Searching for GOD...

[Leonard James]

#6972 Leonard James

Ah, well said. That's a perfect summing up. It would have been a neat thing to have been included in today's Radio 4 Beyond Belief, instead of the daft waffle that was talked on the subject of life after death. *deep sighs*!!!

It is a perfectly natural human desire to overcome death and "live again", in a life where there are no problems to face and all is rosy. That is why so many different stories have been invented to achieve it.

The ubiquitous belief in a god/gods of some sort demonstrates the propensity of the human brain to convince itself of the 'truth' of it.

[Bubbles]

Evading again, Vlad. So, do you have s meaningful definition of God or not?

I've got one that's meaningful for me. It isn't a Christian one though.

We can't know God really, other than through searching for the positive aspects of human behaviour and ethical behaviour.

We can see God reflected in other people when they do something kind or brave or stand up for the vunerable.

Jesus preached an ethical message as Judaism is an ethical religion based on doing and actions and kindness.

I would suggest that's what he ( Jesus) really meant when he said gods kingdom is within you,  and because he preached this message of ethical kindness that's what he meant by, seeing God through him. ( and also he implied he came to teach the members of society who were considered slightly outcast not the ones who practiced already, he came to heal the sick ie those in society considered unethical or unacceptable in some way)

See, when I read a bible I see Jesus instructing his disciples to be fishers of men, and the bit they were fishing for, is that potential kindness and greatness in all of us.

You can also see it here, in this story and parable.

 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+7%3A36-50&version=NCV

I think Jesus wanted to stress that bit in Jewish teachings.



It's a definition of God that works for me.

It's seeing God through the positive aspects of human beings.

It won't work for everyone I guess, but IMO I can make sense of the bible if I bear in mind that people through the ages had to think and find out for themselves what that kindness is.

I can also look at other religions and find the wisdom in those.

Sikhism and it's gurus has some lovely teachings too.
In Sikhism that bit in people that I am describing is called the jot and the Gurus were thought to posses pure Jot.
 

( although I'm not sure I agree with that)

I think in this way you can find " God " in many different religions.
However it's a good definition of God IMO, it works for me, because I think it is the only real part of God I can grasp. It doesn't mean I'm right, and it is my opinion and my thoughts on it only, but that's all religion is...... Someone's opinion.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/sikhism/people/jesus.shtml
 

None of this goes down well with Christians though 

[Bubbles]

From Sikhism

Thanks to the Guru, I have seen God within me,
And His Name tastes sweet to me.
The whole world of Matter is contained within one Mind,
Although it appears so various in color and form.
The ambrosial Name of God is the source of all conceivable joys;
It lives in the body;
And the strains of its divine music are heard in the silent recesses of the heart.
The ecstasy of its wonder cannot be described;
It can only be felt by those who are granted the vision.
They alone can conceive it.      (Sukhmani XXIII.1)


Not my religion, but I find that beautiful 

Christians just put Jesus instead of Guru 

[torridon]

The atheist refuses to acknowledge the God like qualities we all possess, we are more than just some kind of evolved ape/monkey, we are made in Gods image.

Given that we could not really define or describe God, it follows that we could not really define what are God-like qualities. 

I'd say that worshipful behaviours are part of our phenotype, just like rolling up into a ball is for a hedgehog, it's part of the legacy package bequeathed to us by our distant ancestors.  Modern man discovers that he cannot see God or touch him or measure him, so he has to 'search' for him, the end product of which search is to find a way of living and thinking that allows us to express those ancient intuitive feelings of worship, of reverence, or transcendence of our earthly state. So God is not really there, but nonetheless we identify all those noblest qualities associated with worship and paint them onto a virtual god in some virtual space so that we can continue in worship and reverence.

As an atheist, I don't refuse to acknowledge those 'god-like' qualities, I just prefer to be realistic about our nature, we are  'some kind of evolved ape/monkey' in reality and that insight is what makes the story of the real origin of our remarkable qualities something of true wonder to me; this is a source of fascination that is lost if we accept that these attributes were simply 'given' to humans on a plate by some mythic god. It's a case of truth being stranger, and more fascinating, than fiction, if you like.

[Shaker]

As an atheist, I don't refuse to acknowledge those 'god-like' qualities, I just prefer to be realistic about our nature, we are  'some kind of evolved ape/monkey' in reality and the story of the real origin of our remarkable qualities is something of true wonder to me; this is a source of fascination that is lost if we accept that these attributes were simply 'given' to humans on a plate by some mythic god. It's a case of truth being more strange and fascinating than fiction, if you like.

