Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,809 Year: 3,066/9,624 Month: 911/1,588 Week: 94/223 Day: 5/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is GOD?
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 31 of 97 (215838)
06-10-2005 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Hangdawg13
06-10-2005 3:20 AM


Re: Things...
Umm... I say, everything is a thing, and if its a thing, it is real.
I'd say that there are no things and thus when we think we are dealing with a thing we are creating an illusion for ourselves. If there are no things in the sense of separate self existing entities then what is real?
Buddhism goes into this in depth, but Buckminister Fuller also understood hence his saying, "I seem to be a verb" i.e. a process. Korzybski's General Semantics goes into this also.
If I understood this correctly the Hopi language is the only language which gets this right. Years ago I read that the Hopi's don't say "there is a man in the room." rather they say, "there is a manning in the rooming". A process taking place in another process, or interacting with another process, or two parts of the same process.
lfen
ABE: From the Riddle Song, "A cherry when it's blooming hath no stone." Cherrying is the part of the process that a birding, or humaning process can process the energy by eating. But when is a cherry a cherry? When it's a cherry blossom? When it's in the mouthing, or stomaching, or digesting of the birding or personing?
Things are time segments of processes. If matter and energy can't be destroyed how do we decide when a particular arrangement of matter and energy becomes a cherry and then ceases to be a cherry and the matter and the energy become part of other processes?
So is form real? What is form? Is substance real? What is matter and energy?
This message has been edited by lfen, 06-10-2005 06:36 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Hangdawg13, posted 06-10-2005 3:20 AM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Hangdawg13, posted 06-12-2005 11:24 PM lfen has replied

  
dsv
Member (Idle past 4723 days)
Posts: 220
From: Secret Underground Hideout
Joined: 08-17-2004


Message 32 of 97 (215841)
06-10-2005 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Hangdawg13
06-10-2005 3:16 AM


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.
It means that the concept of infinity is explained in science, usually we use it for concepts of space/time that seem infinite. When you describe "infinity" in biblical terms (is there infinity in the bible?) you seem to be saying that it's infinity in the sense of being utterly unexplainable and inconceivable -- almost a "don't even try, just give up" impossibility of understanding. This is not the same infinity that science uses.
As for perfection, in science I would have to pick symmetry as what I would call "perfection" in nature. So the answer is, yes I do know perfection, it is symmetry. You won't find *perfect* symmetry on large scales. It is important to quantum mechanics, though.
Just about every agnostic I have come across is really an atheist and a naturalist. The logical conclusion to which is nihilism.
I think what you're really seeing is a rejection of specifically organized religion and modern (meaning human) religion. This does not mean they're a nihilist necessarily. You are correct that most agnostics do not accept Christianity as a valid option, that's not because they're nihilists, that's because of the mountain of evidence that contradicts the bible.
Many -- if not most -- agnostics are open to a higher intelligence and higher being beyond our own. Not necessarily after-life, but some kind of "God" or whatever you want to call it. But most believe that if one was able to snap your fingers and know everything about everything, the conclusion might include a higher-power "God" type entity but the conclusion would remain natural.
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.
I don't agree. I don't believe there is definitive Good and Evil polars that we could judge people on. If anything, your god should show you this, since he apparently heals people but people also die horrible horrible deaths, including very young children. I would call this evil.
We make decisions that may be good or evil and it is what it is. If god's reality is all that he knows and he can make seemingly evil decisions that we don't understand, why would he judge us on our seemingly evil decisions when our reality is only all that we know? Did that make sense? Heh, it made sense in my head, i swear...
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?
The difference is the lines of code are emulating the laws of physics to create a realistic world. Now if we found out that the laws of physics were "code" written by a God then of course nullify the reality that we once held.
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.
Sure, we could go on living as if we had no idea -- just as people do in the matrix (you're even given a choice, red or blue bill -- but most scientists would take the red pill, I assure you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Hangdawg13, posted 06-10-2005 3:16 AM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Hangdawg13, posted 06-13-2005 12:11 AM dsv has not replied

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


Message 33 of 97 (215922)
06-10-2005 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by sidelined
06-10-2005 8:37 AM


Re: What is God? Is "What" an absolute definition?
Sidelined:
As I reread my original post, I am now going to address your question as well as summerize my view in respect to everyone else in this topic.
You say to Robinrohan, I am concerned with the actual GOD that is the core of all these POV's. This sounds as if you are asking IF it is possible that God be an absolute? For Christians, Jesus Christ is fairly unanimous as the path to knowing God. Even if Catholics and Protestants disagree on a variety of things, they DO agree on the issues of the divinity of Jesus Christ.
sidelined,to robinrohan writes:
Since much fuss and violence breaks out worldwide and even locally among indiviiduals within churches or groups of common belief it puzzles me that the MAIN player is not actually specified as other than an immaterial,invisible unknowable entity
Jesus is a knowable entity, in my experience. If we bring in the "God" concept of other beliefs, than Jesus is no longer the common denominator.
Lets set up a mock experiment. Take a room full of people who all have different religions. Observe these people in action and interview them to see what they profess and if it lines up with their actions. Included in this room would be atheists with a belief in life, love, and human potential. Could the consensus of a universal truth EVER be arrived at among these people?
In essence, the answer that I believe would be that there would be a common "spirit" and an uncommon one. Agreement does not automatically equal truth. Deep within our individual conscience, acknowledgement is even more powerful than agreement. Is our first duty to acknowledge the spirit of truth or is our first duty to accept the spirit of agreement?
In other words, I would argue that God may be disagreeable to everybody. This weeds out the sincere from the insincere.
hangdawg writes:
A few people have real faith. Many more have religion. And still others use the religious crowd to screw everyone over.
Hangdawgs definition of "real faith" would be an acknowledgement of relationship with God. A room full of people with "real faith" would not necessairly be in 100% agreement. The issue is the nature of faith. Some people have more faith in airplanes than others do. Having faith in the messanger is also to be considered. Many people who have heard Billy Graham preach may believe in God because Billy believes so adamantly.
NIV writes:
John 5:37-40 And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent. You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.
Jesus is being precise about the source of belief: The One who sent Me.
This still begs the question for those who do not consider Jesus as the truth.
Many Jews do not consider Jesus as Messiah because He did not fullfill A, B, C, and D.
Do they believe in the scriptures more than the claims of the person? (Yes)
Counterpoint: Many people believed that Jimmy Swaggart was a man of God and when he was shown to be a false prophet, many lost their faith. They could not see God beyond Jimmy.
NIV writes:
Matt 10:40"He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives the one who sent me.
The words of Jesus were clear. Even IF a person did not believe in Jesus as God, if a person received Jesus as truth, they would see the God behind Jesus....right?
zyncod writes:
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.
Gen 3:5"For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." contrasted with: John 14:28"You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.
Rather than seeking agreement with zyncod, I am affirming and acknowledging that God is greater than I am.
In other words, human possibilitiespurpledawn writes:
That's the problem, mankind CAN imagine God. Mankind created the concept of God. God came from mankind's imagination.
I disagree totally and completely.
This does not mean that I do not respect P.D. It means that I choose to acknowledge something greater than my imagination rather than agree that human imagination created God.
purpledawn writes:
I already know where God is, no need to look.
And I would consider it blasphemous to limit God to my puny imagination. (Even to my great and creative imagination! )
Dawg writes:
Everything is on its way to somewhere... from chaos to perfection or from chaos to destruction.
And everyone either goes toward the source of perfection, or away from it, which is by definition destruction.
PD writes:
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.
I would add that the ability to become aware of God is through impartation...a spark given to our imagination, if you will.
sidelined writes:
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 received a spark. What more can I say?
How do you square your own POV and weigh it against the others to arrive at your conviction as to What is GOD?
By talking, listening, praying, and trying to remain humble enough through it all!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by sidelined, posted 06-10-2005 8:37 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by sidelined, posted 06-12-2005 11:58 AM Phat has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 34 of 97 (216410)
06-12-2005 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Phat
06-10-2005 2:27 PM


Re: What is God? Is "What" an absolute definition?
Phatboy
You say to Robinrohan, I am concerned with the actual GOD that is the core of all these POV's. This sounds as if you are asking IF it is possible that God be an absolute?
No I am cuious as to What is GOD? that entails such directly opposite views depending upon whom you should ask concerning the answer to this question.People from different parts of the world have entirely different views on what constitutes god and they,too,are convinced of the validity of their viewpoint as any that occupy this forum.What is GOD such that this can be the case? I cannot answer this because to do so would involve me putting my take on it and I would have you then respond to this rather than the question at hand What is GOD?
For Christians, Jesus Christ is fairly unanimous as the path to knowing God. Even if Catholics and Protestants disagree on a variety of things, they DO agree on the issues of the divinity of Jesus Christ.
This is off the topic. The question is What is GOD? This is not a dealing with the various holy books but rather why the fuss over the different interpretations if the central character really is the same?
Jesus is a knowable entity, in my experience. If we bring in the "God" concept of other beliefs, than Jesus is no longer the common denominator.
Funny since I always thought that something knowable was also demonstratable.In other words jesus would be something independent of the individual experience.
I do not see how you can maintain a humble position when you make claim that the people for whom jesus is not a central figure are somehow werong in their thinking.It is probably just as true from their POV that you are daft for believing thus.Regardless the question is still What is GOD? Jesus is not a common denominator in every stance worldwide that still believes there is a god so this is not a problem.
Lets set up a mock experiment. Take a room full of people who all have different religions. Observe these people in action and interview them to see what they profess and if it lines up with their actions. Included in this room would be atheists with a belief in life, love, and human potential. Could the consensus of a universal truth EVER be arrived at among these people?
Bad experiment.We cannot possibly make the conditions the same for everyone to allow us to see the varibles that follow from the beleif so that would never work.
Whatever Universal truth there is why would it not be common if What is GOD were something real as opposed to something created within the minds of men?
In essence, the answer that I believe would be that there would be a common "spirit" and an uncommon one.
If you mean the result of your experiment would show this you assume way too much since the experiment could never be practically implemented. It is easy to make the conclusion on something that cannot be demonstrated in the first place.
Agreement does not automatically equal truth.
We have not yet established what truth is have we?
Deep within our individual conscience, acknowledgement is even more powerful than agreement.
Acknowlegement of what sir?
[qs]Is our first duty to acknowledge the spirit of truth or is our first duty to accept the spirit of agreement?
We cannot yet say since we have not established the basis for these statements.
In other words, I would argue that God may be disagreeable to everybody.
Premise
This weeds out the sincere from the insincere
Conclusion
How does your conclusion follow from your premise?
hangdawg writes:
A few people have real faith. Many more have religion. And still others use the religious crowd to screw everyone over.
Hangdawgs definition of "real faith" would be an acknowledgement of relationship with God
Easy to state since we cannot possibly know the sincerity of such within the skull of another.How do you determine "real faith"? By a willingnes to die for what you believe in? No,the terrorists of 9/11 ate steel,concrete and jet fuel along with the innocent in accordance with their faith so we will not deal that card.How do we tell whether a person is sincere in their profession of such.The short answer is we cannot even to those we think we know.
Acknowlegdement of god does not answer the OP question What is GOD? We are constantly dancing around the issue and not bringing clarity to the cental figure in all these debates and it is telling that people are adamant in the adherence to a belief in a God that they cannot even articulate the essence of.For something that is common in concept it is wildly disparate in application.
A room full of people with "real faith" would not necessairly be in 100% agreement. The issue is the nature of faith. Some people have more faith in airplanes than others do. Having faith in the messanger is also to be considered. Many people who have heard Billy Graham preach may believe in God because Billy believes so adamantly.
The question What is GOD?,though, necessitates consensus.I mean, if you do not have any real idea of What is GOD? then it seems all to easy to allow for any conjecture to see the light of day as valid arguement.
Billy could just as easily believe so adamantly because his livelihood and the people under him who are dependant monetarily upon him depend upon such.Even if he were to lose faith he could feel socially obligated to maintain the game.I am not saying this is the case and in all likelihood is not but within the realm of human agendas it is not entirley unlikely.
NIV writes:
John 5:37-40 And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent. You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.
Jesus is being precise about the source of belief: The One who sent Me
Let us approach the arguement here.
And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent
You seriously cannot see the circular arguement here? Jesus is here stating that the testimony from the Father is himself{Jesus} and the fact that you do not hear his{God's} voice nor see his form nor does his word dwell in you is because you do not believe the one he sent {Jesus}
In other words Jesus' is saying that God's testimonial is Jesus himself and the way to know this is to believe what Jesus tells you then all will be clear.No conflict here right?
The words of Jesus were clear. Even IF a person did not believe in Jesus as God, if a person received Jesus as truth, they would see the God behind Jesus....right?
This is a circular arguement again Phatboy surely you have better than this? If you believe first ,you convince yourself of the truth, not the truth being obvious in the first place and therefore you believe. C'mon man,engage the gray matter.What is GOD?

In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
Douglas Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Phat, posted 06-10-2005 2:27 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Phat, posted 06-12-2005 7:15 PM sidelined has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 97 (216416)
06-12-2005 12:14 PM


religiosity
I find it interesting that throughout history all cultures have produced some sort of religion (as far as I know). This tells us that human beings are religious animals (not that there haven't always been unbelievers).
It's difficult to know what to make of this, since we have no one to compare ourselves to. If we met some alien civilization which was not and never had been religious, then we would know that religiosity was peculiar to humans. As it is, I think we have to assume that religiosity goes along with being conscious.
Consciousness is the feeling of incorporeality, as another poster on this forum has put it. That's why we find it easy to believe in the incorporeal.

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by ramoss, posted 06-12-2005 12:33 PM robinrohan has not replied
 Message 37 by sidelined, posted 06-12-2005 12:33 PM robinrohan has replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 36 of 97 (216423)
06-12-2005 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by robinrohan
06-12-2005 12:14 PM


Re: religiosity
It religiousity the result of being concious? I would think such animals as dolphins, elephants, even birds have a degree of conciousness. Do we see evidence of any religiousness in them?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by robinrohan, posted 06-12-2005 12:14 PM robinrohan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by dsv, posted 06-12-2005 12:44 PM ramoss has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 37 of 97 (216424)
06-12-2005 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by robinrohan
06-12-2005 12:14 PM


Re: religiosity
robinrohan
Consciousness is the feeling of incorporeality
What do you mean the "feeling" of incorporeality? How can you feel something that by definition cannot be felt?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by robinrohan, posted 06-12-2005 12:14 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by robinrohan, posted 06-12-2005 3:59 PM sidelined has replied

  
dsv
Member (Idle past 4723 days)
Posts: 220
From: Secret Underground Hideout
Joined: 08-17-2004


Message 38 of 97 (216426)
06-12-2005 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by ramoss
06-12-2005 12:33 PM


Re: religiosity
Do dolphins and elephants fear the unknown or are the content with their existence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by ramoss, posted 06-12-2005 12:33 PM ramoss has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 97 (216457)
06-12-2005 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by sidelined
06-12-2005 12:33 PM


Re: religiosity
I feel that I am incorporeal. My mind is incorporeal. It's not really, probably, but it feels that way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by sidelined, posted 06-12-2005 12:33 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by sidelined, posted 06-12-2005 4:05 PM robinrohan has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 40 of 97 (216463)
06-12-2005 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by robinrohan
06-12-2005 3:59 PM


Re: religiosity
robinrohan
I think I see what you mean.The illusion of a mind seperate from the body is what you are refering to correct? The brain has no nervous feedback system in the same way that the body does and so we assign the activity of the brain as being due to an entity seperate from the body.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by robinrohan, posted 06-12-2005 3:59 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by robinrohan, posted 06-12-2005 4:10 PM sidelined has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 97 (216465)
06-12-2005 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by sidelined
06-12-2005 4:05 PM


Re: religiosity
Exactly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by sidelined, posted 06-12-2005 4:05 PM sidelined has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by robinrohan, posted 06-12-2005 4:31 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 97 (216469)
06-12-2005 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by robinrohan
06-12-2005 4:10 PM


Re: religiosity
I want to add that I got this idea from Parasomnium.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by robinrohan, posted 06-12-2005 4:10 PM robinrohan has not replied

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


Message 43 of 97 (216478)
06-12-2005 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by sidelined
06-12-2005 11:58 AM


