How Did You Envision God

[julian]

Define the God you believe in, then we can go from there to see if it's impossible attributes are irrelevant. After you define your God, show me the proof for it's existence. I am always open that I could be wrong about my non-belief in the gods.

 

That wasn't the point. I provided grounds for finding evidence of divinity without definitive and empirical proof, as you blindly demand. That is instrumental to this argument. See below for your "impossible attributes" claim.

 

I think we all have a pretty good idea and knowledge where smoke comes from. It comes from the ability we have to perceive the natural world around us with our natural senses. A God cannot be perceived that way. A God is based on a belief only. it is not part of reality. Fire and smoke is.

 

So your answer is yes, I presume? Well, if you do agree that we can recognize something's existence by seeing indirect evidence of it (and making inferences), then you must apply that same logic to this topic as well as fire. "A god" cannot be sensed in the same way that fire cannot be felt, but we still show the existence of divinity without fully sensing it.

 

Hmm, interesting. Does that mean I can look at my stove in my kitchen as a God too? yea right! I think not partner. I think you better come up with some more effective analogies because the ones you have used so far really suck as in big time.

Don't dodge the issue. I defined a god very clearly to you, just as you asked, and so you now have to disprove that god on the grounds you stated.

[Gaura]

I tend to view Deity/God/Spirit as the "force without form" or as a Gemstone, the Deity that is at the heart of all faith but that none of us can fully perceive.

[EdwardAbbey]

I tend to view Deity/God/Spirit as the "force without form" or as a Gemstone, the Deity that is at the heart of all faith but that none of us can fully perceive.

 

From what you have described it seems that such a thing has very much in common with non-existence.

 

In short, it's not much of a force at all. More like a farce.

 

But then again when it comes to imaginary gods, they do tend to have an irrisistible force on the minds of those who submit to such things.

 

Julian, I'll get to your post later.

 

[NotBlinded]

I tend to view Deity/God/Spirit as the "force without form" or as a Gemstone, the Deity that is at the heart of all faith but that none of us can fully perceive.

 

From what you have described it seems that such a thing has very much in common with non-existence.

 

In short, it's not much of a force at all. More like a farce.

 

But then again when it comes to imaginary gods, they do tend to have an irrisistible force on the minds of those who submit to such things.

 

Julian, I'll get to your post later.

 

I hope it makes you feel better to have to immediately prop yourself up by harshly criticizing anyone that holds a different view than you do. You sound like a damn ex-smoker for god's sake.

 

I'm really glad that you have the all-knowingness of a god so you can make such claims as "more like a farce".

 

Maybe you can inform the quantum physicists that what they see on the quantum level is nothing more than a farce.

 

I have read some of your posts, and you have a right to your opinion but the sarcasm directed at other members is rather childish, don't you think "partner"?

[Guest Mr. XC]

I tend to view Deity/God/Spirit as the "force without form" or as a Gemstone, the Deity that is at the heart of all faith but that none of us can fully perceive.

 

From what you have described it seems that such a thing has very much in common with non-existence.

 

In short, it's not much of a force at all. More like a farce.

 

But then again when it comes to imaginary gods, they do tend to have an irrisistible force on the minds of those who submit to such things.

 

Julian, I'll get to your post later.

 

I hope it makes you feel better to have to immediately prop yourself up by harshly criticizing anyone that holds a different view than you do. You sound like a damn ex-smoker for god's sake.

 

I'm really glad that you have the all-knowingness of a god so you can make such claims as "more like a farce".

 

Maybe you can inform the quantum physicists that what they see on the quantum level is nothing more than a farce.

 

I have read some of your posts, and you have a right to your opinion but the sarcasm directed at other members is rather childish, don't you think "partner"?

I can somewhat sympathize with both parties here. Christianity is a very unhealthy religion. It has a unhealthy view of God and seems more to be engineered for extensive spreading to the gullible and not so gullible. In its own metaphysics (how it defines time, God, etc), Christianity makes just enough sense within its own little world so that it is believable to a wide range of people. And it basically has just about everything ass backwards from what I believe.

 

That said, I do believe in a non-personal, non-dualistic God, but I do not share that with other members around here lightly. Why? For one, I believe that there are many paths to God. Secondly, finding God in this lifetime is not a requirement, and not likely to happen anyway. Third, if people truly wanted to find God, I believe they could just ask sincerely (no show Yourself if You exist crap) and they will experience what is necessary to find God as they are ready to digest that knowledge, but it is up to them to interpret it correctly and not give in to stupid man made ideas. Forth, people who come from Christianity or have been hurt by its stupidity need a vacation from religion. I mostly respect this by not pushing my own views of God. I break that rule only if they misspeak (such as claiming that they "know" that God does not exist). But remember, it does take faith to believe in God, and most of the ex-Christians need and deserve a break from faith so that they can heal or just be away from unhealthy pratices. Also, I accept the possibility that I could be wrong.

