Define GOD?
Sunny
n evry thing in this universe including us, the best part is that like
force has got infinite frms God has also got many infinite forms, God
is without any shape.
Thats mine, Whats urs??
R A P RUPASINGHE
Dave of Kan
> Thats mine, Whats urs??- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
kev
well as several others on the subject). You will find no shortage of
opinions on this issue...
K e v
chazwin
a child to death; the rubble of a building that is crushing the life
out of a family in Pakistan; nuclear weapons; cancer -that is "god"?
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Erica Moreau
Basically.
James Barlow
Erica Moreau <erica...@gmail.com> wrote:
Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
Sunny
Erica Moreau
Ian Pollard
and, at worst, it makes them so intolerant of other human-beings that
they are motivated to kill them.
xxxianxx
--
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
-- Vroomfondel
Erica Moreau
Ian Pollard
>
> That's not God. That's human irrationality and blindness.
Those are the symptoms.
Erica Moreau
Pottsie
Ian,
While you might be able to say that people who believe
in God have a memetic brain disease, you cannot say
that God IS that disease.
The same can be said of people who do NOT believe in
God.
Ian, I would love to know what you are referring to
when you use the word "God". The only comments you
make about God are these sorts of statements.....but
you never state what it is that you are referring to.
You have been given three concepts of God by three
different people that are essentially the same thing.
Four if you include me, because I think of God also as
Unity, The All, Existence, etc.
Are you stating that "Existence" is a memetic brain
disease? What is it that you are referring to when
you use the word God?
Who knows? I might believe that the thing you are
referring to doesn't exist either! ;)
Namaste
Pottsie
"Knowledge of apparent Good and apparent Evil is what perpetuates my apparent separation from God."- Pottsie
____________________________________________________________________________________
The fish are biting.
Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing.
http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/sponsoredsearch_v2.php
Ian Pollard
I disagree. You believe in God... Why? A whim? A feeling? A sense?
Comfort? Because a book told you it exists? A preacher?
That is, by definition, irrational.
Erica Moreau
Ian, you're just as brainwashed as the rest of us.
Ian Pollard
Not enough evidence. Oooops! Sorry, I mean no evidence.
Erica Moreau
Ian, have you tried meditation yet?
norman blaisdell
Erica Moreau
"Your walk talks, and your talk talks, but your walk talks louder than your talk talks."
There is no "Own" God. God is, and a person's views on that God doesn't change what it is.
facilitator
God is a spirit--not unlike us but not living in the temporal as we
do.
paradox
Erica Moreau
paradox
acquiescence" theory..;))
On 1 Apr, 14:30, "Erica Moreau" <ericamor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My youth pastor used to say it all the time -- I love it! I made it into a
> poster for our wall.
>
> On 4/1/07, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ooooh, this makes me queasy...;)
>
> > On 1 Apr, 14:23, "Erica Moreau" <ericamor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Your walk talks, and your talk talks, but your walk talks louder than
> > your
> > > talk talks."- Hide quoted text -
Pottsie
All there IS is evidence.
Namaste
Pottsie
--- Ian Pollard <ian.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not enough evidence. Oooops! Sorry, I mean no
> evidence.
>
> xxxianxx
>
> On 01/04/07, Erica Moreau <erica...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Ok, why do you *not* believe in God?
>
>
> --
> "We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and
> uncertainty!"
>
> -- Vroomfondel
>
>
>
>
"Knowledge of apparent Good and apparent Evil is what perpetuates my apparent separation from God."- Pottsie
____________________________________________________________________________________
Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels
in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097
Kierkecraig
You throw the word "irrational" out there and assume that it's a bad
thing. Most people believe that it is a bad thing. But why? I think
the word irrational has conotations that are attached to it that
shouldn't be attached to a belief in God.
There is a rational element to a belief in God, but I do agree with
you that there is an irrational element as well, but since the word
irrational carries with it those conotations that I think are
inapplicable when we are talking about a belief in God I'm going to
call it arational rather than irrational. One can believe in God
without having inconsistent beliefs. Let's assume for a moment that
Darwininsm, the Big Bang, and all the other supposed anti-theist
beliefs are true. I could believe in all of them and yet believe in
God. It may not be the God of traditional Christianity, but I could
still believe in God and have those beliefs be consistent with such a
framework.
I do believe that a belief in God can be a result of experience, but
even if it isn't a result of experience, it isn't an irrational belief
in the sense it is an inconsistent belief, it is only irrational in
the sense that it is not derived from experience. And just because it
isn't derived from experience doesn't mean that it is a bad thing.
Science isn't the holy avatar of all things good.
On Apr 1, 6:07 am, "Ian Pollard" <ian.poll...@gmail.com> wrote:
Pottsie
--- Kierkecraig <craiga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Ian,
> You throw the word "irrational" out there and assume
> that it's a bad
> thing. Most people believe that it is a bad thing.
> But why?
(Pottsie)
I've said the same thing on this board and have YET to
get a reply. Hell, the history of Science is riddled
with it!
Epiphanys, the "Aha" or the "Eureka!" moments, are
moments of pure irrationality!
Namaste
Pottsie
"Knowledge of apparent Good and apparent Evil is what perpetuates my apparent separation from God."- Pottsie
____________________________________________________________________________________
No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go
with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail
chazwin
On Apr 1, 10:13 am, "Erica Moreau" <ericamor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes. It is "everything"-- no exceptions. It is also time, space, and every
> dimension between here and there. It is literally beyond true comprehension.
> God is not a being, or an entity that "created" anything, it is creation
> itself. Existance itself. It is the flow of time, and the flow of energy.
> The transformation from that which was, to that which is, to that which will
> be.
>
> Basically.
>
chazwin
On Apr 1, 1:52 pm, "Erica Moreau" <ericamor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That's not God. That's human irrationality and blindness.
Duh!!!! Sorry god = dog shit, the tree, the clouds AND human
irrationality and blindness.
If god is ALL then god is cancer and stupidity too!
>
> On 4/1/07, Ian Pollard <ian.poll...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > God is a memetic brain disease. At best it makes people irrational
> > and, at worst, it makes them so intolerant of other human-beings that
> > they are motivated to kill them.
>
> > xxxianxx
>
> > --
> > "We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
>
> > -- Vroomfondel- Hide quoted text -
chazwin
On Apr 1, 1:55 pm, "Ian Pollard" <ian.poll...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 01/04/07, Erica Moreau <ericamor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > That's not God. That's human irrationality and blindness.
>
> Those are the symptoms.
The symptoms of beleiving that god = all.
chazwin
On Apr 1, 1:58 pm, "Erica Moreau" <ericamor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not in everybody.
Everybody is god, is stupidity, is cancer is ALL.
>
> On 4/1/07, Ian Pollard <ian.poll...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 01/04/07, Erica Moreau <ericamor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > That's not God. That's human irrationality and blindness.
>
> > Those are the symptoms.
>
> > xxxianxx
>
> > --
> > "We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
>
> > -- Vroomfondel- Hide quoted text -
chazwin
On Apr 1, 2:29 pm, "facilitator" <tlmur...@juno.com> wrote:
> God is a spirit--not unlike us but not living in the temporal as we
> do.
