RE: Define God

RE: Define God (Full Version)

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

Message

GotSteel -> RE: Define God (8/13/2009 5:37:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VanIsleKnight 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. Thank you for being one of the few people to answer the question, would you mind explaining why you think this?

Brain -> RE: Define God (8/13/2009 5:41:34 PM)
I don’t think I want to talk about God anymore because it’s a waste of time talking about something that doesn’t exist any more than Santa Claus or Humpty Dumpty. They need to change this from politics and religion to politics and science. We need to talk more about science and no longer waste our time with religion.

kittinSol -> RE: Define God (8/13/2009 6:10:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Brain I don’t think I want to talk about God anymore because it’s a waste of time talking about something that doesn’t exist any more than Santa Claus or Humpty Dumpty. They need to change this from politics and religion to politics and science. We need to talk more about science and no longer waste our time with religion. Or how about this? There is much fun in discussing the potential existence of something we have no absolute means of ever proving. How about this, again: one could accept that one cannot know whether something so beyond our comprehension existed or not. The absence of certainty is very disturbing for most people - they'd rather be believers or atheists. I choose to sit on the fence, and to say that I cannot possibly know either way. On the other hand, should I be made to choose between science and religion, I'd rather go the knowledgeable way - give me science any day. People who feel the need to antagonise the idea of God and the knowledge of science are being deliberately ignorant. The absolute ignorance of knowledge is the deliberate path to evil.

BitaTruble -> RE: Define God (8/13/2009 6:21:07 PM)
God = The Trigger - An entity of unknown origin whose force or energy started what we now call the universe. We know the Earth has not 'always' existed, so it's logical to assume it was created. We also know that the planets within our solar system have not 'always' existed, so it can be assumed they were also created. It seems to be equally logical to further assume the universe was created since it was not, then was. Some force created it .. and something had to trigger that force. I call that trigger - God. Why call it God? ::shrugs:: Why not? Until we have another label to slap on it's ass, God is as good a label as anything. MMV and usually does

kittinSol -> RE: Define God (8/13/2009 6:28:35 PM)
And that's fair enough - I fail to see, however, how people still continue to believe that such a creative force would give a flying toss whether they sucked cock outside of marriage, and that therefore God dictates human morality. If at all. Know what I mean?

BitaTruble -> RE: Define God (8/13/2009 6:36:38 PM)
quote: And that's fair enough - I fail to see, however, how people still continue to believe that such a creative force would give a flying toss whether they sucked cock outside of marriage, and that therefore God dictates human morality. If at all. Know what I mean? Yeah, I know what you mean. I think it's more a people thing though and as people, we fuck things up .. a lot but God sure is a convenient scapegoat.

kittinSol -> RE: Define God (8/13/2009 6:39:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitaTruble Yeah, I know what you mean. I think it's more a people thing though and as people, we fuck things up .. a lot but God sure is a convenient scapegoat. The good thing is, she/he/it probably doesn't give a damn, scapegoat or not - bigger fish to fry and all that kind of thing :-) .

VanIsleKnight -> RE: Define God (8/13/2009 9:49:15 PM)
Little difficult to explain why. I suppose you could say that it was what I was taught, but as I got older and more aware of the world around me, I of course started to question things for validity. Essentially it came down to personal experiences, beliefs, and choices that I continue to believe in God and christianity. It also just makes sense. I've heard the Big Bang theory, I've heard creationist stories from other cultures (specifically some native american and roman/greek mythology) and I've talked at length with various people who had different philosophical beliefs and opinions. The idea that everything happened because of nothing spontaneously and randomly becoming doesn't make sense to me. The idea that an omnipotent being created everything does make sense to me. Which begs the question of course, who or what made the omnipotent being? Which is when things get really tricky and philosophical because when you say "He always was and is" you can just say "life always was and is". But both of those statements are flawed because by our understanding everything -has- to originate from something, right? So, answer is, I don't know. I don't know who created the Creator, but I feel extremely confident that we and everything we know exists because God made it and not because of random causality. Life and matter is exceedingly complex, it doesn't "just happen". I even believe in evolution, to not believe in evolution is just plain silly. You can see it happening in a lot of different places and species, especially viruses. I don't believe however that humans evolved from apes, but it'd be cool if we did.

