Page 1 of 1 1
Topic Options
#25906 - 06/21/09 04:44 PM God: Another look at impersonality.
Ethophobia Offline
stranger


Registered: 06/18/09
Posts: 26
Loc: Texas
Hi again everyone. First, I would like to post a bit of a disclaimer so as to not turn this into a flame thread. I would like to first indicate that I only have a few classes and a lot of theoretical knowledge of philosophy under my belt, so I am by no means any sort of expert. What follows is a part of a worldview theory that I have that I have been developing for some time now in the back of my mind. I love people watching, and even world-watching because it adds to my personal empirical evidence. Given as this is a pet of mine, I have come here to post this as a method of hearing opinions and constructive criticism. I know its asking a lot considering the nature of the 600 Club, but I would really appreciate it if attacking or aggressive language is refrained from. This is not something I care to be attacked over. My mind is open to changing this idea, but odds of erasing it are almost nil at this point due to so much evidence I have toward the ends of my own ideas. I know it sounds pompous and pretentious to say, but would also like to make sure you are all aware that I am not forcing this idea on anyone, and I am not claiming to introduce a be-all end-all of ideas. This is simply a theory I am working on. A very near and dear one. So, please. Be respectful. Be constructive in your arguments and critique. I am not attacking or disrespecting anyone, and I am doing my best not to bother anyone with this. I would expect the same.

That said, please keep a critically open-mind, and enjoy.

//disclaimer

God is often seen by theistic beliefs as given a human appeal. Egyptian gods were often depicted as men with animal heads, demons of many cultures were often given human features and emotions such as rage and jealousy, and judeo-christian belief sets god as a character that looks in from 'on high' as a humanistic figure, caring, judgmental and loving. Often enough, it seems, due to the tiny bit of introspection we are capable of within ourselves, we come to the conclusion that if there is some sort of intelligent design, that the designer must share with us something fundamental. In that, we give these ideas human form, because we identify with that. It places us in less of a fear-state to know, or at least believe, that supernatural or metaphysical things, if they exist, share with us some common ground.

But what if they do not?

I bring forth the idea of Atomism. Atomism, or corpuscularianism, is simply a belief, widely disputed and discredited when it first arose, that reality is composed of tiny building blocks. Atomos (I believe) is Latin for "indivisible." This is the reason for its name, as atoms were thought of as being the smallest division any object could be and still exist.

It was proven on no uncertain terms by the equation of Einstein and the following experiments in smashing atoms that these particles could indeed be broken into smaller pieces. So where does that leave Atomism? Some might say that the idea is irrelevant, as atoms can indeed be broken down. Some might go so far as to say that there is no indivisible thing. To this end, I agree: If you take a number and let it represent any object. Take that number and divide it into halves. No matter how many times you cut the resulting "particle" in half, it will still remain a particle.

What I see as Atomism takes the idea one step further. And this is where the idea becomes more abstract, so it may move into circles and back itself into corners. This is where I like to bounce ideas. Within the confines of Atomism, a modern scientist could easily use the above numerical evidence to disprove that anything could be so small as to not be able to cut it. What I pose is a slightly skiewed vision of matter and how it came to form.

Today, the reason Atomos ideas are so easily disproved is given in the above numerical construct. Nothing can be indivisible by halving. I pose that the smallest indivisible unit is not necessarily matter as we know it, but rather a current of vibrations, sound or even electrical flow that allow the rest of matter created after the bang to flow and interact in such ways that they can form things as glorious as a nebula, or as miraculous as life on this planet.

If we are to take in that the statistics of life on this planet doing anything at any time is astronomical, it is almost given that the idea of an intelligent designer is at the very least plausible. My idea is simply that, beneath what we see and know, is god; the divine gravity. The bedrock, fundament and firmament that allowed the first particles to adhere an resonate. If there is sentience in this fundamental groundwork, then it is beyond anything we could ever know. Not judgmental. Not ethical or moral. We would simply be a part of it, no less separate, no more immediately threatened by an afterlife than we had been previously. It would simply mean that we are working parts of god. To what end, we may never know.

Nietzsche explained it as the bottom line-- "My devil is the spirit of gravity, through him, all things fall."
_________________________
You are all fucked and overrated. I think I am going to be sick, and its your fault.

Top
#25908 - 06/21/09 05:04 PM Re: God: Another look at impersonality. [Re: Ethophobia]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3886
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
How do you make the leap from 'particles are divisible/exist' to 'therefore, pantheism'?