My sentiments exactly. What I've managed to pick up in my life about the universe as revealed scientifically continues to be an amazing and inspiring source of wonderment and I would go so far as to say inspiration and sustenance on a practically daily basis, infinitely more than any religion could ever be even if I were capable of believing such things (which I'm not).

There was a report not ever so long ago (I'll see if I can find a link) which purported to reveal the results of a study which stated that some non-believers find the same emotional satisfaction in science that believers do in their various religions. The authors of the study were careful to do what umpteen hack journalists and byline writers were not; they were not claiming that for some atheists science is a religion, rather that science can provide the same emotional content as religion does for believers - the difference with science is that there's intellectual content as well. It's actually true 

[SqueakyVoice]

Sorry Blue but mythical is a definition we know that because that is how you guys define God. Why do you describe him thus.......?

There's a children's book in which a cat sets out to find out who's been stealing his toy duck collection. He talks to everyone he knows and none of them know. He concludes that nobody has been stealing his ducks and then sets off to find this Mr Nobody.

I used to think that was pretty poor thinking, even in jest. Then I find you coming out with this in apparent sincerity.

What's it like to have a brain that only functions on the level of a comedy cat in a children's book?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hi Gonners,

Well, as long as you promise to keep it between just us...

...OK then. Ol' Vlunderingabouttheplace said the following:

"For example Unicorns have a meaningful definition and are still mythical. Given that ,God cannot be mythical because of a lack of a meaningful definition."

Even if for the sake of the conversation we agree that unicorns do in fact have "a meaningful definition" (a highly dubious proposition as by common repute they are possessed of magical powers rather than being just horses with wings), no-one argues that it's the absence of a meaningful definition for "god" that determines his mythic status.

There are all manner of gods, spooks and ghoulies that variously have lots of definition, some definition or barely any definition at all that we would all - Vlad included - accept as mythic: Thor, Robin Hood, Jack Frost, whatever. He is in other words knocking down a straw man version (yet again) of what's actually being said. Some of us find stories about "God" to be mythic for the same reason that we find stories about the man in the moon to be mythic - they fail to cohere with anything we observe about the way the universe appears to be, and their proponents give no reason whatever for us to think them not to be mythic.

The definitional problem is a major one for Vlad if he wants to establish this god in the first place (and that's before he finally even gets to a method to distinguish his claims about this will o' the wisp from anyone else's claim about any other supernatural entity - the problem he always runs away from) but it's not the major reason for finding his stories about this god to be mythic. 
   

I really do not understand why you are trying to seek a bit of fame by ignoring a question, failing to answer it and then blaming the person asking the question for not answering.

You may have found that this was the sort of managerial bullshit that washed in a previous existence but it is just plain hand waving here.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Wonderful World,

You can wait for ages and then..............this has turned into a nice little thread, Shaker and Torridon talking God, deny it if you will chaps but when you look out at the world and see all those wonders, when you marvel at man's achievements, his scientific endeavours you are talking God.

Stating the bleeding obvious, we need to remember that atheists are not decrying just the Christian God, all gods, no matter your faith, your definition of God, which is why I enjoyed Rose chuntering away ( we all chunter Rose ) about Sikhism, where they find God and how Rose thinks this relates to the teachings of Jesus, talking God, brilliant Rose, utterly brilliant.

See how it works Shaker, Blue, Torridon, atheist Inc, when we start to define God, words pale.

All we need is the Saintly Wigs to jump in here and tell us God is nothing, no-thing, my tuppence worth for today, God is just those higher qualities that we all seek in man, Compassion, Love, Forgiveness, not a big guy in the sky, just man's higher, nobler qualities but then that is only a small part of what God is.

As for Blue and Vlad chuntering away about a mythical God, my own opinion, you are talking at cross purposes, neither of you ( I think ) are on the same page.

Gonnagle.

[floo]

That is not the definition of mythical....again.....why do you think God is mythical.

Even if a deity exists, the one featured in the Bible is likely to be mythical as what is attributed to it doesn't make any sense whatsoever, and is the stuff of fairy tales!

[Gonnagle]

Dear Floo,

Featured, not starring, a walk on part

Gonnagle.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderer,

I really do not understand why you are trying to seek a bit of fame by ignoring a question, failing to answer it and then blaming the person asking the question for not answering.

So you lie about what I do think and ask me why I think it, I explain where you've gone wrong, and then you accuse me of not answering the original question.

Here's a New Year's resolution for you: why not make 2016 the year you actually read what is being said and respond to that, rather than to your own straw man versions of it?

You may have found that this was the sort of managerial bullshit that washed in a previous existence but it is just plain hand waving here.

So have you stopped beating your wife yet?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlunderer,

So you lie about what I do think and ask me why I think it, I explain where you've gone wrong, and then you accuse me of not answering the original question.

Here's a New Year's resolution for you: why not make 2016 the year you actually read what is being said and respond to that, rather than to your own straw man versions of it?

So have you stopped beating your wife yet?

No hillside on this round I have only asked a question..........What is it about God that makes him mythical. The only problem I am having is not what you allege but in getting a straight answer from you or Gordon. He gives no reason and you start talking about my problems. I have no problem for I am merely asking a question.

[Gordon]

No hillside on this round I have only asked a question..........What is it about God that makes him mythical. The only problem I am having is not what you allege but in getting a straight answer from you or Gordon. He gives no reason and you start talking about my problems. I have no problem for I am merely asking a question.

I've told you, Vlad, the absence of a meaningful definition is but one key aspect, and this is in your court: not mine.

 

[Gonnagle]

Memories like the corners of my mind,

When I was a Mod, clinical, I hate clinical but that is what you had to do, in a dispute you had to reread the thread and see exactly what each poster was saying, I hated it, but I have Vlad as the winner here, he did ask a question which was not answered, Blues answer to me was ( in my opinion ) woolly.

And no I am not just sticking up for Vlad, I hope I am being honest but then when I was a Mod I did make some blinding mistakes.

Gonnagle.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I've told you, Vlad, the absence of a meaningful definition is but one key aspect, and this is in your court: not mine.

It isn't key at all since both Leprechauns and unicorns have a meaningful description and are still mythical.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderer,

No hillside on this round I have only asked a question..........What is it about God that makes him mythical. The only problem I am having is not what you allege but in getting a straight answer from you or Gordon. He gives no reason and you start talking about my problems. I have no problem for I am merely asking a question.

No you're not. I've explained it already, but in the vain hope that it might sink in this time...

...the term "god" can no more be mythical than "y7t87t]-i-" can be mythical - they're both just white noise. Your first problem therefore if you want anyone else to take you seriously is to provide a definition so we know what you mean by it.

Still with me? Fine.

Now then, without troubling themselves with the definitional bit some people nonetheless attach actions and attributes to this "god" (and indeed to countless other "gods" too - Jack Frost, the Man in the Moon, Thor, whoever).

In the absence of any means of verifying these stories, we call them "myths". 

And that's why the stories you tell about your choice of a "god" are myths - even if we just skip the definition stage entirely, if we accept your stories as true than we have no choice but to accept all the other stories about different supernatural "somethings" as true too.

As we're beyond your concentration span now, let's re-cap:

1. I cannot find the term "god" to be mythical as it's not myth-apt (or anything else apt for that matter) - it's just white noise.

2. I do find the stories you tell about this god to be mythical for exactly the same reason that you find stories about Zeus to be mythical.

Has it sunk in yet?

Anything?       

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gonners,

When I was a Mod, clinical, I hate clinical but that is what you had to do, in a dispute you had to reread the thread and see exactly what each poster was saying, I hated it, but I have Vlad as the winner here, he did ask a question which was not answered, Blues answer to me was ( in my opinion ) woolly.

And no I am not just sticking up for Vlad, I hope I am being honest but then when I was a Mod I did make some blinding mistakes.

A question that relies for its force on a dishonesty about what the other person actually thinks isn't a question. If I asked you whether you'd stopped beating your wife yet and demanded an answer, would your response of "but I never have beaten my wife" be woolly too?

[Gordon]

It isn't key at all since both Leprechauns and unicorns have a meaningful description and are still mythical.

They are mythical certainly, but then no one is seriously suggesting that we take the descriptions of leprechauns or unicorns being sufficient to say they exist in reality. In that sense, since I'm assuming you think you God to be real, a meaningful definition should include elements that go beyond the descriptions applied to acknowledged imaginary things like leprechauns and unicorns.

 

[Gonnagle]

Dear Blue,

Errrm! ain't that what it is all about, challenging someone's thinking but old fella I will bow out, this Vlad relationship you all have is way over my head.

Gonnagle.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gonners,

Errrm! ain't that what it is all about, challenging someone's thinking but old fella I will bow out, this Vlad relationship you all have is way over my head.

