Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is GOD?
zyncod
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 97 (215558)
06-09-2005 2:23 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by dsv
06-09-2005 12:44 AM


I find the question "What is God?" to be a little specious. I am an atheist, and I do think one of Ayn Rand's only redeeming qualities was her idea that anyone who held anything else in higher esteem than one's own possibilities is a mouth-breather. According, at least to the Muslim/Jewish/Christian hierarchy of faith, expecting anyone living on this planet to answer the question of "What is God?" is analogous to asking a laboratory mouse "What are humans like?" That is, the mice are responsible to humans for their lives but humans did not give birth to them, and the humans interfere in their lives only rarely but these interferences are highly significant to the mouse (taken away from parents, stressful injections, death by CO2 - at least in the case of my research). Similarly, we are supposedly responsible to God for our lives, and God's (supposedly) known interferences have been rare but significant. Anything that dwells beyond our 'cages' (universe), we really cannot be expected to know.
And, BTW, the mice might actually call us Gods under these specific circumstances. We provide food, life, water, shelter but also cause pain and death. Just we supposedly have no idea of God's intention, the mice presumably have no idea of their Gods' intentions (does isolation of vascular endothelial cadherin-expressing cells from splenic pulp - something I did today - mean anything to the mouse from which I got the splenic pulp?).
Edit - Sorry about all the mouse stuff. I've been feeling a little guilty about my job lately.
This message has been edited by zyncod, 06-09-2005 02:29 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by dsv, posted 06-09-2005 12:44 AM dsv has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by jar, posted 06-09-2005 11:32 AM zyncod has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 17 of 97 (215564)
06-09-2005 3:59 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by dsv
06-09-2005 2:06 AM


And a creation can't know its creator? Why not? The bible tells us specifically to know him, why can't we really know him?
Because humans cannot imagine Him. He is only properly conceived through human interactions. This is why Jesus gives a clear insight into His Fathers personality.
God is perceived when one is driving on empty and all rational possibilities of gasoline calculations spell being stranded in the desert. And yet you make it the extra 125 miles on E to the station.
God is perceived when your conscience feels a "check" about the rationality or lack of same happening around you.
God gives you words to say when you need to say them yet have been slacking off in your studies.
God is that sparkle that comes from your friend who...although rarely helpful...says just what needs to be said and you can see the love and joy in their character at that moment.
God is supernatural because God is extraordinary. He is extraordinarily illogical until you realize your own hypocrisies. He is extraordinarily unimaginable until you feel the impartation of His Spirit. He is described through the words of the Bible, yet the definition cannot be logically assessed so easily. He demands that we give Him our attention because He knows that we need Him.
He has revealed Himself in part to many of us. We quite possibly could not handle the full revelation. Even as Christians, our fallible human nature seeks to rebuild as if God were un necessary. Once we met Him, we knew that this was a lie. Some call Him our crutch. We see Him as our sustaining anchor. Hangdawg speaks of the abstract, so I would like you to imagine this anchor as keeping us grounded in a reality that can appear illogical to some observers and totally logical to others. Why we all cannot agree is not for me to judge or speculate upon...but be patient! Leave open the possibility and make no determinations that you cannot validate 100% in your mind and heart.
Does this help?
This message has been edited by Phatboy, 06-09-2005 02:06 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by dsv, posted 06-09-2005 2:06 AM dsv has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by purpledawn, posted 06-09-2005 7:20 AM Phat has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 18 of 97 (215572)
06-09-2005 7:20 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Phat
06-09-2005 3:59 AM


God is Imagination
quote:
Because humans cannot imagine Him.
That's the problem, mankind CAN imagine God. Mankind created the concept of God. God came from mankind's imagination. God is that which we can't explain, or can't control. The more mankind understands the workings of this world, the less God controls. In Christianity it is what happens after death. We don't know. Well, I think we do know, we just don't like it.
The rules surrounding the concept of God have changed since they first began. That's why we have so many religions. Since mankind created God, mankind can change the rules of the game so to speak. When they are unhappy with one religion they create another.
Just reading on this forum the various specifics about God that theists "know" and yet most of these specifics aren't within the book they call sacred. We interpret religious writings, we don't comprehend them. When we read them comprehensively, then we see the reality of their authors.
If God were truly a knowable being outside of the pages and imaginations that house him, then they could share the steps to knowing God that all could follow.
Whether there is one supreme being that started this universe machine, I don't know, but, IMO, a known being is not what religion worships.

