Replacing God

[biothlebop]

Long philosophical rant ahead, first some foundation:
_________________________

Nature of the universe:

The amount of possible states the natural universe can find itself in is limited by natural laws and constants.
There are infinitely many states between two different states (like there are infinitely many real numbers between the natural numbers 1 and 2), i.e. the universe is analog.
Therefore, change (with time as a variable) from one state to another is natural if the graph of events leading to the new state (history draws a continuous graph) is continuous (if the current state can be understood in terms of cause and effect).

Supernatural events are either discontinuations (or cusps and such) in the graph of cause and effect, or such states that are impossible to acquire within the limitations set by natural laws and constants.

The natural universe is therefore a subset of the supernatural (and both are real/analog sets).

The possible states a supernatural universe can find itself in is unlimited.
_______________________________

Truth:

There is not always (if ever?) an objective, absolute truth.
Facts (which may be seen as absolutes) are only true within their definitions, i.e. a headline that proclaims 200 dead in plane accident requires definitions of what constitutes a person, an accident is, an airplane is and death is.

The meaning of definitions vary between people, some definitions have greater dispersion (e.g. many abstract things as good/right) or less tolerance for ambiguity (several definitions exist close to one another).

Sufficient/satisfying truths (and facts) are achieved when the rigidity and detail of the definitions are increased until there is only left an acceptable level (if any) of room for interpretation within the definitions.

Many concepts leave plenty of room for interpretation (e.g. the idea of what is good/right).
_____________________________________________

A truthful person:

1. does not provide made up/false facts
2. does not hide/leave out facts
3. does not provide pre-made cause-effect graphs to others, but allows them to draw their own according to their definitions

I see 3. as a necessity because of examples alike the following:
-  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -
A somewhat truthful person would say:
"I broke the window BECAUSE James said I should do it WHEN we spoke earlier."
(This is an attempt to provide a pre-made cause-effect relation.)

A more truthful person would say:
"I said to James: Tell me to break the window."
"James said: Break the window."
"I broke the window."
(This allows a greater freedom for the listener to form a cause-effect scenario based on their definitions.)
-  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -
3. does not always equal intentional twisting of facts, as the person providing the explanations might also believe his/her own rationalizations.
_____________________________________

Of love in relation to truth:

Love (in relation to truth) is part acceptance, fondness, respect, generally harboring of positive intent and feelings toward something.

A person surrounded by love (positive intentions and feelings from others toward that person) is more likely to tell the truth according to the above definition of truthfulness. This might be because (if we still possess the will to live) we do not wish to subject ourselves to anything that could hinder us from living (pursuing our goals) now and in the future.

Therefore, when not surrounded by love, we attempt to create positive, capable images of ourselves, change ourselves into something that others will hold in high esteem, accept, and follow 1., 2. and 3. only when it promotes or does not lower our value in the eyes of others.
________________________________________

Of selflessness:

I believe a degree of selflessness can be achieved through truth. You become an amalgam of all the interpretations that people have of you (after you have ceased to lie, explain yourself and hide possibly shameful parts of your identity).
Your steering does not longer come from the inside (identity), but the outside (reputation), you become to a greater degree a function of your environment and genes; Less of an individual agent, more of a piece in the puzzle.
___________________________________

Of God, the effect God creates in believers and if God can be replaced:

(Assumption: God is love and love promotes truth.)

Through believing in a (possibly supernatural) God (that knows us better than we do and that loves us), a believer rids him/herself of the lies they carry and become possibly free to act as selflessly as is humanly possible (selfishly since they might pursue a reward for their belief, eternal life, but this resides in the supernatural universe).

The same truthfulness can possibly be achieved without a perfect supernatural being, but I believe truth based on natural love/benefits to lead to a different society than truth from supernatural love.

I imagine that a person can be truthful if:
- They lose all hope and desire for a meaningful life through pursuing individuality (have nothing to lose, no fear)
- They get a satisfactory guarantee of no retaliatory action (confessions to priests, shrinks, anonymity)
- The accumulated love is enough to open them up

I imagine a society based on natural love (and such truth) to homogenize through those united with the greatest power (the majority) eliminating all individuals (minorities) with opposing values/viewpoints/truths.

