If you believe in God, define God [Archive]

infornography

1st November 2006, 05:56 PM

If you believe in X, define X:

Let X =

Justice
A socially accepted retribution for a socially dispised act.

FreedomThe ability to do, say, and think what you want as long as it does not harm others or impede on the basic liberties of others. (yes I know this is not practiced in the US)

Obscenityviolating socially accepted norms of decent dress, behavior, and speech in a crude or sexual way.

Fairnessan impartially equitable situation.

Pornographydemonstration or entertainment media that depicts explicitly obscene acts or art involving almost purely sexual content.

Consciousnessawareness and thought. Synonym with sentience which is awareness of one's own senses. Being awake.

SentienceLiterally awareness of one's own senses. See consiousness.

EthicsA set of beliefs about behavior that indicates that which intentionally violates the well being of others for one's own profit.

TruthThat which is objectively, demonstrably, and provably accurate.

BeautyA set of features and attributes that an individual, culture, society, or group considers attractive or pretty.

Just thought I would have someone knock a few of these other things out of the park as long as we are at it.As for the God thing... you are on your own.

Rufo

1st November 2006, 06:21 PM

While it is certainly a good question, why are you asking it here? Not too many here believe in God.

Is there any particular reason why you only want believer's definitions?

McCulloch

1st November 2006, 06:52 PM

Loss Leader

1st November 2006, 07:01 PM

If you believe in X, define X:

Let X =

Truth

Any assertion consistent with the operation of the universe.

Dark Jaguar

1st November 2006, 09:23 PM

If you believe in God, please take some time to define what/who you think God is.

It is difficult to read any discussion about God without an understanding of the underlying definitions or perceptions each person has of what/who God is. I would like to gain a better understanding of your personal perception of God (if you believe in God).

I've never been partial to the "can't define a god" argument. Seems god is basically some sort of force that can think and is capable of pretty much everything. Maybe that isn't a "sufficient" definition, but that's really not what I'd call a valid argument for the nonexistance of god. The total lack of any evidence for such a being and the great evidence that such a being, as defined by at least all the religions I've checked out, couldn't exist if the world is as it is. One also can't define "the unknown cause of death" at a crime scene accurately. You can't say what that is either, but in that case, there is clearly enough evidence to point to that thing's existance. Slowly in such situations, evidence slowly points out attributes long before an accurate identity can be assigned.

Anyway, sorry to play devil's advocate (god's advocate?), but this argument just seems like more language related sophistry. Any philosophical argument that depends on words (that is, the words in and of themselves and the nature of language) for it's validity just falls flat to me. Unless it is an argument about language itself, don't bother.

Beleth

1st November 2006, 09:38 PM

The entity which willingly created the material universe.

That's not so hard.

Tricky

1st November 2006, 09:46 PM

The entity which willingly created the material universe.

That's not so hard.
Damn! You beat me to it. That is how I define God. And I should add that I don't believe such an entity exists.

I less than three logic

1st November 2006, 09:48 PM

(if you believe in God)
Another fine example of discrimination against us atheist, we’re not even allowed to post in this thread. :mad: :D

Dunstan

1st November 2006, 10:03 PM

I don't believe in God, but I have been debating with a believer who asserts that God is Love. When pressed, he says that God is a synonym for Love. When I refuted such stupidity, I was accused of hating and rejecting God and of being possessed by an evil spirit.
Who can argue with that?

Interesting. I've been thinking lately about the "God is Love" folks. My working theory is that most of them are essentially atheists or agnostics, but don't want to identify as such. (Maybe because they want to blend in with the majority, or maybe they have negative views of atheists and agnostics.) So through the "God is Love" fudge, then they can say "I believe in God."

But it sounds like your acquaintance was basically a believer who didn't want to defend the Sky Daddy version of God that he really believes. So by saying "God is Love" he gets to accuse you of strawmanning and "win" the debate, since of course even atheists believe in love.

The whole thing seems like Humpty Dumptyism to me.

Beleth

1st November 2006, 10:28 PM

But even people who say "God is love" are defining God as a Creator type. What they are actually saying is "The Creator is love as well as being the Creator."

Dunstan

1st November 2006, 10:40 PM

But even people who say "God is love" are defining God as a Creator type. What they are actually saying is "The Creator is love as well as being the Creator."

Well, some are, I'm sure. But I have encountered people (well, two: one in real life, and one on a message board) who insisted they didn't believe in a Creator-type God. Maybe they are rare exceptions, but my intuition is that this is a somewhat common position.

Beerina

2nd November 2006, 06:43 AM

But even people who say "God is love" are defining God as a Creator type. What they are actually saying is "The Creator is love as well as being the Creator."

Well, love is a desire to care, unrequited.* But caring is irrelevant if we weren't in a universe where pain and need and want and suffering existed in the first place.

Thanks "God". :mad:

* Cultural/biological evolutionary anthropologists, of course, note that love is, in fact, requited in the sense you're usually using it to help others of your immediate gene pool to survive, and in a broader sense for others in that they may help you in return when you are "down on your luck". But pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. :rollseyes:

Jekyll

2nd November 2006, 07:00 AM

Any assertion consistent with the operation of the universe.

So "God exists, but we haven't found him." and "God doesn't exist." are both true?

Darth Rotor

2nd November 2006, 07:15 AM

Pornography

I know it when I see it. :p

DR

Loss Leader

2nd November 2006, 08:04 AM

Any assertion consistent with the operation of the universe.

So "God exists, but we haven't found him." and "God doesn't exist." are both true?

No. I didn't say any assertion consistent with the operation of the universe as we now know and understand it; I said any assertion consistent with the operation of the universe.

Both of your statements are consistent with what we now know of the universe. However, only one of them is consistent with the universe itself. What we have or have not yet found is irrelevant to what is or is not true. Truth is objective and must conform only to the universe as it is, not as it is perceived by us.

Iamme

2nd November 2006, 08:04 AM

God is not some giant man up in the sky. Most people who go to church agree with this statement, when confronted about it. But I really believe that they still believe he is like a man up there... and not woman...who listens to us, can 'talk' to us if he wants to, etc.

Since my last postings here, like 2 weeks ago, or whatever, I have layed awake in bed, staring at the stars, as I do, and contemplating if all the atheist JREF'ers are right, and that there is no God.

Yes. There IS no God. No MAN-like God, that is. But the universe is "dynamic". Many believe this dynamic operates on it's own accord and needs no God. That the dynamic is in essence it's own God. It just does what it does, because if it didn't do what it does, we wouldn't be here.

But is it that simple? Is it really just luck of the dynamic that builds upon itself in a way that everything moves in some forward-like direction (improvement upon what already exists rather than regression, because that really was the only way for the simple to go...to become), as to create some sophisticated being in the end (us) that has the mind to know where we came from and our surroundings? This is utterly astounding to me.

One could argue that there are mega-trillions of things occuring in the universe in every second... and that with this kind of dynamic, it stands to reason that something orderly is apt to come out of such a dynamic.

So I ponder this. Is that ALL there is? That it just did it?..with no brains or purpose behind it?...just because the odds of the combinations of the dynamic forces churning out new matter and rearranging it, have simply caused all this?

You really think so? Really?

I am trying to be open-minded about this. But it seems inconceivable that a God like being (ourselves) would happen along and have the brains to actually visit the very realm from which we came (outerspace).

So I ponder. For me, this is a race against time. I do not wish to go to my grave, like Einstein, not really knowing if there is this personal God, or any God at all, and simply, due to any better comprehension, to simply say that God is some impersonal "force".

To simply say God is some "force" is a cop out. This is rather un-academic, and the person stating this doesn't have a clue as to what they even mean. If a "force" were God, and no more than that, then simply call the force, a force, without ascribing the word "god" to it. God infers more than force. God infers a brain-like activity that gives this God a creating and rulership quality to it's 'being'.

So all that said...what exactly do I think God is...if there is one? He/it is some energy thing that contains all the electrical energy (probably what the electrical energy itself is made of...as something even created THAT)) of the universe in some arranged fashion...like a brain. Sort of like how the stars could all be neurons out there, and all this information is going between them all by light waves. Something on that idea.

Why should we believe WE are this highest being out there? We already know we aren't as powerful as just the EARTH'S (which is puny in conparison with the universe) nature itself, and can't contain it (like the winds, the sun, hurricanes, wear from the ocean surf, etc.). Why don't we acknowledge that just because WE have this brain...that something else out there just might have this BIGGER brain (just like how hurricanes or tornadoes are grander than something we create when we stir a straw in circles in a glass of water to create some vortex). It's obvious that the universe is huge...and some think endless. With that alone, it stands to reason there is a real possibility that there is something far greater than us out there. It only stands to reason, based on simple observances of how something is greater than something else, either in physical nature (like the progression of power comparing stirring vortex in glass of water, to a hurricane swirl, to a galaxy swirl)...or by observation how the world and the universe has some sort of heirarchy to it, where one thing is in charge of another. (Your boss is in charge of you. Then HE has a boss. Then the whole company has a boss.) We can't hardly call OURselves the boss (of the universe) can we? If WE aren't, then what is???

I'll go back to pondering.

Cosmo

2nd November 2006, 08:23 AM

Thank you, Iamme, for that long, rambling, at-times-incoherent argument from incredulity.

RandFan

2nd November 2006, 08:41 AM

I am trying to be open-minded about this. But it seems inconceivable that a God like being (ourselves) would happen along and have the brains to actually visit the very realm from which we came (outerspace). I've quoted the Princess Bride too much lately. That something seems inconceivable is not proof of anything. It is arguing from incredulity.

So I ponder. For me, this is a race against time. I do not wish to go to my grave, like Einstein, not really knowing if there is this personal God, or any God at all, and simply, due to any better comprehension, to simply say that God is some impersonal "force". So, go ahead and believe in god to molify your ego.

So all that said...what exactly do I think God is...if there is one? He/it is some energy thing that contains all the electrical energy (probably what the electrical energy itself is made of...as something even created THAT)) of the universe in some arranged fashion...like a brain. Sort of like how the stars could all be neurons out there, and all this information is going between them all by light waves. Something on that idea. This is just your musings and does not advance anything. You are not defining god. Like you said, this is just a cop out.

Why should we believe WE are this highest being out there? We already know we aren't as powerful as just the EARTH'S (which is puny in conparison with the universe) nature itself, and can't contain it (like the winds, the sun, hurricanes, wear from the ocean surf, etc.). Why don't we acknowledge that just because WE have this brain...that something else out there just might have this BIGGER brain (just like how hurricanes or tornadoes are grander than something we create when we stir a straw in circles in a glass of water to create some vortex). It's obvious that the universe is huge...and some think endless. With that alone, it stands to reason there is a real possibility that there is something far greater than us out there. It only stands to reason, based on simple observances of how something is greater than something else, either in physical nature (like the progression of power comparing stirring vortex in glass of water, to a hurricane swirl, to a galaxy swirl)...or by observation how the world and the universe has some sort of heirarchy to it, where one thing is in charge of another. (Your boss is in charge of you. Then HE has a boss. Then the whole company has a boss.) We can't hardly call OURselves the boss (of the universe) can we? If WE aren't, then what is??? Time.

I'll go back to pondering.You do that. Ponder how they get the pimento inside of the olive. Now THAT is proof of inteligent design.

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:jDdsAR9ldm2KPM:http://www.sallys-place.com/food/single-articles/SPANISH%2520OLIVES.jpg

Beleth

2nd November 2006, 10:25 AM

I have encountered people (well, two: one in real life, and one on a message board) who insisted they didn't believe in a Creator-type God. Maybe they are rare exceptions, but my intuition is that this is a somewhat common position.
Let me see if I have this straight. They don't believe in a Creator, but they believe in a God who isn't a Creator but who "is love"?

So... they believe in Aphrodite?

That sounds like a difficult-to-defend position at best. Why call such a being "God"?

Beleth

2nd November 2006, 10:27 AM

Well, love is a desire to care, unrequited.* But caring is irrelevant if we weren't in a universe where pain and need and want and suffering existed in the first place.

Thanks "God". :mad:
That's why there's no mention of "loving" or "benevolent" in my definition.

firecoins

2nd November 2006, 10:29 AM

god = Brian Marks

Beleth

2nd November 2006, 10:30 AM

Truth is objective and must conform only to the universe as it is, not as it is perceived by us.
You seem to be saying that Truth exists whether we know it or not. In which case, we can never be sure that we know the Truth.

Beleth

2nd November 2006, 10:36 AM

So all that said...what exactly do I think God is...if there is one? He/it is some energy thing that contains all the electrical energy (probably what the electrical energy itself is made of...as something even created THAT)) of the universe in some arranged fashion...like a brain. Sort of like how the stars could all be neurons out there, and all this information is going between them all by light waves. Something on that idea.
I don't think your definition and my definition are too far apart. The main difference is that you have an analogy as to how God's creation happens, and since I view that as unknowable, I leave it unaddressed.

I less than three logic

2nd November 2006, 10:42 AM

You seem to be saying that Truth exists whether we know it or not. In which case, we can never be sure that we know the Truth.
Yep, that's the idea. Which is why science allows the recognition of it's fallibility and has ways of correcting mistakes. We must continue to obtain new evidence and to test that evidence not only against whatever new theories we may be considering, but also against everything we currently think is correct. Once you allow yourself to believe you've obtained some absolute truth, progress slows or may even halt altogether.

rwp

2nd November 2006, 10:53 AM

While it is certainly a good question, why are you asking it here? Not too many here believe in God.

Is there any particular reason why you only want believer's definitions?

There are many people here who believe in God. Those people argue for God and I would like to better understand what they think God is.

rwp

2nd November 2006, 10:58 AM

I've never been partial to the "can't define a god" argument. Seems god is basically some sort of force that can think and is capable of pretty much everything. Maybe that isn't a "sufficient" definition, but that's really not what I'd call a valid argument for the nonexistance of god. The total lack of any evidence for such a being and the great evidence that such a being, as defined by at least all the religions I've checked out, couldn't exist if the world is as it is. One also can't define "the unknown cause of death" at a crime scene accurately. You can't say what that is either, but in that case, there is clearly enough evidence to point to that thing's existance. Slowly in such situations, evidence slowly points out attributes long before an accurate identity can be assigned.

Anyway, sorry to play devil's advocate (god's advocate?), but this argument just seems like more language related sophistry. Any philosophical argument that depends on words (that is, the words in and of themselves and the nature of language) for it's validity just falls flat to me. Unless it is an argument about language itself, don't bother.

I am not looking for an argument about language; I look for an understanding of personal perception. For example, one person says God is a synonym for love. It's easier (though not much easier) to discuss love. In that instance I would be curious about the person's perception of love.

Loss Leader

2nd November 2006, 11:01 AM

You seem to be saying that Truth exists whether we know it or not. In which case, we can never be sure that we know the Truth.

Yes, exactly. I never said that truth is a useful concept.

rwp

2nd November 2006, 11:02 AM

Another fine example of discrimination against us atheist, we’re not even allowed to post in this thread. :mad: :D

Sorry about that. I don't mind reading your/anyone's definitions of God. But I really am interested and curious about believers, as this could provide good insight into their beliefs.

Jekyll

2nd November 2006, 11:04 AM

Whoops.
Brain fart.
Never mind.
Why does this keep happening to me?

rwp

2nd November 2006, 11:11 AM

God is not some giant man up in the sky....
-snip-
I'll go back to pondering.

Thank you for answering. I appreciate that you took the time to write that and think about it. I look forward to hearing any further definition/perception you can offer on what you believe God to be.

Where did you first hear/learn about God?

Loss Leader

2nd November 2006, 11:13 AM

But is it that simple?

Yes.

Is it really just luck of the dynamic that builds upon itself in a way that everything moves in some forward-like direction (improvement upon what already exists rather than regression, because that really was the only way for the simple to go...to become), as to create some sophisticated being in the end (us) that has the mind to know where we came from and our surroundings?

Your question contains about half a dozen incorrect assumptions and/or undefined terms. Whatever "some forward-like direction" means to you, it is not at all clear to the reader. There is also no evidence that everything improves and nothing regresses. In fact, the second law of thermodynamics seems to preclude this for the universe as a total system.

Is that ALL there is?

Yes.

That it just did it?

Yes.

..with no brains or purpose behind it?

Yes.

...just because the odds of the combinations of the dynamic forces churning out new matter and rearranging it, have simply caused all this?

Yes.

You really think so?

Yes.

Really?

Yes.

what exactly do I think God is...if there is one?

I don't care.

Why should we believe WE are this highest being out there?

I know of no reason to believe or disbelieve this. With no evidence either way, I would classify the question as currently unknowable and move on. This is, of course, assuming we can even agree on the definition of "highest."

Why don't we acknowledge that just because WE have this brain...that something else out there just might have this BIGGER brain

I see no reason to acknowledge or deny this. There is no evidence and no conclusion can be drawn.

We can't hardly call OURselves the boss (of the universe) can we?

I see no reason why we would or would not. There is simply no cost or benefit to doing either. And that is assuming that we can agree on the definition of "the boss of the universe," whatever that means.

If WE aren't, then what is???

You assume that there even is a "boss of the universe." There is no evidence that any such thing exists let alone that we aren't whatever the hell it is.

I'll go back to pondering.

Great. Let us know if you come up with anything coherent.

sphenisc

2nd November 2006, 11:17 AM

Another fine example of discrimination against us atheist, we’re not even allowed to post in this thread. :mad: :D

(Bg --> Dg) -/-> (~Bg --> ~Dg) :)

rwp

2nd November 2006, 11:19 AM

Folks, please understand that there should be several definitions or perceptions of God posted here. Please do not systematically attack or belittle these perceptions. It doesn't matter that the person's perceptions do not agree with yours.

It can be a very helpful exercise for a believer to define God, and attacking, belittling or taking each statement and arguing its validity does more to hinder than to help this thread.

I less than three logic

2nd November 2006, 11:20 AM

Why don't we acknowledge that just because WE have this brain...that something else out there just might have this BIGGER brain
I see no reason to acknowledge or deny this. There is no evidence and no conclusion can be drawn.
Sorry LL, but we do have evidence that something (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale#Intelligence) else out there has a BIGGER brain.

Whales have the largest brain of any animal. A typical sperm whale brain weighs about 7.8 kg, whereas a typical human brain weighs about 1.5 kg.
Of course, as we all know, size doesn't matter. :D

Upchurch

2nd November 2006, 11:23 AM

Man, y'all beat me to it, but I was going to reverse the situation and come up with a definition of God that I could believe in: God is love. As long as "love" is the definition of the word "God", then I believe in God.

....of course, if we deviate from that definition, all bets are off.

Oxymoron

2nd November 2006, 11:28 AM

I hesitated even entering this discussion. And I can honestly say I'm on the fence about the whole "god" thing. I once asked a friend of mine who I considered at the time to be a highly motivated intellectual what he thought of god. His answer (and this is a general summary):

[God = the thoughts, emotions and actions of every intelligent living being. A collective whole.]

I found that interesting. Obviously the explanation he gave went into more detail, but that's the basic idea. :covereyes

I guess whoever has the best arguement wins? :p

Beleth

2nd November 2006, 11:30 AM

Yep, that's the idea. Which is why science allows the recognition of it's fallibility and has ways of correcting mistakes. We must continue to obtain new evidence and to test that evidence not only against whatever new theories we may be considering, but also against everything we currently think is correct. Once you allow yourself to believe you've obtained some absolute truth, progress slows or may even halt altogether.
But if we can't ever know the Real Truth (as opposed to the Observed Truth), then what's the point in even looking for it?

If we can't know Truth, we can't know if we are close to it or not. If all science can do is get us closer to knowing a hallucination of Truth, then how is that "better" or "more progressive" than devoting your life to some slavish religion? What makes scientific progression worthwhile if Truth is unknowable? It's just another waste of time.

Truly this is the most depressing viewpoint I have ever read on this board!

I less than three logic

2nd November 2006, 11:34 AM

Dunstan

2nd November 2006, 11:36 AM

Let me see if I have this straight. They don't believe in a Creator, but they believe in a God who isn't a Creator but who "is love"?

So... they believe in Aphrodite?

That sounds like a difficult-to-defend position at best. Why call such a being "God"?

My thoughts exactly, except that I think they believe it's NOT a difficult-to-defend position. It goes something like this:

X: "I believe in God"
Atheist: [pick any standard atheist argument]
X: "Oh, I don't believe in that kind of God. I just believe that God is love."
Atheist: "Well, I believe that love exists, but I don't call it 'God'"
X: "See, you agree with me that love exists. So you believe in God, too!"

As I said, it's Humpty Dumptyism, but I guess it appeals to some folks. Like I wrote above, my theory is that they call this "being" "God" because it allows them to say "yes, I believe in God," and thereby be one of the crowd and not one of those angry, bitter, cold, nasty atheists. Yet if they're ever drawn into a discussion about it, they have something that they believe is logically defensible. I think of them as atheists in drag.

Loss Leader

2nd November 2006, 11:50 AM

What makes scientific progression worthwhile if Truth is unknowable? It's just another waste of time.

You mean scientific progress like elevators, the combustion engine, and 64 bit processors?

Just because "truth" is unknowable doesn't mean that a reasonable approximation or good working theory can't improve our lives.

Beleth

2nd November 2006, 11:53 AM

X: "I believe in God"
Atheist: [pick any standard atheist argument]
X: "Oh, I don't believe in that kind of God. I just believe that God is love."
Atheist: "Well, I believe that love exists, but I don't call it 'God'"
X: "See, you agree with me that love exists. So you believe in God, too!"

As I said, it's Humpty Dumptyism, but I guess it appeals to some folks.
Indeed!

