The gods of our fathers

Atheists are frequently demanded a proof that God does not exist. We cannot disprove something we cannot define and know, but we can possibly take the opposite approach to prove what we know and where the concept of God comes from and what has led to the present day theologies.

The Trinity God is a rather new concepts which seems to stem from the Church council of Nicaea, though the idea may have existed before that, but it was apparently not in the Jewish teachings.
The first church council in Nicaea

So it is not the same God as the Jews believed in. We can dismiss the trinity God because of very recent theology with a very human origin.

Jahve and Allah may be two names on the same concept. The origin of those are to some extent known and accepted facts. Allah is so recent that there are written references. His present theology stems directly from the writings of Mohammed, but the word was used before that as a word for God.
The origin of Allah

So we can dismiss the present Allah as an original God

Judaism based on Jahve may have inspired Mohammed's writing. But even that theological concept is quite recent, and long after The out of Africa migration.

The origin of the God of the Jews

Even that can be dismissed as quite recent theology based on previous beliefs, but unique because it marks a shift from polytheism to monotheism.

So polytheism seems to be more original and stem from a very primitive belief in powers we cannot understand. It may be seen as forces of nature.

The nature of deities reveals the belief in the mysteries of nature

Forces of nature are not necessarily devine forces, but it is exactly what science is about!

Conclusion:
It is possible to prove that the types of God most people believe in and make their theologies about is nothing but concepts handed over from history of human cultures.

The fabric of theology


An introduction to the faith market

An introduction to the faith market

You may have a pick from several gods.

Since god is about faith, different cultures and ages have or have had different faiths.

One god, many gods, false gods, ancient gods, false faith and right faith. Since none of them are definable or detectable it is correct to call them imaginary or illusory. But with no full definition available, and work still going on to sort facts and fiction, it is impossible to totally prove or disprove religion.

Some are seeking a truth in Allah, others in Jahve, which both are Abrahamic middle east religions. There is a more recent spin off religion of Jahve: The Trinity Compound of figures, or the Trinity God

But there are many more…..

Learning methods

Preaching and brainwashing

Many talk about god or gods, some talk to God

Some pray to God

God is mentioned on old scrolls

Some believe that the truth about God is in words, some that God is the word,

Religious rites

Confessions, baptism, confirmation, sacraments, promises and holly days and events

Juridical and political

Some states have a state religion and more or less slack when it comes to what is encouraged and discouraged

Religious Bonding methods

Social pressure and incitement

Family, congregation, society friends, commitments

Economy and workplaces

A market for religious pieces of art, artefacts, books, services, conferences, revival sermons, gifts, collections and tithing, social work and voluntary work

Deterrence and humiliation

Some groups keep files or registers on their members and apply antiquated internal justice like manipulation, expulsion and/or punishment as means for religious upbringing and education.

Threats and fear

Threats about perdition or burning, painful hell

Life threats and Terror against abortion clinics and their staff. Harassment and assaults on particular targets, like gays and transgender.

Some groups even sacrifice themselves in random attacks on public places to spread their message, to stop what they call evil, false, faithless, or whatever reason they use.

Positive reinforcement

Some actually preach peacefully, but seemingly get less attention.

Humanitarian work

Charity and missions

Education

Forgiveness and mercy

Why you should careful with faith:

Faith is usually based on antiquated logics, or no logic at all.

God never show up in personal to explain or excuse his acts, or absence of acts

God usually demands to be believed, worshipped and accepted for whatever whims he has. What makes it even more hard  is the absence of proof.

Gods usually keep a very totalitarian profile. They make the rules, judges and executes alone and without mercy. and the followers on earth tend to copy their god’s autocratic regime

God cannot be understood

Cannot be seen or sensed in any way

No definition exist

No generally accepted proof or counter proof

Effect of god

No observable acts of god

No verifiable miracles

Dubious claims of miracles

God's help

No visible response to prayer

No receipt message

No healing by prayer

No help in crises

No socio-economic effect from faith

People who hear god's messages receive psychiatric treatment

People who talk to god in public places are regarded as deviant and queer

Humiliation

Confession, atonement

Behavioural change requirements

Role models, work on being like somebody else

To sum it up: You cannot be good enough being yourself

Reliability

You cannot count on God as we can count on the laws of nature.

God cannot be used to anything practical like you can rely on your neighbour or your friend

Manipulation

Faith makes you vulnerable to manipulation, suppression and economic exploitation

Churches and religious leaders can make a fortune on their followers

Unpaid work

Petitions and collect

Tithing

Busting the God Illusion

Version in Norwegian

Busting the God Illusion

God is important to some people. But nobody has ever offered any of the three: A definition, a factual presentation, or a proof. Proving can have two implications: Making a formal proof and/or testing if it holds what is promised, or the opposite: Busting a myth. 

Because language is an inaccurate representation of both reality and logic, a formal proof seems a hard mission. But following the facts to see where they lead is not difficult at all. The real proof is in the real world. It is not in any of the words.

The understanding of concepts are not always clear and may have subtones and connotations. Words are only hinting about the reality they refer to. So keep focused on the truth beyond the point words can ever represent reality.

Abstract

You choose to believe God true, instead of displaying true facts on God. That is called faith without proof.

The god you chose was just one of several.

Your certainty that your god is true, it is hardly more than a wish.

The word faith implies personal conviction and unverified information. Making a claim of knowing a truth based on faith is a self contradiction.

Yet faith is an essence in religion.

Formalising a theology, a structure for teaching of others, accepting confessions, testimonies, offerings as well as building formal societies and churches offers faith an inflated value.

As a consequence your faith appears being a self deception, and your God a myth. Possibly, there are several other words available to describe both faith and god. But words along the lane of truth and reality are not appropriately applied here.

Validity and limits:

The following reasoning is valid if there is an objective reality. That is an assumption which I don't need to prove first, because if that is incorrect it logically opens a fasttrack to the conclusion that there is no objective or real God. It also requires that we locate ourselves to this reality we call real world. I don't prove anything for parallel universes.

However, it seems to apply whichever known God you invest your life in.

The premises:

1 You chose one book, one truth, one God over any other option. The chosen truth is dubious of several reasons.

You may have taken the wrong choice, however, because:

2 There are always at least two other options:

a) another book/God is true. b) there is no God is true.

3 Even the no God option, which you also didn't choose may be an error. We don't need any of the alternatives to be true to make a conclusion on god.

The no god option is based on the absence of available god facts. The god option makes up some unavailable god facts. Making up facts is kind of cheating.

Summing up available facts on god:

-No means to perceive god.
-Acts of god cannot be discerned from acts of nature.
-No conclusive evidence to support the existence of god.
-Only verbal descriptions and testimonies available.
-Most reliability checks on the testimonies conclude with a rather low credibility. They cannot be confirmed and they cannot be followed up with contemporary studies and examples.

One of the most important services a god is meant to deliver is blessing in this life, maybe even a little bit of good luck, good health, long life. But none of such are found to be real facts

But, yet, a lot of people believe in such.


Building a conclusion:

I don't need to prove that there is no good reason for your faith. Both the words faith and belief refer to a reality without available facts.

But people in religious cults all over the world worship their God, serve their God, pay offerings to God. Educate their children in their faith. Take political action based on faith. There is a whole business economy based on religion. Some people are willing to commit crimes to follow the laws of their god.

So definitely, without any apparent reason, some people take God as a fact of life.

No real world manifestation, but a strong distortion of the perception of truth. So faith is about fake truth!

But don't let the words distract you from seeing the obvious. The words are just abstract symbols for reality and there are many other words available where they come from.

But there is a reality which is not really changed by the words. Even other words cannot fix the discrepancy between facts and fiction here.

I shall discuss other available words under the header "Consequences" below.

Discussion and conclusion:

Belief in god is unsupported by facts. It is so much taken out of thin air that we can call it illusory. Why people willingly flock behind an illusions can just be guessed.


But we are close at drawing a conclusion on what god is. No reason to believe that God is real, but it could be wrong to call god unreal.

He is kind of made "real" by faith, he is a spiritual state of mind, he is a motivating factor in politics and several political regimes. so god has some indirect effect.


But the true essence of god is an ability to notoriously escape verification. No facts proves god real, but still he is imagined and praised. He has the character of a phantom, something mythical but without substance.

For the moment that seems to be the closest we can get to catch the essence of god. And the true essence appears as hollow emptiness. It is a theory without real hold.

Consequences:

I have used words as phantom and illusion as well as some other words for your deviation from the confirmable reality.

Other fitting words I could have used will all imply a departure from facts and reality. Consequently descriptions with words like honest, omnipotent, great, powerful, loving true or real will definitely be rather unfit to describe the reality this is about.

But omni present is probably not ruled out.

All the appropriate words on faith in god will probably reveal a dishonesty to yourself and the ones you teach your faith.

If you teach god to your children we could say that you misguide them. That is an evil thing to do with children. But again, other words may be just as appropriate. But you cannot pick words which make it appear sensible and honourable because there is a reality the words need to apply on.

