"God" is an athiest - Subjective Development

[TheDerminator]

All development is subjective development, which means that it grows organically without a plan. It is erratic development and the evidence is our unpredictable very varied world. Even if there were to be a spiritual dimension, this too would have developed subjectively, thus a higher form of being would just see itself as only another form of subjective development rather than "God".
"God" is hence an athiest if God exists.

derminated

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from TheDerminator on 2:29 pm on Jan. 26, 2003
All development is subjective development, which means that it grows organically without a plan. It is erratic development and the evidence is our unpredictable very varied world. Even if there were to be a spiritual dimension, this too would have developed subjectively, thus a higher form of being would just see itself as only another form of subjective development rather than "God".
"God" is hence an athiest if God exists.

derminated

Well if God were concious of his own existence of his own power and his own infiniteness(no beginning or end) he would know he was God

a human knows he is human because we are sentient

obviously the concept of God is one that is far superior to humans so his intellect must be thus also

so of course he would know that he is God

there is no saying that there was no plan.

especially since their are laws governing the universe.

Currently I'm developing a theory on how to tie religion and science but it's still in teh research stages...give me some time

[Spartaco]

If there would be a spiritual dimension developed subjecively (which i dont think is possible) it doesnt mean that once developed that spiritual being/s would have to see itself subejctively or "see" at all. About what larlad said about a human knowing he is human, i dont think that is true because each human develops his own, subjective concept of what a human is.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Spartaco on 5:30 pm on Jan. 26, 2003
If there would be a spiritual dimension developed subjecively (which i dont think is possible) it doesnt mean that once developed that spiritual being/s would have to see itself subejctively or "see" at all. About what larlad said about a human knowing he is human, i dont think that is true because each human develops his own, subjective concept of what a human is.
but I think it's safe to assume that much of what we think a human is similar

bipadel.....hominid...walks upright

has the ability to reason

to say that we all have a different picutre of what a human is is trivial

you still know that you are a human don't you?

[TheDerminator]

The problem with a plan is that it does not account for all the horrors humankind has endured such as the holocaust. Nor does it account for the very large divergence in cultures through out our complex world. If there is a plan, where does it exist in reality?
It all goes back to God moving in mysterious ways, without which proponents of a plan are hopeless.
derminated

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from TheDerminator on 7:16 pm on Jan. 26, 2003
The problem with a plan is that it does not account for all the horrors humankind has endured such as the holocaust. Nor does it account for the very large divergence in cultures through out our complex world. If there is a plan, where does it exist in reality?
It all goes back to God moving in mysterious ways, without which proponents of a plan are hopeless.
derminated

Who's to say what exactley the plan was?

We can't really explain why something like that would fit into a plan

but we also can't be sure why it wouldn't fit

[Spartaco]

Having certain phisical and intellectual qualities has been interpreted by almost everyone as the definition of human and affirmed itself as an objective truth; but theorically somebody could also have subjectively formulated different discriminants for what's human and for exaple think that everyone with long hair is human and everyone who is bold is something else.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Spartaco on 9:39 pm on Jan. 26, 2003
Having certain phisical and intellectual qualities has been interpreted by almost everyone as the definition of human and affirmed itself as an objective truth; but theorically somebody could also have subjectively formulated different discriminants for what's human and for exaple think that everyone with long hair is human and everyone who is bold is something else.

yeah that same logic was used to justify slavery

however it doesnt exist for the most part anymore

and anuone who makes an attempt to claim it cnt prove it

you are going to far out there my friend

[Iepilei]

it's all relativism - those who commit the actions are justified in their minds because they've allowed themselves to accept anything, no matter how absurd a concept is.

this is why many fundamentalist groups preach of "thou shalt not kill", yet kill anyways - relativity between who's killing and who's getting killed. The states has no problem invading Middle Eastern nations at the cost of innocent lives, but cringe at the fact they were attacked on their own soil during 9/11.