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Phat, posted 06-09-2005 3:59 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Hangdawg13, posted 06-09-2005 6:42 PM purpledawn has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 19 of 97 (215617)
06-09-2005 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by zyncod
06-09-2005 2:23 AM


Way OT but it's all your fault.
Mouse studies actually contributed to my username.
Many years ago I helped in a study of mouse intelligence.
Mice were placed in a maze and had to find their way through to the food. It soon became obvious that different mice showed different patterns learning the maze.
Type A mice would just wander around, often trying the same passageway forever, never finding the reward.
Type B mice would try each passageway, never trying a dead end twice until they found their way to the food.
Type C mice just sat and seemed to be thinking. Then they would set out and without an error go straight to the goal.
This study proved conclusively why so many of the great inventions and advancements throughout history have been attributed to A Non-A-Mouse.
Jar, on the other hand, is Just A Rat.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by zyncod, posted 06-09-2005 2:23 AM zyncod has not replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 20 of 97 (215714)
06-09-2005 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by lfen
06-09-2005 1:50 AM


Re: Platonist?
You seem to be still working on a Platonic approach to the "supernatural"?
I've never used the word platonism before, but I just looked it up and I'm not sure that quite fits my philosophy.
What are you asserting?
I am asserting that our perceptions, experiences, and feelings are all real things, not just abstract things or mere illusions created by the illusion of consciousness. I am saying that knowing how a thing exists, does not nullify the reality of it.
If there is no God then there is no good, evil, truth, or meaning, yet I experience these things. So I can either assert that there is no God and then logically put to death half of my being, or I can assert that there is a God and then fully live.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by lfen, posted 06-09-2005 1:50 AM lfen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by lfen, posted 06-09-2005 10:24 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 21 of 97 (215717)
06-09-2005 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by dsv
06-09-2005 2:06 AM


Well, from your sarcasm I guess you took my reply as less than genuine. I was being serious.
Oh... sorry. I hope I didn't sound rude. I was just trying to demonstrate the absurdity of the idea that some folks have that if there exists this God dude, he MUST be contained within and governed by his own creation. He can't be the supreme being or supernatural if he bows to nature.
And a creation can't know its creator? Why not?
Who said we can’t? We can’t know him fully, because He is like infinite or perfection sit down and think about infinite for a while. You just can’t fully wrap your mind around it.
The bible tells us specifically to know him, why can't we really know him?
You can know Him. If you’ve ever loved truth or sought Goodness or loved your neighbor, you’ve known Him. And if you had done this, you would know Chirst too. But you cannot follow the good path when you don't believe in good. You cannot love truth if you don't believe we can know truth. Therefore, you will never know God.
If the entire physical world is a computer matrix it ceases to be a physical world.
But it doesn’t there is no difference between a perfect illusion and the real thing. If we were to somehow learn this whole universe is a matrix, we would only understand more. It would not nullify the reality and existence of the universe. It would only prove our previous understanding lacking.
In the same respect, I'd want to know who or what programmed this world. If someone told me love and truth programmed the matrix, I'd probably be just as skeptical.
Cognitive dissonance pushes us away from agnosticism towards one conclusion or the other, and then our new found belief begins to shape our perceptions of reality to reinforce that belief. I look at the universe and see beauty, truth, love, and goodness, and my belief is reinforced. You look at the universe and see a cold, meaningless, harsh, Godless place, and your belief is reinforced.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by dsv, posted 06-09-2005 2:06 AM dsv has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by dsv, posted 06-09-2005 7:17 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 22 of 97 (215722)
06-09-2005 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by purpledawn
06-09-2005 7:20 AM


