|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,817 Year: 4,074/9,624 Month: 945/974 Week: 272/286 Day: 33/46 Hour: 5/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Can You define God? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2978 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined:
|
We are talking only of a Creator of all seen and unseen. We are not assigning this Creator any character or image beyond this. Well shit, is there any other characteristic or image that you left out? "Creator of everything you can see and not see" pretty much covers it all.
This, however, does not prove that it only exists in the imagination of one or many. It has to only exist in your imagination if you've never witnessed it and it is "unknowable". YOU (and other human beings) are the only one's assigning it it's characteristics, out of sheer imagination, then you make the claim that hey maybe we nailed it. You're taking guesses at best. - Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2978 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined:
|
Human belief is enough to define a god. If that's the case then god is a purely imagined concept. In fact the word pretty much becomes meaningless. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2978 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
It is no more meaningless than any other human construct. Can you give me an example of another one that you would say is just as meaningless?
At worst it is fantasy and at best it is an approximation. An approximation of what though? If it can be anything you want it to be then what the flip are you describing?
...descriptions and definitions are based on this natural world.
You are using your imagination to describe and define something YOU imagined. What limits are you talking about? - Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given. Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2978 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined:
|
Well, the question of GOD's existence is still open however I believe that there is a very high probability that GOD, if GOD exists, will be entirely different than anything I can imagine. You have imagined it would be a creator of everything we see and do not see. Do you now believe it will be something different than that? - Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2978 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
I believe that GOD is the creator of all that is, seen and unseen, but that is simply my belief and has nothing to do with what GOD might actually be. Here's where my brain gets twisted: If you believe god to be the creator of EVERYTHING, what else can he be? Obviously he can create anything else. You and Phat seem to cover it all with your concepts. If you are wrong, as you say it may be possible, then it means god gets demoted to a creator of only some things, or only a few things. That makes no sense to me. How do you make that make sense to you? - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2978 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined:
|
Sure, unicorns or love or honor or humor. But a unicorn is a horse with a horn on it. It's NOT "anything you want it to be." Love, honor, and humor are very real chemical reactions in your body that can be measured when experienced. The wordss we use are simply us giving those chemical reactions a name. But there is a clear distinction between love and hate, or funny and serious, honor and dishonor - they are NOT anything you want it to be. Electron, love, honor, humor, are all things experienced by human beings be it by listening, looking at it, or having chemical reactions. God does not fit that bill. God, as you describe it being "anything you want it to be" loses all meaning with that definition. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2978 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
I can tell you about my beliefs related to GOD but what I tell you reflects nothing but my beliefs and not what GOD might be. But you did define it, you said god can be anything you want it to be. That is you defining what god might be. And as you say, god can be anything, and as such if god can be anything the entire concept has no meaning. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2978 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
I'm not at all sure that it does make sense, but it's the best I can do. Yeah but, what are you actually doing? You said you believe god is the creator of everything, but you could be wrong. That means god might just be the creator of a few things, or nothing at all. Who knows? This whole train of thought falls apart. You said god can be anything at all, but then claim you can't define it. That contradicts itself. You claim god is unknowable yet, still call it a god by your definition. If it's "unknowable" then what are you even describing? Nothing really. Claiming both contradicts itself too. I agree that it doesn't make much sense, but I don't think you've done anything other confuse us. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2978 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
I said that I cannot define GOD. But jar, YOU are the only one here saying GOD is not God or god/s. You have clearly defined this word: GOD You said GOD is the creator of everything - seen/unseen. That IS your definition. And again I will point out the contradiction in that you also claim that GOD is unknowable, meaning, it is unknowable if GOD is different from God or god/s and if in fact GOD is the creator of all things. You've done nothing here really, other than confuse terms and contradict yourself. - Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2978 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
I believe I've been very consistent in saying that is simply my belief and NOT what GOD actually is. I get that it's your belief, I wasn't trying to state otherwise. My point is that your belief contradicts itself and gets very confusing. Also, you define the term by saying GOD is different from God or god/s. You also define the term by saying GOD is unknowable. I mean, how do you even know that? Well, because you are defining what GOD is. How else would you know so much about this unknowable GOD if you didn't? - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2978 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
GOD, if GOD exists, really is different than being natural. How do you know any of that if you're also saying you don't know anything about it? It sounds absurd. - Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2978 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
But what are you doing?
It's not that it's wrong, it's that you're not really saying anything that can be right or wrong. It's just a mess of words with no direction or real point. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2978 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
When it comes to subjective beliefs, there is no absolute right or wrong involved. I didn't bring up the right or wrong scenario, jar did. I'm just clearing up that fact that he hasn't presented anything that can be considered right or wrong. It's just a mess of words that can barely be understood, and clearly contradict themselves. If you have a set of beliefs that you're trying to convey to someone at the very least they should make sense. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2978 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
The answer is the difference between actually being the thing and simply being asserted to be the thing But you are not showing the distinction between your method of arriving at your assertion: GOD and the method used to arrive at the other assertions: God, god/s - they are ALL human constructs and caricatures in an attempt to explain the unexplainable.
All the Gods and gods are just that, human attempts to explain the unexplainable. But GOD, if GOD exists, would be the reality.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't get how you changing the way you spell GOD from God and gods makes any difference. You all arrive at your assertions in the same way, guessing. Saying "GOD, if GOD exists, would be reality" is as meaningless as saying "God created everything we can see and not see." - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2978 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
But I did show my method, I defined the three terms. I know. Point is you don't show a distinction between the methods of arriving at the assertions. If you want to show a clear distinction bewteen GOD, God and gods then you'll have to show how you arrive at that distinction with some separate type of method. You made the claim God and gods are assertions to explain the unexplainable and GOD was different. How did you arrive at that and how is it different from how others arrived at God and gods? - Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024