shantonu Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 It's hard to prove a negative. I don't think God exists. For me what is more important is that the God presented in mainstream Christianity would not be worthy of worship. Perhaps there is some "force" or whatever that is the origin of our existence and ethical understandings, but that "force" doesn't seem worshipable, and if it's accurately depicited in the Bible, it isn't worthy of worship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhampir Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 God has no voice box... God is not physical. God can not produce words out of the air and wind. And why not? You sure seem to know a lot about this "thing." Seems to me that a "god" could be a giant hunk of slag. Or maybe some huge lump of mucus for that matter. But I imagine I need to understand a "god" as some type of energy or a sort of quantum goo-gah. A "force" of a sort that twiddle twaddles the nether noodles the soul. I'm sure you'll be more than happy to provide an ample lack of anything to support your positive claim as to what "god" is. I look forward to it's absence. mwc I stand by my negation of god's physicality. Since it is a negative statement that can neither be proved nor disproved, I'll call upon you to provide a single example or a possibility (other than some all-knowing, omnipotent, all-loving, omnipresent slag or mucus) of something or someone outside of time and space that is physical. Actually what needs to happen is for you to provide a positive to compliment that negative. You say god is NOT physical, so what IS he? What does he consist of? What are his primary (not secondary) characteristics? Does he even exist in a way that wouldn't be served better by a description other than God? For example, is god love? If so, why don't we just call god love, and throw out that other word? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 I stand by my negation of god's physicality. Since it is a negative statement that can neither be proved nor disproved, I'll call upon you to provide a single example or a possibility (other than some all-knowing, omnipotent, all-loving, omnipresent slag or mucus) of something or someone outside of time and space that is physical. My error. Let's assume I was wrong on all counts. That will make this much easier to start again. "And why not? You sure seem to know a lot about this 'thing.'" See? We can now just go back to the simple question you skipped rather than trying to focus on all the rest. And to show I'm a good sport I'll go ahead and answer your question as a good faith gesture... An example of something or someone that is outside of time/space that is physical? And I can't simply make something up as everyone else has or will? Well, you got me. I'm stumped. I've not ventured outside of time/space. But I couldn't give you an example of someone or something on the closest habitable planet to our own. (Oh, and why did you add all-knowing, omnipotent, all-loving and omnipresent to what I said? Seems you're reading-in a bit.) Though now that I've answered that I'll have to take this question as an implied positive assertion that your "god" lives as some non-physical entity outside time/space. You might say I inferred it but it seems stronger than that based on what you've written. So I'll go ahead and add this to my "And why not?" and see what happens. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kcdad Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 Actually what needs to happen is for you to provide a positive to compliment that negative. You say god is NOT physical, so what IS he? What does he consist of? What are his primary (not secondary) characteristics? Does he even exist in a way that wouldn't be served better by a description other than God? For example, is god love? If so, why don't we just call god love, and throw out that other word? "HE" is not anything. What is God? Everything. What does consist of? Everything. What are God's primary characteristics? Existence. Reality. Truth. Love, Truth, or The Sacred, would only be a small expression of what God would be. The term God is used because it is all encompassing. Just because you have had bad experiences with that word, doesn't mean you need to discard it. Just find a better definition of it. I mean, just because you don't like raw chicken, doesn't mean you won't like it prepared some other way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeday Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 Joanna, I think Antlerman hit the nail on the head. Although a group of people may gather and state WE believe in God, it is essentially up to the individual and how they interpret the meaning of thier lives. You ask the question, "How do we know God exists;" but I ask you the question, How do YOU know God does not exist? This is a long and painful journey that I think would be very rewarding for you to embark on. For the record, there is no clear cut answer for this question, only peoples perceptions as it relates to thier life. I would suggets reading every book, article, sermon and website you can get your hands on and then decide for yourself. I would be very hesitant to come to a site such as this in search for answers since you will get usually only one perspective. The people here are very smart and canny with words. If you want, I can certianly tell you why I feel that God exists; but this could be abrogated by most of the loquacious intellects on this site. Just my thoughts anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 If you want, I can certianly tell you why I feel that God exists; but this could be abrogated by most of the loquacious intellects on this site. Not necessarily, because my personal opinion is that it's okay to "feel" that God exists. It's the whole "prove it because ..." angle I think falls short. Just because we can't prove God does not exist, it doesn't necessitate that he must exist, and the reversed is also true (of course). I believe belief should be kept as a belief and not be subjected to the constant failed attempts to make it a fact. So... feel away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deva Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 If you want, I can certianly tell you why I feel that God exists; but this could be abrogated by most of the loquacious intellects on this site. Just my thoughts anyway. Much depends on your definition of that word "God". You might be surprised and some of the responses you get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeday Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 If you want, I can certianly tell you why I feel that God exists; but this could be abrogated by most of the loquacious intellects on this site. Not necessarily, because my personal opinion is that it's okay to "feel" that God exists. It's the whole "prove it because ..." angle I think falls short. Just because we can't prove God does not exist, it doesn't necessitate that he must exist, and the reversed is also true (of course). I believe belief should be kept as a belief and not be subjected to the constant failed attempts to make it a fact. So... feel away. This is the exact point I was trying to make, just like it is OK for you to feel there is no God. I learned this lesson a long time ago, maybe you remember, that it is fine for you not to have the same belief that I have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 This is the exact point I was trying to make, just like it is OK for you to feel there is no God. I learned this lesson a long time ago, maybe you remember, that it is fine for you not to have the same belief that I have. Very good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhampir Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 Actually what needs to happen is for you to provide a positive to compliment that negative. You say god is NOT physical, so what IS he? What does he consist of? What are his primary (not secondary) characteristics? Does he even exist in a way that wouldn't be served better by a description other than God? For example, is god love? If so, why don't we just call god love, and throw out that other word? "HE" is not anything. What is God? Everything. What does consist of? Everything. What are God's primary characteristics? Existence. Reality. Truth. Love, Truth, or The Sacred, would only be a small expression of what God would be. The term God is used because it is all encompassing. Just because you have had bad experiences with that word, doesn't mean you need to discard it. Just find a better definition of it. I mean, just because you don't like raw chicken, doesn't mean you won't like it prepared some other way. So, God doesn't exist in a way that wouldn't be served better by a description other than God? Gotcha. Okay, so since God = Everything, then why call anything God? Just because you have had bad experiences with that word, doesn't mean you need to discard it. Just find a better definition of it.I mean, just because you don't like raw chicken, doesn't mean you won't like it prepared some other way. NO, because that word is so established as meaning a number of completely different, and far more specific things than what you said, there's no good reason to call anything god that doesn't fit any of those established definitions. Much better to call those things... what we already call them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurisaz Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 I'm fairly certain that these reasons for belief are neither new or unique, and might even come across as a bit unbalanced. Someone else could have similar dreams, a similar Voice, and so on, and dismiss them as psychological phenomenon. The only difference, as far as I can tell, is that I've chosen to listen -- and to respond. Well you have every right to decide for yourself based on personal evidence. However, if you try to convince or otherwise influence others based on what you believe you better present something that can be independently verified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 Wait a second... If "god" is "everything" then this "god" does not exist outside of time/space nor does this mean it is not physical. So what was all the fuss about? Why give me an exercise that had nothing to do with the "real" answer? Seems that someone wants to have their cake and eat it too. As for raw chicken, well, I tend to avoid foods that may very well make me ill or kill me outright no matter what you want to call them. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kcdad Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 Okay, so since God = Everything, then why call anything God? NO, because that word is so established as meaning a number of completely different, and far more specific things than what you said, there's no good reason to call anything god that doesn't fit any of those established definitions. Much better to call those things... what we already call them. The word, apparently, is not established at all to meaning anything in particular. What does love mean? What does beat mean? What does bad mean? What does government by, for and of the people mean? Words only mean what we agree that they mean... period. Dictionaries do not determine the meaning of words, they only record "usual and common" usages. Why call anything god? I never call any thing god.. I call EVERTHING God. It is merely a recognition of the unity of all things. It is an expression that one realizes that weather, plants, the planets, the oceans, ... everything is part of the same unique matrix within which we exist... without any of it, it would be a different place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kcdad Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 Wait a second... If "god" is "everything" then this "god" does not exist outside of time/space nor does this mean it is not physical. So what was all the fuss about? Why give me an exercise that had nothing to do with the "real" answer? That may well be a good point... Except I believe there is a unifying principle, a G.U.T., that forms, purposes, and gives meaning to all things. I haven't figgerred it out yet... it isn't E=MC2 and it isn't F=MA, and it isn't anything else I have come across... but I think it is out there some place. That Grand Unifying Theory, or god if you will, is in everything, is everything and is outside both time and space... That's just me, though... I haven't built any churches to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 That Grand Unifying Theory, or god if you will, is in everything, is everything and is outside both time and space... That's just me, though... I haven't built any churches to it. A quick observation... If "god" is everything then "god" cannot be outside of itself so "god" must lie within time/space and must even be time/space by definition. To exist outside of itself is impossible. However, if you do decide to go ahead and build some churches just remember that you're building them out of your "god." Be nice. Don't fart inside your "god." mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kcdad Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 If "god" is everything then "god" cannot be outside of itself ... Your premise is wrong. Reality is everything... and yet is neither the sum of every thing, nor limited by the nature or characteristics of any particular thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 If "god" is everything then "god" cannot be outside of itself ... Your premise is wrong. Reality is everything... and yet is neither the sum of every thing, nor limited by the nature or characteristics of any particular thing. So I'm wrong based on an alternate definition of "everything?" That being the case then I guess I'm wrong as I can't argue against arbitrary definitions. However, when you come to realize that everything is simply all that was, is and ever can be (ie. the every in everything) then you will hopefully realize that no matter what "reality" you come from that no thing can go beyond every thing. So a "god," being a "thing" cannot go beyond that which is everything even if you wish to assume that this "god" is every thing. It can't be more than it is. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kcdad Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 If "god" is everything then "god" cannot be outside of itself ... Your premise is wrong. Reality is everything... and yet is neither the sum of every thing, nor limited by the nature or characteristics of any particular thing. So I'm wrong based on an alternate definition of "everything?" That being the case then I guess I'm wrong as I can't argue against arbitrary definitions. However, when you come to realize that everything is simply all that was, is and ever can be (ie. the every in everything) then you will hopefully realize that no matter what "reality" you come from that no thing can go beyond every thing. So a "god," being a "thing" cannot go beyond that which is everything even if you wish to assume that this "god" is every thing. It can't be more than it is. mwc There is no difference between what was, what is and what will be.... there is only what is. What was and will be are fantastic interpretations of what is. All there is is now. (I just wrote "is is") So since you can image things outside of here and now... there are some "things" that exist outside of time and space... God is a word, for me, that includes not only what is... i.e. everything, but anything else that isn't "what is", i.e., that which is not "is". Are time and space "real"? Can there be a perfect vacuum with nothing in it? How could we know? Since we can not know if it could ever occur, we say that it can not. To know it exists negates its possibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 There is no difference between what was, what is and what will be.... there is only what is. What was and will be are fantastic interpretations of what is. All there is is now. (I just wrote "is is")So since you can image things outside of here and now... there are some "things" that exist outside of time and space... God is a word, for me, that includes not only what is... i.e. everything, but anything else that isn't "what is", i.e., that which is not "is". Are time and space "real"? Can there be a perfect vacuum with nothing in it? How could we know? Since we can not know if it could ever occur, we say that it can not. To know it exists negates its possibility. This all quite nice. You're trying to slip "god" into the unknown. Feel free. It doesn't matter. If your "god" simply "is" at all, in any way shape, form, or concept, then by definition that is a part of "everything" and so it cannot go beyond itself. Ever. Word play can't save change this. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kcdad Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 There is no difference between what was, what is and what will be.... there is only what is. What was and will be are fantastic interpretations of what is. All there is is now. (I just wrote "is is")So since you can image things outside of here and now... there are some "things" that exist outside of time and space... God is a word, for me, that includes not only what is... i.e. everything, but anything else that isn't "what is", i.e., that which is not "is". Are time and space "real"? Can there be a perfect vacuum with nothing in it? How could we know? Since we can not know if it could ever occur, we say that it can not. To know it exists negates its possibility. This all quite nice. You're trying to slip "god" into the unknown. Feel free. It doesn't matter. If your "god" simply "is" at all, in any way shape, form, or concept, then by definition that is a part of "everything" and so it cannot go beyond itself. Ever. Word play can't save change this. mwc Ahh, mistaking one... there is a difference between some thing that is, and is itself. A thing is something, but existence or "is-ing" just ... uh... is. A thing is a part of everything, existence is every ... er... thing (whether real, imagines, material or immaterial.) I am not slipping god into the unknown, I am encompassing everything whether known or unknown into this word that reflects a concept we call god. (In case you are confused, the meaning of words does not exist before the concepts they represent) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 Ahh, mistaking one... there is a difference between some thing that is, and is itself. A thing is something, but existence or "is-ing" just ... uh... is. A thing is a part of everything, existence is every ... er... thing (whether real, imagines, material or immaterial.) I am not slipping god into the unknown, I am encompassing everything whether known or unknown into this word that reflects a concept we call god. (In case you are confused, the meaning of words does not exist before the concepts they represent) From that explanation I can see why you're so very content with your belief system. From what I see "god" is alcohol. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kcdad Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 Ahh, mistaking one... there is a difference between some thing that is, and is itself. A thing is something, but existence or "is-ing" just ... uh... is. A thing is a part of everything, existence is every ... er... thing (whether real, imagines, material or immaterial.) I am not slipping god into the unknown, I am encompassing everything whether known or unknown into this word that reflects a concept we call god. (In case you are confused, the meaning of words does not exist before the concepts they represent) From that explanation I can see why you're so very content with your belief system. From what I see "god" is alcohol. mwc But alcohol is A thing, not everything. If it were everything, you wouldn't need it to get dates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agnosticator Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 I never call any thing god.. I call EVERTHING God. It is merely a recognition of the unity of all things. It is an expression that one realizes that weather, plants, the planets, the oceans, ... everything is part of the same unique matrix within which we exist... without any of it, it would be a different place. kcdad, Are you referring to pantheism or monism? Just wondering.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kcdad Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 I never call any thing god.. I call EVERTHING God. It is merely a recognition of the unity of all things. It is an expression that one realizes that weather, plants, the planets, the oceans, ... everything is part of the same unique matrix within which we exist... without any of it, it would be a different place. kcdad, Are you referring to pantheism or monism? Just wondering.... Panentheism, I think is what it is called. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightflight Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 I never call any thing god.. I call EVERTHING God. It is merely a recognition of the unity of all things. It is an expression that one realizes that weather, plants, the planets, the oceans, ... everything is part of the same unique matrix within which we exist... without any of it, it would be a different place. kcdad, Are you referring to pantheism or monism? Just wondering.... Panentheism, I think is what it is called. Pantheism is "everything is god". Panentheism is everything is in god. Pan (everything) en (in) theism (god). Panentheism retains transcedence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts