RE: Define God

RE: Define God (Full Version)

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

Message

Brain -> RE: Define God (8/12/2009 1:21:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero quote: ORIGINAL: Brain You have been brainwashed by religion and you need to be de-programmed. See...that "need" word in there. Not good. Not in line with basic ethical principles. I suppose you're right, I need her to do it more for myself than she does for herself. Although I think she would be better off if she listened to me. quote: ORIGINAL: Brain I think you need to study more science like evolutionary biology and physics and astronomy and stop being so naïve in believing 2000 year old bullshit when we did not have science. If the person wants to have a realistic and proper materialistic understanding of the world they live in, yes. People don't "need" to choose that path, though (and if we're going to add neurobiology and bio-psychology to the list of things to become aware of, then we should understand it may be erroneous to attempt to amputate some people from their faith). It probably is not erroneous but if she does not want a realistic understanding of the world it is her prerogative I would agree, just as it is a person's prerogative to be a smoker, an alcoholic or a drug addict. Of course it was Karl Marx who said religion is the opium of the masses.

Brain -> RE: Define God (8/12/2009 1:27:50 AM)
Bill Moyers Journal . Watch & Listen PBS In his new book, THE EVOLUTION OF GOD, bestselling author Robert Wright examines how the idea of God has changed through history. Wright sits down with Bill Moyers to discuss why he thinks the notion of God is imperative to a moral society. http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07172009/watch2.html

NihilusZero -> RE: Define God (8/12/2009 11:05:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Brain Of course it was Karl Marx who said religion is the opium of the masses. Opiate of the masses.

Rule -> RE: Define God (8/12/2009 11:14:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero quote: ORIGINAL: Brain Of course it was Karl Marx who said religion is the opium of the masses. Opiate of the masses. So Marx had an opinion. My hypothesis is that he was brainless.

Esinn -> RE: Define God (8/12/2009 9:16:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Starbuck09 There is only studies that can back up the claim that you believe it is so. Fuck.... We been talking about this so long I forget what I exactly said... "If I do then what?" As I mentioned to you earlier it was this type of objection I anticipated. However, never from my internet friends even if they do the devil's advocate thing a lot.

Esinn -> RE: Define God (8/12/2009 9:53:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heartcream God is the spearhead of the Light. It is His spot. He is an individual who loves His own existence. No one can overtake Him or be ahead of Him, no matter what else we are all manifested somewhere around Him but we arent Him. He can and does learn from us and He has a process as do we. I think there are parts of God. The Mother, Body and Heart. He needs all His parts and His parts need Him. If everything goes irredeemably down, He will be the last to go. He is not some perfect thing, He can be questioned and Has as many forms and abilities to express to us all, as there are individuals. He has a history. I think God is super cool. If someone doesnt believe in Him, in fact they may not believe in all the crap that has presented itself as God, like Guilt for example. There is too much to understand about God to sum it all up in a small post. I do believe He is in us and around us and so complex and simple. Some atheists are more conscious and truly connected than some folks who spout off how religious etc. they are. Really. . . Think about this. I broke it down almost to a point of insanity. However, it was absolutely necessary. Don't reply if you do not want to. But, think about it. Write down the answers on a piece of paper. Then ask yourself as a logical and responsible adult does any of what you just told me make sense? It was poetic and seems to have good intentions. But, honestly I am not sure what the majority of it means. People bust my balls for being difficult to comprehend. "God is the spearhead of the Light. It is His spot." English please? How does this apply to a supernatural being? His spot is being the spearhead of light? "He is an individual who loves His own existence" So god is a male? How did you arrive at that conclusion? "He is an individual" - this term typically applies to a single human. So god is a human? "who loves His own existence" - how do you know this? Is this in the bible? What resource did you use to arrive at this conclusion? "No one can overtake Him or be ahead of Him" He is a bad ass in the sky - gotcha "no matter what else we are all manifested somewhere around Him but we arent Him." How do you know? Are you suggesting that I am proof of god - which one? "He can and does learn from us" So he is not omnipotent - weak "He has a process as do we." Sounds poetic yet intellectually void. 'A process'? What kind? What does the process do? Now entering the twilight zone: "I think there are parts of God. The Mother, Body and Heart. He needs all His parts and His parts need Him" What does that mean, why do you think this? If it is a he how is it a mother? Does it have arms and legs too? Or just a body, 'The Mother'(what does that mean), a body and a heart? How about a brain? Brains are important you know. " He needs all His parts" Goes without saying [:-] " His parts need Him" Ummm? Ok? Where did these parts come from? " If everything goes irredeemably down, He will be the last to go." How do you know? "He is not some perfect thing," Weak What type of thing is it? These parts you speak of are really odd. "He can be questioned and Has as many forms and abilities to express to us all" 'forms'? What kind? - how do you know? 'abilities'? What kind? - how do you know? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdZ4JgGm2p4 (forms and abilities like that?) 'express to us all' - ok *"He has a history."* Can you provide us with some resources? I want to learn about this thing. "I think God is super cool" Ok If someone doesnt believe in Him, in fact they may not believe in all the crap that has presented itself as God, like Guilt for example. That does not make sense. You started off 'If someone who does not believe' then seemed to have lost that train of thought. "like Guilt for example." Guilt is a chemical reaction which takes place in the brain. How is this connected to god? *" I do believe He is in us and around us and so complex and simple."* He is in me? Where? When did he enter me? When does he exit me? When he is in me how does he survive? It it one of his parts which are in me? *"around us"* He is in me and around me. I see. Is he split up into little atoms? Is he split into trillions of pieces? Did he replicate himself? How do you know this? *"complex and simple."* Explain that contradiction please