Aw don't do that - I always like reading your posts here. Do you see the issue though? He's essentially asking a "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" question, and then relentlessly demanding an answer to it. It's an old trick - the moment you challenge the basis of the question you're accused of dissembling or woolliness, when you're doing no such thing.

If you'll allow a tu quoque too, it's a bit rich Vlad of all people accusing someone else of not answering a question given that I've chased him all over this mb for years for a method to distinguish his "intuited" thoughts about a god from anyone else's intuited thoughts about anything else, only for him to run away both from an answer and even from from telling us why he won't answer. 

[Gordon]

It isn't key at all since both Leprechauns and unicorns have a meaningful description and are still mythical.

You've shifted the goalposts Vlad - we were talking about 'definitions' as opposed to 'descriptions'.

I agree that we can describe imaginary things, which is one aspect of human imagination, while at the same time recognising that they are indeed imaginary: fiction and religions throughout history provide many examples.

However, since I'm assuming you think your God to be real I'm also assuming that any definition you offer will include elements that will exist in reality and that would separate your God from descriptions of imaginary Gods, since if not all you'd be offering would be a description that would be just as imaginary as, say, Anubis.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Blue,

Nope, I don't get it, but not to worry other posters have tried to point out to me the failings in Vlads posts, way over my head, I enjoy his sense of humour, probably why I miss the inconsistency or not as the case might be

Gonnagle.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi gonners,

Nope, I don't get it, but not to worry other posters have tried to point out to me the failings in Vlads posts, way over my head, I enjoy his sense of humour, probably why I miss the inconsistency or not as the case might be

You surprise me: basing a question on a false premise and then demanding an answer to it (and accusing your audience of avoidance, dissembling etc when in response they point out instead the false premise) is an old trope.

Oh well. A very happy New Year to you my friend.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlunderer,

No you're not. I've explained it already, but in the vain hope that it might sink in this time...

...the term "god" can no more be mythical than "y7t87t]-i-" can be mythical - they're both just white noise. Your first problem therefore if you want anyone else to take you seriously is to provide a definition so we know what you mean by it.

Still with me? Fine.

Now then, without troubling themselves with the definitional bit some people nonetheless attach actions and attributes to this "god" (and indeed to countless other "gods" too - Jack Frost, the Man in the Moon, Thor, whoever).

In the absence of any means of verifying these stories, we call them "myths". 

And that's why the stories you tell about your choice of a "god" are myths - even if we just skip the definition stage entirely, if we accept your stories as true than we have no choice but to accept all the other stories about different supernatural "somethings" as true too.

As we're beyond your concentration span now, let's re-cap:

1. I cannot find the term "god" to be mythical as it's not myth-apt (or anything else apt for that matter) - it's just white noise.

2. I do find the stories you tell about this god to be mythical for exactly the same reason that you find stories about Zeus to be mythical.

Has it sunk in yet?

Anything?       

Oh come on.

1:You can get the White noise effect if you stick your fingers in your ear.
2:when you categorise God with Leprechauns and pink unicorns it is then a bit rich of you to deny that you mean us to think of God as mythical or fairy tail.........these are after all mythical creatures.
3: The third crock you expect us to buy is that any talk of God is as meaningful as a random string of numbers and letters. That is just hyperbolic nonsense on your part.......but since that is a positive assertion you can of course justify it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderer,

Oh come on.

1:You can get the White noise effect if you stick your fingers in your ear.

That's one way. Another one though is for the person making the claim to be utterly unwilling or unable to define what he means by it.

Which is what's actually happening here.

2:when you categorise God with Leprechauns and pink unicorns it is then a bit rich of you to deny that you mean us to think of God as mythical or fairy tail.........these are after all mythical creatures.

Such dull, dull incomprehension...

...what's actually being said to you (and has consistently been said to you, despite your endless misrepresentations of it) is that, when the arguments for any of these things are the same ("I intuit it" for example) then they are in the same category of "claimed supernatural somethings for which there's no method of verification".

And yet again - "god", leprechauns", "Zeus" etc are just white noise pending meaningful definitions and are so not myth-apt. The stories their proponents tell about them though are mythic - what else could they be unless you want to accept them all as equally true?
 

3: The third crock you expect us to buy...

You've yet to establish the first and second "crocks", but OK...

...is that any talk of God is as meaningful as a random string of numbers and letters. That is just hyperbolic nonsense on your part.......but since that is a positive assertion you can of course justify it.

More dull incomprehension then. Any term is white noise when there's no definition of it. 

Why is this so difficult for you?