• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Is it?

Hm...

It seems that inc beings are not a very useful type of god.

I can't know if they are capable of loving or not ; if they are capable of emotions ; if they are capable of changing the laws of nature ; capable of creation ; capable of writing books ; capable of talking to prophets ; capable of incarnating as men ; capable of appearing in sandwiches ; capable of loving everyone equally.
 
JetLeg said:
Hm...

It seems that inc beings are not a very useful type of god.

I can't know if they are capable of loving or not ; if they are capable of emotions ; if they are capable of changing the laws of nature ; capable of creation ; capable of writing books ; capable of talking to prophets ; capable of incarnating as men ; capable of appearing in sandwiches ; capable of loving everyone equally.
Click to expand...

I agree. :)
 
Hm... Are there problems with a consequent god that is known only emotionaly?

The only effect that he has is upon the emotions of people.

I am changing my proposal into an immaterial-consequential god. But the only consequences he may have are upon the emotions of people - causing him to feel his love.
 
Last edited:
JetLeg said:
I am changing my proposal into an immaterial-consequential god. But the only consequences he may have are upon the emotions of people - causing him to feel his love.
Click to expand...

What is the nature of human emotion? Is it generated from without or from within? Don't we feel love by virtue of a relationship? Don't we (ouselves) generate that feeling of love? What relationship might we have with an immaterial 'being'?
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
What is the nature of human emotion? Is it generated from without or from within? Don't we feel love by virtue of a relationship? Don't we (ouselves) generate that feeling of love? What relationship might we have with an immaterial 'being'?
Click to expand...

The fact that we feel sometimes love without an immaterial being, does not in itself disqualify the idea that sometimes we feel love that is caused by an immaterial being.
 
JetLeg said:
The fact that we feel sometimes love without an immaterial being, does not in itself disqualify the idea that sometimes we feel love that is caused by an immaterial being.
Click to expand...

We have no evidence that love is caused by any being external to ourselves. We feel love as a result of a relationship with another being. It is generated from within us.

In other words, the idea that love is caused by an external being does not accord with any human experience that we can identify. It may be the case, but there is absolutely no evidence for it and signficant evidence to suggest that the feeling is based on pure fantasy (internally generated). John Hinckley felt the supreme love of Jody Foster. But Jody Foster didn't cause it.

I am not proposing here a logical proof, so there is no reason to treat it as such.


ETA

Besides you're now back with a material God essentially. We call things that act in the material world 'material'. Gravity doesn't take up space but it is a material force. If your God acts in such a way that it affects the material world -- by causing a feeling of love (as if love could be a force like gravity) -- then it is material or at least acts via material forces.
 
Last edited:
Ichneumonwasp said:
We have no evidence that love is caused by any being external to ourselves. We feel love as a result of a relationship with another being. It is generated from within us.

In other words, the idea that love is caused by an external being does not accord with any human experience that we can identify. It may be the case, but there is absolutely no evidence for it and signficant evidence to suggest that the feeling is based on pure fantasy (internally generated). John Hinckley felt the supreme love of Jody Foster. But Jody Foster didn't cause it.

I am not proposing here a logical proof, so there is no reason to treat it as such.


ETA

Besides you're now back with a material God essentially. We call things that act in the material world 'material'. Gravity doesn't take up space but it is a material force. If your God acts in such a way that it affects the material world -- by causing a feeling of love (as if love could be a force like gravity) -- then it is material or at least acts via material forces.
Click to expand...

First, I am a dualist. I think that thoughts, emotions, dreams and so on are immaterial, based mainly upon different arguments about qualia.

Second, if god is immaterial, and so are emotions, according to me - then we can somehow actually feel god himself. That can't be done with Jody Foster.
 
JetLeg said:
First, I am a dualist. I think that thoughts, emotions, dreams and so on are immaterial, based mainly upon different arguments about qualia.

Second, if god is immaterial, and so are emotions, according to me - then we can somehow actually feel god himself. That can't be done with Jody Foster.
Click to expand...

I've been waiting for you to say that again. Dualism is the only solution to this problem.

But then you have the problem of dualism. How do immaterial "things" like thoughts interact with the material world? How can a thought cause an action? That problem seems utterly insoluble.

ETA

Personally I think the best way to solve the issue is through idealism, but that requires a radical restructuring of the way most people think about the world. And it is far too easy to fall into its traps. It really doesn't solve that many problems. People have a tendency to fudge its lessons.
 
Last edited:
Ichneumonwasp said:
I've been waiting for you to say that again. Dualism is the only solution to this problem.

But then you have the problem of dualism. How do immaterial "things" like thoughts interact with the material world? How can a thought cause an action? That problem seems utterly insoluble.

ETA

Personally I think the best way to solve the issue is through idealism, but that requires a radical restructuring of the way most people think about the world. And it is far too easy to fall into its traps. It really doesn't solve that many problems. People have a tendency to fudge its lessons.
Click to expand...

I can start a new thread on dualism. Given the assumption of dualism, do you agree that a case for feeling god can be made?
 
You should find a supersensate. That's the term I use for what's also known as a highly sensitive person. Jung described it, and Elaine Aron, with other researchers, has written several journal-submitted papers and a book or three about it. It appears to be a legitimate and documentable phenomenon, observable in about 15 to 20% of the general population.

A highly sensitive person can be described as someone [who] is overwhelmed by the senses. Having a nervous system that absorbs and processes ten times more information than the average person's leaves an HSP exhausted after a "normal" day of activity. Not only are they overwhelmed by their physical senses such as sight, sound, touch, taste and smell, but can be exhausted by their emotions as well. They tend to absorb the feelings and energies of others, which can be taxing on the mind.
Click to expand...

Now, I've only recently run across this description, and am currently trying to discover if this is a real set of personality traits, or sheerest Woo designed to sell books, or something in the middle somewhere. In the meantime, I would think that if gods were detectable by the emotions, people like that would be able to do so. You should find some, and ask.

I'll help by giving you your first response:




NO. Not one iota. That's part of the reason I became atheist after 30 years of being a Fundamentalist Christian.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom