Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Little do they know.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: Itisnowagain

Little do they know.

Who is knowing what??

God is all knowing......and all known.

I am all that is truly present and known in all experience. All that is known of the body, mind and world is the knowing of them and I am that Knowing. It is only thought that abstracts a ‘knower’ and a ‘known,’ from the seamless intimacy of Knowing or Experiencing. However, the body, mind and world are never known or experienced as such. So we cannot say there is the knowing ‘of them,’ but rather that there is only Knowing. I am not the knowing that pervades all experience; I am the Knowing that is all experience.

undividedjournal.com...

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Yea, don't we all know in the appropriate time.

Cheers bro/sis

a reply to: Out6of9Balance
You are never not knowing.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

It's great.

Best wishes

a reply to: carlncarl

So, if Morals exist, who judges the moral good and moral bad? Who is the moral authority?

Reality is the moral arbiter.

To clarify, "morality" isn't some abstract concept, it's something tangible that has a direct physical impact on our lives. It's my contention that when we're talking about morality, we're necessarily talking about wellbeing. The goal is to increase wellbeing and minimize suffering, I believe this is inherently what we mean when we evaluate moral actions.

If we can agree that this is what we mean when we discuss morality, we can begin to objectively assess actions on a moral spectrum. If you don't agree this is what we mean by morality, we're necessarily having different conversations.

A bit like chess; if we can agree on the rules of chess, there are moves we can make which are objectively better than others. It's subjective whether you agree to those rules, like it's subjective if we agree on the foundation of morality, but if we can establish consensus on what it is we mean when we talk about morality, we can make objective moral proclamations.

And it means that our understanding of morality can evolve; as our understanding of the human condition develops and changes, so too will our understanding of moral actions.

The issue of subjectivity might bother some people, I totally understand that, but it isn't solved by a God. There's a billion Christians who would posit the God of the Bible as their foundation for an absolute morality, and there's a billion Muslims who would disagree and state it was Allah, and another billion Hindu's who'd disagree again (etc. etc.). There's not even consensus between all Christians, or all Muslims (hence the innumerable denominations). God as a foundation is just as subjective and doesn't resolve any of the quarrels we might have with a secular morality. Ultimately, your proclamation "God is a moral authority" is one I disagree with, so we're back to square one.

And this is ignoring the fact that no single God concept has ever been demonstrated beyond personal experience. Even if you could demonstrate your God to others beyond any reasonable doubt, it still wouldn't immediately validate said God's moral virtues as an absolute standard.

TL;DR- acknowledging that there's a subjective foundation that we may never be able to resolve, doesn't mean we're incapable of having objective moral values.

a reply to: DeusInAbsentia

Reality does nothing

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

Really weird response. The world we perceive and experience is all we have for certain.

I care about the demonstrable consequences of actions. We all should. And if we care about the wellbeing of conscious creatures, we should be able to agree upon a goal and make objective evaluations of actions with respect to said goal.

I don't care what your meta commentary on reality might be.

a reply to: DeusInAbsentia

They consider the world which they perceive with their eyes reality. How blind can you be?

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

Of course. What I experience with my senses is necessarily my reality. If you want to claim there exists some Matrix-esque world that I'm unaware of, you go right ahead, but that's not going to help us resolve moral issues in the world you and I exist in right now.

Try actually articulating your thoughts rather than being coy. You don't look enlightened by offering one sentence responses. I'm interested in a conversation, not one line ad-hom's such as "how blind can you be", which I'm assuming was rhetorical and not an actual question (I have great vision for the record, perhaps something to do with all the Vitamin A I get in my diet).

a reply to: DeusInAbsentia

To clarify, "morality" isn't some abstract concept, it's something tangible that has a direct physical impact on our lives. It's my contention that when we're talking about morality, we're necessarily talking about wellbeing. The goal is to increase wellbeing and minimize suffering, I believe this is inherently what we mean when we evaluate moral actions.

I agree that morality can be defined, and that further clarification can probably be drawn out of defining terms like wellbeing and suffering.

With that in mind, I would say, independent of moral judgement, nature can act to reduce or increase suffering, with suffering being a function of feelings.

I would further postulate that moral good or bad is not simply, causing suffering is bad and relieving suffering is good.

So what does this lead to? That morals do indeed exist and can be defined in terms of feelings.

and whether it is okay to cause suffering or not, as a moral decision, cannot exist without a moral authority.

This becomes necessary because by nature, when confronted with stimuli, one can act in a moral or non moral way and this action is independent of how it effects the feelings of those around them or within themselves.

So, if you shoot someone's dog that is lets say eating a baby, causing the dog and the dogs owner to suffer, in terms of feelings, at the same time relieving the suffering of the baby's parents, was that a moral good or moral bad action? Since the result is increasing some suffering and reducing some suffering, how can you judge which party deserves to suffer and which party deserves relief?

I say, you cannot, you need an independent observer/authority, to judge the action as moral good or bad, independent of the feelings of those involved. That independent moral authority is God, because otherwise morals cannot exist, there is only suffer or do not suffer.

In this context, I would say that the bible does provide a fair amount of clarity on this, in that it is said that Gods law, in this case moral law/authority is defined at the point were mans moral law/authority ends.

In this context, with the system between feeling and action/thinking (and I will switch to calling action - thinking as in thinking about doing something, not actually doing it for clarification) God produces absolute moral limits which cannot be crossed, allowing any thing between those absolutes to be decided upon independently.

In this I would point to the boundaries as being you cannot feel and you cannot think someone to death, and any type of death you cause in between is allowable, not without moral judgement from God, but without interference.

Meaning, no matter what, you cannot hate someone to death, you must also put in some thinking to accomplish this.
And no matter what, you cannot think someone to death (plan actions to kill someone), you must have some feeling (motivation) to do this.

This two extremes are demonstrated in for example, the jealous lover who kills his cheating partner, almost all feeling without much thought vs the psychopath who plans in killing people, all thought (planned) with no feeling.

I flush this out so that you can see, moral judgement, independent of the entire system can be misleading. Within our half of reality we have in imbalance of time and space, which allows us to feel and think, in order to propel us forward. On the God side, there is an imbalance of feeling and thought, which allows for God to time and think.

Since everything, in order to be measured (i.e. realized/observed/perceived) must be relative/subjective to something else, we provide the measurement of Time and Space to God, and God provides us the measurement of Feeling and Thinking (action), that is how to act based on feelings, or morals. This means that God as a moral authority is required for the entire system to exist, just as we are needed.

The part that leads to overall system balance is when all four items are equally mixed back together, like a perfect salad dressing blend of oil and vinegar. When all these items are in perfect balance you can cross over between each half of the system.

Some items that then fall out from this model:
God cannot have feelings or thoughts, in the same way we cannot have time or space, therefore God really does not experience suffering or not suffering, because God cannot separate feeling from thought, meaning, God has no time in which to feel and no space in which to think (act).

Hopefully this is moving the discussion forward.

a reply to: carlncarl

Thanks for your response! You've given me a lot to consider here.

and whether it is okay to cause suffering or not, as a moral decision, cannot exist without a moral authority.

My opinion is, if we can both agree our goal is to increase wellbeing and minimise suffering, we're immediately capable of making objective evaluations ourselves, without the need for some external adjudicator to rule for us. There's nothing the external party could reveal to us that we wouldn't be able to reveal for ourselves.

Let's consider your example;

So, if you shoot someone's dog that is lets say eating a baby, causing the dog and the dogs owner to suffer, in terms of feelings, at the same time relieving the suffering of the baby's parents, was that a moral good or moral bad action? Since the result is increasing some suffering and reducing some suffering, how can you judge which party deserves to suffer and which party deserves relief?

When we consider the event in totality, the solution is simple. We don't want to exist in a world where dog owners allow their pets to eat babies, since that's going to diminish wellbeing and increase suffering, the polar opposite of what we agree our goal is. Therefore, if we see the action taking place, it's in our best interest to step in. Allowing children to be killed by animals has a way more significant impact on our goal than stopping the animal.

No external adjudication required. We have to acknowledge that there's likely always going to be a baseline level of suffering, but our goal is to minimise suffering, not eradicate it. With that said, it's easy to see how one option (saving the baby) is objectively better than another (allowing the dog to attack a baby).

It's important to note that morality isn't binary either; there is no single correct solution to moral quandaries. There's a spectrum that ranges from the maximally best action to worst. For instance, continuing with your example, if we were to kill the dog, the baby, the owners and the parents, we've objectively taken the worst possible course of action, since it has caused the maximal amount of suffering.

My point here is; we've evaluated all the options ourselves without the need for external guidance, and all we needed was to agree on a goal with respect to morality. I'd argue this is actually better than just being told what's right and wrong. Understanding the consequences of actions and why certain actions are immoral is way more important than simply referring to an authority.

For example, a child throws a rock at another child. We could simply say "hey, don't do that because I said so". Or we could explain to the child why their actions were wrong, and the impact they had. The former represents an appeal to authority, the latter is a reasoned approach to morality where the child understands the consequence of their actions going forward.

Your comments on God I'm not sure I can really address; I'm not convinced the God you propose exists, and so I'm not sure how you could know the properties of said God. And even if you could demonstrate your God exists, I'm not convinced his arbitration on moral questions are necessarily any better than what we're able to achieve ourselves.

I assume to a certain degree you believe in the Biblical God, since you mentioned it. In Exodus 21 onwards, God condones slavery fairly unabashed. You and I would of course oppose this idea. How can we do that if God's word is law? I'd argue, because we can refer to a standard external to the Bible, that being human wellbeing.

originally posted by: carlncarl
a reply to: Pachomius

I would say that we are in total agreement, I would only add that concept of morals is a self existent entity, which can only exist with a moral authority, which is God.

I picture, as you do a closed system.
I see the beginning of the experienced universe, or reality as occurring from the separation of infinity into finite elements, propelled towards infinity by remixing them.

On one side, there is infinite feeling and action, that is our side.
On one side, there is infinite time and space, that is the God side.

On our side, we begin with a time and point, which continues to expand towards infinity.
This expansion provides the gravitational and electrical fields that intersect to provide markers in time/space, which can then be mapped into our brain space, which are then activated when matched, allowing us to experience reality.

On the God side, there is a beginning of feeling and action, which continues to expand towards infinity.
This expansion provides the time and space fields that intersect to provide markers in feel/action, which can be mapped, as a negative into our brain non-space, when are then activated when matched, allowing us to propel through reality.

Not sure how clear that one is coming out.

See if you can produce your very own full complete picture of existence in not more than 51 words, as I have done, namely:

Existence is an isolated system, nothing can get out and nothing can get in.
Inside existence there is at least one permanent self-existent entity and several transient entities.
Therefore: God exists in concept as the permanent self-existent creator cause of man and the universe and everything transient and with a beginning.

(51 words)

.

originally posted by: Pachomius

originally posted by: carlncarl
To find some proof of God, I go along the lines of:

Do morals exist?
I tend to believe yes, there is a morally good and morally bad

So, if Morals exist, who judges the moral good and moral bad? Who is the moral authority?
That moral authority is God.

With that in mind, I would say the universe in general is made up of feelings and action.
Feelings drive us to move through time, actions drive us to move through space.

As various physical entities interact with each other they can only go and act with how they feel, having no realization of morality. Meaning, a shark primarily interacts in a morally bad way, with no real feelings (introspection). A plant mostly interacts in a morally good way, with no real action (don't move very fast).

The uniqueness of mankind is that we have a consciousness, allowing us to change our response based on morals. This is how we became god like, as referenced in the bible.

the 10 sec version, feeling is gravity/thermodynamic based and action is light/electricity based.
When those two waves cross each other at matching frequencies/wavelengths, we experience reality, which is mapped into the blank spaces in our brains and the wave lengths/frequencies modulated by changing temp/pressure/density.

Your text above is not the absolutely big complete picture of reality.

Try this what to me is the absolutely big complete picture of reality:

--------------------------------
Existence is an isolated system, nothing can get out and nothing can get in.
Inside existence there is at least one permanent self-existent entity and several transient entities.
Therefore: God exists in concept as the permanent self-existent creator cause of man and the universe and everything transient and with a beginning.
--------------------------------

.