Relativity is a cop-out philosophy if not studied correctly.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Iepilei on 2:30 am on Jan. 27, 2003
it's all relativism - those who commit the actions are justified in their minds because they've allowed themselves to accept anything, no matter how absurd a concept is.

this is why many fundamentalist groups preach of "thou shalt not kill", yet kill anyways - relativity between who's killing and who's getting killed. The states has no problem invading Middle Eastern nations at the cost of innocent lives, but cringe at the fact they were attacked on their own soil during 9/11.

Relativity is a cop-out philosophy if not studied correctly.

However this concept doesn't apply to God

and for this disscussion lets say for a second that God does exist

and if you believe in God then you believe in everything that comes with him

including his divine right to decide who lives and who dies

[Spartaco]

Lardlad, by re-reading my post i guess you're right in saying that if that extreme subjectivist logic is applied, the most awful things will be approved of; however, i just wanted to point out that by stricktly following subjectivism, in the same way a human wouldn't know he is a human a god wouldn't know he is a god.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Spartaco on 1:58 pm on Jan. 27, 2003
Lardlad, by re-reading my post i guess you're right in saying that if that extreme subjectivist logic is applied, the most awful things will be approved of; however, i just wanted to point out that by stricktly following subjectivism, in the same way a human wouldn't know he is a human a god wouldn't know he is a god.

Oh of course...I agree one hundred percent

however we aren't dealing with total subjectivity..it's like partial subjectivity

I know i'm a human

but is that what God knows that I am?

and is what I know that God is...what god thinks he is?

[Lefty]

I agree with Lardlad. If God looked at what he created (assuming he created everything) and realized that he was not anything he created, but rather what created them and sustains them, it stands to simple reason that God would begin to realize that he is superior, or "God."

Or maybe I'm just a dumbass.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Lefty on 2:51 am on Jan. 28, 2003
I agree with Lardlad. If God looked at what he created (assuming he created everything) and realized that he was not anything he created, but rather what created them and sustains them, it stands to simple reason that God would begin to realize that he is superior, or "God."

Or maybe I'm just a dumbass.

no your statement is correct

eventually God would get wise to his own divineness

[peaccenicked]

The Self consciousness of God is the subject matter of
Hegel's "Phenomenology of the Spirit'' He argues that if
being is not determinate then it is nothing. I can understand that in terms of Living and inaminate things but How can god be determined. He has no objective designation merely a subjective faith orientated designation. That is why I cant visualize him as anything. Him or her or the tooth fairy.

(Edited by peaccenicked at 7:30 pm on Jan. 28, 2003)

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from peaccenicked on 7:28 pm on Jan. 28, 2003
The Self consciousness of God is the subject matter of
Hegel's "Phenomenology of the Spirit'' He argues that if
being is not determinate then it is nothing. I can understand that in terms of Living and inaminate things but How can god be determined. He has no objective designation merely a subjective faith orientated designation. That is why I cant visualize him as anything. Him or her or the tooth fairy.

(Edited by peaccenicked at 7:30 pm on Jan. 28, 2003)


was not "God"(I put it in parenthesis for teh comfort of the athiests) objective to create

or why must he need an objective

a being without begingin or end wouldn't need one.

Humans animals and inaanimate objects are created so the must serve some purpose

"God" wasn't created he just was

[peaccenicked]

