|
Author
|
Topic: The definition of GOD
|
Rahvin
Member Posts: 4046 Joined: 07-01-2005 Member Rating: 8.3
|
GOD = THE ULTIMATE POSSIBLE BEING/THING = Who knows and see all possibilities, and has total control over them. Also having the power to bring any possibility that it chooses into existence. What reasons do you have for such a definition? Assuming the existence of a "higher" entity for a moment, what makes you believe it would have omniscience and omnipotence? You seem to be going for a generic "god," as opposed to specifically affiliating your definition with a particular religion. Many faiths believe in "gods" that are far from omniscient or omnipotent - the Greeks, Romans, Norse, Egyptians, and many others all had "gods" that, while far more "powerful" than humans, were certainly not all-knowing or possessed of unlimited power to "bring any possibility (they) choose into existence." What caused you to define your "god" in such terms, as opposed to such other views?
When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.
|
Rahvin
Member Posts: 4046 Joined: 07-01-2005 Member Rating: 8.3
|
Dear Rahvin,
quote:
What reasons do you have for such a definition? Assuming the existence of a "higher" entity for a moment, what makes you believe it would have omniscience and omnipotence?
Logically God must or needs to know everything otherwise he would not be God, how can God NOT know everything? Also God would need to have omnipotence for simular reasons, if God was not incontrol of all power then he couldn't be God. "Logically," no, god does not require omniscience or omnipotence. The fact that the vast majority of faiths that have existed do not have gods with neither of those qualities shows that it doesn't logically follow. But then, this is a game of "this is my imaginary friend, and this is what he's like," so you can pretty much give whatever characteristics you'd like.
quote:
You seem to be going for a generic "god," as opposed to specifically affiliating your definition with a particular religion.
Yes that is my intention. And here's where you run into trouble. If you identify your "god" specifically as the Christian god, then yes, it would follow that such an entity would require omniscience and omnipotence - the very basis for hisdefinition (the Bible) says that he possesses both qualities. But since you're trying to avoid a specific deity, and just trying to define the word "god" without any sort of basis for his characteristics beyond your opinion, you may as well discuss the definition of a "dragon" - it's all imaginary and based on nothing at all. If you say "god" is omnipotent, that's fine - but your opinion holds no more objective value than an ancient Greek who points out that his god, Zeus, was not (though I hear making him angry was still a bad idea).
quote:
Many faiths believe in "gods" that are far from omniscient or omnipotent - the Greeks, Romans, Norse, Egyptians, and many others all had "gods" that, while far more "powerful" than humans, were certainly not all-knowing or possessed of unlimited power to "bring any possibility (they) choose into existence." What caused you to define your "god" in such terms, as opposed to such other views?
Yes many faiths have many different gods. However I would simply argue that they are not the ULTIMATE GOD, only my definition defines GOD in an Absolute way, and defines God as the supreme being/thing. "ULTIMATE GOD?" Sounds like a comic book or toy gimmick. It appears to me that you've gone the way of Intelligent Design proponents - taken the god you already believe in and stripped away it's name to give the appearance of "religious neutrality." You're presenting the definition of the Christian god, minus the specifics like the words "of the Bible" or anything to do with Jesus, and claiming it as the definition for the Supreme Being.
Basically what I have done is logically reasoned what God would, should and must be if he exists. You haven't "logically" reasoned anything, as the entire position is a giant non sequitor - you have no evidence or reason to define "god" this way except for your own opinion (and likely pre-existing faith). Why, if a "god" exists, must it be both omnipotent and omniscient? Be specific. Why, if a "god" exists, could it not be as other faiths have defined gods - simply much more powerful and knowledgeable (note - not always more wise) than human beings. Be specific. If you add "created the universe" to your definition of god (you didn't in your OP), you might be closer in requiring omnipotence, but the fact is such an entity could still be incapable of manipulating reality on smaller scales like human lives - you simply have no idea. Hell, it could even have some ridiculous limit put on its power, like the Genie from Disney's Aladdin: penominal, cosmic power, but constrained to exist in a tiny space. And then you still need to deal with omniscience. Does a deity really require omniscience to qualify as a deity? The Romans, Greeks, and Egyptians certainly didn't think so. Why do you believe your "ULTIMATE GOD" requires this, if you're making a generic definition not based on a specific religion? I contend that you're just putting forth the Christian god (or Allah, it really doesn't make a difference), which you already believe in, and stripping it of specific identification in an attempt to gain validation for the idea that your god must "logically" be the only definition for "god." It's no different from the IDists, and when it comes down to it, without a specific religion to even base your deity around tradition, you're just saying "my invisible friend's name is Bob, and this is what he looks like."
When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.
|
Rahvin
Member Posts: 4046 Joined: 07-01-2005 Member Rating: 8.3
|
Dear Rahvin,
quote:
"Logically," no, god does not require omniscience or omnipotence. The fact that the vast majority of faiths that have existed do not have gods with neither of those qualities shows that it doesn't logically follow.
You seem to be relegating my GOD to deity's like the Roman gods or perhaps the Hindu pantheon. But I think you fail to understand that my definition of GOD is not the same as any of these "lesser" gods. You see none of these lesser gods ARE the ultimate possible being/thing, therefore they do not require omniscience or omnipotence. ONLY the ultimate possible being/thing WOULD require these attributes. I maintain that the supreme GOD has knowledge of everything to control his power, and the supreme GOD has unlimited power because he knows everything.
quote:
And here's where you run into trouble. If you identify your "god" specifically as the Christian god, then yes, it would follow that such an entity would require omniscience and omnipotence - the very basis for hisdefinition (the Bible) says that he possesses both qualities.
Well I have explained quite easily above why my GOD has omniscience and omnipotence without any religious sentiment.
quote:
But since you're trying to avoid a specific deity, and just trying to define the word "god" without any sort of basis for his characteristics beyond your opinion, you may as well discuss the definition of a "dragon" - it's all imaginary and based on nothing at all. If you say "god" is omnipotent, that's fine - but your opinion holds no more objective value than an ancient Greek who points out that his god, Zeus, was not (though I hear making him angry was still a bad idea).
I will deal with any characteristics that my definition of God has later. However a "dragon" is not the ultimate possible being/thing, I am only dealing with whatever IS the ultimate possible being/thing. You can give as many examples as you want, but unless they qualify as the ultimate possible being/thing Who knows and see all possibilities, and has total control over them. Also having the power to bring any possibility that it chooses into existence, then your examples are not GOD by my definition and therefore cannot be compared. Congratulations: you've established circular reasoning. "God has these characteristics becasue I say he does. I say he has these characteristics because that's how I define God." We know your definition is your definition. If that's all you think is relevant, and reality has nothing to do with it, feel free to continue describing your imaginary friend - it has no relevance to the real world, and nothing at ll to do with logic or reasoning.
quote:
It appears to me that you've gone the way of Intelligent Design proponents - taken the god you already believe in and stripped away it's name to give the appearance of "religious neutrality." You're presenting the definition of the Christian god, minus the specifics like the words "of the Bible" or anything to do with Jesus, and claiming it as the definition for the Supreme Being.
Well we will just have to see, you have brought up religious ideas not me. I maintain I can argue my definition of God without the use of anything religious. CAN YOU? You can argue that your definition of god is your definition of god all you want, but it doesn't have any relevance to reality. You're establishing your definition of god based on what you think god should be like, but you're literally picking an idea from your head and exclaiming "this is what god is." If you define god as "a miniature giant space hamster" or "the flying spaghetti monster," anything that is not a miniature giant space hamster or the flying spaghetti monster would also not be god "by your definition." Let's try a little exercise: I define blue as green. You can argue that blue is not green all you like, but blue is still green by my definition. So there. You're like a child who'se been told that all opinions have equal value and cannot be wrong. Unfortunately, opinions can be wrong, and definitions with no basis in reality are irrelevant. Especially when they amount to a giant non sequitor on top of circular reasoning.
quote:
You haven't "logically" reasoned anything, as the entire position is a giant non sequitor - you have no evidence or reason to define "god" this way except for your own opinion (and likely pre-existing faith).
Hold on I HAVE done a lot of thinking, just not here thats all, you have no idea what I have done to get to my definition, I just haven't presented much yet because I am going in stages, I have a whole thesis to present. Remember at this stage I am not trying to prove ANYTHING. Apparently you don't know what the word "logic" means. Here's a hit: it does not mean that you've "thought a lot" about something. Look up "logical fallacies" in google. Try to learn something.
quote:
Why, if a "god" exists, must it be both omnipotent and omniscient? Be specific.