So don't take my words for it. Let the facts guide you to the proper words.

Closing

I have used the personal pronoun l and you.
I am a self-proclaimed atheist. You are an imagined opponent representing any other real person who believe in any of the existing gods.

Faith in god is not about just one god. Geography and culture are rather decisive for god preference, and multi cultural societies have very often a god preference which follows subcultures and families. Early learning and a massive influence in favour of one particular god could be a reason for disturbed reality perception. It can have a similar effect as brainwashing.

A free and liberal pursuit of facts and truths may not be an available option for everybody.

Gud eller Fakta

Gud, Fakta eller Fakta om gud

Link to version in English

Det finnes mer enn fire tusen nålevende guder å velge mellom på verdensbasis, men i Norge er det stort sett varianter av guder med opprinnelse i Midtøsten vi trenger å forholde oss til. Det er Allah, Jahve og den siste i rekken, komposisjonen som kalles Treenighet. De går litt dårlig sammen fordi hver av dem hevder å være den eneste sanne.

Meningene er tildels sterke, men fakta er sparsomme. Gud er mange ord og begreper, men ord er billige. Det er mange fler av dem der de kommer fra.

Et er sikkert. En eller annen Gud er virkelig i tankene til mer enn halvparten av verdens innbyggere.

Det er derfor merkelig at ingen noen gang har levert noen definisjon, demonstrasjon eller dokumentasjon på gud. Det er mulig man må velge mellom selvbedrag eller fakta, som i historien om keiserens nye klær.

Sammendrag:

Hvis du har valgt en gud å tro på er han bare en av mange. Hvis du tror din Gud er rett, så har du dårlige odds mot alle de andre mulighetene. Tro kan neppe kalles mer enn et ønske i dette lotteriet.

Ordet tro betyr at du mangler fakta, men gjør et visst krav på å ha rett. Men å påstå at du har rett fordi du tror noe er en selvmotsigelse.

Men tro er essensen i religion.

En formalisert teologi, struktur for opplæring og misjonering, kollekt, tiende, kirkebygg, templer eller moskeer gir inntrykk at tro er noe overdrevet. Det virker mer som overbevisning om at tro er fakta.

Tro ser nesten ut som en  massesugesjon  og gud virker litt som en hildring, en illusjon. 

Men det var mine ord. Det finnes mange andre mulige ord til å beskrive både tro og gud. Men ord som antyder sannhet eller virkelighet er nok upassende i denne sammenhengen. 

Virkelighet,og begrensninger:

Følgende utredning forutsetter at det finnes en virkelighet. Det er et logisk axiom. Hvis det er usant følger at også gud er uvirkelig. Gud må være helt eller delvis til stede i denne virkeligheten. Jeg kan ikke trekke konklusjoner om andre virkeligheter. 

Men det ser ut som konklusjonene er generelle nok til å gjelde hvilken som helst av de eksisterende gudene i verden.

Logiske forutsetninger:

1 Du tilhører den majoriteten av verdens befolkning som tror på en eller annen gud. Du tror at bare din gud er sann.

Men du kan tro på feil gud, fordi:

2 Det det er alltid minst to andre muligheter:

a en annen gud er sann, b ingen gud er sann

3 Også "ingen gud er sann" kan være usann påstand.

Konklusjonen ingen gud er sann bygger bare på fravær av fakta om gud. 

Men alle påstander om gud er sann, er basert på fremlegg av ikke-eksisterende fakta. Å lage falske fakta er på en måte fusk og løgn.

Oppsummering av fakta om gud:

-Gud gjør ikke noe registrerbart arbeid.

-Ingen måte å sanse gud, hverken med eller uten måleutstyr
-Ingen tekniske eller taktiske beviser for guds eksistens.

-Det eksisterer myter, anekdoter og vitnesbyrd om gud.

-Noe av det som er nevnt over har vært gjenstand for fakta sjekk. Veldig mye er enten direkte feil, usannsynlig eller ikke bekreftet.

-Det finnes ingen samtidshendelser som tyder på at gud står bak begivenheter og hendelser, men noen mennesker tillegger naturkatastrofer en tolkning som guds straffedom. Oftest er samanhengen så søkt at få tar det alvorlig.

En av de viktigste tjenestene guder skal levere til menneskene er ulike velsignelser i dette livet eller i etter-livet. Litt hell, litt helse, litt kjærlighet. Velsignelse i dette livet kan måles med statistiske metoder, men ingen studier bekreftet noen slik velsignelse. Men her er det mulighet for at nye studier dukker opp ganske snart.

