RE: Define God

RE: Define God (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DavanKael -> RE: Define God (8/3/2009 12:26:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Esinn quote: ORIGINAL: DavanKael ORIGINAL: Esinn I am trying to understand what god is so we can speak intelligently about it in other threads. Actually, I don't think you are based on the responses you've given some respondents. While they've stated their beliefs, you've taken stabs at people/been condescending to those who don't go in the direction you desire. That really doesn't make for open dialogue, it just makes people think that you're a jerk/that you have an axe to grind/etc. Davan (Who firmly believes that one can be godless and discuss god with polite people who believe in god without being rude) It is established by science that supernatural belief is controlled by a module in the brain. Any euphoric or spiritual feelings arising from discussion or personal prayer are internal mechanisms at work - not external. I showed this through detailed explanation, documented peer reviewed journals and by providing links which discuss existing medical technology used in the studies. I discussed the modern understanding of Psychology and belief dating back to Freud. I also discussed the 3 laws of logic which we humans call upon as frequently as we breathe. If I am mistaken or you feel some info I presented is intentionally deceptive let's discuss it. If you think presenting facts which logically challenge & criticize belief makes me a jerk, keep in mind although I understand the material the data collected is not my own. Thus far only one person whom I have not addressed yet seemed to put any thought into their reply. If you think me calling someone who is obviously incorrect incorrect or unable to defend their position in a logical fashion makes me a jerk again the problem is yours. Sometimes it is fun to make a point stick. Has not master or yourself chosen specific words to do so? If my choice or arrangement of words have truly hurt someone accept this be my apology - if my message has I offer nothing First and foremost, NEVER speak down to me. It shows much of your character that you would presume to speak down to someone and reference their identification as submissive (Which, in my case, is an erroneous supposition on your part, boy) in a negativistic fashion as part of doing so. You show your stripes: misogynist. Additionally, you mention psychology and Freud. As luck would have it, I have a post-Masters' education in psychology. I'm licensed and have been acknowledged to testify in Federal Court as an Expert witness. So, my dick's bigger. Your selective utilization of psychology, referencing an important figure who dates back less than a decade fails to take into account the roots of psychology that are in philosophy and of which religion/theology is a part. And, your apology that is actually a non-apology further secures my impression of you and I assure you, I remain unimpressed. Rather makes me wish to crack open the DSM-4R; I'm thinking Narcissistic Personality Disorder. There are those of us who engage on the boards in disagreements with others without beating them down. I engaged you politely yet you showed your inability to bring civility to the fore. You do those of us who are non-religious a disservice; you are not a benefit to our ranks. Davan

Rule -> RE: Define God (8/3/2009 1:15:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Esinn Neuroscience has found specific areas of the brain which activate when discussing religious belief. This region is responsible for the euphoric or 'godly' feelings we experience when we think about or share belief, the cause is internal not external. We active specific areas of our brain to create conceptual art(art only existing in our mind) to give it life on paper. We also access specific areas of our brain when we discuss our belief in the unknowable(gods) to give them "life". Considering that you have no idea about the nature of the Divine (it is a binary computer outside our universe), your assertion in bold cannot be conclusively defended. quote: ORIGINAL: Esinn "Religion is an illusion and it derives its strength from the fact that it falls in with our instinctual desires." --Sigmund Freud, New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis,1933. Quoting the opinion of an authority person does not make it a truth. quote: ORIGINAL: Esinn As a child we relied on imaginary friends. [:-] You did? That is fascinating. Please elaborate on your experience. quote: ORIGINAL: Esinn You mentioned the word 'faith'. I do not understand this term either. I suspected as much.

fadedshadow -> RE: Define God (8/3/2009 2:19:52 AM)
i define god simply as a higher power =]

tazzygirl -> RE: Define God (8/3/2009 2:35:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Esinn quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl LOL.. i said it was interesting.. i didnt say i believed it! i also notice you dont mention the other... no matter. Belief and faith cannot be changed based merely upon a discussion/debate. Psychologists cannot agree on the topic.. Courts hate ruling on it... Scientists cant prove or disprove it... even Religious leaders cant agree... and you want to debate? lol (This is really only a 2 minute read. It is an insightful, articulate and a meaningful beat down of the words above. It seems daunting because of the links & spacing - check it 'yo!) Complete and total BS, PrincessTT. I do not think it is your fault though. The modern understanding of belief is not something commonly discussed outside the scientific community. Neuroscience has found specific areas of the brain which activate when discussing religious belief. This region is responsible for the euphoric or 'godly' feelings we experience when we think about or share belief, the cause is internal not external.. We active specific areas of our brain to create conceptual art(art only existing in our mind) to give it life on paper. We also access specific areas of our brain when we discuss our belief in the unknowable(gods) to give them "life". http://content.karger.com/produktedb/produkte.asp?typ=fulltext&file=000104711 http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2589-paranormal-beliefs-linked-to-brain-chemistry.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/jun/30/psychology.neuroscience ("Belief has been a most powerful component of human nature that has somewhat been neglected," says Peter Halligan, a psychologist at Cardiff University. "But it has been capitalised on by marketing agents, politics and religion for the best part of two millennia.. . . That is changing") http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080515212112.htm http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a714013137 - this is not relevant to the discussion but relevant regardless. http://www.amazon.com/Neuropsychological-Bases-Beliefs-Michael-Persinger/dp/0275926486#reader http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/ftinterface~content=a713690607~fulltext=713240930 This is from Time: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1694723,00.html As far as psychology. . . Even Freud was outspoken about the dangers of religion: "Religion is an illusion and it derives its strength from the fact that it falls in with our instinctual desires." --Sigmund Freud, New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis,1933. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-58119451.html - about articles on false belief. I have not personally looked at these. (You can search for the hundreds of peer reviewed articles on your own. I would suggest you keep this study focused within the last 10 years) http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=K2xS27xyT0vG1rGBSywQhN60LR3Wp55ngzhK7hn4THHQBgyr3N14!-1042068674!299803806?docId=77025160 - this is a hum-dinger! As I mentioned earlier in this thread their is an entire field dedicated to dealing with incorrect, illogical, irrational or damaging personal core beliefs - Cognitive Behavior Therapy. A premise and 'law' of psychology as demonstrated by this field is beliefs lead to action and are the cause of emotion - years past we did not have the science to back it up now we do. Psychology also has a book known as the diagnostic statistic manual(Commonly called the bible of mental illness) it is dedicated to examining, understanding and treating mentally ill people. Many of these illnesses or unstable emotions are directly linked to beliefs. Logic leaves no room for flawed or broken beliefs either. Any belief no matter how strong the personal commitment to it, if it violates the three laws of logic it is meaningless. As for as courts disliking to rule on it. I have not heard that one. Possibly you can provide us with material where judges acknowledge the fact they hate to rule on it. Anthropologists have some to say about the evolution of belief as well. Evolutionary biology will also have it's say. I get it is not fully understood. However, it is no longer a mysterious, taboo or an off limit's topic. There is not a shred of evidence to suggest we will not completely comprehend how and why some people's brains desire, create, cling to or need belief. As a child we relied on imaginary friends. As adults gods/supernatural things become these ultimate protectors. We as humans rely on logic every waking moment of our life. Oddly enough we do not apply this logic to our beliefs, this is where some trouble comes in. When beliefs are looked at logically they typically fall apart or can be recognized as harmful and 'delt' with. However, beliefs are core to our personal nature, controlling our actions and emotions as demonstrated by CBT. Psychologically speaking it is a trying and painful process to challenge our beliefs especially when it is one deeply rooted by family or culture It has been a taboo for thousands of years to question, wish to examine, or constructively criticize the beliefs of ourselves or others. The trump card, "this is my belief not yours and I believe what I want - nay nay boo boo" has always been played; it is for this reason science has not been presented the opportunity to examine. The danger of false belief it's impact on personal emotions, action and psychological states along with the area of the brain responsible for this are now known. Because of this modern day understanding which we did not have 100 years ago , beliefs are up for extremely critical examination. You mentioned the word 'faith'. I do not understand this term either. I was involved in a good discussion with another CM member but the thread became too cluttered, I will try again. quote: Belief and faith cannot be changed based merely upon a discussion/debate. Firstly I do not desire to change anyone's beliefs. There are 15 million non theists living in this country - we need no more converts. However, I will make every attempt to discuss logically why I might be wrong - the truth does not hinge on conversion.. I was tempted to say the only method we have for transfer of knowledge is discussion. However, that is false. Discussion(interaction) with other humans does take the lions share though. As this is the case it is logical to extrapolate discussion is the top 5 methods deployed. The question is are people willing to logically examine their belief. 90% of the non-theist I have met in this country were a theists. Statistically speaking this is very likely and it was through discussion and strength they changed. Unlike their counterparts they frequently have pictures or old religious dogma stuffed away in a drawer as memories. I have pictures of many years of my life where I was actively forced to pursue beliefs I was too young to comprehend. I bet the vast majority of objections nit-pick the final paragraph and ignore the rest - this is how the mechanism of belief protects itself. I did present a lot of information but it was out of necessity. I will be less verbose in my next responses but would like to if possible discuss the material as a whole. While i know it wont keep you up at night... your attempts at belittlement are as pathetic as you. i will no longer respond to you in any fashion.

