G~∅~D ? gods and/or God—there is a difference
Posted: 16 April 2012 10:17 PM   [ Ignore ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  193
Joined  2011-12-30

KNOWLEDGE, WHILE IT CAN USE GOOD FAITH AS A TOOL, IT NATURALLY GOES BEYOND BELIEF  smile
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
Like, the great psychiatrist, Carl Jung, I feel that a belief-dependent god is no god at all. In a famous BBC interview, when he was asked: Do you believe in God, he put it this way: I do not need to believe in G~0~D ... I know G~0~D is!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJ25Ai__FYU&feature=youtu.be

PANENTHEISM/UNITHEISM—beyond monotheism
—————————————————————————————————-
To make it clear that, while I respect the kind of monotheism in which I was raised, I am not talking about a god who exists separate and apart from existence, or nature. To make this point, I am thankful that I am free to use devices, or symbols, like the following: G~0~D, or G~∅~D~~points to a oneness in, around and through nature, but is not dependent on it.

I concocted these acronyms some time ago for a very special reason. I wanted to get away from using a noun to name an object-like god—one that exists, even supernaturally, in time and space, yet separate from it. I credit moral, ethical and creative atheism with stimulating this kind of thinking. Meanwhile, like Richard Dawkins, I am quite open to having radical theists demonstrate that there is a god who exists—one who I hope will then have his own web pages and be willing to link to this and other forums. 

I admit that the above is not a new idea. For example, when pious Jews write about the god-hypothesis, in English, they use the device, G-d. I respect their freedom to do so. They use it instead of the sacred four letters YHWH—meaning I am who I am. The dash makes the point that they are not talking about an anthropomorphic, or human-like, god in the form of an idol. Idolatry, even when mentally done, is looked upon by pious Jews as a sin—any evil done deliberately, and with conscious awareness—against truth. 

For me, the wavy dash, the tilde (~), the ∅ , the null, and 0, zero, all serve useful purposes in their own way.

In http://www.scienceagogo.com  I write about all this—the philosophy, psychology & pneumatology of all religions I know and respect, including atheism (a philosophy?). One thread on this general theme now has over 3,900,000 hits.

Atheists say that atheism is neither a faith, nor a religion. OK!

What then is it ? A philosophy? Perhaps it is one with psychological and pneumatological implications? Let me know. I am very curious about such things. I enjoy have a dialogue about such topics—hopefully without using flame throwers, mockery, ridicule, or any other such, joy and communication killers.

======================
To find the source of the symbol, Ø in G~Ø~D, check out WIKI: Empty set, from Wikipedia.

For similar symbols, see Ø (disambiguation).

The empty set is the set containing no elements.

This is why, in my opinion, I say that G~Ø~D, for me, has no elements, properties, or dimensions per se—in the material sense of the words. A god, or God with properties is simply an idol. It could have value as a work of art.

I think of G~Ø~D as like a wave-force in and through and around people and things; but not as a thing, dependent on things. The things of creation, which we often experience as mysterious emanations, or effusions, out of the great no-thing, G~Ø~D~~that which generates all good, organizes all opportunities in an orderly fashion and delivers that which is desirable and delightful. If anyone wants to say: I can live like that without any kind of god-talk. I will respond: Great, go ahead and do it. The bottom like, for me is: I am, and I choose to think, learn and know, and I accept the power—physically, mentally and spiritually—to DO!

In mathematics, and more specifically in the set theory, the empty set is the unique set having no elements; its size or cardinality (count of elements in a set) is zero. Some axiomatic set theories assure that the empty set exists by including an axiom of empty set; in other theories, its existence can be deduced. Many possible properties of sets are trivially true for the empty set.

[ Edited: 16 April 2012 10:34 PM by RevLGKing ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 April 2012 11:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7684
Joined  2008-04-11

Atheist have no belief in a ‘god’. Period. That is all it says about that person. Period.

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 April 2012 03:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15435
Joined  2006-02-14

I really don’t know what the point of all this is, RLGK. If you’re looking for some non-supernatural thing that’s identical to the laws of nature or the universe, you’re talking about a non-personal thing as in a thin form of Deism. You’re talking about the ‘God’ of Spinoza or Einstein, which is formally an atheistic being, since it’s non-personal, non-supernatural and of no religious importance.

You don’t need any confusing, baroque notation for that.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 April 2012 09:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

First, Carl Jung was a nut, so I don’t pay much attention to quotes from him.

Second, if you want to have a discussion with people, you should do so within their communication system, not introduce odd symbols then assign new definitions.  I’m quite used to my verbal procedures.  I’m not about to try to twist them into some extraneous symbology.

Third, there is an infinity of empty sets.  I don’t waste my time thinking about what’s NOT in them.  Since I consider the idea of a god to be in an empty set, I’m not about to waste my time arguing about the varieties or properties of nothing.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 April 2012 09:59 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1191
Joined  2011-08-01

This:

Occam. - 17 April 2012 09:43 AM

Third, there is an infinity of empty sets.  I don’t waste my time thinking about what’s NOT in them.  Since I consider the idea of a god to be in an empty set, I’m not about to waste my time arguing about the varieties or properties of nothing.

 Signature 

Free in Kentucky
—Humanist
“I am patient with stupidity but not with those who are proud of it.”—Edith Sitwell

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 April 2012 10:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

All this sounds like an attempt at late-night-college-dormitory, pseudo-intellectual type of discussion. Knowing how old you are, I must say I almost feel sorry for you for being this confused at this stage of your life.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 April 2012 10:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3121
Joined  2008-04-07
asanta - 16 April 2012 11:41 PM

Atheist have no belief in a ‘god’. Period. That is all it says about that person. Period.

Yep, the period is really the only symbol that makes sense here.

 Signature 

Turn off Fox News - Bad News For America
(Atheists are myth understood)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 April 2012 08:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4860
Joined  2007-10-05
George - 17 April 2012 10:24 AM

All this sounds like an attempt at late-night-college-dormitory, pseudo-intellectual type of discussion. Knowing how old you are, I must say I almost feel sorry for you for being this confused at this stage of your life.

That pretty well sums up my thinking on the OP. I read it earlier today and my first through was, “Get over it and grow up.”

Rev LGKing wrote:

This is why, in my opinion, I say that G~Ø~D, for me, has no elements, properties, or dimensions per se—in the material sense of the words. A god, or God with properties is simply an idol. It could have value as a work of art.

As Occam said, this is an empty set. Discussing the attributes of nothing is a waste of time.

Edit: corrected name of OP

[ Edited: 18 April 2012 05:43 AM by DarronS ]
 Signature 

You cannot have a rational conversation with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile