Asimov Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 a good example of what I'm getting at would be the moral rule that it is wrong to murder, though this may be objective the question it raises is what constitutes murder. Arbitrarily killing someone based on ones desires and whims. ok then. so now that we have cleared that up, lets simplify the origional question. because people sometimes percieve things different ways, couldent humans percieve god in different ways? being more than one god, different personalities... etc? Just because we perceive a table in different ways doesn't make it more than one table, or a different table altogether. Would that not be an accurate analogy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soule Posted August 7, 2006 Author Share Posted August 7, 2006 a good example of what I'm getting at would be the moral rule that it is wrong to murder, though this may be objective the question it raises is what constitutes murder. Arbitrarily killing someone based on ones desires and whims. ok then. so now that we have cleared that up, lets simplify the origional question. because people sometimes percieve things different ways, couldent humans percieve god in different ways? being more than one god, different personalities... etc? Just because we perceive a table in different ways doesn't make it more than one table, or a different table altogether. Would that not be an accurate analogy? nope its not. because we are still viewing god as a higher being. everyone views the table as a table, everyone views god as a higher being. not to mention that we are talking about a thing that lies beyond our comprehensible dimensions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 nope its not. because we are still viewing god as a higher being. everyone views the table as a table, everyone views god as a higher being. So? Table(A) has specific properties that are observed by people, even if they perceive it as "tall" to short people or "not big enough" to a family of 50. God is viewed as a higher being, but God still MUST have specific properties in order to have a specific identity....otherwise you are just speaking nonsense. not to mention that we are talking about a thing that lies beyond our comprehensible dimensions. Possibly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soule Posted August 7, 2006 Author Share Posted August 7, 2006 nope its not. because we are still viewing god as a higher being. everyone views the table as a table, everyone views god as a higher being. So? Table(A) has specific properties that are observed by people, even if they perceive it as "tall" to short people or "not big enough" to a family of 50. God is viewed as a higher being, but God still MUST have specific properties in order to have a specific identity....otherwise you are just speaking nonsense. not to mention that we are talking about a thing that lies beyond our comprehensible dimensions. Possibly. no no. i am saying htat because he lies beyond our comprehensible dimensions, he would not have specific properties or a specific identity. each religion being an attempt to explain and define an infinite being. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 no no. i am saying htat because he lies beyond our comprehensible dimensions, he would not have specific properties or a specific identity. each religion being an attempt to explain and define an infinite being. Then why are you using any terminology, or even the term "higher being"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soule Posted August 7, 2006 Author Share Posted August 7, 2006 no no. i am saying htat because he lies beyond our comprehensible dimensions, he would not have specific properties or a specific identity. each religion being an attempt to explain and define an infinite being. Then why are you using any terminology, or even the term "higher being"? because thats what the groups are trying to percieve it describe it as Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 because thats what the groups are trying to percieve it describe it as But it's meaningless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soule Posted August 7, 2006 Author Share Posted August 7, 2006 if you understand the meaning that i am getting acrosed by using such terms then its meaninglessness dosnt truly matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 if you understand the meaning that i am getting acrosed by using such terms then its meaninglessness dosnt truly matter. It does, though. If it is incomprehensible then you can't say anything about it, even that it is a higher being, you're immediately applying an identity to it by even applying a word to it. The problem is that God DOES have specific properties that are necessary in order for it to be called God. I can't point to a pineapple and say "that's God". I need a clarification as to what you mean by infinite being? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soule Posted August 7, 2006 Author Share Posted August 7, 2006 if you understand the meaning that i am getting acrosed by using such terms then its meaninglessness dosnt truly matter. It does, though. If it is incomprehensible then you can't say anything about it, even that it is a higher being, you're immediately applying an identity to it by even applying a word to it. The problem is that God DOES have specific properties that are necessary in order for it to be called God. I can't point to a pineapple and say "that's God". certain civilizations believed that the sun was a god. the moon was a god, the stars were gods... etc... though for arguements sake, please tell me what properties would you say god must have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 certain civilizations believed that the sun was a god. the moon was a god, the stars were gods... etc... Again...you're just showing how arbitrary the idea of a God is. though for arguements sake, please tell me what properties would you say god must have? Omniscience, Omnipotence, Immutability/incorruptibility, Eternality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soule Posted August 7, 2006 Author Share Posted August 7, 2006 certain civilizations believed that the sun was a god. the moon was a god, the stars were gods... etc... Again...you're just showing how arbitrary the idea of a God is. though for arguements sake, please tell me what properties would you say god must have? Omniscience, Omnipotence, Immutability/incorruptibility, Eternality. um no. thats what the christians believe, but lets take kemeticism for example. they believe that the gods were not perfect, omniscient or omnipotent. also they could die. in fact one god did die to become the god of death, replacing anubis, forcing anubis into the job of the god of judgement. oh and they were quite corruptable as well. even in greek mythology, there was a god who was straped to a rock and had his guts torn out by vultures every day for eternity. it was said that if one put the blood of this god on the tip of an arrow or knife or sword, or any other stabbing/cutting impliments, then one could kill another god. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Open_Minded Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 It does, though. If it is incomprehensible then you can't say anything about it, even that it is a higher being, you're immediately applying an identity to it by even applying a word to it. The problem is that God DOES have specific properties that are necessary in order for it to be called God. I can't point to a pineapple and say "that's God". though for arguements sake, please tell me what properties would you say god must have? Asimove is right - if God is incomprehensible then you can't say anything about it. But, humans do sense something infinite and incomprehensible. And since we are human we have a tendancy to ascribe human properties (we subjectively associate with this presence) to it as though it were a "being". (Anthropomorphism) But... there are some things that humans universally accept as associated with this... I think it could be fairly stated that the difference between those who believe there is a "God" and those who don't is the following: Those who believe there is a "God" see intention in the universe - the universe did not come into existence by random occurrance. They believe the universe exists because infinite, incomprehensible, intention exists and the universe is a result of this infinite, incomprehensible intention. Those who do not believe there is a "God" see randomness in the universe. So... for the sake of this discussion couldn't we say God is Infinite and incomprehensible intention? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuroikaze Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 a good example of what I'm getting at would be the moral rule that it is wrong to murder, though this may be objective the question it raises is what constitutes murder. Arbitrarily killing someone based on ones desires and whims. yeah, but that was my point...different cultures define who counts as "someone" in different ways. I could concieve that in the furture there might be a culture that also includes animals in that equation...in their mind I would be a totally imoral murderer because I'm not a vegetarian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuroikaze Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 ok then. so now that we have cleared that up, lets simplify the original question. because people sometimes perceive things different ways, couldn't humans perceive god in different ways? being more than one god, different personalities... etc? this sort of seems a bit like the Hindu concept of god. To them Its not so much that the nature of god changes to fit each persons conception of him, but that gods nature is so infinite that we can't possibly perceive everything about him. In this case, two people may have two completely different conceptions of god and both of them could be right because both of them simply perceive different parts of him. The analogy they use is a diamond with millions of facets, all this different facets become different versions of god to the Hindu, in high Hindu theology all the millions of gods in there religion don't exist in actuality but are more like metaphorical concepts that expound on one of gods attributes (confusing enough for you? ) Two people may worship two different avatars with totally different personalities but they are both still worshiping the same god, To the Hindu, god is not concerned with people having totally 100% perfect theology. I'm not sure, but is this the idea you are trying to get at? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 um no. thats what the christians believe, but lets take kemeticism for example. they believe that the gods were not perfect, omniscient or omnipotent. also they could die. in fact one god did die to become the god of death, replacing anubis, forcing anubis into the job of the god of judgement. oh and they were quite corruptable as well. even in greek mythology, there was a god who was straped to a rock and had his guts torn out by vultures every day for eternity. it was said that if one put the blood of this god on the tip of an arrow or knife or sword, or any other stabbing/cutting impliments, then one could kill another god. Yes and I can worship a pineapple as God if I want, you're still missing the point that God has necessary divine attributes in order to be called God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soule Posted August 7, 2006 Author Share Posted August 7, 2006 um no. thats what the christians believe, but lets take kemeticism for example. they believe that the gods were not perfect, omniscient or omnipotent. also they could die. in fact one god did die to become the god of death, replacing anubis, forcing anubis into the job of the god of judgement. oh and they were quite corruptable as well. even in greek mythology, there was a god who was straped to a rock and had his guts torn out by vultures every day for eternity. it was said that if one put the blood of this god on the tip of an arrow or knife or sword, or any other stabbing/cutting impliments, then one could kill another god. Yes and I can worship a pineapple as God if I want, you're still missing the point that God has necessary divine attributes in order to be called God. i'm sorry but thousands of years of historical and archeological evidence disagrees with you. besides. your an athiest. you dont even believe that god exists. so why would he need certain universal attributes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 There are probably as many independent definitions of God as there are people. Even Atheist have to have some idea of how they define god. It seems they need to define what they don't believe. It looks like god is totally subjective and specifically exists differently in each person's own reality. Wouldn't that make everyone right in their own world? Of course... that's just my $.02. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Open_Minded Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 There are probably as many independent definitions of God as there are people. Even Atheist have to have some idea of how they define god. It seems they need to define what they don't believe. It looks like god is totally subjective and specifically exists differently in each person's own reality. Wouldn't that make everyone right in their own world? Of course... that's just my $.02. Amanda ... you are right on target.... Here's the question from the original post... how hard is it to believe that many of us are worshiping the same god under a different name / names and different ways of worship? ____________________________ Asimov and Soule why doesn't the following definition of God work for the purposes of this discussion? But... there are some things that humans universally accept as associated with this... I think it could be fairly stated that the difference between those who believe there is a "God" and those who don't is the following: Those who believe there is a "God" see intention in the universe - the universe did not come into existence by random occurrance. They believe the universe exists because infinite, incomprehensible, intention exists and the universe is a result of this infinite, incomprehensible intention. Those who do not believe there is a "God" see randomness in the universe. So... for the sake of this discussion couldn't we say God is Infinite and incomprehensible intention? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soule Posted August 7, 2006 Author Share Posted August 7, 2006 There are probably as many independent definitions of God as there are people. Even Atheist have to have some idea of how they define god. It seems they need to define what they don't believe. It looks like god is totally subjective and specifically exists differently in each person's own reality. Wouldn't that make everyone right in their own world? Of course... that's just my $.02. Amanda ... you are right on target.... Here's the question from the original post... how hard is it to believe that many of us are worshiping the same god under a different name / names and different ways of worship? ____________________________ Asimov and Soule why doesn't the following definition of God work for the purposes of this discussion? But... there are some things that humans universally accept as associated with this... I think it could be fairly stated that the difference between those who believe there is a "God" and those who don't is the following: Those who believe there is a "God" see intention in the universe - the universe did not come into existence by random occurrance. They believe the universe exists because infinite, incomprehensible, intention exists and the universe is a result of this infinite, incomprehensible intention. Those who do not believe there is a "God" see randomness in the universe. So... for the sake of this discussion couldn't we say God is Infinite and incomprehensible intention? because many religions, such as the anchent greeks, did not see purpose. hence the god discordia. humans were more of playthings or slaves of the gods. and amanda i agree wholeheartedly as that was my origional arguement XD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 i'm sorry but thousands of years of historical and archeological evidence disagrees with you. Well I'm sorry, but you can call God anything, that doesn't mean you are following an accepted definition of God in the philosophical grounds. besides. your an athiest. you dont even believe that god exists. so why would he need certain universal attributes? Because like everything, he must have necessary attributes that define him as a specific being. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Open_Minded Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 Asimov and Soule why doesn't the following definition of God work for the purposes of this discussion? But... there are some things that humans universally accept as associated with this... I think it could be fairly stated that the difference between those who believe there is a "God" and those who don't is the following: Those who believe there is a "God" see intention in the universe - the universe did not come into existence by random occurrance. They believe the universe exists because infinite, incomprehensible, intention exists and the universe is a result of this infinite, incomprehensible intention. Those who do not believe there is a "God" see randomness in the universe. So... for the sake of this discussion couldn't we say God is Infinite and incomprehensible intention? because many religions, such as the anchent greeks, did not see purpose. hence the god discordia. humans were more of playthings or slaves of the gods. Hmmm... I'd forgotten about the gods of chaos.... Good catch ... Soule. Anyway ... Then on an objective basis - what humanity has in common in their collective beliefs about god(s) is that there is intentional (not necessarily purposeful - chaos can be