Example:
Assumption: (Truthful society, everyone knows everything about everyone else, there are no secrets.)
70% of people are pedophiles, 30% are not and possibly find it appalling and would like to see the pedophiles suffer.
If the 30% manages to concentrate more power, they will wipe out/enslave/incarcerate the majority, but if the majority has greater power, the minority will submit/be enslaved/wiped out.
(Based on the assumption of human nature that the strongest pursue their interests)
________________________________

Conclusion:

I imagine a truthful natural society to homogenize.

A supernatural society on the other hand causes the same effect of selflessness, but possibly promotes equality despite differences, since the judge is superhuman and loves all who believe in him/her/it, therefore the believers interpret and act accordingly to what clues the supernatural being gives them.

Questions:
Do we need the supernatural to hold on to the concept of equality despite individual differences?
Do you see other possible (heterogeneous) forms for natural societies that value truth (possibility: Vast public forums with almost total guarantee for anonymity and no intellectual property [possibility to hide / hoard facts and data] )?

[Tuomas]

Damn, I know I'd love to contribute, but I'll have time to read this only on next friday, and then the whole thread will be cluttered up with responses

[LimpingFish]

With what? A turnip?

LimpingFish reads shockingly detailed post.

Oh...

[lo_res_man]

Ah but does love really promote truth, and truth love for that matter? Love blinds and binds, it allows us ( for a time) to ignore the imperfections of the one we love.  Truth, truth is harsh, truth is "Knurd" ( look it up) the truth is that the universe is only pretty because, it sometimes resembles the things that helped us survive and or reproduce, or maxes out sensory input. We things that we call alive are apparently nothing more then ordinary molecules and atoms arranged in a highly organized way. We are dust on a rock circling a perfectly ordinary star, in a ordinary galaxy in a as far as we know ordinary universe, we are nothing special, that is the TRUTH. Back to love, people have lied, died and killed for love, love is no farce, it is something worse, it is blinding miasma that fills our soul ( what ever that is) and makes us do foolish things.
***
But for all that I love love and I love truth, I love looking up at the stars, I love marveling at life down here, I may be lint in the buttcrack of creation, but I am alive, I think I speak, I BREATH!
All the stars and nebula and all the small-making beauty out there may make me feel insignificant, but I got one up on them, I live, they don't. And though I  come from dust and  end up as dust, my ashes scattered on the winds of time, for this brief segment in the whole span of the universe, I am alive!

[Stupot]

Time ain't got jack shit to do with it... time is a concept made up to measure the difference between one event and the next.

[Gregjazz]

Truth:

There is not always (if ever?) an objective, absolute truth.

You say there's no such thing as absolute truth, but that by nature defies itself. Although everything we input is subjective as our natural disposition and thus our disconnection from reality, that doesn't mean there's no such thing as absolute truth. In fact, it gives more evidence that we are unqualified to assume any claim regarding truth. We're still watching the shadow-play on the cave wall.

[LUniqueDan]

Can you repeat the question?

EDIT : Ok! Got it : The MMORPG, but not Teh old MMOFPS, will like COFPS (CC), and CORPG (DI &   DII, tend to their (P U nP). If and olny if,  time (t), love (L) and integrity (I) of a given individual (I') [remove the I from I'] to acheive their non-selfishness. So, if I'm following You, The indivuals (S of all the I') will stop will start living real life in love by themself (P U P)?

Personal answer : no.

EDIT2 : After rethinking of the problem, I changed my mind.

Love, Dan

[jetxl]

My, my.
What a bunch of drunk student bullshit.
How can you define something which excistence is yet to be proven true?
And what makes you think truth and lies are our only identity.
But the thing that bothers me most is that you automaticly assume the christian dogma in your philosophical rant.

We're still watching the shadow-play on the cave wall.

Socrates.

[Gregjazz]

We're still watching the shadow-play on the cave wall.

Socrates.

Plato's Allegory of the Cave.

[i k a r i]

A really good discussion would be "the types of love", biothlebop certainly forgot to analize them.

People surrounded with love may or may not act thrutful, it would depend on the way he achieved that love, was he/she him/herself? (what does it mean to be yourself anyway), is he/she interested in that love at all to affect his/her way to live?, Is he/she obssesed with that love or depending too much of it?, and if he is, is he acting thrutful or just abusing it?. Is love important for everyone?, do we need to be loved in order to see us worthy, or in order to love ourselves?, do we need to be surrounded with love because we are insecure?, If we would love ourselves more than anyone in the world would we care about what others say about us, would their words bother us? The truth is sometimes the hormones direct our acts, and that's something we as human can't control with our brain, and love can drive you mad, and everything we do for the person we love is in a big part for us.
If we believe in a God is because we want to, not because we know it exists, because in order to believe something you have to want it. It's called faith.
People who believes in a God just want a better life, I don't blame them, that's the easy way, too bad my brain doesn't let me believe.

