God

[Marketa]

Maybe what most of the theist people think when thinking about god isn't that he "exists" as empirical, or physical existence (me, you, computers, apples...) but as like you said, exists in things, it is the "good" and "positive" things.

That's another good question: what is "good" and "positive" and what is "bad" and "negative"? In my opinion, there are only meaningful and meaningless things (e.g. pain - it can be meaningful when it prevents you from hurting yourself, but it can be sometimes absolutely meaningless when you and nobody else can do anything to help your body).
As for "good" and "bad" it's very personal and cultural matter.

[Guille]

That's another good question: what is "good" and "positive" and what is "bad" and "negative"? In my opinion, there are only meaningful and meaningless things (e.g. pain - it can be meaningful when it prevents you from hurting yourself, but it can be sometimes absolutely meaningless when you and nobody else can do anything to help your body).
As for "good" and "bad" it's very personal and cultural matter.

True. But I don't know-although I understand the position of theism in cultural matters-why religions have to affect this good and bad things. The only thing humans really own themselves, and can control completely, is their logic. Logic is what we use for nearly everything. This determinism in what "good" and "bad" are, is what religion does. Theism dogmatizes morals and ethics. What you shall do and what you shall not do. Morals and ethics are the practical application to human dilemas/problems of logic. So, religions, by dogma-dogmatizing morals and ethics-it is controlling our only free will, taking from us our only real/profound personality. All our personality can be reduced to our logic. If our logic is given by religions, then we don't have "our" logic. So, although religion is supposed to be part of our "personality", culture.... it is actually doing the opposite. Who knows what morals and ethics are correct? Nobody. Here is something to add:

Many say that human is an error of god, I ask them then: don't you think that really god, is an error of humans?

[Masa Hiryuu]

true.

But I don't know-although I understand the position of theism in cultural matters-why religions have to affect this good and bad things. The only thing humans really own themselves, and can control completely, is their logic. Logic is what we use for nearly everything. This determinism in what "good" and "bad" are, is what religion does. Theism dogmatises morals and ethics. What you shall do and what you shall not do. Morals and ethics are the practical application to human dillemas/problems of logic. So, religions, by dogma-dogmatising morals and ethics-it is controlling our only free will, taking from us our only real/profound personality. All our personality can be reduced to our logic. If our logic is given by religions, then we don't have "our" logic. So, althopugh religion is supposed to be part of our "personality", culture.... it is actually doing the opposite. Who knows what morals and ethics are correct? nobody.
Here is something to add:

Many say that human is an error of god, I ask them then: don't you think that really god, is an error of humans?

Very True...

This Statement reminded me of something I read in a book once...

{THREE metamorphoses of the spirit do I designate to you: how the
spirit becometh a camel, the camel a lion, and the lion at last a
child.
Many heavy things are there for the spirit, the strong
load-bearing spirit in which reverence dwelleth: for the heavy and the
heaviest longeth its strength.
What is heavy? so asketh the load-bearing spirit; then kneeleth it
down like the camel, and wanteth to be well laden.
What is the heaviest thing, ye heroes? asketh the load-bearing
spirit, that I may take it upon me and rejoice in my strength.
Is it not this: To humiliate oneself in order to mortify one's
pride? To exhibit one's folly in order to mock at one's wisdom?
Or is it this: To desert our cause when it celebrateth its
triumph? To ascend high mountains to tempt the tempter?
Or is it this: To feed on the acorns and grass of knowledge, and for
the sake of truth to suffer hunger of soul?
Or is it this: To be sick and dismiss comforters, and make friends
of the deaf, who never hear thy requests?
Or is it this: To go into foul water when it is the water of
truth, and not disclaim cold frogs and hot toads?
Or is it this: To love those who despise us, and give one's hand
to the phantom when it is going to frighten us?
All these heaviest things the load-bearing spirit taketh upon
itself: and like the camel, which, when laden, hasteneth into the
wilderness, so hasteneth the spirit into its wilderness.
But in the loneliest wilderness happeneth the second
metamorphosis: here the spirit becometh a lion; freedom will it
capture, and lordship in its own wilderness.
Its last Lord it here seeketh: hostile will it be to him, and to its
last God; for victory will it struggle with the great dragon.
What is the great dragon which the spirit is no longer inclined to
call Lord and God? "Thou-shalt," is the great dragon called. But the
spirit of the lion saith, "I will."
"Thou-shalt," lieth in its path, sparkling with gold- a
scale-covered beast; and on every scale glittereth golden, "Thou
shalt!"
The values of a thousand years glitter on those scales, and thus
speaketh the mightiest of all dragons: "All the values of things-
glitter on me.
All values have already been created, and all created values- do I
represent. Verily, there shall be no 'I will' any more. Thus
speaketh the dragon.
My brethren, wherefore is there need of the lion in the spirit?
Why sufficeth not the beast of burden, which renounceth and is
reverent?
To create new values- that, even the lion cannot yet accomplish: but
to create itself freedom for new creating- that can the might of the
lion do.
To create itself freedom, and give a holy Nay even unto duty: for
that, my brethren, there is need of the lion.
To assume the ride to new values- that is the most formidable
assumption for a load-bearing and reverent spirit. Verily, unto such a
spirit it is preying, and the work of a beast of prey.
As its holiest, it once loved "Thou-shalt": now is it forced to find
illusion and arbitrariness even in the holiest things, that it may
capture freedom from its love: the lion is needed for this capture.
But tell me, my brethren, what the child can do, which even the lion
could not do? Why hath the preying lion still to become a child?
Innocence is the child, and forgetfulness, a new beginning, a
game, a self-rolling wheel, a first movement, a holy Yea.
Aye, for the game of creating, my brethren, there is needed a holy
Yea unto life: its own will, willeth now the spirit; his own world
winneth the world's outcast.
Three metamorphoses of the spirit have I designated to you: how
the spirit became a camel, the camel a lion, and the lion at last a
child.}