Men folk tror på gud nå, og det synes ubegrunnet.

Oppsummering av fakta om gudstro:

Det er unødvendig å bevise at det ikke er noen god grunn for å tro på gud. Selve ordet tro henviser på manglende faktagrunnlag.

Men mennesker i alle religioner har bundet livet sitt til gud på ulike måter. Selve ordet religion betyr faktisk å binde seg igjen, re-ligare. Så kanskje er det rett å se religion som en binding til en eller annen gud.

Det vi ser er at mange bøyer seg for sin Gud i en symbolsk underkastelse. Islam betyr visst også underkastelse. Mange gir offergaver. I dag er det gjerne i form av penger. Noen mennesker er villige til å ofre seg for sin Gud!

Vi ser også at religion utøver en viss systematisk inntrenging i andre menneskers liv. Misjonsarbeid og religiøs oppdagelse, påvirkning i politiske saker. Noen mennesker er villige til å gå så langt som å drepe for sin Gud.

Så avgjort, selv uten å behøve noen grunn er det mange som tar gud mer seriøst en fakta. 

Det er en ganske fordreid virkelighetsoppfatning. Det blir ikke helt feil å hevde at tro er utrohet mot eksisterende fakta.

Men igjen bare ord. Ord som prøver enten å avdekke eller tildekke fakta. Det er ofte vanskelig å si noe sant med ord.  Men det er en virkelighet som ikke forandres av ord vi bruker. Spriket mellom gudstro og fakta kan vanskelig kamufleres.


Jeg skal diskutere andre tilgjengelige ord under overskriften «Konsekvenser» litt lenger nede.

Diskusjon og konklusjon:

Tro på gud støttes ikke av fakta. Så mye er tatt ut av lufta at vi kan kalle det fri fantasi. Hvorfor mange flokker seg rundt slike illusjoner blir delvis bare gjetting.

Men en konklusjon er mulig på bakgrunn av der vi vet. Ingen grunn til å tro at gud er virkelig, men det kan likevel bli feil å bruke ordet uvirkelig om gud.

Gud blir på mange måter gjort virkelig av at mange tror. Han blir et spirituelt samlingspunkt. Religiøse ledere har fått tildelt et demokratisk ansvar for å forvalte en gammel kultur.

Så vi må se på Gud som en tradisjon og kirker, moskeer og templer som kultur institusjoner.

Men guds essens synes å være en notorisk evne til å unnslippe verifikasjon. Ingen fakta beviser at det virkelig finnes hverken gud eller guder. Det er myter og forestillinger. Guds karakterer har egenskaper som et fantom, uten virkelig substans

For øyeblikket er det så nær det er mulig å komme basert på eksisterende fakta. Gud er et teoretisk begrep uten fysisk substans.

Konsekvenser:

Jeg har brukt ulike ord som definerer gud som noe abstrakt. Noe på utsiden av den konkrete virkeligheten vi er kjent med. Ordet ånd peker vel i samme retning.

Alle brukbare ord vil antyde en avstand til fakta og virkelighet. Men ord er på billigsalg. Det er helt sikkert mange andre ord og begreper. Det er likevel vanskelig å se for seg at ord som betyr det motsatte er korrekt anvendt her. Ord som allmektig, mektig, kjærlig, sann eller virkelig synes upassende på den virkeligheten dette handler om.

Men jeg tenker at allestedsnærværende kanskje kan brukes på noe som opptar så mye plass både i tanker og samfunn.

Ord for tro kan vanskelig bli til visshet. Det å tro på gud må nødvendigvis medføre en viss uærlighet mot deg selv og dem du er glad i.

Hvis du oppdrar barna dine til å tro på gud kan det lett føre feil. Spesielt hvis troen avviker fra kjent virkelighetsoppfatning, eller inneholder åpenbare fakta feil. Da er det ikke lett å unnskylde seg med at du tror det er rett. 

Avslutning:

Jeg har brukt de personlige pronomene jeg og du.

Jeg har tenkt meg selv som ateist. Du er en teoretisk opponent som tror på en av de eksisterende gudene i verden. Men dette er jo bare en monolog. Det er mine tanker om noen av de eksistensielle spørsmålene i livet. Jeg synes det er logisk, men jeg har faktisk ikke lyttet godt til dine motargumenter. Det er jo en svakhet her.

Tro på gud er mer enn bare en mulig gud. Geografi og kultur er ganske bestemmende for hvilken gud du tror på. Multikulturelle samfunn har ofte en gudstro som følger subkultur eller familie. Tidlig læring og massiv påvirkning av tro på en spesiell gud er sannsynlig forklaring på det fenomenet.