If we know anything about sentience it is that it is mutually exclusive to a physical brain. What you are talking about is fantasy to be sure.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#25911 - 06/21/09 05:20 PM Re: God: Another look at impersonality. [Re: Dan_Dread]
Ethophobia Offline
stranger


Registered: 06/18/09
Posts: 26
Loc: Texas
Yeah. I suppose I should just write fiction and get it over with.
_________________________
You are all fucked and overrated. I think I am going to be sick, and its your fault.

Top
#25936 - 06/22/09 01:03 AM Re: God: Another look at impersonality. [Re: Ethophobia]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
Dude, what the hell, seriously?

I can't believe you would back off so easily. You invested all the time to develop that theory and post it on here just to back down from the first person who challenges your ideas. That is pretty pathetic.

Also pathetic is your pity-party, self loathing response. In a previous post you said you have thick skin, but if you plan to last here you need to get even thicker skin. You have a better chance of getting respect if you don't hide a under the porch after barking so loudly.

You need to understand that your ideas and beliefs will be challenged here. As someone who claims to be a skeptic you should be able to understand that. If you can't handle criticism, be it constructive or otherwise, you should go somewhere else.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#25941 - 06/22/09 01:28 AM Re: God: Another look at impersonality. [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
Ethophobia Offline
stranger


Registered: 06/18/09
Posts: 26
Loc: Texas
Okay then.

Edited by Nemesis (06/22/09 06:48 AM)
Edit Reason: Quit posting the goddamn one-liners and smileys. I've already deleted one of your posts. Don't make me do it again.
_________________________
You are all fucked and overrated. I think I am going to be sick, and its your fault.

Top
#26021 - 06/23/09 03:28 AM Re: God: Another look at impersonality. [Re: Dan_Dread]
Ethophobia Offline
stranger


Registered: 06/18/09
Posts: 26
Loc: Texas
Sorry it took me a minute to write this response, I wanted to try to give more than a haphazard blurb. But first, I point you to the TSB. Reality cannot exist without fantasy. ;\)

In that blurb I spoke a lot about Atomism. I did this in order for it to act as a stepping point into the meat of the idea itself. The theory that I present to you is only a small percentage of a greater whole that has become the predetermined basis of my thesis/dissertation for graduate psychology. A bit of a mix of philosophy, physics, social dynamics and psychology. Please do not view it as pretentious, as these theories are formulating in my mind as I get older and I am working on ways to try to replicate some of the ideas present within the theory, like “S.F.I.” which is a coined term for my Experimental Methods course. If you would like information on this experiment, feel free to contact me. The first thing that I would like you to be aware of is that for within the confines of this article, the notion of god does not follow any anthropomorphic, patriarchal or religious subtext. The definition here is broad and abstract, and therefore less easily identified by language. Although through the very nature of what it means to be supernatural, it follows that it is impossible reproduce in a lab, quantify and test. I pose that nothing exists within our known or unknown universe that is super natural, or ‘outside of natural laws’ (Google Define). In this thought, it follows that if god exists, it could be quantifiable, or at least testable by the scientific community. In order to do this, I feel as though I have to skim off the miles of bullshit and attack the very core of the idea in such a way that new ideas can form and be tested and hopefully a clearer idea of divinity can flow.

In my previous excerpt, I used the word Atomism so as to imply correlation between god and the universe. Philosophers have long battled with god’s interference with the mind, and with our own interferences with our own minds. Can they causally affect one another? Does thought follow action, or does action follow thought? For any type of omnipresent being to causally affect anything within it, would be similar in scope to a human being controlling the very neurons used to read this sentence, and change their flow while they are in motion. Atomism was a method used to describe the basic particle as the foundation of the universe and all things within it, and how god might effect the physical world. In this context, the universe would suffuse god, and god would suffuse the universe at the same moment.

So much for eternity.

A similar concept that could be attached to this train of thought is that of monism, which is the idea that all things are just different modes of a single thing (see: blanket theory). Monism and pantheism are incredibly tied in ideas, if you look closely. If all things are one thing, and god is an infinite thing than we are just modes of god (Locke). Which means we are parts of god. Both of these ideas think of god as being omnipresent, For the purposes of my theory, the two really bear no striking differences.

How, then, does the concept of Atomism tie in with Pantheism/Monism? Whereas the universe could be seen through the weak lens of Atomism itself, god would be more appropriately grouped into the idea of Monism. Blending the views gives a better view of the my theory. If you buy into the big bang theory, you could think of it like this..

