Re: *******Does God Exist?*************

"Nes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> "Acme Posting" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > "Nes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>  news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...

Hi Nes. Thanks for your lenghty reply - it's a lot of fun! I hardly
ever take so long to reply but some trivial things came up like
earning a living. Hope my heavy snippage of previous stuff preserves
enough context.

Google choked on the length, so had to chop it into two posts...
>>
<snip>
>>
>> But they still must try to convince others. It's part of their
>> programming. If that qualifies as "caring."
>
>Yes. But what they propagate is religion which is not at all the same
as the
>belief in a "god". Organized religion is attractive to many peoples
for
>social reasons. Nice clubbing (hoping nobody takes any offence).

Agreed. It's an important distinction and I like your terminology. I
think of religion in the largest sense (i.e. all faith-based subjects)
so that wrt social engineering, or opportunistic goals of individuals
or groups, "god" is just a tool. An intellectual discussion of the
objective existence of a creator god is something different, and the
psychological needs that "god" serves in humans are something else
again, and the supernatural god (if any) is yet another thing.
Probably 10 or 12 more, but who's counting? <g> Must keep in mind
which
definition is addressed not to talk past each other.

Re: offence: I can't know what is going on in any particular person's
mind, nor can I know anything for sure about what gods might in fact
be associated with anyone in particular. All my observations,
especially re: psychology, would be either very general, admitting any
exceptions in particular, or anecdotal, and I well understand the
limitations of psychology, fundamentally, methodologically, and
compared to the infinite (for practical purposes) complexity of the
human mind. For all anyone knows, there could be a very miniature
quantum modem in our brains that connects via some as-yet undiscovered
energy form to a galactic database, thus very scientifically
explaining soul, life-after-death, reincarnation, spirit, holy ghost,
etc., etc. And when biblical John (or Christ) saw visions in a "sea of
glass" they could possibly have been exactly that, and when Christ
said in context of life after death, "Even the hairs on your head are
all numbered" (reported by two observers in fact), he could have
literally meant exactly that. Ezekiel (sp?) could have been describing
exactly what he saw for all we know, etc., etc., etc. As I've said,
one can't decide the objective existence of gods as creators. In the
end, my faith in empirical logic is no more valid than anyone else's
faith in anything.

Now let's proceed to the assassination of religion. <g>
>
<snip>
>>
>> In convincing others (why they "care?"), they are also programming
>> themselves (addressing the "doubt" if so). One of the best
programming
>
>Fundamentally correct, I think. But this method of dealing with your
own
>thoughts and emotions is basically unhealthy.

I am incensed at the subtle (not to me) brain programming all around
us all the time, so I am no defender of it. But just to acknowledge a
few contrary cases so we can proceed with the assassination in good
conscience: I think that there are cases where self-programming is
beneficial. Everything we do programs us a little, even reading a
book. Programming others is beneficial in at least two cases: 1)
socialization of children (in moderation!) and when nothing else will
work, and 2) as a preliminary or technique in deprogramming. But (now
proceeding to the assassination) these are far outnumbered by cases
where it ranges from bad to downright evil, two of which are...<g>

>It leads to obsession and perhaps even fanaticism.

>When that happens, onlookers and outsiders blame
>the religion of the obsessive people. But that is false, the
obsession comes
>from a repression or suppression of (self-)doubt. This is valid or
political
>ideologies and political parties, as well.

I understand how brain programming (let's say religious or political)
leads to obsession (not clinical but programmed repetition) and
fanaticism. But I don't understand the rest. Agree that one should not
blame the whole religion or political party for the actions of a few
fanatics. One should blame the whole religion or political party if
they are mostly fanatics but most of those are just smart enough not
to participate in an obvious way.

>> <snip>
>> >
>> >What is a "creator"? How could someone outside the totality of
existence
>> >"create" existence? Or do you believe in an incarnated "god"? If
so, how
>> >could that "creator" create his own incarnation? This is nonsense,
<snip>
>>
>> Did you mean "nonsense" from our point of view? If you mean
objective
>> "nonsense" I think one could legitimately object. In any case, I
think
>> "meaningless to us" is best.