Re: God is Imagination
God is that which we can't explain, or can't control. The more mankind understands the workings of this world, the less God controls.
That may be true of some people, but not me. I believe God is behind the weather even though I understand convection and evaporation and the jet stream.
Just because we know how God does a thing, this doesn't mean He's not the one doing it.
The rules surrounding the concept of God have changed since they first began.
...people who knew little claimed to know a lot in order to control people or gain earthly possesion. As far as I know this has happened in practically every religion including Christianity.
Since mankind created God, mankind can change the rules of the game so to speak.
Religion and God are not one in the same. Religion is the set of "rules of the game" that humans create. God is something that humans either seek or reject.
Whether there is one supreme being that started this universe machine, I don't know, but, IMO, a known being is not what religion worships.
Do not look to religion if you are looking for God. Look into yourself and the lives of others, and do not reject any of it as being less than real simply because you understand the science behind it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by purpledawn, posted 06-09-2005 7:20 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by purpledawn, posted 06-09-2005 8:07 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

  
dsv
Member (Idle past 4724 days)
Posts: 220
From: Secret Underground Hideout
Joined: 08-17-2004


Message 23 of 97 (215730)
06-09-2005 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Hangdawg13
06-09-2005 6:26 PM


Oh... sorry. I hope I didn't sound rude.
No problem. I am genuinely interested in these discussions and the viewpoints of all sides.
Who said we can’t? We can’t know him fully, because He is like infinite or perfection sit down and think about infinite for a while. You just can’t fully wrap your mind around it.
Picturing infinity is difficult, truly understanding it literally is most likely impossible, I will give you that. However, most modern theory has phased out abstract concepts of infinite regions in place of explanations of infinite travel (as in, the region isn't infinite but the perception is).
You can know Him. If you’ve ever loved truth or sought Goodness or loved your neighbor, you’ve known Him. And if you had done this, you would know Chirst too. But you cannot follow the good path when you don't believe in good. You cannot love truth if you don't believe we can know truth. Therefore, you will never know God.
I do love truth, that's why I attend the university that I do and study the things that I study, as well as search deeply in philosophy for higher meaning. As for goodness, I consider myself to be a good person, even though I am agnostic. I don't believe that you need religion to tell you how to be a good human being, in fact I believe there are a lot of obstacles put up by Christianity that prevent followers from being truly good to all people (if they follow the letter of the bible literally).
I cannot love truth if I'm not a believer? Did I read that right? I would say agnostics and atheists are often extremely in love with the pursuit of truth.
I don't get the opportunity to know God, who could potentially "save" me, unless I am a believer? That's somewhat chicken-&-eggish and seems counter-productive.
But it doesn’t there is no difference between a perfect illusion and the real thing. If we were to somehow learn this whole universe is a matrix, we would only understand more. It would not nullify the reality and existence of the universe. It would only prove our previous understanding lacking.
If we were to learn our universe is a matrix it would most certainly nullify the reality and existence. Science sometimes nullifies previous correct information with contradictory information which substitutes the earlier discoveries. When we learn new things from observing the universe and experimenting we come to conclusions and say "Ooohh!" not "Ooooh, but that flat Earth theory is still very valid since the illusion was just as good as the real thing."
Basically, ignorance may be bliss but it doesn't automatically qualify something as reality.
Cognitive dissonance pushes us away from agnosticism towards one conclusion or the other and then our new found belief begins to shape our perceptions of reality to reinforce that belief.
Well yes, the ultimate goal for any agnostic is coming to a unifying conclusion. However, adopting Christianity and letting it dictate your perceptions of reality goes against the reasoning and logic that the agnostic often stands for.
I look at the universe and see beauty, truth, love, and goodness, and my belief is reinforced. You look at the universe and see a cold, meaningless, harsh, Godless place, and your belief is reinforced.
I don't know where you got that, I would never say such a thing, nor would any cosmologist (or any other field of science for that matter).
I look at the universe and see a enthrallingly complex, beautiful and stunning masterpiece of nature. Warm, rich and elegant with vast unknown spaces that continue to intrigue me every single day with new information.
edited to fix a /qs tag typo for formating
This message has been edited by dsv, Thursday, June 09, 2005 07:19 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Hangdawg13, posted 06-09-2005 6:26 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Hangdawg13, posted 06-10-2005 3:16 AM dsv has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 24 of 97 (215738)
06-09-2005 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Hangdawg13
06-09-2005 6:42 PM


