Page 2 of 5 [ 72 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next


What god(s) do you think most probable to exist?
Personal, separate from the universe, singular 20%  20%  [ 5 ]
Impersonal, separate from the universe, singular 12%  12%  [ 3 ]
Personal, same as the universe, singular 8%  8%  [ 2 ]
Impersonal, same as the universe, singular 4%  4%  [ 1 ]
Personal, separate from the universe, multiple 4%  4%  [ 1 ]
Impersonal, separate from the universe, multiple 4%  4%  [ 1 ]
Gods are impossible 20%  20%  [ 5 ]
I don't know what category you fall in, AG, but you are god 4%  4%  [ 1 ]
Uncertain 16%  16%  [ 4 ]
Other 8%  8%  [ 2 ]
Total votes : 25

chever
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Aug 2008
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,668
Location: Earth

10 Sep 2008, 4:36 pm

Accelerator wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Accelerator wrote:
This is one definition of god.. that seems to have got left out..

The god inside..

The god revealed to us in the New testament..

That exists in hearts and minds.

Well, the issue is that I wanted to ignore a solipsist God. Either God is all of reality, or external to some of reality, despite how much he may personally relate to members of that reality, even being present on some level inside of them, he cannot just be inside an individual person, and still can function through a certain divide..


God is that inner spirit that connects us all together..

That is.. when we choose to listen to our higher nature.. rather than our lower nature.. (the devil).


Awesomelyglorious wrote:
I think that the Christian deity is usually considered personal, separate from the universe, and singular.


George Bush is considered to be a leader..

But is he.. ?



In my mind.. God.. is what ever we decide to define god to be.. depending on our purpose..

The Bible uses the word “God” in this way too..

Therefore.. defining the word appropriately.. is important.


For example.. if we want to establish a law.. like love your neighbour as yourself..

We would need to present God as being a figure of authority.. over and above governments.. judges and high priests.. our worldly lawmakers.

So.. then.. we give God a masculine personification.. and call God a “He”.. (pre-feminism)

That is purely tactical…

If we are addressing an organized religion.. that needs to believe in the supernatural.. we use mythology.. and metaphor.. etc.. to present God ambiguously.. so that the superstitious.. have supernatural events as evidence..

In this sense.. we have become all things.. to all.

Even the atheists have a supernatural being.. to disbelieve in…:-)


While the more serious seeker.. is confronted with symbols.. that need interpreting.. to provide the real hidden wisdom..

-----

“These are the secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke, and which Didymos Thomas wrote down. Whoever finds the meaning of these sayings will not experience death.

Let him that seeks continue seeking until he finds. When he finds, he will become troubled. When he becomes troubled, he will become astonished, and he will rule over all.

Jesus said: "Whoever drinks from my mouth shall become like me; and I shall become he, and the hidden things will be revealed to him.

One who seeks will find; for one who knocks it will be opened.”
-
Gospel of Thomas

-----


If we wish to think in terms of wholeness..

Like the whole being greater than the sum of its parts..

The word God can act as a symbol to represent this idea.. of the wholeness that lies behind all things.

-----

"Nick Herbert, a physicist who heads the C-Life Institute, suggests that we have merely discovered an elemental oneness of the world. This oneness cannot be diminished by spatial separation. An invisible wholeness unites the objects that are given birth in the universe, and it is this wholeness that we have stumbled into through modern experimental methods. Herbert alludes to the words of the poet Charles Williams: "Separation without separateness, reality without rift."

"The interrelation of human consciousness and the observed world is obvious in Bell's Theorem. Human consciousness and the physical world cannot be regarded as distinct, separate entities. What we call physical reality, the external world, is shaped - to some extent - by human thought. The lesson is clear; we cannot separate our own existence from that of the world outside. We are intimately associated, not only with the earth we inhabit, but with the farthest reaches of the cosmos."

http://astrosite.com/___QuantumPortal-5.htm

------

Then.. there is the God revealed to us in the New Testament..

Is this really the concept of God you would rather ignore.. ?

The God that exists in hearts and minds………….

A Spirit ( a dynamic drive).

The idea of God that Jesus explained to us.. though his actions and words.

----

"No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom position with the Father is the one that has explained him."

John 1:18

-

"He that does not love has not come to know God, because God is love."

1John 4:8

----

An idea that gets expanded in the Book of Revelation.. to…. the Seven Spirits of God.


The Seven Spirits of God are...

The spirit of loving kindness.. righteousness.. justice.. peace.. wisdom.. truth and freedom.


Jesus then.. taught an idea of God……... that is atheist friendly……. :-)

--------

“If you send forth your Spirit, they are created;

And you make the face of the Earth new.”

Psalm 104:30

-

http://www.apocatastasis.net/God/SEVEN- ... f-God.html

-


Image


_________________
"You can take me, but you cannot take my bunghole! For I have no bunghole! I am the Great Cornholio!"


Accelerator
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Oct 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 513
Location: Netherlands

10 Sep 2008, 5:18 pm

chever wrote:
A simple restriction makes us see
That not everything is how we want it be
A simple reaction changes me
Into something that I never really wanted to be



Do you mean.. by the above..

Someone who is incapable of mature argument..?

Why not try it some time..

You never know you might like it.. :-)

-----

“Instead of proclaiming the ideals, they educe what experience teaches, what the experience of all the centuries has taught, that the millions get no further than mediocrity.”

Kierkegaard

-

Ok.. I have to admit..

It is an improvement on your default pix..

Considering changing it.. are you..

If I were you.. I would.. :-)


Boy will be boys (sigh)

-



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 93
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,876
Location: Finland

10 Sep 2008, 9:29 pm

I find that picture beautifully succinct.



chever
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Aug 2008
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,668
Location: Earth

10 Sep 2008, 9:32 pm

Where the hell did my facepalm pictures go?


_________________
"You can take me, but you cannot take my bunghole! For I have no bunghole! I am the Great Cornholio!"


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,316
Location: Omnipresent

10 Sep 2008, 9:59 pm

greenblue wrote:
I don't see why necessarily dismissing the notion of God as a solipsist.

I didn't dismiss that, solipsists are included. The issue is that a God either is all of the creation, or he isn't, but interacts with it. That was simply a statement against a conception of God that I viewed as solipsist. Not that God is a solipsist, but rather that the notion of God is solipsist while not being solipsist as best as I can see it being different than pre-existing options.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,316
Location: Omnipresent

10 Sep 2008, 10:51 pm

Accelerator wrote:
<snip>

Either you are all things, or you are separate from some things. Yes, we can argue that the will of an entity can be embodied within some things, however, unless it is pantheist, we still separate from the totality of the universe, and is another being to the universe. I suppose I am just basically going to dismiss your notion as mystical claptrap, but whatever, I created the option "other" just to cover people like you.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,316
Location: Omnipresent

10 Sep 2008, 11:08 pm

Ok, I have strangely been thinking about the possible nature of God. My thoughts are rather odd I will admit, perhaps not the most reductionist of thoughts. I will admit that a bout of depression pushed them forward, and that I originally typed this out past midnight. I do want WP to critique them, and I sort of would have liked a new thread for them, but I figured I should not clutter WP too much.

Man is imperfect, and God is imperfect, and Man-God is perfection.

Here are my thoughts:

1) Man is imperfect.
a) Man needs to be loved perfectly, but such love must be unconditional, it also must be subject to choice(acceptance and rejection). People cannot give love unconditionally for all love is conditioned by the nature of the love-giver, and as well to have a love subject to rejection must be a conditional love. So man both cannot love and be loved as perfection would demand.
b) Man can change to imperfection, therefore he must be imperfect, for perfect beings cannot logically change from that for nothing would impel a loss of perfection in perfection.
c) Man needs identity and freedom, his freedom must be absolute to bear full moral responsibility as a moral agent must. However, at the same time, such a freedom undermines identity, the conservative force of past institution and basis for moral judgment as repentant or sinful. If man is free he has no identity, if he has identity then he is not free, and these forces push each other out. Because man needs full moral responsibility to be truly a moral agent, and full identity to be a whole being, he is either bereft of one or the other or imperfect with both.
d) Man needs truths to base himself upon, but the very act of basing himself upon an idea makes him unreceptive to newly found truths. In order to have identity man must forsake the pursuit of truth, but in order to truly exist, man needs identity. Therefore a truth-seeking person cannot exist, despite the inherent goodness of truth.
e) We need to communicate to another, but the very existence of an other makes communication flawed as language is imprecise and the most important things to us are incommunicable no matter what language we pursue due to their phenomenological content.
f) The issues put forward are existentially fundamental, therefore this world is not just the best or worst of all possible worlds but in some sense the only possible world. Personalities may be different, physical changes may be different, but none of these differences are fundamental as the existential facts are, and given that these are at the heart of man, any other issues are drops in the bucket.