- THUS SPAKE ZARATHUSTRA (Friedrich Nietzsche 1891)

What this Excerpt refers to is the effect of Traditional Morals and Religion on cultural and scientific evolution.

I believe this will be a great danger as science gets closer and closer to a TOE, as science makes new discoveries and advances so will it start to explain things that were previously reserved for religious and spiritual matters (ex. a "soul", the mind, Psychology and behavior patterns, physical phenomenon.) and when this happens Religion feels the need to defend its beliefs (Similar to how scientists defend their differing view points) and as Science advances further and further soo too will the "need to defend". This will probably cause some great Culture Shock and may even end in violence (worse case scenario).

These Effects of Science have through history caused Religion and Morals to change greatly. and thut Religion has Gone to great lengths to keep Social and even scientific evolution in check causing them to be like a "Camel, a Beast of Burden" forced to carry Morality and Religious beliefs on their shoulders.

The Pursuit of Science is percieved by many as a seperation from Morals and Religion and a "killing of what makes us human" but it is also a birth of a new humanity and in order for that humanity and Religion to thrive they have to come to terms with each other the "Golden Dragon with the values of a thousand years glittering on it's scales" and the "Child of Innocence, forgetfulness, and a new beginning".

But before that is the "Lion" that will break Science and Culture free of religious and moral chains. (Quite possably Violently).

[Guille]

masa,

Do you think science and religion should "bi-work"= have mutual help for not being blind, as Einstein thought? I have more additional thoughts to my demonstration, now including eternity. Eternity is simply impossible, paradoxical, contradictory, unacceptable and I can demonstrate it in various ways, but this is something I think most people should know: it is such an obvious thing. If someone really wants me to explain my statement of paradoxical eternity ask me and I will be glad to do this.

[Guille]

God isn't proven and isn't disproven thus I can't say if God exists or doesn't. I think you can never disprove God. I also think you can never prove God so in a way it's a non-discussion. Even if God came out and said here I am and this is how I did it you can't be sure. It's an infinite question as is all.

I had forgotten of answering this post, but I have been thinking about it.

Are you theist, atheist, or what I think from this post, agnostic?
Or maybe theist agnostic?

Well, if god came out and said that here he is, I will believe in him, obviously after being one week minimum in a hospital for medical-psycological check, to be sure I'm not drugged, crazy, stupid, hallucinating...............

But it is true that I couldn't prove to the other people that god exists or that I have seen him, just using empirical definitions. Well, maybe yes, but I would need very strong empirical proofs: people who also saw him, movie? well, I think these aren't strong enough also. So the only way that everybody will beleive in god (at least most people) is if everybody saw god, directly.

But again, saying that if you see god you can't prove god exists, it is proving that you can't prove god's existence, but not proving that you can't disprove god's existence. so, here is my point: god can't be proven and isn't proven only for one basic important point: what god is supposed to be, to lead to... makes it incorrect or impossible to prove he exists. But nothing about proving god doesn't exist. because this disproves wouldn't be based on god thoughts.

[Masa Hiryuu]

masa,

do you think sicnece and religion should "bi-work"= have mutual help for not being blind, as Einstein thought?

I have more additional thoughts to my demostration, now including enternity:

Eternity is simply impossible, paradoxical, contradictory, unacceptable and I can demostrate it in various ways, but this is something I think most people should know: it is such an obvious thing.

if someone really whants me to explain my statement of paradoxical eternity ask me and I will be glad to do this.

Yes, very much so. I believe that Science Religion and Society must evolve together, not only to discover a TOE but to also deal with the ramifications of such a Discovery (Give Guns to Cavemen, Nuclear Weapons to Hitler, Stealth Bombers to the Huns...) Certin technological innovations are incompatible with many social and moral structures for survival of not only their neighbors but also themselves. We as humans are not that advanced of a race compared to civilizations that may have already discovered a TOE and the technological feats they have accomplished.

We live in a World that like it or not is dictated by perception of others and their moral beliefs just as much as ours. Humanity must be able to accept and evlove with change as much as Science... Because the closer we come to the TOE the faster and more significant technological changes will be.

As Technology advances so does the ability of technology to advance... can Humanity keep up with it?

