You Keep Saying This....

[Ouroboros]

Now I'm confused. I thought you just said God had to be temporal?

 

Eternal means uncreated. In order to create the universe, God has to be temporal. Never heard of the idea of temporal eternality?

Which would make him part of our universe and time, not outside. Time as we know it, didn't exist from eternity. So God's temporal existence is either part of our existence, or he's not.

 

If God exists, then he performs actions.

 

Necessarily, any action is an event.

Necessarily, any event occurs in time.

Necessarily, if God's actions occur in time, then he is in time.

I agree with the definitions, or the contingency of the argument, but to me, they are the foundation why I don't believe there is a God that interacts with the universe (if there is one at all), since the other definitions require God to be eternal, and since time had a beginning, then God is either dependent on the time that had a beginning, or he "lives" a different time line.

 

No, because that depends on what part of him is incomprehensible. If you are arguing for total incomprehensibility, then I submit that you cannot even apply infinite to God. Even using the label God would imply SOME kind of identity...and that is irrational.

Exactly. We can't comprehend "infinity" or "outside" our universe.

 

Like I said before, God is the ultimate paradox, or the "perfect circle". It's just a symbol of the things beyond of what we understand. God is the symbol of the not-explained.

 

Yes, but that doesn't mean we can't philosophize about him.

Very true. I agree to that. You know how much I love doing it, arguing that is, not necessarily agreeing. Hehe.

 

Exactly...God only exists as an abstract, insofar as we can determine.

Cool. Then I think we understand each other.

 

 

Eternal doesn't always have to mean existing outside of time.

Okay. I will chew on that thought for a while.

 

To assert that God created the universe, you are implying a causal relationship. If God is atemporal, he cannot have causal relationships...he can't do anything. There is no "our" time, in this case.

Which is precisely the problem of the Cosmological Argument.

 

And also the problem of science to understand what was "before" Planck's time, since "before" didn't exist at that point.

 

I think the only way to describe these things are to think of "imaginary" time or "virtual" time. In a similar way as how time flows differently in a computer game or playing D&D. The time the characters in the game "experience" are not the same "time line" as ours. Both exists, and have some inter-dependency, but not completely.

 

If the Universe is a big quantum computer, then a being "outside" could experience a different time line than us, and hence be temporal. And the Universe started when "he/she/it" turned the power switch. The Big Bang must be the boot-up sequence like in Windows... it does sure look like God worked for Super-Microsoft considering all the bugs we find...

 

That would depend, if you define God as intrinsically immutable...then he can't do anything.

 

But if God acts on his desires, and his desires change, then he certainly could go against his previous desires.

True. It was just an example though. I think the argument about if God is omnipotent or not is only a problem if omni-benevolence is included. Since the argument is why would God let evil exist? So without the benevolence, then omnipotent can stand on it's own.

[Soule]

I'm surprised soule hasn't seen this thread yet, since it was decidedly veering towards him/her.

 

i thought the entire thread was idiodic because you refuse to accept that your "definition" of god is only that of the christian god.

 

there is no universal defintion of god as can be shown throughout the mulititude of religious beliefs and their own individual definitions of what god is. thus to aply a specific definition to him, and exclude all other possibilities, then point out the contradictions of that specific definiton, to me is an arguement that is a waste of time because it leaves absolutely no room for possibilities of other religious ideas of what god is. this is a philosophical debate of the nature of god is it not?

 

you keep saying "god must be this, or have this atribute" or whatever "or else he isnt god."

 

what you fail to realize is that he could very much still be god, just the concept or definition of god that you place upon him is wrong. so because there is no other definiton of god that you accept, then all that your willing to accept is that god dosnt exist.

 

to me there is no arguement here other than wether or not you have your facts and your understandings of them straight.

 

sorry but i usually dont fall for baiting XD

 

and i'm a him

[Ouroboros]

Here's an interesting fact (or I think is a fact), according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Etymology of "God":

 

Root: Gothic word "gheu", meaning: to invoke or to sacrifice to.

[Dhampir]

reading from etymologyonline.com, the term 'sacrifice' isn't mentioned, and the site goes into great detail.

[Crunk Bishop]

"gott" is also a linguistic kin of the word "gutt." That's where the idea of omnibenevolence originated.

[Asimov]

Which would make him part of our universe and time, not outside. Time as we know it, didn't exist from eternity. So God's temporal existence is either part of our existence, or he's not.

 

Then that would mean that God couldn't have created the universe.

 

Exactly. We can't comprehend "infinity" or "outside" our universe.

 

You're taking what I said out of context, Han. I said, IF you are arguing for total incomprehensibility. I'm not, and I hope you aren't.

 

Which is precisely the problem of the Cosmological Argument.

 

How is it a problem? What's your justification for saying that time was created?

 

And also the problem of science to understand what was "before" Planck's time, since "before" didn't exist at that point.

 

Not necessarily....you're arguing relativistically. Our scope of knowledge ends at 10^-43 seconds. Anything beyond that is speculation.

 

I think the only way to describe these things are to think of "imaginary" time or "virtual" time. In a similar way as how time flows differently in a computer game or playing D&D. The time the characters in the game "experience" are not the same "time line" as ours. Both exists, and have some inter-dependency, but not completely.

 

Yea....what? Time is just a measurement, dude.

 

If the Universe is a big quantum computer, then a being "outside" could experience a different time line than us, and hence be temporal. And the Universe started when "he/she/it" turned the power switch. The Big Bang must be the boot-up sequence like in Windows... it does sure look like God worked for Super-Microsoft considering all the bugs we find...

 

Yea...that's a pretty big if, Han.

 

True. It was just an example though. I think the argument about if God is omnipotent or not is only a problem if omni-benevolence is included. Since the argument is why would God let evil exist? So without the benevolence, then omnipotent can stand on it's own.

 

That's not a contradiction between omnipotence and omnibenevolence.

 

I'm surprised soule hasn't seen this thread yet, since it was decidedly veering towards him/her.

 

i thought the entire thread was idiodic because you refuse to accept that your "definition" of god is only that of the christian god.

 

So?

 

this is a philosophical debate of the nature of god is it not?

 

Kind of, and you're just not answering the questions.

 

you keep saying "god must be this, or have this atribute" or whatever "or else he isnt god."

 

Why would I want to argue about Krishnas and Vishnus?

 

what you fail to realize is that he could very much still be god, just the concept or definition of god that you place upon him is wrong. so because there is no other definiton of god that you accept, then all that your willing to accept is that god dosnt exist.

 

Why would he still be god? You haven't defined him at all in any case.

 

sorry but i usually dont fall for baiting XD

 

and i'm a him

 

Baiting? I asked two valid questions.

 

What the fuck do you mean by infinite and what the fuck do you mean by incomprehensible?

[Ouroboros]

reading from etymologyonline.com, the term 'sacrifice' isn't mentioned, and the site goes into great detail.

You're right. The Catholic Encyclopedia doesn't get everything right all the time.

 

Which would make him part of our universe and time, not outside. Time as we know it, didn't exist from eternity. So God's temporal existence is either part of our existence, or he's not.

 

Then that would mean that God couldn't have created the universe.

Exactly.

 

Exactly. We can't comprehend "infinity" or "outside" our universe.

 

You're taking what I said out of context, Han. I said, IF you are arguing for total incomprehensibility. I'm not, and I hope you aren't.

 

Right now, the only thing I'm sure off is that I don't follow you at all with what you're trying to ask. It seems that I can't even figure out what the question for your topic is, so I'm going to leave this topic to others to discuss.

[Open_Minded]

If something is infinite - then "maximal" is mute. What would the maximum of infinite be?

 

What do you mean by infinite?

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/infinite

infinite

• Having no boundaries or limits.
  
  
• Immeasurably great or large; boundless: infinite patience; a discovery of infinite importance.
  
  

 

I believe in God - I don't believe God is a "being" - many people who believe in God do not believe God is a being or beings.

 

Everything that exists is a being, are you an atheist?

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/being

being

• The state or quality of having existence. See Synonyms at existence.
  
  
• Something, such as an object, an idea, or a symbol, that exists, is thought to exist, or is represented as existing.
  
  
• The totality of all things that exist.
  
  
• All the qualities constituting one that exists; the essence.
  
  
• One's basic or essential nature; personality.
  
  

 

Do you believe that love exists and that it is a "being"?

Do you believe that wisdom exists and that it is a "being"?

Do you believe that awareness exists and that it is a "being"?

Do you believe that intent exists and that it is a "being"?

 

Asimov --- I'm not trying to be difficult here. But, you seem to be entirely focused on a Sunday-School definition of God.

 

There are many thinking adults who believe in God and refuse to "define" God. I am one of them.

 

To me if something is incomprehensible it is beyond defining - end of story.

 

On a subjective level I image God (for my own self). But there is a difference between subjectively imaging God on an individual basis and defining God as if it is possible to do so in a scientific sense of the word "define".

 

In my own personal subjective imaging of God, God is intimately connected with infinite love, with infinite wisdom, with infinite awareness, with infinite intent. Notice I said "intimately connected with" instead of "God is infinite love, infinite wisdom, etc…" There is a difference in my mind. In my mind everything I could say about God would limit, so I am willing to say "intimately connected with" … but I try to avoid "God is…" add any attribute you wish.

 

That's about as far as I'll go when it comes to talking about God.

 

There are many like myself - there are many who recognize that personal images of God, are just that "personal" and "subjective". And that clinging too tightly to one's subjective images of God can lead to misunderstanding and even violence.

 

WHY(is god defined as a maximal being)?

 

Because, he's the most powerful, knowledgeable thing, uncreated and incorruptible. It establishes a baseline that God must be at least more powerful and knowledgable than any other being or concept in the universe or he's not God.

 

You are talking about God in such a way that human attributes can be applied, (Anthropomorphism).

 

"he's the most powerful"

 

If God transcends physical human attributes, "he" has no place in the discussion, neither does "most powerful", neither does "knowledgeable thing".

 

God may not be a "thing".

 

There is a difference between saying God IS knowledge and God is the MOST knowledgeable.

 

And there is a difference when one says God is intimately connected with ALL knowing/knowledge/knowingness, etc...

 

There is a difference between saying God IS power and God is the MOST powerful.

 

And there is a difference when one says God is intimately connected with ALL power/energy, etc...

 

Infinite - without beginning and without end

Incomprehensible - I agree with your statement regarding "incomprehensible":

And you took my statement regarding incomprehensibility out of context. We can comprehend God, we can comprehend that he has attributes, and that these attributes are necessary in order for him to be called God.

 

Well … it is not possible to fully comprehend God.

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/comprehend

comprehend

• To take in the meaning, nature, or importance of; grasp.
  
  
• To take in as a part; include.
  
  

 

It may be possible to "take in as a part" the meaning, nature of God, but it is not possible to fully comprehend God.

 

I believe we can experience God. We can image God, but no - I don't believe it is possible to fully comprehend God. Any more than it is possible to fully comprehend the universe. We may experience the universe, we may image it, we may study it and debate it until the end of time. But, no human being will ever fully comprehend the universe.

 

Asimov - through these many months I've enjoyed watching you debate the literalists who come on board. You are very methodical. I admire that.

 

I am not trying to pick a debate here. But, I truly do believe that you are placing undo emphasis on the typical western concepts of God. It misses the reality that many who believe in God do NOT hold to this typical Sunday-school modal of God.

 

We've long ago outgrown it, on a personal level I outgrew it BEFORE I was out of the elementary school religion classes where it was being fed to me.

[Ouroboros]

If the Universe is a big quantum computer, then a being "outside" could experience a different time line than us, and hence be temporal. And the Universe started when "he/she/it" turned the power switch. The Big Bang must be the boot-up sequence like in Windows... it does sure look like God worked for Super-Microsoft considering all the bugs we find...

 

Yea...that's a pretty big if, Han.

I made the statement in a jokingly way, but the universe as a quantum computer was not my idea:

http://www.technologyreview.com/read_artic...amp;ch=infotech

 

 

I think the only way to describe these things are to think of "imaginary" time or "virtual" time. In a similar way as how time flows differently in a computer game or playing D&D. The time the characters in the game "experience" are not the same "time line" as ours. Both exists, and have some inter-dependency, but not completely.

 

Yea....what? Time is just a measurement, dude.

I know, and I agree. Time and space is just relative terms. And the "virtual" time concept wasn't my idea either.

 

Here's something interesting, with QLG there actually might exist time before Planck's Time: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/...60515232747.htm

 

I guess if QLG would be true, then we should measure time before T0 as negative.

[Asimov]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/infinite

infinite

• Having no boundaries or limits.
  
  
• Immeasurably great or large; boundless: infinite patience; a discovery of infinite importance.
  
  

 

Ok....common usage aside, how do you apply that to your idea of god? It has no boundaries or limits...at all? So what does that mean?

 

Does that mean that with God logical impossibilities are possibilities? Does it mean that A != A?

 

Do you believe that love exists and that it is a "being"?

Do you believe that wisdom exists and that it is a "being"?

Do you believe that awareness exists and that it is a "being"?

Do you believe that intent exists and that it is a "being"?

 

Those are concepts, so yes they do exist and are beings. Just like a rock is a being, or a book is a being.

 

Asimov --- I'm not trying to be difficult here. But, you seem to be entirely focused on a Sunday-School definition of God.

 

Yes, I am.

 

There are many thinking adults who believe in God and refuse to "define" God. I am one of them.

 

To me if something is incomprehensible it is beyond defining - end of story.

 

Then why do you believe in it?

 

That's about as far as I'll go when it comes to talking about God.

 

See why I'm focused on the Western concepts?

 

At least there is some kind of tangible conceptualization here in regards to the Western concept. Your idea is meaningless. It has no form, no identity, no definition, not even as an abstract.

 

There are many like myself - there are many who recognize that personal images of God, are just that "personal" and "subjective". And that clinging too tightly to one's subjective images of God can lead to misunderstanding and even violence.

 

Yea, but what's the point of upholding the existence of something you just "described" (and I use that loosely).

 

God may not be a "thing".

 

By saying God you are already describing it as a thing. Whatever exists is a thing.

 

There is a difference between saying God IS knowledge and God is the MOST knowledgeable.

 

And there is a difference when one says God is intimately connected with ALL knowing/knowledge/knowingness, etc...

 

There is a difference between saying God IS power and God is the MOST powerful.

 

And there is a difference when one says God is intimately connected with ALL power/energy, etc...

 

Yea, but now you're just describing relational qualities. You have given nothing to the concept of God. It's meaningless.

 

Well … it is not possible to fully comprehend God.

 

I didn't say it was.

 

I am not trying to pick a debate here. But, I truly do believe that you are placing undo emphasis on the typical western concepts of God. It misses the reality that many who believe in God do NOT hold to this typical Sunday-school modal of God.

 

Yea, but those people have no interest to me in theological discussion. I live in a society where the Western concept is popularized, and so far you are taking a word and then saying that it is connected with the universe is some way.

 

You could do as well with "Xdk" as with "God".

 

Which would make him part of our universe and time, not outside. Time as we know it, didn't exist from eternity. So God's temporal existence is either part of our existence, or he's not.

 

Then that would mean that God couldn't have created the universe.

Exactly.

 

Interesting idea, however that is assuming that time didn't exist before the universe.

 

Right now, the only thing I'm sure off is that I don't follow you at all with what you're trying to ask. It seems that I can't even figure out what the question for your topic is, so I'm going to leave this topic to others to discuss.

 

Well, I kept seeing soule use the terms incomprehensible and infinite and was wondering what was meant by that.

 

Then there were like 4 or 5 tangents branching off from that, leading to an interesting discussion.

[Asimov]

I don't understand why I get such flak when there are nearly 800 threads that all have to do with the same concept of God that I am describing.

[Open_Minded]

infinite

<snip>

Ok....common usage aside, how do you apply that to your idea of god? It has no boundaries or limits...at all? So what does that mean?

 

Asimov … please keep in mind that what I write is NOT a definition of God. I am trying to honestly answer your questions, and language is severely limiting.

 

"No boundaries" when I think of it - it is in these terms…

 

Pure potential, unlimited potential….

 

There are many thinking adults who believe in God and refuse to "define" God. I am one of them.

 

To me if something is incomprehensible it is beyond defining - end of story.

 

Then why do you believe in it?

 

Well …. Like I said in the other thread - that Soule started…

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=205542

 

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.
  
  

 

I believe there is intention within and through all of creation. I don't believe that this is all just random chance.

 

The probability is pretty high that you do believe this is all random chance.

 

For the record - I don't feel the need to dispute what you (and many others) believe. I accept that my beliefs are just that, my beliefs.

 

That's about as far as I'll go when it comes to talking about God.

 

See why I'm focused on the Western concepts?

 

At least there is some kind of tangible conceptualization here in regards to the Western concept.

 

I understand why the typical Western concepts are easier and more tangible. But, in reality, there are huge numbers of people who believe in God but do not hold to the typical Western concepts. Even huge numbers of Christians.

 

Your idea is meaningless. It has no form, no identity, no definition, not even as an abstract.

 

Well - as I asked in the other thread -

 

"For the sake of this discussion couldn't we say God is Infinite and incomprehensible intention"?

 

There are many like myself - there are many who recognize that personal images of God, are just that "personal" and "subjective". And that clinging too tightly to one's subjective images of God can lead to misunderstanding and even violence.

 

Yea, but what's the point of upholding the existence of something you just "described" (and I use that loosely).

 

The point is that we do believe there is intention within and through all of creation. We don't claim to have a handle on what that intention is - but we believe that it is there.

 

_______________________

 

Can't use quotes anymore - moving to indents and colors...

 

There is a difference between saying God

IS

knowledge and God is the

MOST

knowledgeable.

 

And there is a difference when one says God is intimately connected with ALL knowing/knowledge/knowingness, etc...

<snip>

Yea, but now you're just describing relational qualities. You have given nothing to the concept of God. It's meaningless.

That was exactly my intent. Even on a personal level I try very hard NOT to give a concept to God. That is something I take very seriously. Because - on a personal level - I've seen very negative things come about because human beings cling to "concepts of God" as if they are "GOD".

 

The meaning, Asimov, comes in my resistance to "defining" and "conceptualizing" God. The meaning (for me anyway) is that I must then go to a level of understanding infinite and incomprehensible intention without the tool of language. I must be willing to simply experience what I can experience of it and let it be at that.

 

I am not trying to pick a debate here. But, I truly do believe that you are placing undo emphasis on the typical western concepts of God. It misses the reality that many who believe in God do NOT hold to this typical Sunday-school modal of God.

 

Yea, but those people have no interest to me in theological discussion. I live in a society where the Western concept is popularized, and so far you are taking a word and then saying that it is connected with the universe is some way.

 

You could do as well with "Xdk" as with "God".

 

Maybe so... but... the traditional Western concept of God is being challenged on all levels. Not just by ex-Christians, not just by people of other faith traditions, but also by Christians themselves. Would you think it is healthier for society and the world if Christians just continued to cling to the literal concepts of God?

 

Part of the reason extremists in all religions are in such an uproar is because they can see that their literalized version of God is faltering - in all corners - even within their own ranks. Why do you think literalists label anyone who disagrees with their particular flavor of God as a "heretic"?

 

I don't understand why I get such flak when there are nearly 800 threads that all have to do with the same concept of God that I am describing.

 

Asimov - I'm not trying to give you flak - I really am not. I admire you. But - you did ask me "why"? And I must answer, my big fat mouth prevents me from remaining silent.

 

For what it's worth - I don't often feel the need to get into this type of discussion. Since I can't communicate what it is that I believe about God with language - these types of discussions often seem fruitless to me. But, something made me jump into this one.

 

Maybe I just trusted you enough to know we could have a meaningful discussion about this without getting nasty.

[Ouroboros]

Interesting idea, however that is assuming that time didn't exist before the universe.

Yup. At least time as we know it didn't exist. If God is temporal, and time is a measurement that not only requires space, but also energy and matter. Then can God really be infinite or eternal? Won't we end up with the same problems that God needs a beginning? For God to be temporal without energy, matter and space, he needs to be a non-corporeal spirit and mind. God as a solely spiritual being requires to first admit that a "soul" or "spirit" does or could exist outside our body. IMO.

 

Well, I kept seeing soule use the terms incomprehensible and infinite and was wondering what was meant by that.

 

Then there were like 4 or 5 tangents branching off from that, leading to an interesting discussion.

Yeah. I kind of started to understand that I was completely off track there. I'm sorry about derailing it. So, back to the regular programming.

 

Here's my view on those words, I could be wrong, but it's just my opinion:

 

The word incomprehensible is the best defence for agnosticism. It means that the nature of God is completely unknowable. And like you said earlier, by stating that God is infinite, is already making an assumption about God's nature, and we would assume we can comprehend his nature, and hence contradict our first premise that God is incomprehenisble. Anything we make up about God is pure speculation. If God is incomprehensible, then we can't know anything, only guess, and we most likely would be wrong.

 

The word infinite has the meaning of either infinite in power, size or time. I think it's a bad choice of word most of the time, since infinite is just saying no-start and no-end. But of what? Infinite in grace? Infinite in coolaid? Infinite in pizza crust? It's not really a good word on its own. IMO.

 

I don't understand why I get such flak when there are nearly 800 threads that all have to do with the same concept of God that I am describing.

Because you're fun to discuss with, and you don't back down so easily.

[Asimov]

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.
  
  

 

I believe there is intention within and through all of creation. I don't believe that this is all just random chance.

 

The probability is pretty high that you do believe this is all random chance.

 

I don't think it's a fair difference. I'm a determinist and believe in causal relationships. Causal relationships are not random and chance determined. They are determined by what caused them.

 

There are uncaused contingent events, such as quantum events, but that doesn't mean the entire universe is random.

 

The universe is directed through the forces of nature...how is that random?

 

For the record - I don't feel the need to dispute what you (and many others) believe. I accept that my beliefs are just that, my beliefs.

 

Of course, but I also think if you do not wish to have your beliefs disputed then do not air them. I'm in no way giving you special treatment or applying a double standard here, OM, don't think I'm singling you out.

 

I understand why the typical Western concepts are easier and more tangible. But, in reality, there are huge numbers of people who believe in God but do not hold to the typical Western concepts. Even huge numbers of Christians.

 

I would dispute that regarding Christians, since the Bible itself attributes many Western Conceptualizations with God.

 

I'll analyze any concept of God, OM...but I posted specifically what we were discussing in my Moral Responsibility thread....which did have to do with the Christian God. Soule was arguing for the Christians.

 

Well - as I asked in the other thread -

 

"For the sake of this discussion couldn't we say God is Infinite and incomprehensible intention"?

 

Yea, but what does that mean?

 

The point is that we do believe there is intention within and through all of creation. We don't claim to have a handle on what that intention is - but we believe that it is there.

 

Intention for what?

 

 

That was exactly my intent. Even on a personal level I try very hard NOT to give a concept to God. That is something I take very seriously. Because - on a personal level - I've seen very negative things come about because human beings cling to "concepts of God" as if they are "GOD".

 

The meaning, Asimov, comes in my resistance to "defining" and "conceptualizing" God. The meaning (for me anyway) is that I must then go to a level of understanding infinite and incomprehensible intention without the tool of language. I must be willing to simply experience what I can experience of it and let it be at that.

 

The positive things are that we then know what you are talking about. Since I don't know what you are talking about, I cannot really have a meaningful discussion regarding your concept (despite what you think, you ARE providing a concept, you just avoid defining it).

 

I think it's silly to say that by applying the ideas of knowledge and power to God are anthropomorphising God.

 

That would be like saying that because we say a dog has legs that we are anthropomorphizing it because humans have legs.

 

So far I haven't really discussed what I mean by "all power", because it is essentially unexplainable much like the abstract "tallest tree". We can't give a scope to how tall this "tallest tree" is, just as we can't give scope to how powerful "maximal power" is or even what that means. Just an aside.

 

Would you think it is healthier for society and the world if Christians just continued to cling to the literal concepts of God?

 

Why? Irrational people will still be irrational, whether or not they believe in Yahweh or Xdc. I think it's healthier for people to embrace reason, purpose and self-esteem than embrace deities. While they make for good discussion...they really serve no all around purpose.

 

Part of the reason extremists in all religions are in such an uproar is because they can see that their literalized version of God is faltering - in all corners - even within their own ranks. Why do you think literalists label anyone who disagrees with their particular flavor of God as a "heretic"?

 

I don't think it's due to some innate fear that their concept is faltering. They did that hundreds of years ago, and they still do.

 

Asimov - I'm not trying to give you flak - I really am not. I admire you. But - you did ask me "why"? And I must answer, my big fat mouth prevents me from remaining silent.

 

For what it's worth - I don't often feel the need to get into this type of discussion. Since I can't communicate what it is that I believe about God with language - these types of discussions often seem fruitless to me. But, something made me jump into this one.

 

Maybe I just trusted you enough to know we could have a meaningful discussion about this without getting nasty.

 

Hehe, I don't think it's a big fat mouth. I appreciate your answers and your discussion. I didn't intend on coming across as nasty. I'm abrupt and to the point, and I don't like being too verbose because brevity generally gets people listening more than rambling.

 

Like I said, I'm not trying to single you out. You share the beliefs of many people, and so I'm criticizing and analyzing all of you, not just you

[Asimov]

Yup. At least time as we know it didn't exist. If God is temporal, and time is a measurement that not only requires space, but also energy and matter. Then can God really be infinite or eternal? Won't we end up with the same problems that God needs a beginning? For God to be temporal without energy, matter and space, he needs to be a non-corporeal spirit and mind. God as a solely spiritual being requires to first admit that a "soul" or "spirit" does or could exist outside our body. IMO.

 

I don't see why time requires space, energy and matter. Again, it's just the measurement between two events.

 

I don't see God as infinite, HanSolo, so no.

The universe doesn't need a beginning...why does God?

 

Yeah. I kind of started to understand that I was completely off track there. I'm sorry about derailing it. So, back to the regular programming.

 

No need to apologize...I really just wanted to have a discussion.

 

The word incomprehensible is the best defence for agnosticism. It means that the nature of God is completely unknowable. And like you said earlier, by stating that God is infinite, is already making an assumption about God's nature, and we would assume we can comprehend his nature, and hence contradict our first premise that God is incomprehenisble. Anything we make up about God is pure speculation. If God is incomprehensible, then we can't know anything, only guess, and we most likely would be wrong.

 

I think it's a slight cop-out, hehe, but ok.

 

I don't think God CAN be infinite, since logic is objective. If morality is objective too, that would create another limitation.

 

You know my position on agnosticism...redundancy!

 

The word infinite has the meaning of either infinite in power, size or time. I think it's a bad choice of word most of the time, since infinite is just saying no-start and no-end. But of what? Infinite in grace? Infinite in coolaid? Infinite in pizza crust? It's not really a good word on its own. IMO.

 

Well I disagree that God is infinite in power, size is relational and if God is atemporal he can't do anything.

[Ouroboros]

I don't see why time requires space, energy and matter. Again, it's just the measurement between two events.

Think about how time is measured. What is required for measuring and knowing time?

 

I don't see God as infinite, HanSolo, so no.

The universe doesn't need a beginning...why does God?

Very true. If the Universe can exist without a beginning then God can too. But if the Universe must have a beginning, then very likely God must too. Of course it doesn't have to be so, but on the other hand no one can say either way.

 

I don't think God CAN be infinite, since logic is objective. If morality is objective too, that would create another limitation.

In my opinion you're contradicting yourself. Because you claim that God could be of eternal and temporal, right? But eternal is infinite in time, or...?

 

You know my position on agnosticism...redundancy!

Yeah, I know. And you know my position that you're wrong.

 

Well I disagree that God is infinite in power, size is relational and if God is atemporal he can't do anything.

Didn't you say that Eternal wasn't necessarily the same as Atemporal? And isn't Eternal = Infinite Time?

[Open_Minded]

Hehe, I don't think it's a big fat mouth. I appreciate your answers and your discussion. I didn't intend on coming across as nasty.

Oh... Asimov ... you didn't come across as "nasty". That was my whole point. I've entered into this discussion with you because I respect you and trust that you won't get nasty.

 

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.
  
  

 

I believe there is intention within and through all of creation. I don't believe that this is all just random chance.

 

The probability is pretty high that you do believe this is all random chance.

 

I don't think it's a fair difference. I'm a determinist and believe in causal relationships. Causal relationships are not random and chance determined. They are determined by what caused them.

 

There are uncaused contingent events, such as quantum events, but that doesn't mean the entire universe is random.

 

The universe is directed through the forces of nature...how is that random?

 

OK... new information for me. Thank you....

 

But, Asimov - even if you are a determinist and believe in causal relationships - you still believe that quantum events are "uncaused".

 

Also, even if you believe in causal relationships - do you believe there is intent behind the cause?

 

Again - I really am NOT trying to debate the right or wrongness of either of our beliefs. I'm just pointing out differences.

 

I do believe there is intent behind the causal relationships. I do believe there is intent behind, within, etc.. of quantum events. I admit up front I can't prove it - no one can - but I do believe there is intent within all of it.

 

Because I believe that I use the word, "God".

 

 

I understand why the typical Western concepts are easier and more tangible. But, in reality, there are huge numbers of people who believe in God but do not hold to the typical Western concepts. Even huge numbers of Christians.

 

I would dispute that regarding Christians, since the Bible itself attributes many Western Conceptualizations with God.

 

Yes - the Bible itself does attribute many Western concepts of God. But, Christianity does not stay the same, it has evolved (not fast enough for me, but still, it has evolved) over time just like every other human institution. And today, many, many Christians are challenging traditional western concepts of God.

 

The point is that we do believe there is intention within and through all of creation. We don't claim to have a handle on what that intention is - but we believe that it is there.

Intention for what?

 

Intention for what? Well ... intention simply to live to express self (and I use the word "self" loosely because I don't believe in a physical god/man separated from that which "he" created). But, intention simply to express - to "BE" - to move from "pure potential" or "pure possibility" into "being" or "existing". The intention to express what is idea and move into form and function.

 

Since I don't know what you are talking about, I cannot really have a meaningful discussion regarding your concept (despite what you think, you ARE providing a concept, you just avoid defining it).

On this we agree. Yes...I am providing a concept and yes I avoid defining it. In my resistence to define - a concept still comes across. This is what I meant when I wrote...

 

The

meaning

, Asimov, comes in my resistance to "defining" and "conceptualizing" God. The meaning (for me anyway) is that I must then go to a level of understanding infinite and incomprehensible intention without the tool of language. I must be willing to simply experience what I can experience of it and let it be at that.

 

Whether it has been easy, or not, we have both learned something of the other. I may not be able to communicate percisely what it is that I believe about God. But, you have a better understanding of what it is I believe (and others as well) because we've had the discussion.

 

You know I have a reverence for something that is beyond human comprehension - so much reverence that the older I get and the longer I live the less willing I am to "define" it and put it in a box of limited human comprehension.

 

I - on the other hand - have learned something of you as well. I know what a determinist is - I didn't know that when we started this conversation.

 

I think it's silly to say that by applying the ideas of knowledge and power to God are anthropomorphising God.

 

That would be like saying that because we say a dog has legs that we are anthropomorphizing it because humans have legs.

 

You have a point - and maybe I do lean too far in the direction of not "defining" God. But, on the other hand I live in a culture which literalizes these concepts of God. And quite frankly - it makes me angry - even livid. It is the cause of untold amounts of pain and I do not plan to participate in it - even on an unconscious level.

[Asimov]

I don't see why time requires space, energy and matter. Again, it's just the measurement between two events.

Think about how time is measured. What is required for measuring and knowing time?

 

Events are required. Events don't require space, matter or time. They require energy, but the BB wasn't the creation of energy.

 

Very true. If the Universe can exist without a beginning then God can too. But if the Universe must have a beginning, then very likely God must too. Of course it doesn't have to be so, but on the other hand no one can say either way.

 

Yea, but only if you insert the "MUST". The universe can have a beginning without it HAVING to have a beginning.

 

In my opinion you're contradicting yourself. Because you claim that God could be of eternal and temporal, right? But eternal is infinite in time, or...?

 

Eternal is being uncreated, not infinite time.

 

Didn't you say that Eternal wasn't necessarily the same as Atemporal? And isn't Eternal = Infinite Time?

 

Eternal = Uncreated.

[Antlerman]

OK... new information for me. Thank you....

 

But, Asimov - even if you are a determinist and believe in causal relationships - you still believe that quantum events are "uncaused".

 

Also, even if you believe in causal relationships - do you believe there is intent behind the cause?

 

Again - I really am NOT trying to debate the right or wrongness of either of our beliefs. I'm just pointing out differences.

 

I do believe there is intent behind the causal relationships. I do believe there is intent behind, within, etc.. of quantum events. I admit up front I can't prove it - no one can - but I do believe there is intent within all of it.

 

Because I believe that I use the word, "God".

Forgive the intrusion into your discussion about defining God, but I had to make an aside about this notion of randomness. I had noticed that before in how you defined that those who did not believe in God saw the universe as random. Like Asimov I would never say that either. The things that came into being did so by following the laws of the universe being acted upon by energy. Order coming into being through these natural means isn't random, and realistically it can't be called intentional.

 

Think of a box of paper clips being shaken about for a period of time and how the clips join each other in links to create a new stable structure. Was this intentional? Were the clips designed for this purpose? Or the patterns that form in the sand with wind blowing across them likewise are not intentional, but you could use the language that it was a "design of nature". In other words I would state it that things do happen for a reason, but not for a purpose.

 

That is how I see the universe without a will of intention guiding it. It isn't random, but follows laws, then we find adaptive purposes for what comes into existence. It is strictly a matter of percpetion looking backward to see it as purposeful.

[Soule]

infinite

 

without end.

 

 

 

incomprehensible

 

unable to comprehend or understand.

[Asimov]

Oh... Asimov ... you didn't come across as "nasty". That was my whole point. I've entered into this discussion with you because I respect you and trust that you won't get nasty.

 

Ah, I see!

 

OK... new information for me. Thank you....

 

But, Asimov - even if you are a determinist and believe in causal relationships - you still believe that quantum events are "uncaused".

 

Also, even if you believe in causal relationships - do you believe there is intent behind the cause?

 

Again - I really am NOT trying to debate the right or wrongness of either of our beliefs. I'm just pointing out differences.

 

I do believe there is intent behind the causal relationships. I do believe there is intent behind, within, etc.. of quantum events. I admit up front I can't prove it - no one can - but I do believe there is intent within all of it.

 

Because I believe that I use the word, "God".

 

I still believe that quantum events are "uncaused". To think otherwise when there's not reason to do so is irrational.

 

There is purpose in the universe's causal relationships, it may not be cognitive intent (like me willing my arm to move and it moving), but it indicates that things happen for a reason. A ball rolling down a hill does so because of gravity and the fact that there is a plane which allows it to roll.

 

You can stop trying to placate me by saying you're not trying to say I'm right or wrong, it really doesn't bother me either way.

 

How can you believe there is intent in quantum events? They are random. It's interesting that you use the word God, which is also a word that has caused much "pain" and "strife" and yet you also maintain unwillingness to define God for the same reasons.

 

Yes - the Bible itself does attribute many Western concepts of God. But, Christianity does not stay the same, it has evolved (not fast enough for me, but still, it has evolved) over time just like every other human institution. And today, many, many Christians are challenging traditional western concepts of God.

 

Nonsensically, since the bible offers no reason to assume that God is anything other than Awmighty. You'd have to do a lot of twisting in order to think otherwise.

 

Intention for what? Well ... intention simply to live to express self (and I use the word "self" loosely because I don't believe in a physical god/man separated from that which "he" created). But, intention simply to express - to "BE" - to move from "pure potential" or "pure possibility" into "being" or "existing". The intention to express what is idea and move into form and function.

 

What does that mean? I don't get it.

 

Whether it has been easy, or not, we have both learned something of the other. I may not be able to communicate percisely what it is that I believe about God. But, you have a better understanding of what it is I believe (and others as well) because we've had the discussion.

 

You know I have a reverence for something that is beyond human comprehension - so much reverence that the older I get and the longer I live the less willing I am to "define" it and put it in a box of limited human comprehension.

 

How can you revere what you have no idea about?

 

You have a point - and maybe I do lean too far in the direction of not "defining" God. But, on the other hand I live in a culture which literalizes these concepts of God. And quite frankly - it makes me angry - even livid. It is the cause of untold amounts of pain and I do not plan to participate in it - even on an unconscious level.

 

The cause of untold amounts of pain is irrationality, don't put the blame on the concept or how people "literalize it".

 

If God does exist as the Western Concept, then he is a literal being and that is entirely irrelevant to how people behave.

 

infinite

 

without end.

 

 

 

incomprehensible

 

unable to comprehend or understand.

 

 

Thanks, dictionary....jesus christ.

[Soule]

Oh... Asimov ... you didn't come across as "nasty". That was my whole point. I've entered into this discussion with you because I respect you and trust that you won't get nasty.

 

Ah, I see!

 

OK... new information for me. Thank you....

 

But, Asimov - even if you are a determinist and believe in causal relationships - you still believe that quantum events are "uncaused".

 

Also, even if you believe in causal relationships - do you believe there is intent behind the cause?

 

Again - I really am NOT trying to debate the right or wrongness of either of our beliefs. I'm just pointing out differences.

 

I do believe there is intent behind the causal relationships. I do believe there is intent behind, within, etc.. of quantum events. I admit up front I can't prove it - no one can - but I do believe there is intent within all of it.

 

Because I believe that I use the word, "God".

 

I still believe that quantum events are "uncaused". To think otherwise when there's not reason to do so is irrational.

 

There is purpose in the universe's causal relationships, it may not be cognitive intent (like me willing my arm to move and it moving), but it indicates that things happen for a reason. A ball rolling down a hill does so because of gravity and the fact that there is a plane which allows it to roll.

 

You can stop trying to placate me by saying you're not trying to say I'm right or wrong, it really doesn't bother me either way.

 

How can you believe there is intent in quantum events? They are random. It's interesting that you use the word God, which is also a word that has caused much "pain" and "strife" and yet you also maintain unwillingness to define God for the same reasons.

 

Yes - the Bible itself does attribute many Western concepts of God. But, Christianity does not stay the same, it has evolved (not fast enough for me, but still, it has evolved) over time just like every other human institution. And today, many, many Christians are challenging traditional western concepts of God.

 

Nonsensically, since the bible offers no reason to assume that God is anything other than Awmighty. You'd have to do a lot of twisting in order to think otherwise.

 

Intention for what? Well ... intention simply to live to express self (and I use the word "self" loosely because I don't believe in a physical god/man separated from that which "he" created). But, intention simply to express - to "BE" - to move from "pure potential" or "pure possibility" into "being" or "existing". The intention to express what is idea and move into form and function.

 

What does that mean? I don't get it.

 

Whether it has been easy, or not, we have both learned something of the other. I may not be able to communicate percisely what it is that I believe about God. But, you have a better understanding of what it is I believe (and others as well) because we've had the discussion.

 

You know I have a reverence for something that is beyond human comprehension - so much reverence that the older I get and the longer I live the less willing I am to "define" it and put it in a box of limited human comprehension.

 

How can you revere what you have no idea about?

 

You have a point - and maybe I do lean too far in the direction of not "defining" God. But, on the other hand I live in a culture which literalizes these concepts of God. And quite frankly - it makes me angry - even livid. It is the cause of untold amounts of pain and I do not plan to participate in it - even on an unconscious level.

 

The cause of untold amounts of pain is irrationality, don't put the blame on the concept or how people "literalize it".

 

If God does exist as the Western Concept, then he is a literal being and that is entirely irrelevant to how people behave.

 

infinite

 

without end.

 

 

 

incomprehensible

 

unable to comprehend or understand.

 

 

Thanks, dictionary....jesus christ.

 

 

thats the whole topic of discussion is it not? what i ment by those two terms?

[Asimov]

thats the whole topic of discussion is it not? what i ment by those two terms?

 

Yea, but giving stock definitions without explanation is about as meaningful as having sex with a hooker.

[Soule]

thats the whole topic of discussion is it not? what i ment by those two terms?

 

Yea, but giving stock definitions without explanation is about as meaningful as having sex with a hooker.

whats there to explain?

 

without end. exists in and around everything and beyond without end

 

incomprehensible... well why dont you try comprehending infinity?

[Open_Minded]

Forgive the intrusion into your discussion about defining God, but I had to make an aside about this notion of randomness.

No intrusion at all, Antlerman. Actually, I’d been wondering if you were going to jump into the ring.

 

I had noticed that before in how you defined that those who did not believe in God saw the universe as random. Like Asimov I would never say that either. The things that came into being did so by following the laws of the universe being acted upon by energy. Order coming into being through these natural means isn't random, and realistically it can't be called intentional.

 

Think of a box of paper clips being shaken about for a period of time and how the clips join each other in links to create a new stable structure. Was this intentional? Were the clips designed for this purpose? Or the patterns that form in the sand with wind blowing across them likewise are not intentional, but you could use the language that it was a "design of nature". In other words I would state it that things do happen for a reason, but not for a purpose.

 

That is how I see the universe without a will of intention guiding it. It isn't random, but follows laws, then we find adaptive purposes for what comes into existence. It is strictly a matter of percpetion looking backward to see it as purposeful.

 

Determinism is something I’ve never read about before. But, it makes logical sense to me and, believe it or not, I don’t feel a need to dispute the conclusions that you and Asimov explain.

 

Neither do I see “intent” in a box of paper clips being shaken – and how they join each other. I don’t see “intent” in the patterns that form in the sand with wind blowing, nor do I see “intent” in the ice patterns on my windows in the winter, or within the unique pattern of each snowflake. I do not see “intent” in the way a flower pushes itself out through the bud, one petal at a time unfolding in perfect order.

 

However, I do see intent behind the natural laws of the universe. I do see intent within the “overall expression” of creation (for lack of better wording).

 

============================================

 

(Asimov) I still believe that quantum events are "uncaused". To think otherwise when there's not reason to do so is irrational.

“Irrational” is not always a bad thing. There may never be a reason to think otherwise about these things – but should that stop the human mind (and spirit) from searching? If one stopped searching for answers just because “to think otherwise when there’s not reason to do so” then where would humanity be?

 

You can stop trying to placate me by saying you're not trying to say I'm right or wrong, it really doesn't bother me either way.

Well, it’s good that it doesn’t bother you either way. But, if you don’t mind I will still continue to make the point that I’m not looking for a debate – nor trying to prove anyone right or wrong. It helps to keep the thread on steady ground, if you know what I mean.

 

It's interesting that you use the word God, which is also a word that has caused much "pain" and "strife" and yet you also maintain unwillingness to define God for the same reasons.

Paradoxical, I know (sigh).

• Sometimes I use the word “God” because it’s the only word that comes close.
  
• Sometimes I use the word “God” because it forces people to get out of their boxes and stop looking at these things with pre-conceived notions about what “God” is, or should be.
  
• Sometimes I use the word “God” just to piss people off – (that’s not the reason most of the time, but sometimes it is).
  

Most of the time I use the word “God” because it’s the only word I know that comes close.

 

Intention for what? Well ... intention simply to live to express self (and I use the word "self" loosely because I don't believe in a physical god/man separated from that which "he" created). But, intention simply to express - to "BE" - to move from "pure potential" or "pure possibility" into "being" or "existing". The intention to express what is idea and move into form and function.

What does that mean? I don't get it.

 

Asimov, the very act of living is intention. We get up in the morning, we move through the day, and our day is an “expression” of who we are. Our days, our lives look different from other people’s days and lives because of the way we move from “pure potential” or “pure possibility” into “being”.

 

You have ideas, your ideas move into form and function by your intention.

 

I’m making a very loose connection here – when I think of God, I do not think of some being outside or separate from creation. But, you asked what that description meant, and this is the closest I can get.

 

Whether it has been easy, or not, we have both learned something of the other. I may not be able to communicate percisely what it is that I believe about God. But, you have a better understanding of what it is I believe (and others as well) because we've had the discussion.

 

You know I have a reverence for something that is beyond human comprehension - so much reverence that the older I get and the longer I live the less willing I am to "define" it and put it in a box of limited human comprehension.

How can you revere what you have no idea about?

 

Just because I cannot find the words to express what I experience of the universe, does not mean I have “no idea about” that which I revere. There are many ways to “know” things, Asimov. We are talking about infinity here. Whether one views it as intentional, or not, we are talking about something that cannot be grasped in words.

 

Scientists revere it and express it with their math. I revere it and express it with as few words as possible – that is part of my reverence - that is part of my "wonder" and "awe".