freestyle Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 "... Historically, natural phenomena whose causes were not well understood, such as lightening and catastrophes such as earthquakes and floods, were attributed to them. They were thought to be able to work supernatural miracles and to be the authorities and controllers of various aspects of human life (such as birth or an afterlife)..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deity References to a supernatural God are dated. In a time when witches and warlocks lived in the neighborhood, there really wasn't anything outside the universe because the universe was simply the earth and sky. The Founders attempted to come to terms with this by delimiting God to nature, setting aside those attributes that conflicted with what they knew. The continued use of the prefix super applied to natural and super applied to man is essentially the same today, and not dissimilar to the use of heroic. For example, Ayn Rand's concept of man as a heroic being certainly doesn't imply the same type of demigod Aristotle would have recognized in his day. I agree that a supernatural "anything" is dated. Yet religious believers still hold to that claim. I think the founders had it right when identifying "nature" as the relevant concept with regards to the source of rights (notwithstanding the politically correct nod to God and/or "Nature's God"). If we're talking about a "God" that is not supernatural, not omnipotent, we are talking about a yet to be defined concept (which many attribute the label of God). We could select any one of those concepts and study whether or not there is evidence of existence. However, none of those things proven to exist in nature are (or will ever be) what a person of faith is "believing" in. Gravity was part of God until we had a name for that too. Anything one doesn't know can always arbitrarily be called the work of God... Until we know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skylab72 Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 Universe is simply "limited" to "all that exists". I don't think a a non-contradictory conceptualization of Omniverse is possible. It would be a "thing" and that thing would refer to "all that exists". The Objectivist definition of universe is what I was suggesting. Well I was just going on the structure of the word. The root meaning of Uni is one and the term came into common usage when the popular cosmology was a collection of galaxies. I am given to understand that implied the need for an 'omniverse' when multi-dimensional envelopes of collections of galaxies were discussed. If one chooses to make Uni mean THE one all encompassing cosmological concept, then fine I have no objection. I just have not used it that way. I do not want to quibble over words. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freestyle Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 Well I was just going on the structure of the word. The root meaning of Uni is one and the term came into common usage when the popular cosmology was a collection of galaxies. I am given to understand that implied the need for an 'omniverse' when multi-dimensional envelopes of collections of galaxies were discussed. If one chooses to make Uni mean THE one all encompassing cosmological concept, then fine I have no objection. I just have not used it that way. I do not want to quibble over words. No quibble here. Like I said, I was using the word as Objectivism defines it. And yes, Uni meaning the "one". Perhaps the "one" term you were looking for that consists of everything. (out of my league here, but possibly mathematically a binary 1 or 0. 1 = existence 0=non-existence (everything can fall into 1, nothing, literally, can be 0) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skylab72 Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 I agree that a supernatural "anything" is dated. Yet religious believers still hold to that claim. I think the founders had it right when identifying "nature" as the relevant concept with regards to the source of rights (notwithstanding the politically correct nod to God and/or "Nature's God"). If we're talking about a "God" that is not supernatural, not omnipotent, we are talking about a yet to be defined concept (which many attribute the label of God). We could select any one of those concepts and study whether or not there is evidence of existence. However, none of those things proven to exist in nature are (or will ever be) what a person of faith is "believing" in. Gravity was part of God until we had a name for that too. Anything one doesn't know can always arbitrarily be called the work of God... Until we know. Until we know, that is the crux. Right now If someone says, God took the complement of an empty set and got a big bang, I have to smile and nod, and agree that sounds pretty omnipotent. But I can still assert that there seem to be symmetries 'He' never seems to break, again until we know. Being finite is actually fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skylab72 Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 Pantheism, perhaps?? Googled Pantheism. Got a lot of Wiki-type info. Plus a "World Pantheism website". Went to said website and did not find a lot to disagree with, they published 'basic concepts' as: The basic concepts comprise: Reverence for Nature and the wider Universe. Active respect and care for the rights of all humans and other living beings. Celebration or our lives in our bodies on this beautiful earth as a joy and a privilege. Strong naturalism, without belief in supernatural realms, afterlives, beings or forces. Respect for reason, evidence and the scientific method as our best ways of understanding nature and the Universe. Promotion of religious tolerance, freedom of religion and complete separation of state and religion. Would seem far easier to reconcile with Objectivism than Catholicism. Does however seem more 'new age' than most of the Objectivists I know personally, would care to gracefully tolerate for very long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 ... Would seem far easier to reconcile with Objectivism than Catholicism. Does however seem more 'new age' than most of the Objectivists I know personally, would care to gracefully tolerate for very long. "At its most general, pantheism may be understood positively as the view that God is identical with the cosmos, the view that there exists nothing which is outside of God, or else negatively as the rejection of any view that considers God as distinct from the universe." http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/ The above link from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (a favorite goto source for me) provides alot of good information about this particular form of theism, and is worth a look. I'm probably more inclined to consider myself a pantheist, if I had to be identified with a particular faith. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 ... I think the founders had it right when identifying "nature" as the relevant concept with regards to the source of rights (notwithstanding the politically correct nod to God and/or "Nature's God"). ... As do I ... If we're talking about a "God" that is not supernatural, not omnipotent, we are talking about a yet to be defined concept (which many attribute the label of God). We could select any one of those concepts and study whether or not there is evidence of existence. However, none of those things proven to exist in nature are (or will ever be) what a person of faith is "believing" in. ... Essentially a person of faith believes in something greater than man. In the context of a finite universe, potency, knowledge and presence have definite limits; the limit being the sum of everything that can be done. ... Gravity was part of God until we had a name for that too. Anything one doesn't know can always arbitrarily be called the work of God... Until we know. The identification of gravity may be considered a tool of God, but I'd reserve the name God (for lack of something more suitable) as the ultimate user of tools. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rowsdower Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 This is all great sport, but we are going nowhere. I already agreed that using a weaker semantic set to discuss a greater one was 'my bad' in the beginning. I therefore must object to attempting to shoehorn the discussion into an even weaker semantic set as we go on. Predicate logic was bad enough, computer code/pseudo-code will get us no where. Do you even care to discuss any of this, or is this the way you chose to stop participating? I'm afraid that your posts must be treated as if nothing is said, as without a 'greater semantic set' your outlook can not be treated as a proposition, and being inherently mathematical, it it can't be treated as anything else. The only thing I hold blind faith in is the Lakers. [...] but, yes, I am aware of it... Maybe because I'm aware that the faith is blind and there is no reason I don't actually believe it. This requires more psychological distinctions of 'belief'. We can supposedly do all of these separately: 1) say something is true 2) act as if something is true 3) think something is true 4) pretend something is true (for drama, gaming...), but not really act as if it was true (you can pause) 5) consider a hypothetical (or listen to a story) But you can't fully think something is true and at the same time fully think it isn't true, so I think this would be #4. You probably root for the Lakers for the same reason you root for fictional characters. theestevearnold 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skylab72 Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 "At its most general, pantheism may be understood positively as the view that God is identical with the cosmos, the view that there exists nothing which is outside of God, or else negatively as the rejection of any view that considers God as distinct from the universe." http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/ The above link from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (a favorite goto source for me) provides alot of good information about this particular form of theism, and is worth a look. I'm probably more inclined to consider myself a pantheist, if I had to be identified with a particular faith. Thanks for the ref. You can see how long I spent browsing. I can be comfortable with the pantheist label. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skylab72 Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 I'm afraid that your posts must be treated as if nothing is said, as without a 'greater semantic set' your outlook can not be treated as a proposition, and being inherently mathematical, it it can't be treated as anything else. Wow that stings, but very well said. At some point I would like to revisit the topic, but do everyone the favor of using the 'greater semantic set' provided by the definitions provided on this site. Sincere apologies for wasting your time... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theestevearnold Posted January 17, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 I'm afraid that your posts must be treated as if nothing is said 4) pretend something is true (for drama, gaming...), but not really act as if it was true But you can't fully think something is true and at the same time fully think it isn't true, so I think this would be #4. Amen, brother. AR proved why I should treat "God exists" as if nothing was said, and refrain from debate. This thread is still good for discussing nuances of belief and the evil of blind belief. #4 option is an example of an appropriate (temporary) willful suspension of disbelief I can use to enjoy certain movies. It does not introduce logical fallicies into my epistemology because I know it's not reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freestyle Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 I think I'll agree that what I call "faith" in the Lakers is more akin to a willful suspension of disbelief. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 (edited) Amen, brother. AR proved why I should treat "God exists" as if nothing was said, and refrain from debate. This thread is still good for discussing nuances of belief and the evil of blind belief. #4 option is an example of an appropriate (temporary) willful suspension of disbelief I can use to enjoy certain movies. It does not introduce logical fallicies into my epistemology because I know it's not reality. This thread demonstrates the wisdom of "don't ask - don't tell" regarding discussions related to Faith in God in Objectivist forums. While I appreciate the invitation you presented in the OP, the fact remains that God isn't one... yet. Similarly, it's equally good advice for "Men of Faith" not to respond to assertions that "God doesn't exist"; as I learned by being ejected from THE FORUM for Ayn Rand Fans for "inciting a riot". Nevertheless, I've enjoyed the discussion thus far and will continue to respond to legitimate considerations of knowledge vs belief vs faith. Peace be with you... Edited January 17, 2014 by Devil's Advocate Skylab72 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harrison Danneskjold Posted February 15, 2014 Report Share Posted February 15, 2014 In short, 'theistic objectivists' know that they have a right to form their own opinions without interference from other people, and have thusly been disinclined to examine their own opinions beyond the requisite "freedom is good, because. . ." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.