quite intentional - if not orderly) but intentional power behind/within all of creation. Does that fit better? Soule - for the record I agree with your OP. But... here's a thought ... I also agree with Asimov - if God is incomprehensible than objectively nothing can be said about God. Human beings, being human, have never been able to leave it at that. In general human beings prefer to take that which they cannot fully comprehend and whittle it down to a size in which it can be grasped and comprehended. Throughout our history, human beings have assigned human traits to THIS WHICH IS BEYOND COMPREHENSION. And in so doing we've whittled it down to where we can comprehend it, where we can assign human traits to it, we create religions and images of it. Of course our varying culturall images of THIS WHICH IS BEYOND COMPREHENSION are so far from objective reality that our images can't even really be called "images". If they are anything they are shadows - very faint shadows (at best). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 and amanda i agree wholeheartedly as that was my origional arguement XD Soule, if you would look at my god under my avatar, you would have guessed I would have come around sooner or later. Sure, I think god is experiencing itself through everything. Everything has a different experience, so therefore I suppose a different reality. I like this perception, because for me, it gives a special reverence to all things. Let me ask you, if life did not exist, a way to perceive, then what would exist... or is it an illusion created by our senses? Maybe first on an unconscious level, then on a subconscious level, and perhaps only recently in the scope of things on a conscious level? The thing is... it's just like Its Just Me said, we really don't know. It's just like saying if a tree fell and no one was around to hear it, would it make a noise. If there were no receptors to hear sound, would sound exist? If there were no receptors to sense a solid surface, would the solid surface exist? That gets a little scarry, so most of us like to hang out in the mindset Asimov suggests. However, don't you think that how god has evolved to most of todays references, Open Minded seems to have defined the big difference between those who believe in a god and those that don't? I'm curious to know if there are any current beliefs in god that do not attribute some intent/purpose to it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 I also agree with Asimov - if God is incomprehensible than objectively nothing can be said about God. A very true statement. I just have a thought here... We live in a universe of duality. So, what do all forms exist in if that is the case? My answer would be the formless. How does one describe the formless? They can't. Does it exist? It must exist in order for there to be forms. They are both part of existence. Or, to put it another way...we have things and then we have no-thing. It is the no-thing that we are addressing when speaking of God. It can never be described because when we do, we are assigned a form (name) to it. It must remain transcendent. We can't deny that in order to have planets, there must be space. In order to have light, there must be darkness. One cannot exist without the other. So, when we speak of nothing, we are 'speaking' about God, IMO. Also, I would like to add that when we look at a table we can't see what that table really is. All it really is is a bunch of atoms that have stuck together in a certain way to appear as a table. The only reason we can't put our hand through it is because the these atoms are moving so fast that it "appears" solid. We can't see this movement. Life is just vibrations and sensing these vibrations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soule Posted August 8, 2006 Author Share Posted August 8, 2006 and amanda i agree wholeheartedly as that was my origional arguement XD However, don't you think that how god has evolved to most of todays references, Open Minded seems to have defined the big difference between those who believe in a god and those that don't? I'm curious to know if there are any current beliefs in god that do not attribute some intent/purpose to it? yes. two religions that i know of so far. discordianism, which believes there is no purpose and all arises from chaos, and the church of the sub genius. they worship "bob" and admit that he is not a real god, but indeed the best drill bit salesman who ever lived. the whole of the beliefs of the church of the sub genius are confusing v.v smile.gif Soule, if you would look at my god under my avatar, you would have guessed I would have come around sooner or later. Sure, I think god is experiencing itself through everything. Everything has a different experience, so therefore I suppose a different reality. I like this perception, because for me, it gives a special reverence to all things. i actually agree with this belief. Let me ask you, if life did not exist, a way to perceive, then what would exist... or is it an illusion created by our senses? Maybe first on an unconscious level, then on a subconscious level, and perhaps only recently in the scope of things on a conscious level? The thing is... it's just like Its Just Me said, we really don't know. It's just like saying if a tree fell and no one was around to hear it, would it make a noise. If there were no receptors to hear sound, would sound exist? If there were no receptors to sense a solid surface, would the solid surface exist? That gets a little scarry, so most of us like to hang out in the mindset Asimov suggests. smile.gif your right. but just because you believe something because its easier to believe in, that dosnt make it true. I also agree with Asimov - if God is incomprehensible than objectively nothing can be said about God. i dont quite think thats what asimov is saying. i think asimov is saying that god, even in his incomprehensibility, will always have objective atributes that everyone will agree with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts