Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Sassy on February 27, 2025, 05:57:34 PM
-
I must say I have noted how different the view of God, is to all of us individuals.
The ability to learn from each other and see the bibles revelations could help us all to discuss the person God. Asking questions and discussing answers is a good way to understand each persons
point of view.
-
For me put extremely simply, God is the Ultimate.
-
For me put extremely simply, God is the Ultimate.
So simple as to be pretty meaningless.
-
For me put extremely simply, God is the Ultimate.
what is 'the Ultimate'
-
So simple as to be pretty meaningless.
I did say, "for me". You might have a favourite nook or cranny that might be meaningless to me.
-
I did say, "for me". You might have a favourite nook or cranny that might be meaningless to me.
Presumably by posting it on a public forum, in a thread asking 'Who is God?', you hoped people would understand what you meant.
-
Presumably by posting it on a public forum, in a thread asking 'Who is God?', you hoped people would understand what you meant.
Not necessarily. Do you get a hat with your new position as Forum Warden?
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ultimate
-
Not necessarily. Do you get a hat with your new position as Forum Warden?
Yes. It's a really nice hat too. Are you jealous?
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ultimate
And? That's not really useful and is surely just circular.
-
I must say I have noted how different the view of God, is to all of us individuals.
The ability to learn from each other and see the bibles revelations could help us all to discuss the person God. Asking questions and discussing answers is a good way to understand each persons
point of view.
As I don't believe in any god, the question of who is God doesn't really arise. The best answer I can give is that I note the various interpretations various religions/faiths give to their gods. I look upon them all as human constructs which may or may not benefit the people involved. However, for me, they have little significance.
-
As I don't believe in any god, the question of who is God doesn't really arise. The best answer I can give is that I note the various interpretations various religions/faiths give to their gods. I look upon them all as human constructs which may or may not benefit the people involved. However, for me, they have little significance.
You don't know what it is you don't believe in?
Tell me more.
-
You don't know what it is you don't believe in?
Tell me more.
He didn't use the words "don't know". He said he noted the various interpretations of gods throughout the world, and didn't believe in any of them.
-
You don't know what it is you don't believe in?
Tell me more.
I don't really know if you are being just silly or you are simply unable to understand. But, on the assumption that you really want to know, the answer to your question is that I have no reason to believe and therefore don't believe in any of the myriad of gods which have been/are a part of human society.
-
I don't really know if you are being just silly or you are simply unable to understand. But, on the assumption that you really want to know, the answer to your question is that I have no reason to believe and therefore don't believe in any of the myriad of gods which have been/are a part of human society.
Yes, no reason to believe what?If you can't answer the question, who or what is God or at least have a stab, I really don't know what you are doing on this thread.
The question "What is it you believe / don't believe comes from Chomsky and he is as far from stupid as it gets.
You did say you don't believe in God or gods ( however you construe them) because they are human constructs. Do you disbelieve all human constructs or do God or gods have a particular quality?
-
You did say you don't believe in God or gods ( however you construe them) because they are human constructs. Do you disbelieve all human constructs or do God or gods have a particular quality?
"human construct" is an ungrammatical bit of trendy meaninglessness, parroted by people who want to sound fashionably cynical.
-
Seems to me that the three word title of this thread, and in just three words, is a great (and concise) example of Begging the Question.
-
For me put extremely simply, God is the Ultimate.
Ultimate what? Arsehole?
-
Seems to me that the three word title of this thread, and in just three words, is a great (and concise) example of Begging the Question.
What shite.
-
Yes, no reason to believe what?If you can't answer the question, who or what is God or at least have a stab, I really don't know what you are doing on this thread.
He did answer it. He doesn't believe in any of the myriads of gods which j=have been or are part of human society. If you want a specific example, it includes your Christin god. You surely know something about your god. Or maybe you don't. Perhaps that's why you Christians come up with meaningless platitudes like "God is love" or "God is the ultimate".
The question "What is it you believe / don't believe comes from Chomsky and he is as far from stupid as it gets.
You did say you don't believe in God or gods ( however you construe them) because they are human constructs. Do you disbelieve all human constructs or do God or gods have a particular quality?
Calling them a human construct means he believes humans created the gods, not the other way around. That's all.
-
He did answer it. He doesn't believe in any of the myriads of gods which j=have been or are part of human society. If you want a specific example, it includes your Christin god. You surely know something about your god. Or maybe you don't. Perhaps that's why you Christians come up with meaningless platitudes like "God is love" or "God is the ultimate".Calling them a human construct means he believes humans created the gods, not the other way around. That's all.
