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.
You are convincing me that that's all you can hear when reading comments you cannot or refuse to understand. Stop polluting the thread with such nonsense. I'm not going to placate your refusal to go back and read what I already wrote for meaning. Everything you can possibly need to know is there, but you'll only find it if you open your mind and stop looking only for the answers you want.
the type of "proof" some people think they need is the kind that would destroy free will.
god doesn't want you to love him just because you have no other choice.
that would be a fake love. it was free will that separated man from god when
man was deceived by the devil. it was mary's free will to let it be done to please god.
it was yeshua's free will to obey the father. it was the disciples and martyrs free will
to lay down their lives for christ. you can't be saved without free will. that's because
god gave us free will from the beginning. until the end times come, the tares will grow
with the wheat. it rains on the evil and the good. we chose to know evil. christ saves
us from death. even though our bodies die, what is a body but a shell encasing the seed ?
the proof of that will not come until the end times because it will destroy our free will.
so it is better that we are saved, as free creatures, this one time we have. our reward
in heaven and again reunited with our renewed bodies will be greater this way, because
we play a part in it.
First...go to Merriam-Webster and look up "Theism". You are adding a lot in that is not necessary to meet the definition. All that is required definitively is belief a God or God's exist.
Also, look up "God". Read the full and comple definition. All you need is "Anything of supreme value" to qualify definitively.
People just try to add on all the rest to limit God to just Religious Deities that cannot be proved to objectively exist...so they can then claim to not believe God exists.
Definitively, it does not work that way. Check it out...you'll see.
God exists...the God I perceive (All The Energy/Matter That Exists And Has Existed)...and I can prove it absolutely. What could be of more "Supreme Value" than EVERYTHING? It is as "Godly" as it gets.
As typical...you predicate the objective existence of God upon subjective attributes you claim God must have to be God, but offer no proof of the contingent requirement of those attributes to qualify as God.
Wrong. A dictionary serving up a loosy-goosy generic definition for the masses does not suffice when we are trying to distinguish the difference(s) in meaning and emphasis or nuance between "theism" and "deism" (or, for that matter, between "pantheism" and "panentheism"). If theism and deism are rather mushed together to, in a loosy-goosy way, mean relatively the same thing to the reader, then why has it been felt historically necessary for humanity-at-large to invent two different terms to describe the exact same thing? If we asked a panel of academicians and theologians to define the two terms, we will find that they do NOT simply serve as synonyms for one another; there is a nuance of difference between the two. To delineate the difference(s), I chose here to use my own well-developed articulate mind and phrasing to define it (rather than look for a short, quick insipid "definition" that you'd find in a web dictionary such a Merriam-Webster . . . for MY way of defining it puts in a more earnest effort to make the differences truly understandable to all readers. I am NOT, as you claim, trying to define "God" in a so-called "subjective" way so as to advance a pre-disposed bias or agenda on the matter. I would guarantee you that, if we were before a panel of academicians and theologians covering a broad cross-section of theological thought across the spectrum, they would ALL agree with how I have defined the similarities and differences between the words "theism" versus "deism". It is NOT, as you state, that "All that is required definitively is belief in a God or that God's exist." Two different terms have been invented by humanity (theism and deism) that have differences in emphasis that need to be delineated. It can serve that cause to delineate them as such:
Both terms DO involve, as you phrased it, "a belief in a "God" [of whatever type] that exists." But then, in a more technical, exacting sense, a THEIST is different from a deist in that a theist thinks of "God" as an active agent in our existence (in creation) which intervenes and involves itself, if and as it deems fit, in the universe's workings and in human affairs (to whatever degree) . . . whereas a DEIST, on the other hand, thinks of "God" as one who is not an intervening agent who concerns or preoccupies or involves itself with its creation (existence) nor with humanity in particular (which is saying, essentially, that it is a "hands-off" creator entity). A deist God does NOT, for whatever reason, choose to intervene as far as humans are concerned. Whether it, behind the scenes, interacts with the universe at all (i.e., with existence) and intervenes to whatever degree with the univese at-large yet without letting humans know about or be aware of it, I'm not sure (thus far) what an academician or scholar who defines "deism" for all of us would say about that matter. In other words, at the very least, it can be said that a "deist" (as differs from a "theist") does not think of God as something to petition or pray to or to expect interventions from or involvements with. THAT, essentiallly, is what really sets apart a "deist" from a "theist".
A dictionary with many thousands of definitions in it is not going to take the time to spell it out in exacting detail and nuance like I have here (for they want to give a "quick" definition of "theist" that is easy and quick to read. Yes, as you said, the term "theist" can simply be defined as a belief that there is a God rather than there not being a God; however, when we are trying to have people understand why the term "deist" was invented to stand apart from simply calling all God-belief as "theist", we need to take the extra steps to spell out the nuances of difference between the two terms. And nearly any dictionary you'll find will not do this in the course in providing a quick passing definition of "theist". The definitions provided here by myself are NOT biased defintions; they are an intellectually valid effort to explain the differences between these two different terms. I have NO vested interest in which one is true verus not true; in the end, the truth is the truth is the truth, regardless of what I or anyone else feels about what comes to be known as "the truth".
It is NOT enough for you to simply say "I am a theist; I believe in God" in terms of it telling us very very little about the dimensions and depths of your thinking on the matter, for a God is not a God is not a God is not a God is not a God is not a God. Does the "God" you invest belief in compel itself to intervene and get involved with humanity to whatever degree (interacting with humans, hearing prayers, trying to shape human behaviors and decisions by meting out rewards and punishments, telling humans how to think + live + behave + relate to and think of it as God, concerning itself with what humans do or think or else not concerning itself with what humans do or think, et al) or does it not? And does said "God" that you invest belief in otherwise manipulate and intervene in the workings of the universe (the natural order or existence) to whatever degree or does it not? Spellng this all out for us all will at least serve to have us all understand the dimensions and depths of your thinking (whether any of us agree with your precise and spelled-out true thinking or not is not the issue; understanding you is the issue and the point of it all).
You said that "People just try to add on all the rest to limit God to just Religious Deities that cannot be proved to objectively exist...so they can then claim to not believe God exists." Maybe some do; I don't. I will accuse YOU here, though, of seemingly continually evading the defining of yourself beyond the perfunctory so that YOU can try to evade being picked apart and possibly shown to come up short in being too vague. You'll just have to believe ME when I say that I do NOTNOTNOT have some pre-conceived "agenda" or "mission" to rule in or rule out someone else's offered-up ideas just so I can come away from it all feeling that I reign triumphant over them. My true mission is simply the pursuit of truth and understanding on ALL our parts (by trying to understand the full dimensions and dynamics of what all others actually do believe and then trying to get all others to understand what my stands are and are not in all their full dimensions and dynamics). My motivation is not the advancement of some so-called "atheist or non-believer agenda". For I am not committed absolutely to being a non-believer nor a believer (I am not, as you call yourself, a "gnostic" but more leaning toward an "agnostic" on these spoken-of matters . . . unless I find it being intellectually warranted to take a stronger, more firm position on some aspect or issue of our subject matter. I hopefully aim to just go wherever I deem the evidences take us all (i.e., real and valid "evidence" . . . that which justifiably merits being called "evidence").
Can I be "gnostic" about anything at all? Here, I can say that I am "gnostic" about "evolution by natural selection" (deeming it to be an undeniable scientific reality that can be proved in many many ways . . . even if humanity does not have every single piece of the big picture about it under our belts up to this point in time). In fact, it should, at this stage, be called "the Law of Evolution" (not "the Theory of Evolution"); it is well, well beyond the stage of being a "theory". It is as much a "law" as "the Law of Conservation of Energy and Matter". Whereas on the issue of whether the universe or cosmos (i.e., all of existence itself) is permeated by a mindful agent or presence which we typically give the generic name of "God" is something I can only bring myself so far to be "agnostic" about. That is, I can't outright prove it to be so but can't outright rule it out either. So all I am left to do (if I am TRULY intellectually honest) is to take an "agnostic" stance . . . until otherwise feeling truly warranted to take a stronger stance pro or con (i.e., a "gnostic" stance which is either pro or con on the issue, such as a "gnostic theist" or a "gnostic atheist"). I aim to go wherever the evidences go. If that takes me to ultimately believe in Jesus and the Triune God or to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or to believe in a deistic God or to believe that nature itself is all there is but has no mind inherent in it (or "no mind" that we can truly discern and come to know about), THAT is where I will go. Again, I do NOTNOTNOT have some pre-conceived "agenda" or "mission" to rule in or rule out someone else's offered-up ideas just so I can come away from it all feeling that I reign triumphant over them. My true mission is simply the pursuit of truth and understanding on ALL our parts (by trying to understand the full dimensions and dynamics of what all others actually do believe and then trying to get all others to understand what my stands are and are not in all their full dimensions and dynamics). If you can't trust that this is what truly underlies any of my thinking, that can't be helped by myself. I am not a strong or gnostic "whatever" on these matters (thus far . . . if I ever ever will be, which I can't predict).
the type of "proof" some people think they need is the kind that would destroy free will.
god doesn't want you to love him just because you have no other choice.
that would be a fake love. it was free will that separated man from god when
man was deceived by the devil. it was mary's free will to let it be done to please god.
it was yeshua's free will to obey the father. it was the disciples and martyrs free will
to lay down their lives for christ. you can't be saved without free will. that's because
god gave us free will from the beginning. until the end times come, the tares will grow
with the wheat. it rains on the evil and the good. we chose to know evil. christ saves
us from death. even though our bodies die, what is a body but a shell encasing the seed ?
the proof of that will not come until the end times because it will destroy our free will.
so it is better that we are saved, as free creatures, this one time we have. our reward
in heaven and again reunited with our renewed bodies will be greater this way, because
we play a part in it.
Or perhaps free will has nothing to do with any of it. After all, if we accept the story of your god as a thought experiment, we know of at least 1 being that was convinced that god was real and did not decide to follow him. This being is called evil and blamed for all the problems of the world...yet this being did not create himself. Your all knowing god did, with presumably full knowledge that he would rebel.
So perhaps the free will argument is just an excuse. An excuse for not showing up and risking the judgement of man...which might rebel if they had the same knowledge of this god as his other creation, Satan , surely did.
Or perhaps free will has nothing to do with any of it. After all, if we accept the story of your god as a thought experiment, we know of at least 1 being that was convinced that god was real and did not decide to follow him. This being is called evil and blamed for all the problems of the world...yet this being did not create himself. Your all knowing god did, with presumably full knowledge that he would rebel.
So perhaps the free will argument is just an excuse. An excuse for not showing up and risking the judgement of man...which might rebel if they had the same knowledge of this god as his other creation, Satan , surely did.
no, our understanding of "omniscience" is flawed. God's omniscience is not incompatible
with free will of creatures. He can suspend foreknowledge in the case of free will of
his creatures. anyway, even if He does not, it is no incursion on the operation of our
free wills.
no, our understanding of "omniscience" is flawed. God's omniscience is not incompatible
with free will of creatures. He can suspend foreknowledge in the case of free will of
his creatures. anyway, even if He does not, it is no incursion on the operation of our
free wills.
So he turns his foreknowledge on and off light a light switch?
And what value does this god derive from such free will? Is it used as some sort of fuel for ethereal energies? Something else perhaps?
Wrong. A dictionary serving up a loosy-goosy generic definition for the masses does not suffice when we are trying to distinguish the difference(s) in meaning and emphasis or nuance between "theism" and "deism" (or, for that matter, between "pantheism" and "panentheism"). If theism and deism are rather mushed together to, in a loosy-goosy way, mean relatively the same thing to the reader, then why has it been felt historically necessary for humanity-at-large to invent two different terms to describe the exact same thing? If we asked a panel of academicians and theologians to define the two terms, we will find that they do NOT simply serve as synonyms for one anotherr; there is a nuance of difference between the two. To delinate the difference(s), I chose here to use my own well-developed articulate mind and phrasing to define it (rather than look for a short, quick insipid "definition" that you'd find in a web dictionary such a Merriam-Webster . . . for MY way of defining it puts in a more earnest effort to make the differences truly understandable to all readers. I am NOT, as you claim, trying to define "God" in a so-called "subjective" way so as to advance a pre-disposed bias or agenda on the matter. I would guarantee you that, if we were before a panel of academicians and theologians covering a cross-sectin of theological thought across the spectrum, they would ALL agree with how I have defined the similarities and differences between th words "theism" and "deism". It is NOT, as you state, that "All that is required definitively is belief in a God or that God's exist." Two different terms have been invented by humanity (theism and deism) that have differences in emphasis that need to be delineated. It can serve that cause to delineate them as such:
Both terms DO involve, as you pharased it, a belief in a "God" of whatever type that exists. But then, in a more technical, exacting sense, a THEIST is different from a deist in that a theist thinks of "God" as an active agent in our existence (in creation) which intervenes and involves itself, if and as it deems fit, in the universe's workings and in human affairs (to whatever degree) . . . whereas a DEIST, on the other hand, thinks of "God" as one who is not an intervening agent who concerns or preoccupies or involves itself with its creation (existence) nor with humanity in particular (which is saying, essentially, that it is a "hands-off" creator entity). A deist God does NOT, for whatever reason, choose to intervene as far as humans are concerned. Whether it, behind the scenes, interacts with the universe at all (i.e., with existence) and intervenes to whatever degree with the univese at-large yet without letting humans know about or be aware of it, I'm not sure (thus far) what an academician or scholar who defines "deism" for all of us would say about that matter. In other words, at the very least, it can be said that a "deist" doesn't think of God as something to petition or pray to or to expect interventions from or involvements with. THAT, essentiallly, is what really sets apart a "deist" from a "theist".
A dictionary with many thousands of definitions in it is not going to take the time to spell it out in exacting detail and nuance like I have here (for they want to give a "quick" definition of "theist" that is easy and quick to read. Yes, as you said, the term "theist" can simply be defined as a belief that there is a God rather than there not being a God; however, when we are trying to have people understand why the term "diest" when then invented, we need to take the extra steps to spell out the nuances of difference between the two terms. And nearly any dictionary you'll find will not do this in the course in providing a quick passing definition of "theist".
It is NOT enough for you to simply say "I am a theist; I believe in God". That tells us very very little about your thinking, for a God is not a God is not a God is not a God is not a God is not a God. Does the "God" you invest belief in compel itself to intervene and get involved with humanity to whatever degree (interacting with humans, hearing prayers, trying to shape human behaviors and decisions by meting out rewards and punishments, telling humans how to think + live + behave + relate to and think of it as God, concerning itself with what humans do or think or else not concerning itself with what humans do or think, et al) or does it not? And does said "God" that you invest belief in otherwise manipulate and intervene in the workings of the universe (the natural order or existence) to whatever degree or does it not?
You said that "People just try to add on all the rest to limit God to just Religious Deities that cannot be proved to objectively exist...so they can then claim to not believe God exists." Maybe some do; I don't. I will accuse YOU here, though, of seemingly continually evading the defining of yourself beyond the perfunctory so that YOU can try to evade being picked apart and possibly shown to come up short in being too vague. You'll just have to believe ME when I say that I do NOTNOTNOT have some pre-conceived "agenda" or "mission" to rule in or rule out someone else's offered-up ideas just so I can come away from it all reigning triumphant over them. My true mission is simply the pursuit of truth and understanding on ALL our parts (by trying to understand the full dimensions and dynamics of what all others actually do believe and then trying to get all others to understand what my stands are and are not in all their full dimensions and dynamics). My motivation is not the advancement of some so-called "atheist or non-believer agenda". For I am not committed absolutely to being a non-believer nor a believer (I am not, as you call yourself, a gnostic but more leaning toward an agnostic . . . unless I find it being intellectually warranted to take a stronger, more firm position on some aspect or issue of our subject matter. I hopefully aim to just go wherever I deem the evidence takes us all (i.e., real and valid "evidence" . . . that which justifiably merits being called "evidence").
