What Makes A God?

Can you link me to the source which describes the set of observations and comparison which were done in a rigorous way such as to found the science of Astrology?

Can you explain how there can be multiple systems of astrology on earth today, and which one is true and which are false? And how you know this?

If you can show me the basis for these claims I will conceded HAPPILY that astrology is a science. You should immediately feel uncomfortable by the fact that never once, in the history of astrology or science, has an astrologer been able to answer these simple questions.

Again, this is not a dismissal of the effects of everything on everything, in the universe. This is a dismissal of the mythic claims of astrology insofar as they are linked to ancient belief systems.

Simply show me where and how we come to know that astrology is true, and which astrology system.

Subjective reports of what? Do we include the muslim mystics with the christian mystics? Because they would have objections to that. Does hindu "having an experience of shiva" equate functionally to the same thing as a christian "having an experience of yaweh"?

Does the amount of people in the united states who believe the earth is 6,000 years old constitute a valid data base for the science of Geology?

Well the terms are so defined that we are talking about a subjective experience forever closed off from scrutiny or replication; this in itself is reason to dismiss it.

My bar is set EXTREMELY low if there really is an abrahamic god; he would only have to induce a collective experience in all of humanity that would be fundamentally unquestionable. I really don't even need to explain how this could make sense, because this is god after all. Is this so difficult?

This is only an issue if you are worried with how to account for these experiences.

How do you account for the belief by millions of people long gone that comets are portents of doom? Can you PROVE that they were wrong? Are you preparing a bunker for your family for the next appearance of Hailey's Comet?

It was extremely underwhelming. Feel free to post it again. You can't say "That phenomenon is what it is reported to be", because what it is reported to be is a channeling of the spirit of yaweh, and what the evidence shows is some neural activity that we havent' seen before. Noxious, there are many, many neural activities we haven't seen before and can't explain yet. This argument you're making is a veiled God of the Gaps argument. "Here's something mysterious going on people's brains . . . I don't know what it is at this moment . . . therefore . . . Jesus?"

I am not the one "after" a scientific approach fro the subjective experience of god. I don't believe you have even a clue of what you mean when you use those words actually. I don't think you can define what you mean by "an experience of god"; i think this is a placeholder concept in your mind for all kinds of spooky and undefined things that you are lumping together. Please explain what you mean by this and we can be clearer.

Wouldn't you say this point is rather important? The fact that the word you are using to point at a concept, is a word that is used by most of the world to point at DIFFERENT concepts? Is this not hitting the bedrock of how and why we use language? To be clear? Can a field of consciousness "be God"? Sure, and so can this can of Coke on my desk, but I don't see the intelligence behind that decision.

This depends; if you are asking what personal, unshareable experience would fit the criteria for me to say "I just had an experience of god", I literally cannot conceive of that experience. Notice this isn't bad; if there's a god, he CAN conceive of it, and he can choose to give me that experience presumably. It's just that anything I think of would be torn apart by rational analysis and there would be much more mundane explanations for the experience. For example, suppose suddenly my head were filled with knowledge about every single person in the world; I knew their deepest secrets, and could prove it, and became an international celebrity and mystic star. How could I explain this without god? Well, immediately some kind of ESP/psychic phenomenon comes to mind, and I would think it more rational to explore those avenues of research.

I cannot stress enough how on the mark this is. This statement is 100% correct. Perhaps you were unsure of this, and that caused confusion.

I have tremendous, immense bias against the abrahamic religions, and I am not ashamed of this, I am proud of this. I am not alone. Much of the world has tremendous bias against these modes of superstition. I am proudly anti-theist, and with every waking breath I will dispell this bullshit and shatter the faith of those around me, as they have shattered the world around us.

I have stated this sentiment often before, it's not a secret. I consider these systems to be simultaneously both incredibly immoral and incredible stupid, a rare combination.

Still waiting on that noxious. Still waiting on something more. Maybe talk with China, because he thinks that every muslim on earth has made a wise decision in heralding the words of Muhammad, as apparently we cannot discount the validity of his experiences.

 

HOW?

Well, THAT astrology goes back to then. Chinese and mayan astrology have different roots; do you discount these?