I'm waiting for his reply.....and discounting yours.
-
I'm waiting for his reply.....and discounting yours.
You mean you can't answer it.
-
Vlad,
Yes, no reason to believe what?
After all these years you still have no idea how the burden of proof works have you. It’s not for the atheist to explain every type of god definition there is before deciding not to believe in any of them. If someone want to assert as true his claim “god” then it’s his job to define and then to justify it.
I’m an ignostic because all the definitions of gods I’m aware of are incoherent or white noise (“the ultimate” for example – the ultimate what exactly?), and I’m an atheist because I can falsify all the justifying arguments I’m aware of for the existence of gods, whatever their definitions happen to be. My position may change if ever a coherent definition and a logically sound justifying argument come to my attention, but so far at least neither of those things have happened.
-
Vlad,
After all these years you still have no idea how the burden of proof works have you. It’s not for the atheist to explain every type of god definition there is before deciding not to believe in any of them. If someone want to assert as true his claim “god” then it’s his job to define and then to justify it.
Non sequitur. Completely irrelevant to the question what is it you do not believe in? A perfectly valid question.
And following on from that....what are these Leprechauns YOU don't believe in?
-
Vlad,
Non sequitur.
Ah, non sequitur – yet another term you don't understand.
Completely irrelevant to the question what is it you do not believe in? A perfectly valid question.
It's not a valid question for the reason I explained (you're shifting the burden of proof again) and you ignored.
And following on from that....what are these Leprechauns YOU don't believe in?
Using your reasoning, as you're an a-leprechaunist isn't also therefore your job to explain to me what I mean by "leprechauns"?
-
In all cultures God has been stated as being within ourselves. We however have a natural tendency to look outwards. The images that people worship are of cultural origin.
-
Yes, no reason to believe what?If you can't answer the question, who or what is God or at least have a stab, I really don't know what you are doing on this thread.
I've already answered that but for those with limited understanding, here goes again. I have no reason to believe and therefore don't believe in any of the myriad of gods which have been/are a part of human society. Get it?
If, as an example, I take the god of the old testament, I find he looks like a man, he is carnivorous, he is not omnipotent, he changes his mind, he spreads dung on people's faces, he even had a bear kill 42 children for calling a prophet, baldy. My take on this is that this god is no more than a human creation.
Your own response, I believe, was 'the Ultimate', which explains nothing of any substance. Indeed, if I follow your own description of 'ultimate'(
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ultimate) it leads me to the word 'absolute'(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_(philosophy) which simply says " In theology, the term is also used to designate the supreme being.". In other words we're back to square one and I'm none the wiser.
The question "What is it you believe / don't believe comes from Chomsky and he is as far from stupid as it gets.
You'd have to give me the exact source of your quotation for me to comment on this.
You did say you don't believe in God or gods ( however you construe them) because they are human constructs. Do you disbelieve all human constructs or do God or gods have a particular quality?
I suggest constructs are attempts at explaining various psychological or social phenomena in the absence of any objective means of substantiating them. As such they may well have beneficial or detrimental effects and may change as more evidential knowledge is gained. Whether they are true or not would depend on objective evidence supporting the construct. In the particular case of god(s) I have no reason to think otherwise than that they are the creative inventions of human beings.
-
In all cultures God has been stated as being within ourselves. We however have a natural tendency to look outwards. The images that people worship are of cultural origin.
I can't believe in a God who is a giant man only, nor do I focus on a few bits of the Old Testament to the exclusion of the other bits and the new testament. In fact, attacking God's character isn't actually argument for the non existence of a God.
In terms of the Wikipedia entry on the Ultimate it does make a note on the original direct translation from the Latin which comes out as "not dependant on" and that I believe is something to think about I.e. what in reality can be truly independent or fundamental.
-
Vlad,
I can't believe in a God who is a giant man only, nor do I focus on a few bits of the Old Testament to the exclusion of the other bits and the new testament.
So you cherry pick to suit your preferences then.
In fact, attacking God's character isn't actually argument for the non existence of a God.
No-one makes an argument for the non-existence of god. That’s not what atheism entails or requires.
In terms of the Wikipedia entry on the Ultimate it does make a note on the original direct translation from the Latin which comes out as "not dependant on" and that I believe is something to think about I.e. what in reality can be truly independent or fundamental.
