What is God?

humanlight wrote:

I think this whole conversation can be summed up by using the greatest queston known to man: what came first the chicken or the egg?

I mean really, did we invent God, or did God invent us?

I think that one part of this question, did God invent us, assumes a lot about the nature of God, so I don't think you can break down the argument to this. It assumes that God, if God exists, is an intentional creator in control of everything. This is the dominant view of God within our culture, however not all views on God assumes that God is in control of everything and that anything that happens happens as a result of God exerting His/Her power over events and actions. It is dangerous to view God creating us in such a simplisitic way because already the assumptions you are making about God's nature could then destroy this notion of God. However, if you are unaware of the assumptions that lead to this notion of God's downfall, then in our minds the entire notion of God will be destroyed. We must not operate within any assumptions or any metaphysic without first realizing that we are doing so. Otherwise we are blind to things were are assuming and thus are not thinking from an intellectually honest perspective but rather one filled with bias.

Now, did we invent God? I'm not sure how this would be possible. If we have within us some sense of right and wrong, fairness and justice, that we all have innately instilled within us, can it be said that we invented it? I posted this earlier, but I think we all have within us an innate sense of the four things I mentioned already. It can be seen in interactions as simple of "you bought me a beer last time, it is only fair that I buy you one this time". I think that this rule/principle could be known by us and even agreed upon without ever discussing it, regardless of what culture we are from. Therefore, I think this shows that something, some sense of fairness and, rightness, and justice, are within us waiting to be tapped into. It could be said that these notions we have inherent inklings of are in fact God or proof of God within us.

pieceofdust wrote:

I think that one part of this question, did God invent us, assumes a lot about the nature of God, so I don't think you can break down the argument to this. It assumes that God, if God exists, is an intentional creator in control of everything. This is the dominant view of God within our culture, however not all views on God assumes that God is in control of everything and that anything that happens happens as a result of God exerting His/Her power over events and actions. It is dangerous to view God creating us in such a simplisitic way because already the assumptions you are making about God's nature could then destroy this notion of God. However, if you are unaware of the assumptions that lead to this notion of God's downfall, then in our minds the entire notion of God will be destroyed. We must not operate within any assumptions or any metaphysic without first realizing that we are doing so. Otherwise we are blind to things were are assuming and thus are not thinking from an intellectually honest perspective but rather one filled with bias.







Now, did we invent God? I'm not sure how this would be possible. If we have within us some sense of right and wrong, fairness and justice, that we all have innately instilled within us, can it be said that we invented it? I posted this earlier, but I think we all have within us an innate sense of the four things I mentioned already. It can be seen in interactions as simple of "you bought me a beer last time, it is only fair that I buy you one this time". I think that this rule/principle could be known by us and even agreed upon without ever discussing it, regardless of what culture we are from. Therefore, I think this shows that something, some sense of fairness and, rightness, and justice, are within us waiting to be tapped into. It could be said that these notions we have inherent inklings of are in fact God or proof of God within us.

I think my question if very deep, in a silly kind of way. One being that there is a God who made this world, and thus the people in it, or there is no God, and we need to feel there is more than this God forsaken world. It it really is more complicated than that, but can be debated that simply.

Ahnimus wrote:

Nope, ,there is no way you are getting away with that here. Social trust, or trust is not an innate measure. It's different across cultures, it's different from person to person. Trust is learned and corroborated by oxytocin.

A pregnant woman, a man with high testosterone, both have altered trust than they normally would. We trust people because of our experiences with them or people in general. There is nothing innate about it.

I did not use the word trust once in my post, did I? Please explain.

Ahnimus wrote:

Whatever, right and wrong, they way you described social interaction, implied trust.

Either way, there is nothing innate about any of that. It's all learned. Pick up a fucking dev. psych. book and do some reading before spouting off complete fucking nonsense.

Excuse, my shortness today.

First of all, don't bother replying unles you want to change your tone. I am here to discuss, not argue. Do not come across as if you are more well-read then people or that people are idiots if they don't see eye to eye with you. If you can't do that then stop reading now and don't reply.

I never said that what I said was innate is always apparent. Of course it has to be cultivated and we have to be open to experiencing it, and psychology plays a role in this. Now, before you go recommending books to me, please ensure you have read enough philosophy and linguistics to realize that innate does not therefore mean always tapped into or always apparent. Thanks. And again, seriously, discuss this please. If not, I have no interest in hearing anything else you have to say.

pieceofdust wrote:

First of all, don't bother replying unles you want to change your tone. I am here to discuss, not argue. Do not come across as if you are more well-read then people or that people are idiots if they don't see eye to eye with you. If you can't do that then stop reading now and don't reply.

I never said that what I said was innate is always apparent. Of course it has to be cultivated and we have to be open to experiencing it, and psychology plays a role in this. Now, before you go recommending books to me, please ensure you have read enough philosophy and linguistics to realize that innate does not therefore mean always tapped into or always apparent. Thanks. And again, seriously, discuss this please. If not, I have no interest in hearing anything else you have to say.

Discuss what? The definition of innate? Use it properly and we won't have to.

pieceofdust wrote:

I said innate does not mean always apparent or that it is outrightly displayed by every human being just because they have the potential to be something. If I am using this wrong then so is Sartre, so is Kierkergaard, so is Midgley etc etc.

Oh you people love to distort words. You just love to distort the defintion.

Innate: Having from birth

Innate qualities are our 5 senses, our anatomy, our potential.

Emotion, Intelligence, Moral Judgement, etc.. are all learned!!

pieceofdust wrote:

I don't think we necessariyl disagree here, just coming from different angles, so bare with me. I believe within every human being is the ability to develop emotion, to develop intelligence, and to develop moral judgement. This ability to develop them is what I am saying is innate. Are you saying that we don't all have the ability within us to develop these things? If not, then we are not disagreeing over this particular issue.

On a complete side note, someone could chime in here...if emotions are learned then why do babies cry? but thats a side note...

Emotions are learned and some people do not have the ability to develop them, or certain emotions. Suppose a person was born with a damaged amygdala, that would result in an emotional deficiency.

Babies cry because it is one of their innate abilities. They can hear, so they do, they can see, so they do, they can cry, so they do. They can't talk, so they don't, they have to learn that. It's the same reason a dog licks his balls, because he can.

Ahnimus wrote:

Emotions are learned and some people do not have the ability to develop them, or certain emotions. Suppose a person was born with a damaged amygdala, that would result in an emotional deficiency.

Babies cry because it is one of their innate abilities. They can hear, so they do, they can see, so they do, they can cry, so they do. They can't talk, so they don't, they have to learn that. It's the same reason a dog licks his balls, because he can.

SO, if you're born with an intact amygdala, you are born with "normal, effecient" emotions? You're kinda contradicting yourself here.

gue_barium wrote:

SO, if you're born with an intact amygdala, you are born with "normal, effecient" emotions? You're kinda contradicting yourself here.

Sorry, that was incorrect, because another part of the brain could adapt to perform that function. However, if an adult amygdala was damaged it would be a different story.

pieceofdust wrote:

Babies cry because they can? But a person who has learned emotions cries because possibly they are sad? You can't change the reasoning just because it better suits your argument to.

Also, nice try on the damaged amygdala part. You can always take an extreme circumstance to try and disprove an argument, however it does not really disprove it. I thought it was obvious we were already talking within the context of a normal healthy human being. Taking into a different context does nothing for what we have been talking about.

Anyways, I am signing off for the night in a minute so probably won't see anything else you post, but have a good night.

Yes, because when a baby cries it evokes a response from the care-giver and is quickly attached to that state of being. It's a complex developmental process.