-Pre-Genesis: Singularity containing all that ever will be. -Monism; possible true form of god.
-Big Bang: Singularity expands-- becomes monadic; Monadism becomes monism. Instant suffusion; Atoms built upon framework of singularity, predisposed at time of expansion.
-Universe settles into a monadic state, still suffused with the framework of monism.
-Framework allows particles to act and react and bond with each other by the VSEPR theory.

Discrediting Accidental Geneses
There is one main flaw that I cannot wrap my head around. By the context of this model, we do away with previous implications of divinity such as being indescribable-but-anthropomorphic and of being “all good“, and reaffirmed certain criteria that have long stood with any idea of god; Omnipresent and infinite. Here, we find ourselves unable to mathematically deduce the astronomical odds of human-beings forming on this speck of rock Although human limitation is no true argument, since the odds of “accidental genesis” are too large to calculate, I shall act upon the idea that humankind were not an accident. The rub is that if we strip away all secondary evidence of god, we leave ourselves with very little to go on. If mathematics renders the formation of Homo homo sapiens a non-accident, yet we find no obvious evidence for or against god, the available methods of research are rendered useless. The only thing I have found to do is follow the next line of recourse here.

It is believed in most University academia that all things are causal. By this view, any event that has happened or will happen is based on a series of events that preceded it. Like a neural network. Receptor nerves indicate pain, and send a neurotransmitter which causes the next cell to reach action potential and release more neurotransmitters. Digging deeper, and admittedly, perhaps being a little overzealous, one might conclude that one could theoretically take any event, no matter how miniscule, and trace it back to the original cause, or the beginning of the universe.

Many modern philosophers, as well as a few ancients, describe god as being the ‘first cause.’ This approach seems to make sense, given that all things that occur have a cause, and all things causally affect one another. If this is the case, then the concept of time would pierce the heart of god, for if all things are causal then there could, by definition, be no first cause. This is a logical contradiction. If you believe there was a first cause, you must ask what caused the first cause. If you denounce a first cause, then cause have always been, and all things are somehow eternal. This is the most fragile bit of the argument, but one of the most important.

Bullets of the Article/Points of interest

[list]
[*]First Cause disputed by 'eternal causality'.
-Tradition god view loses foothold as alpha/omega.
[*]Concepts of Atomism and Monism blend.
[*]Pantheism remains as a weak point of conjecture.
[*]Mathematically, human beings are non-accidental.
-Follows: Must have a cause; implies intelligent design.
[*]Atoms/Monads a possible 'offspring' of singularity; Big bang.
-> Original Singularity posed as god.
->Follows: God suffuses universe via monism + atomism -> Pantheism

I feel like I am on a precipice. Come, give me your words. Prove me wrong.
_________________________
You are all fucked and overrated. I think I am going to be sick, and its your fault.

Top
#26052 - 06/23/09 04:06 PM Re: God: Another look at impersonality. [Re: Ethophobia]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3886
Loc: Vancouver, Canada

 Quote:
Reality cannot exist without fantasy. ;\)

Huh? What are you talking about?
I'm pretty sure it doesn't say that anywhere in TSB, and on the surface looks like it would be a very hard proposition to support. Care to try?
 Quote:

In this thought, it follows that if god exists, it could be quantifiable, or at least testable by the scientific community. In order to do this, I feel as though I have to skim off the miles of bullshit and attack the very core of the idea in such a way that new ideas can form and be tested and hopefully a clearer idea of divinity can flow.

First you must define what you even mean by god. It seems to me you are trying to assign mystical properties to things for no good reason whatsoever. What does 'god' add to the equation? What is the reasoning behind trying to introduce this mysticism?
I would be very interested in hearing the core reasoning behind this(as you suggest here), but none has yet been presented in this thread.
 Quote:

I used the word Atomism so as to imply correlation between god and the universe. Philosophers have long battled with god’s interference with the mind, and with our own interferences with our own minds. Can they causally affect one another? Does thought follow action, or does action follow thought?

Well, without defining god, what it is, how it is relevant, or presenting logical reasoning or some sort of evidence to be considered, there is really no reason to speculate on it's potential effects on us. For the record though, I am pretty sure nobody has seriously considered the idea that action precedes thought for the last couple of hundred years or so. Why should this be considered?
 Quote:

Many modern philosophers, as well as a few ancients, describe god as being the ‘first cause.’ This approach seems to make sense, given that all things that occur have a cause, and all things causally affect one another


We live in a causal universe, that is just how it is wired. Things cause other things.
However, it is a huge leap of logic to then assume that things were causal before the universe and its laws of causality came into play. The fact is, nobody knows what came before the universe, or if there was a before the universe. Time is also a phenomenon specific to our universe and it's laws.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#26076 - 06/23/09 08:12 PM Re: God: Another look at impersonality. [Re: Dan_Dread]
Ethophobia Offline
stranger


Registered: 06/18/09
Posts: 26
Loc: Texas
I am just curious about whether you are or are not aware that most of the supposed arguments you have are more or less explained in the context of the article. And as for your remark about reality vs. fantasy, I suggest looking at your TSB once in a while. Although, I did skew the words a bit. Sorry if that throws you too far off track. Hahaha. Reread, research then respond. Preferably in that order. Otherwise, stop wasting my time with your unsound arguments.
_________________________
You are all fucked and overrated. I think I am going to be sick, and its your fault.

