I talk in?

However, in this thread I am not the one making claims, it is you, so what is it I am required to prove? You claim one cannot know God, and one can actually prove that one can know God. My challenge is centered on that. Make your case please.

Part of the problem iswhat you seem to think constitutes proper logic. For instance, your statement "There is no logic in your claims of 'inner self' that is the nature of the entire concept of 'inner self.'" is an example of how virtually every one of your arguments go. Tell me, how exactly is that a legitimate refutation?

So you think the fact that science simply throws out untestable and unfalsifiable theories is illogical. Using what logic? You tell me it is wrong to use science and logic to examine your god theory, then you tell me I am being unreasonable and illogical by asking for any sort of evidence of your claims. Then you start talking about how you have something that allows you and not I to see "the truth(tm)"

You are accepting your theory as absolute truth, without considering the possibility that you might be wrong. Without any sort of objectivity(even though you for some reason claim you more objective than I), without separating your opinions, emotional needs, your ego from fact, how could you claim you are seeing truth?

A person who does not thinks themself capable of being wrong, does not have a very good chance of being right. I freely admit that I and indeed we(as a race) know very little, we are just in our infancy. But now we have a method of controlled evolution, and that is the scientific method.

Your "inner self," I would call your "intuition". I concede that I often use my intuition to tackle problems of science, however, as often as my intuition is correct, it is wrong. So, in order to be true to science(and to truth,) I use my intuition to arrive at a hypothesis then I test it with experimentation, sometimes when I'm right I get to bypass an long theory creation process, other times I go back to the drawing board.

Do you claim your intuition(or inner self if you'd like) is never wrong?
 
Last edited:
  • #38
I think one of the problems is that a lot of people are looking to believe in God the way they believe that 2+2 is 4 for instance. I think that believing in God is a different sort of belief that believing that 2+2 is 4. I know that 2+2 is 4 and I am pretty 100% sure that it is. I can see that easily.
However believing in God is a lot harder to do because we cannot see that god exists. I personally believe that god exists because of the theory that our universe is so amazing that it cannot have been formed by random chance. There was a better explanation for this if you've heard the story of the watch in the desert. Basically if you found a watch in the desert you would not assume it has been formed there by random chance. You would assume the watch has a maker and has been dropped there and if the watch has a maker, as the universe is so much more complicated than a watch, it must also have a maker. The guy who actually wrote this (William Paley I think) explained it a lot better than I do though.
It is fair to say that to believe this explanation requires a certain leap of faith. However, once you believe it I find examples of how the world cannot have formed by random chance everywhere.
I also used to be an atheist, before changing to an agnostic and now I believe in god. I still have problems when I'm in an especially questioning mood in maintaining my belief in god.
By the way, Phoenixthoth I was wondering, was there a specific moment or reason that you changed from being an atheist into believing in god?

Alliance
 
  • #39
alliance,

i honestly don't remember when, or more importantly, how that occured. it just did.

Edit: alliance, 2+2=4 rests on UNPROVABLE AXIOMS.
 
Last edited:
  • #40
Originally posted by Deeviant
So you think the fact that science simply throws out untestable and unfalsifiable theories is illogical. Using what logic? You tell me it is wrong to use science and logic to examine your god theory, then you tell me I am being unreasonable and illogical by asking for any sort of evidence of your claims. Then you start talking about how you have something that allows you and not I to see "the truth(tm)"

I have told you repeatedly why science is not a good test of certain inner experiences. But if you need to see it again, read my last post to Polly in Treat's "debunking 201" thread. I have also cited evidence (that long post on the history of inner practice). Have you yet studied that history so you can now speak with an informed opinion on the subject? We both know the answer to that question.

And then to say, "you start talking about how you have something that allows you and not I to see "the truth(tm)" is to mispresent me. I never said you couldn't see it. I do say you can't see it using the scientific method; rather, you need to develop new skills to see it.

Originally posted by Deeviant
You are accepting your theory as absolute truth, without considering the possibility that you might be wrong. Without any sort of objectivity . . . how could you claim you are seeing truth. . . . But now we have a method of controlled evolution, and that is the scientific method.

More misrepresentation of my views. I have been reporting to you both my experience and a long history of other's experience which contradict your theory. I have no absolute truths that I believe, which is exactly why I challenge your absolute statements about he infallibility of empircism.