Its not the Technology that won't work... It is us...

[Guille]

masa,

I believe that religion and science should or could have cooperated in an ideal world, where religion is just what it is supposed/should to/be and not a form of gaining power.

Not in this world.

Refering to your second part....have we, humans, ever had to stop this technonolgy advance? has it ever happened? no. I guess that then, the mathematical probability of this to happen is either zero or o.oooooooooooooooooooooo.......................... .......................................1.

The thing is, that technology is us: when we say we "create" or "invent" we are lieing. This is impossible for the human mind/brain/nature. We only do extensions of our selves, to improve, to try to achieve perfection, in a stupid, continued and infinite way/path. We make cars...........they transport. we can transport. cars can go faster, we are more comfortable.......but transport. and it happen with everything. So everytime we create technology we are making ourselves better, and we can't stop making ourselves better because there is no limit and it's impossible for us to stop, so, there will always be advancement and technology.

[Masa Hiryuu]

What I meant is that moral and social structures try to dictate the speed at which technology advances good examples of this is current restrictions on cloning and stem cell research these areas of research have great potential to advance medicine greatly but irrational fear and dogmas have put a strain on these areas of research through laws and restrictions places upon them.

there is an idea called the Singularity (not the one thought to be in the center of black holes)which states that there is a point in the advancement of technology (Probably shortly after the creation of AI) in which technology will advance without human intervention and will do so at an increasing rate and in essence "leave humans in its dust" the only way humans will be able to keep up with this rate of advancement will be through enhancement of our biological features with technological ones (Computerized brains, implants, etc...) many moral structures would probably be vehemently against this practice there would probably be many restrictions and laws at first maybe even discrimination against AI and even humans that have had AI enhancements. Would a Synthetic life form have the same rights in our society as a natural born one? Would it even be considered Life? Many religions would consider this Blasphemy and do everything in their power to limit progress in this area, it would probably turn out similar to the equal rights movements. It sounds kind of something out of the matrix but it is a real possibility in the future. What would be the difference between a real human brain and a synthetic one? This is just another example of how moral and social structures will limit the growth of technology.

Like you said Technology is us it is what we create or invent to make ourselves better... but what happens when technology creates itself to make itself better... does it then become "Life" or would it be something else? Will Humanity be able to handle this moral issue in the future? Or will Ancient Dogmas and moral beliefs hinder us even further?

[Guille]

What I meant is that moral and social structures try to dictate the speed at which technology advances good examples of this is current restrictions on cloning and stem cell research these areas of research have great potential to advance medicine greatly but irrational fear and dogmas have put a strain on these areas of research through laws and restrictions places upon them.

there is an idea called the Singularity (not the one thought to be in the center of black holes)which states that there is a point in the advancement of technology (Probably shortly after the creation of AI) in which technology will advance without human intervention and will do so at an increasing rate and in essence "leave humans in its dust" the only way humans will be able to keep up with this rate of advancement will be through enhncement of our biological features with technological ones (Computerized brains, implants, ect...) many moral structures would probably be vehemently against this practice there would probably be many restrictions and laws at first mabee even discrimination against AI and even humans that have had AI enhancements. Would a Synthetic life form have the same rights in our society as a natural born one? Would it even be considered Life? Many religions would consider this Blasphemy and do everything in their power to limit progress in this area, it would probably turn out similar to the equal rights movements. It sounds kind of something out of the matrix but it is a real possability in the future. What would be the difference between a real human brain and a synthetic one? This is just another example of how moral and social structures will limit the growth of technology.

Like you said Technology is us it is what we create or invent to make ourselves better... but what happens when technology creates itself to make itself better... does it then become "Life" or would it be something else? Will Humanity be able to handle this moral issue in the future? Or will Aincient Dogmas and moral beliefs hinder us even further?

You say that in the future if there is (and there will be) artificial life, I tell you that either if it is "human" (cloning) or non-human, religion (when I say religion, I usually mean directly to Christianity, but also other big spread religions which ar hierarchy-conservative type (ie=all in reality)) will always be against it because they would:
1) be scared that this so advanced technology will lead to wiser average-population, which would obviously lead to the end of religions themselves,
2) in the bible and other religious books 8for the other religions) it is stated that creating life is a power of god, not of men (humanity) or any mortal thing
3) they would say, led by their moral and ethical laws, that it is wrong and something that get's god angry! etc etc........you know: the typical thing.

But what I want to ask you know is, don't you think that it really doesn't matter, that the opinion of religion is less and less important each year, that it is getting to be smaller part of humans' life, that religion doesn't represent anymore the point of view of society? I do so.

There is no problem in technology improving technology: it si making us better in the way of making us better. This "moral" theme you talk about with technology, isn't negative at all for humanity.

[Guille]

I quite agree with Guille and add something more: there is NO GENERAL DEFINITION of God. Anyone could define God anyhow

This is because god is human creation, and because it is "artificial" it is subjective, and it gets even more subjective if it is something created by humans and thought about by humans. But I do think that most religions agree now that god is "creator, perfect, good, love..." and other properties the agree with.