Perhaps you should trouble yourself with establishing first that there needs to be something other than the universal itself that is “truly independent or fundamental”.
Good luck with it though.
-
Vlad,
So you cherry pick to suit your preferences then.
No-one makes an argument for the non-existence of god. That’s not what atheism entails or requires.
Perhaps you should trouble yourself with establishing first that there needs to be something other than the universal itself that is “truly independent or fundamental”.
Good luck with it though.
Again what is it about the universe that is necessary?
-
Again what is it about the universe that is necessary?
You haven't established that anything needs to be you have just asserted it, and bhs hasn't stated the universe is.
So your question is entirely specious
-
Vlad,
Again what is it about the universe that is necessary?
No idea. Not my problem. It’s not something I’ve said, and it’s not my job to find an answer to that.
You on the other hand have asserted that the universe is necessarily contingent on something other than itself, and your only attempt so far to justify that claim is the fallacy of composition.
If that’s all you have, we’ll leave it where that dumps you: dead in the water.
-
As I don't believe in any god, the question of who is God doesn't really arise. The best answer I can give is that I note the various interpretations various religions/faiths give to their gods. I look upon them all as human constructs which may or may not benefit the people involved. However, for me, they have little significance.
Enki,
What is water tight regarding your beliefs or disbeliefs?
Why use the name Enki?
i
-
Vlad,
No idea. Not my problem. It’s not something I’ve said, and it’s not my job to find an answer to that.
You on the other hand have asserted that the universe is necessarily contingent on something other than itself, and your only attempt so far to justify that claim is the fallacy of composition.
If that’s all you have, we’ll leave it where that dumps you: dead in the water.
You seem to be saying that the default is that the universe has been around forever. Why should that be the default?
-
You seem to be saying that the default is that the universe has been around forever. Why should that be the default?
Be careful with all that straw, Vlad: put the matches in the kitchen drawer!
And stop trying to shift the burden of proof.
-
Be careful with all that straw, Vlad: put the matches in the kitchen drawer!
And stop trying to shift the burden of proof.
What theory of the necessity or contingency of the universe doesn’t have a burden of proof?
-
What theory of the necessity or contingency of the universe doesn’t have a burden of proof?
I'd imagine that all theories do: the one you are advancing involves there being a 'necessary agent', so it is for you to accept that burden of proof and show your workings - but you surely must already know this by now.
-
I'd imagine that all theories do:
Then why all the guff about burden of proof?
-
Then why all the guff about burden of proof?
Because you are advancing one particular theory, so the burden of proof (so as to demonstrate that your pet theory is sound) is yours - and yours alone.
But you know this of course - so stop wumming.
-
Enki,
What is water tight regarding your beliefs or disbeliefs?
Why use the name Enki?
i
From about the age of 8 or 9 I watched people praying in school and found it most peculiar. They seemed to be praying to some imagined entity, although at the time I didn't think of it in those terms. I simply ignored it as rather meaningless as far as I was concerned. I really haven't changed that much throughout the years. If people wish to worship something it's up to them, but it has always remained of little significance for me.
I don't really have any watertight beliefs. I regard that as a double edged sword in that it can lead to positive things such as great determination and singlemindedness or it can lead to negative things such as extreme prejudice and narrow mindedness. I simply try to go where the evidence or lack of evidence leads. If the evidence changes then I hope that I can change too.
As far as my name goes, it is actually the name of an ancient Sumerian god. However I chose it because it was short and it was the name of my brother in law's dog. He is well read and has an extensive library in comparative religions. (I refer to my brother in law, not his dog :)).
-
Vlad,
You seem to be saying that…
Why is it that whenever you begin a post with these words the person you’re addressing has never said what follows?
…the default is that the universe has been around forever.
Like this.
Why should that be the default?
Dunno. It’s not something I’ve said.
So anyway, back to YOUR assertion that the universe must be caused by something other than itself. Any news yet on your justification for it other than the fallacy of composition?
Something?
Anything?
No?
Thought not.
-
Why is it that every topic involving Vlad and God devolves into a discussion of his failed argument from contingency?
-
Why is it that every topic involving Vlad and God devolves into a discussion of his failed argument from contingency?
How has the argument "Every contingent thing is contingent on something else" failed?
-
I am God
Okay! okay! would you settle for God like :o
Gonnagle
PS: Atheist beware the end is nigh.
-
Wecome back Gonners - great to see you back here again.
-
How has the argument "Every contingent thing is contingent on something else" failed?
That's not an argument: it's an assertion. In fact it's a tautology since "contingent" implies "contingent on something else", by definition.
-
You seem to be saying that the default is that the universe has been around forever.
There you go again - unable to contemplate that time might not be constant and unilinear. The very notion of 'forever' is predicated on the notion of constant and unilinear time. If time isn't like that (as most credible theories of physics suggest) then the whole concept of 'forever' is for the birds.
-
There you go again - unable to contemplate that time might not be constant and unilinear.
So what if it is? How does that affect contingency?Or the moment by moment dependence of something fundamental?
-
So what if it is? How does that affect contingency?Or the moment by moment dependence of something fundamental?
Because if our experience of time in a strictly unilinear direction leads to the perception of cause and effect, but reality is in fact not constrained to only move in that direction, what we perceive as effect may occur before the cause. Or, in a more abstract conceptualisation, if our perception of cause and effect is due to our restrained transit through what is actually a static 4-dimensional 'block' of space-time, there is no cause or effect, all the elements merely 'are', and we are imposing the idea of 'cause' and 'effect' onto a framework which actually has neither.
Wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey. Lunchtime, doubly so.
O.
-
Because if our experience of time in a strictly unilinear direction leads to the perception of cause and effect, but reality is in fact not constrained to only move in that direction, what we perceive as effect may occur before the cause. Or, in a more abstract conceptualisation, if our perception of cause and effect is due to our restrained transit through what is actually a static 4-dimensional 'block' of space-time, there is no cause or effect, all the elements merely 'are', and we are imposing the idea of 'cause' and 'effect' onto a framework which actually has neither.
Wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey. Lunchtime, doubly so.
O.
I think somebody has floated the idea that there is no such thing as contingency. Difficult to see how that doesn't undercut science and methodological naturalism
-
So what if it is? How does that affect contingency?Or the moment by moment dependence of something fundamental?
It affects contingency hugely - if time actually runs in the reverse direction to the way we perceive, arguably we reverse contingency so X being contingent on Y (which may require Y to be present before X exists) becomes Y being contingent on X (as how could X be contingent on something that didn't actually exist).
But of course you've completely failed to make a cogent base argument on contingency and your assertion (unevidenced) that there must be 'the necessary entity' that sits outside of the notion of contingency. Once you consider that time may not be linear and continuous and the notion of networks your assertions rather crumble to dust.
-
I think somebody has floated the idea that there is no such thing as contingency. Difficult to see how that doesn't undercut science and methodological naturalism
Which in anyone were ideologically rather than pragmatically invested in it would be an issue. People use science and methodological naturalism because it's effective - if you want to replace it, you just need evidence of efficacy. Come up with a better methodology, and we'll run with it.
O.
-
Which in anyone were ideologically rather than pragmatically invested in it would be an issue. People use science and methodological naturalism because it's effective - if you want to replace it, you just need evidence of efficacy. Come up with a better methodology, and we'll run with it.
O.
In the light of your new found dodge of the static universe(from what perspective,?), How then without suggesting cause or effect, is science "effective".
Are you suggesting that motion, energy transfer and change are illusions?
I'm happy to run with science too, methodological naturalism is fine, philosophical naturalism and scientism, not so.
-
I am God
Okay! okay! would you settle for God like :o
Gonnagle
PS: Atheist beware the end is nigh.
Well said, and welcome back. :)
We are indeed made in God's image, and to get to know God we need to look more into our own spiritual self rather than the ultimately meaningless "cause and effect" scenario observed in the material world.
-
Well said, and welcome back. :)
We are indeed made in God's image, and to get to know God we need to look more into our own spiritual self rather than the ultimately meaningless "cause and effect" scenario observed in the material world.
I agree that there is no way mere intellectual assent of Aquinas's arguments from contingency constitute a personal Christianity.
However, it doesn't harm to pitch it in imv.
-
In the light of your new found dodge of the static universe(from what perspective,?), How then without suggesting cause or effect, is science "effective".
How long does it take you to fail to read every message just enough to misrepresent what people have said, so consistently?
I wasn't promoting the static universe model - you asked what would something look like that bypassed cause and effect and I suggested two models that would do that. When I report Biblical claims i'm not advocating for the Bible, I'm stating what a position that's sometimes held is.
O.
-
I am God
Okay! okay! would you settle for God like :o
Gonnagle
PS: Atheist beware the end is nigh.