Esinn -> RE: Define God (8/12/2009 10:35:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: Esinn quote: ORIGINAL: daintydimples God cannot be defined. God is. Go take some time to read this thread. What is "is"? Can I say, "I is". Cow is? Slut is? Idiot is? I feel like I back in kindiegarten again. If you want to have an intelligent conversation you need to speak like an adult. That is a rude response, Esinn. My bad. Can I apologize for the kindiegarten part? I still believe if she wants to have an intelligent conversation she needs to speak like an adult.

Esinn -> RE: Define God (8/12/2009 11:39:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterHermes quote: ORIGINAL: Esinn 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. Since you are a great follower of the logic: How did you come up with the idea of these logical laws being exist without a human mind (or any other mind in that matter) ? In order to make that observation you must exist, and your very existence makes it impossible for you to observe if those laws are non-conceptual. You can not declare any non-conceptual laws in the field of logic, because you as a human being are already conceptualizing every observation you make. This is how a thought process works for the human mind. First you get a sensory information from your eyes, ears, nose etc.. (it can be something like reading too, you need eyes for reading or ears for hearing somebody to read you if you are blind). Then your mind process this sensory information and conceptualize it, then it makes a conclusion by comparing it with prior knowledge, then your brain stores it. Therefore you can never be in a position of knowing what is non-conceptual as long as you are in the field of thought , therefore logic. Now what happened here is similar. You read or heard something about god (sensory info from ears and eyes), you thought about it (conceptualized it) , you compared it with your previous conclusions, you made a new conclusion or an altered version of an old one and you decided to share it. Same process repeated for other people replying you, and since everybody has different previous conclusions , they also made different inferences. This will keep on going as an endless cycle. Now I suspect you want to challenge other peoples concept of god using your logic, instead of wondering what is the essence of the universe. That is all fine (if you are all entertained), as long as you realize every inference you make is conceptual. Hermes Sorry I missed you. I will never do it intentionally - like you I do my best.. Shoot me a private message if you are so inclined to get me in gear. quote: Since you are a great follower of the logic: How did you come up with the idea of these logical laws being exist without a human mind (or any other mind in that matter) ? In order to make that observation you must exist, and your very existence makes it impossible for you to observe if those laws are non-conceptual. I did not invent the laws of logic. The idea is not mine. I would suggest a philosophy class. The law of identity, like the other 2, is extremely clear, A is always A. If A is something other than itself it becomes logically impossible, like a square circle, something which can not exist(see the other laws of logic). It is a tautology. These 3 laws are logical absolutes - I've not met anyone who has disagreed. Even without a mind, I assume you do not believe the universe depends upon minds to exist, A would still be A. Possibly I explained it incorrectly in my OP. However, this is what I was getting at. I will peek at it in a bit. An analogy might be the speed of light (186,000 miles/s) relative to the observer. No matter how much this violates our notion of common sense this is a fundamental law and necessity. We only need to identify a few more of these absolutes to understand everything. quote: This is how a thought process works for the human mind. First you get a sensory information from your eyes, ears, nose etc.. (it can be something like reading too, you need eyes for reading or ears for hearing somebody to read you if you are blind). Then your mind process this sensory information and conceptualize it, then it makes a conclusion by comparing it with prior knowledge, then your brain stores it. Ya, sure this conclusion can be wrong for many reasons though. Decoupled cognition Hyperactive agency detection Attachment Mechanisms Transference Reciprocal Altruism Empathy Confirmation Bias Drugs, mental illness, disease, social pressure, 'internal' pressure, poor sensory perception, *religion* [:-] Those are just a few of the known psychological mechanisms that can force us to reach an incorrect or otherwise broken conclusion. If you disagree with these or are not sure what they are the point still stands incorrect conclusions are frequent(I added some others ontop of this paragraph). As I have not read your future posts I wonder where you are going. The purpose of me bringing up the three laws of logic is 90% of religions I am aware of define god(s) as an absolute. How they arrive there is beyond me. But, this is another day. Going back to the top A is A or it is not. god is god or it is not. god is invisible or it is not. When a circle becomes a square it no longer exists. quote: essence of the universe. 'Essence'? At this time it seems it would be particles or 'strings' - nothing more. There is no logical reason to believe it would be anything else. What does the essence of the universe have to do with defining god?