(I was talking about the designer of the universe or "it" the great
scheme of things.)

>Hrm, no I think the idea of an incarnated "god" makes no sense. Not
only to me personally, but also from a general human psychological
perspective. The >creator of "god" or the idea of "god" is a product
the human mind. Now, what >can the human mind imagine this "god" can
do? Can it sensibly imagine that >an omnipotent, immortal "god"
creates a universe while at the same time
>being integrated into that universe in its every manifest detail?
Well, I have to answer, "No!" Even the fertile mind of a most talented
fictionalist couldn't imagine how something like that could happen.

But that is because 1) they are human, and 2) they can only analyze
using some form of logic. Imagine an asteroid destroys earth tomorrow.
I am only talking about what's left. I still submit that, if there was
a god the creator of all existence, then logic itself would need to be
a construct. Those humans who used to be part of this universe lacked
the reasoning tools to say, "God could not create himself." That could
be just as true as it is true that Zeno's race horse actually does
reach the finish line. Or that we know we exist, yet we cannot imagine
what came before existence, or what is outside of all (assume curved)
dimensions of the universe or multiverse. I.e. we know that logic
breaks down in a hundred ways. These paradoxes define the limits of a
"logical box" within which we live and reason (analytically).

This theory of mine is falsifiable. Anyone can disprove it easily.
Just write a meaningful post that cannot be inferenced into logical
propositions. I've never seen that yet, nor in any religious text.
Those propositions may have nothing whatsoever to do with the literal
text, but there is always context to provide such inferencing, and it
is the inferencing that gives meaning to the reader. Perhaps the
inferences are incorrect, and they often are. I am not saying that
humans can only reason in correct logic. I am saying they can only
reason in logic, correct or incorrect. If someone says, "Ok, I read
that post, and I made no inferences and saw no logical meaning. Yet it
did have meaning anyway." Then I will answer, ok, explain that
meaning. If I can then inference that explanation, the theory stands.
If someone posts, "x$%^(@)$" then I will reply with the proposition,
"That means you are trying to defeat my theory by posting meaningless
squiggles," which is a meaningful logical proposition.
And not only that, it would be a correct proposition because we would
both know that is exactly what you are trying to do, and that there
really wasn't any other meaning in the post.

>But perhaps an insane
>mind could "think" of a "solution"?

Here I think you are talking about the human god(s), so that we are
talking past each other. I agree with you 100%, and it seems I agree
with myself too!
>
>As to the question of objectivity I can say this. Objectivity in any
>cosmological debate, especially one as idealistic as this one
centering on
>the existence of a hypothetical "god", is nearly impossible.

Yes, escaping the anthropomorphic POV is nearly impossible or totally
impossible. Also I often chuckle when I read, "So 15 billion years ago
during the 10^-27th second after..." (Like we can figure out what
happened last week!). That has to be quite a stretch. But we do learn
things. Nuclear bombs do go off. And it's fun to speculate.

"Cosmological" to me means "the observable universe," i.e. logical or
probabilistic. When I talk about "not-logic" I'm talking about
existence. So again I agree with you and it seems myself also.

>Man is but a
>child in his knowledge of the universe and its workings.

Agree. I like to say our technological advance is but a slap in time
compared to a hypothetical ET 50,000 years more advanced, and their
50,000 years is a slap in cosmological time. So I would go a lot
further than a "child" and describe us more as an amoeba in our
knowledge of the universe. Yet some of us amoebas have the audacity to
think we can know whether or not there is/was a creating god. As if a
real amoeba on earth could solve the problem of nuclear terrorism for
us or explain every thought in e.g. Einstein's or Christ's mind.

>But that doesn't
>mean the human ideas or human knowledge is wrong or that a "god" must
be
>postulated to explain the gaps in human knowledge. Instead, man
should face
>his ignorance as well as his knowledge in humility and say, "How do
we
>progress from here?"

For sure. It is too hard for some to accept doubt about the most
important things to them. I don't seem to have that problem, so far.
Maybe one reason is that I am highly invested in the concept of
probability, and a lot of my background is administrative where I've
always had to make decisions on incomplete information. So, just used
to uncertainty.
>
>> We understand our universe as a logical universe (or
"probabilistic"
>> which amounts to the same thing). By "logic" I mean real-world
logic
>> (including probability) or how our universe works, not academic
logic.
>
>True!

Thanks! That's a big hurdle for some...
>
>> But we know that there is a "not-logic." That is, we know that
logic
>> does break down at some point, i.e. logical paradoxes. (A few fancy
>
>That's right. It's a creative construct of the concious human mind.
It's a
>mental or spiritual ability.

I agree with your "non-logic" (let's use your term non-logic for
non-logical things associated with psychology). But that's not my
not-logic. I'm talking about something else entirely, something that
would exist if the earth blew up tomorrow. And I'm only postulating
it, or treating it as a default case or most probable case.
>
>> Whoever or whatever is responsible for all existence can operate
>> according to this not-logic, probably to create logic among other
>> things. We can't think in not-logic so it is meaningless to us, but
(I
>> argue) not "nonsense" in an objective sense.

I made a big mistake above. I should not have said "think" but should
have said "analyze." I've been avoiding that mistake for a long time.
Why I suddenly did it here, I don't know. But given that I did say
"think," everything you say next applies, and agreed.
>
>I'm not sure you're right that humans "...can't think in not-logic".
The
>concious part of the human mind which is capable of occational logic
work
>makes up just one small part of what the brain does and can do. Most
of the
>brain is occupied with subconcious processes even during the time
when the
>individual is awake. And the subconcious mind works basically by
employing
>your "non-logical" processes. If you remember your dreams, you have a
easy
>way right there to explore at how the subconcious works all the time
to
>digest information, create dreams etc. Another good way is to pay
attention
>to your own mood swings. They all originate with the subconcious.

Agree again. The "subconcious" is the agent of doom to objective
analyisis. I am sure it is grabbing facts and logic to make us reach
conclusions it wants for a host of reasons which I suspect you know
better than I. I have some basis for saying that, i.e. the so-called
"combinatorial explosion" that demonstrates that logic is in fact
being routinely ignored in the normal analyzing process regardless of
objectivity. I've been calling it the "logic/fact snatcher" because I
like to relate it to my interest in reasoning. I've thought to have
seen this obviously happening in myself and others, and have lots of
examples.
>
<snip more about non-logic (psychology) v. "not-logic" (objective
existence) as it seems we were talking about different things>

>> >It seems that you have an interest in natural science. That has
confronted
>> >you with the many problems contemporary science faces in
understanding
>> >objective reality.
>>
>> Agree, and well put. When discussing this subject, I am usually
>> careful to distinguish between subjective reality, objective
reality,
>
>It's really difficult always to distinguish clearly between what's
objective
>and subjective.

I interpret that as "difficult for humans to decide between the two"
as in psychology. Well of course the best observers can only be
approximate regarding reality, and there are the vagaries of
perception and measurement.

But it's nearly always a trivial imperfection for the sentient among
us, worthy of being ignored. And even when it isn't, we nearly always
are aware of it and compensate. I remember about 220 years ago when I
took Psych 101 and there was this picture that could be either a cow
or your mother depending on how you looked at it. Well, that was the
one time in my life I've ever seen anything like that where I didn't
suspect it ahead of time. I know there are famous examples. Like the
guy who claimed to see a UFO out the airline window when it was just
the wing refracted in the window. These things are exceeding rare, and
that guy was pretty dumb IMO. I wouldn't make that mistake and I don't
know many who would. I mean, you're looking through a thick piece of
glass pressurized on one side high in the atmosphere, Duh! I think one
might expect to see something unusual...

>Principally, everybody ought to agree that ALL human
>knowledge is subjective just from the basic argument that what holds
>knowledge is human language. And human language is a human creation,
so all
>knowledge is a human creation. The very definition of subjectivity.
Yet, I
>would claim as you do that man can know objective reality because
that is
>what man interacts with and is a part of. In his very existence, man
is
>OBJECTIVILY part of the universe and as such he can know it, through
the
>basic dialectical process of experience and action.

Agree with all of that. Glad you didn't talk in absolutes, as I always
watch for that in psychological disucssions. There is labeling, like
inventory part numbers and descriptions where subjective and objective
are the same, or so close you couldn't detect the difference. An
8-penny boxnail is pretty much an 8-penny boxnail to either of two
carpenters with 20 years experience. They've all seen it in every way
there is. But I wouldn't stake my life on the new guy hired this week
to bring the right nails, or the experienced guy if I hollered to him
over some noise, etc., etc. This is all pretty elementary judgment and
nothing here is going to bring the world to a stop. This leads into my
"rely" dogma, in case you will analyze further.

>That brings forth the
>question of "god". A person who believes in "god" naturally will
claim that
>"god" has objective existence, not knowing that this claim basically
negates
>itself, as explained above.

I don't agree that it negates itself if we are talking about a god the
creator of all existence. I don't see how such a god could be subject
to logic or operate in a purely logical (or probabilistic) framework.
I think such a god would have to be the inventor of logic. Thus, I
assert, neither you nor I can claim that such a god cannot create
himself through any process of analysis available to us other than
faith. That's no proof of god, just a claim about the possibility of
such a god. I don't think you can force logic on an assumed creator of
all existence. But I don't know anything for sure and try to be a good
listener.

In the worst case we could agree to disagree on this point (with me
knowing I'm right) <g>

>But never mind. What position has "god" in the
>objective-subjective scale? Well, the agnostic has to say that "god"
is a
>subjective human phenomenon, created by the human mind, and that he
has no
>objective existence exept as an idea expressed by language.

I thought "agnostic" was inconclusive about existence of an objective
god. I'm not well informed here. It's really been a long time since
I've argued with those terms. If it comes up again, I'll google the
definition.

>And it might
>actually be opportune for deists to go along with that, for they can
then
>say without any danger of ever being proved wrong that "god" put the
idea of
>"god" into the human mind, and that was and will be "his" only
intervention
>in the workings of the universe, forever and ever. But I know they 
won't
>ever do this (though Islam is close to this point), so I'm not
handing any
>arguments to the "enemy".

Clever. I'm a little squeamish about discussing Islam or certain
politics because I live in the U.S. We have the "two Johns"
(Pointexter and Ashcroft) who would like to (probably are) compile at
least email databases, newsgroup posts are even easier. Certainly
paranoid in terms of myself and now, but not so paranoid in terms of
my descendants and many current parallels with 1930's Germany.

<snip agreements about reality v. universe>
>> >
>> >significantly to this debate, this means that human beings
basically create
>> >their own reality.
>>
>> I know you mean "subjective reality."
>
>It means both. Human beings create both (part of) their own
subjective and
>their objective reality. The proof is easy - just a little thought
>experiment. You probably live in a house or flat. They are not
natural
>creations but have been build by man. By building them man ADDS his
creation
<snip because I am convinced>.

Ok, I see that. Thanks for correcting me. An idea takes some form and
then it becomes objective reality. Haven't given any thought at all to
where that line is drawn in terms of objective/subjective, or how it
might be important in this argument.

>> And needs of the society. E.g. early america needed a certain brand
of
>> Christianity. Maybe that is included in "preferred narratives"
since I
>> don't have a good definition of that.
>
>Christianity has a lot of those. It's basically just a question of
picking
>and choosing.

Oh yes. Just that part of the bible could serve any purpose I can
think of. But no need to use just that part (of course Christians
don't either, lots of contradictions based on that). All bibles
conveniently include the old testament, and they are everywhere even
in hotel rooms. Perfect for any brain-programming project you like.
Give me an objective, I'll give you the dogma. <snipped some examples,
thought better of it. Too many Manson types out there.>
>
(continued...)

Larry