Re: God is Imagination
quote:
That may be true of some people, but not me. I believe God is behind the weather even though I understand convection and evaporation and the jet stream.
I have difficulty attributing natural disasters to a supposedly benevolent God.
quote:
Religion is the set of "rules of the game" that humans create.
That was the point. Mankind created God and the rules to with him.
quote:
...people who knew little claimed to know a lot in order to control people or gain earthly possesion. As far as I know this has happened in practically every religion including Christianity.
I don't notice it as much in the history of Native American spirituality from what I've read. Not to the degree of the large religions.
quote:
Do not look to religion if you are looking for God.
I don't. I already know where God is, no need to look.

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Hangdawg13, posted 06-09-2005 6:42 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Hangdawg13, posted 06-10-2005 3:28 AM purpledawn has replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 25 of 97 (215759)
06-09-2005 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Hangdawg13
06-09-2005 6:15 PM


Re: Platonist?
I am asserting that our perceptions, experiences, and feelings are all real things
"real things" hmmmm. Is a wave a thing? There are these complex interactions of processes some of which take place in micro seconds and others which take thousands of years or more.
The sun, or any star, is a complex process. But is it a thing?
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Hangdawg13, posted 06-09-2005 6:15 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Hangdawg13, posted 06-10-2005 3:20 AM lfen has replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 26 of 97 (215793)
06-10-2005 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by dsv
06-09-2005 7:17 PM


Thanks for your replies.
However, most modern theory has phased out abstract concepts of infinite regions in place of explanations of infinite travel (as in, the region isn't infinite but the perception is).
I'm not really sure what this means, but I do know that in order for much of integral calculus to make sense, we must have infinite. And likewise I'd like to think that we must have other extrapolated abstract concepts such as perfection and absolute good and God for other aspects of life in this universe to make sense.
I do love truth, that's why I attend the university that I do and study the things that I study, as well as search deeply in philosophy for higher meaning... I cannot love truth if I'm not a believer? Did I read that right? I would say agnostics and atheists are often extremely in love with the pursuit of truth.
My bad... I misjudged your position. Just about every agnostic I have come across is really an atheist and a naturalist. The logical conclusion to which is nihilism. I'm fairly certain Robinrohan is a self-professed nihilist (correct me if I'm wrong) and others are nihilists when arguing against God and humanists when arguing politics or the meaningfulness of life. Quite a few have told me that we cannot know truth (a few have told me that we can, but I believe this to be an exception to the rest of their worldview). This comes from their scientism philosophy.
So from this I gather that you are not neccessarily a naturalist, not a weak atheist, and do not neccessarily hold a scientism worldview.
I said that if you did not believe in good and did not believe we could know truth, then you could not follow the good and true path. I think that makes sense. Do you agree? If you do in fact believe in good and the knowledge of truth, then you can, and you can know God as well.
If we were to learn our universe is a matrix it would most certainly nullify the reality and existence.
How so? Is an object that is governed by probability and energy and cosmic constants any different than an object that is governed by lines of code if there is absolutely no way to tell the difference between the two?
Basically, ignorance may be bliss but it doesn't automatically qualify something as reality.
I say again, there is no difference between a perfect illusion and reality. A perfect illusion is no illusion at all -- just a hole in our understanding of reality.
Well yes, the ultimate goal for any agnostic is coming to a unifying conclusion.
You are an exceptional agnostic. Most do not believe in a knowable unifying conclusion.
I don't know where you got that, I would never say such a thing, nor would any cosmologist (or any other field of science for that matter).
Again, I misjudged your position.
I have heard many say that the universe is exactly the opposite of what one should expect if a Good loving God created it, what with all its emptiness, meaninglessness, and suffering. You are obviously not a nihilist as many are.
I look at the universe and see a enthrallingly complex, beautiful and stunning masterpiece of nature. Warm, rich and elegant with vast unknown spaces that continue to intrigue me every single day with new information.
Great! You see and believe in beauty, truth, love, goodness, and the awesomeness of nature. You practically know God already! You are not a typical agnostic at least in my limited experience with agnostics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by dsv, posted 06-09-2005 7:17 PM dsv has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by dsv, posted 06-10-2005 9:56 AM Hangdawg13 has replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 27 of 97 (215796)
06-10-2005 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by lfen
06-09-2005 10:24 PM