stella41b -> RE: Define God (8/3/2009 2:45:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Esinn It is established by science that supernatural belief is controlled by a module in the brain. Any euphoric or spiritual feelings arising from discussion or personal prayer are internal mechanisms at work - not external. I showed this through detailed explanation, documented peer reviewed journals and by providing links which discuss existing medical technology used in the studies. I discussed the modern understanding of Psychology and belief dating back to Freud. Not sure what you mean here by 'supernatural belief is controlled by a module in the brain' all I can guess is that you are actually referring to a part of the brain which picks up on and perceives supernatural phenomon, i.e. which is able to perceive energy without matter, which are known not as 'modules' but as 'transducers'. These are specialized cells (neurons) which are found in the central nervous system not just in humans but in all 'higher' animals. Perception is something which arises through an interaction between sensory input and prior knowledge. There are at least two brain areas required for such an interaction, the 'site' where analysis of afferent signals occurs and the 'source' which applies the relevant knowledge. There have been functional imaging studies which have shown that selective attention modifies activities in early visual processing areas specific to the attended feature. Early processing areas are also modified when prior knowledge permits a percept to emerge from an otherwise meaningless stimulus. Sources of this modification have been identified as the parietal cortex and in the prefrontal cortex. [1] However there are differences in the ability to perceive not just between different animals and humans but also between people. For example, when looking at a clock a dog is able to perceive the motion of both hands, whereas a human is only able to perceive the motion of the minute hand. Does this mean that the hour hand is not moving simply because we cannot see it moving with our own senses? But this is precisely the argument strategy employed by many of those who claim that there is no such thing as the supernatural, psychic phenomenon and God. They haven't experienced it, witnessed it, perceived it (they may not be able to) but because of of a lack of concrete evidence they claim it doesn't exist. They will talk of 'God' as 'imaginary' and also argue against 'unseen forces'. However there are no such things as 'unseen forces' there is just matter and energy, nothing else. Any 'unseen force' is simply a flow of energy. Matter coexists with energy on the material, physical plane, the Universe, this world, our bodies, and life can be understood to be matter animated by energy emanating from from a central nucleus or source, which is what I believe to be a universal principle - you can speculate over whether our 'nucleus' is our brain (matter) or soul (energy) but even when you think about this world the same principle can be applied (where we would have a 'soul' the world has 'Nature') and so on to the Universe. Assuming that the spiritual world consists of energy without matter then to me that source or nucleus would be about as close as you could get to my definition of God. Now you can quote Freud as much as you wish but sciences of the mind are rapidly developing and some of Freud's theories have since been discredited for example by the Canadian psychiatrist Dr Eric Berne in the 1950's and 1960's. I would also suggest reading the works of Rudolf Steiner and looking at anthroposophy which even today is regarded as a science in its own right. [1] Chris Frith and Raymond J. Dolan Brain mechanisms associated with top down processes in perception Wellcome Department of Cognitive Neurology, London.

VanityFix -> RE: Define God (8/3/2009 2:45:44 AM)
found on wiki, i like it.. God is a deity in theistic and deistic religions and other belief systems, representing either the sole deity in monotheism, or a principal deity in polytheism. God is most often conceived of as the supernatural creator and overseer of the universe. Theologians have ascribed a variety of attributes to the many different conceptions of God. The most common among these include omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. God has also been conceived as being incorporeal, a personal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the "greatest conceivable existent"