Esinn -> RE: Define God (8/14/2009 12:13:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol quote: ORIGINAL: Brain I don’t think I want to talk about God anymore because it’s a waste of time talking about something that doesn’t exist any more than Santa Claus or Humpty Dumpty. They need to change this from politics and religion to politics and science. We need to talk more about science and no longer waste our time with religion. Or how about this? There is much fun in discussing the potential existence of something we have no absolute means of ever proving. How about this, again: one could accept that one cannot know whether something so beyond our comprehension existed or not. The absence of certainty is very disturbing for most people - they'd rather be believers or atheists. I choose to sit on the fence, and to say that I cannot possibly know either way. On the other hand, should I be made to choose between science and religion, I'd rather go the knowledgeable way - give me science any day. People who feel the need to antagonise the idea of God and the knowledge of science are being deliberately ignorant. The absolute ignorance of knowledge is the deliberate path to evil. The idea of god is absolutely ignorant. I have already addressed this a few times in this thread. The fact something can be disproved does not put it on equal footing with existence. That is a silly idea anyhow. There is no evidence or no logical reason to believe if it exists god is beyond the means of science. If god is beyond the means of science, if this is how you choose to define it, then it is also far beyond the reach of human comprehension Speaking of something that exists outside of reality(the known universe) is what we used to do in 2nd grade when we spoke of Santa. This is not something I wish to do. A belief in a complex invisible uncreated creator being responsible for the creation of everything ex-nihlo using magical powers from an unknown location is so irrational it is hard to comprehend why someone would wish to defend it. You can know - you do know. You do not accept mithra, odin, zeus, ra, thor or horus correct? People who still worship these gods line the halls of our mental institutions. -Your just trying to have your cake and eat it too. That is cool. I went from theism > agnosticism I know how you feel. You know theists are almost like atheists. The famous line goes: They deny existence of all gods as I/we do except for one. In this country usually that is christ. Science and common sense has removed the shroud of mystery from 99% of all gods that which absolute claims were made, "They exist" for which absolutely no evidence existed. Now common sense is only necessary to tell us they were lies of sand strewn me. A belief in god spits upon the scientific process. The two are polar opposites.

Esinn -> RE: Define God (8/14/2009 12:16:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitaTruble 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? GOD: So, as far as I can tell we have defined god as a concept which exists in the mind. The fact science has not proven how the universe was created, despite multiple theories exist, is used as evidence that this thing exists external to the human mind and is responsible for the ex-nihlo creation of everything. This internal concept can be changed with personal imagination and seems to change as often as necessary to satisfy emotional needs of the individual. Often ones belief in this thing is based upon the circumstances of the moment, geographic location of birth or social setting. The individual typically adopts and adapts their personal definition of god from either a single or multiple ancient religions. I have also learned that although it might be acceptable for me to question and challenge core irrational beliefs of a person about: social status, racism, sexism, math or supernatural things it is unacceptable to question modern religious beliefs. This is due to the fact that science has not removed the shroud of mystery from the question most major religions seem to hinge their validity upon. This is the fact that science has not conclusively demonstrated how the universe started. So, like it or not NAY nay nay my personal core belief is beyond reason, logic, evidence and ultimate understanding so I am allowed to have it. After all it makes me feel nice and warm inside. Yes, I have. It is not logically possible to have a conversation about this thing us humans call god because no one knows what the hell it is. If you would have been following the thread you would have realized this.

Esinn -> RE: Define God (8/14/2009 12:26:51 AM)
quote: causality. quote: ORIGINAL: VanIsleKnight Little difficult to explain why. I suppose you could say that it was what I was taught, but as I got older and more aware of the world around me, I of course started to question things for validity. Essentially it came down to personal experiences, beliefs, and choices that I continue to believe in God and christianity. It also just makes sense. I've heard the Big Bang theory, I've heard creationist stories from other cultures (specifically some native american and roman/greek mythology) and I've talked at length with various people who had different philosophical beliefs and opinions. The idea that everything happened because of nothing spontaneously and randomly becoming doesn't make sense to me. The idea that an omnipotent being created everything does make sense to me. Which begs the question of course, who or what made the omnipotent being? Which is when things get really tricky and philosophical because when you say "He always was and is" you can just say "life always was and is". But both of those statements are flawed because by our understanding everything -has- to originate from something, right? So, answer is, I don't know. I don't know who created the Creator, but I feel extremely confident that we and everything we know exists because God made it and not because of random causality. Life and matter is exceedingly complex, it doesn't "just happen". I even believe in evolution, to not believe in evolution is just plain silly. You can see it happening in a lot of different places and species, especially viruses. I don't believe however that humans evolved from apes, but it'd be cool if we did. Causality does not exist in the most basic particles in our universe. To ask yourself a question and not answer it - when it is necessary is not ignorant, it is stupid. Then to say you have no real evidence or anything to support your claim just personal revelation - I have addressed this as well in this thread. Possibly you should take a moment to read it? If you wish to call upon the laws of science, agree with them when they support you then throw them out the door when they do not. I guess I will go play on your mom's swingset with you since we can not talk like adults - cool beans yO? The idea that light travels at 186.000M/s releative to the observer does not make violates commonsense. So does the collapse of the wave function. So does quantum entanglement. So does the fact the planet is spinning at dizzying speeds and I am not barfing. I could go on and on and on and on and on. Reality does not hinge its truth on appealing to your common sense.* The fact is does not fit right, you are too foolish to get an education or unable to learn these ideas on your own speaks poorly about yourself and religion - not the universe. Ya, let's go play on the swings.