Like I wrote above, my theory is that they call this "being" "God" because it allows them to say "yes, I believe in God," and thereby be one of the crowd and not one of those angry, bitter, cold, nasty atheists. Yet if they're ever drawn into a discussion about it, they have something that they believe is logically defensible. I think of them as atheists in drag.
Except that people in drag want others to notice their clothing! They sound more like atheists without guts.

Beleth

2nd November 2006, 11:56 AM

You mean scientific progress like elevators, the combustion engine, and 64 bit processors?
Those are examples of technological progression, not scientific progression. But yes, what makes those worthwhile if they don't get us nearer the truth?

Just because "truth" is unknowable doesn't mean that a reasonable approximation or good working theory can't improve our lives.I suppose it depends on how you define "improve".

rwp

2nd November 2006, 11:58 AM

Those are examples of technological progression, not scientific progression. But yes, what makes those worthwhile if they don't get us nearer the truth?

I suppose it depends on how you define "improve".

Technology is an application of scientific knowledge.

I less than three logic

2nd November 2006, 12:05 PM

Oxymoron

2nd November 2006, 12:19 PM

But if we can't ever know the Real Truth (as opposed to the Observed Truth), then what's the point in even looking for it?

If we can't know Truth, we can't know if we are close to it or not. If all science can do is get us closer to knowing a hallucination of Truth, then how is that "better" or "more progressive" than devoting your life to some slavish religion? What makes scientific progression worthwhile if Truth is unknowable? It's just another waste of time.

Truly this is the most depressing viewpoint I have ever read on this board!

This is just an excerpt from my Critical Thinking textbook, written by my professor at the time -P.S. Schievella. I thought you all might find it interesting.

"Too often we claim truth for our statements and beliefs without the faintest conception of the complexity of the meaning of the word. There are various concepts of what truth is, in general. One school of thought declares that there is no such thing as truth...There is another theory that truth is a function of language...since language is so complex and ambiguous, it is said that there is no absolute truth for the reason that a claim to absolute truth is a claim to all future knowledge. (For instance, if you are to know a snow flake completely, you must know the whole universe because the forces in the universe have a bearing on the existence of the snow flake.) The student should realize, however, that by the same token, to claim that there is not an absolute truth is also to claim that there is absolute knowledge. Thus truth, as it can be known by anyone, must be provisional upon the available evidence, as that evidence is expressed in language. Hence, truth is a function of language; and, since language (involving meaning) is a creation of man, truth too, (as well as falsity) is a creation of man."

After reading some of the discussions, I thought this might be an interesting addition.

My professor also goes on to state that, "It is never sufficient to say that a concept is true because it cannot be proved false, or that it is false because it cannot be proved true."

Beleth

2nd November 2006, 12:36 PM

Which may explain your reluctance to adhere to the stricter set of rules of a scientific view on truth.
What do you mean?

infornography

2nd November 2006, 01:08 PM

The point in looking for it is that along the way we get more and more predictive models for how the universe works and the new predictability allows us to create new things, inventions, and conveniences.

I find the idea that humanity will eventually know all there is to know more depressing than the contrary.

But if we can't ever know the Real Truth (as opposed to the Observed Truth), then what's the point in even looking for it?

If we can't know Truth, we can't know if we are close to it or not. If all science can do is get us closer to knowing a hallucination of Truth, then how is that "better" or "more progressive" than devoting your life to some slavish religion? What makes scientific progression worthwhile if Truth is unknowable? It's just another waste of time.

Truly this is the most depressing viewpoint I have ever read on this board!

Oxymoron

2nd November 2006, 01:28 PM

That would make the Borg's pursuits simply an attempt to connect all the parts of God together.

:alien003:

I really just wanted a reason to use that smiley. :)

Well, I did say it was someone I considered at that time to be a highly motivated intellectual! Little did I know they were a cyborg looking to take over the universe through mind control!;)

I less than three logic

2nd November 2006, 01:37 PM

What do you mean?
Well from this post:
You seem to be saying that Truth exists whether we know it or not. In which case, we can never be sure that we know the Truth.
I got the impression, and I apologize if it was an incorrect one, that you disagreed with him. That you think we can know "Truth". (Which is somewhat undefined as of now, because you seem to capitalize it when you type it. I take it to mean some form of absolute truth.) However, in the strict rules of logic which science adheres to, there simply isn't any way of knowing if we have, will, or even can obtain any proof of any absolute truth. An area of doubt, no matter how small, will always be embedded in a purely scientific view of the world. Doubt is a fundamental component of science, it is what drives it forward, to challenge our assumptions, to correct our mistakes. They are inseparable. Since doubt will always be a part of the scientific view, and doubt and absolute truth are mutually exclusive, no absolute truth can exist within that view.

You then said that this doubt, this inability to know we have, will, or can obtain absolute truth is the most depressing thing you've ever read. That without this absolute truth life has no meaning, to paraphrase your last post. If you find this depressing, that would explain why you might reject looking at this in a purely scientific way. Where we can only prove what can be verified though evidence, and in the end have no real way of verifying the validity of that evidence against some absolute truth. Instead, choosing a view where absolute truths can potentially be known, probably through some form of faith.

Dunstan

2nd November 2006, 02:48 PM

Except that people in drag want others to notice their clothing! They sound more like atheists without guts.

True. I can't be too hard on them, though, because I was one for many years. Not the God = Love thing; I just liked to think of myself as an "agnostic" because it seemed so much more open-minded and I bought into all the negative stereotypes of atheists.

Zygar

2nd November 2006, 03:25 PM

Me.

Tanstaafl

2nd November 2006, 03:48 PM

Me.

Aren't you going to tell us what sacrifices you require? Worship procedures?

Jon.

2nd November 2006, 04:23 PM

Since my last postings here, like 2 weeks ago, or whatever, I have layed awake in bed, staring at the stars, as I do, and contemplating if all the atheist JREF'ers are right, and that there is no God.

Need a new roof, do you? :p

rwp

2nd November 2006, 04:35 PM

Jon.

2nd November 2006, 04:39 PM

It seems that this is one of the most difficult things for a believer to do - to explain who or what they believe God is. But it seems that most people have a perception of God in mind when discussing God.

I am also interested in where you first learned about God. Was it when you were younger? Did your parents talk to you about God? Did your friends?

What were your first impressions? What did you think about God then that might be different now?

This is one of the most interesting things I got out of Daniel Dennett's most recent book, Breaking The Spell. He spoke to a number of believers and asked them the characteristics of the God they believe in, and most of them had a very difficult time answering.

See also The Do-It-Yourself Deity (http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/whatisgod.htm).

rwp

3rd November 2006, 11:00 AM

Jon.

3rd November 2006, 01:53 PM

I haven't read that book, but when I went to the site I was able to create a God that had a Plausibility Quotient of 1.0 (on the first try).

Omnibenevolent (all-loving)
Omniscient (all-knowing)
A Personal God (a being with whom one can have a personal relationship)

You can also create a God with a P.Q. of 1.0 by not ticking any boxes. The response then asks why you would call such a being God or want to worship it.

rwp

3rd November 2006, 04:23 PM

The entity which willingly created the material universe.

That's not so hard.

In your perception, could this entity be anything? Is this a living being? You mention it has a will and the ability to create.

Huntster

3rd November 2006, 04:38 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster
As I love and pray to God, yes, I ask for His blessings. Thankfully, I get them, too, and in more abundance than I deserve.
Could you please define God (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=67653)? When you use that word, who or what are you talking about?

God: (http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/glossary.htm#g)

The infinite divine being, one in being yet three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God has revealed himself as the "One who is," as truth and love, as creator of all that is, as the author of divine revelation, and as the source of salvation

Jon.

3rd November 2006, 05:36 PM

God: (http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/glossary.htm#g)
The infinite divine being, one in being yet three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God has revealed himself as the "One who is," as truth and love, as creator of all that is, as the author of divine revelation, and as the source of salvation

Beyond being three-in-one, does this god have any characteristics? Not what it did ("has revealed himself as the 'One who is'"; "creat[ed] all that is"; "author[ed]... divine revelation"), nor what it can do ("the source of salvation"), but what it is.

For instance:
Is it material or immaterial?
How big is it?
Male or female or other?
Beard, glasses, tattoos, other distinguishing characteristics?
etc., etc.

Huntster

3rd November 2006, 07:11 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster
God:

Quote:
The infinite divine being, one in being yet three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God has revealed himself as the "One who is," as truth and love, as creator of all that is, as the author of divine revelation, and as the source of salvation

Beyond being three-in-one, does this god have any characteristics?

I'm sure He does.

Not what it did ("has revealed himself as the 'One who is'"; "creat[ed] all that is"; "author[ed]... divine revelation"), nor what it can do ("the source of salvation"), but what it is.

For instance:
Is it material or immaterial?
How big is it?
Male or female or other?
Beard, glasses, tattoos, other distinguishing characteristics?
etc., etc.

I'm sure there are characteristics. What they are, and how to describe them, eludes me. They elude us all.

Perhaps this (http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect1.htm) can help:

In defending the ability of human reason to know God, the Church is expressing her confidence in the possibility of speaking about him to all men and with all men, and therefore of dialogue with other religions, with philosophy and science, as well as with unbelievers and atheists.

Since our knowledge of God is limited, our LANGUAGE about him is equally so. We can name God only by taking creatures as our starting point, and in accordance with our limited human ways of knowing and thinking.

All creatures bear a certain resemblance to God, most especially man, created in the image and likeness of God. The manifold perfections of creatures—their truth, their goodness, their beauty—all reflect the infinite perfection of God. Consequently we can name God by taking his creatures' perfections as our starting point, "for from the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator."

God transcends all creatures. We must therefore continually purify our language of everything in it that is limited, image-bound or imperfect, if we are not to confuse our image of God—"the inexpressible, the incomprehensible, the invisible, the ungraspable"—with our human representations. Our human words always fall short of the mystery of God.

Admittedly, in speaking about God like this, our language is using human modes of expression; nevertheless it really does attain to God himself, though unable to express him in his infinite simplicity. Likewise, we must recall that "between Creator and creature no similitude can be expressed without implying an even greater dissimilitude"; and that "concerning God, we cannot grasp what he is, but only what he is not, and how other beings stand in relation to him."

Canadian Malcontent

4th November 2006, 06:06 AM

" God is love"
" God is infinite and eternal"
" In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God"

Its in the Bible.
This illustrates how difficult it is to argue the question of ; God?
as well as to argue when one position is faith-based and the other science based.
Perhaps we should begin by comparing, from both positions, our information?

Your friend,
Canadian Malcontent

RandFan

4th November 2006, 10:41 AM

But if we can't ever know the Real Truth (as opposed to the Observed Truth), then what's the point in even looking for it?

If we can't know Truth, we can't know if we are close to it or not. If all science can do is get us closer to knowing a hallucination of Truth, then how is that "better" or "more progressive" than devoting your life to some slavish religion? What makes scientific progression worthwhile if Truth is unknowable? It's just another waste of time.

Truly this is the most depressing viewpoint I have ever read on this board!This is just an emotional response and it is not rational. You are letting your ego and world view color your perception.

First, let's dispense of a straw man. Perception doesn't equate to "hallucination". If you want to perceive it that way that is fine but there is no basis for such a view.

Second, the reason a scientific view doesn't hold dogmatically to truth is that such dogmatism is antithetical to finding the truth. We have to be willing to question our assumptions.

Finally, a scientific view allows for words like fact and truth. A sound scientific view does not allow for terms like absolute fact or absolute truth because such a view tends to stop progress not advance it. The more we observe and test a hypothesis and the results of the test confirm the hypothesis then the more certain we are of the proposition and at some point we hold the proposition as true but we do so provisionally. That means we can change the position should better data come along.

From talk origins:

In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Dumb All Over

5th November 2006, 08:24 AM

I'm an atheist and do not believe in "God". Yet, I find myself using the word "god" virtually every day. My very favorite curse word is "goddamnit." I chuckle to myself each time I say it, realizing the irony involved.

The word "god" is obviously a real word and merits definition. Most seem to define it as something which is a conscious, thinking entity apart from that which is objectively observable. It connotes mystery and allows for the, heretofore, unanswerable.

I require a word that describes such mysteries without ascribing separate consciousness. The word "god" fits that bill if it is defined as "the sum of all things." Another way to put it is to say that God is a moniker for the Universe.

hammegk

5th November 2006, 08:41 AM

"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
The difference between agnosticism and atheism ... :)

Zygar

6th November 2006, 12:00 AM

Aren't you going to tell us what sacrifices you require? Worship procedures?

My commandments:

1) Send me your attractive daughters.

That is all.

I less than three logic

6th November 2006, 09:10 AM

The difference between agnosticism and atheism ... :)
I could agree with this, though probably not how you intended. My atheism isn’t certain; I don’t claim to know gods don’t exist, I just don’t happen to believe they do. The evidence isn’t convincing to me. However, I’m quite willing to admit the possibility exists that I’m wrong. On the other hand, agnosticism is the absolute certainty that the existence of god(s), whether any exist or not, is completely unknowable. I’d think that some omnipotent being would possess the power to let its existence to be known, so I doubt agnosticism is correct.

Besides, agnosticism is still a form of atheism. Theism and atheism are binary; they’re mutually exclusive and exhaustive. One either believes or not, and anything that isn’t belief that god(s) exists is atheism. It makes no difference if you’re agnostic and simply haven’t made up your mind or a militant antitheist, if you can’t say “I believe god(s) exists”, you’re an atheist.

That's my :twocents: anyway. :)

hammegk

6th November 2006, 10:26 AM

I could agree with this, though probably not how you intended. My atheism isn’t certain; I don’t claim to know gods don’t exist, I just don’t happen to believe they do.
Which to me means you are agnostic, but we've beaten that topic to death several times here and I conclude 'each to his own'. :)

In a broader context, I'd say only a "real atheist; i.e. 100% certain" can logically defend materialism as a worldview.

Feel free to respond to my sig question. That's what it alludes to. ;)

Apathia

6th November 2006, 11:10 AM

In a broader context, I'd say only a "real atheist; i.e. 100% certain" can logically defend materialism as a worldview.

Feel free to respond to my sig question. That's what it alludes to. ;)

You make it so hard to be an Atheist! Can't you give us an Atheist Lite position?
Atheist Lite doesn't believe in the Theistic Gods.

I less than three logic

6th November 2006, 11:32 AM

Which to me means you are agnostic, but we've beaten that topic to death several times here and I conclude 'each to his own'. :)
I'd agree to this as well. Agonistic atheist seems like an accurate description. :)

In a broader context, I'd say only a "real atheist; i.e. 100% certain" can logically defend materialism as a worldview.

Feel free to respond to my sig question. That's what it alludes to. ;)
If one believed 100% in materialism, then yes, he/she would be required to believe 100% that no gods exist. However, I don’t know that materialism is true, or that idealism is true. Hell, even dualism may be true; I happen to find it illogical, but I don’t see any reason the universe must conform to what we think is logical.

The problem is I’m not omniscient, are you? If we absolutely prove materialism is false, then I’d conclude that gods may exist. If we absolutely prove that gods do exist, then that would prove materialism false. I’ll allow for both possibilities because I haven’t seen anyone absolutely prove that materialism is true, nor have I seen anyone absolutely prove that it is false. Have you?

So for right now, until any of those are proven, I’ll continue to think that gods probably do not exist, and since the non existence of gods is compatible with materialism, I’ll leave materialism open as a possible metaphysical reality.

Darth Rotor

6th November 2006, 02:15 PM

I'm sure He does.

(I am not an RC.) The one thing I suspect about God (that we puny humans have gotten wrong) is that God is beyond gender. Gender is a limitation of earthly human flesh, bone, and blood. The convention and usage of "he" and "He" and even Jesus' references to "Father" is an artifact of speech. I find it similar to the convention used, until the useless trash that is PC came along, of "mailman" and to "each his own" without the "to each his/her own" or "mailperson" zero value added variance.

DR

rwp

6th November 2006, 02:25 PM

The infinite divine being, one in being yet three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God has revealed himself as the "One who is," as truth and love, as creator of all that is, as the author of divine revelation, and as the source of salvation

Who is the Father? Please define the Father.

Darth Rotor

6th November 2006, 02:29 PM

Who is the Father? Please define the Father.
Please define a stop sign.

DR

Huntster

6th November 2006, 02:35 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster
I'm sure He does.
(I am not an RC.) The one thing I suspect about God (that we puny humans have gotten wrong) is that God is beyond gender. Gender is a limitation of earthly human flesh, bone, and blood. The convention and usage of "he" and "He" and even Jesus' references to "Father" is an artifact of speech. I find it similar to the convention used, until the useless trash that is PC came along, of "mailman" and to "each his own" without the "to each his/her own" or "mailperson" zero value added variance.

You are, of course, very correct, and RCC doctrine recognizes and outlines that reality.

rwp

6th November 2006, 02:38 PM

Please define a stop sign.

DR

Perhaps you should start a stop sign definition thread. This one is about God (or perhaps your God is a stop sign). :p

Darth Rotor

6th November 2006, 02:43 PM

Perhaps you should start a stop sign definition thread. This one is about God (or perhaps your God is a stop sign). :p
No, and not FSM either. But thanks for asking. :)

Huntster provided a pretty decent bit of background, and you want to play games with words about the doctrine of a Triune God. In case you missed it: Since our knowledge of God is limited, our LANGUAGE about him is equally so. We can name God only by taking creatures as our starting point, and in accordance with our limited human ways of knowing and thinking.

The three in one deal: you either buy it, or you don't.

On the up side, stop signs are nice and simple, and roughly two dimensional. This makes for a nice, shallow, understandable symbol suited to nice, shallow, two dimensional thinking.

Also handy for traffic safety. :)

DR

Jon.

6th November 2006, 02:44 PM

I'm sure He does.

I'm sure there are characteristics. What they are, and how to describe them, eludes me. They elude us all.

Perhaps this (http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect1.htm) can help:

It seems to me that if we have such difficulty talking about the characteristics of god(s), we should not be so eager to postulate its/their existence, and much less eager to declare it/them to be worthy of worship.

rwp

6th November 2006, 02:45 PM

Huntster

6th November 2006, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster
The infinite divine being, one in being yet three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God has revealed himself as the "One who is," as truth and love, as creator of all that is, as the author of divine revelation, and as the source of salvation
Who is the Father? Please define the Father.

In my own words, I understand "The Father" as being the original, or foundation of God. When Christ was conceived, Mary was filled with the Holy Spirit, which I understand is the "spirit of Love between God and Christ". Christ was born of God and woman, thus was half human, half divine, thus being the "Son of God."

In RCC doctrine: (http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/index.htm)

FATHER, GOD, THE: God, the first Person of the Blessed Trinity. Jesus revealed that God is Father in a unique way: not only as Creator, the origin of all things, but also as eternal Father in his relationship to his only Son, who is eternally begotten of the Father and consubstantial with the Father

More RCC doctrine (to complete the definitions of the Trinity):

JESUS CHRIST: The eternal Son of God, who was born of the Virgin Mary, suffered crucifixion and death, rose from the dead and ascended into heaven, and will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. "Jesus," which means "God saves" in Hebrew, was the name given to him at the Annunciation; "Christ" is a title which comes from the Greek translation of the Hebrew Messiah and means "anointed".

HOLY SPIRIT: The third divine Person of the Blessed Trinity, the personal love of Father and Son for each other. Also called the Paraclete (Advocate) and Spirit of Truth, the Holy Spirit is at work with the Father and the Son from the beginning to the completion of the divine plan for our salvation.

rwp

6th November 2006, 02:48 PM

rwp

6th November 2006, 03:01 PM

No, and not FSM either. But thanks for asking. :)

Huntster provided a pretty decent bit of background, and you want to play games with words about the doctrine of a Triune God. In case you missed it: Since our knowledge of God is limited, our LANGUAGE about him is equally so. We can name God only by taking creatures as our starting point, and in accordance with our limited human ways of knowing and thinking.

The three in one deal: you either buy it, or you don't.

On the up side, stop signs are nice and simple, and roughly two dimensional. This makes for a nice, shallow, understandable symbol suited to nice, shallow, two dimensional thinking.

Also handy for traffic safety. :)

DR

I don't intend to play word games. I intend to understand perceptions. I am very interested in what Hunster (and others) think(s) about God - not to argue or belittle, but to understand.

Mr Clingford

6th November 2006, 03:34 PM

Christ was born of God and woman, thus was half human, half divine, thus being the "Son of God."In traditional Xtian theology I thought Jesus is fully God and fully human, not half and half.

I think that academic of literature Terry Eagleton says some interesting things about the nature of the Xtian God in his review of Dawkin's The God Delusion, eg.,

"For Judeo-Christianity, God is not a person in the sense that Al Gore arguably is. Nor is he a principle, an entity, or ‘existent’: in one sense of that word it would be perfectly coherent for religious types to claim that God does not in fact exist. He is, rather, the condition of possibility of any entity whatsoever, including ourselves. He is the answer to why there is something rather than nothing. God and the universe do not add up to two, any more than my envy and my left foot constitute a pair of objects.

This, not some super-manufacturing, is what is traditionally meant by the claim that God is Creator. He is what sustains all things in being by his love; and this would still be the case even if the universe had no beginning. To say that he brought it into being ex nihilo is not a measure of how very clever he is, but to suggest that he did it out of love rather than need. The world was not the consequence of an inexorable chain of cause and effect. Like a Modernist work of art, there is no necessity about it at all, and God might well have come to regret his handiwork some aeons ago. The Creation is the original acte gratuit. God is an artist who did it for the sheer love or hell of it, not a scientist at work on a magnificently rational design that will impress his research grant body no end.

Because the universe is God’s, it shares in his life, which is the life of freedom. This is why it works all by itself, and why science and Richard Dawkins are therefore both possible. The same is true of human beings: God is not an obstacle to our autonomy and enjoyment but, as Aquinas argues, the power that allows us to be ourselves. Like the unconscious, he is closer to us than we are to ourselves. He is the source of our self-determination, not the erasure of it. To be dependent on him, as to be dependent on our friends, is a matter of freedom and fulfilment. Indeed, friendship is the word Aquinas uses to characterise the relation between God and humanity.

Dawkins, who is as obsessed with the mechanics of Creation as his Creationist opponents, understands nothing of these traditional doctrines. Nor does he understand that because God is transcendent of us (which is another way of saying that he did not have to bring us about), he is free of any neurotic need for us and wants simply to be allowed to love us. Dawkins’s God, by contrast, is Satanic. Satan (‘accuser’ in Hebrew) is the misrecognition of God as Big Daddy and punitive judge, and Dawkins’s God is precisely such a repulsive superego. This false consciousness is overthrown in the person of Jesus, who reveals the Father as friend and lover rather than judge. Dawkins’s Supreme Being is the God of those who seek to avert divine wrath by sacrificing animals, being choosy in their diet and being impeccably well behaved. They cannot accept the scandal that God loves them just as they are, in all their moral shabbiness. This is one reason St Paul remarks that the law is cursed. Dawkins sees Christianity in terms of a narrowly legalistic notion of atonement – of a brutally vindictive God sacrificing his own child in recompense for being offended – and describes the belief as vicious and obnoxious. It’s a safe bet that the Archbishop of Canterbury couldn’t agree more. It was the imperial Roman state, not God, that murdered Jesus."

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html

joobz

6th November 2006, 03:52 PM

rwp

6th November 2006, 04:15 PM

In the TED talk of Dawkins, he claims and references Feyman's same claim that current quantum mechanics is unknowable (effectively). He quotes Feyman's saying, "If someone claims to understand quantum theory, they don't know quantum theory."

Yet, this doesn't detract from quantum mechanics being the best description of the atomic scale.

So, why would an inability to define/describe/know god demonstate the illogical nature of god?

As to my definition of god...um, tapioca, maybe?

People talk about God as if they do know who or what God is. I would like to see what they are seeing. Some claims for God can be questioned; other claims are unknowable.

The theory of quantum mechanics is based on observable events. It can be questioned, studied, analyzed, taken apart.

If there is a book that claims that God created the universe, is that a hypothesis or a well proven theory? If so, then what is God and how do you know?

Darth Rotor

6th November 2006, 04:33 PM

I don't intend to play word games. I intend to understand perceptions. I am very interested in what Hunster (and others) think(s) about God - not to argue or belittle, but to understand.
And I was being a bit of a smart arse as well.

My bad. :(

DR

Huntster

6th November 2006, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster
I'm sure He does.

I'm sure there are characteristics. What they are, and how to describe them, eludes me. They elude us all.

Perhaps this can help:
Is it right to say that, in your perspective, God is something unknowable?

No doubt about it.

RCC doctrine is the current product of 2,000 years of reflection, prayer, study, discussion, etc. It isn't fact, it's the product of many theologians theories. There has even been Marian apparitions from which messages were received which dealt with RCC debate at that time regarding theology (Lourdes comes to mind).

If you subscribe to the definition of "know" that I do (to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty), and if you recognize that God must be a very, very complicated figure, we clearly cannot "know" Him and of Him very well at all, at least today. Maybe we'll know more in a few more millenium.

But now, at least, we are forced to continue to reflect, pray, study, discuss, and otherwise exercise faith.

joobz

6th November 2006, 04:37 PM

If there is a book that claims that God created the universe, is that a hypothesis or a well proven theory? If so, then what is God and how do you know?

Does it matter?

As with quantum example, sure it can be tested and evaluated... but assumptions are made that don't have an understandable meaning. What is a wavefunction? that's not to say we can't understand it, but that the current model isn't accurate enough to provide the insight.

Similarly, we know newtonian mechanics to be false. Yet in the mesoscale (what dawkin's liked to call middle world) it fits the sumation of quantum events perfectly well. So we still use this model to make sense of the world.

So, someone uses god as a model for all they can't grasp. Sure maybe it's a flawed model, but it helps that person cope. Is that wrong? It is when it calls upon them to force others to use the same model, but what if someone wishes to happily remain with their god model and it makes that individual a productive member of society?

What if that person is comforted by that notion. That person doesn't need to get into the minutia of it to make them happy. they just are.

Now i've heard some lambast believers for wanting to believe. again I ask why the attack on that.

If a person forces their god-view on you...then open season.
If a person doesn't force that view on you...then perhaps don't force yours on theirs.

BTW, feel free to force any opinion on me. I'm open for debate.:)

Huntster

6th November 2006, 04:37 PM

I don't intend to play word games. I intend to understand perceptions. I am very interested in what Hunster (and others) think(s) about God - not to argue or belittle, but to understand.

I can sense that in your posts and questions, and would be pleased to write to you what I believe.

rwp

6th November 2006, 04:46 PM

Does it matter?

As with quantum example, sure it can be tested and evaluated... but assumptions are made that don't have an understandable meaning. What is a wavefunction? that's not to say we can't understand it, but that the current model isn't accurate enough to provide the insight.

Similarly, we know newtonian mechanics to be false. Yet in the mesoscale (what dawkin's liked to call middle world) it fits the sumation of quantum events perfectly well. So we still use this model to make sense of the world.

So, someone uses god as a model for all they can't grasp. Sure maybe it's a flawed model, but it helps that person cope. Is that wrong? It is when it calls upon them to force others to use the same model, but what if someone wishes to happily remain with their god model and it makes that individual a productive member of society?

What if that person is comforted by that notion. That person doesn't need to get into the minutia of it to make them happy. they just are.

Now i've heard some lambast believers for wanting to believe. again I ask why the attack on that.

If a person forces their god-view on you...then open season.
If a person doesn't force that view on you...then perhaps don't force yours on theirs.

BTW, feel free to force any opinion on me. I'm open for debate.:)

As for me, I am trying to better understand other's viewpoints. I am not looking for debate. I am asking questions the same way I would of anyone or anything. I enjoy being curious; it increases my understanding of the world around me.

Jekyll

6th November 2006, 04:46 PM

"He is, rather, the condition of possibility of any entity whatsoever, including ourselves."

I genuinely can not understand this sentence. Does it mean anything to anybody else?

Huntster

6th November 2006, 05:13 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster
Christ was born of God and woman, thus was half human, half divine, thus being the "Son of God."
In traditional Xtian theology I thought Jesus is fully God and fully human, not half and half.

You are correct: (http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt2art3.htm)

III. True God and True Man

The unique and altogether singular event of the Incarnation of the Son of God does not mean that Jesus Christ is part God and part man, nor does it imply that he is the result of a confused mixture of the divine and the human. He became truly man while remaining truly God. Jesus Christ is true God and true man. During the first centuries, the Church had to defend and clarify this truth of faith against the heresies that falsified it.

Thanks for the correction.

The Eagleton quote you cited is good reading. It is very similar to what I've been taught by some of the priests in my life.

chris epic

6th November 2006, 07:39 PM

God is defined through the expression and mystery of its creation

joobz

6th November 2006, 07:48 PM

"He is, rather, the condition of possibility of any entity whatsoever, including ourselves." I genuinely can not understand this sentence. Does it mean anything to anybody else?
I believe he's stating that god is life or that god is life can happen.

Jekyll

7th November 2006, 11:36 AM

I believe he's stating that god is life or that god is life can happen.

Ah, thank you. I always find these theists who don't believe that god exists* confusing.

*In normal sense of the word.

Mr Clingford

7th November 2006, 11:49 AM

Ah, thank you. I always find these theists who don't believe that god exists* confusing.

*In normal sense of the word.I think that a read of the review I posted might help a bit more as it isn't too simple.

Jekyll

8th November 2006, 04:45 AM

I think that a read of the review I posted might help a bit more as it isn't too simple.

I did read it. That sentence turned out to be the linchpin of a large section of his argument. Which basically said "Dawkins doesn't refute this god." and I had trouble understanding which god he was on about.

Maybe you could fill me in on why "the condition of [a] possibility of [life existing]" is meant to be god. He's calling a set of possible states of the universe god, and claiming that god is not also something else independent of the universe ("this universe and god don't add up to two").

That's fine, but why is this meant to be a god? It can not (as he points out) be said to be an entity or even to be aware of us; it does not send prophets or offer us an afterlife; it just is the universe doing its thing. It is obviously something worth of respect and capable of inspiring great awe but I have great trouble understanding that it could be said to be a god.

Mr Clingford

8th November 2006, 05:00 AM

I did read it. That sentence turned out to be the linchpin of a large section of his argument. Which basically said "Dawkins doesn't refute this god." and I had trouble understanding which god he was on about.

Maybe you could fill me in on why "the condition of [a] possibility of [life existing]" is meant to be god. He's calling a set of possible states of the universe god, and claiming that god is not also something else independent of the universe ("this universe and god don't add up to two").

That's fine, but why is this meant to be a god? It can not (as he points out) be said to be an entity or even to be aware of us; it does not send prophets or offer us an afterlife; it just is the universe doing its thing. It is obviously something worth of respect and capable of inspiring great awe but I have great trouble understanding that it could be said to be a god.He isn't saying that the universe, or possible universe states, are God but that God is not something like anything else, in fact he isn't a thing at all. God is omething of a different type of reality to the universe, to what we know, that's why talking about God can be very awkward. The universe sort of 'rests' in God, has its being in God. A wiki page says a little about this type of thinking which states that language can't describe God very well, Apophatic Theology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophatic_theology.

But this is still an orthodox Christian God that interacts with people. Just, perhaps, not one that is talked about by fundamentalists! They might benefit from theology!

Jekyll

8th November 2006, 06:15 AM

He isn't saying that the universe, or possible universe states, are God but that God is not something like anything else, in fact he isn't a thing at all. God is omething of a different type of reality to the universe, to what we know, that's why talking about God can be very awkward. The universe sort of 'rests' in God, has its being in God.

So presumably then, god is not just, "the condition of possibility of any entity whatsoever, including ourselves", but something more than this.

A wiki page says a little about this type of thinking which states that language can't describe God very well, Apophatic Theology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophatic_theology.
I'm having trouble getting my head round this. Presumably saying, "God is not evil." opens yourself up to the same problems as saying, "God is good." in that you now limit your understanding god to the concept of "not evil" much s you would otherwise limit your understanding of him to being "good".

At the same time if you believe that god has interacted with the world, you should allow positive statements about what he has done otherwise you're forced to say, "God did not not create the world."

fuelair

8th November 2006, 06:31 AM

If you believe in God, define God

Can't define it (and don't believe it) but I'll know it when I see it!! OOh, wait a minute - that's pornography! Never mind.

chriswl

8th November 2006, 12:08 PM

I think that academic of literature Terry Eagleton says some interesting things about the nature of the Xtian God in his review of Dawkin's The God Delusion, eg.,
What a load of pants!

