Activity

I’m afraid we’re slowing getting to where all believer/non-believer discussions get. The questions get too difficult. Once you’ve created something with attributes that aren’t based on facts, it gets difficult to answer any questions about that something. The answers are ad-hoc, or new attributes have to be created on the fly. The discussion becomes semantic, parsing out differences between “our bodies are a web energy” and “everything is energy”. Where you end up is what Genus said,

What God ultimately is or is not is likely beyond what human comprehension can presently fathom or imagine, all we can really do is attempt a description of his attributes  and love seems to be chief among them.

This agrees with what Tim said, “God is a concept”. The difference is, Tim goes on to speak of “God” as a concept, Genus speaks of God as if it’s real and we have somehow determined some attributes of it.

I’m afraid we have standards here Genus. I’m not speaking as a group, just going by how I see the regular posters act. You can’t just say, “I’m talking about a subject that any high school or college philosophy class would talk about” and then not name one philosopher. The term “universal consciousness” is not that universal in philosophy and the origins of ID are well documented.

Since we’re discussing the psychology of religion, here’s my latest find, he has some online courses I hope to explore. Around the middle somewhere he talks about the development of religion as a way to control larger societies. Pretty common understanding that once we gathered in groups bigger than 150 or so, it became easier for some to freeload, so we invented gods to watch over us. The other attributes of gods though, the loving compassionate stuff, that developed separately but then got lumped in to the same god. He doesn’t cover where that came from in this talk though.