How do you conceptualise god?

[OMG12]

Just that really. Atheist, believer or agnostic what do you think of when someone says god? Not a judgement about existence, what concept comes to mind, if you’re a believer (of any faith) how do you conceptualise your god (inc in the plural and feminine)

Oh in that case, yes of course it’s divine. As an emanationist everything is divine.

is it true? Well it depends what you mean by “ true” is it an accurate historical record? Well I think it’s been confirmed by linguistic analysis- no. But sacred texts aren’t designed as history books. Does it contain truths, most likely. All religions contain elements of truth in my view. But then I’m a perennialist.

Sophistry and semantics, again.

Golidlocks and the Three Bears contains truths. Bears are real! Porridge is real!

When I say is it true?, I mean is it true?

Are the claims in the Book of Mormon and the other holy Mormon books true? Does God live on a planet near the star, Kolob?

No. It's nonsense. It's fiction.

“Sophistry and semantics” for the sake of maintaining interest can we change this up a bit?

I thought we had addressed the point of truth fully, regarding story wrappers, the common use of false lineages, why Smith might have been using techniques common in occultism etc. I’m not sure what you want me to add? Was there any particular point you wanted to explore further?

I understand that you have a deep interest in neuroscience, so let’s discuss what is “true” in terms of human memory. Eye witness accounts are normally not that accurate, there’s been many studies illustrating this. This article from Scientific America sets this out nicely.

Why has the human brain evolved like this? How much of what we think is real is actually false? What is reality anyway? They’re all questions equally valid in terms of the human brain as they are of religion or spirituality.

As above, so below.

oh and yes I agree re Goldilocks. In fact that’s the purpose of Fables and fairy tales Humans have evolved into storytellers for very important reasons. In fact that’s the structure in which most of us live our lives.

that’s the purpose of Fables and fairy tales. Humans have evolved into storytellers for very important reasons. In fact that’s the structure in which most of us live our lives.

You're getting there...

I think you’ve missed the point.

What are your thoughts on the point I raised re what is reality/truth when looked at in the context of memory. I wondered if you had anything from the perspective of neuroscience.

I think you've missed the point, but you're so close...

Ooh I don’t think so. I was making the point initially, I’m pretty confident I know what point I was making 😀

So are you going to comment on your apparent area of expertise or not? - you said you read lots of neuroscience books. I’d be interested to know what you think of the accuracy of memory.truth from that paradigm

Hmm. What a shame someone had my earlier post deleted.

I'm can't be sure if it was me or someone else who initially brought up the view that gods weren't real, but stories created by people over time to explain the universe and their place in it.

And now...

that’s the purpose of Fables and fairy tales. Humans have evolved into storytellers for very important reasons. In fact that’s the structure in which most of us live our lives.

Fables and fairytales. That's my concept of god.

We can, of course discuss this in more detail, but let’s first get to the bottom of the point we’re previously discussing - what is truth. What is reality. What are memories. Why has the human brain not evolved so that every memory is objectively accurate?

whats your take from a neuroscience perspective, if that’s your main interest
(apologies if not but that’s how I read it)

Why should the human brain have evolved so every memory is objectively accurate? I don't think you understand evolution.

Well simply put my understanding of evolution is those with traits advantageous to the survival in the environment in which they live are the most likely to survive in order to reproduce thereby increasing the likelihood that that trait will be passed on to future generations. If this trait continues to be desirable it will then become a dominant trait in that species. Is that not correct?

So in this instance if it was advantageous to survival to have an accurate memory that included every detail without any variation between individuals (as would logically make sense) why has that not become the dominant pattern of memory presentation in humans? Is there actually an advantage in not having a 100% accurate memory, or alternatively does it not matter?

As I said I’m interested to hear from you from a neuroscience perspective on what your answer to this is.

No, you don't seem to understand evolution.

1. Genetic mutations leading to memory accuracy may not have occurred in the population to be selected.

2. It may not anyway be advantageous to survival to have an accurate memory that included every detail without any variation between individuals.

Why don't all humans have perfect eyesight that can see every detail or perfect hearing that can hear every detail?

Ah so the answer is 2. It is not necessarily advantageous to have 100% accurate memory. Why is that? Could it be that out memories pick out the bits of a story that are the important bits for general application? Or is it more random?

From Show Spooks

"Ros: Religion, the opium of the masses.
Zaf: Really? I thought that was football.
Ros: Yeah, except for ooh-ah cantona wasn't his last message to the world."

For me i prefer the freemasonry concept of a divine being

There is no purpose to evolution, random genetic mutations occur and if they are advantageous either tk sexual or natural selection they are reproduced in the population. God is surely then just a quirk or awareness of consciousness of the future. A way to socially organise and avoid chaos before science and politics.

Isn’t this what I said?

God has always been about order out of chaos. But with much broader reach than science and politics currently encompass.

Yes I use the term divinity interchangeably with God. My concept of God isn’t limited to what is generally found in the orthodoxy of any religion.

what’s your impression of divinity?

No, the answer could be 2, or 1. Or some other reason. Or a mixture of reasons.

The point is, evolution isn't about progress to some perfect state.

You really don't understand evolution, do you? You should read about it.

'”m can't be sure if it was me or someone else who initially brought up the view that gods weren't real, but stories created by people over time to explain the universe and their place in it.”

It might even have been me because I 100% agree with this. Gods are vessels into hitch we pour aspects of the universe, we create stories that encompass these divine aspects to aid our understanding of the ineffable.

Not all aspects of the story are important, these vary across time and space.

But I suspect where we differ is in what we think the “universe” is.

Everyone has a different perspective, just like everyone’s got different memories based on their own needs. Maybe both of our perspectives are simultaneously correct, there both is and isn’t a divine level to the universe depending on whether it is observed or not 😀.

So what’s wrong with this analysis of evolution. Traits appear at random in human nature, where those traits are beneficial to owners of those traits in surviving there is a higher chance that those individuals will get to procreate. Where this happens widely enough those traits will become the most common presentation in humanity. This is natural selection.

For example if memory being structured in a certain way provided a significant advantage those individuals would be more likely to survive and pro rate. If there was a structural/genetic element this could be carried into the next generation. If there was no advantage it would remain a random presentation.

if you don’t agree with the above please provide a full explanation. You seem reluctant to actually say anything beyond you don’t agree which leads me to believe you don’t understand the issues.

lol is that your blog?

my impression would be when we fully achieve human cloning, as in humans creating life , through understanding science

There’s a difference between creation and plagerism though😀

true, but if we enhance the copy when making the copy, does that then make it a new creation of our own making, abit inspired by ?

I would argue that we are already perfect for the purpose for which we were created. How can we improve on that?