I guess that's all I wanted to say, don't mind my bad english.

[InCreator]

Wake up dude, reality is only how we feel it. Everything is only how we define it. Names are given by Man. To feelings, also. Animals simply feel, and don't have need to name anything.

I've always believed that we went very, very wrong somewhere with our urge to define and explain.
But I'll never know.

God? I believe in human intuition. If people have felt that something greater is watching over us, in so many different cultures and parts of world, something must be behind it. People sense very odd things sometimes, like house on fire even thousands of miles away.

But I don't believe in human definition of this power... or God. It just cannot be a bearded man on a cloud. Or a died prophet, or something with four arms or--

If something's controlling the matter of the universe, it should be defineable as physical power of some sort. Like magnetism. Or electric current. Or something towards there. It can't be sentinent being.

Fact is, according to how we have treated our planet and lifeforms here, even God couldn't help us. We ARE parasites (the beings we describe as parasites). So nothing more than one of the thousands of similar species on planet. Only way larger, stronger, intelligent and not in symbiosis with anything -- which will lead eventually to extinction. So even if we find all answers one day, we still take them to the grave. If I were another lifeform from another galaxy, I'd avoid meeting with Human Beings at all cost!

If God would be what people think he is, and Holy Bible, Qu'ran or any other religious writing was real, it told us how to avoid extinction. Well, none does. In matter fact, these books suggest otherwise. According to human nature.

[i k a r i]

Fact is, according to how we have treated our planet and lifeforms here, even God couldn't help us. We ARE parasites (the beings we describe as parasites). So nothing more than one of the thousands of similar species on planet. Only way larger, stronger, intelligent and not in symbiosis with anything -- which will lead eventually to extinction. So even if we find all answers one day, we still take them to the grave.

That's the reality most people don't want to believe, so we chose to give meaning to the "everyday meaningless things", or we create a senseless story of an afterlife (call it religion if you want), we don't see the ridiculousness of our problems because otherwise our lifes would be empty, etc, etc.
All this thoughts took me one day (being a happy person, in case you think I was going to kill myself) to think what's the meaning of life, I did answer myself  , but that's another story. And probably noone is interested.

[Erenan]

You say there's no such thing as absolute truth, but that by nature defies itself. Although everything we input is subjective as our natural disposition and thus our disconnection from reality, that doesn't mean there's no such thing as absolute truth. In fact, it gives more evidence that we are unqualified to assume any claim regarding truth. We're still watching the shadow-play on the cave wall.

He doesn't appear to me to be saying that there's no absoluteness in truth. He appears to me to be saying that insofar as statements can be considered true, their truth or falsehood depends upon the definitions of the terms used. So his argument is presenting a model of truth (of statements) that is less focused on statements being understood with a boolean true or false parameter and more on degrees of specificity allowing for more or less ambiguity and interpretation.

[Gregjazz]

He doesn't appear to me to be saying that there's no absoluteness in truth. He appears to me to be saying that insofar as statements can be considered true, their truth or falsehood depends upon the definitions of the terms used.

But that's not what absolute truth is, by its definition.

There is not always (if ever?) an objective, absolute truth.

[LimpingFish]

Actually, a turnip may not be a bad idea...

[Erenan]

Geoffkhan, if I say "my pen is red," is that absolutely true? How can we know unless we define red as a certain range of light frequencies? How red does it have to be before my statement is true? Note that biothlebop didn't say there is no absolute truth. He said there is not always absolute truth. I do believe, and I think biothlebop would agree, that if we're talking about truth in the sense of "the way things are," then yes, the truth is absolute, and things are a specific way regardless of whether or not we are aware of the truth. My point is that biothlebop is not commenting on whether this "way things are" truth is absolute or not. He's commenting on the way in which statements represent this truth with varying degrees of accuracy.

[Gregjazz]

Note that biothlebop didn't say there is no absolute truth. He said there is not always absolute truth.

Gotcha, not seeing the "always" made a big difference.