Re: What is God? Is "What" an absolute definition?
sidelined writes:
In other words Jesus' is saying that God's testimonial is Jesus himself and the way to know this is to believe what Jesus tells you then all will be clear.No conflict here right?'
In the context of that time and place, no conflict. People saw Jesus do miraculous things. They knew of people who had been healed...perhaps themselves.
I know that this is slightly off topic, but either we engage the Spirit..our faith, or as you say we enghage our minds...which is faith in human wisdom. You and I see diametric opposites in the faith dept.
sidelined writes:
If you believe first ,you convince yourself of the truth, not the truth being obvious in the first place and therefore you believe.
And all that I am pointing out to you is that you are diametrically opposed to the Biblical argument of Jesus Himself who said:
NIV writes:
John 20:27-29-- Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."
Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"
Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
You have a good empirically driven mind, old chap. I will not conclude that you are wrong because of it. Many of our most useful scientific inventions have come about due to skepticism.
Additionally, you and I do not see eye to eye on the Bible. Even assuming it to be a fictional book with a story contained within does not take away from the message which the book says.
Time and time again, Jesus confronted the religious leaders of that day and informed them that if they wanted to relate to God, it was through knowing Jesus Himself that they would be able to do so.
Now that we have the orthodox Christian belief and concept of God settled, lets assume that you and I approach the topic from the Jewish standpoint in which Jesus was a lunatic fringe element.
(as an aside, I do not go with this belief system not because of how I was raised so much as because it does not "feel" right to me. To ask me "what" God is leads my mind to Jesus. Not as an idol but as a doorway. )
So we are back to "what". Nevermind "who"! For some people, who is themselves. Some people believe that God is a necessary construction contained within the human mind.
sidelined writes:
We are constantly dancing around the issue and not bringing clarity to the cental figure in all these debates and it is telling that people are adamant in the adherence to a belief in a God that they cannot even articulate the essence of.For something that is common in concept it is wildly disparate in application.
And if Jesus is eliminated as the central figure, you can understand Handdawgs attempt at humor when he said that God was made out of solid gold!
Paul addressed this issue in the book of Acts.
NIV writes:
Acts 17:24-31--"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.' "Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone-an image made by man's design and skill. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead."
The Old Testament concurs with Paul.
NIV writes:
Deut 4:15-20-- You saw no form of any kind the day the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully, so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman, or like any animal on earth or any bird that flies in the air, or like any creature that moves along the ground or any fish in the waters below. And when you look up to the sky and see the sun, the moon and the stars--all the heavenly array--do not be enticed into bowing down to them and worshiping things the LORD your God has apportioned to all the nations under heaven. But as for you, the LORD took you and brought you out of the iron-smelting furnace, out of Egypt, to be the people of his inheritance, as you now are.
SO it seems that engaging the grey matter would not involve acknowledging human intellect as the supreme arbitrator.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by sidelined, posted 06-12-2005 11:58 AM sidelined has not replied

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


Message 44 of 97 (216498)
06-12-2005 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by lfen
06-10-2005 9:28 AM


Re: Things...
I'd say that there are no things and thus when we think we are dealing with a thing we are creating an illusion for ourselves. If there are no things in the sense of separate self existing entities then what is real?
...everything? I think I understand the way you are using these words, but I guess I just don't get the point you are making...
"there is a manning in the rooming"
That's pretty cool... I'm gonna start saying that... hehe...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by lfen, posted 06-10-2005 9:28 AM lfen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by lfen, posted 06-13-2005 12:12 AM Hangdawg13 has replied

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


Message 45 of 97 (216500)
06-12-2005 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by purpledawn
06-10-2005 7:23 AM


Re: God is Imagination
So my point is that if a benevolent God created the weather or controls the weather, natural disasters shouldn't happen so indiscriminately.
And my question is: why not? Is our physical pleasure God's only motivation for acting? It is easy and arrogant to criticize anyone from lifeguards, to highschool football coaches, to presidents, to God for not doing things the way YOU believe they should be done. Have you ever thought about it from the opposite direction? Apparently not.
We cannot know the answers. We can only understand the questions.
So you don't believe that God controls the weather, just created the system?
You're thinking about it as if God were a human engineer. You can't understand with your presuppositions about what god is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by purpledawn, posted 06-10-2005 7:23 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by purpledawn, posted 06-13-2005 7:25 AM Hangdawg13 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