Enjoy exploring the roots of the pseudoscience you have already decided is true, despite failing every basic scientific test ever thrown at it. Why is it that the question of "How do we know these things?" in astrology is a mystery among astrologers? Why don't we know where and who and how someone decided what it "means" to be born under a particular constellation? Is this not a giant red flag for you?

Ok, this alone should literally end this thread. You DO realize that here you have professed to being converted to Islam right? You now claim that you do not reject the teachings of Muhammad, which means you accept the teachings. This is pretty stupendous . . . did you know that astrology is STRICTLY forbidden in Islam? What to do now?

LOL @ muhammad = "mystic" . . . you apparently have a very low opinion of real mystics or you have zero knowledge about the life and teachings of muhammad.

In a heartbeat. Without a moment's hesitation. Happily. Gladly. With a profound sense of wonder and humility, and a renewed love of science and reason.

Ok, this tangent needs to be put to rest. This will be a very sad series of discussions, but I guess you need to hear them, so here:

48.2000° N, 16.3667° May 12, 1985

The Tao is not a scientific hypothesis; there can be no evidence for the Tao, nor evidence against it. It is not testable. It is best understood metaphorically, or phenomenologically. You simultaneously point to your scientific ignorance and, most sadly, your lack of true spiritual learning.

 

A god can never have been seen. Attributive language must arise after language itself has evolved from simpler communication. The god must

have rules pertaining to conduct according to interpretation/s. The god cannot issue said interpretations, but the ego( self importance) of humans and fear of the god as is fostered in the writings, is standard procedure and is quite effective. And the god must be very stern
in addressing its adherents, complete with severe punishment for ignoring the various or particular interpretations.
Personally, it seems rigged to me, by those that seek some sort of power over others, but I do think that belief in a god makes untold millions happier than if there were only the bleak future of endless nothingness. I just can't feel it, but maybe the little spark that keeps the heart and the rest of our biological selves continuing--moves on.

So, I sure hope that there is some kind of life after changing from our present forms into --?????

 

The scientific evidence for the unity of the cosmos is that in every observation, the cosmos is unified. It is only when applying conceptual filters that we artificially separate reality into levels or fields. We know scientifically that the "end" of my body is a fuzzy line, kind of like an electron's orbit . . .it dissipates but never quite to zero. You can be skeptical and smirk and say "man hes tripping" and all I can do is urge you to educate yourself in real science, the art and technique of exploring and measuring the universe.

For example, there is no artificial "dividing line" between observations of the very big and very small, it is only our theories which break down and this speaks to the bluntness of our theories.

 

The subjective apprehension of the world is fundamentally sound in evolutionary terms. It is based on edge detection. We can tell a good thing to eat from a bad thing to eat. The problem with correct apprehension is the temptation to qualify instead of quantify. Example to say pork which is wholly digestible is bad to eat for any excuse or outstanding qualification. It is in the area of the moral abstraction that we are so commonly fixated on as the major factor in how things are or should be that the subjective estate is out of it's element. We don't know enough to say how things should be but we have facility enough to discover what they are. You have to give up your passionate views to foster an open mind, that is those ideas you suffer over to maintain or propagate. That abiding self interest that has you right at the expense of others creates a conflict in what you are trying to perceive.

 

Conversation in real time:

OP....What Makes A God?

Me....Why you , of course....

 

So Mr. Writer is your intent to discredit Abrahamic religions or to get at some understanding or whatever of this thing folks refer to as "God" because they are two wholly different endeavors.

My experiences along these lines and more specifically regarding all the holy spirit stuff related in the NT was along the same lines as my experiences with LSD and other psychedelics as well as other modes of altering awareness.
Simply reading subjective reports and rather than immediately scoffing at them, allowed the benefit of doubt that my lack of the same experiences affords and simply thinking "I want some of that".
I read the reports, knew people who did these weird things and saw/heard stuff first hand. That was enough for me to suspend judgement and criticism enough to be open to the possibility.

Concerning the speaking in tongues research, you are jumping the gun there partner.
Neither I nor the research said anything whatsoever about it confirming "god", nor do I or the research make any definitive conclusions concerning it. Merely that the readings collected confirmed the participants subjective experience of not being the ones who were instigating the speech. Activity in the brain confirmed this subjective experience of not controlling the speech and it also further lays to rest speculation about it merely being meditation, repetitive chanting, a trance state or fake.
THAT is the stuff you should have picked up on IF you were actually sincerely interested in the topic from a scientific vantage point.
Not my fault that your bias is preventing you from seeing the valid scientific points worthy of further investigation.

You continue to make very erroneous assumptions concerning me and what I do or don't believe and I'm telling you once again they are founded much more on your ignorance than anything else.
I don't fit into one of your boxes.
Let me ask this. If an individual or group of individuals have an experience that is essentially the same as numerous others have had throughout history and it is also clearly explained as to what it is in a religious text, wouldn't Occam's razor dictate that the simplest and starting point explanation is that what is going on is what is described in said text?
It seems as if your knee-jerk reaction is "It HAS TO BE something else! no way it could actually be god", and in so doing you limit the possible answers.
that really isn't a very scientific approach, now is it.

Wouldn't the proper scientific approach be to acknowledge the subjective reports, check them for consistency and continuity across subjects to rule out the odd or disparet reports and arrive at a consistent experience metric as reported by numerous subjects and then use that as the starting point of further research?
Science is all about confirming or validating what is true, not proving what is false, so why are taking an ass-backwards approach to this topic?

You also are being much more dogmatic and rigid in all of this than anyone else involved in the conversation as it appears for you God can only fit into that Abraham box and if not, oh well, not real.
so congratulations on setting it up so there is only one possible outcome, the one you desire.

So if you have axe to grind, grind it, but in a discussion of "what is God" are you really going to keep beating that dead horse.

Let me ask, it is even worth continuing a discussion of these topics with you when you have clearly stated that your impetus is not a sincere inquiry, but rather the dismantling of faith in the Abrahamic religions or are you going to just continually bring it back to these ancient anthropomorphic ideas of some old guy with a white beard because they are such a fucking easy target?

 

Well the terms are so defined that we are talking about a subjective experience forever closed off from scrutiny or replication; this in itself is reason to dismiss it.

so we should also dismiss any claim that someone has about a thought or dream that they had, because there's no way to prove that they had the thought or dream that they had?

 

As to your first question I gave you my own process of investigation, told you the rigor involved and described how it took many years to become as familiar as I am, which is not too. Further the position of the planets are mathematically calculated over time. Put yourself in the position of discovery to understand how it came to be. The people who came up with this stuff originally built astronomical observatories. They created calendars and marked the summer solstice etc. The standards were not invented on the spot but refined over time and refined by consistency of observation.

As to multiple systems they are an effect of regional and cultural redundancy or diversity. There are many languages and they all have a syntax which is consistent in itself. I haven't yet found your unanswerable questions to be difficult to answer. The answer is in you if you take time to reflect how could it legitimately be.

As to what comparisons demonstrate truth they are direct and one to one, same or different. I don't know any thing about the particulars of let's say chinese astrology.

I can give you a description from the extensive analysis my wife gave to me, and by extensive I mean a two inch thick stack of paper, and you can make the comparison from what you know of me.

Just a few excerpts then that may be relevant.

Mercury in eleventh house;
You have a good understanding of group trends, politics, mass movements, and community affairs. Sharing ideas with groups of people is something you do well and are likely to be involved with. You collaborate well in group efforts and are likely to be part of a successful team or organization.

Mercury trine 'Neptune:
You are open and receptive to subjects which defy rational explanation, such as psychic phenomena, mental telepathy, metaphysics etc. and you could teach these subjects to others. Your mind is imaginative and inspired and you have an aptitude for art and creative writing.

Sun in eleventh house:
Leading groups and classes and being involved in community efforts, social activities, events or movements are areas where you really shine and express your creativity. An awareness of politics or the larger social impact of individual actions is natural to you.

Pluto in the first house:
You are an intense person, inclined to be wholeheartedly involved in whatever your current interest is. You easily go to extremes and you make more moderate, easy going souls feel uncomfortable. You may have unusual charisma and also be profoundly influenced by powerful, charismatic figures whom you model yourself after. Learning to use personal power is an issue for you. Negatively, you can be manipulative and obsessed with personal aggrandizement . Positively you can be a potent force for change, growth and healing in the world.

Neptune in libra:
You tend to have an eclectic approach to religion, utilizing elements from many religious perspectives and find it difficult to follow traditionally defined religious practices.

 

HOW?

read some astrology books and they will go very in-depth as to the how. Explaining how would take a whole book.

Well, THAT astrology goes back to then. Chinese and mayan astrology have different roots; do you discount these?

Enjoy exploring the roots of the pseudoscience you have already decided is true, despite failing every basic scientific test ever thrown at it. Why is it that the question of "How do we know these things?" in astrology is a mystery among astrologers? Why don't we know where and who and how someone decided what it "means" to be born under a particular constellation? Is this not a giant red flag for you?

Antiquity is a matter of discovery and exploration, not this automatic red flag. It's very, very, very old. That's why it's a mystery. A mystery is intriguing, not something to dismiss. There are also various forms of Science just as there are various forms of Astrology.

The Tao is not a scientific hypothesis; there can be no evidence for the Tao, nor evidence against it. It is not testable. It is best understood metaphorically, or phenomenologically. You simultaneously point to your scientific ignorance and, most sadly, your lack of true spiritual learning.

So you're proving that you don't need Science for something to be legitimate then? Why do you subscribe to this but don't subscribe to other phenomena, such as God and Astrology, which fall under these same categorizations?

 

Writer do you know the time of your birth, if not try to remember things that might have been said about that day by your family for example was it morning or evening or in the middle of the night. It helps to be at least that much more accurate.

 

So now Science is an Art also? Astrology is also a Science and an Art. And the same goes with Magick. Where does this come from for you to suddenly declare that there's an Art to Science?

 

48.2000° N, 16.3667° May 12, 1985

I also need the time of your birth.

 

Yes, "fellow explorer", I also shouldn't have had kids according to you, due to my inferior lack of spiritual understanding and learning. Thank you so much for humbling me. If only I knew what you knew. You're not full of yourself whatsoever.

 

Ok, this alone should literally end this thread. You DO realize that here you have professed to being converted to Islam right? You now claim that you do not reject the teachings of Muhammad, which means you accept the teachings. This is pretty stupendous . . . did you know that astrology is STRICTLY forbidden in Islam? What to do now?

LOL @ muhammad = "mystic" . . . you apparently have a very low opinion of real mystics or you have zero knowledge about the life and teachings of muhammad.

Sorry, but being open-minded to the various claims and teachings of various mystics of various religions in no way makes me a convert to ANY of those religions. I explore all of them. This is perhaps the dumbest thing that you have said so far.

Have you ever heard of the term Syncretism?

And also, please enlighten me on your subjective opinion of what it means to be a mystic. For you hold all the answers.

 

And herein is your nut shell.

Moralizing is not part of the scientific method tool kit.

 

You didn't answer the last question, Where is the subjective determination ever absent in any of this?

 

The Tao is not a scientific hypothesis; there can be no evidence for the Tao, nor evidence against it. It is not testable. It is best understood metaphorically, or phenomenologically. You simultaneously point to your scientific ignorance and, most sadly, your lack of true spiritual learning.

Still cracking up over this. So why are you subscribing to the Tao if it's not Scientific? There can be no evidence for or against it, just as you claim the same with the concept of God. If it's only metaphorical or phenomenological, how is that any different than the experience of God? Why are you choosing the Tao over God? How is that any different than choosing Jesus over Muhammad?

 

he's got a point there

 

I'll leave it at this for tonight. It's because he disagrees with other religions' interpretation of their God, even though at the core of every religion, it's all pointing back to the fundamental Oneness of the Cosmos. Writer seems to disagree with anything regarding a Deity, when Deity's themselves are both metaphorical and phenomenological.

Jesus essentially points towards this Oneness (reference the Gospel of Thomas), Hinduism in regards to Brahman and the Atman is essentially pointing back to using Yoga to reunite with the Oneness of the Universe, Gnosticism calls this process by the term gnosis, Taoism and Buddhism both talk about Oneness but without using a deity, they instead use terms like Tao, No-Self, and Self, and actually even Islam's foundational teachings are regarding "the complete Oneness of God/Allah", Magick attempts this by uniting with your "Holy Guardian Angel" via Theurgy, Alchemy approaches this by finding the Philosopher's Stone, and Astrology approaches the Oneness of the universe through the planetary movements. Hermeticism overall refers to this Oneness simply as The All.

Writer can't face that he's just choosing certain religions over others, and somehow feels that this is different than a Christian choosing Jesus over Allah.