BitaTruble -> RE: Define God (8/14/2009 3:52:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Esinn So, as far as I can tell we have defined god as a concept which exists in the mind. The fact science has not proven how the universe was created, despite multiple theories exist, is used as evidence that this thing exists external to the human mind and is responsible for the ex-nihlo creation of everything. This internal concept can be changed with personal imagination and seems to change as often as necessary to satisfy emotional needs of the individual. Often ones belief in this thing is based upon the circumstances of the moment, geographic location of birth or social setting. The individual typically adopts and adapts their personal definition of god from either a single or multiple ancient religions. I have also learned that although it might be acceptable for me to question and challenge core irrational beliefs of a person about: social status, racism, sexism, math or supernatural things it is unacceptable to question modern religious beliefs. This is due to the fact that science has not removed the shroud of mystery from the question most major religions seem to hinge their validity upon. This is the fact that science has not conclusively demonstrated how the universe started. So, like it or not NAY nay nay my personal core belief is beyond reason, logic, evidence and ultimate understanding so I am allowed to have it. After all it makes me feel nice and warm inside. Yes, I have. It is not logically possible to have a conversation about this thing us humans call god because no one knows what the hell it is. If you would have been following the thread you would have realized this. Actually, by your own words you did not achieve your objective which was to understand God so you could have intelligent conversations in other threads. It's not logically possible to have such a conversation. But, I'm glad you think you learned something. Oh, and I read every word of this thread and did not see where you had achieved your objective which is why I asked rather than assumed. Shall I assume that since it's not logically possible to have a conversation about this thing us humans call God, that you won't be entertaining the idea of actually participating in threads where God is the subject of the conversation? I do find it rather amusing that it's not logically possible to have a conversation about God, but here we are with 32 pages of conversations about God. Sort of gives lie to your statement that it is not possible to have such conversations when the evidence is right before us. Maybe what you meant is that it's not possible to use logic to convert people away from their beliefs? But, I don't want to assume although that doesn't seem to be something with which you are overly concerned.

VanityFix -> RE: Define God (8/14/2009 5:02:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Brain I don’t think I want to talk about God anymore because it’s a waste of time talking about something that doesn’t exist any more than Santa Claus or Humpty Dumpty. They need to change this from politics and religion to politics and science. We need to talk more about science and no longer waste our time with religion. why the hell are you in a forum called "Define God" if you dont want to speak about god, we get it your an athiest, congrats on coming out, im somewhat athiest myself when it boils down to detail. generally people secure in their beleifs, christian to athiest dont have to try to prove to everyone around them how correct they are. if a good percent of the world is playing make believe with the god idea in your view then simply shrug and walk away.

FullCircle -> RE: Define God (8/14/2009 6:18:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VanityFix why the hell are you in a forum called "Define God" if you dont want to speak about god. Seems we all need an education in how to curtail our imagination, from now on people are only allowed to imagine that which they have observed with their own eyes such as errmm quantum singularities...[:D]

VanIsleKnight -> RE: Define God (8/14/2009 7:56:45 AM)
quote: I guess I will go play on your mom's swingset with you since we can not talk like adults - cool beans yO? Ya, let's go play on the swings. Go nuts, I'm not actually talking to you. =) Psst, they're imaginary swingsets. ;) Have fun!

