Science a GoGo's Home Page

Assuming that Tim has left the room, I start this new thread.
====================================
On YouTube there is the famous BBC TV interview in which Carl Jung said, I do not need to believe in God, I KNOW there is God..."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJ25Ai__FYU&feature=related
With this same attitude I offer this topic:
My evidence that GOD/GØD IS for Real...and this can have very practical value. Let us dialogue, in good faith, about what we do, or do not, know. I given an expanded version at www.redefinegod.com

BTW, I like the confident attitude with which Jung talks about G0D, life, death and life after death ...
Watch some of the other short clips, from the BBC interview, and tell me what you think.
=========================================
BTW 2: Do a search on the question: Does God exist? and you will discover that there are many threads on the question of God's existence.

What are we to infer from Jung's confidence in his knowledge, Rev? Lots of people know lots of things that are utterly false.
For some of them at least they make no distinction between their beliefs and their knowledge.

Go ahead, TFF! This is a dialogue. Tell us: What do you infer?

What happened to my answer on the other "Evidence for God" that I posted yesterday? You people are SO unlucky to have missed such a stunning effort!

I just found it in the Cheetah file!! I honestly thought it was in Evidence for God.

By the way it is not as brilliant as I thought, and is totally eclipsed by eccles, whose contribution there I wish I had written.

So Rev-- Can we agree that god is a term that encompasses all that people mean by that term so that it is not necessary to type out every possible permutation of the term? As eccles suggests- if we say 'coin' in the sentence" He is coining it"-- people know we mean money in all its forms and denominations, not just the Aussie 50 cents we may have in our hand, in the form of a metal 12-sided disc.

I need to have a lie-down-- it's actually in Cognitive... and doesn't get ant better for being lost!

Interesting question. I agree that 'god' is a noun; that there is a plural form, gods and the proper noun, God.

But, for some time now, my thinking has led me to the conclusion that the noun 'god'--singular, plural or Proper--is not sufficient to contain the awesomeness of what I have in mind when I write the acronym G0D, or GØD. They sound the same, but, when I speak, I always point of the deeper meaning.

BTW, as physicists, such as Seth Lloyd, begin to make us more and more aware of the "unphysical" nature and mystery of matter the more useful I believe this acronym will become. The prominent psychologist, Dr. Stanley Krippner, who strongly supports the use of this term, says so in www.redefinegod.com

I also believe that this will make the world safer for people to be open and honestly a-theistic without appearing to be cynical cranks.

BTW 2: For those who say that all religion is destructive, keep in mind that it was liberal Christianity and Judaism which made it safe for sophisticated people in the west, including atheists, to say that the ancient Greek and Roman gods were figments of the imagination of the people at that time; they no longer exist on the mountains, even within the imaginations of modern Roman, Greek, Orthodox and Protestant Christians throughout the west.

But this is not true for countries like India, where even modern Hindus can believe in the Hindu pantheon. There, it can be problematic for atheists to speak out openly about what they think of the gods.

In the same way, it is very problematic--even deadly--for atheists, in devoutly Muslim countries, to openly say, "There is no god, or God."

Recently, I wrote the following to a friend at www.redefinegod.com

psychologist Dr. Stanley Krippner in Ca.
http://stanleykrippner.weebly.com/

===========================

Stanley, this thought just came to me today: Let's compare GØD and GOD.

Take note of the zero, Ø, in the first acronym. IMO, G0D/GØD is in the microcosm--the smallest things--and in the macrocosm--the largest things, like the hologram--one and the same time.

GØD in the microcosm
====================
In the first acronym I have in mind GØD as the no-thing from which all things come--creatio ex nihilo, the creation out of nothing, as understood by theist theologians.

GOD in the macrocosm
==================
In the second acronym, GOD, I use the O to indicate the totality, the wholeness, of being, towards which all things, with our creative help, are processing. Check out the work of the philosopher and mathematician, Alfred North Whitehead:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/whitehead/

BTW, have you heard of what Seth Lloyd, at MIT is doing? His latest book is about PROGRAMMING THE COSMOS.
http://www.randomhouse.com/kvpa/lloyd/


It looks as if--that is, if we are wise enough to grasp the concept--we are partners with G0D/GØD in the process of creation.

Re your Whitehead suggestion

My argument about "words as units of communicative exchange" is my interpretation of Wittgenstein's dictum "meaning is usage" (in Philosophical Investigations) which was a direct rejection of his own,Frege's and Whithead's earlier concept of words being "representational"(in Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus)

So Wittgenstein would agree with Humpty Dumpty* that each word should mean exactly what he (HD) wants it to mean?

Rev- My acronym for God In All Possible Manifestations will in future be GIAPM.

*Alice Through the Looking Glass-- Lewis Carroll

Wittgenstein points out the "Humpty-Dumpty" syndrome is what happens in much so-called "philosophical discussion".
In everyday speech usage of linguistic tokens can be disambiguated by non-spoken contextual social action. An amusing illustration of this comes from Crocodile Dundee's encounter with the punk mugger.

GIRL: Watch out ! He's got a knife.
DUNDEE: That's not a knife
(PULLS OUT HIS OWN LARGE BUSH KNIFE) That's a knife!

So "usage" implies "agreed contextual functionality".

Great example-- and we do this all the time. (I mean the agreed contextual functionality not pulling dirty great knives on people). I just can't get Rev to agree to some form of vocab to refer to the divine in all its forms, which is very annoying as I am a hopeless typist and am fed up with typing all the possible permutations of supposed divinity. I think he knows that, and only 'does it to annoy, because he knows it teases'. ( Lewis Carroll again)

A significant issue with "God" advocates is that they are avoiding the fact that context is shifting all the time, hence their desire to include the properties "absolute" or "eternal" etc into their usage.

This relates to my "psychological closure" point above. Theism is the seeking of "firm ground" in a relativistic world where there is macroscopically none. It is the price "human consciousness" pays for its epistemological quest to predict and control... i.e. it is the deliverance of the psychologically "uncontrollable" into the hands of an "ultimate controller/creator". This is so, whether or not we are seen as "instruments" or appendages of such an entity.

I have no idea what you have in mind. What do you mean by "form of vocab"? I presume you simply mean, vocabulary. OK, let's dialogue about this rather small vocabulary--stock of words--which we have in English, to refer to "the divine in all its forms".

In my World Book Dictionary (WBD) there are only three such words, or nouns: god, goddess and God--all anthropomorphic (human like) nouns. And in my opinion, none of these describe real beings which exist as objects of worship.

In my opinion, these nouns in no way express what I have in mind when I think of the divine--which I think of as total, universal and all encompassing Being, or Spirit. This includes the no-thing, which we call vacuum, or space (GØD, for short), and the every-thing (GOD, for short) into which the cosmos is expanding--at the speed of light? Awesome.

WE NEED A NEW WORD
==================
BTW, every letter category in WBD begins with a set of acronyms, with meanings added. G has 11. If I had the power, I would add number 12 and 13: GØD and GOD, for the reasons given here.

Keep in mind, as WBD spells out, the ancient Greeks and Romans had an anthropocentric theology--a belief in many human-like gods.

The idea of monotheism--one, and only one invisible god--was foreign to their way of thinking. Plato--he probably was a moral and ethical monotheist--was condemned as an atheist because he doubted there were any special and human-like gods on mount Olympus.

Eccles, what do you make of this: In John 10:22-39, we read that Jesus was condemned by his fellow monotheists because he said that we are all gods, if we choose live and act like it. He and Plato were on the same track, IMO. Both were advocates of living moral, ethical, or god-like lives within what I call the GOD-ness, Order and desirable Design of Reality [in short form, GOD]. Nowhere do I insist that anyone has to use the acronym that I use.

ANNOYING?
Ellis, why is this "very annoying"? Where did I insist on "all the possible permutations of supposed divinity"? I don't!

You say,"I think he knows that, and only 'does it to annoy, because he knows it teases." Believe you me, this is the farthest thing from my mind.

Incidentally, it seems that atheists have no problem describing non-existent fairies and unicorns, agreed? Well, how come some--not all--draw a blank when asked: Describe the kind of gods, goddesses, or God--for which you say there is no evidence--talked about in the god hypothesis? What comes to your mind when you hear believers talking about gods, God?

Originally Posted By: Ellis
... I just can't get Rev to agree to some form of vocab to refer to the divine in all its forms...
Rev wrote:
"I have no idea what you have in mind. What do you mean by "form of vocab"? I presume you simply mean, vocabulary. OK, let's dialogue about this rather small vocabulary--stock of words--which we have in English, to refer to "the divine in all its forms".

In my World Book Dictionary (WBD) there are only three such words, or nouns: god, goddess and God--all anthropomorphic (human like) nouns. And in my opinion, none of these describe real beings which exist as objects of worship.

In my opinion, these nouns in no way express what I have in mind when I think of the divine--which I think of as total, universal and all encompassing Being, or Spirit. This includes the no-thing, which we call vacuum, or space (GØD, for short), and the every-thing (GOD, for short) into which the cosmos is expanding--at the speed of light? Awesome."