[Antlerman]

So your answer is yes, I presume? Well, if you do agree that we can recognize something's existence by seeing indirect evidence of it (and making inferences), then you must apply that same logic to this topic as well as fire. "A god" cannot be sensed in the same way that fire cannot be felt, but we still show the existence of divinity without fully sensing it.

Hi Julian, I’d actually like to pursue this line of reasoning with you to see where it goes. At the outset so you understand, I respect that you see a god (or gods) in your worldview and I'm not interested in dissuading you of that. I support you in your beliefs if they are meaningful to you.

 

I'm just curious in using the argument of inferred evidence, what are you looking at as evidence; are there alternative explanations for those things that fit the natural world; and if so do you feel those natural explanations are either wrong, or don't go far enough for you? It doesn't need to be a long answer or discussion, it's just a personal curiosity for me.

[NotBlinded]

I tend to view Deity/God/Spirit as the "force without form" or as a Gemstone, the Deity that is at the heart of all faith but that none of us can fully perceive.

 

From what you have described it seems that such a thing has very much in common with non-existence.

 

In short, it's not much of a force at all. More like a farce.

 

But then again when it comes to imaginary gods, they do tend to have an irrisistible force on the minds of those who submit to such things.

 

Julian, I'll get to your post later.

 

I hope it makes you feel better to have to immediately prop yourself up by harshly criticizing anyone that holds a different view than you do. You sound like a damn ex-smoker for god's sake.

 

I'm really glad that you have the all-knowingness of a god so you can make such claims as "more like a farce".

 

Maybe you can inform the quantum physicists that what they see on the quantum level is nothing more than a farce.

 

I have read some of your posts, and you have a right to your opinion but the sarcasm directed at other members is rather childish, don't you think "partner"?

I can somewhat sympathize with both parties here. Christianity is a very unhealthy religion. It has a unhealthy view of God and seems more to be engineered for extensive spreading to the gullible and not so gullible. In its own metaphysics (how it defines time, God, etc), Christianity makes just enough sense within its own little world so that it is believable to a wide range of people. And it basically has just about everything ass backwards from what I believe.

I agree with you. I just see this behavior as reverse fundamentalism. So, maybe it's not so much what the person believes, but the mindset to begin with.

 

Maybe it hit me wrong because I was once doing the same thing. I was a fundamental Christian and when I rejected it, I became a fundamental ex-christian. It was something I had to work through to arrive somewhere in between. I didn't recognize it in myself. I wish someone would have told me that was what I was doing so I could have moved out of the ENTIRE fundamental mindset quicker. I would have been happier sooner.

 

I understand what you say about the person trying to get a break from religion, and I appreciate what your saying, but this isn't an atheist site as far as I know...it's an ex-christian site and many ex-christians aren't atheists and don't appreciate being made fun of for what they have studied hard to arrive at. It's like having to battle fundamentalism from BOTH sides.

 

It seems to me that what is rejected is the fundamental view of Christianity, as it should be. The attacks on the ones that aren't fundamental about their beliefs are just disrespectful.

 

Okay...my high horse is bowing out now.

[EdwardAbbey]

 

I hope it makes you feel better to have to immediately prop yourself up by harshly criticizing anyone that holds a different view than you do. You sound like a damn ex-smoker for god's sake.

Actually I haven't had a smoke in about 30 years or so. It feels great being off that shit.

 

I'm really glad that you have the all-knowingness of a god so you can make such claims as "more like a farce".

It has nothing to do with all-knowingness my friend. Just common sense. God is just that. A big farce and a myth. Especially those generic types, like the Xtain gawd. Totally impossible entity born out of the superstitious human mind.

 

Maybe you can inform the quantum physicists that what they see on the quantum level is nothing more than a farce.

You mean they found God there? Interesting. Fill me in on the details will ya.

 

I have read some of your posts, and you have a right to your opinion but the sarcasm directed at other members is rather childish, don't you think "partner"?

 

I think you are very sensitive about some of the things I say "putna". Maybe you should take a break and have a smoke and relax for a while and get your act together. Just a suggestion.

 

[EdwardAbbey]

That wasn't the point. I provided grounds for finding evidence of divinity without definitive and empirical proof, as you blindly demand. That is instrumental to this argument. See below for your "impossible attributes" claim.

 

Sorry Julian but I haven't seen any indication that you have grounds for evidence for a divine entity or divinity in any shape or form. It's possible it only exists no further than your brain just like prayer. Both go no further than the brain and do not exist outside the human mind.

Demanding empirical proof isn't so blind as you say it is. I'm sure there are many things in life you demand proof for correct? But not with Gawd so it seems. Those things are better left within the category of mysteries that answer no questions. Because that is about all God belief is. One mystery on top of another mystery.

 

So your answer is yes, I presume? Well, if you do agree that we can recognize something's existence by seeing indirect evidence of it (and making inferences), then you must apply that same logic to this topic as well as fire. "A god" cannot be sensed in the same way that fire cannot be felt, but we still show the existence of divinity without fully sensing it.

 

The thing is Julian we have knowledge of fire and smoke. Gods on the other hand are not based on knowledge because neither you nor I have any knowledge for such a thing. All you have is a belief that such a thing exists. I do not believe such a thing as a God exists because there isn't even any detectable evidence for a God or gods anywhere. So how do you sense divinity with your natural senses? sounds like another impossiblity to me. The divinity you think you have evidence for is based on wishful thinking.

 

Don't dodge the issue. I defined a god very clearly to you, just as you asked, and so you now have to disprove that god on the grounds you stated.

 

Not dodging anything. You used a pen as an analogy, I used a stove.

 

You didn't define a God clearly to me either. Perhaps you don't really have a definition for one?

 

But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

Go for it.

[NotBlinded]

 

I hope it makes you feel better to have to immediately prop yourself up by harshly criticizing anyone that holds a different view than you do. You sound like a damn ex-smoker for god's sake.

Actually I haven't had a smoke in about 30 years or so. It feels great being off that shit.

 

I'm really glad that you have the all-knowingness of a god so you can make such claims as "more like a farce".

It has nothing to do with all-knowingness my friend. Just common sense. God is just that. A big farce and a myth. Especially those generic types, like the Xtain gawd. Totally impossible entity born out of the superstitious human mind.

 

Maybe you can inform the quantum physicists that what they see on the quantum level is nothing more than a farce.

You mean they found God there? Interesting. Fill me in on the details will ya.

 

I have read some of your posts, and you have a right to your opinion but the sarcasm directed at other members is rather childish, don't you think "partner"?

 

I think you are very sensitive about some of the things I say "putna". Maybe you should take a break and have a smoke and relax for a while and get your act together. Just a suggestion.

 

HA! Actually I did just take a cig break.

 

At least you can be funny too! That's a good thing.

 

I know there is no problem proving an anthropromorphic god as being born out of the minds of the superstitious. I just have a problem when you make an absolute claim that "God is just that. A big farce and a myth."

 

Maybe I should ask which "God" you are referring to before I go on a search within quantum mechanics.

[EdwardAbbey]

HA! Actually I did just take a cig break.

 

At least you can be funny too! That's a good thing.

 

I know there is no problem proving an anthropromorphic god as being born out of the minds of the superstitious. I just have a problem when you make an absolute claim that "God is just that. A big farce and a myth."

 

Maybe I should ask which "God" you are referring to before I go on a search within quantum mechanics.

 

Any gawd with impossible characteristics as I think I have made clear in my other posts. I think the most common definition for the majority of the gods are omnipotence/omniscience. Such a thing falls within the category of impossible in my not so humble opinion. But on the other hand I am highly suspicious there exists a true genuine God anywhere in the universe. If there is, I must say with all due humility that I just don't know. As for quantum mechanics? do fill me in on that sometime. I don't know much about it myself. sounds mind boggling to me.

 

BTW, thanks for noticing my sense of humor.

 

Hope you enjoyed your smoke.

 

[NotBlinded]

HA! Actually I did just take a cig break.

 

At least you can be funny too! That's a good thing.

 

I know there is no problem proving an anthropromorphic god as being born out of the minds of the superstitious. I just have a problem when you make an absolute claim that "God is just that. A big farce and a myth."

 

Maybe I should ask which "God" you are referring to before I go on a search within quantum mechanics.

 

Any gawd with impossible characteristics as I think I have made clear in my other posts. I think the most common definition for the majority of the gods are omnipotence/omniscience. Such a thing falls within the category of impossible in my not so humble opinion. But on the other hand I am highly suspicious there exists a true genuine God anywhere in the universe. If there is, I must say with all due humility that I just don't know. As for quantum mechanics? do fill me in on that sometime. I don't know much about it myself. sounds mind boggling to me.

 

BTW, thanks for noticing my sense of humor.

 

Hope you enjoyed your smoke.

 

Well hell...I agree with you after all!

 

I don't know much about quantum mechanics myself, just what I can read and understand (which isn't too much!) I was reading about Quantum Astronomy and the Participatory Universe. I find it pretty interesting. Of course, with my limited understanding of it, I could easily fall into what this paragraph here warns about:

 

"However, a colleague of Einstein’s, Professor John Wheeler of Princeton University, has pointed out that one could take another interpretation, an interpretation he has dubbed, "The Participatory Universe." In this approach one can look at the universe as directly participating in each quantum effect in real time. In other words, the concept of a First Cause starting things off (winding up the clock of the universe, one might say) and then leaving the laws of physics to run things, may be what is incorrect in the basic approach of classical physics. Rather, in this participatory scenario, the Cause of the laws of physics remains an active Participant. (If one would like to also draw some religious points into such discussions I would just say that it is important to understand what is being said and what is not being said here—that is, to not oversimplify what went into Prof. Wheeler’s introduction of this interesting proposed conceptualization for quantum reality.)"

 

From here.

 

Who knows though? It's pretty facinating to think that there may be intelligence coursing through everything. Actually, I do believe it, but I am also open to it being not what I thought. It makes sense to me (at this point in my life anyway).

 

Thanks for the humor instead of what I dished out to you!

[julian]

Sorry Julian but I haven't seen any indication that you have grounds for evidence for a divine entity or divinity in any shape or form. It's possible it only exists no further than your brain just like prayer. Both go no further than the brain and do not exist outside the human mind.

Demanding empirical proof isn't so blind as you say it is. I'm sure there are many things in life you demand proof for correct? But not with Gawd so it seems. Those things are better left within the category of mysteries that answer no questions. Because that is about all God belief is. One mystery on top of another mystery.

 

On the first part, I did provide grounds for evidence of divinity. I first stated that it is possible to find logical explanations of divinity. The next part I outlined them. Therefore, the first part set up my second part, and so I'll now respond to your response to the latter.

 

So your answer is yes, I presume? Well, if you do agree that we can recognize something's existence by seeing indirect evidence of it (and making inferences), then you must apply that same logic to this topic as well as fire. "A god" cannot be sensed in the same way that fire cannot be felt, but we still show the existence of divinity without fully sensing it.

 

The thing is Julian we have knowledge of fire and smoke. Gods on the other hand are not based on knowledge because neither you nor I have any knowledge for such a thing. All you have is a belief that such a thing exists. I do not believe such a thing as a God exists because there isn't even any detectable evidence for a God or gods anywhere. So how do you sense divinity with your natural senses? sounds like another impossiblity to me. The divinity you think you have evidence for is based on wishful thinking.

 

We do have knowledge of smoke, and so we can use it to make inferences about fire. On divinity, we have a similar knowledge of the "smoke", and so the "fire" comes as a natural conclusion. Contrary to your belief, using the process I presented does give one a logical explanation for divinity (or "god", as you term it).

 

Another place where you are wrong is when you say there is no evidence. There are a few things which show us evidence for divinity. Since I've established my process above, I'll now apply it. First, we can see throughout the universe that there is commonality. The way things are organized, the way they operate, the matter in which things interact, all of this shows commonality. Next, it is undeniable that there is continuity in all things (this is corroborated by the Law of Conservation of Matter/Energy, which states that nothing ends, it continues in another form). When we look at the cycles of water, for instance, we can see that regardless of its form (be it liquid, gas or solid), water remains constant. Therefore, if we apply this knowledge, we do know that beyond present forms of individual entities, there is an ultimate constant. This individual constant shares commonality with all things as well.

 

Don't dodge the issue. I defined a god very clearly to you, just as you asked, and so you now have to disprove that god on the grounds you stated.

Not dodging anything. You used a pen as an analogy, I used a stove.

You didn't define a God clearly to me either. Perhaps you don't really have a definition for one?

 

I didn't use a pen as an analogy, I described a god to you very clearly. Look at what I posted, it is a very clear definition. Now you have to disprove it on the grounds you stated.

 

You are either unwilling or unable to do what you claimed you could. So, you are dodging the issue.

 

But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

Go for it.

 

I did, now you have to.

[EdwardAbbey]

 

We do have knowledge of smoke, and so we can use it to make inferences about fire. On divinity, we have a similar knowledge of the "smoke", and so the "fire" comes as a natural conclusion. Contrary to your belief, using the process I presented does give one a logical explanation for divinity (or "god", as you term it).

 

The existence of fire and smoke has nothing to do with belief. It is part of reality. There is no need to believe it is true. It is something we know. There is not even any need to assume such a thing exists or not. it is an undeniable fact, therefore no need for faith to observe it is true. Divinity or the existence of a deity is something that only exists within the imaginations of the human mind and nowhere to be found outside of it. there are no logical conclusions to draw from such a hypothesis because such a thing – divinity or a god is nothing more than an assumption based on wishful thinking. I think all you are doing with the term “divinity” is mincing or playing semantics with the God term.

 

Another place where you are wrong is when you say there is no evidence. There are a few things which show us evidence for divinity. Since I've established my process above, I'll now apply it. First, we can see throughout the universe that there is commonality. The way things are organized, the way they operate, the matter in which things interact, all of this shows commonality. Next, it is undeniable that there is continuity in all things (this is corroborated by the Law of Conservation of Matter/Energy, which states that nothing ends, it continues in another form).

 

 

You are correct. I could be wrong that there is no evidence for God/Divinity. If you have something based on logical conclusions there is such a thing as a God/divinity, by all means, present the evidence you have discovered that would convince non-believers there is such a thing as a God or as you put it: divinity.

 

 

The way you seem to assume there is organization in the way matter operates does not prove a God/divinity either. It has nothing to do with the supernatural or divinity/God as you are trying to prove but at a total loss at proving anything other than just a wild guess on your part. About the only thing you have shown is that the universe operates quite well on it’s own by the natural laws that it is governed by. Has nothing to do with the supernatural, divinity or a God or gods whatsoever.

 

I didn't use a pen as an analogy, I described a god to you very clearly. Look at what I posted, it is a very clear definition. Now you have to disprove it on the grounds you stated.

 

You are either unwilling or unable to do what you claimed you could. So, you are dodging the issue.

 

You didn’t explain a God to me at all. All that you think you explained was nothing more than a hypothesis or some concept of what a god might be that seemed to be logical to you because of your zealous desire for their to be a god or divinity to exist. again, it’s called wishful thinking on your part. Ripples in water, fire/smoke and gasses does not define a god. it defines what is part of nature and the reality we can perceive with our natural senses. Therefore there is nothing for me to disprove especially with what you are trying or attempting to do with the natural laws that are explainable from a natural/scientific perspective. It seems like it is you who is doing the dodging. The burden of proof isn’t for me to disprove the supernatural. It is for you to prove and so far it looks like you are at a total loss to prove such a thing as “divinity” or a God. Why don't you just come to grips with the fact that you really don't have a definition for the God you have formed in the image of your mind? Like I said in my other post. God doesn't go any further than your brain. Just like prayer.

[Guest Mr. XC]

I hope it makes you feel better to have to immediately prop yourself up by harshly criticizing anyone that holds a different view than you do. You sound like a damn ex-smoker for god's sake.

 

I'm really glad that you have the all-knowingness of a god so you can make such claims as "more like a farce".

 

Maybe you can inform the quantum physicists that what they see on the quantum level is nothing more than a farce.

 

I have read some of your posts, and you have a right to your opinion but the sarcasm directed at other members is rather childish, don't you think "partner"?

I can somewhat sympathize with both parties here. Christianity is a very unhealthy religion. It has a unhealthy view of God and seems more to be engineered for extensive spreading to the gullible and not so gullible. In its own metaphysics (how it defines time, God, etc), Christianity makes just enough sense within its own little world so that it is believable to a wide range of people. And it basically has just about everything ass backwards from what I believe.

I agree with you. I just see this behavior as reverse fundamentalism. So, maybe it's not so much what the person believes, but the mindset to begin with.

 

Maybe it hit me wrong because I was once doing the same thing. I was a fundamental Christian and when I rejected it, I became a fundamental ex-christian. It was something I had to work through to arrive somewhere in between. I didn't recognize it in myself. I wish someone would have told me that was what I was doing so I could have moved out of the ENTIRE fundamental mindset quicker. I would have been happier sooner.

I had a very similar experience. The belief can go very quickly, but the mindset can stick around. Even thought the belief system (no church or political structure of people maintaining it, so calling it a religion is a bit of a stretch) that I was studying said not to push it on people, I did anyway. Fortunately, I limited this behavior to a friend who is a recent (2-3 year) Christian convert. Unfortunately, he believes Christianity is true without fully understanding it and will defend some literal interpretations. Of course, that makes for difficult arguments. Anyway, I think I have made good progress in purging the old Christian mindset from me, but I know I am not quite finished yet. Stupid Christianity.

I understand what you say about the person trying to get a break from religion, and I appreciate what your saying, but this isn't an atheist site as far as I know...it's an ex-christian site and many ex-christians aren't atheists and don't appreciate being made fun of for what they have studied hard to arrive at. It's like having to battle fundamentalism from BOTH sides.

 

It seems to me that what is rejected is the fundamental view of Christianity, as it should be. The attacks on the ones that aren't fundamental about their beliefs are just disrespectful.

Yes, I like it better when people remain open minded and not attack our ideas simply because we bring up something that they do not understand or choose not to believe in. I do not know of any religion that does not require faith, and a lot of people here do not want to have faith in something that is not directly observable in the physical world. Although most reasonable people will leave room for the possibility of things that they do not understand but that does not mean they will accept what is not understandable as true. I have found most people really good at that here. I appreciate that, otherwise, I probably would not stick around for long.

 

It looks like this mocking incident was caused by a misunderstanding of what kind of God is being referred to (dualistic/non-dualistic) and/or identifying sarcasm (which I often have trouble with until I know the person whom I am talking to).

 

It appears that julian is now trying to prove God. I do not think that is possible unless there are been unique personal experiences that establish the grounds for God, but even then, there is room for doubt. Even just presenting the idea of how God could exist still requires faith to accept. I prefer to say that God could exist and leave it at that unless the discussion is among like minds. It will save everyone from hurt feelings.

[Ouroboros]

Looks like the same discussion as on one of the other threads.

 

Here's a definition of my God: me and my mind.

 

So, does my God exist or not?

 

And to say my definition is silly, only proves that only certain kinds of definitions are rejected, but not any kind.

 

If the "rejectionist" is the one to decided what definitions "God" can have, then of course the rejectionist can always reject the God by their own definitions. That is not fair.

 

Humanism is a form of "religion" or should I say faith/belief. It believes that humanity as a whole can save itself through the power that you get by combining intelligence and effort. Humanity as a whole is bigger, stronger and more powerful than a person like me. Humanism believe in humanity. That is one kind of definition of God. Humanity is God.

[Gaura]

I forgot that I had posted here.

 

Yes, I'm not an atheist. My sense of what Deity is... well, that's something I've thought long and hard about. I haven't rejected a Deity outright because there have been just too many "moments" in my life that require magick or Deity to explain (and since I think those two concepts are related...) Like, people telling me I'm pregnant when I've only taken the pregnancy test that morning (and for that matter a covener who figured it out and didn't tell me *before* I took the test)... or a little kid who is a total stranger to me crying out "Doggie!" at seeing a wolf spirit that tends to hang around my husband...etc. Point being, my life has not been totally explainable from science and the senses alone.

 

So, when I speak of Deity as being the "force without form", that may seem an impossible concept from the point of science. However, when you consider that every living being has a bioelectric potential... every single thing, even plants...is that not a "force without form" that might be a manifestation of Deity? I know that someone mentioned quantum physics... is there any analogous concept in that? I am absolutely terrible at physics, so I am not sure.

 

I don't mean to attack anyone's beliefs (nonbeliefs either) when I speak this, but I simply cannot reject the sense of a "God" outright. I know that many of you have, and I respect that. However, it is worth considering that Xtianity does not have anything resembling a stranglehold on the concept of God. Just because we've all rejected the concept of Xtianity does NOT mean we all have to throw the baby out with the bath water. My "adult" concept of Deity is not anthropomorphic and probably isn't anything resembling omni-much-of-anything. That is why the word "force" seems to apply well, as though God is but another aspect of Nature, one not currently described by science.

[Ouroboros]

I get you Gaura. I've been in on similar line of thoughts.

[NotBlinded]

So, does my God exist or not?

No...the question is does your MIND exist or not?

 

I am being funny, but in reality no one can prove their mind exists either. Some will say it's axiomatic, but that only means it can't be proven. tehee

[Ouroboros]

MIND your own business. he he.

 

We can see the results of the mind though. The mind isn't "visible" per se, but it's observable, and somewhat predictable.

 

Actually, I remembered a similar discussion a while back and got the response I was making a logical fallacy of equivocation. And in a sense that is true, I did that, and that's the heart of the problem. In general the concept of God is so vague and ambiguous and hence any claim of definition of God then is vague and ambiguous. Could one say that any attempt to define God is a logical fallacy? Is it like asking if the thing that doesn't exist, exists?

[julian]

 

We do have knowledge of smoke, and so we can use it to make inferences about fire. On divinity, we have a similar knowledge of the "smoke", and so the "fire" comes as a natural conclusion. Contrary to your belief, using the process I presented does give one a logical explanation for divinity (or "god", as you term it).

 

The existence of fire and smoke has nothing to do with belief. It is part of reality. There is no need to believe it is true. It is something we know. There is not even any need to assume such a thing exists or not. it is an undeniable fact, therefore no need for faith to observe it is true. Divinity or the existence of a deity is something that only exists within the imaginations of the human mind and nowhere to be found outside of it. there are no logical conclusions to draw from such a hypothesis because such a thing – divinity or a god is nothing more than an assumption based on wishful thinking. I think all you are doing with the term “divinity” is mincing or playing semantics with the God term.

 

The existence of fire when one sees smoke has to do with reasonable inferences from the knowledge available. We know it because we make conclusions based on our knowledge, not because we can immediately sense the fire itself. Likewise, we can take the knowledge we know from the readily observable world and make reasonable inferences which bring us to divinity.

 

Your assertion that we cannot is without any sort of basis. You claim that there are "no logical conclusions" when the clear fact is that there are, and I have outlined them extensively. You claim that it is based on "wishful thinking" when you provide no reason to support this, and further I have shown how it is not based on such a sentiment but on reason and logic. Nice try.

 

You are correct. I could be wrong that there is no evidence for God/Divinity. If you have something based on logical conclusions there is such a thing as a God/divinity, by all means, present the evidence you have discovered that would convince non-believers there is such a thing as a God or as you put it: divinity.

 

The way you seem to assume there is organization in the way matter operates does not prove a God/divinity either. It has nothing to do with the supernatural or divinity/God as you are trying to prove but at a total loss at proving anything other than just a wild guess on your part. About the only thing you have shown is that the universe operates quite well on it’s own by the natural laws that it is governed by. Has nothing to do with the supernatural, divinity or a God or gods whatsoever.

 

 

I do not assume that there is organization, that is just a fact that is undeniable. Remember what I said before, the smoke is important to find the fire. In this way, when we see the nature of reality, we can find divinity as well through those inferences.

 

Please outline specific flaws in my reasoning, if there are any. Your present criticisms do nothing to debunk my points. You have only tried to criticize the idea and purpose with no real support, and that does nothing to help your argument.

 

You didn’t explain a God to me at all. All that you think you explained was nothing more than a hypothesis or some concept of what a god might be that seemed to be logical to you because of your zealous desire for their to be a god or divinity to exist. again, it’s called wishful thinking on your part. Ripples in water, fire/smoke and gasses does not define a god. it defines what is part of nature and the reality we can perceive with our natural senses. Therefore there is nothing for me to disprove especially with what you are trying or attempting to do with the natural laws that are explainable from a natural/scientific perspective. It seems like it is you who is doing the dodging. The burden of proof isn’t for me to disprove the supernatural. It is for you to prove and so far it looks like you are at a total loss to prove such a thing as “divinity” or a God. Why don't you just come to grips with the fact that you really don't have a definition for the God you have formed in the image of your mind? Like I said in my other post. God doesn't go any further than your brain. Just like prayer.

 

I didn't explain a god to you at all? Let me see:

 

"OK, let me try this, just for fun. Hypothetically, I define god as the pen on my desk. I pray to it, and sometimes it answers my prayers and sometimes it does not. The pen is there, that much is undeniable."

 

Yes, I did explain a god to you. That is a valid definition. Address this like you said you would.

 

If you continue to refuse to address it, you will show yourself unable to do so. It's your choice, you can fulfill your end of the bargain or leave me without a refutation.

[Megara]

It changed a lot. At one point I visioned god looking like god from Monty Python and the Holy Grail... I've also thought god had no "form", that god was feminine, that god looked like the Jesus you see on Catholic candles, and god as just an orb of light.

[EdwardAbbey]

Likewise, we can take the knowledge we know from the readily observable world and make reasonable inferences which bring us to divinity.

 

Gods aren’t based on knowledge but only belief. a belief that goes no further than your brain my friend.

 

Your assertion that we cannot is without any sort of basis. You claim that there are "no logical conclusions" when the clear fact is that there are, and I have outlined them extensively

 

You didn’t outline anything outside of your own logical conclusions of what a god might be because it sounds logical to you. You don’t have a god, you don’t have a divinity, all you have is a belief and that’s it partner. All that it amounts to is a wild guess on your part. Nice try though.

 

You claim that it is based on "wishful thinking" when you provide no reason to support this, and further I have shown how it is not based on such a sentiment but on reason and logic. Nice try.

 

That’s what I just said. Wishful thinking. No it’s not a nice try on my part. It is on your part because it is you who is doing all the wishing for a god to appear from out of the clouds, not me.

