RE: Define God (Full Version)

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



Message

NihilusZero -> RE: Define God (8/3/2009 10:20:02 AM)

Human deity evolution has moved to a place where pretty much everyone refers to a theistic god now. People will trot out the god-of-the-gaps when an interpersonal god cannot be as easily defended or quoted by intellectually attractive people who never really espoused the idea (Einstein, Jefferson, Hawking), but anyone who's debated these topics at length knows that discussing the deistic god is veridically and informatively worthless. When people chose to discuss gods, they inevitably want to bolster the case for the theistic god...and that is where the sensibility, evidence, and logic fall horrifically weak and when you can usually start tallying the flawed premises based off a checklist wrought from any critical thinking book.

"god" is the most (psychologicaly) usefully encapsulating metaphysical idea to assuage the largest number of human fears, emotional yearnings and curiosities.



DavanKael -> RE: Define God (8/3/2009 10:21:55 AM)

Esinn,
Lol, interesting that you did not reply to the post that I corrected myself regarding. 
Checking one's self and having the tenacity to note an error is, I think, a mark of character. 
You don't know what you are talking about regarding Freud, science, or anything else, for that matter --other than your own Narcissistic bubble which I enrourage you to retreat into-- and, it shows. 
You still have not addressed my original post to you while I did, in fact reply to your original post. 
Davan



subbyboy4you -> RE: Define God (8/3/2009 10:27:20 AM)

there is no proper noun for a word that represents a mythical being, its not Unicorn, Minotaur and Phoenix, is it, and of course you dont see your mind as weak, its you who believes it ;)



pyroaquatic -> RE: Define God (8/3/2009 10:32:00 AM)

Is this in reference to me NihilusZero?



subbyboy4you -> RE: Define God (8/3/2009 10:32:38 AM)

there is a conspiracy theory that the illuminati creates a religion every 500 years just to start wars

and there are people who genuinely believe god is real

and there are sceptics who think its all a load of rubbish

if there were 1 almighty being, then all the other religions must be wrong, but which is right, yours? just because YOU believe it, hardly

the fact of the matter is that a lot of christians, mostly americans, believe the universe was created between 6000 and 10000 years ago by their so called god

but science has proven that the universe was created 13.4 billion years ago, we have carbon dating techniques that disprove a lot of religious claims, and we have evolution that proves we have evolved from monkeys, this is only a few examples but the fact remains, there is a LOT more evidence to disprove god then to prove god

sure, some religious people will deny it altogether, some will pretend that their god has allowed us to uncover these truths

and thats what makes them weak minded



DavanKael -> RE: Define God (8/3/2009 10:33:04 AM)

And, another thought, Esinn----
Your points aren't worth refutation because you're actually making arguments based on emotion that you're trying to post-it-note scientific reference to as an afterthought. 
Sounds a lot like the tactics of some of the groups that you're sniping at. 
  Davan 



cpK69 -> RE: Define God (8/3/2009 10:38:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Esinn

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. 


No, I believe he is an entity of some type; most resembling energy, in my limited experience.
quote:

I am not sure why you would view it as a riddle - if this is your position.

Because I believe the answers to 'Life's' questions are answered in the form of equations, and equations remind me of riddles.
Kim



pyroaquatic -> RE: Define God (8/3/2009 10:42:55 AM)

I will believe what I believe in regardless.

http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node8.html

quote:

Scientific theories are neither absolutely false nor absolutely true.  They are always somewhere in between.  Some theories are better, more credible, and more accepted than others.  There is always more, more credible, and better evidence for some theories than others.  It is a matter of more or less, not either/or.  For example, experimental evidence is better and more credible than correlational evidence, but even the former cannot prove a theory; it only provides very strong evidence for the theory and against its alternatives.


http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

Edit: What I am getting at is the Humanity as a whole has not proved or disproved a single thing. Nor have you.
The only thing I know for sure is that I know nothing. I start there.

I am a fierce tiger. Rawr. :3



subbyboy4you -> RE: Define God (8/3/2009 10:48:35 AM)

at the end of the day, its impossible to get a defniitve answer from asking for a definition of god

all you will get are people who believe in it telling you their opinions

and people who dont, telling you theres

people should make their own minds up and be happy with that, believe what you want i dont care, but its unlikely you will agree with anyone elses definition but your own, unless they believe the same as you do



pyroaquatic -> RE: Define God (8/3/2009 11:02:13 AM)

I am not sure on this but:

Everyone has a fingerprint that is different. Why would my perception of God be the same as yours?
There are vague differences in a personal God that each one of us holds. The fact that God is in your nomenclature must mean something, even if you do not believe it.

Christianity has had so many diversions and mutations of something that should be unified.
In the Islamic religion it is a sin (and therefore punishable) to anthropomorphically represent God via illustration.

While I do not believe it is a sin to humanize God I believe it is fallacy.

God would prefer to appear non-existent in my opinion.

Placeholders. All of it.

Edit: Corrected some typos and stuff.



Esinn -> RE: Define God (8/3/2009 11:08:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: VanityFix

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"


That is sexy!  I agree with the vast majority of it and could have not said it any better, I looked at each of the links prior to responding and understand the material presented very well.  So, if you wish to discuss them in more detail I am willing to do so.

God is a subjective conceptual construct of the most primal  & frail minds  -ancient men..  As we are all born atheist, like you avoided, I will avoid using the word first minds.  The sheer complexity of the often hostile world could not be comprehended by these ancient sand strewn people, often their suffering was without value and their lives without purpose.  The struggle to just remain alive and sane in such an environment must have been unimaginable.  Humans evolved to be social creatures who command instantaneous understanding by any means necessary.  No matter how ignorant we now know  ancient man to be, all current evidence seems to demonstrate they were still similar to us.  They looked for pleasure and avoided pain; sometimes their minds were their only shelter.  It was out of this necessity of their survival the first god was invented.  I guess you assumed this was a logical postulate which is why you did not mention it?

I also agree god can be and is whatever the imagination of it's creator demands it to be at any given moment.  The true beauty, as I am shocked you did not imply is imagination is not connected with reality - 'all things are possible' through god in this way!  I really like the way you indirectly hinted to to that by linking belief systems,  monotheistm, deistic religions.  This demonstrated contradictions do not matter as conceptual ideas - imigination is not bound to reality.. I like how you threw the bombshell word: supernatural in there.  By that very definition alone it is self-evident if god(s) were real they would be things which would be forever beyond the comprehension of the human mind.  Either a thing is supernatural or it is not(Good use of the first law of logic - Law of Identity). Your closing few statements really hit home with divine simplicity.  Again this clearly establishes god is not an absolute concept that exists in the real world.  It is one which lives outside the human brain.  Divine Simplicity shows us in non-ambiguous terms god is everything to anyone, no matter if they are sane or insane, at every given moment: Christians, Odinists, Jews, Muslims, Satanists, Pantheists, Hindus or Janisists. 

God is not what it is rather it is whatever the creative mind of the beholder is imaginative to whip up

I was also impressed how all of the documents you offered make explicit claims of absolute truth without evidence and are in direct contradiction to each other.  You obviously spent a lot of time doing this locating such religions.  It also demonstrated this was no simple cut and past on your behalf.  I mean the links alone even to the most none observant reader clearly demonstrate special pleading, circular reasoning, irrational concepts & logical contradictions.  You made the obvious point such a thing the vast majority of religions call god is a logical contradiction, that can not exist outside the human mind demonstrating the flaws of such religions.

BRAVO!

Bravo

-Esin



pyroaquatic -> RE: Define God (8/3/2009 11:20:22 AM)

@_@

Esin, you make no sense. On that note I will step out now. Goodluck in whatever you are trying to do.



Rule -> RE: Define God (8/3/2009 11:20:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: subbyboy4you
the fact of the matter is that a lot of christians, mostly americans, believe the universe was created between 6000 and 10000 years ago by their so called god

but science has proven that the universe was created 13.4 billion years ago, we have carbon dating techniques that disprove a lot of religious claims, and we have evolution that proves we have evolved from monkeys
These different assertions are not incompatible.



NihilusZero -> RE: Define God (8/3/2009 11:33:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pyroaquatic

Edit: What I am getting at is the Humanity as a whole has not proved or disproved a single thing.

Using the quoted text your referenced to substantiate this point is disingenuous. The quoted text was intended for a discussion of theoretical science and its applications within the science community.

While science purposefully espouses the notion of statistical lenience for the near-impossible, it understands that within the framework of materialism that we all live in (whether we choose to accept it or not) there are indeed things so recurringly and reliably factual that it's ridiculous not to function under the assumption it is indeed fact.

If humanity has not succeeded in proving a single thing, then the keyboard you are typing on does not exist.



NihilusZero -> RE: Define God (8/3/2009 11:36:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: subbyboy4you

and we have evolution that proves we have evolved from monkeys
Not a single reputable evolutionary scientist or evolutionary science professor supports the notion that "we have evolved from monkeys".



Rule -> RE: Define God (8/3/2009 11:36:32 AM)

For Gossakes: she was quoting this wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God  !



NihilusZero -> RE: Define God (8/3/2009 11:38:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pyroaquatic

Is this in reference to me NihilusZero?

In reference to the topic in general, although your choice to include Einstein's deistic god into the discussion to support a theistic one was a point I was addressing individually.



Rule -> RE: Define God (8/3/2009 11:42:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Esinn
It was out of this necessity of their survival the first god was invented.
Which god was that? (Considering your assertion, I do assume that you know.) Please define this god.
 
(For what it is worth: your assertion is not correct.)
 
(I am Rule, the Omniscient. [8D])



NorthernGent -> RE: Define God (8/3/2009 11:55:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cpK69

I have attempted to solve the riddle “what is God?”



God is a human construct who satisfies certain human needs: the idea of salavation satisfies the fear of death; the idea of a non-specific deity controlling our actions satisfies the need for a greater meaning over and above that which we ourselves make.

And that is the/a weakness of human beings (some human beings) - we're capable of deluding ourselves without ever seeing the evidence to back up the claim because quite simply many of us lack the fibre to see life as being the culmination of the individual's choices.

We tend to regulate ourselves because we like regulation: work/government/family/god.



cpK69 -> RE: Define God (8/3/2009 12:14:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

[God is a human construct who satisfies certain human needs: the idea of salavation satisfies the fear of death; the idea of a non-specific deity controlling our actions satisfies the need for a greater meaning over and above that which we ourselves make.




I do not fear death; it is change, hidden behind a term that has been deemed scary.
quote:


the idea of a non-specific deity controlling our actions satisfies the need for a greater meaning over and above that which we ourselves make.


I do not believe that either. Life does not control beyond the desire instilled in all living things to continue to live.


quote:

And that is the/a weakness of human beings


I was thinking it was shame, or forgetfulness.

quote:


(some human beings) - we're capable of deluding ourselves without ever seeing the evidence to back up the claim because quite simply many of us lack the fibre to see life as being the culmination of the individual's choices.


I saw a city, impossible for any man to have made, and was not the only witness to the sighting; that was evidence enough for me.

quote:


We tend to regulate ourselves because we like regulation: work/government/family/god.


I was thinking traditionalist, but suspect a large part of that is due to fear.
Kim



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875