This is incoherent
chazwin
Great!
And all there is, is all there is!
Does that get us anywhere?
On Apr 1, 2:41 pm, Pottsie <pottsie...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> (Pottsie)
>
> All there IS is evidence.
>
> Namaste
>
> Pottsie
>
> --- Ian Pollard <ian.poll...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Not enough evidence. Oooops! Sorry, I mean no
> > evidence.
>
> > xxxianxx
>
> > On 01/04/07, Erica Moreau <ericamor...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Ok, why do you *not* believe in God?
>
> > --
> > "We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and
> > uncertainty!"
>
> > -- Vroomfondel
>
> "Knowledge of apparent Good and apparent Evil is what perpetuates my apparent separation from God."- Pottsie
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels
> in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097- Hide quoted text -
chazwin
On Apr 1, 2:55 pm, "Kierkecraig" <craigatkin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ian,
> You throw the word "irrational" out there and assume that it's a bad
> thing. Most people believe that it is a bad thing. But why? I think
> the word irrational has conotations that are attached to it that
> shouldn't be attached to a belief in God.
>
> There is a rational element to a belief in God, but I do agree with
> you that there is an irrational element as well, but since the word
> irrational carries with it those conotations that I think are
> inapplicable when we are talking about a belief in God I'm going to
> call it arational rather than irrational. One can believe in God
> without having inconsistent beliefs. Let's assume for a moment that
> Darwininsm, the Big Bang, and all the other supposed anti-theist
> beliefs are true. I could believe in all of them and yet believe in
> God. It may not be the God of traditional Christianity, but I could
> still believe in God and have those beliefs be consistent with such a
> framework.
Fine! That's all very well but what the hell does this thing you call
"god" actually do?
What is the point of "god" if the universe seems to run all by itself
without any help froma supreme being. What's it FOR?
>
> I do believe that a belief in God can be a result of experience, but
> even if it isn't a result of experience, it isn't an irrational belief
> in the sense it is an inconsistent belief, it is only irrational in
> the sense that it is not derived from experience. And just because it
> isn't derived from experience doesn't mean that it is a bad thing.
> Science isn't the holy avatar of all things good.
There is no avatar, holy or otherwise of all things good or all things
bad. These are personal and not absolute concepts.
>
> On Apr 1, 6:07 am, "Ian Pollard" <ian.poll...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 01/04/07, Erica Moreau <ericamor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Ok, why do you *not* believe in God?
>
> > Not enough evidence. Oooops! Sorry, I mean no evidence.
>
> > xxxianxx
>
> > --
> > "We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
>
> > -- Vroomfondel- Hide quoted text -
Kierkecraig
On Apr 1, 9:21 am, "chazwin" <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 1, 2:55 pm, "Kierkecraig" <craigatkin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Ian,
> > You throw the word "irrational" out there and assume that it's a bad
> > thing. Most people believe that it is a bad thing. But why? I think
> > the word irrational has conotations that are attached to it that
> > shouldn't be attached to a belief in God.
>
> > There is a rational element to a belief in God, but I do agree with
> > you that there is an irrational element as well, but since the word
> > irrational carries with it those conotations that I think are
> > inapplicable when we are talking about a belief in God I'm going to
> > call it arational rather than irrational. One can believe in God
> > without having inconsistent beliefs. Let's assume for a moment that
> > Darwininsm, the Big Bang, and all the other supposed anti-theist
> > beliefs are true. I could believe in all of them and yet believe in
> > God. It may not be the God of traditional Christianity, but I could
> > still believe in God and have those beliefs be consistent with such a
> > framework.
>
> Fine! That's all very well but what the hell does this thing you call
> "god" actually do?
> What is the point of "god" if the universe seems to run all by itself
> without any help froma supreme being. What's it FOR?
>
Exactly what religion has always taught him to be. A savior. One who
grants forgivness to the sinner. One who brings peace to the troubled
heart. One who gives meaning to one's life. People get too
sidetracked in God's role as a creator and the God of the gaps. This
has never been the central purpose for a belief in God.
facilitator
On Apr 1, 12:17 pm, "chazwin"
> This is incoherent
Why is this not coherent to you ? I think it's very simple.
Sheeravarneswaran Ganapathyraman
health then they used to say God is great and the same peple when get
it into troubles or Loss. they used to say God has no mercy and they
doubt "God is Really there or Not". But we Admit God is really there
and the duty of Divine (God) is very simple. Really we do not know
"From where are coming IN ie. Taking Birth and Where we are going out
ie. Death. One's Birth is already predicted, Preplanned and his life
would be depends on How much Plus he did in Past Birth and How much
Sins ie Minus he did in Past Birth (Just like Bank Current Account or
Loan A/c, Your Balance is Credit or Debit and if it is credit you need
not worry, suppose your Balance is debit, then you are liable to pay
the Principle along with intrest.Suppose you are not paying or could
not pay, the bank will take different methods to collect dues
including legal formalities and finally they announce you as "DEFAULT"
Customer, those who are paid Promptly is Treated as Good Customers ie.
CUSTOMISE"). So Human birth also depends on same theory and Good
Customers are Living Happy and enjoying all benefits and on other hand
Default Public are experiencing all sorts of Troubles, Problems, and
Life in sorry note. This theory will workout if you annalyse
Practically, " A particular second childs are taking birth in
different Status just like that 'a Child is taking birth in King's
Palace, a Child is taking Birth in Richman's Place, a Child is taking
Birth in Middle Class family and another Child is taking birth in FOOT
PATH or SREET CORNER. Please note that out those above 4 childs birth
waht is the Secret? Why God is giving Partiallity in Birth foe those 4
Child. Since it is The Law of Divine !!!! The Law of Nature !!! So
Even the God Has to follow the Law of the Heaven and He could not be
Partial and Double Standard. Let us assume God is real and Peaple are
questioning God Has No Mercy? when they are in Problems.Dear friends
One more reality and Truth Iw would like to say authantically and
That is "God's duty is over once a Human takes birth and the
Particular human has to live as a child depending on parents and after
some stage he has to live on his own and attain everything with his
Past birth's Credit and Will Power to Overtake Past Birth's Sins. As
per the Law of the Land all human are equal but as per the Law of
Divine/God/Nature all human are not equal and they will be
diffrenciated with Plus and Minuses they did in Past Birth and earlier
Generations and the accounts of Credits and Debits will Continue and
The Status of Birth will differ accordingly. So God will never come
and Give the Benefits as and when just like Instalment. Then why
people are worshipping God regularly and Religions are there, Just to
Motivate, to reduce thier Sins and fear nof mind about Next Birth
etc., that is all. The Theory of Birth is :All Souls are "MORTAL" and
God is only "IMMORTAL" and so on every birth you go on reducing your
Sins and finally nullifying all your Sins and reach to GOD/Heaven Or
Unknown Destinations that is all. So again you would have seen Lot os
People Dead in Earthquakes in Different Countries and Psunami in
Indonesia, Philliphines and South East Asia, The Nature is as good as
God and so NO MERCY and did lots of damages to Mankind by Air, Water,
Fire, Earth and Sky (Five Elements) in the past and in future also.
Where and What is Wrong? we the human doing all things against nature
but nature should follow the Law of Nature. Lord Krishna Says in
Bhagavd Gita as " Dear Arjun, Do not worry for Killing your Brothers,
Relatives, Masters etc., they are are going to die one day, they will
come back with the Same Soul with different and just they are going
loose the Present Body that is all and It is the Nature, The Law of
Nature and the Law of Divine/God. One Lady who came for rescue and
requested to give rebirth for her son who expired in young age, Lord
Buddha just asked her to bring Some Spices from the family where
nobody has died/expired and finally the Old lady could find any family
on that nature and understand the Nature and reality. Dear Friends we
have one weapon named "WILL POWER" ,"The POWER OF MIND" or "The Power
of our OWN SOUL" which is very strong and Could overcome anything. So
we can overtake all with our Will Power and reach to Success. Please
note that "SUCCESS NEVER COMES OUT EASILY. WE HAVE TO GO AND GET IT
AND STRIKE IT". Please Take it easy, Live Happy, and do not worry what
is going to come out in future, but without doing Sins, you can win
and Top of the world with Selfmotivations and self determinations.
geeoor
Dave of Kan
On Apr 1, 2:09 am, "chazwin" <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> So dog-shit; poisonous snake bites, snot; volcanic lava that is buring
> a child to death; the rubble of a building that is crushing the life
> out of a family in Pakistan; nuclear weapons; cancer -that is "god"?
>
> On Mar 31, 11:04 pm, "Dave of Kan" <dmfar...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > God is all.
>
> > On Mar 31, 11:56 am, R A P RUPASINGHE <r...@sltnet.lk> wrote:
>
> > > That means god is like ameba.
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Mind...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Mind...@googlegroups.com] On
>
> > > Behalf Of Sunny
> > > Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2007 11:33 PM
> > > To: Minds Eye
> > > Subject: [Mind's Eye] Define GOD?
>
> > > I thing God, what we call is just pure force , which constitutes each
> > > n evry thing in this universe including us, the best part is that like
> > > force has got infinite frms God has also got many infinite forms, God
> > > is without any shape.
>
> > > Thats mine, Whats urs??- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Dave of Kan
On Apr 1, 6:03 am, "Ian Pollard" <ian.poll...@gmail.com> wrote:
chazwin
Yes it is simple. Simple-minded...
What is "living in the temporal" supposed to mean and how is it
possible to live outside of it?
If it lives outside the "temporal" then what is the point of it and
how do we have evidence of it?
How would we know it exists at all?
What is the difference in saying there is a green blob called Nigel
who lives outside the "temporal" to saying god does?
This is why it is utterly incoherent.
chazwin
This is no answer. Either "it" lets the earth run without help OR "it"
is interventionst. Make up your mind! Now you are saying that "it" has
a personality.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > I do believe that a belief in God can be a result of experience, but
> > > even if it isn't a result of experience, it isn't an irrational belief
> > > in the sense it is an inconsistent belief, it is only irrational in
> > > the sense that it is not derived from experience. And just because it
> > > isn't derived from experience doesn't mean that it is a bad thing.
> > > Science isn't the holy avatar of all things good.
>
> > There is no avatar, holy or otherwise of all things good or all things
> > bad. These are personal and not absolute concepts.
>
> > > On Apr 1, 6:07 am, "Ian Pollard" <ian.poll...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 01/04/07, Erica Moreau <ericamor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Ok, why do you *not* believe in God?
>
> > > > Not enough evidence. Oooops! Sorry, I mean no evidence.
>
> > > > xxxianxx
>
> > > > --
> > > > "We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
>
> > > > -- Vroomfondel- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
chazwin
> yup, it's kinda difficult to understand, huh?
No - not difficult to understand. What I see is a thousand answers to
what god is, none of them compatible, most are incoherent, some are
self defeating, and many are illogical. Until someone presents a
coherent or useful definition/description of what they mean by "god"
then the existence of such an idea, is no more than a bunch of wishful
ideas and not real,
Erica Moreau
On Apr 1, 6:10 pm, "facilitator" <tlmur...@juno.com> wrote:
> On Apr 1, 12:17 pm, "chazwin"
>
> > This is incoherent
>
> Why is this not coherent to you ? I think it's very simple.
(chaz)
Yes it is simple. Simple-minded...
(eternity)
Sometimes the most complex questions have the simplest answers.
What is "living in the temporal" supposed to mean and how is it
possible to live outside of it?
(eternity)
Time is only one of the dimensions; "God" is said to live outside of time; IE: it was there before the beginning, and will be there after the end. I feel that God exists both within and without of time, as time is a part of God, as much as flowing blood is a part of us.
If it lives outside the "temporal" then what is the point of it and
how do we have evidence of it?
(eternity)
Why do we seem to think we're the "highest" form of being. Just because we don't understand it, or have no evidence of it, does NOT mean that it doesn't exist -- just that evidence has not been found. How many things do we find on a regular basis on our own tiny little planet that we had no clue existed--and no real evidence of until it was found?
Not everything needs a "Point" based on our definition. Keep in mind that the overall definition of God by both Pottsie and I (with minor interpretation differences, I'm sure) is that it is not a being, but rather the state of all being. It is not a larger entity seperate from us.
Taking this from wikipedia:"Newton believed time and space form a container for events, which is as real as the objects it contains."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time#Time_in_philosophy
(chaz)
How would we know it exists at all?
(eternity)
You don't know. You can only *know*. How do you know you even exist?
(chaz)
What is the difference in saying there is a green blob called Nigel
who lives outside the "temporal" to saying god does?
(eternity)
(chaz)
paradox
On 2 Apr, 10:03, "Erica Moreau" <ericamor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> wikipedia:"Newton<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton>believed
> time and
> space <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space> form a container for events,
> which is as real as the objects it contains."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time#Time_in_philosophy
>
> (chaz)
>
> > How would we know it exists at all?
>
> (eternity)
>
> You don't know. You can only *know*. How do you know you even exist?
>
> (chaz)
>
>
>
> > What is the difference in saying there is a green blob called Nigel
> > who lives outside the "temporal" to saying god does?
>
> (eternity)
> An object lives inside of the temporal. Green blobs would have a beginning,
> and an end, as well as exist within time. That's the difference. God is not
> "material" that is seperate, but rather "everything" that is known to exist,
> to have existed, and to eventual exist, as well as everything not in
> existance.
>
> (chaz)
>
> This is why it is utterly incoherent.
>
>
>
EternityGrace
definitions may very well fit.
Another problem is that so many people have a preconceived notion of
what God is that no answer that is not their own will not satisfy
them. Including those that believe in no god. Ian, for example, will
never be satisfied with any answer other than the one he already has
in his head.
Christians have their own version (each, not as a whole!), and my
answer would have some heads in the church nodding, and other head
spinning.
Ian Pollard
>
> Because this "God" is so far above our comprehension, that nearly all
> definitions may very well fit.
How do you know God is above our comprehension?
> Another problem is that so many people have a preconceived notion of
> what God is that no answer that is not their own will not satisfy
> them. Including those that believe in no god. Ian, for example, will
> never be satisfied with any answer other than the one he already has
> in his head.
I don't have an definite answer, though. I wouldn't be so arrogant to
say that I do. However, what I am pretty clear about is that our best
and most thorough understanding of cosmology and the origins of life
is that they do not require an intelligent designer.
Quite why people need to fill the gaps in our knowledge with "God" is
beyond me. You're writing your own fiction -- which is nice for you,
in a kind of day dream fantasy way.
chazwin
On Apr 2, 10:03 am, "Erica Moreau" <ericamor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/2/07, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 1, 6:10 pm, "facilitator" <tlmur...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > On Apr 1, 12:17 pm, "chazwin"
>
> > > > This is incoherent
>
> > > Why is this not coherent to you ? I think it's very simple.
>
> (chaz)
>
> Yes it is simple. Simple-minded...
>
> (eternity)
> Sometimes the most complex questions have the simplest answers.
But eternity is simply not possible. There are limits to everything,
thus far. Why should I accept an infinity of time or space?
>
> (chaz)
>
>
>
> > What is "living in the temporal" supposed to mean and how is it
> > possible to live outside of it?
>
> (eternity)
>
> Time is only one of the dimensions; "God" is said to live outside of time;
> IE: it was there before the beginning, and will be there after the end. I
> feel that God exists both within and without of time, as time is a part of
> God, as much as flowing blood is a part of us.
But this is all wishfulfilment without proof. It is nothing more that
the working of a fertile imagination. If god exists outside time then
there is no time for him to ACT in the the world. God is unable to
effect change or have the slightest affect on any physical element in
time. If god is outside the temporal then it is not possible for god
to "flow"!
>
> (chaz)
>
>
>
> > If it lives outside the "temporal" then what is the point of it and
> > how do we have evidence of it?
>
> (eternity)
>
> Why do we seem to think we're the "highest" form of being. Just because we
> don't understand it, or have no evidence of it, does NOT mean that it
> doesn't exist -- just that evidence has not been found.
Sorry.... is this your answer??? If it is it fails to satisfy! WHy has
this got anything to do with the question at hand. I think it is
probably given the vast numbers of stars in the universe that there
are "higher" being that have evolved on other planets, but that doe
not allow a being to have existed before it had the ability to evolve.
Just because a thing is not proven it does not give you carte blanche
to invent anything you like! Where will it all end?
There is a being that is higher than you god called Nigel he lives on
Mars and is invisible - he helps me out a lot. He deficates versions
of your god every morning and feeds them to his pet frogboglic called
Billie.
> How many things do
> we find on a regular basis on our own tiny little planet that we had no clue
> existed--and no real evidence of until it was found?
That is no evidence for a being outside of time, my friend!
>
> Not everything needs a "Point" based on our definition. Keep in mind that
> the overall definition of God by both Pottsie and I (with minor
> interpretation differences, I'm sure) is that it is not a being, but rather
> the state of all being. It is not a larger entity seperate from us.
You can invent any version of god you like, but that does not mean you
are not in a state of delusion.
>
> Taking this from
> wikipedia:"Newton<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton>believed
> time and
> space <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space> form a container for events,
> which is as real as the objects it contains."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time#Time_in_philosophy
>
> (chaz)
>
> > How would we know it exists at all?
>
> (eternity)
>
> You don't know. You can only *know*. How do you know you even exist?
That is no answer! If I don't know I exist how the hell do you expect
me to beleive in your fantasy?
>
> (chaz)
>
>
>
> > What is the difference in saying there is a green blob called Nigel
> > who lives outside the "temporal" to saying god does?
>
> (eternity)
> An object lives inside of the temporal. Green blobs would have a beginning,
> and an end, as well as exist within time. That's the difference. God is not
> "material" that is seperate, but rather "everything" that is known to exist,
> to have existed, and to eventual exist, as well as everything not in
> existance.
>
> (chaz)
>
> This is why it is utterly incoherent.
What is the point of beleiving in an incoherent entity, which has no
power to affect the universe? It might as well not exist. Have you
ever considered that there might be no god. That the complete lack of
evidence is due to that fact? That the impossiblity of there being any
evidence for such a thing is becasue there is no such thing?
Erica Moreau
> > On 4/2/07, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Apr 1, 6:10 pm, "facilitator" <tlmur...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > > On Apr 1, 12:17 pm, "chazwin"
> >
> > > > > This is incoherent
> >
> > > > Why is this not coherent to you ? I think it's very simple.
> >
> > (chaz)
> >
> > Yes it is simple. Simple-minded...
> >
> > (eternity)
> > Sometimes the most complex questions have the simplest answers.
>
> But eternity is simply not possible. There are limits to everything,
> thus far. Why should I accept an infinity of time or space?
(eternity)
If time is not an infinite, then there is "outside of time".
> >
> > (chaz)
> >
> >
> >
> > > What is "living in the temporal" supposed to mean and how is it
> > > possible to live outside of it?
> >
> > (eternity)
> >
> > Time is only one of the dimensions; "God" is said to live outside of time;
> > IE: it was there before the beginning, and will be there after the end. I
> > feel that God exists both within and without of time, as time is a part of
> > God, as much as flowing blood is a part of us.
>
> But this is all wishfulfilment without proof. It is nothing more that
> the working of a fertile imagination. If god exists outside time then
> there is no time for him to ACT in the the world. God is unable to
> effect change or have the slightest affect on any physical element in
> time. If god is outside the temporal then it is not possible for god
> to "flow"!
(eternity)
Keep in mind that to me, God is all--this includes the things inside
of the temporal and outside. Change itself. God doesn't have an
effect, and nor does he affect anything -- because, again, he is not
an entity. God doesn't flow, time flows within God.
> >
> > (chaz)
> >
> >
> >
> > > If it lives outside the "temporal" then what is the point of it and
> > > how do we have evidence of it?
> >
> > (eternity)
>
>
>
> >
> > Why do we seem to think we're the "highest" form of being. Just because we
> > don't understand it, or have no evidence of it, does NOT mean that it
> > doesn't exist -- just that evidence has not been found.
>
> Sorry.... is this your answer??? If it is it fails to satisfy! WHy has
> this got anything to do with the question at hand.
I think it is
> probably given the vast numbers of stars in the universe that there
> are "higher" being that have evolved on other planets, but that does
> not allow a being to have existed before it had the ability to evolve.
> Just because a thing is not proven it does not give you carte blanche
> to invent anything you like! Where will it all end?
> There is a being that is higher than you god called Nigel he lives on
> Mars and is invisible - he helps me out a lot. He deficates versions
> of your god every morning and feeds them to his pet frogboglic called
> Billie.
(eternity)
Notice that I had continued my answer. And your "Nigel" also exists
within my "God". If it exists, if it doesn't exist, it is within my
"God". What does this have to do with the question? It is a
possibility.
> > How many things do
> > we find on a regular basis on our own tiny little planet that we had no clue
> > existed--and no real evidence of until it was found?
>
> That is no evidence for a being outside of time, my friend!
(eternity)
You're right. Based, again, on the definition listed by me God is not
a "being". Therefore this "outside of time" should no longer be an
issue.
> >
> > Not everything needs a "Point" based on our definition. Keep in mind that
> > the overall definition of God by both Pottsie and I (with minor
> > interpretation differences, I'm sure) is that it is not a being, but rather
> > the state of all being. It is not a larger entity seperate from us.
>
> You can invent any version of god you like, but that does not mean you
> are not in a state of delusion.
(eternity)
And you can think whatever you'd like, but that also does not mean
that you're not in a state of delusion. You're right, we have no proof
about what God is, but you can't tell me that existance doesn't exist
--
> >
> > Taking this from
> > wikipedia:"Newton<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton>believed
> > time and
> > space <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space> form a container for events,
> > which is as real as the objects it contains."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time#Time_in_philosophy
> >
> > (chaz)
> >
> > > How would we know it exists at all?
> >
> > (eternity)
> >
> > You don't know. You can only *know*. How do you know you even exist?
>
> That is no answer! If I don't know I exist how the hell do you expect
> me to beleive in your fantasy?
(eternity)
You can believe whatever you'd like -- this is a philosophy discussion
board; the point is to potentially open yourself up to different ideas
and viewpoints to understand what other believe, and where they are
coming from to further expand your own viewpoints and opinions. It
does not mean that you have to believe everything you read, just
consider it.
Your answer is no answer either. How do you know that you exist?
> >
> > (chaz)
> >
> >
> >
> > > What is the difference in saying there is a green blob called Nigel
> > > who lives outside the "temporal" to saying god does?
> >
> > (eternity)
> > An object lives inside of the temporal. Green blobs would have a beginning,
> > and an end, as well as exist within time. That's the difference. God is not
> > "material" that is seperate, but rather "everything" that is known to exist,
> > to have existed, and to eventual exist, as well as everything not in
> > existance.
> >
> > (chaz)
> >
> > This is why it is utterly incoherent.
>
> What is the point of beleiving in an incoherent entity, which has no
> power to affect the universe? It might as well not exist. Have you
> ever considered that there might be no god. That the complete lack of
> evidence is due to that fact? That the impossiblity of there being any
> evidence for such a thing is becasue there is no such thing?
(Eternity)
You do not seem to be able to grasp the idea that "all is god". This
means EVERYTHING.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_contingency#The_argument_from_contingency
The argument from contingency
In the scholastic era, it was unknown whether the universe had a
beginning or whether it had always existed. To account for both
possibilities, Aquinas formulated the "argument from contingency".
Aquinas follows Aristotle in claiming that there must be something
which explains why the universe exists. Since the universe could,
under different circumstances, conceivably not exist--that is to say,
since it is contingent--its existence must have a cause. And that
cause cannot simply be another contingent thing, it must be something
which exists by necessity, that is, it must be something which must
exist in order for anything else to exist.[3] In other words, even if
the universe has always existed, it still owes that existence to
Aristotle's Uncaused Cause,[4] though Aquinas used the words "...and
this we understand to be God".[5]
Erica Moreau
Therefore to argue that God exists is to deny him."
-Paul Tillich - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tillich
Lee
Whats the point of God? I would have though you'd have figured that
by now?
Why ask the engine, what the point of the engineer is, doesn't that
seem somehow backwards to you?
Pottsie
You tell 'em, girl! =)
It is absolutely amazing to me that Atheists deny God
exists.....when He/She/It is Existence Itself. They
will scream and scream that God doesn't exist, while
all the time they have in their minds an idea of A
being OUTSIDE of existence ie An anthropomorphic
being....which any thinking Theist, like Tillich, will
ALSO admit does not exist.
When you try to explain what you mean.....they simply
won't listen. Pity. It is the epitome of closed
mindedness.
Namaste
Pottsie
"Knowledge of apparent Good and apparent Evil is what perpetuates my apparent separation from God."- Pottsie
____________________________________________________________________________________
Bored stiff? Loosen up...
Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games.
http://games.yahoo.com/games/front
Erica Moreau
Erica Moreau
sit in a room with a bunch of high school students and .... Okay. Not
fun.
Lee
> How do you know God is above our comprehension?
Go get yaself a dictionary and look up any definition of the word God
that you like, if from that you can't answer your own question, then
you really are just playing semantic games.
> Quite why people need to fill the gaps in our knowledge with "God"
is
> beyond me. You're writing your own fiction -- which is nice for you,
> in a kind of day dream fantasy way.
The problem with this Ian, the inherent accusation of stupidity in the
question(rethoric) is that it assumes then that God is not, does not
exist, yet you have never prooved this to me, nor anybody.
So then isn't this strong stance of yours in the face of no evidance
to back up your claims make you at least as guilty of 'story making'
as the rest of us?
It astounds me how we offten are quickest to show our hatred of the
things that we see in mirroed in our own thoughts, feelings and
belifes, heh I wonder what a pyscologist would make of that?
Lee
and the unkown, both the matter and the spirit.
All that is, is God.
Kierkecraig
God I am speaking of is a personal God. I'm not talking about the God
of theological understanding, I am speaking of the God of religion. I
don't know why you are telling me to make up mind. I never said
anything to the contrary.
Erica Moreau
Kierkecraig
cause and his metaphysical nature. Religion on the other hand is
concerned with eschatological concepts.
On Apr 2, 6:23 am, "Erica Moreau" <ericamor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What is the difference?
>
spasm
Ian Pollard
Give me a reason to think that this idea isn't just the ultimate
cop-out; reflecting your personal determination to believe in the
existence of "God" no matter what.
Kierkecraig
I don't think the concept of God being all is a new one. I'm not
saying I adhere to it, but I think it can be traced back to the pre-
Socratics and even further back in the eastern religions.
Ian Pollard
new-agers I was referring to. Lee probably falls into this category
too.
Lee
Heh sure!
Kierkecraig
accusing the "new agers" of changing their belief in God out of
desperation to hold on to a belief that is untenable. However, it
seems that this is a very common belief and and old one. It's very
likely that this is how a great majority of people have always
envisioned God. So how does it reflect a personal determiniation to
believe in God "no matter what"?
Pottsie
We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
Dave of Kan
question...well, it's like this....uh, one minute now, let me gather
my thoughts....ok....first of all, let me put it this way.....wait, I
want to think about it a little more. Ok?....ok, got it...no, that
won't do....let me get back to you on that. Ok Ian?
dkw1...@yahoo.com
also a means of protection of the this abstraction. If something
cannot be described in finite terms, he cannot also be dismissed by
those same terms. Of course this circumvents the law of existence
where if something exists, it has to exist as something. Otherwise it
is indistinguishable from nothing at all.
In the ancient mind, God did all kinds of finite things. He walked and
talked with man. Moses even saw his butt. He gave Moses some hand-
chiseled rules...a couple of times. He conducted battles and made
deals with people. As time went on...an man became more atune to
science, he realized the only defensible position, was to think of God
as something that cannot be understood, and more of a spirit than a
superhuman. The theories of religion seem to work just fine in the
abstract. It's when you actually have God DOING SOMETHING that you run
into all kinds of problems. dkw
chazwin
> > But eternity is simply not possible. There are limits to everything,
> > thus far. Why should I accept an infinity of time or space?
>
> (eternity)
>
> If time is not an infinite, then there is "outside of time".
>
>
> > > (chaz)
>
> > > > What is "living in the temporal" supposed to mean and how is it
> > > > possible to live outside of it?
>
> > > (eternity)
>
> > > Time is only one of the dimensions; "God" is said to live outside of time;
> > > IE: it was there before the beginning, and will be there after the end. I
> > > feel that God exists both within and without of time, as time is a part of
> > > God, as much as flowing blood is a part of us.
>
> > But this is all wishfulfilment without proof. It is nothing more that
> > the working of a fertile imagination. If god exists outside time then
> > there is no time for him to ACT in the the world. God is unable to
> > effect change or have the slightest affect on any physical element in
> > time. If god is outside the temporal then it is not possible for god
> > to "flow"!
>
> (eternity)
>
> Keep in mind that to me, God is all--this includes the things inside
> of the temporal and outside. Change itself. God doesn't have an
> effect, and nor does he affect anything -- because, again, he is not
> an entity. God doesn't flow, time flows within God.
But we've all heard this before: I'm not sure what god is, so god is
everything. It sort of defeats the point of having a god if it is in
no way distinctive to everything we have.
>
>
> > > (chaz)
>
> > > > If it lives outside the "temporal" then what is the point of it and
> > > > how do we have evidence of it?
Have you answered this one?
>
> > > (eternity)
>
> > > Why do we seem to think we're the "highest" form of being. Just because we
> > > don't understand it, or have no evidence of it, does NOT mean that it
> > > doesn't exist -- just that evidence has not been found.
>
> > Sorry.... is this your answer??? If it is it fails to satisfy! WHy has
> > this got anything to do with the question at hand.
> I think it is
Why do you think this has anything to do with the question at hand.
You seem to be saying that anyting you cannot disprove MUST be true.
In fact that is exactly what you are saying.
> > probably given the vast numbers of stars in the universe that there
> > are "higher" being that have evolved on other planets, but that does
> > not allow a being to have existed before it had the ability to evolve.
> > Just because a thing is not proven it does not give you carte blanche
> > to invent anything you like! Where will it all end?
> > There is a being that is higher than you god called Nigel he lives on
> > Mars and is invisible - he helps me out a lot. He deficates versions
> > of your god every morning and feeds them to his pet frogboglic called
> > Billie.
>
> (eternity)
> Notice that I had continued my answer. And your "Nigel" also exists
> within my "God". If it exists, if it doesn't exist, it is within my
> "God". What does this have to do with the question? It is a
> possibility.
So you are now saying that god is a possibiliity?
>
> > > How many things do
> > > we find on a regular basis on our own tiny little planet that we had no clue
> > > existed--and no real evidence of until it was found?
>
> > That is no evidence for a being outside of time, my friend!
>
> (eternity)
> You're right. Based, again, on the definition listed by me God is not
> a "being". Therefore this "outside of time" should no longer be an
> issue.
SO god is everything; outside of time; and not a being. You are saying
that god is either an inanimate object of has no existence at all. To
"be" is to exist. Even a rock has existence! You are saying there is
no god!
>
>
>
> > > Not everything needs a "Point" based on our definition. Keep in mind that
> > > the overall definition of God by both Pottsie and I (with minor
> > > interpretation differences, I'm sure) is that it is not a being, but rather
> > > the state of all being. It is not a larger entity seperate from us.
>
> > You can invent any version of god you like, but that does not mean you
> > are not in a state of delusion.
>
> (eternity)
> And you can think whatever you'd like, but that also does not mean
> that you're not in a state of delusion. You're right, we have no proof
> about what God is, but you can't tell me that existance doesn't exist
That is frankly, laughable. You may continue to invent, but you will
have to accept that many people will consider your position as utter
fantasy if you have no reason or evidence to support your viewpoint.
> > > (chaz)
>
> > > > How would we know it exists at all?
>
> > > (eternity)
>
> > > You don't know. You can only *know*. How do you know you even exist?
>
> > That is no answer! If I don't know I exist how the hell do you expect
> > me to beleive in your fantasy?
>
> (eternity)
>
> You can believe whatever you'd like -- this is a philosophy discussion
> board;
No, this is not a philosophy board. Try joining alt.philosophy and see
how far you get with this stuff. Philosophy is a broard church and
includes many activities, but this discussion fails to satify some of
the most basic characteristics of philosophy.
> the point is to potentially open yourself up to different ideas
> and viewpoints to understand what other believe, and where they are
> coming from to further expand your own viewpoints and opinions. It
> does not mean that you have to believe everything you read, just
> consider it.
But there is nothing in your words that bear consideration. You have
not supported you idea yet. I am still waiting.
>
> Your answer is no answer either. How do you know that you exist?
My answer: cogito ergo sum.
My existence is self evident. The simple evidence of my continued
presence is that upon which my definition of "exist" rests. When I
expire I shall not have that evidence, before I was born that evidence
did not exist. I write therefore I exist, I eat therefore I exist.
Do you even know what "exist" means.
>
>
>
> > > (chaz)
>
> > > > What is the difference in saying there is a green blob called Nigel
> > > > who lives outside the "temporal" to saying god does?
>
> > > (eternity)
> > > An object lives inside of the temporal. Green blobs would have a beginning,
> > > and an end, as well as exist within time. That's the difference. God is not
> > > "material" that is seperate, but rather "everything" that is known to exist,
> > > to have existed, and to eventual exist, as well as everything not in
> > > existance.
>
> > > (chaz)
>
> > > This is why it is utterly incoherent.
>
> > What is the point of beleiving in an incoherent entity, which has no
> > power to affect the universe? It might as well not exist. Have you
> > ever considered that there might be no god. That the complete lack of
> > evidence is due to that fact? That the impossiblity of there being any
> > evidence for such a thing is becasue there is no such thing?
>
> (Eternity)
>
> You do not seem to be able to grasp the idea that "all is god". This
> means EVERYTHING.
Then why not call the idea "everything" why are you confusing it the
idea with the word "god". What psychological need are you fulfilling
that demands that you replace "everything" with "god"?
You are now in a state of contradition. Time and temporality is part
of everything. But you are insisting that "god" is not part of
temporality therefore "it" cannot be "everything"
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_contingency#The_argument_f...
> The argument from contingency
Been there, seen it, read the book, bought the t-shirt, rejected the
argument.
NEXT.
>
> In the scholastic era, it was unknown whether the universe had a
> beginning or whether it had always existed. To account for both
> possibilities, Aquinas formulated the "argument from contingency".
> Aquinas follows Aristotle in claiming that there must be something
> which explains why the universe exists. Since the universe could,
> under different circumstances, conceivably not exist--that is to say,
> since it is contingent--its existence must have a cause. And that
> cause cannot simply be another contingent thing, it must be something
> which exists by necessity, that is, it must be something which must
> exist in order for anything else to exist.[3] In other words, even if
> the universe has always existed, it still owes that existence to
> Aristotle's Uncaused Cause,[4] though Aquinas used the words "...and
> this we understand to be God".[5]
>
>
>
Have you anything else?
chazwin
I think you might need to read that again, take a breath and ask
yourslef what it is you think you are actually doing!
chazwin
On Apr 2, 12:45 pm, "Erica Moreau" <ericamor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I can't wait until I can take a Philosophy class. :p Should be fun to
> sit in a room with a bunch of high school students and .... Okay. Not
> fun.
I think you might be a little surprised at what you find there.
>
> On 4/2/07, Pottsie <pottsie...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > You tell 'em, girl! =)
>
> > It is absolutely amazing to me that Atheists deny God
> > exists.....when He/She/It is Existence Itself. They
> > will scream and scream that God doesn't exist, while
> > all the time they have in their minds an idea of A
> > being OUTSIDE of existence ie An anthropomorphic
> > being....which any thinking Theist, like Tillich, will
> > ALSO admit does not exist.
>
> > When you try to explain what you mean.....they simply
> > won't listen. Pity. It is the epitome of closed
> > mindedness.
>
> > Namaste
>
> > Pottsie
>
> > --- Erica Moreau <ericamor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > "God does not exist. He is being itself beyond
> > > essence and existence.
> > > Therefore to argue that God exists is to deny him."
>
> > > -Paul Tillich -
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tillich
>
> > "Knowledge of apparent Good and apparent Evil is what perpetuates my apparent separation from God."- Pottsie
>
> > ____________________________________________________________________________________
> > Bored stiff? Loosen up...
> > Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games.
> >http://games.yahoo.com/games/front- Hide quoted text -
paradox
physical processes (as you suggest), and consequently governed by
physical laws, then knowledge of "existence" is logically bounded by
those same physical laws, is it not?
Pottsie
chazwin <chaz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
My answer: cogito ergo sum.
My existence is self evident. The simple evidence of my continued
presence is that upon which my definition of "exist" rests. When I
expire I shall not have that evidence, before I was born that evidence
did not exist. I write therefore I exist, I eat therefore I exist.
Do you even know what "exist" means.
(Pottsie)Yep. SUM......Total......All.I guess that about SUMS it up.I think, therefore, I am. I have identity. Identity. Individual. Un-dividable...ONE. SUM. I AM. Which translated into Hebrew is Jehovah.NamastePottsie
"Knowledge of apparent Good and apparent Evil is what perpetuates my apparent separation from God."- Pottsie
Looking for earth-friendly autos?
Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center.
chazwin
On Apr 2, 10:01 pm, "paradox" <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Chaz, i'm confused; if "mind" is no more than (the result of?)
> physical processes (as you suggest), and consequently governed by
> physical laws, then knowledge of "existence" is logically bounded by
> those same physical laws, is it not?
Sorry to sound obtuse but... So what?
I fail to see a problem here.
Mind is indeed bound by bio-chemical, and bio-electric effects upon
the physicaltiy of the brain. This is easily demonstrated by taking
drugs, electric shock treatment, and injury. It is also clear that
loss of parts of the brain results in loss of personality, ask any
alzeimer patient's friends and family.
>
> On 2 Apr, 21:35, "chazwin" <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > My answer: cogito ergo sum.
> > My existence is self evident. The simple evidence of my continued
> > presence is that upon which my definition of "exist" rests. When I
> > expire I shall not have that evidence, before I was born that evidence
> > did not exist. I write therefore I exist, I eat therefore I exist.
> > Do you even know what "exist" means?
chazwin
On Apr 2, 10:18 pm, Pottsie <pottsie...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> My answer: cogito ergo sum.
> My existence is self evident. The simple evidence of my continued
> presence is that upon which my definition of "exist" rests. When I
> expire I shall not have that evidence, before I was born that evidence
> did not exist. I write therefore I exist, I eat therefore I exist.
> Do you even know what "exist" means.
>
> (Pottsie)
>
> Yep. SUM......Total......All.
>
> I guess that about SUMS it up.
>
> I think, therefore, I am. I have identity. Identity. Individual. Un-dividable...ONE. SUM.
Your word-salad is nil demonstrandum.
I AM. Which translated into Hebrew is Jehovah.
I thought that you asked us to reject the god of the bible?
>
> Namaste
>
> Pottsie
>
> "Knowledge of apparent Good and apparent Evil is what perpetuates my apparent separation from God."- Pottsie
>
> ---------------------------------
Ian Pollard
Lee,
According to you, almost everything is subjective.
Working from that premise, I'd like to suggest that some ideas hold
more water than others. I "know" that the sun rises about 6am at the
moment. I see it every morning out of the windows of my house. I
believe it to be true because I've seen it. I believe natural
selection is true, because I've seen overwhelming evidence for it at
group, individual, and genetic level.
Now, deciding to believe in some really big idea like "God" and join a
religious cult would surely demand an enormous amount evidential
confirmation? You must be able to give me something, surely? Or are
you just going on a whim to satisfy some emotion or other?
Ian Pollard
>
> Ian, I would love to know what you are referring to
> when you use the word "God". The only comments you
> make about God are these sorts of statements.....but
> you never state what it is that you are referring to.
For the record, I am talking about God in any form you or anyone else
can think of; every God-fantasy in this very thread in fact.
I am frankly staggered by the need in intelligent people to believe in
such paltry ideas as written here. Truly, if God is as any of you
describe, then I am hugely disappointed.
EternityGrace
classes with these kids.
> > >http://games.yahoo.com/games/front-Hide quoted text -
EternityGrace
EternityGrace
(Eternity)
Yes. I have! Jesus. Do you understand what temporal means?
EternityGrace
> > (eternity)
>
> > You can believe whatever you'd like -- this is a philosophy discussion
> > board;
>(chaz)
> No, this is not a philosophy board.
(eternity)
Interesting.
http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye/about
Description A Forum to RATIONALLY express your ideas on: Religion,
Philosophy, Literature, the Fine Arts, etc.
0% tolerance for SPAM. We remove all SPAM, report the abuse to
google, and ban the member for life.
Public website http://dubiousprofundity.com/index.php
Categories
Science and Technology >Social Sciences
Science and Technology >Philosophy
Society >Religion and Spirituality >Philosophy of Religion
paradox
logical consistency: here's the preface...
> > > (chaz)
> > > > How would we know it [God] exists at all?
> > > (eternity)
> > > You don't know. You can only *know*. How do you know you even exist?
> > > (chaz)
> > That is no answer! If I don't know I exist how the hell do you expect
> > me to beleive in your fantasy?
> > > My answer: cogito ergo sum.
> > > My existence is self evident. The simple evidence of my continued
> > > presence is that upon which my definition of "exist" rests. When I
> > > expire I shall not have that evidence, before I was born that evidence
> > > did not exist. I write therefore I exist, I eat therefore I exist.
What you are suggesting is that your consciousness of the physical
world, yourself included, is your evidence of your existence; my point
is that if your consciousness is the result of physical processes
subject to physical laws, then they are limited by those laws; in
other words, you only know you exist because of the operation of those
physical laws; we have no way (yet) to determine the independent
existence of possible domains that operate according to either
alternative or supervenient fundamental laws. In other words, and in
this sense, "cogito ergo sum" is an egocentric tautology. That, i
think, is the point that Erica was alluding to.
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Ian Pollard
>
> What you are suggesting is that your consciousness of the physical
> world, yourself included, is your evidence of your existence; my point
> is that if your consciousness is the result of physical processes
> subject to physical laws, then they are limited by those laws; in
> other words, you only know you exist because of the operation of those
> physical laws; we have no way (yet) to determine the independent
> existence of possible domains that operate according to either
> alternative or supervenient fundamental laws. In other words, and in
> this sense, "cogito ergo sum" is an egocentric tautology. That, i
> think, is the point that Erica was alluding to.
Piffle.
Provide demonstrable evidence, or grounds for a reasoned assumption,
that there may be "other domains" that "obey alternative laws". You
can't, can you? Just your own flights of idle fantasy. Shall we
discuss Bertrand Russell's teapot again?
Lee
Granted what you say is correct. And as you well know yourself there
can be no objective evidance for faith based belife, that sorta
negates the faith bit ot it yeah!
So I wonder what your purpose is when you ask us to:
'demonstrate to me how "God is all"'
I mean, I know that you don't belive such a thing as God exists, and
thing that I am rather silly for beliveg such a thing does. So of
course I realise that you ask such a question to be funny(hence my
response), or to have a dig(hence my response) , or just general
larking around(hence my response).
On the other hand, if you ask it because you feel the need to go
through the whole, objective evidance vs subjective evidance thing
again, heh then ask away my hair conciosue friend, and I shall lay
your mind at rest!
Erica Moreau
To me, this All is God.
To Ian, this all is just all. But the Just All is my God.
(At least for now -- still flexible in my beliefs)
Ian Pollard
>
> All exists. Proven. Err, essentially proven.
>
> To me, this All is God.
>
> To Ian, this all is just all. But the Just All is my God.
>
> (At least for now -- still flexible in my beliefs)
Okay, maybe we're getting to the crux of this.
Why do you feel the need to call this so-called "all" God? That
carries some very far-reaching connotations.
Lee
I like Ian, I think he is a very nice chap, and intelegent to boot,
yet when I have accused him in the past of an emotional view of
religoin he has thoughly denied it time, and time agian.
Yet in this post he tells of his dismay, his staggering
incomprehension that some people would choose to belive in God. He
literaly can't understand.
Yet I wonder where this certianty that there is no God comes from?
Could Ian demonstrate for us how he knows this?
On 3 Apr, 08:05, "Ian Pollard" <ian.poll...@gmail.com> wrote:
Erica Moreau
Because I believe that the "All" is an intricate connection that we
are a spiritual part of -- That is the energy within is directly
connected to all other energy; That the body is more than just the
body, and that the soul itself is part of a "higher dimension (5th?)".
I believe that our recognition of this energy connection is what
people refer to as "God" and what they claim that they feel when they
can feel God's presence.
I guess. I dunno. I'm tired. Leave me alone. 8-D
paradox
On 3 Apr, 09:57, "Ian Pollard" <ian.poll...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Piffle.
You think so? You may be right. How would you know?
> Provide demonstrable evidence, or grounds for a reasoned assumption,
> that there may be "other domains" that "obey alternative laws". You
> can't, can you?
I repeat, "we have no way (yet) to determine the independent existence
of possible domains that operate according to either alternative or
supervenient fundamental laws".
Just your own flights of idle fantasy.
Thought that was what all thought is?
> Shall we discuss Bertrand Russell's teapot again?
Sure; do you have some insight here, Ian?
Lee
Heheh Now it probably looks like I'm picking on every one of your
posts. Lets just say that the way you word you posts, provoke a
greater emotioanl response from me, and so your posts are the ones
that I most want to address, that out of the way.
What you are talking abotu Ian, cn again be found in the scientific
commuinty, I'm sure that you have heard of Brane Theory. The
cosmolocical theory of multipule universes, some of which have more
than three dimensions, and thus a differant set of scientific laws
than our own.
Would you say then that these are also flights of fantasy or piffle?
Or would you be properad to listen to aruguments for it?
On 3 Apr, 09:57, "Ian Pollard" <ian.poll...@gmail.com> wrote:
Erica Moreau
On 4/3/07, Lee <l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
>
Lee
>
> I AM. Which translated into Hebrew is Jehovah.
>
> I thought that you asked us to reject the god of the bible?
What since when? I always understond that in Hebrew the word Jehovah
was spelt JHVH, or perhaps even YHVH? I am? 'What you talking about
Willis?'
Lee
Look at it from the other end.
You live on a planet called Earth, it is made up of land and sea,
gases, and magnetic poles and all types of flauera and fuana. Would
you then ask why we call this Earth? We do so beacuse that is what
it's label is, how we know it, what we definie it as.
On 3 Apr, 10:09, "Ian Pollard" <ian.poll...@gmail.com> wrote:
paradox
> > > -- Vroomfondel- Hide quoted text -
Ian Pollard
And, really, they are theoretical cosmology -- so quite close to
flights of fantasy! I certainly wouldn't be looking to base my core
beliefs or my life around the ideas.
Not analogous, I'm afraid. :)
T
we undertake the impossible task of defining and summing up the
existence of everything as God? I would think that the usage of such
neatly packaged and framed references would be more necessary to
portray an entity with specific attributes and parameters. And we
certainly would not care to anthropomorphize the sum total of
everything. Especially when we haven't the capacity to comprehend the
sum total of everything. We are an infinitessimal speck floating in
infinite overlapping rings of order and corresponding disorder that to
our most revered minds (being the whole of their individual
perceptions and life's work) is all theory. Why then do we need to
package, frame and present our brand of regard for what we cannot even
pretend to fully recognize?
Ian Pollard
>
> You live on a planet called Earth, it is made up of land and sea,
> gases, and magnetic poles and all types of flauera and fuana. Would
> you then ask why we call this Earth? We do so beacuse that is what
> it's label is, how we know it, what we definie it as.
My question was a theological/philosophical one, not a semantic one.
Forget the word; it's the concept.
Ian Pollard
I'm at work at the moment, so I can't watch that video. However, was
there a specific point you were wanting to make about science and
spirituality? The differences are absolute to me. Short of deliberate
and dishonest conflation to promote a dubious agenda, I can't imagine
why someone would perhaps try to muddle the two.
Lee
Then it is still a strange question to ask. She calles it God because
she is religous, yet you know this, so once again short of you just
trying to have a pop, I fail to see the reason for the question?