Esinn -> RE: Define God (8/12/2009 11:43:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GreedyTop ~FR~ I believe that, within the majority of religions, all gods are essentially the same god. If you look at the bare bones of the tenets that most religions espouse, they pretty much boil down to the same things (honor parents, dont kill unnecessarily, etc etc). So god(s), to me, embody the same thing, regardless of how god(s) is(are) named. (edited for better phrasing) They are not. Thor is quite different from Allah. You still have not told anyone what god is - define it. This is simply not true. Can you reference this comparative study?

Esinn -> RE: Define God (8/12/2009 11:48:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterHermes quote: ORIGINAL: Esinn quote: ORIGINAL: MasterHermes At the end believing what science says requires as much faith as religions. Our ideas on the beginning of the universe and the life constantly changing. LOL here marches in the trumpet boy 500 posts later. Yes, you are right. Go play in the rain, when you come in catch up on reading my thread. Didnt I say you wont like what I said , because it will remind you your insignificance? There we go :) Thanks for becoming a living example. You try to represent yourself as a thinker, but you are so fixed on atheist versus Christian debate, you dont even see the posts out of your scope. It looks like you are too busy playing god was on the clouds and devil had a tail game. Seems like religious people are easy target for your hurt ego, or you may try bringing better things than second hand logic on the table. If it wont hurt your delicate ego, there are couple posts you may read starting from #150: http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=2742615&key= http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=2743892&key= Hermes I went back briefly reviewed the thread. By the way you typed this nice little ditty up I was under the impression I missed several of your posts - heh. Another 2-3 point poster.

VanIsleKnight -> RE: Define God (8/12/2009 11:59:59 PM)
God is good yo. =) God is the creator of all things. Good, bad, pretty, ugly. God gave us free will. God made heaven. God made hell. God exists eternally, and is in so many ways beyond human understanding. Hence why it is difficult to actually describe God, because there isn't anything else like Him. God is merciful and God forgives, God also punishes those that are unrepentant. Not much for religious debates. In the end I toss in the line about the greatest lie the devil ever told was convincing everyone he doesn't exist, because hey, if there isn't any consequences for what we do, then why behave morally (definition varies according to definer) at all? I also toss in that Humanity has free will, and thus can choose either good or evil, and that a lot of the things that happen are more often then not the result of somebody or a variety of people making a choice or series of choices. To take away our free will would be horrific, it was a pretty precious gift. So people blame God for letting bad things happen a lot, and tend to forget that there's that whole Satan thing. Essentially I believe that God would -like- us to choose to be good and turn away from sin/Satan/whatever, and gives us ample opportunity to do so. Eventually He'll decide, well, enough is enough. I gave them however many millenia, it's time to bring about the Armageddon and start over. Lots of holes with that I'm sure that people can find, especially if you get into the debate as to whether or not free will exists at all. It's what I believe though, and don't see much chance of that ever changing. I try to avoid being pushy about it though, it just seems to aggravate people for some reason. I blame the extremists personally. >.>

knees2you -> RE: Define God (8/12/2009 11:59:59 PM)
*As one put it on here a long time ago.* *We won't know until we die?* *But lets look at things. "God offers eternal Life!"* *Those who except it have peace and eternity with him.* *Those who don't can expect damnation.* *Now those who believe in God, if they are wrong have nothing to lose.* *If they are right, then the others recieve the unthinkable.* *Learning what the unthinkable is, I don't want any part of it.* *Always, Ant[sm=cactus.gif]*