 

"OK, let me try this, just for fun. Hypothetically, I define god as the pen on my desk. I pray to it, and sometimes it answers my prayers and sometimes it does not. The pen is there, that much is undeniable."

 

Just like all gods whether you think of it as a pen a rock or whatever, prayer never works and it fails every time.

 

Yes, I did explain a god to you. That is a valid definition. Address this like you said you would.

 

No you didn’t. you just “think” you did. You never defined any god with any coherent description. Just bogus analogies.

 

If you continue to refuse to address it, you will show yourself unable to do so. It's your choice, you can fulfill your end of the bargain or leave me without a refutation.

 

Unable to do what? My choice for what? May atheism isn’t based on a choice. It’s based on no choice. The only reason we exist is because of the millions like you who exist in our society who believe in imaginary gods in the first place.

 

In short, there is no God and you know it. they are all fakes and frauds. But if you want to continue in your little god delusion go right ahead with such irrationality and non-thinking ideas.

[monsterfeets]

I used to see god like this.

 

(God by the amazing Nivbed)

 

Now it is more like this:

 

My God is a Jawsome God

 

(Awesome picture of Set by this artist here: Link)

[julian]

Likewise, we can take the knowledge we know from the readily observable world and make reasonable inferences which bring us to divinity.

 

Gods aren’t based on knowledge but only belief. a belief that goes no further than your brain my friend.

 

I have already debunked that conclusion. Address what I've said and not your misperceptions. I've shown how the conclusion for divinity can logically be reached using knowledge. In spite of this, you continue to believe the contrary.

 

Your assertion that we cannot is without any sort of basis. You claim that there are "no logical conclusions" when the clear fact is that there are, and I have outlined them extensively

 

You didn’t outline anything outside of your own logical conclusions of what a god might be because it sounds logical to you. You don’t have a god, you don’t have a divinity, all you have is a belief and that’s it partner. All that it amounts to is a wild guess on your part. Nice try though.

 

Read what I wrote, I did outline how logical conclusions for divinity are possible, you are simply ignoring that. Your continued insistence on something you have not remotely proven only further shows your lack of an argument.

 

You claim that it is based on "wishful thinking" when you provide no reason to support this, and further I have shown how it is not based on such a sentiment but on reason and logic. Nice try.

 

That’s what I just said. Wishful thinking. No it’s not a nice try on my part. It is on your part because it is you who is doing all the wishing for a god to appear from out of the clouds, not me.

 

Again, you provide no reason to support your claims. Therefore, you have no basis for what you say, except for wishful thinking, that is. If you gave one piece of an argument which challenged the veracity of my argument, perhaps you could claim that much, but you can't, because you didn't.

 

"OK, let me try this, just for fun. Hypothetically, I define god as the pen on my desk. I pray to it, and sometimes it answers my prayers and sometimes it does not. The pen is there, that much is undeniable."

 

Just like all gods whether you think of it as a pen a rock or whatever, prayer never works and it fails every time.

 

Look at the hypothetical. I never said that it always answers my prayers, only that it sometimes answers my prayers and sometimes not. Since I never defined it as something that always answers my prayers (I actually specified that it doesn't), your point is meaningless.

 

Yes, I did explain a god to you. That is a valid definition. Address this like you said you would.

 

No you didn’t. you just “think” you did. You never defined any god with any coherent description. Just bogus analogies.

 

Once again, read what I wrote. I gave you a straightforward definition, something you asked for. Up until now, you did not even attempt to address it, and even when you did, the point was meaningless.

 

If you continue to refuse to address it, you will show yourself unable to do so. It's your choice, you can fulfill your end of the bargain or leave me without a refutation.

 

Unable to do what? My choice for what? May atheism isn’t based on a choice. It’s based on no choice. The only reason we exist is because of the millions like you who exist in our society who believe in imaginary gods in the first place.

 

If you cared to read what I said, you would see that I told you that you have shown yourself to be unwilling to address the definition I gave you, something you said you would do. It is your choice, as you can address my definition or you can refuse to address it. So far, you have chosen the latter option. This has nothing to do with your atheism or atheism in general, so spare me your tired oration.

 

In short, there is no God and you know it. they are all fakes and frauds. But if you want to continue in your little god delusion go right ahead with such irrationality and non-thinking ideas.

 

You have not given me a single valid argument. Your refusal to address or refute my comments shows that you are without a shred of support. I, on the other hand, have outlined clearly how one can logically and rationally conclude that divinity exists. Your denial of these facts changes nothing, you are still lacking any basis for your conclusions.