2) God alone is imperfect among other things
a) A perfect being is currently at a maximum point, if there is an external satisfaction to this being, then it is lacking and then cannot be perfect in and of itself.
b) A perfect being can certainly not create imperfection, for such only dilutes the perfection in reality.
c) Man, as created, is imperfect, if simply expressed in his ability to change to imperfection.
d) Therefore God either does not exist, a terrible thing for humanity depends upon God, or God is imperfect.
e) Despite this, God also must be timeless as that allows such a being to be the first cause and impossibility of an infinite past. Also, possessing a number of divine traits due to the role of a timeless creator of existence(omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, morality)

3) God created man to perfect God
a) If man exists, then he must be an attempt towards perfection, which is ultimately desirable, but lacking in a creator God
b) When creating a reality, God did so knowing all of the consequences of it, owing to his timelessness and omniscience to actualize the reality.
c) If a) and b) then man exists to perfect God
d) Creation was the end of God's quest for perfection, as no temporal sequencing can exist for a timeless God.

4) Man does perfect God
a) Owing to 3d) God's quest ended as man is a component to perfecting God
b) God must seek a relationship of some form with man for man to be of value
c) Therefore the man-God relationship must be perfecting.
d) A perfect relation must perfect the components through some means
e) Therefore man learns to love perfectly, to hold both moral and identity perfection, and to have an identity of perfection.
f) Because these traits do not arise when man is alive, they must emerge when he is dead.
g) Heaven is the perfection of both man and God through the man-God relationship.

5) Issues:
a) Problem of evil- The universe is part of the perfection of God, and at a certain point in time the man-God relationship reach perfection and thus evil is abolished, however, God is perfect throughout all of time due to omnipresent timelessness. Evil cannot be abolished in a reverse causation though as such would destroy the man-God relationship that needs to be perfected.
b) Euthyphro dilemma- God is morally perfect as he is timeless and equally at the point where the man-God relationship is perfect as not.
c) Theological determinism- Yes, the universe is and must be theologically determined, however, this could be added to the imperfection of man however, this is a result of God's imperfection. Moral imperfections at points in time are not important because the real issue is the perfection of the man-God relationship.

So, yeah, what do people think? I mean, other than "load of bs", because, right I can completely understand that notion, however, it gets nowhere. Especially since this is just a foray into the philosophy of religion from a less analytic perspective moreso than the expression of a true mystic.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,257
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

10 Sep 2008, 11:40 pm

chever wrote:
Where the hell did my facepalm pictures go?


Probably taken away. Sorry dude.



greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,915
Location: Home

11 Sep 2008, 12:02 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
greenblue wrote:
Oh and even AG ;)

Hah, you cannot be me if you do not know what I am. And I am certain that most do not know what I have done.

I didn't mean me, I can see how I probably didn't say it correctly to be interpreted that way, what I actually meant was that I shift my view or to put it better, I often wonder the different aspects about how God could or should be, including that of a solipsist being.


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,915
Location: Home

11 Sep 2008, 12:41 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Man is imperfect, and God is imperfect, and Man-God is perfection.

1) Man is imperfect
It seems to be part of our nature to want to be loved unconditionally and protected by a perfect being, in which, the imperfect nature of man would be less trusting than God in that sense. Probably for necessity as well as searching for the truth of our perceived reality and to identify with it, in which I would agree it is the case. A man who believes in God would consider himself an imperfect being with the goal to get closed to perfection as possible, but not as to become equal as God, but to gain the harmony in which imperfect beings could be able to acomplish.


2) God is imperfect
It is interesting to note and to ask if a perfect being would create imperfect beings or an imperfect universe, could it be that humans would be the only imperfect part of creation, which could suggest that in order for humans to have freedom, to be able to make a choice (free will), they would need to be imperfect.

God could be imperfect and man relate perfection to a being greater and powerful than them, from a limited imperfect point of view, that could rise the question of, how perfect is the notion of Perfect, if is being perceived by imperfect beings.

if God is infinite, never being created, then he would be assumed to be perfect, the connection of infinite or timeless and creator=Perfection, but perfection not only seem to be relative but an imperfect measure system from imperfect beings, influenced by imperfect desires.


3) God created man to perfec God
God could not be either perfect or imperfect and man is the one who would create a concept to relate to a powerful God, which could probably has his own limitations, depending on how far one imperfect being would consider or hope his power could go, the notion of what is perfect would differ, depending on the necessity of each group or individual, which it could be the same what made them to believe in God and to trust him more than other beings, considered imperfect.


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,316
Location: Omnipresent

11 Sep 2008, 8:37 am

greenblue wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Man is imperfect, and God is imperfect, and Man-God is perfection.

1) Man is imperfect
It seems to be part of our nature to want to be loved unconditionally and protected by a perfect being, in which, the imperfect nature of man would be less trusting than God in that sense. Probably for necessity as well as searching for the truth of our perceived reality and to identify with it, in which I would agree it is the case. A man who believes in God would consider himself an imperfect being with the goal to get closed to perfection as possible, but not as to become equal as God, but to gain the harmony in which imperfect beings could be able to acomplish.

Quote:
2) God is imperfect
It is interesting to note and to ask if a perfect being would create imperfect beings or an imperfect universe, could it be that humans would be the only imperfect part of creation, which could suggest that in order for humans to have freedom, to be able to make a choice (free will), they would need to be imperfect.

That brings up another issue. If free willed beings are more perfect than non-free willed beings, then doesn't that still mean that beings are imperfect. And we still have an issue of the creation of something imperfect, but even of creation itself.

Quote:
God could be imperfect and man relate perfection to a being greater and powerful than them, from a limited imperfect point of view, that could rise the question of, how perfect is the notion of Perfect, if is being perceived by imperfect beings.

Well, given that I gave god as having infinite possible creational ability, the ability to see infinite paths and the result of that. I think he might know what perfection was.
Quote:
if God is infinite, never being created, then he would be assumed to be perfect, the connection of infinite or timeless and creator=Perfection, but perfection not only seem to be relative but an imperfect measure system from imperfect beings, influenced by imperfect desires.

Possibly there is an imperfect epistemology driving my notion of perfect. However, it seems straight-forward to argue that a perfect being would be perfect in and of itself, and thus would not need to be a creator being or want to be a creator being.

Quote:
3) God created man to perfec God
God could not be either perfect or imperfect and man is the one who would create a concept to relate to a powerful God, which could probably has his own limitations, depending on how far one imperfect being would consider or hope his power could go, the notion of what is perfect would differ, depending on the necessity of each group or individual, which it could be the same what made them to believe in God and to trust him more than other beings, considered imperfect.

Well, I think an implicit assumption is that perfection is not subjective. As there were some criterion for imperfection used, and not only that, but there also is perfect knowledge by God, he just creates because he would not unless he were imperfect, and unless that creation would make it more perfect.



Hillsong_Rocks
Hummingbird
Hummingbird

User avatar

Joined: 19 Aug 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 21

12 Sep 2008, 11:08 am

1 God in 3 forms.
yea i am a Christian, i know i may offend some people but relle think bout what i say dnt get offended even NTs get offended @ it. thats 1 thing u have in coman wiv NTs.



slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,411
Location: Ontario, Canada

12 Sep 2008, 11:27 am

Hillsong_Rocks wrote:
1 God in 3 forms.
yea i am a Christian, i know i may offend some people but relle think bout what i say dnt get offended even NTs get offended @ it. thats 1 thing u have in coman wiv NTs.


The Trinity ... why didn't I think of that?! :?



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,316
Location: Omnipresent

12 Sep 2008, 11:30 am

Yeah, I still think the trinity makes very little sense.



z0rp
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,001
Location: New York, USA

12 Sep 2008, 11:38 am

I say there's five Gods, Jimmy, Paul, Kevin, Tyrone and James. However there's actually four and Jimmy and James are one God, Jimmy/James just uses two forms to trick the other Gods into giving him more power than he should have since they've divided their power amongst themselves equally. I just thought this up literately as I was typing it but I could probably make that into an interesting story..