"For Judeo-Christianity, God is not a person in the sense that Al Gore arguably is. Nor is he a principle, an entity, or ‘existent’: in one sense of that word it would be perfectly coherent for religious types to claim that God does not in fact exist. He is, rather, the condition of possibility of any entity whatsoever, including ourselves. He is the answer to why there is something rather than nothing. God and the universe do not add up to two, any more than my envy and my left foot constitute a pair of objects.
Even if this made any sense philosophically (answering the question of why there is something rather than nothing by proposing a something...) which it doesn't, it is not a description of "Judeo-Christianity". The vast majority of believers would strongly disagree with this as a description of God. This is just a post-modern, academic take on Judeo-Christianity.

This, not some super-manufacturing, is what is traditionally meant by the claim that God is Creator. He is what sustains all things in being by his love
Whoa, God is not a person but now he has "love". All of a sudden we are anthropomorphising him. How can a "condition of possibility" have love? And in what sense would his love "sustain" me. The universe seems to do a pretty good job of sustaining itself, only one creation event is generally thought to have been needed.

and this would still be the case even if the universe had no beginning. To say that he brought it into being ex nihilo is not a measure of how very clever he is, but to suggest that he did it out of love rather than need. The world was not the consequence of an inexorable chain of cause and effect. Like a Modernist work of art, there is no necessity about it at all, and God might well have come to regret his handiwork some aeons ago. The Creation is the original acte gratuit. God is an artist who did it for the sheer love or hell of it, not a scientist at work on a magnificently rational design that will impress his research grant body no end.
The "condition of possibility" is feeling "regret" now. If he feels regret then presumably the fickle artist doesn't love us any more. So what is now "sustaining" us?

God is not an obstacle to our autonomy and enjoyment but, as Aquinas argues, the power that allows us to be ourselves. Like the unconscious, he is closer to us than we are to ourselves. He is the source of our self-determination, not the erasure of it.
Pure sophistry. How could we be less autonomous without God?

To be dependent on him, as to be dependent on our friends, is a matter of freedom and fulfilment. Indeed, friendship is the word Aquinas uses to characterise the relation between God and humanity.
Yet more anthropomorphism from someone who supposedly is arguing against Dawkins' "caricature" personal God.

Dawkins, who is as obsessed with the mechanics of Creation as his Creationist opponents, understands nothing of these traditional doctrines. Nor does he understand that because God is transcendent of us (which is another way of saying that he did not have to bring us about), he is free of any neurotic need for us and wants simply to be allowed to love us.
But he doesn't have to love us. Maybe he has no interest in us or finds us annoying? The whole love thing seems to be pure wishful thinking. A longing for the security of childhood and the love of an omnipotent parent figure.

Dawkins’s God, by contrast, is Satanic. Satan (‘accuser’ in Hebrew) is the misrecognition of God as Big Daddy and punitive judge, and Dawkins’s God is precisely such a repulsive superego.
Dawkins doesn't have a God. The repulsive character is straight out of the bible.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

8th November 2006, 12:11 PM

It's never gonna happen, my friends.

~~ Paul

Mr Clingford

8th November 2006, 03:04 PM

What a load of pants!

Even if this made any sense philosophically (answering the question of why there is something rather than nothing by proposing a something...) which it doesn't, it is not a description of "Judeo-Christianity". The vast majority of believers would strongly disagree with this as a description of God. This is just a post-modern, academic take on Judeo-Christianity.

Whoa, God is not a person but now he has "love". All of a sudden we are anthropomorphising him. How can a "condition of possibility" have love? And in what sense would his love "sustain" me. The universe seems to do a pretty good job of sustaining itself, only one creation event is generally thought to have been needed.

The "condition of possibility" is feeling "regret" now. If he feels regret then presumably the fickle artist doesn't love us any more. So what is now "sustaining" us?

Pure sophistry. How could we be less autonomous without God?

Yet more anthropomorphism from someone who supposedly is arguing against Dawkins' "caricature" personal God.

But he doesn't have to love us. Maybe he has no interest in us or finds us annoying? The whole love thing seems to be pure wishful thinking. A longing for the security of childhood and the love of an omnipotent parent figure.

Dawkins doesn't have a God. The repulsive character is straight out of the bible.Ah, Chris, I am very disappointed as it appears that you haven't taken much time to read the review. I am somewhat tired so will only say a little tonight. The review states the traditional Xtian view that God is not a something like the universe or anything in it. The kind of Xtian thinking has been taking place for hundreds of years and is not, therefore, a recent purely academic idea but has formed part of the Xtian for a very long time. It is found, therefore, in Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican Xtianity.

BTW Terry Eagleton is not a Xtian but an atheist.

Canadian Malcontent

9th November 2006, 04:57 AM

Again

" God is love."
"God is infinite and eternal"
" In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God"
" I am that I am"
Thats the Bible describing God. It works for me.

Mr Clingford

9th November 2006, 05:16 AM

So presumably then, god is not just, "the condition of possibility of any entity whatsoever, including ourselves", but something more than this.But the review, and Xtianity, is not saying that God is just that.

Re Apophatic theologyI'm having trouble getting my head round this. Presumably saying, "God is not evil." opens yourself up to the same problems as saying, "God is good." in that you now limit your understanding god to the concept of "not evil" much s you would otherwise limit your understanding of him to being "good".

At the same time if you believe that god has interacted with the world, you should allow positive statements about what he has done otherwise you're forced to say, "God did not not create the world."As the author of the wiki articles states, "In negative theology, it is recognized that we can never truly define God in words. All that can be done is to say, it isn't this, but also, it isn't that either. In the end, the student must transcend words to understand the nature of the Divine. In this sense, negative theology is not a denial. Rather, it is an assertion that whatever the Divine may be, when we attempt to capture it in human words, we must inevitably fall short." Apophatic theology is a tool that can be very useful in some circumstances.

Xtians, therefore, do wish to assert things about God, but are aware that words referring to highly abstract concepts can be somewhat inaccurate.

chriswl

9th November 2006, 10:19 AM

Ah, Chris, I am very disappointed as it appears that you haven't taken much time to read the review.
I only read the part you posted. If the rest is of a similar quality then I don't want to read it - that kind of sophistry makes me feel physically sick.

I am somewhat tired so will only say a little tonight. The review states the traditional Xtian view that God is not a something like the universe or anything in it. The kind of Xtian thinking has been taking place for hundreds of years and is not, therefore, a recent purely academic idea but has formed part of the Xtian for a very long time. It is found, therefore, in Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican Xtianity.
I don't see a coherent idea at all. I see a lot of equivocation about what the Christian God is. He becomes different (contradictory) things depending on what argument you are trying to defend against. I am aware there is a long tradition of this sort of dishonest argument in Christianity and Eagleton is not being particularly original here. This kind of stuff is not really rational argument at all, its just rhetorical weapons that the faithful use to ward off awkward questions.

BTW Terry Eagleton is not a Xtian but an atheist.
And a Marxist to boot. Perhaps it was a satire on bad Christian writing? You can never be quite sure with us Brits whether we're being ironic.

Bill Thompson

9th November 2006, 10:48 AM

rwp

9th November 2006, 11:29 AM

Again

" God is love."
"God is infinite and eternal"
" In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God"
" I am that I am"
Thats the Bible describing God. It works for me.

Are these the only parts of the Bible that you accept to describe God? What do you think about the Old Testament descriptions of God and His interactions with people?

ETA: Do you include the wrathful definitions as well?

God is a righteous judge, a God who expresses his wrath every day.

chriswl

9th November 2006, 12:51 PM

"That which no greater can be thought"
Now we just have to define "great".

Marquis de Carabas

9th November 2006, 01:03 PM

Now we just have to define "great".
Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=great&r=66) gives...

22. (used ironically or facetiously to express disappointment, annoyance, distress, etc.)

...as in "Great, it's the f:Dking ontological argument."

Dunstan

9th November 2006, 02:06 PM

Again
" I am that I am"
Thats the Bible describing God. It works for me.

No, I believe that was Popeye describing himself.

I less than three logic

9th November 2006, 03:06 PM

No, I believe that was Popeye describing himself.
Nah, I think Popeye was, "I am what I am." Subtle, but important difference... I think. :)

Dunstan

9th November 2006, 03:44 PM

Nah, I think Popeye was, "I am what I am." Subtle, but important difference... I think. :)

Well, if we're being pedantic, it's "I yam what I yam." Between the yams and the spinach, that Popeye was really hung up on vegetables.

I less than three logic

9th November 2006, 04:01 PM

Well, if we're being pedantic, it's "I yam what I yam." Between the yams and the spinach, that Popeye was really hung up on vegetables.
:D

Mr Clingford

10th November 2006, 05:48 AM

I only read the part you posted. If the rest is of a similar quality then I don't want to read it - that kind of sophistry makes me feel physically sick.Well, I hope that your lunch can stay down. How is it sophistry? Perhaps it would be helpful if you read the full Eagleton review and not just my quotation.

I don't see a coherent idea at all. I see a lot of equivocation about what the Christian God is. He becomes different (contradictory) things depending on what argument you are trying to defend against. I am aware there is a long tradition of this sort of dishonest argument in Christianity and Eagleton is not being particularly original here. This kind of stuff is not really rational argument at all, its just rhetorical weapons that the faithful use to ward off awkward questions.But you write above in post 103,
"Even if this made any sense philosophically (answering the question of why there is something rather than nothing by proposing a something...) which it doesn't, it is not a description of "Judeo-Christianity". The vast majority of believers would strongly disagree with this as a description of God. This is just a post-modern, academic take on Judeo-Christianity."

This seems contradictory to me.

In the same post, 103, I quote Eagleton stating,
"For Judeo-Christianity, God is not a person in the sense that Al Gore arguably is."

But you then write
"Whoa, God is not a person but now he has "love". All of a sudden we are anthropomorphising him. How can a "condition of possibility" have love?"

You quote the part which states that God is a person, but not in the usual ‘human’ sense, and then you write that God is not a person. I am interested in having conversations, but if you try and dismiss what I say without reading it properly it can get a bit annoying. Perhaps you would like to read the Eagleton review and then restate your objections to the Xtianity discussed in it.

And a Marxist to boot. Perhaps it was a satire on bad Christian writing? You can never be quite sure with us Brits whether we're being ironic.If you read the review you would see that Eagleton was not writing a satire but saying that he respects this; he writes, “The mainstream theology I have just outlined may well not be true; but anyone who holds it is in my view to be respected”.

chriswl

10th November 2006, 08:15 AM

But you write above in post 103,
"Even if this made any sense philosophically (answering the question of why there is something rather than nothing by proposing a something...) which it doesn't, it is not a description of "Judeo-Christianity". The vast majority of believers would strongly disagree with this as a description of God. This is just a post-modern, academic take on Judeo-Christianity."

This seems contradictory to me.
No contradiction. The bit about God not being a person but a "condition of possibility" for our existence is not what the vast majority of Christians believe. But there is a long history of thinkers (not ordinary people) saying these kinds of deflationary things about God as counters to arguments against Gods existence when they don't really mean them - they still pray to him exactly as if he was a kind of person.

In the same post, 103, I quote Eagleton stating,
"For Judeo-Christianity, God is not a person in the sense that Al Gore arguably is."

But you then write
"Whoa, God is not a person but now he has "love". All of a sudden we are anthropomorphising him. How can a "condition of possibility" have love?"

You quote the part which states that God is a person, but not in the usual ‘human’ sense, and then you write that God is not a person.
So what kind of a person is God? I know, a special kind of person who can at the same time be the "condition of possibility" of all things. But can you really conceive of such a thing? I'll bet you can't. It doesn't make any sense.

If you claimed to believe this you would in fact be lying - no one believes this, they just mouth the words.

If you read the review you would see that Eagleton was not writing a satire but saying that he respects this; he writes, “The mainstream theology I have just outlined may well not be true; but anyone who holds it is in my view to be respected”.
I've just read it. He doesn't really expand on the bit you posted. He's just another tiresome agnostic who's rather suspiciously too keen to defend religion. What is it with these agnostics? Mind you, he does seem to have other agendas too:

These are not just the views of an enraged atheist. They are the opinions of a readily identifiable kind of English middle-class liberal rationalist. Reading Dawkins, who occasionally writes as though ‘Thou still unravish’d bride of quietness’ is a mighty funny way to describe a Grecian urn, one can be reasonably certain that he would not be Europe’s greatest enthusiast for Foucault, psychoanalysis, agitprop, Dadaism, anarchism or separatist feminism. All of these phenomena, one imagines, would be as distasteful to his brisk, bloodless rationality as the virgin birth. Yet one can of course be an atheist and a fervent fan of them all. His God-hating, then, is by no means simply the view of a scientist admirably cleansed of prejudice. It belongs to a specific cultural context. One would not expect to muster many votes for either anarchism or the virgin birth in North Oxford. (I should point out that I use the term North Oxford in an ideological rather than geographical sense. Dawkins may be relieved to know that I don’t actually know where he lives.)

There is a very English brand of common sense that believes mostly in what it can touch, weigh and taste, and The God Delusion springs from, among other places, that particular stable. At its most philistine and provincial, it makes Dick Cheney sound like Thomas Mann. The secular Ten Commandments that Dawkins commends to us, one of which advises us to enjoy our sex lives so long as they don’t damage others, are for the most part liberal platitudes. Dawkins quite rightly detests fundamentalists; but as far as I know his anti-religious diatribes have never been matched in his work by a critique of the global capitalism that generates the hatred, anxiety, insecurity and sense of humiliation that breed fundamentalism. Instead, as the obtuse media chatter has it, it’s all down to religion."
Yes, that's me too - an English middle-class rationalist who believes in common sense and scientific progress. What would Eagleton put in place of those?

Jekyll

10th November 2006, 08:32 AM

But the review, and Xtianity, is not saying that God is just that.
No this isn't working for me.
For Judeo-Christianity, God is not a person in the sense that Al Gore arguably is. Nor is he a principle, an entity, or ‘existent’: in one sense of that word it would be perfectly coherent for religious types to claim that God does not in fact exist. He is, rather, the condition of possibility of any entity whatsoever, including ourselves. He is the answer to why there is something rather than nothing.
To say that god is something that exists as something more than what we think of the universe (or multiverse or whatever), clearly contradicts the article by giving god a definite, independent existence. You can not hold that position and claim that in some sense god does not exist.

Re Apophatic theologyAs the author of the wiki articles states, "In negative theology, it is recognized that we can never truly define God in words. All that can be done is to say, it isn't this, but also, it isn't that either. In the end, the student must transcend words to understand the nature of the Divine. In this sense, negative theology is not a denial. Rather, it is an assertion that whatever the Divine may be, when we attempt to capture it in human words, we must inevitably fall short." Apophatic theology is a tool that can be very useful in some circumstances.
Apophatic theology quite simply falls short of addressing the problems it talks of. The negation of an idea is still an idea, carrying with it the same baggage and imposition of human understand upon god that A.T. worries about.

Mr Clingford

10th November 2006, 09:03 AM

No contradiction. The bit about God not being a person but a "condition of possibility" for our existence is not what the vast majority of Christians believe. But there is a long history of thinkers (not ordinary people) saying these kinds of deflationary things about God as counters to arguments against Gods existence when they don't really mean them - they still pray to him exactly as if he was a kind of person.But Xtianity says that God is the "condition of possibilty" for our existence and some sort of person too as you go on to state below. It is a bold statement that ordinary people do not say this as I have known many that do.

So what kind of a person is God? I know, a special kind of person who can at the same time be the "condition of possibility" of all things. But can you really conceive of such a thing? I'll bet you can't. It doesn't make any sense.

If you claimed to believe this you would in fact be lying - no one believes this, they just mouth the words.I'm really struggling to see the problem - are we having a semantics issue? It is orthodox Xtianity to say that God is beyond human understanding, beyond what the mind can conceive but that he is creator and that some sort of relating to him is possible.

I've just read it. He doesn't really expand on the bit you posted. He's just another tiresome agnostic who's rather suspiciously too keen to defend religion. What is it with these agnostics? Mind you, he does seem to have other agendas too:
These are not just the views of an enraged atheist. They are the opinions of a readily identifiable kind of English middle-class liberal rationalist. Reading Dawkins, who occasionally writes as though ‘Thou still unravish’d bride of quietness’ is a mighty funny way to describe a Grecian urn, one can be reasonably certain that he would not be Europe’s greatest enthusiast for Foucault, psychoanalysis, agitprop, Dadaism, anarchism or separatist feminism. All of these phenomena, one imagines, would be as distasteful to his brisk, bloodless rationality as the virgin birth. Yet one can of course be an atheist and a fervent fan of them all. His God-hating, then, is by no means simply the view of a scientist admirably cleansed of prejudice. It belongs to a specific cultural context. One would not expect to muster many votes for either anarchism or the virgin birth in North Oxford. (I should point out that I use the term North Oxford in an ideological rather than geographical sense. Dawkins may be relieved to know that I don’t actually know where he lives.)

There is a very English brand of common sense that believes mostly in what it can touch, weigh and taste, and The God Delusion springs from, among other places, that particular stable. At its most philistine and provincial, it makes Dick Cheney sound like Thomas Mann. The secular Ten Commandments that Dawkins commends to us, one of which advises us to enjoy our sex lives so long as they don’t damage others, are for the most part liberal platitudes. Dawkins quite rightly detests fundamentalists; but as far as I know his anti-religious diatribes have never been matched in his work by a critique of the global capitalism that generates the hatred, anxiety, insecurity and sense of humiliation that breed fundamentalism. Instead, as the obtuse media chatter has it, it’s all down to religion."

Yes, that's me too - an English middle-class rationalist who believes in common sense and scientific progress. What would Eagleton put in place of those?Yes, he does seem to have problems with Dawkins and his approach, but I have known atheists who were also fed up with Dawkins. I don't think that Eagleton has an issue with common sense but with positivism (I think) at "its most philistine and provincial" as well as Dawkins saying little about ecomomic issues (as a good Marxist should!). Eagleton takes issue with that notion of scientific progress beloved of the Victorians that was shattered by the 20th Century.

Mr Clingford

10th November 2006, 09:27 AM

No this isn't working for me.

To say that god is something that exists as something more than what we think of the universe (or multiverse or whatever), clearly contradicts the article by giving god a definite, independent existence. You can not hold that position and claim that in some sense god does not exist. God exists but not in the usual sense and that one has always to be aware of this difference; God does not exist in the way that we do but 'exists' in some way so far beyond us that it can make sense to cease using the word 'exist' at all.

Apophatic theology quite simply falls short of addressing the problems it talks of. The negation of an idea is still an idea, carrying with it the same baggage and imposition of human understand upon god that A.T. worries about.An interesting example is that it is possible to say that God is not good in the sense that he so far transcends our understanding of the term that it might become very inaccurate.

Marquis de Carabas

10th November 2006, 09:29 AM

God exists but not in the usual sense and that one has always to be aware of this difference; God does not exist in the way that we do but 'exists' in some way so far beyond us that it can make sense to cease using the word 'exist' at all.

An interesting example is that it is possible to say that God is not good in the sense that he so far transcends our understanding of the term that it might become very inaccurate.
Perhaps God is so beyond our understanding that the term God might become very innacurate and it can make sense to cease using the word God at all.

hammegk

10th November 2006, 09:34 AM

You are free to choose -- as a good materialist in a compatable way -- to believe (i.e. have faith) that the concept of god has no more meaning than the concept of jhjhkj. :)

Why are you discussing god? Why not talk about jhjhkj?

Marquis de Carabas

10th November 2006, 09:51 AM

Why are you discussing god? Why not talk about jhjhkj?
I thought perhaps someone would have something to say to distinguish god from jhjhkj. Seems I was wrong.

Mr Clingford

10th November 2006, 10:02 AM

Perhaps God is so beyond our understanding that the term God might become very innacurate and it can make sense to cease using the word God at all.OK, but we have to use some sound to discuss what some people believe they have experienced. Yes, language can be a blunt instrument.

Marquis de Carabas

10th November 2006, 10:12 AM

OK, but we have to use some sound to discuss what some people believe they have experienced. Yes, language can be a blunt instrument.
We have words to describe experiences. Let people use them, rather than attaching a nonsense syllable to an alleged author of those experiences.

Mr Clingford

10th November 2006, 10:20 AM

Apart from onomatopoeia all words are nonsense syllables.

Marquis de Carabas

10th November 2006, 10:22 AM

Apart from onomatopoeia all words are nonsense syllables.
Yes, which is why we attach definitions to them. If you will not allow (coherent) definitions to be appended to God, then the word remains nonsense.

hammegk

10th November 2006, 10:28 AM

We have words to describe experiences. Let people use them, rather than attaching a nonsense syllable to an alleged author of those experiences.
Some posters are doing just that. The word chosen to describe experiences some people 'believe' they have had is 'god'. Since as yet these experiences do not meet the standards (we would currently deem "objective") needed for scientific inquiry, we have our onging problem as typified by this thread.

Mr Clingford

10th November 2006, 10:28 AM

Mr Clingford

10th November 2006, 10:30 AM

Some posters are doing just that. The word chosen to describe experiences some people 'believe' they have had is 'god'. Since as yet these experiences do not meet the standards (we would currently deem "objective") needed for scientific inquiry, we have our onging problem as typified by this thread.Yes. Furthermore I'm not sure that they will ever meet standards for scientific enquiry.