God would have to be a God of ultimate power with ultimate power, simply because without total power God could not BE God by my definition. For God to be God by my definition, it would require that God would know and see all possibilities. Because of this we can understand how God must know and see everything. Here you go again, insisting that your defintion has validity becasue you've defined it. You can keep your definition of god, or fairies, or your imaginary friend Bob all you want - without any basis in objective reality, you're describing a fictional character you made up.
quote:
Why, if a "god" exists, could it not be as other faiths have defined gods - simply much more powerful and knowledgeable (note - not always more wise) than human beings. Be specific.
It really doesn't matter what other faiths define God as, if their definition isn't whatever the ultimate possible being/thing IS, then they are not defining the supreme being based on my definition. ...and again. You haven't provided a reason your definition is correct and theirs were wrong - you simply state that their definition of god is not your definition of god. That's nice, but we knew that. What actual reason, outside of your own navel-grazing deep-thinking imagination and opinion, do you have for defining god this way? Why can god not simply be "an entity vastly more powerful than human beings who seems to work by magic?" Why can god not be defined as "a fictional entity I made up?" "Because I said so" is not a good argument. That's how 8-year-olds argue. Or how adults argue with 8-year-olds.
quote:
If you add "created the universe" to your definition of god (you didn't in your OP), you might be closer in requiring omnipotence, but the fact is such an entity could still be incapable of manipulating reality on smaller scales like human lives - you simply have no idea. Hell, it could even have some ridiculous limit put on its power, like the Genie from Disney's Aladdin: penominal, cosmic power, but constrained to exist in a tiny space.
Well I would say that the god u describe could not be the God I have defined, the only limits my GOD may have, are only thoughs limits imposed on or by itself, but would have the ability to take thoughs limits away if it chooses also. My definition of GOD remember says that it would see all possibilities, and have total control over them, so my GOD would be able to manipulate anything. "My god's bigger than your god! So there!" Are you actually a child? Youre acting like a kid arguing whether Superman could beat Thor (who, amusingly enough, is actually considered a deity).
quote:
And then you still need to deal with omniscience. Does a deity really require omniscience to qualify as a deity? The Romans, Greeks, and Egyptians certainly didn't think so. Why do you believe your "ULTIMATE GOD" requires this, if you're making a generic definition not based on a specific religion?
No, omniscience is not required to qualify as a deity. But we are not just talking about any old deity but the ultimate possible being/thing, who knows everything because he sees all possibilities. Once again, youre saying that your definition is valid becasue that's how you've defined it. "Becasue I said so" is no argument.
quote:
I contend that you're just putting forth the Christian god (or Allah, it really doesn't make a difference), which you already believe in, and stripping it of specific identification in an attempt to gain validation for the idea that your god must "logically" be the only definition for "god." It's no different from the IDists, and when it comes down to it, without a specific religion to even base your deity around tradition, you're just saying "my invisible friend's name is Bob, and this is what he looks like."
Well you can contend anything you like, but I will not be bringing any religious ideas into this topic. I want to discuss MY definition of God. If someone else wants to give us their definition of God thats fine. But I think my definition is probably the single best definition of GOD that there is. Why is your definition the "best?" Is it because you make your god the very bestest, and could kick any other god's butt, even Thor? Or is it because it bears the closest resemblance to reality? So far, you've only done the former. The latter would require you to give reasons beyond "I said so." If all you're looking for is validation of your idea of the very bestest, strongest, smartest imaginary friend, you've come to the wrong place.
When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.
|
Rahvin
Member Posts: 4046 Joined: 07-01-2005 Member Rating: 8.3
|
|
Message 26 of 312 (453898)
02-04-2008 4:39 PM
|
Reply to: Message 21 by Phat
02-04-2008 4:10 PM
|
|
Re: Can God be deduced from human wisdom?
I see what you are saying, and agree with you that God cannot be rationally proven, although God can be rationally accepted. Given evidence, sure. Blind faith without evidence however is not rational.