Top
#26077 - 06/23/09 08:28 PM Re: God: Another look at impersonality. [Re: Ethophobia]
Morbid Rex Offline
member


Registered: 01/29/09
Posts: 130
I have to agree with Dan, your theory has no coherent description of what God is, other then pointing out that it's an unseen force in nature, a description that Lavey himself chose to use in TSB to describe a God if one does in fact exist, meaning God is nothing more then an impersonal force of nature if it does in fact exist. But the differing factor is the fact that rather then being a force of nature yours follows a first cause approach. I'm afraid I can't bring myself to simply except this though, with no demonstrative evidence for any intelligent designer hidden behind the scenes pulling the strings things just don't point towards that direction. The Universe is a cold and uncaring place in a constant state of chaos, celestial bodies are created and destroyed with no regard for sentient functionality.
_________________________
Do I dare disturb the universe

Satanism! The only scientifically proven religion.

Top
#26079 - 06/23/09 08:55 PM Re: God: Another look at impersonality. [Re: Morbid Rex]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3886
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:

I am just curious about whether you are or are not aware that most of the supposed arguments you have are more or less explained in the context of the article.

No they aren't. Your idea about what god is supposed to be is left so vague as to be meaningless, and thusly everything that follows is equally meaningless.

 Quote:

And as for your remark about reality vs. fantasy, I suggest looking at your TSB once in a while.

That isn't going to fly, son. I knew the TSB inside out while you were still playing with pokemons. I re-iterate, nowhere in TSB does it state there is no reality without fantasy. You just made that up.

Learn to be succinct and concise when you try to express something, and maybe whatever point you are trying to express will be better understood. As it stands your post is gobeldy-gook and doesn't seem to contain any discernable substance. Try harder.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#26081 - 06/23/09 09:34 PM Re: God: Another look at impersonality. [Re: Ethophobia]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
The words from LaVey's PREFACE are:

"Herein you will find truth - and fantasy. Each is necessary for the other to exist; but each must be recognized for what it is. What you see may not always please you; but you will see!"

Context. This isn't a universal dictum, but relates to the book itself. "Truth." as it is used here is a literary construct, as is "fantasy." He uses the terms to show that the fantasy of what religionists have always passed for truth is indeed a fantasy posing as that selfsame truth. Therefore, "What you see (in this book) may not always please you, but you will see!

Here is Satanic thought from a truly Satanic point of view. "


It's simply telling you that the book will use the fantasies or the past to expose themselves for the frauds and fabtasies that they are, i.e,, the lie that is passed down as a truth (traditions thought heretofore to be sacred,) and thereby you will know the truth. Now it is time to learn Satanic thought from a Satanist.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#26084 - 06/23/09 10:14 PM Re: God: Another look at impersonality. [Re: Jake999]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3886
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Ahh Jake. succinct as usual \:\)

I am really getting tired of explaining the basics to all of these 'experts'. I don't know how you still manage to find the patience.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#26525 - 07/01/09 08:00 AM Re: God: Another look at impersonality. [Re: Dan_Dread]
Atralux Lucis Offline
pledge


Registered: 05/22/09
Posts: 79
Loc: Australia
Didnt read much past the little TSB dispute.
Truth can be considered reality in a sense. How can you have reality without fantasyy to compare it with? and vice versa.

No it didnt say in the TSB and the other person did say that they got the words skewy but lets not start having a go at each other (again)
Right so logically fantasy and reality cannot exist without each other because without the other one cannot be measured. How can one say this is reality without arguing that something else isnt and therefore fantasy.

Just wanted to point that out, and hoped I explained my view properly to be understood, and please try to keep a friendly argument because it was said at the start of the thread that it wasnt supposed to be an aggressive argument but rather one for entertainments sake.

Top
Page 1 of 1 1


Moderator:  TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Woland, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.033 seconds of which 0.006 seconds were spent on 26 queries. Zlib compression disabled.