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.
This only takes a second and it really irritates certain people *Cough* Dawkin's Witnesses *Cough*.
Anyway, first, what is God? To answer that question, let me tell a quick story:
Two college guys, one artsy, one a frat boy, are sitting in their dorm. The artsy one says "hey, let's go to the beach and see some beauty." The frat boy stands up, convinced his roommate means girls in bikinis and says "sure, let's go!"
They get to the beach, and it's not what the frat boy had in mind. See, the Frat Boy is from the East Coast and has newly arrived at University of Washington in Seattle. The beach is one of our wild beaches here in the Washington State. It looks like this:
The frat boy sees no girls, no boobs, and screams "there's no beauty here!" The artsy guy says "look at those cliffs! There is plenty of beauty here"
The frat boy screams "everybody knows beauty is girls in thongs with big boobs!" and walks away.
Moral? Beauty is a nebulous term.
God is like that: a nebulous term. Always has been. If it wasn't, then there wouldn't be hundreds of religions, each with a different definition for God. From omnipresent to omniscient but not omnipresent, from pantheist to pantheonist, they all have a different conceptualization for God.
So, now, keeping that in mind, let me prove God exists:
“God is a metaphor for that which transcends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that.”-Joseph Campbell, "The Power of Myth"
Quote:
Definition of METAPHOR
: a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (as in drowning in money); broadly: figurative language — compare simile
So, God, as a metaphor for something within and without, beyond and near, as the thought between the thoughts and the sound of silence and the movement of stillness etc, does exist. God is that thing which is there, but can't be defined by human language...and no, I don't mean that Dawkin's fallacy of the "God in the gaps." It is not about an explanation for unexplained phenomenon, but it is that which is within and without that can't be quantified into human language. God is not an explanation for why the room exists, but it is the thing you feel in the stillness of the room which you can't name.
And spare me, SPARE ME, the old "well, you're just saying God is a feeling" line. Maybe it is...AND?! So what, our human emotions mean nothing? Are you advocating we all become robots?
And if you use the same other, tired line of "that isn't really God", just reread the story about the frat boy who thought the cliffs on the beach aren't "real beauty."
Also, no need to mention the "well, that's not what most people think God is, so you're wrong" "argument" either. That's a argumentum ad populum, a fallacy. Just as "most people" don't think an abandoned factory would be beautiful, I do...so, is the abandoned factory not beauty, or is beauty (like God) simply a nebulous term?
Your definition of god differs significantly from that of most people, to the point that your definition is useless and a red herring.
When you speak to most believers, the word god includes all sorts of concepts excluded from your story. Concepts like omni- science/potence/benevolence, self awareness, a creative power, divinity, and an involvement in human affairs.
Your example includes none of these.
To have any sort of conversation we need to agree on definitions, and your definition of god is so far outside the norm as to be useless.
It sounds like god means what you decide it means, no more and no less. And you're not really telling what he is, because, s/he/it is ineffable. It's an effective way to insulate yourself from actual debate; there's no common ground to even have a discussion. No definitions. It's like the Tao that cannot be named and other seemingly high-minded and deep-sounding catch phrases that are actually nonsense.
Should our objective be to transcend thought? If we transcend thought, what are we left with? Feelings and our subjective reactions to those feelings, I guess. I have a feeling that this is bad thinking!
If god is in the eye of the beholder, like beauty, well all-righty then; I accept that; you are totally welcome to whatever is in your eye as a beholder. Just don't make claims to having a provable or defensible point of view.
I did not commit a logical fallacy. You do not understand when this fallacy applies.
The definition of a word, by necessity, is what the majority agrees upon. Otherwise we would be unable to communicate with one another. Take the word blue. We all agree that it is the color of the sky on a clear sunny day, we can all point to things that are blue and come to a concensus that, yes, this thing is blue.
That does not make the definition of the word blue a logical fallacy simply because people agree on it.
The same holds true here. The term god has a commonly accepted meaning, with attributes that hold true from one religion to another. You are ignoring those attributes to redefine god, then declaring god to exist because metaphors exist.
That is fine so far as it goes, but you have to recognize the fact that your specific definition of the word renders it useless for discussion with any other member of the human race.
It sounds like god means what you decide it means, no more and no less. And you're not really telling what he is, because, s/he/it is ineffable. It's an effective way to insulate yourself from actual debate; there's no common ground to even have a discussion. No definitions. It's like the Tao that cannot be named and other seemingly high-minded and deep-sounding catch phrases that are actually nonsense.
So, because I provide one definition for God, there is no way to prove it?
Huh?
God is a metaphor for our higher thoughts, our ideas that can't be expressed in human language. Or, if you prefer the Jungian definition, it is the ultimate archetype.
And it is "nonsense" to you as much as calculus is "nonsense" to me: simply something you don't understand. At least I'm willing to admit calculus makes sense to those who are significantly more left hemisphere than I am, including but not limited to people with Asperger's syndrome. Which is funny considering they are more likely to be atheists.
Quote:
Should our objective be to transcend thought? If we transcend thought, what are we left with? Feelings and our subjective reactions to those feelings, I guess. I have a feeling that this is bad thinking!
So, we should never react to anything based on feelings? Really?
So a pretty girl or handsome boy touches you on the hand and your reaction is "get away from me! This is a perfect method for the transfer of germs and bacteria." Do you look at art and say "what a waste of paper that would be better used for compost in the growing a quinoa or some other nutritious staple crop"?
No thank you! I am far from a fan of being turned into a machine.
Quote:
If god is in the eye of the beholder, like beauty, well all-righty then; I accept that; you are totally welcome to whatever is in your eye as a beholder. Just don't make claims to having a provable or defensible point of view.
So let me get this straight: because God is like beauty, God can't be proven to exist? So, what you are saying is beauty can't be proven to exist. I don't know about you, but I've seen plenty of beauty in my day. Something can be subjective but still exist.
So, because I provide one definition for God, there is no way to prove it?
The problem is that you constructed your definition in an indefensible manner, or at least one which precludes the definition of god as people generally understand it.
You are defining something, you are just not defining god.
Quote:
God is a metaphor for our higher thoughts, our ideas that can't be expressed in human language. Or, if you prefer the Jungian definition, it is the ultimate archetype.
This is erroneous. We can describe our thoughts in language (as an aside, what is a 'higher' thought? Who gives it a ranking, and upon what criteria?). Your skills may be insufficient in doing so, but that does not mean that it cannot be done.
Quote:
So, we should never react to anything based on feelings? Really?
So a pretty girl or handsome boy touches you on the hand and your reaction is "get away from me! This is a perfect method for the transfer of germs and bacteria." Do you look at art and say "what a waste of paper that would be better used for compost in the growing a quinoa or some other nutritious staple crop"?
You realize that you have disproved your own point, right? Nobody has said that we cannot react to feelings. Mordant was simply saying that we can describe things in terms of thought and language.
So either I inserted the word "metaphor" into the dictionary, or metaphors do really exist and hence, so does God.
typical religious tactic of changing the meaning of the words.
met·a·phor [met-uh-fawr, -fer] Show IPA
noun
1.
a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance, as in “A mighty fortress is our God.” Compare mixed metaphor, simile ( def 1 ) .
2.
something used, or regarded as being used, to represent something else; emblem; symbol.
that's not evidence of your god. saying god transcends is a cop out
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.