Aneirin -> RE: Define God (8/3/2009 3:39:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Esinn Based on recent conversations it is my understanding some people define god as subjective supernatural intelligent thing which transcends space-time and is directly responsible for creation of the known universe. Prior to these recent conversations my understanding of god is it is a universal objective thing. I have always understood the god concept to be something which would define god as an 'absolute' thing. Whatever god is - god is god. One definition is correct while all others are logically incorrect. I have also always understood that subjective beliefs and opinions about god can not change it, god is an absolute. We know according to the three laws of logic which are non-conceptual laws, they exist without a human mind, for something to exist it must have an identity which is not a logical contradiction. Definition is a mandatory prerequisite for existence - a logical postulate. Meaning for something which human current knowledge is aware of to exist we must be able to give "X" an articulate non-ambigious definition. If this can not be done or the definition violates the laws of logic the concept is meaningless, & simply ceases to exist or is proven to be a concept existing only within the individual mind - having no external influence. quote: 1. The law of identity: p is p at the same time and in the same respect. Thus: George W. Bush is George W. Bush, and George W. Bush is the son of George Bush. 2. The law of non-contradiction: a conjunctive proposition (one that uses "and", as in "p and q") cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same respect. Thus the proposition "p and not-p" cannot be true. For example, the proposition "It is raining and it is not raining" is a contradiction, and must be false. Note: technically, the above example stated fully should read "It is raining and it is not raining at this location and at this time." This additional phrase encompasses the crucial factors of "at the same time" and "in the same respect," but in natural language it isn't common to state them explicitly. When evaluating a person's statements, it is sometimes helpful to consider whether or not they are indeed assuming the truth of such factors. 3. The law of the excluded middle: in any proposition "p," the related disjunctive claim (one that uses "or", as in "p or not-p") must be true. A more informal and common way of stating this is to simply say that either a proposition is true or its negation must be true - thus, either p is true or not-p must be true. Logical musings aside... I am still interested define this thing you call god. God, the god, and for that matter the goddess are within the self and outside of the self. That being so,the kingdom of heaven and hell, two poles apart and maybe a construct of man to illustrate the highs and lows of our attitude are also within the self. One by sheer attitude can put themselves in heaven or hell, it is a place of thought, feeling and being. Those that know the black of depression, might know hell, else why do those that decend beyond the blackness choose to end life, as death appealed more and even with thoughts, knowledge, learning of H & H, they still choose death. God, the god, whatever, is us, our nature and what we know, that thing inside of us that continues to drive us and the rest of the natural world. Besides, doesn't it feel good to worship the self as the personification of god in the good deeds one does without thinking about it, far better than beating oneself up for failing other men's words.

Louve00 -> RE: Define God (8/3/2009 3:53:19 AM)
quote: First, I didn't realize you were presenting the "laws of logic". You were claiming to seek the definition of God, to which I still say that definition will vary from individual to individual. If you don't have the tolerance to accept that, then its likely you will always feel you are right and everyone else is wrong and as a result, will always be waiting for people to catch up with you. As long as you realize you will have a long wait, then we're both happy. It's one thing to believe or ask what belief is by the way of "God". It's a whole other thing to dispute anyone's answer to that, though. I answered in a way that proved me neither right or wrong because as I said, there really IS no right or wrong when it comes to religious or political beliefs. They are beliefs. Beliefs held by each and every individual for either same or different reasons. I can understand that and accept it. Can you? You ignored my question. As far as what I ignored. It's more than clear to me you don't want intelligent conversation about religion, God, or beliefs or you wouldn't be so defiant to dismiss everyone's thoughts, only to shove your thoughts down them and expect them to be digested. I'm not sure what your thing is E, but you can count me out.

cpK69 -> RE: Define God (8/3/2009 4:33:57 AM)
~fr~ I have attempted to solve the riddle “what is God?” After considering what might possibly effect all things in a manner that gives them all purpose, can be in all of the places it is claimed to be, and constitutes a position of Alpha and Omega; I came up with only one thing, Life. I can only speculate on its properties, a type of energy, perhaps, but I am inclined to believe what we are able to experience of it, at this time, is only a small sample of its full potential, and of that which we are capable of experiencing. Kim

DavanKael -> RE: Define God (8/3/2009 7:57:48 AM)
Quoting myself: Your selective utilization of psychology, referencing an important figure who dates back less than a decade fails to take into account the roots of psychology that are in philosophy and of which religion/theology is a part. Correcting myself: I meant to say a century where I said a decade. Davan

Esinn -> RE: Define God (8/3/2009 8:33:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DavanKael Quoting myself: Your selective utilization of psychology, referencing an important figure who dates back less than a decade fails to take into account the roots of psychology that are in philosophy and of which religion/theology is a part. Correcting myself: I meant to say a century where I said a decade. Davan Your selective reading of the information I presented has been demonstrated. All material I presented is relevant within the last 10 years - period. It was not selective. I quoted Freud the time of his birth or our personal opinion does not change the fact he laid the groundwork for much of modern psychology. This reference was less than 1% of the information I presented. Freud was a piece of shit, he was a druggie and seriously obsessed with perversion. The argument I presented hardly hinged on Freud. It was simply to draw attention to the fact beliefs have been under attack by contemporary respected main stream psychologists for longer than most understand. You choose to rip it out of context, place your own spin on it and claim victory? AGAIN - What I am respectfully requesting, and have asked you in more than this thread and more than once.... If you choose to challenge, discuss or demonstrate why any material I presented is incorrect or intentionally deceptive let's do it. Just so it is clear this is a position backed by science(all verticals). None of the material is my own. So, if you consider it hateful or mean, I am sorry.

Esinn -> RE: Define God (8/3/2009 8:35:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Louve00 I'm not sure what your thing is E, but you can count me out. I never counted on you.

Esinn -> RE: Define God (8/3/2009 9:16:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cpK69 ~fr~ I have attempted to solve the riddle “what is God?” After considering what might possibly effect all things in a manner that gives them all purpose, can be in all of the places it is claimed to be, and constitutes a position of Alpha and Omega; I came up with only one thing, Life. I can only speculate on its properties, a type of energy, perhaps, but I am inclined to believe what we are able to experience of it, at this time, is only a small sample of its full potential, and of that which we are capable of experiencing. Kim If you are stating that god simply is the laws of nature, laws which really grab you by the seat of your pants, then the word god itself becomes unnecessary. I am not sure why you would view it as a riddle - if this is your position. Einstein/Hawkins and many others have applied the term god to natural law. Using the word god in this way is confusing & misleading to billions of religious people and in direct contradiction to their god concept. It is almost always misunderstood when people like Einstein('God does not play dice') or yourself(possibly) use the word god it is a literary tool. Not to suggest they believe in an intelligent, personal thing with purpose or divinity(Allah, Thoth, Ra, Christ, YHVH, Mithra, Odin). Nor are they suggesting such a thing exists outside nature is worthy of worship or magical. They understand with a great degree of accuracy the science which drives, compels and limits them these laws as you might but I am skeptical. I do believe in such a god, to a degree - life is inspiring. But using in god in this context to me seems unnecessary. We already have available many unique words to define and describe with poetic beauty natural law. Most importantly it is not this type of god / thing I am interested in discussing. I say this because I understand what you mean or others mean.

ElectraGlide -> RE: Define God (8/3/2009 9:29:42 AM)
God is a person and a tradition passed down from a old book and artifacts. For the followers and worshipers, I hope the book is correct. There may not be a true defintion. When I went to night school, our teacher said he would give us a A+ for the rest of the year if we could give him a sole defintion of a Human Being. No matter what defintion we gave, it covered a animal or insect also. The point was, there was no true defintion.

Esinn -> RE: Define God (8/3/2009 9:37:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aneirin God, the god, and for that matter the goddess What does that mean? There are multiple male and female gods? How many? Are these gods and goddesses you speak of just creative metaphors? Or are they actual things, objects, entities or beings? Is this some sort of "religious" (note the quotes) concept which has been understood, in any fashion by modern or ancient people? Even if there were different schools of thought what do you feel the best modern label for these beliefs / concepts? Or is this a new 'religion' you are directly responsible for? Do you think we can discuss this 'religion' without poetic flair?

Esinn -> RE: Define God (8/3/2009 9:46:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ElectraGlide God is a person and a tradition passed down from a old book and artifacts. For the followers and worshipers, I hope the book is correct. There may not be a true defintion. When I went to night school, our teacher said he would give us a A+ for the rest of the year if we could give him a sole defintion of a Human Being. No matter what defintion we gave, it covered a animal or insect also. The point was, there was no true defintion. If it is possible to define a human and not violate the laws of logic what then? I will gladly take the A+.

Starbuck09 -> RE: Define God (8/3/2009 9:46:46 AM)
I think it is very difficult to define a concept of god but I will take a stab nevertheless. I'd say God, or a god is an agent that appears to bring order, often in the form of an ultimate plan, to chaos and chance. God does this in a way that is ultimately unknowable to the minds of man though the perceived order is endlessley open to attempts at interpretation. Once one has interpreted said order to a degree that is satisfying either on your own or by listening to others the fact that the ultimate purpose of the perceived order is unknowable requires the final element of God, faith that what has been interpreted is truth and not simply hope.

pyroaquatic -> RE: Define God (8/3/2009 9:46:57 AM)
Define Dog. No seriously. There are so many species of Dogs that when I say Dog we are thinking of two different dogs. Maybe it is a mental image of a dog we both had as a child. In respect to God: Boundless but full of boundaries how can we pin it down? The effort spent trying to question could be used to connect. Look not at God but the person observing. These are my own meandering thoughts. Take them as you will.

subbyboy4you -> RE: Define God (8/3/2009 10:00:19 AM)
god is an invisible friend to weak minded people, simple ever heard of mass hysteria?

pyroaquatic -> RE: Define God (8/3/2009 10:05:13 AM)
Interesting Mr. Onepost. I do not see my mind as weak. I would like to believe I am rather intelligent. Also.... Invisible - not seen. Not "does not exist." So to properly stir up fecal matter you would be better of phrasing it as: "God (proper noun) is a non-existent friend to weak minded people, simple." Helping you helps me. [8\|] I do believe Einstein believed in God.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875