Can I be "gnostic" about anything at all? Here, I can say that I am "gnostic" about "evolution by natural selection" (deeming it to be an undeniable scientific reality that can be proved in many many ways . . . even if humanity does not have every single piece of the big picture about it under our belts up to this point in time). In fact, it should, at this stage, be called "the Law of Evolution" (not "the Theory of Evolution"); it is well, well beyond the stage of being a "theory". It is as much a "law" as "the Law of Conservation of Energy and Matter". Whereas on the issue of whether the universe or cosmos (i.e., all of existence itself) is permeated by a mindful agent or presence which we typically give the generic name of "God" is something I can only bring myself so far to be "agnostic" about. That is, I can't outright prove it to be so but can't outright rule it out either. So all I am left to do (if I am TRULY intellectually honest) is to take an "agnostic" stance . . . until otherwise feeling truly warranted to take a stronger stance pro or con (i.e., a "gnostic" stance which is either pro or con on the issue, such as a "gnostic theist" or a "gnostic atheist"). I aim to go wherever the evidences go: If that took me to believe in Jesus and the Triune God or to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or to believe in a deistic God or to believe that nature itself is all there is but has no mind inherent in it (or "no mind" that we can truly discern and come to know about), THAT is where I will go. Again, I do NOTNOTNOT have some pre-conceived "agenda" or "mission" to rule in or rule out someone else's offered-up ideas just so I can come away from it all reigning triumphant over them. My true mission is simply the pursuit of truth and understanding on ALL our parts (by trying to understand the full dimensions and dynamics of what all others actually do believe and then trying to get all others to understand what my stands are and are not in all their full dimensions and dynamics). If you can't trust that this is what truly underlies any of my thinking, that can't be helped by myself. I am not a strong or gnostic "whatever" on these matters (thus far . . . if I ever will be, which I can't predict).
I suggest you do better to educate yourself about the history and status of Merriam-Webster as a top expert source for the definition and meaning of words.
I submit: You could NEVER substantiate in any way whatsoever that you could ever be considered in any way superior to Merriam-Webster at providing the definition and meaning of words.
If you have some evidence that would refute this...put it up.
Until then...I declare my top-notch expert as holding irrefutably greater merit than you in that regard.
You pose the same bogus argument as others that are afflicted with Godophobia. You will grasp at any straw and try to come up with any absurd and risible case to be able to cling to a illogical "No God" position.
You're better at providing the meaning of words than Merriam-Webster?!---PROVE IT!
I suggest you do better to educate yourself about the history and status of Merriam-Webster as a top expert source for the definition and meaning of words.
I submit: You could NEVER substantiate in any way whatsoever that you could ever be considered in any way superior to Merriam-Webster at providing the definition and meaning of words.
If you have some evidence that would refute this...put it up.
Until then...I declare my top-notch expert as holding irrefutably greater merit than you in that regard.
You pose the same bogus argument as others that are afflicted with Godophobia. You will grasp at any straw and try to come up with any absurd and risible case to be able to cling to a illogical "No God" position.
You're better at providing the meaning of words than Merriam-Webster?!---PROVE IT!
Once again (for the trillionth time), I am NOT trying to "prove there is no God". I am trying to understand the depths, dimensions, and nuances of your own spelled-out subscriptions to the God concept . . . except that you continually never choose to actually "spell it out". You are like poster JeffBase40 (for instance) who keeps saying there are proofs for what he believes and yet, when requested by nearly everyone, over the great course of time, to offer up and spell out said proofs, continually evades doing so and runs off. It is like a broken record already.