Originally posted by Deeviant
Your "inner self," I would call your "intuition". I concede that I often use my intuition to tackle problems of science, however, as often as my intuition is correct, it is wrong. So, in order to be true to science(and to truth,) I use my intuition to arrive at a hypothesis then I test it with experimentation, sometimes when I'm right I get to bypass an long theory creation process, other times I go back to the drawing board. Do you claim your intuition(or inner self if you'd like) is never wrong?

First of all, to me it is just amazing that you condescend to call the inner self "intuition." Why? Because I have explained in pretty good detail the kind of effort it takes to become experienced with what I am talking about, yet after admitting you have no experience with it you are ready to redefine it in your own terms! Where is the humility, where is the openness to learning about something new? Why do you have to stick your uninformed opinion onto everything you hear that's outside what you believe in?

But for the sake of finding a common ground, let's say the inner experience I talk about is what you are labeling intuition. You said intuition helps you about half the time. Now, what if someone figured out a way to pay more careful attention to their intuition, actually found a way to practice developing it, and after years of hard work discovered that intuition was just the tip of the iceberg. Below the suface lay a potential conscious experience few people find out about because they are unwilling to do the work.

Then say this person comes to you and tells you that intuition has more to it than you think. You answer, "prove it in my laboratory." You want to subject him to esp tests, or have him predict the future, or maybe move pencils with his mind to prove what he experiences is real. He tells you that isn't what he discovered beneath the surface of intuition, but rather he found a realm unavailable to normal sense experience. It doesn't give one esp or future visions or telekinetic abilities, but instead it gives joy, contentment, and wisdom. But still you say, prove it in my laboratory. He says, that isn't how you find out about it, you find out about it by turning inward and practicing something. But again you say, prove it in my laboratory over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and . . .

You know, you don't have to believe what people say in order to investigate new ideas, or think about things with an open mind. Personally, I prefer to leave all my opinions open so they are ready to adjust as new information comes in.
 
  • #41
Originally posted by phoenixthoth
we're mostly all here to learn something and that makes us all worthy, in my humble opinion. people don't always rub one the right way, but that's life, folks.

Not everyone is here to learn. Some people are here to teach only. What they're teaching may or may not be worth anything.
 
  • #42
i agree.
 
  • #43
Or perhaps some people don't learn exactely the same way as everybody else.
 
  • #44
Originally posted by Deeviant
Or perhaps some people don't learn exactely the same way as everybody else.

Perhaps, but it's hard to learn anything when you actually promote insults and discourage good philosophy. I just have to learn to ignore those people.
 
  • #45
Originally posted by Fliption
Perhaps, but it's hard to learn anything when you actually promote insults and discourage good philosophy. I just have to learn to ignore those people.

You have added absolutely nothing to this disscussion, you only sit in the sidelines and throw thinly veiled insults my direction hoping something sticks. I think you should go to dictionary.com and look up the word hypocrite.
 
  • #46
double post
 
  • #47
Originally posted by Deeviant
You have added absolutely nothing to this disscussion, you only sit in the sidelines and throw thinly veiled insults my direction hoping something sticks. I think you should go to dictionary.com and look up the word hypocrite.

Hmmm, you seem to be confused as I have not be referring to you at all. I was referring to my "zero" post and the responses that it received. Sorry you misunderstood.

BTW, I did go look up the word hypocrite but it didn't say anything about being loving, kind, intelligent and extremely good looking. So I don't think it has anything to do with me
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Share your Story about Dad on Father's Day
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Horrible social situation at the lab
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Is it okay to tolerate racism and sexism in a relationship?
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
6K
What Sci-Fi Got Right: Asimov's 1972 Novel & Its Impact on Politics
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Suicide bomber - a breathing, moving bomb among you
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Boyfriend is very homophobic. Can we make it work?
  • · Replies 66 ·
3
Replies
66
Views
78K
The Scientist as Hero - or not
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Explore Edgar Allan Poe's Detective Fiction & Hoaxes
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
8K
'If You Can't Explain It to Your Grandmother…'
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
8K
On writing with AI: The Devil is in my foyer, do I invite him in?
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
532