Things...
Umm... I say, everything is a thing, and if its a thing, it is real.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by lfen, posted 06-09-2005 10:24 PM lfen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by lfen, posted 06-10-2005 9:28 AM Hangdawg13 has replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 28 of 97 (215798)
06-10-2005 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by purpledawn
06-09-2005 8:07 PM


Re: God is Imagination
I have difficulty attributing natural disasters to a supposedly benevolent God.
Is all suffering inherently evil? I don't believe so.
Does God have to like everything that goes on in the world? I don't believe so.
Everything is on its way to somewhere... from chaos to perfection or from chaos to destruction.
That was the point. Mankind created God and the rules to with him.
And my point was that mankind creating religion is not the same as mankind creating God. You cannot be certain of whether mankind made up God or whether mankind gained the ability to become aware of God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by purpledawn, posted 06-09-2005 8:07 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by purpledawn, posted 06-10-2005 7:23 AM Hangdawg13 has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 29 of 97 (215818)
06-10-2005 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Hangdawg13
06-10-2005 3:28 AM


Re: God is Imagination
quote:
Is all suffering inherently evil?
Who said anything about evil? Weather has no intent behind it, unless you believe there is a being behind it, which is the concept that mankind created and what religion presents. So my point is that if a benevolent God created the weather or controls the weather, natural disasters shouldn't happen so indiscriminately.
quote:
Does God have to like everything that goes on in the world?
So you don't believe that God controls the weather, just created the system?
quote:
And my point was that mankind creating religion is not the same as mankind creating God. You cannot be certain of whether mankind made up God or whether mankind gained the ability to become aware of God.
Sure it is. Mankind created the concept that what they cannot control must be controlled by a greater being(s). Since the concept was created with the ancients, it has continued through history. Does a person today, who grows up with the technology we have in the US, really have the chance to become inherently aware of God with no outside influence? IMO, No.
The ability to become aware of God is imagination. Many people today have put aside the rules of religion and follow the path of discerning if the human concept of God exists outside of our writings and imagination. IMO, it does not.

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Hangdawg13, posted 06-10-2005 3:28 AM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Hangdawg13, posted 06-12-2005 11:41 PM purpledawn has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 30 of 97 (215833)
06-10-2005 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Phat
06-08-2005 12:41 PM


Re: What is God? Is "What" an absolute definition?
Phatboy
Sidelined, how goes the dance,old chap? You say that it disturbs you that believers in general claim that they know a Supreme and absolute truth and cannot be wrong. Right?
Two-stepping just fine Phatboy.It is not the claim that concerns me me but,rather,the thing claimed.What is GOD? is a question about the deity you worship as a matter of your belief.What is it about your experience that allows you to determine the actuality of god and adhere to it while another person can have a completely opposing view of What is GOD? that contradicts your own.
I,as an atheist,am struck by the prevalence of the number of beliefs that revolve around the points of view individuals take.I talk with the individuals and find them equally sincere in their conviction concerning the "truth" of god yet these cannot all be correct since they are,in some cases mutually exclusive.
Does conviction to even the point of death make an arguement for the validity of a viewpoint? I can hardly think so,unless we are willing to include such notable events as Jonestown and Heaven's Gate.
How do you square your own POV and weigh it against the others to arrive at your conviction as to What is GOD?
One of the prerequisites for belief in an absolute truth is the conviction that "wrong" is not an option.
I am aware of this and news of world events show this daily as a consequence of the 9/11 attack that proved to the masses of North America that being wrong is not an option can drive men to despicable acts.As I indicated with the Jonestown and Heaven's Gate this can hardly be an indicator of the validity of a conviction.
I would like to further debate the other points covered in your post but I am pressed for time these days.I shall leave it at that and await your next response.One last thing though,are there any POV's people have that you consider to be incorrect as concerns the OP question What is GOD?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Phat, posted 06-08-2005 12:41 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Phat, posted 06-10-2005 2:27 PM sidelined has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024