Esinn -> RE: Define God (8/13/2009 12:04:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterHermes quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl again, i ask... is it scientific proof you require? nope, just any objective evidence that REQUIRES intervention of a god based on our current understanding of physics and chemistry. that would be quite sufficient to make me an agnostic. The biggest trick religions played on people is they made them believe you are either atheist or you must believe the god which is portraited by them. Today most of the people become atheist because they have certain problems with religions. They found a safe harbor in science. Unfortunately , these people are so hurt, so angry, they never wonder what is the source of this harmony which also creates the physical laws in the universe. Now I'll give you the scientific answer you require. Everybody in this universe comes from the same energy. The complex structures makes us think things are all different, but as you go into atoms, and quanta , and so on.. You realize the stars, the earth, the woods or the human are all the same. If you are interested in quantum physics , you will also notice everything affects each other at sub-atomic level. Its more like they are sending messages to each other. So what do we know now? There is this undeniable energy in the universe , the whole universe made of. This energy is active, communicating, affecting, changing. And the mechanism arises from it allows stars and planets to form, nature to born, living things to exist. If you can be able to leave the religious folklore aside about there was a guy sitting on the clouds, and giving orders around , maybe you might have a chance of realizing neither the nature, nor the universe is not a mindless space as we want to believe it is. There is a very big difference between being mindless, and having an ego (that says I, and gets angry and rest of it). If you can free your mind from the effects of the religious folklore, try observing it. And be as scientific as you want, since no science can ever contradict with it. Science is the name of the discipline we have created for understanding the works of the life and universe. Our science obeys its rules, it doesn't obey our science. Best Wishes Hermes You have watched what the bleep do we know too much. Science is man made definition of natural law. It studies the uniformity of nature. Quantum Mechanics operate on different laws we do not understand - BIG DEAL. There is not a shred of evidence to suggest the collapse of the wave function during the double slit experiment is a sign of intelligence or associated with mysticism. Logically the quantum world is simply too small to interact with us. The particles which make up everything act according to laws which guide them. If you wish to remain in awe at these laws and call them god fine - I feel the same. But, suggesting the particles are intelligent or interact with us at some level is BS. We almost understand of these laws, there is no reason to assume we will not. I'd hate to read your thesis on quantum entanglement - OH DEAR GOD. So this is what you intended by "essence" magical energy you plan to one day take control of to sore to enlightenment. There is just not a shred of evidence outside of 10-15 spiritual mystics with MBA/PHD to demonstrate this is true. The vast majority like those in What The Bleep or Chopra/Dyer make millions(really) toting this pseudoscience. GAH!

Rule -> RE: Define God (8/13/2009 3:47:49 AM)
MasterHermes is far more percipient than you are, Esinn, as is - in another way - heartcream. The abilities of individual humans vary. Often when one end of the see-saw is low, the other end is high. For example: I am mentally handicapped in various ways, that is the low end of my see-saw; the high end of my see-saw is that I am a supergenius. Sometimes handicapped people are intensely interested in what they do not have. Someone who was born blind may be fascinated by the properties of visible light, trying to understand what seeing is. He will learn that visible light is an electromagnetic oscillation with a wave length between 380 and 780 nanometres. He will quote wich colours are attributed to which wavelength range. He learns Planck's formula and other quantum mechanical functions. He may learn the biochemistry of the light receptive cells in the eyes and of the nerve cells that process the information. He may learn all these aspects of seeing - but he will never get it, he will never see. He is wasting his time. Neither does it help that ordinary minds are often easily confused by an inability to distinguish between the Divine and the incarnate gods; and then there is also this inner voice that some have and that others do not: the 'god' within. They cannot comprehend these distinctions, these different views of the perceived nature of what is referred to as God. It is like the confusion of the five Hindu blind, wise men who have each touched a different part of an elephant and deem themselves experts on the characteristic and nature of the elephant.