If we had an imaginary room full of people who sought through debate and logical deduction to explore this topic, we would almost certainly conclude with the idea that God could not be proved or even defined. Such is the nature of the brains He gave us. (IMB, of course.) Not without appealing to the authority of a specific religious text or the entity itself stepping into our conversation and saying "no, no, this is what I am."
I think that RTU will have a tough time establishing any unquestionable logic on the existence of God, I agree.
but we can have a rational discussion on the possibility. Rahvin, do you personally believe that "God" could be possible? If so, is this "God" that you imagine a product of your own mind or is He an undefinable possibility outside of human logic and reason? Of course "god" could possibly exist. It all depends on how you define what "god" is, as RTU is trying to do - he at least has that part right. If you define "god" as "an entity with environment or even reality-changing abilities so far beyond human comprehension as to appear to be magical," such a definition is sufficiently generic as to not be beyond possibility. Logic puzzles aside, even the omnipotent deity RTU suggests is possible. But then, it's entirely possible that my invisible friend Bob is real, too - you just can't see him. There's a very large difference between accepting that something may possibly exist and actually believing that it does exist. Without evidence, the latter is irrational. Another problem is simply that all of this waxing poetic about what a deity "may be" is nothing mroe than navel grazing. We can imagine and think all we want, but until we have something to go on, some sort of evidence, there can be no defineable characteristics to assign to "god." Until then, he's a concept - nothing more.
When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 21 by Phat, posted 02-04-2008 4:10 PM | | Phat has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 28 by Phat, posted 02-04-2008 5:11 PM | | Rahvin has not replied |
|
Rahvin
Member Posts: 4046 Joined: 07-01-2005 Member Rating: 8.3
|
|
|
Message 45 of 312 (453959)
02-04-2008 9:19 PM
|
Reply to: Message 42 by Lemkin
02-04-2008 8:59 PM
|
|
"ULTIMATE GOD?" Sounds like a comic book or toy gimmick.
You don't even want to get started on what names sound funny.
The big bang theory. I mean, come on, that's not exactly very original. It sounds like a theory made up by a two year old. Oddly enough, the term was coined by Fred Hoyle, the big name behind what was called the "steady state theory," as a derisive remark - literally, he referred to it as "this big bang idea" on a radio broadcast. It was simple, so it stuck. I would have called it something like the "expansion theory" or the "Hubble model," and avoided all of the nonsense misconceptions that the Universe started with something akin to a gunpowder explosion...but that's me.
When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 42 by Lemkin, posted 02-04-2008 8:59 PM | | Lemkin has not replied |
|
Rahvin
Member Posts: 4046 Joined: 07-01-2005 Member Rating: 8.3
|
You can call GOD whatever you like, that is not the point, you fail to understand what makes MY GOD, ALMIGHTY GOD as it were. It is in the definition itself, "Who knows and see all possibilities, and has total control over them. Also having the power to bring any possibility that it chooses into existence." If this applies to the flying spaghetti monster then it really IS GOD. But this IS my point, only a God that can know all possibilities and can control them WOULD BE GOD, unless you have a better definition of GOD then you cannot even claim that my definition is not relevent to reality. Your exercise is meaningless because we are talking about What GOD is not what colours are. The rest of your post is just insults and innuendoes. I am not here to engage in such behavior, so I will skip everything else as there are more people I need to respond to. The best way I can respond to your arguments is with the same childlike argument: Oh yeah? Well MY god times infinity PLUS ONE! That's all you're doing. You arent offering any meaningful definition at all. Call my post "insulting" all you want - your drivel is still meaningless navel-grazing and childish validation-seeking. You want us all to say "wow, yeah, that's good," but your broken logic and baseless opinion leave much to be desired. If god walked up to you right now and said "I am god," but somehow did not match your definition, you'd say "you aren't god." It's like defining a rose as a type of tree, and then saying "this is not a rose" when one is presented to you. Your imagination-based definition has nothing to do with reality - you're jsut saying "this is what I think god is." but its no more valid than literally any other definition.
When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.
|
Rahvin
Member Posts: 4046 Joined: 07-01-2005 Member Rating: 8.3
|
I am not making it difficult at all, the definition of GOD I present is easy to understand, and I have given ways in which to show how my definition is wrong. It doesn't matter what I believe or indeed what you believe, what matters is whether my definition of God is a valid definition of whatever this sumpreme being might actually be. Every definition anyone can ever come up with is a valid definition for an entity that may or may not exist! If there is no reference to the actual entity from observations, and no tie-in to a specific religion, there is absolutely no way to determine any of its attributes. This means it could have any attribute you'd like to assign to it - your definition is perfectly valid, but so would a definition along the lines of "a many-tentacled beast from whose terrible maw the Universe spawned." We cannot observe the entity to see what its characteristics are. You specifically want to avoid any particular religion that could help determine what its characteristics are. This means we are working on pure imagination. We may as well be agreeing on the characteristics of a troll without referencing any of the myriad legends and bits of literature in which they appear.
As for Apollo or Athena, once again, before arguing whether or not these are gods or whether they even exist or not, you need to define what God means in the first place. Of course by my definition, if Apollo or Athena do not have the same attributes as the UPB/T then they are not the supreme intelligence I am attempting to define. Right. You're trying to define some "UTLIMATE DOUBLEPLUS INFINITY MEGA GOD," and that's all well and good - but since we have no observations to tie it with reality, and you've specifically nixed using specific religions from which to draw characteristics, we may as well all sit around and describe our imaginary friends! Your definiton of the word "GOD" is fine - but it's exactly as valid as anyone else's definition of the same word, including definitions that would include Athena or Zeus or the Great Spirit or what have you, becasue we are working with absolutely nothing but opinion and imagination from the limitations you've given us. If I say that your definition is inadequate, and say that MY definition of GOD is "a being that can overpower RTU's GOD," I'm just using the childish "infinity plus 1" argument; but it's no more or less meaningful than your definition, because it has no basis in either reality or legend. I'm pulling the definition out of my own head, exactly like you're doing.
When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.
|
Rahvin
Member Posts: 4046 Joined: 07-01-2005 Member Rating: 8.3
|
Let's try it this way. Maybe you'll understand what we mean:
quote:
Below is my definition of a blasmophreeb. What I would like is everyone's opinion of it. Do you think it is a valid definition? Could you improve on it? Or do you have any criticism of it? Blasmophreeb = THE ULTIMATE POSSIBLE GROTUS = Has more tentacles, teeth, and phurbles than any other grotus, and can make zurms come into existence through nothing but it's willpower. I look forward to you comments.
If you say "what about the Greek's version of the blasmophreeb? It didn't have tentacles." I could respond "That wouldn't be my definition of a blasmophreeb." Do you see? You're pulling your definition of god out of thin air, with nothing to base it on but your own imagination (which I still contend is defined by your existing religious beliefs). You arent using logic. It has nothing to do with science. You're picking a word and making up a definition, which is fine, but you can't claim your definition has any greater validity than anyone else's definition unless you are basing your definition on an observation from reality or at the very least a legend, myth, or religion. You're saying "god" should mean an entity with literally unlimited knowledge and control over reality. When you're told that the word "god" does not necessarily require either of those qualitites, you respond with "nuh uh!" You aren't putting forth much of a position here.
When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.
|
Rahvin
Member Posts: 4046 Joined: 07-01-2005 Member Rating: 8.3
|
Dear Rahvin, Your still missing the point, the "ULTIMATE POSSIBLE" covers everything you can think of, thats the point, it actually eliminates your arguments at the source. The point is not what you can think up, but whatever the ultimate possible thing is, thats what it is. And you're still missing my point. You aren't basing your definition on anything except your own mental masturbation. That being the case, literally any definition of "god" is exactly as valid as yours. If I define the word "god" to be "a space kitten from southern Nebraska," I'm basing that definition on exactly as much information as you are: nothing. You can define "god" however you want, but it's still meaningless until you base that definition on something. If you define "god" as the Christian deity, you're basing it on something, and when other deities are pointed out it is valid to say "but that's not the Christian god." If you define "god" as your own personal idea of what "god" should be with no basis for that opinion, then other views of "god" would not be "your god" but would still be just as valid as your view.
For example logically you cannot have a being that knows everything plus one, it is illogical to think that. Oh? What logical fallacy is present in the statement "god = infinite power + 1?" Be specific.
All my definition does is take an all knowing and all powerful being, and concluding that well it's impossible to get anything better than an all knowing and all powerful being, therefore whatever that being is, it would be the ultimate possible being. That's a nice circular sentence - the ultimate possible being is the ultimate possible being. Very nice. But why do you define "god" that way when there are many examples of people defining "god" without those characteristics? Why is your definition more valid? Here's a hint: it's not. Without anything to base your definition on, your definition is meaningless. You may as well describe your imaginary friend Bob.
When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.
|
Rahvin
Member Posts: 4046 Joined: 07-01-2005 Member Rating: 8.3
|
Re: omni everything and logic
You should get in touch with tesla. The two of you combined could reach new heights in word salad technology.
When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.
|
Rahvin
Member Posts: 4046 Joined: 07-01-2005 Member Rating: 8.3
|
This will probably be my last response to you as you seem to be more interested in coming up with clever insults rather than any rational discussion. Awwww, did I offend you? My "clever insults," as you put them, are meant to illustrate the silliness of claiming your definition of "god" has any more or less merit than any other definition anyone cares to come up with, no matter how ludicrous.
I am amazed that you don't understand. How can you get more than 100% of anything? Infinity != 100%, genius. In fact, Infinity + 1 actually does add up to something. Infinity + 1 = infinity.
Well is saying a Car is a Car a circular sentence? If you say that a car is a car because it is a car, then yes - that would be circular logic. The reason would be what's invalid.
Even if it is, does that make the car NOT a car? No. But you can't prove that a car is a car by saying it's a car - you need to examine the object's characteristics (presence of wheels, internal combustion engine, etc) and see if it is a car. Circular reasoning is logically invalid even if it arrives at the correct conclusion by accident.
I will let you into a little secret, my definition of GOD is valid for the simple reason that I believe I can prove its existence. Nobody else can say that about their definitions can they! Well, why wait - by all means, oh wise one, show us this proof you think you've discovered.
When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.
|
Rahvin
Member Posts: 4046 Joined: 07-01-2005 Member Rating: 8.3
|
Don't worry I am not. I said near the start of all this that I am doing something that is totally new. So I understand why what I am doing is hard to understand at the moment, and it is amusing to see people presupposing me. I also understand that everybody on this forum has being arguing back and forth all the usual arguments, so that is why I having being going very slowly and not giving much away yet so people can get the usual "spaggetti flying monster" stuff out of the way, and see how none of the usual arguments actually applies to what I am bringing to the table. We're almost halfway to the post limit for the thread. I suggest you get started.
|
Rahvin
Member Posts: 4046 Joined: 07-01-2005 Member Rating: 8.3
|
|
|
Message 305 of 312 (458518)
02-29-2008 2:28 PM
|
Reply to: Message 304 by lyx2no
02-29-2008 2:22 PM
|
|
Re: GOD Defined
Surely not everyone. What he says must be true. CAPS LOCK MAKES ANY ARGUMENT WIN! /sarcasm
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 304 by lyx2no, posted 02-29-2008 2:22 PM | | lyx2no has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 306 by Stile, posted 02-29-2008 2:44 PM | | Rahvin has replied |
|
Rahvin
Member Posts: 4046 Joined: 07-01-2005 Member Rating: 8.3
|
|
|
Message 308 of 312 (458527)
02-29-2008 3:14 PM
|
Reply to: Message 306 by Stile
02-29-2008 2:44 PM
|
|
Re: GOD Defined
No fair! I only used the caps to copy the style of the guy I was replying to... Which is really who I was mocking, not you.
God will never exist from humans defining Him into existance. God exists. Or God does not exist. The actuality will not be known until we have observations of the real world. The probabilities of these options will not be known until we have observations of the real world. Without observations of the real world, we may use faith to believe in God. Faith also does not force God into existance. But if God does exist, faith may be our only possible connection to Him. I agree completely. And for some, faith without evidence is good enough. For others, we need some kind of objective evidence to at least hint at the existence of a deity. Defining "god" is just plain silly without anything objective to base the definition on. You may as well define "god" as "invisible fairies," and conclude he doesn't exist. Unless your definition is correct, it's meaningless. And without anything objective to base the definition on, there's no way to ensure the definition is accurate.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 306 by Stile, posted 02-29-2008 2:44 PM | | Stile has seen this message but not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2