Lardlad
There two senses of 'objective' or meaning. The sense you use is in the realm of intentionality. I use the word
'objective' in its philosophical sense. I am sorry but it is a bit jargonistic but nevertheless the way 'objectivity' is understood by those notoriously fixed to their armchairs
is as this. What is outside oneself and independent of ones will. Here I am saying that God has no existence outside the collective will of humanity. Man has invented him in his head and he can only live in peoples heads. He was born to explain nature unexplained. In my view as nature becomes demystified, even the nature of human relations become demystified, god will not be needed and will die in peoples heads and therefore not even exist subjectively but only as an historical agent that comforted the earlier primitives.
To posit god as eternal can only be done in the head, so to speak, There is nothing tangible outside of us that gives real credence to this, if it were different faith could be abolished. God is posited as creator, first cause, or architect of the universe. Why a conscious entity is needed at the start (if indeed there was a start,some physicists believe that the universe is constantly exploding and imploding,)of all, says more about human beings than it does the universe. It says we want order, perhaps even meaning. However it cannot be shown to be a cosmological truth.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from peaccenicked on 6:56 pm on Feb. 4, 2003
Lardlad
There two senses of 'objective' or meaning. The sense you use is in the realm of intentionality. I use the word
'objective' in its philosophical sense. I am sorry but it is a bit jargonistic but nevertheless the way 'objectivity' is understood by those notoriously fixed to their armchairs
is as this. What is outside oneself and independent of ones will. Here I am saying that God has no existence outside the collective will of humanity. Man has invented him in his head and he can only live in peoples heads. He was born to explain nature unexplained. In my view as nature becomes demystified, even the nature of human relations become demystified, god will not be needed and will die in peoples heads and therefore not even exist subjectively but only as an historical agent that comforted the earlier primitives.
To posit god as eternal can only be done in the head, so to speak, There is nothing tangible outside of us that gives real credence to this, if it were different faith could be abolished. God is posited as creator, first cause, or architect of the universe. Why a conscious entity is needed at the start (if indeed there was a start,some physicists believe that the universe is constantly exploding and imploding,)of all, says more about human beings than it does the universe. It says we want order, perhaps even meaning. However it cannot be shown to be a cosmological truth.

Cosmologicaly God can be supported
Stephen Hawking as well as other Physicits have proven for the most part the the universe has a beginging

this begining was started wtih a singularity exploding

even the Pope has claimed that he will accept the big bang as long as people realize that God started this bang.

So for now we know that teh Universe has a begining

so either God created it or some other unexplained phenomina did.

I'm not saying this is definite proof but...it does go a way to support religious theory.

Read Hawking's new book

[ravengod]

you cannot judge God with human categories
to think of oneself is human
we cannot even tell if God thinks as we do

[sin miedo]

Dermy! I need to come into theory more often.

[TheDerminator]

The problem with saying who's to know what was the plan of God is that it only gives a sort vague credence to the old adage that God moves in mysterious ways.
If you actually think of the "plan" it is preposterous.
God creates the universe and then has to wait zillions upon zillions of years before there is life on this planet.
The plan has to include all the features of development including all the various religions, all the various cultures and all the warring factions of various nation states throughout our violent history. It is a ludicrous objective plan and surely can only reflect its true nature, which is subjective organic eccentric development.
"Who's to say" is a weak response, and one can turn around to some extent. Who's to say that "God" was not subjectively developed and does not look on himself or herself as God, but only another for of being.
If there is a Supreme being we can say that any "plan" could only be a very basic one due to the tremendous unpredictably of subjective development.
Such a being has to be seen as ethical and it means there is a responsibility to help human life in its development. The fact that human history has been subjective would point to two separate dimensions with any Supreme being unanble to interfere in our history.
Otherwise the President Bushes and Tony Blairs of the world would be in serious trouble from the ethical Supreme being.
The whole of organic development points to subjective growth as the main force in turning the wheels of our history and even the longevity of the universe as well as the lack of interference in our history by an ethical being makes it a bang on certainty that any creator spirit would see itself as subjectively developed in a subjectively determined universe and unable to establish an ethical world in a world determined by eccentric organic subjective growth.
The Plan that includes 1200 years of the catholic dark ages is without reason and it is ludicrous to believe an ethical Supreme being would plan such wanton backwardness. "Who's to say" throws all logic out of the window. An ethical supreme being able to interfere in human history is obligated to do so. If such an event were to occur we could expect Bush and Blair to make early exits from this planet. We can only hope that if there is a Supreme Being he or she is about to make a breakthrough and end the reign of the war-mongers.
No ethical being can be on the side of Bush or Blair, Supreme or otherwise. And if there is a spiritual dimension you would be naive to believe it would be capitalist. More than likely that Karl Marx would be running the economy (if the Supreme being need any help)!
Seriously though, we can only objectify human history through using philosophical methodology, objective reality does not exist. There is only one reality and that is subjective. A spiritual reality might exist, but God does not.
derminated