Marquis de Carabas

10th November 2006, 10:30 AM

Some posters are doing just that. The word chosen to describe experiences some people 'believe' they have had is 'god'.
So god is the experience itself now? Yay, more definitions. Well, I define god as silliness, and therefore will begin worshipping this thread.

Mr Clingford

10th November 2006, 10:35 AM

So god is the experience itself now? Yay, more definitions. Well, I define god as silliness, and therefore will begin worshipping this thread.I didn't know that you were Humpty Dumpty.:D

Marquis de Carabas

10th November 2006, 10:42 AM

Indeed, but some things are very hard to put into words, whether some mathematics, feelings, experiences or God. With 'God' we can grope towards some rough ideas knowing that they are necessarily inaccurate and take lots and lots of words to gain some elucidation.
What elucidation have we gained?

God exists, but exists here means something different from what it normally means.
God is good, but good here means something different from what it normally means.

That clears things right up. Thanks.*

*Thanks here means something different from what it normally means.

Mr Clingford

10th November 2006, 10:45 AM

What elucidation have we gained?

God exists, but exists here means something different from what it normally means.
God is good, but good here means something different from what it normally means.

That clears things right up. Thanks.*

*Thanks here means something different from what it normally means.Well, lots and lots of words have not been used, have they?

Jekyll

10th November 2006, 10:49 AM

God exists but not in the usual sense and that one has always to be aware of this difference; God does not exist in the way that we do but 'exists' in some way so far beyond us that it can make sense to cease using the word 'exist' at all.
I'd ask you to elaborate but I think the whole point of your line of argument is to say that you can't.
An interesting example is that it is possible to say that God is not good in the sense that he so far transcends our understanding of the term that it might become very inaccurate.
Yes, but the same holds for "God is not evil", just as it can hold for "God is good."

As a non-believer looking in, the reason god must remain outside of comprehension is because his 'actions' are indistinguishable from blind chance and coincidence, otherwise week descriptors ~"often god is like this..." or "On Tuesdays he tends to smite more infidels." could fitted to his behaviour and he would be in part comprehensible.

hammegk

10th November 2006, 10:53 AM

Marquis de Carabas

10th November 2006, 10:54 AM

Well, lots and lots of words have not been used, have they?
In the pursuit of defining god, billions of words have been abused.

Huntster

10th November 2006, 11:07 AM

In the pursuit of defining god, billions of words have been abused.

In the pursit of God, billions of sins have been committed.

So?

chriswl

10th November 2006, 12:15 PM

I'm really struggling to see the problem - are we having a semantics issue? It is orthodox Xtianity to say that God is beyond human understanding, beyond what the mind can conceive but that he is creator and that some sort of relating to him is possible.
No, it's not a semantics issue. I'm completely serious. You can't use "beyond human understanding" as a general get-out-of-jail-free card in all arguments about God.

He can't be entirely beyond your understanding or you would have nothing to say about him at all. Believers have beliefs about him and a reasonable degree of confidence in some of them.

To say that God is the "condition of possibility" for our existence and that one can have a personal relationship with him is claiming some knowledge of God. I doubt that "condition of possibility" is coherent even on its own but a condition of possibility having a personality is clearly ridiculous.

Saying that God is beyond human understanding doesn't help here. What's being criticised is the gibberish that humans are saying about God. It can't be true about God because it can't be true about anything because its nonsense.

chriswl

10th November 2006, 12:33 PM

God exists but not in the usual sense and that one has always to be aware of this difference; God does not exist in the way that we do but 'exists' in some way so far beyond us that it can make sense to cease using the word 'exist' at all.

An interesting example is that it is possible to say that God is not good in the sense that he so far transcends our understanding of the term that it might become very inaccurate.
When you use words like "exists" and "good" you are using them in "the way that we normally do" or you are using them wrongly. It's a prerequisite of communication that we all agree to use words in the same way.

What you are actually saying above is that God does not exist and if he did exist we would have grounds for assuming that he is not actually very good. If God has something rather like existence, that is not actually existence, then you should find another name for it. How about "God is fictional"?

Huntster

10th November 2006, 01:22 PM

Originally Posted by Mr Clingford
I'm really struggling to see the problem - are we having a semantics issue? It is orthodox Xtianity to say that God is beyond human understanding, beyond what the mind can conceive but that he is creator and that some sort of relating to him is possible.
No, it's not a semantics issue. I'm completely serious. You can't use "beyond human understanding" as a general get-out-of-jail-free card in all arguments about God.

If you stepped out of your imaginary self-appointed jailer position, you'd see that "get-out-of-jai-free cards" aren't held or necessary for the faithful.

He can't be entirely beyond your understanding or you would have nothing to say about him at all. Believers have beliefs about him and a reasonable degree of confidence in some of them.

I agree completely with that.

To say that God is the "condition of possibility" for our existence and that one can have a personal relationship with him is claiming some knowledge of God.

Again, it's not "knowledge", but faith.

Saying that God is beyond human understanding doesn't help here.

Correct. Unfortunately, it is the truth.

chriswl

10th November 2006, 02:00 PM

Again, it's not "knowledge", but faith.
I can have faith in the existence of fire-breathing dragons, but not in the existence of four-sided triangles. I just can't do it. Defining a new category of unknowable shapes doesn't help here. It's cheating.

Our beliefs can have holes in them but not logical contradictions.

Huntster

10th November 2006, 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster
Again, it's not "knowledge", but faith.
I can have faith in the existence of fire-breathing dragons, but not in the existence of four-sided triangles.

That is incorrect. You can and may very well have faith in four-sided triangles.

Your faith may be misguided, but you are free to do so as you wish.

I just can't do it. Defining a new category of unknowable shapes doesn't help here. It's cheating.

It's only cheating when you know otherwise. And then you can't have that faith, because you know otherwise.

Our beliefs can have holes in them but not logical contradictions.

Belief and logic are two very different lines of approach.

chriswl

10th November 2006, 03:12 PM

That is incorrect. You can and may very well have faith in four-sided triangles.

Your faith may be misguided, but you are free to do so as you wish.
Suppose I said that I believe that four-sided triangles exist. Could I possibly be being honest here? Could I really mean it? I don't see how. I would have to be mistaken about what the word triangle meant if I was to claim this with any honesty.

It's only cheating when you know otherwise. And then you can't have that faith, because you know otherwise.
Yes and I know that four-sided triangles can't exist which is why I cannot have faith in them.

I cannot have faith in things that are logically impossible. And that includes definitions of God that are incoherent.

Huntster

11th November 2006, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster
That is incorrect. You can and may very well have faith in four-sided triangles.

Your faith may be misguided, but you are free to do so as you wish.

Suppose I said that I believe that four-sided triangles exist. Could I possibly be being honest here?

I doubt it.

morningstar2651

11th November 2006, 01:36 PM

Mr Clingford

13th November 2006, 09:52 AM

I haven't posted for a couple of days because I've been doing some thinking and reading over the weekend to try and clarify my thoughts with the hope of providing better statements. (I have to agree that the way I talk and what I say is not typical of many Xtians, and especially not of the fundamentalist religious right.)

I don't think it is possible to answer the question 'Define God' very well because the Xtian God is by definition, beyond full definition - being infinite he is not only beyond the scope of our finite minds but also our finite language and symbols. Xtians believe that 'knowledge' of God has been formed through revelations, but as a single human mind is small in comparision with the infinite it is not surprising that a revelation is not clear and unambiguous.

Religious language about God is, therefore, inexact, often in the form of metaphors and images, but some of them will be less inexact and misleading than others. Eg, God is 'good' but so much better and far beyond what we may understand by 'good' that the term may almost be inaccurate.

We have to use the word 'is' in relation to God because otherwise sentences would be very hard to construct as the copula forms such a fundamental part of language but as to what it may exactly mean cf the problems of Heidegger.

But I want to get to the idea of 'person'. It is more accurate to say that God is more like a person than not, that 'person' can describe something of the nature of God, but the full reality of God is far beyond anything that is understood by that term that one has to be careful in its usage. That's why some prefer to use the term 'personal' to describe God. It is possible, therefore, to relate to him without understanding well what he is as a young child can relate to a parent.

I am not deliberately trying to talk in a round-about way, but that is the nature of the beast that is God.

kurious_kathy

14th November 2006, 10:29 PM

If you believe in God, please take some time to define what/who you think God is.

It is difficult to read any discussion about God without an understanding of the underlying definitions or perceptions each person has of what/who God is. I would like to gain a better understanding of your personal perception of God (if you believe in God).

It's true everyone who believes in God must see Him in many different ways. Defining the character of God is something I think most of us who are believers try to take time to study the scriptures and learn more about.

The first thing that comes to my mind is Holy. God is holy and righteous. God is spirit, God is love. God is a father to the fatherless, he is the friend that never leaves, He's all knowing and all seeing. God is the author of life. He is powerful and awesome.

Who can know the mind of God? His ways are not are ways. God is always in control. Nothing can happen in this world that God doesn't know about. He is the author and finisher of our faith, at least for those that receive Him.

God is the only one that really matters. If we receive Christ then we receive God. God truely loved the world so much that He gave His only begotten Son that who so ever believes in Him shall not persih but have everlasting life.

God is our eternal heavenly father that wishes we all would believe in His gift of salvation. Jesus is the only one that makes it possible to have a relationship with God the Father!

donq

14th November 2006, 11:02 PM

I know you asked for believers to define god, but I ask your indulgence.

Many years ago I took a college religion course which defined god as one's ultimate concern. What you cherish most is your god.

To me god is a loaded word, meaning it implies the belief in a sentient, intelligent being - perhaps not a bearded manlike entity, but certainly a creature base on our own ideals or shortcomings (or combination of both). It also suggests an entity actively taking part in human affairs.

I cannot see how a god that is pure love - holy - righteous - or looking out for even the sparrow that falls in the field is capable of creating a nightmarish world like our own where organisms continually feed off each other, sometimes in horrible, painful ways. Evolution, however, not only explains how such a world could develop, but approaches it amorally. It simply is (is that Zen?). Evolution can't replace god, though, because you can't anthropomorphize evolution and still be talking science.

God is us.

Kopji

14th November 2006, 11:11 PM

Mr Clingford

15th November 2006, 06:21 AM

How would any of you know a deity existed unless some kind of genuine revelatory experience took place? The problem seems a simply stated one:

How does a deity make itself known to us so we will know we are not deceived?

If there were only one person in the world who had a genuine revelation, wouldn't it be holy, good, and right for that one person to hold to their views above all else? The truth told by that one person would outweigh billions of others without it. Truth has that quality.

So please, what evidence is offered that any view of God is genuine? That what you say is true? And if we are to use scriptures to know God, which ones? If the books could speak would they assert anything but that they were all true?My thinking is that there have been many revelations and that these are to be found in many religions, and, perhaps, secular people and writings. As humans are finite they can only grasp a fraction of the infinite and that fraction need not be clearly perceived. So many facets of the truth have been revealed, but partially and unclearly. I believe the greatest revelation was that of Jesus Christ, but adherents of all faiths and none may 'be saved'.