Esinn -> RE: Define God (8/14/2009 9:50:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitaTruble Oh, and I read every word of this thread and did not see where you had achieved your objective which is why I asked rather than assumed. Shall I assume that since it's not logically possible to have a conversation about this thing us humans call God, that you won't be entertaining the idea of actually participating in threads where God is the subject of the conversation? No, but what I will be doing is having stupid conversations with people who who make absolute claims based on illogical emotional decisions. The foundations for these beliefs(claims) are inventions of ancient sand strewn ignorant people for which no absolutely no evidence exists, in fact the opposite is true. I will now be able to link to specific parts of this post or cut and paste rather than address the same ignorance time and time again. quote: I do find it rather amusing that it's not logically possible to have a conversation about God, but here we are with 32 pages of conversations about God. Sort of gives lie to your statement that it is not possible to have such conversations when the evidence is right before us. God has been defined about 6 or 7 times in the thread. The thread has had little to do with the OP as it is not moderated - I am guilty of this as well.. Each time god was defined I showed why the belief was based upon bias, flawed reasoning or illogical. Typically not to hear back from the person who brought it up. It has also been demonstrated clearly in this thread god is what the individual wants it to be not an absolute. However, according to the vast majorities of religion or the ones people are building their personal foundation upon their doctrines recognized god an absolute. However, this simply does not hold up when examined. I have discussed and documented the psychology of belief. I have discussed mental illnesses which often describe faithful people(DSM). I have discussed and documented mechanisms in psychology which are responsible for belief/modern day faith. I have also discussed and presented several links to the neuroscience which now demonstrates the hypothesis psychologists have had about these beliefs for over 100 years are absolutely true. I have also discussed and defended the 3 laws of logic. If you wish to disagree, discuss, challenge or debate any of my points you are free to do so. That is fine too. I am here and obviously I do my best to respond every time. I have defined god and I have cut and paste this definition 3-4 times. The definition of this thing humans call god is as meaningless as a square circles. It is very possible to have illogical conversations about non-nonsensical ideas. This does not make it mature, rational, responsible or intelligent(pick your adjective). Children do it all the time. We as adults if we love our children often enter these worlds in their minds with them. As adults we allow and often press for children to explore these areas of their mind. We also expect it until a certain age. Eventually their comes a time to drop your toys and move on. I get it, it is very hard - I was a staunch theist for well over 1/2 my life. If you wish to change the tone of this thread at this very moment lets do it! I am here. Either god is real or it is not. However, remember X is always X(See OP).

Esinn -> RE: Define God (8/14/2009 9:59:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VanIsleKnight quote: I guess I will go play on your mom's swingset with you since we can not talk like adults - cool beans yO? Ya, let's go play on the swings. Go nuts, I'm not actually talking to you. =) Psst, they're imaginary swingsets. ;) Have fun! No, this playground is real. However,the children beat us to the swings. Let's let them play, move off their yard and us adults talk reasonably about this thing you call god. Personal revelation is not evidence - all religions appeal to it for the same reason Emotional appeal is not evidence - all religions appeal to it for the same reason Science violates almost everything we consider common sense - it is not evidence Religions appeal to the things you mention with the same bias and say, "my god is real yours is not." All religions(not spirituality) dismiss all other gods but one. The atheist, rationalist, logical person or anti-theist just goes one step further. The majority of religions claim their god or one of them who wan uncreated created the world. If you have evidence other than what you initially brought up, I shown why it is flawed, I am happy to discuss it. We just need to move away from the playground. If your god is real(I bet it is Jesus Christ/YHVH) all other religions are absolutely false for they do not recognize the only way to god is through Christ. If you have evidence for this claim, it instantly isolates billions of humans, lets talk about it.

Starbuck09 -> RE: Define God (8/14/2009 9:59:02 AM)
Esin unless I missed your review of my opinion I don't think you ever posited a view on my own definition. It relatively early on I shall try and find it for you.

Starbuck09 -> RE: Define God (8/14/2009 10:00:11 AM)
Post 57 page three.

Esinn -> RE: Define God (8/14/2009 10:00:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Starbuck09 Esin unless I missed your review of my opinion I don't think you ever posited a view on my own definition. It relatively early on I shall try and find it for you. Thank you. I always know I can count on you. It, as you can imagine, is hard for me to stay caught up with everyone. There was a 3 day period where I was out of town - that really fucked my shit up.

Page: << < prev 30 31 [32] 33 34 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875