Esinn -> RE: Define God (8/13/2009 11:31:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule MasterHermes is far more percipient than you are, Esinn, as is - in another way - heartcream. The abilities of individual humans vary. Often when one end of the see-saw is low, the other end is high. For example: I am mentally handicapped in various ways, that is the low end of my see-saw; the high end of my see-saw is that I am a supergenius. Sometimes handicapped people are intensely interested in what they do not have. Someone who was born blind may be fascinated by the properties of visible light, trying to understand what seeing is. He will learn that visible light is an electromagnetic oscillation with a wave length between 380 and 780 nanometres. He will quote wich colours are attributed to which wavelength range. He learns Planck's formula and other quantum mechanical functions. He may learn the biochemistry of the light receptive cells in the eyes and of the nerve cells that process the information. He may learn all these aspects of seeing - but he will never get it, he will never see. He is wasting his time. Neither does it help that ordinary minds are often easily confused by an inability to distinguish between the Divine and the incarnate gods; and then there is also this inner voice that some have and that others do not: the 'god' within. They cannot comprehend these distinctions, these different views of the perceived nature of what is referred to as God. It is like the confusion of the five Hindu blind, wise men who have each touched a different part of an elephant and deem themselves experts on the characteristic and nature of the elephant. Is it possible to talk about god without evoking poetic mumbo jumbo? What is a "god within" ? Really what does that statement mean? The last three being the most important. (If "god is within" particles/cells the same questions apply) Within what? Why would a god want to be within? When did it get within? Prior to becoming within where was is('with-out'?) When this god is within me is it within you? How is this possible? Does it self replicate line evolution suggests? Does it cut itself into trillions of pieces so it can be within everything? When it is within me how does it survive? I need food, sleep and drink to survive When I die where does this god within go? Why is this god within undetectable? Does it hide? Is it afraid? When mitosis happens does this process create 2 more "gods within". Sometimes cells which have split rejoin. Does this make 1 less "god within" 3.5 billion years ago before first coacervates what was this god within? Life was not here **How do you know? This theory you are evoking for which I am aware no evidence exists creates more problems than it addresses. I am interested in learning about it though. About your blind man: http://gizmodo.com/5277456/stem-cell-contact-lenses-cure-blindness-in-less-than-a-month http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2009-08/scientists-trick-adult-stem-cells-curing-blindness http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jul/05/blindness-laser-cure-amd The blindness which this thing called god cursed him with or this supernatural intelligence allowed to happen within his body is curable. Not because of any ancient text, auras, chakra alignment or from hours of meditation. I am grateful no rational person relies on such BS. Rather your blind man will be cured because of people dedicated to science.

BitaTruble -> RE: Define God (8/13/2009 12:10:02 PM)
quote: I am trying to understand what god is so we can speak intelligently about it in other threads. 31 pages in Esinn.. have you achieved your objective?

FullCircle -> RE: Define God (8/13/2009 2:17:30 PM)
No he needed a definition that he could disprove, how else could he call himself an atheist if he entertained the idea of someone else’s definition of god being true? A bit like a vegetarian asking for the best definition of 'ethical meat eating'; pointless. Give him a definition that he can easily disprove such as 'Homer Simpson' and he'll be very happy, this isn't a 'god of special pleading' therefore it is a valid attempt to thwart his clever logic and reasoning and he will tell you the many things that prove Homer Simpson isn't god.

heartcream -> RE: Define God (8/13/2009 3:15:13 PM)
[sm=popcorn.gif]

heartcream -> RE: Define God (8/13/2009 3:29:52 PM)
[sm=writing.gif]

GotSteel -> RE: Define God (8/13/2009 5:16:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: knees2you *Now those who believe in God, if they are wrong have nothing to lose.* Sure, there have never ever been any bad consequences for believing in God. P.S. I've found a solution to this whole thing, instead of spending your whole life trying to ignore the obvious issues in the bible, pretending the jealous vengeful sadist that it describes loves you and using convoluted mental gymnastics to find a way to interpret God's commandments that doesn't make you a horrible person, just toss the book. You don't need to worry about God, the whole omniscient/omnipotent thing is all hype. It turns out that he can't even wrestle, so if he tries to send you to hell just get him in a Texas Cloverleaf and don't let him up until he promises you a spot in heaven.

Page: << < prev 29 30 [31] 32 33 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625