;D ;D Welcome back Gonnagle
-
In all cultures God has been stated as being within ourselves. We however have a natural tendency to look outwards. The images that people worship are of cultural origin.
So I guess what you are saying is that the idea of 'God being within ourselves' is also of cultural origin. That's probably somewhat true.
-
I am God
Okay! okay! would you settle for God like :o
Gonnagle
PS: Atheist beware the end is nigh.
Not entirely wrong actually!
In Hindu philosophy there is a statement from the Upanishads that is regarded as the Ultimate Truth.....'Aham Brahmasmi' or 'I am Brahman'. This is to imply that our innermost consciousness (not the ego consciousness) is the fundamental Ultimate Reality.
This is similar to the statement from the bible ...'The Kingdom of God is within you'.
-
Dear Sriram,
I may be picking your old brain a little now that I have returned to this wonderful forum, in my little walk in the wilderness I have discovered the joys of Meditation, so in reading your post you may be the very man with any tips/advice on the subject, but be gentle with me, the best I can say about Meditation ( so far ) is that it has brought a smile back to the Gonnagles face, a serene smile, a gentle smile :)
Anyway a thank you to the posters who have welcomed me back, on with the good fight, giving those devil worshipping atheists a jolly good thrashing :o ( although I think some of them may enjoy that sort of thing :) )
Gonnagle.
-
I am God
Okay! okay! would you settle for God like :o
Gonnagle
PS: Atheist beware the end is nigh.
No, I'm God and so's my wife.
-
Dear Sriram,
I may be picking your old brain a little now that I have returned to this wonderful forum, in my little walk in the wilderness I have discovered the joys of Meditation, so in reading your post you may be the very man with any tips/advice on the subject, but be gentle with me, the best I can say about Meditation ( so far ) is that it has brought a smile back to the Gonnagles face, a serene smile, a gentle smile :)
Anyway a thank you to the posters who have welcomed me back, on with the good fight, giving those devil worshipping atheists a jolly good thrashing :o ( although I think some of them may enjoy that sort of thing :) )
Gonnagle.
Will be happy to discuss anything on the subject Gonnagle, based on what little I know...
-
Dear Sriram,
What little do you know? I practice a very basic form myself ( Buddha approved ) Anapanasati, it was recommended to me, basically for beginners, anyway maybe a topic for another thread, it is a huge subject, I especially love all the science that has sprung up around it.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Sriram,
What little do you know? I practice a very basic form myself ( Buddha approved ) Anapanasati, it was recommended to me, basically for beginners, anyway maybe a topic for another thread, it is a huge subject, I especially love all the science that has sprung up around it.
Gonnagle.
The little I know is something I have learned over a lifetime. Not easy to enumerate or explain.
Yes....Mindful breathing in one of the techniques that are very useful in mind control. I do that too.
Mind control is the basis of spiritual development. We then realize that we are not the body or the mind but something beyond. This realization is the essence of spirituality. It starts with wanting to know God but leads to Self realization.
-
The little I know is something I have learned over a lifetime. Not easy to enumerate or explain.
Yes....Mindful breathing in one of the techniques that are very useful in mind control. I do that too.
Mind control is the basis of spiritual development. We then realize that we are not the body or the mind but something beyond. This realization is the essence of spirituality. It starts with wanting to know God but leads to Self realization.
Our power to consciously meditate is certainly a reality which can bring us closer to God.
I find it hard to believe that a number of our non believer friends posting on the "Searching for God" thread claim that we can have no conscious control over our thoughts, (which is the inevitable conclusion derived from the materialistic scenario of physically determined cause and effect.) ???
-
Dear Mr Burns,
Well that settles it, a new thread awaits, Meditation. But which category should we place it in. So many kinds of Meditation, Zen, Buddhist, Christian, Judaic, Islamic, I don't think it should be placed on any religious threads. To big a subject, and I personally like the science behind the study of the topic.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Mr Burns,
Well that settles it, a new thread awaits, Meditation. But which category should we place it in. So many kinds of Meditation, Zen, Buddhist, Christian, Judaic, Islamic, I don't think it should be placed on any religious threads. To big a subject, and I personally like the science behind the study of the topic.
Gonnagle.
I now have Roy Castle singing in my head Meditation is what you need
https://youtu.be/GilqqHC0SQ8?si=v-uVFyvPBLO-xjVa
-
Dear Sane,
If you wannabe a record breaker yeeeeaaahh, showing your age old son ;)
Gonnagle.