Originally posted by NemesioMore specifically, then. Do you take God to be, or merely to be a manifestation of something more?
This would not be representative of my opinion, but if it serves to debunk the idea that the primal
need that humans have is the one for 'answers' rather than the one for 'God,' you can run with it.
Nemesio
Originally posted by FreakyKBHEither answer I would give -- either that He is or He isn't -- has nothing to do with the so-called
More specifically, then. Do you take God to be, or merely to be a manifestation of something more?
'need for God,' nor would it illuminate why the so-called 'need for God' isn't in actuality a need
for answers, a hunger for knowledge.
But, I take God to be. So what?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioEither answer I would give -- either that He is or He isn't -- has nothing to do with the so-called 'need for God,'...
Either answer I would give -- either that He is or He isn't -- has nothing to do with the so-called
'need for God,' nor would it illuminate why the so-called 'need for God' isn't in actuality a need
for answers, a hunger for knowledge.
But, I take God to be. So what?
Nemesio
Granted, but it will come back around at some point.
But, I take God to be. So what?
How is man aware of God?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI think that all such things begin with a “mystical” experience: that is an experience of some aspect of existence that is transcendent to the grammar of our consciousness, the limits of our concept-making mind. People translate such experiences into conceptual content—sometimes almost immediately, as the concept-making mind attempts to translate the ineffable into comprehensible and effable content that it can deal with; sometimes later as one thinks about the experience and attempts to make some meaning of it.
[b]Either answer I would give -- either that He is or He isn't -- has nothing to do with the so-called 'need for God,'...
Granted, but it will come back around at some point.
But, I take God to be. So what?
How is man aware of God?[/b]
None of that, I think, is invalid. Some of it reflects our reasoning sense, some of it our aesthetic sense. Some of that representational content is of our own making; some we draw from those who have gone before (representing their mystical experiences), if it makes sense to us.
As human knowledge of the cosmos in which we exist increases, some of that conceptual content gives way; some does not; some becomes reformed. This is when all of the “God of the gaps” issues come into play, for instance.
All of our conceptualizations of the transcendent ineffable may be wrong; some of them may be more or less accurate. Yours may be right; mine may be wrong. Either way, the grammar of our consciousness is all we have to try to decipher the syntax of existence; and that grammar itself is part of that larger syntax. Whatever lies outside the bounds of that grammar cannot be understood; whatever can be understood can only be understood within the bounds of that grammar.
Our religious representations are products of that grammar. Even the language of divine revelation (whether metaphorical, symbolical, or propositional) must be accommodated to that grammar, and the limits of its comprehension; else it becomes nonsense. But it must be remembered that the transcendent is transcendent because it lies beyond the grasp of that grammar; else there is no need to use the word, or like words, at all. And that may be the crux of the dilemma.
The traditions you draw on translate the transcendent ineffable into a being, distinct from and creator of the cosmos; the traditions I draw on translate the transcendent ineffable into the One-without-a-second, the All-without-another. Your paradigm seems to require the positing of a supernatural category; mine does not, though it perhaps does not disallow it (my main objection thus far being on epistemological grounds).
Then we argue about which of our viewpoints is the more “grammatical”—there is almost a pun there, since so much of our argument does end up hinging on language.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThis question presupposes the existence of God which immediately
How is man aware of God?
stacks the deck in your favor. Your contention is that man's 'need' for
God is indicative of his existence.
The only question I could answer is how am I aware of God, and
this is a question I will not answer. You can, if you like, use the way in
which you are aware of God to advance your argument that man does
in fact need God (as opposed to needing answers).
Further, you would have to address why twitehead, for example, doesn't
seem to need God.
So stop beating around the bush and make your case instead of asking
leading questions that ultimately don't provide any fodder for your contention.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioAs expected, expertly avoided. True, your specific experience speaks nothing to the original contention, i.e., man's awareness of the supernatural. Your experience does, however, underscore the same.
This question presupposes the existence of God which immediately
stacks the deck in your favor. Your contention is that man's 'need' for
God is indicative of his existence.
The only question I could answer is how am I aware of God, and
this is a question I will not answer. You can, if you like, use the way in
which you are aware of ...[text shortened]...
leading questions that ultimately don't provide any fodder for your contention.
Nemesio
As has been stated, human history is dominated by a search for God. You (and others) have attempted to reduce that specific searh to such mundane (and long-established) pursuits such as personal relationships, long-term projects, and even curiousity for how things work.
All of the above citations emphasize the point, in that man desires relationships (they are available), man engages in long-term projects (again, available) and desires to know the undergirding rules to the universe (yet again, available). That point, that man desires, engages, needs only those thing which truly are available, are real.
You counter by saying twhitehead doesn't need God (or so he contends). Good for him. You may as well say that twhitehead doesn't care how the universe works, for all the good you and he do in that argument. That is no argument, really. One exception to the general rule says something about the exception, not the rule. And, if God wasn't an issue in his life (or any other atheist's life, for that matter), he and they wouldn't be so obessessed by the concept as to even define themselves in the negative to the question. He (and others) wish to rephrase the issue as though the default position is a lack of belief, a lack of need. Rubbish. Historically, conceptually, and just plain ol' common sense-ly.
Atheism is not the correction to a mistake. It is a comment by petulant, stubborn children, pissed off they didn't get what they wanted out of the deal--- totally ignorant of who and what God is--- defiant to the end, refusing to give God what He so richly deserves.
Petty and childish, really. Sadly, ironically, it isn't even a position of self-service.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHEgads.
[b]I don't think such a craving can reasonably be construed as a need, so I think you were notionally confused there.
Well, of course I was "notionally confused!" I am a Christian, aren't I? Aren't we all--- in your book--- just a bunch of uncouth, ill-read nincumpoops who lack the intellectual acumen, capacity and honesty to objectively evaluate ou ...[text shortened]... What isn't learned, however, is that inherent concept of God, or the Numinous.[/b]
Answer me this, won't you? Are you still maintaining that knightmeister fairly well summed up your argument here? As I said before, if yes, then quit wasting everyone's time. If no, then what's your argument?
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
As expected, expertly avoided. True, your specific experience speaks nothing to the original contention, i.e., man's awareness of the supernatural. Your experience does, however, underscore the same.
I consider my experience with the Divine to be personal; I didn't
avoid the question, I declined to answer it. And, you admit that my
experience speaks nothing to the original intention. Further, if I were
to share said experience, you might be disappointed to find out that it
in fact does not underscore your assertion.
As has been stated, human history is dominated by a search for God. You (and others) have attempted to reduce that specific searh to such mundane (and long-established) pursuits such as personal relationships, long-term projects, and even curiousity for how things work.
Human history was dominated by a curiousity first and an anthropomorphizing
after. The latter is what leads to the subsequent search for supernatural
answers (not necessarily 'God' but some other-worldly explanation for
the ways things work). This is what has been demonstrated. Human history
is not, in fact, riddled with evidence of 'supernatural searching;' that is a
late product in our evolution (which is something you deny anyway!).
All of the above citations emphasize the point, in that man desires relationships (they are available), man engages in long-term projects (again, available) and desires to know the undergirding rules to the universe (yet again, available). That point, that man desires, engages, needs only those thing which truly are available, are real.
As long as man has been literate (and most certainly before), man has
desired to fly as a bird. He cannot do so. As long as man has been literate,
man has desired to cast magic spells and make gold out of flax. He cannot
do so. As long as man has been literate, man has desired to control the
weather with both benevolent and maleficent motivations. He cannot do so.
Man currently desires to find the 'end' of the number pi or to go faster
than the speed of life.
The rest of your post hinges on the idea that desire equates with satisfaction,
that man couldn't possible desire or need something that doesn't exist.
According to a 2002 Gallup poll, 50% consider themselves religious, 33%
consider themselves 'spiritual' and 10% consider themselves atheist.
That's 30 million atheists, hardly a small number. The number of 'Generation
Nexters' who are atheist is 20%, which is twice what the same age group
(18-25) was in the 1980s.
Let's say the trend continues. Let's say by 2100, the number of theists
was 10% and atheists was 90%, and that trend continued for 1000 years.
Would you consider this evidence that God doesn't exist? I suspect not,
and with good reason: people's opinions about the existence of some
unproven thing (that is, common sense) is not reasoning.
And that's just what you've offered: your opinion without substantiation,
just the misinterpreted trends of opinion over the course of a small subsection
of human history.
Nemesio
Originally posted by LemonJelloYou are fully capable of reading, of this I am sure. The idea has been sufficiently fleshed out; respond in kind or admit your inability to fulfill the request.
Egads.
Answer me this, won't you? Are you still maintaining that knightmeister fairly well summed up your argument here? As I said before, if yes, then quit wasting everyone's time. If no, then what's your argument?
Originally posted by NemesioA small subsection of human history? You can do better than this.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
As expected, expertly avoided. True, your specific experience speaks nothing to the original contention, i.e., man's awareness of the supernatural. Your experience does, however, underscore the same.
I consider my experience with the Divine to be personal; I didn't
avoid the question, I declined to answ ...[text shortened]... opinion over the course of a small subsection
of human history.
Nemesio[/b]
Originally posted by FreakyKBHLook: you don't acknowledge the proto-human history extends back for
A small subsection of human history? You can do better than this.
millions of years. You don't acknowledge the archelogical evidence that
dates things older than a few thousand. I'm not going to try to compel
you with data you find specious. That's a waste of my time.
I find it a waste of time to show you that chimpanzees and great apes
don't have a need for God and somewhere between them and us over
the 2.5 or so million years, somehow we develop this apparent need
(which I opine is something else altogether). We can't even trace religion
for more than a hundred thousand, or less than 5% of the time.
I'd cite the articles if I thought it made a difference, but you deny it, so
what's the point?
In any event: you still have not shown anything, just your appeal to
'common sense' and 'consensus of opinion' as having empirical value.
Nemesio
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI have absolutely no interest in your request to state a need that is not externally satisfied (whatever that means exactly). In fact, genius, if you bothered to read the top of page 5, you would see that I would probably grant you the Premise 1, though I would not grant you that we have a "need for" some agent God, this latter claim being utter rubbish.
You are fully capable of reading, of this I am sure. The idea has been sufficiently fleshed out; respond in kind or admit your inability to fulfill the request.
Back to my question, what is the argument you keep trying to reference to Lewis? Did knightmeister, with his textbook example of a simple fallacy, fairly well sum it up, or not?
Originally posted by LemonJelloAgain, as stated, the concept has been sufficiently fleshed out within the thread. Universally, man has a need for food, shelter, warmth, succor. Universally, these needs can be met through exterior realities. Universally, man has a concept of God. If indeed there be no God, this concept stands out as the one universal aspect of human nature that is a complete anomoly to all of his drives.
I have absolutely no interest in your request to state a need that is not externally satisfied (whatever that means exactly). In fact, genius, if you bothered to read the top of page 5, you would see that I would probably grant you the Premise 1, though I would not grant you that we have a "need for" some agent God, this latter claim being utter rubbish. ...[text shortened]... d knightmeister, with his textbook example of a simple fallacy, fairly well sum it up, or not?
Nemesio attempts to equate man's search for the end of pi, or the quest to travel as fast as light with man's concept of God. Instead of counteracting the original claim, he underscores it with the argument. Pi is real. Light's speed is real. Our quests in these areas--- although currently frustrated--- are quests involved with reality.
Man has conjured up all kinds of gods and silliness in attempt to provide various answers and/or motivations. All of these have been quickly discarded as fantasy. Yet the concept of the relational, personal God persists... as it has from man's earliest recorded history. Why?