And that's exactly what annoys me, so I am going to talk about GIAPM in future. And that describes what you appear to be talking about when you refer to one of your favourite GOD names (the one with the funny O) ie GOD (with funny O) is one of the facets of GIAPM.

Rev again
"Incidentally, it seems that atheists have no problem describing non-existent fairies and unicorns, agreed? Well, how come some--not all--draw a blank when asked: Describe the kind of gods, goddesses, or God--for which you say there is no evidence--talked about in the god hypothesis? What comes to your mind when you hear believers talking about gods, God?"



Obviously what comes to my mind is GIAPM as believed in by disparate believers. As an dis-believer I have no image of the god in which I believe myself because don't believe. I have noted over time some of the many manifestations of the GIAPM that others believe to be divine, --- take your pick (just a warning some are invisible).


eccles.... I agree that there is a need for certainty in many people's belief in GIAPM, usually expressed as "firm belief" --- That 'firmness' being to them a desirable characteristic, and that characteristic being the one that produces martyrs.

GIAMP?

Ellis, do scientists who study geography and geology tell us made-up stories based on child-like observations and what we call common sense? No, they let nature "speak" its own truth.

I take the same approach in my study of GOD. I let GOD "speak" to me. [I'll expand on this.]

COMMON SENSE. LET'S TALK ABOUT IT
=================================
Trusting that they have integrity, let us ask a group of "Naked Scientists" from Cambridge University about it.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/
There is a thread on common sense. Coberst posts to it.

Common sense does have it use, but we must not forget that because of it our ancestors, way back, believed that the sun rose in the east; that the earth was a flat disc and that it was at the centre of the universe. Because of education, even quite young children today know differently.

Enter science--that is, science with integrity and humble enough to admit mistakes. It helps us evaluate common sense and to correct our mistakes. As I said above, true scientists who study geography and geology do not tell us made-up stories based on child-like observations and what we call common sense. Using all their senses, they let the nature of things speak for themselves.

True scientists like Copernicus--who, BTW, was a Christian monk--are not afraid to use their senses and imaginations and to go beyond common sense, when needed.

Long before the careful observations of Galileo proved him to be right, and that common sense is sometimes wrong, he came to the mathematical conclusion that the earth is a globe going around the sun.

IMO, theology and religion without science is superstition. Science in the service of GOD is a marvelous and powerful tool, not a dangerous and destructive one. It is for this reason I take the same scientific approach in my study of GOD. And I invite GOD to "speak" to and through me--and anyone who makes the same choice.

Incidentally, I read somewhere that the Greek philosopher, Aristarchus, came to the same conclusion, as did Copernicus, about 300 BCE. The "wise" people of his day thought he was insane. It is said that was so hurt by the rejection of his peers that he did become insane. If you reject my god hypothesis I promise not to go insane, just slightly nuts.

Occam's razor suggests that we don't need another term to describe "selflessness". The animosity to the alleged Jesus remark is understandable from those with vested interests in their own independent "self" as maintained by a "divine entity".

In short the utterance of the word "God", like all words, is a social act, i.e. utterances have interactional consequences.That is where "reality" lies. "Existence" is about "relationship". Contrary to the psychological sleight of hand we perform, it is not about free standing "entities".

LATER EDIT
The functionality of any utterance involves particular contexts. Thus "unicorn " in a child's colouring book is different to "unicorn" as a heraldic symbol and different again to "unicorn" with respect to a potential physical encounters with an animal."Properties" are not descriptions of "objects" they are interactional expectancies in accordance with the quest for contextual predictivity.

eccles wrote:
"The functionality of any utterance involves particular contexts."

Whist this is true, it is also true to say that many religious people allow no wavering in their construction of the image of God according to their particular dogma. Thus Rev-- who finds it hard to understand that I have not a personal image of God.

I can see evidence of many other people's vision of their gods, and some of them are amongst the most beautiful examples of art on our planet. But they are not a universal depiction of the divine. Some religions made no images of their gods, others see god in their surroundings and still others make multiple different images of multiple gods. The divinity of such beliefs relies on an implicit agreement between the adherents to that particular faith that such divinity exists. So I suppose if you decided to become 'The Godhead', and enough people thought you were, then you would be-- but only within the context of those adherents.

It all illustrates that the belief in god has, as you say, different contexts-- or I suggest, for me,-- lack of belief leading to no context at all.

Ellis,

"Belief" is a bit of a red herring. We atheists simply don't get involved directly in "God" contexts. The concept has no use for us as individuals. But we cannot help getting involved indirectly because at some point we need to interact with "believers". The point is, people don't "hold" beliefs (or the absence of them),ephemerally,they are their beliefs.