Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just to clarify, is the above your personal definition of god? ^^^
Yes it is.
If "All the Matter/Energy That Exists and Has Existed" doesn't cut it as being worthy of the title "GOD"...then nothing does.
After all...It is responsible for all of our Reality...Everything that has ever been is Sourced by and through it...It controls through Laws and Processes...and also maintains and sustains everything. That's as "GOD" as "GOD" gets! "GOD" is as "GOD" does...and "GOD" by any other name would still be "GOD".
From a pragmatic standpoint...it "covers all the bases": It comports with the known full expert definition of "G-O-D"...it is accepted as one of the most prevalent, if not the most prevalent, perceptions of "G-O-D"...and is logical and reasonable as to actual objective existence.
I must admit...I didn't comprehend any of this until a few years ago. I was Atheist and I didn't understand "GOD" as able to be perceived as anything other than religious deities...and I was very sure that none of them actually existed.
I was enlightened by one of the members on this very board (MysticPhD). I will be forever grateful.
Yes it is.
If "All the Matter/Energy That Exists and Has Existed" doesn't cut it as being worthy of the title "GOD"...then nothing does.
After all...It is responsible for all of our Reality...Everything that has ever been is Sourced by and through it...It controls through Laws and Processes...and also maintains and sustains everything. That's as "GOD" as "GOD" gets! "GOD" is as "GOD" does...and "GOD" by any other name would still be "GOD".
From a pragmatic standpoint...it "covers all the bases": It comports with the known full expert definition of "G-O-D"...it is accepted as one of the most prevalent, if not the most prevalent, perceptions of "G-O-D"...and is logical and reasonable as to actual objective existence.
I must admit...I didn't comprehend any of this until a few years ago. I was Atheist and I didn't understand "GOD" as able to be perceived as anything other than religious deities...and I was very sure that none of them actually existed.
I was enlightened by one of the members on this very board (MysticPhD). I will be forever grateful.
Ok. I'm just trying to get a handle on exactly how you define it. So can I ask further, if you wouldn't mind answering these two questions. Does your version of what you think of as god:
a) have any kind of conscious thought at all?
b) actively do anything or control anything?
Ok. I'm just trying to get a handle on exactly how you define it. So can I ask further, if you wouldn't mind answering these two questions. Does your version of what you think of as god:
a) have any kind of conscious thought at all?
b) actively do anything or control anything?
This delves into my "beliefs about" God...and goes beyond mere existence.
a) I believe God is made manifest through our consciousness...and is our collective consciousness. So, it is the Source of our consciousness, and is our consciousness. God is not just conscious...but IS consciousness. God is every thought and mental process in the consciousness of every creature that exists and has ever existed. And everything else.
b) God, as I perceive God, can "do" and "control" as All the Matter/Energy that Exists and Has Ever Existed can do & control.
God is the Source and Essence of EVERYTHING...and IS Everything. Thus..any and all of the properties of Anything/Everything is a property of God. To me.
Ok, that IS on topic. and I understand your definition. It is one I understand. I would prefer the term 'Nature' as 'God' can mislead people about what you mean.
Of course, if you consider that 'consciousness' an intelligence of the Cosmic Field postulated by Mystic phd (and I would guess you probably do ) I don't buy it, but I don't mind if you do.
Theists claim there's a god. I don't believe them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
I know the anti-theists and fundamentalists will have a field day with their lack of understanding of anything remotely philosophical, but here goes.
What is GOD? It has a hundred million definitions. Yes, we all know the "Big bearded white guy who lives in the sky" line, but there are a whole lot more.
God is also a metaphor for the super-ego. An archetype, a workable construct for something we cannot easily define in human language that lies within us. I have yet to see that definition effectively refuted.
God is also nature itself. The very laws of the universe have been defined as God.
God is reality. God is everything anyone has seen or thought and the very place in which our thoughts abide (reality)
God is ourselves. This is a common belief in many religions, from Hinduism to Gnosticism.
All of the above are believed by different people all over the world. God is a "real" supernatural entity to some, a metaphor for others, nature to others, etc.
God has so many definitions that the statement "there is no God" is idiotic...just as the statement "there is a God" is also, ultimately, idiotic.
Because God is so hard to define, and so many definitions exist, there is no real point in debating it.
I do practice religion, because, at the very "least" I've been getting in touch with my super-ego by doing so. If there is more to it, great, than I've actually been communing with a supernatural entity. Either way, it works for me. And I practice religion for another, very simple reason: because I enjoy it.
Do spare me "that makes you weak minded" line. I could and have argued effectively that loving one's family as an adult is for the weak minded too.
And no, Sam Harris (an arch-idiot, btw) and his claims that because God is a nebulous term, God itself is pointless is not valid. Love is also a nebulous term that means different things to many different people. Should we abandon love as well?
If one chooses to practice a religion, who cares? If one does not, who cares? Both are correct and wrong at the same time, just as someone who doesn't believe in or practice love (like me basically) is no more wrong than someone who does believe in love and practice it.
My big issues is with those on both sides of the horse shoe, be they worshipers of JEEEZZZUSSS or Dawkins, who insist that God absolutely has to be defined narrowly as a big man in the sky and all Myths have to be taken literally, otherwise one is not religious. Both sides ultimately are building strawman (or Straw-God) arguments. Both sides are equally deluded.
This delves into my "beliefs about" God...and goes beyond mere existence.
a) I believe God is made manifest through our consciousness...and is our collective consciousness. So, it is the Source of our consciousness, and is our consciousness. God is not just conscious...but IS consciousness. God is every thought and mental process in the consciousness of every creature that exists and has ever existed. And everything else.
b) God, as I perceive God, can "do" and "control" as All the Matter/Energy that Exists and Has Ever Existed can do & control.