You can fabricate the concept you describe as "God" and you can customize its definition any way you like, but there's no tangible or plausible causality between that concept and the reality we live in.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: Pachomius

I think the existence of God is self-evident.

I agree with you, because from the existence of transient beings like us humans, it follows that God exists in concept as the permanent self-existent creator cause of man and the universe and everything transient and with a beginning.

.

a reply to: Pachomius

sorry not that good with words, but I do appreciate your succinct definition as a starting point of the overall picture.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Honestly I find this topic more to be along the lines of why evolution and creationism is not in conflict with each other.

If anything the biblical description of the universe formation very much is aligned with current science and physics theory.

There really is no difference between God created the universe, which is in the bible, and does not provide mechanism
and this is when/how the universe began via the big bang, providing a mechanism, without explanation of why this occurred

There is no evolution vs creation, they two concepts are not in conflict with each other, one simply provides a mechanism (evolution/physics) and another provides the story of a purpose

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: Pachomius
Do you want words and descriptions (concepts) of God?
Presently you have an idea of what God is.

Wouldn't you like to actually experience God?

No amount of thinking will reveal God.

That is your claim and I understand you come to it from meditation.

From my part, with honest intelligent thinking I have come to the existence of God in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything transient and with a beginning.

And here is my full complete picture of existence or reality:

Existence is an isolated system, nothing can get out and nothing can get in.
Inside existence there is at least one permanent self-existent entity and several transient entities.
Therefore: God exists in concept as the permanent self-existent creator cause of man and the universe and everything transient and with a beginning.

.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
It seems like God is not understood among human understanding.

That is your idea, in my case I will insist that human understanding is the only thing we have to come to knowledge, and I am sure from my honest intelligent productive understanding I have come to know God exists, in concept as the permanent and self-existent creator cause of man and the universe and everything transient and with a beginning.

.

originally posted by: DeusInAbsentia
a reply to: carlncarl

So, if Morals exist, who judges the moral good and moral bad? Who is the moral authority?

Reality is the moral arbiter.

To clarify, "morality" isn't some abstract concept, it's something tangible that has a direct physical impact on our lives. It's my contention that when we're talking about morality, we're necessarily talking about wellbeing. The goal is to increase wellbeing and minimize suffering, I believe this is inherently what we mean when we evaluate moral actions.

If we can agree that this is what we mean when we discuss morality, we can begin to objectively assess actions on a moral spectrum. If you don't agree this is what we mean by morality, we're necessarily having different conversations.

A bit like chess; if we can agree on the rules of chess, there are moves we can make which are objectively better than others. It's subjective whether you agree to those rules, like it's subjective if we agree on the foundation of morality, but if we can establish consensus on what it is we mean when we talk about morality, we can make objective moral proclamations.

And it means that our understanding of morality can evolve; as our understanding of the human condition develops and changes, so too will our understanding of moral actions.

The issue of subjectivity might bother some people, I totally understand that, but it isn't solved by a God. There's a billion Christians who would posit the God of the Bible as their foundation for an absolute morality, and there's a billion Muslims who would disagree and state it was Allah, and another billion Hindu's who'd disagree again (etc. etc.). There's not even consensus between all Christians, or all Muslims (hence the innumerable denominations). God as a foundation is just as subjective and doesn't resolve any of the quarrels we might have with a secular morality. Ultimately, your proclamation "God is a moral authority" is one I disagree with, so we're back to square one.

And this is ignoring the fact that no single God concept has ever been demonstrated beyond personal experience. Even if you could demonstrate your God to others beyond any reasonable doubt, it still wouldn't immediately validate said God's moral virtues as an absolute standard.

TL;DR- acknowledging that there's a subjective foundation that we may never be able to resolve, doesn't mean we're incapable of having objective moral values.

"Christians who would posit the God of the Bible as their foundation for an absolute morality, and there's a billion Muslims who would disagree and state it was Allah, and another billion Hindu's who'd disagree again (etc. etc.)." -DeusinAbsentia


Say, DeusinAbsentia, tell me what is the core doctrine of Muslims as for Hindus, I know that with Christians, it is that man needs saving from sin, and Jesus did that for man.

.