My verdict of you: FAIL. Not that I am saying that I epistemologically know that your ideas have no merit or even little merit (and not saying that they are absolutely not true) but just that you continually refuse to allow them to be scrunitized and carefully considered by spelling them out beyond being very perfunctory and vague. I, on the other hand, always subject ALL my ideas to complete and exacting scrutiny by ALL others (haven't you noticed yet how quite verbose and long-ish my postings can often tend to be . . . even to the sometimes consternation of others?). You, on the other hand (like JeffBase40 as well) continually come across as so very fearful of laying out your case. Why such a continual feafulness and hesitation on your part? So you are not what can be called an "honest intellectual" or "truly intellectually honest"? For all you know or I know, you might convince me (or anyone else) to think as you do if you would take it upon yourself to truly "spell it out" as requested. If I am shown to be wrong or unwarranted in my views put forth on these matters, I welcome it and would thank the person for helping me to come to know that I was off-the-mark. Yet you convey this seemingly continual sense of fear at being disinvested of any of your subscriptions. In contrast, there truly are no sacred cows and no pet notions that I hold onto for dear life; I am only interested in where the truth takes me (which can truly be anywhere).
It's not worth my investing any more energies in interacting with you, for it will apparently get nowhere (if this is the tact or stance that you will continually take). Don't bother addressing me and asking for any more input on my part or interactions with you. You have already been given much much material by me to digest about myself and then have been asked a host of questions for you to address and you continually act evasive, defensive, and even somewhat hostile (like you seemingly thinking "How dare he ask me to actually spell it out and give definitions and nuances to delineate the dimensions and depths of my put-forth ideas and notions!!!") . Well then, we are finished with addressing one another as far as I'm concerned. Move on to other posters and best wishes to you.
You are convincing me that that's all you can hear when reading comments you cannot or refuse to understand. Stop polluting the thread with such nonsense. I'm not going to placate your refusal to go back and read what I already wrote for meaning. Everything you can possibly need to know is there, but you'll only find it if you open your mind and stop looking only for the answers you want.
There is nothing of a sort in your posts.
You simply don't want to give direct answers b/c you know that you are backed into a corner and you know that as soon as you start answering direct questions your position will become a sitting duck and will be easily destroyed.
That's the reason you will never find professional apologists ever getting involved in a direct exchange like this one.
They stand no chance. Neither do you.
I realize that not everyone is comfortable with analogies and therefore treat them superficially without exploring all the implications they might have for the concepts being discussed. Clearly that is the case here. Here is a question for you based on my analogy: IF they were sentient, would your sentient cells be capable of inferring agency behind the things that happened to them in their little cellular existences. The answer should be "Yes, they would be capable of such inference." Since you and your existence actually ARE their God and what happens to their individual cellular lives IS mandated by the requirements of your life and existence . . . would their inference of agency be accurate??? Remember, you are NOT willfully directing what happens to each of your individual cells, or are you???Of course not. We are "cellular" parts of everything that exists (God), are we not? We are mindful and conscious, are we not?
See above. Everything produced in our consciousness is definitely part of our reality and that IS the problem. Prior to Christ, human consciousness was NOT producing perfect agape love, but was producing imperfect versions of it mixed with a whole lot of savagery and barbarity. The collective human consciousness was NOT compatible with the perfect agape love that God IS. The Cosmic Consciousness (unified field) that I believe establishes our reality and IS God has a specific character, ie. perfect agape love. Christ is the human consciousness that brought that perfect agape love to His human consciousness and thus to our collective human consciousness thereby connecting it with God's perfect agape love. Christ's perfect agape love (Holy Spirit) in His human consciousness is the conduit for us to reach God through love of God and each other under the guidance of Christ's perfect agape love for us all.
I hope the above helps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCfromNC
What? I don't send Jesus to my cells as a messenger of agape love, so we're not a god in the sense that your alleged universal consciousness god is a god to us. This is what I mean by the bait and switch. First god's just everything that exists - and everyone thinks something exists so you'd be dumb to believe that. But that's really not what god is - it is some sort of conscious agency sending human-gods to us with a specific plan in mind. But if you disagree, we fall back to the "god is just a name for everything which exists", rinse and repeat.
You have never been a big fan of my analogies. I don't know if your difficulty with them is deliberate or not. However, you know full well that your objection about sending Jesus to your cells is a preposterous caricature of the analogy. You might as well complain that our cells are not sentient. It reveals a complete refusal to understand the actual purpose of analogy, the same problem you have always had with my analogies.
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.