God is the Source and Essence of EVERYTHING...and IS Everything. Thus..any and all of the properties of Anything/Everything is a property of God. To me.
Okay good. I understand you.
a) This is not all that different from what I believe as an atheist. People who know me know that I'm a big fan of Roger Penrose and his ideas about consciousness. He argues that known laws of physics are currently inadequate to explain the phenomenon of consciousness and that there is something else going on beyond what we understand today - something outside the computational laws of physics. And that the gap may be found in quantum mechanics. He believes whatever consciousness is, it still fits within the laws of physics because it has no choice not to. I think it is entirely possible that consciousness could somehow be a part of the fabric of the universe, and that we somehow harness that. After all how can it not be? It is part of the universe and emanates from us..
b) I understand you here too, however the universe and laws within in it are called universal laws for a reason. They are unchangeable. Cause and effect. I don't think anything is 'being controlled' I think events naturally have to happen because everything falls within the laws of physics.
The way I see it is, the way you see the universe and the way I see the universe aren't all that different, except you put the umbrella title 'god' over it.
In that case I'm unclear why, if your worldview isn't all that different from that of yours truly, and you claim to have once been an atheist yourself, quite why you are so scathing of atheism.
Atheism is simply a stance that is of minimal difference to your own yet I'm fairly sure you said somewhere recently that we should all accept each others viewpoints or something along those lines.
Ok, that IS on topic. and I understand your definition. It is one I understand. I would prefer the term 'Nature' as 'God' can mislead people about what you mean.
Of course, if you consider that 'consciousness' an intelligence of the Cosmic Field postulated by Mystic phd (and I would guess you probably do ) I don't buy it, but I don't mind if you do.
I explained that I have adopted those as my "beliefs about" God. Not to be confused with the matter of existence. Thanx for being cool with me holding my beliefs...that's props to you on that.
As I said... "GOD" is as "GOD" does...and "GOD" by any other name would still be "GOD".
The Pantheist concept of ALL=GOD is the existence end of it. I do my best to explain it in a way that can be easily understood.
I will admit...in the past when the core of my effort was "sand down the collar"...that did tend to create confusion. I do that much less now.
Now I just break your chops with the truth Awk! LOL!
Hope you're having a nice holiday season Brother.
I explained that I have adopted those as my "beliefs about" God. Not to be confused with the matter of existence. Thanx for being cool with me holding my beliefs...that's props to you on that.
As I said... "GOD" is as "GOD" does...and "GOD" by any other name would still be "GOD".
The Pantheist concept of ALL=GOD is the existence end of it. I do my best to explain it in a way that can be easily understood.
I will admit...in the past when the core of my effort was "sand down the collar"...that did tend to create confusion. I do that much less now.
Now I just break your chops with the truth Awk! LOL!
Hope you're having a nice holiday season Brother.
Now I'm retired, every day is holiday.
I just have to note that there still seems some semantic and conceptual fiddling going on. "God" as a matter of existence is (I would risk my month's income on) wangled into existence by labelling the cosmos of matter and energy 'God'. Having got "God" accepted as real, you can then use the mere label (if I may mix metaphors) as a hook to hang your beliefs onto.
Neither Label nor beliefs have any real validity. And you needn't break my chops with the truth, mate, as what stacks up, I will gladly swallow whole.
Not trying to put sand down your collar, old chum, but, when I see false reasoning, it is sand down my collar until I explain the stunt that is being pulled.
I was going to leave this as rather irrelevant and off -topic preaching, but in fact it is a nice example (in the context of the thread) of the Leap of faith from the Other end.
I'll explain:-
The Leap of faith (very often presented on the doorstep when the Bible's veracity and validity is questioned when Holy Writ is being used to prove something or other) is to start with the First cause arguments ("Who made everything, then?") and having made (they hope) a case for some sort of First Cause Creator, they leap to the specific God of the Bible thus validating the Bible from that direction.
Here, we have the other direction, trying to validate the existence of a god through trotting out the OT prophecies and the supposed fulfillment in the NT. Starting with that stupid story of the star and wise men.
This is a dead duck before it is even started, so no wonder more apologists prefer to start with the much more presentable First cause argument and then use sortagod to leap to Biblegod and therefore His Word.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 12-12-2014 at 11:47 AM..
Location: Sitting on a bar stool. Guinness in hand.
4,428 posts, read 6,510,291 times
Reputation: 1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
Yes it is.
If "All the Matter/Energy That Exists and Has Existed" doesn't cut it as being worthy of the title "GOD"...then nothing does.
Again as said before your interjecting "God" where it not needed. What your describing already has a less obscure title. Namely, the universe.
And as I said if you wish to use that the world "God" in a poetic/metaphorically sense that fine. But as for use in common day to day language with other people with different personal beliefs the word is useless.
I mean the Word everything would probably be better than "God" to describe what you expressing in the above post.
Honestly it getting to the point that the word "God" means this.
An extremely abstract term/concept that can mean anything, to anyone, at anytime. The term/concept is completely malleable and movable and can change meanings when ever an individual's perceptions of their own personal realities changes.
Thus while some people may have similar versions/interpretations/views of the term/concept of "God" as in relation to each other. Overall each individual personal relation to the term/concept of "God" is their own. (and as I said earlier) Making the term/concept outside of use in Poetry or Metaphorical rhetoric useless as a accurate descriptor/title for anything in the common use of language.
Last edited by baystater; 12-12-2014 at 12:58 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
and I understand your definition. It is one I understand. I would prefer the term 'Nature' as 'God' can mislead people about what you mean.
) I don't buy it, but I don't mind if you do.
Theists claim there's a god. I don't believe them.