Kan hende er gud noe vi tror på fordi det hører med til barnelærdommen og kulturen.

Et fritt og tilfeldig søk etter sannhet og fakta er muligvis umulig for noen mennesker.

Jorg Lovoll kl. mandag, januar 07, 2019

Del

Ingen kommentarer:

Legg inn en kommentar

‹

›

Startsiden

Vis nettversjon

OM MEG

Jorg Lovoll

Vis hele profilen min

Drevet av Blogger.

The Surreal Christian Theology

Do you think theology is difficult?

Imagine a parallel World where you are a tourist for a lifetime.

Many inhabitants worship parallel superheroes. They do everything they can to make other inhabitants worship the same superheroes.

The superheroes are more or less omnipotent, omnipresent, all knowing and eternal.

They deliberately hide themselves from every human attempt to establish any facts about them.

They use one single book to make themselves known. There are competing books and the followers have to decide which book they shall validate.

People have to decide on which book is true and which other books are false. The population are without objective clues to guide them. 

One superhero is "lust liar"  and do what he can to lead the population to a wrong decision.

The "good" superhero is a three-headed character.  It is called the Trinity Compound

One head is a human charity character.

Another head is a terrible force which will kill humans who see it's face, as well as all the people who don't see its face but fails to see it's great super character.  They can only be saved by praying to the human charity character.

The third head is an invisible ghost character which has done one single physical act once upon a time: It impregnated a woman with the genes of the terrible head to make the human charity head.


How would you resonate to make a decent choice?

3rd test of the Rockboat concept. On the way to making a house boat

The Rockboat concept is, as far as I have been able to find out, uniquely my idea. In order to fulfil my plan to make a house boat with the Rockboat technique, and live on  rivers and lakes I have to perform various tests of the concept before spending money on a fullscale floating home.

The two preceding tests were hull models in scale 1:10. They were aimed at finding the most optimal hull shape for sailing shallow waters without compromising sea abilities to much.

This test is too make a sculler/canoe/kayak with the planned hull form in scale 1:5 This allows for actually sit in it and get the full feeling of the hull performance.

The Rockboat principle is to laminate the hull with "bricks" of Rockwool to clad on the inner walls of the hull. The bricks are cut to form the outer shape of the hull. The outer surface can be covered with a skin for the desired purpose. For this build I plan to use glass fibre in my own secret blend of acrylic rubber concrete to make a semi hard surface, as I also keep it lightweight by not making it too thick and strong.

I think 5-7 cm spray concrete skin will be better for the full scale product. After all it is meant to possibly have to withstand ice and driftwood during its full life expectancy.

Here I have chosen 4mm sub-roof mdf plates. For the inner skin of the hull. They are water resistant, light and strong. To keep it stable under the construction I build them on a jig of cheap wood materials.

This is how it looks after the first day of work.

The inner hull will have a very box formed shape.  The outer hull shape will be created as I work with the "bricks" I cut from Rockwool.
Probably the best way to build a concrete boat

2nd test of the Rockboat concept. On the way to build a floating home

My obsession at the moment is to look into how to build a floating home with a completely new way of thinking. My idea is to build it in the same way and with the same materials used to build a house.

About my progress on building a Rockboat

The hull is the equivalent to the house foundation. Making it with watertight spray concrete on Rockwool, should be possible in theory, at least . So to test it out and avoid expensive failure I have to make different approaches to the task with scaled down models. This is my second test .

For the model I can only use a thin layer of plaster due to the weight. A full scale Rockboat can have armoured concrete between 5-7 cm and still have a shallow-going hull for use in canals and lakes .

The models are made from casual building materials I have had laying around the basement, but it gives some impression of a real houseboat .

The rear has a self emptying deck. For the sake of simplicity the Rockboat has no rudder nor engine. But the rear deck can be fitted with one or two outboard engines.

For the first test I just kept the boat in a line.

The test was on a local lake and it was a little windy so it was hard to judge from the test this day how the hull split the water. The water dynamics is improved, from the previous test hull to minimise energy consuming bow and aft waves.

Link to the 1st test Rockboat

The hull was made quite flattened at the bottom to allow shallow water use, but the test revealed that it lacked direction stability, particularly in the windy weather this day. This was kind of  predictable, so my backup plan is to fit a keel to the hull. The estimated depth for the full scale model is up to 50 cm, so a keel of about 7 cm doesn't add too much to the total depth.