1. Account suspended
    Joined
    28 Feb '06
    Moves
    10868
    20 Apr '06 07:58
    Originally posted by howardgee

    I am still waiting for the people who believe in God to define it.
    God may be no more than an arrangement of chemicals in the brains of those who believe. It is my contention that even if that is all he may be, it does not necessarily devalue spirituality or religion, merely put it on a more up to date and realistic footing.
  2. Standard memberHalitose
    I stink, ergo I am
    On the rebound
    Joined
    14 Jul '05
    Moves
    4464
    20 Apr '06 13:40
    Originally posted by howardgee
    Kelly Jay and Halitose - you know you are lost when you can only answer a question with a question.

    Pathetic.
    I find that incongruous coming from a man who has had nothing but contempt, ridicule and scorn for my beliefs. Did you think I would be gullible enough to set myself up for another one of your tirades without ascertaining your intentions??
  3. Joined
    11 Jan '06
    Moves
    469
    20 Apr '06 14:22
    Hmmm, my definition of god precludes giving you a meaningful definition. 😀

    I define god as being that which, after having defined and conceptualised all that I can, still remains outside of my rational grasp.
  4. Cosmos
    Joined
    21 Jan '04
    Moves
    11184
    20 Apr '06 14:25
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    Simply trying to understand what your are asking for.
    I can give you plenty of things about God to descripbe Him, but that
    doesn't mean any of them are things you are looking for or will
    accept. You have after all, attempted to shot down a description
    already that was offered by another. So I want to know what it is
    you are looking for when someone trys to define or describe God
    to you.
    Kelly
    Stop prevaricating and just try to define God.
  5. Cosmos
    Joined
    21 Jan '04
    Moves
    11184
    20 Apr '06 14:28
    Originally posted by orfeo
    My point is that you are demanding something that far better writers than I find very difficult to do. I can describe myself as 6ft tall, 32 years old, etc etc, but defining myself in a satisfactory way without using those kind of (fairly meaningless) physical qualities is a lot harder.

    Seeing as God doesn't have those kinds of physical characteristics, yo ...[text shortened]... efining the character of ANYTHING without using a physical description of it is far from easy.
    You say that God "doesn't have those kinds of physical characteristics".

    Do you mean God is ethereal?

    Phew, finally we have a property of God, even if I had to give it myself.

    Any more?
  6. Cosmos
    Joined
    21 Jan '04
    Moves
    11184
    20 Apr '06 14:291 edit
    Originally posted by Halitose
    I find that incongruous coming from a man who has had nothing but contempt, ridicule and scorn for my beliefs. Did you think I would be gullible enough to set myself up for another one of your tirades without ascertaining your intentions??
    It is not incongruous; it is entirely consistent.
    (do you understand what incongruous means?)

    Now get on with defining God.
  7. DonationQuirine
    Tovenaar
    Dieren
    Joined
    20 Apr '02
    Moves
    355136
    20 Apr '06 22:25
    Originally posted by howardgee
    If there really is no difference; if God is love and love is God, then God is a redundant term.
    redundant? Does that mean they both mean the same thing?
    Then yes, redundant
  8. DonationQuirine
    Tovenaar
    Dieren
    Joined
    20 Apr '02
    Moves
    355136
    20 Apr '06 22:30
    Originally posted by amannion
    So if God is love, then why all this heathens in hell and fire and damnation? If he loves us all why aren't we all going to live in eternal bliss forever anyway.
    And come to think of it, why do we have to wait until we die? Why not just put everyone who ever was, or is, or will be, in heaven right now?
    hell, fire and damnation are products of human concepts, not a concept of God. At least not in my concept of God.
    As for the second remark of putting everyone in heaven right now: that is not (my concept of) God's way. God does not interfere in any way. We all are completely free to join God at any time.
  9. Standard memberfrogstomp
    Bruno's Ghost
    In a hot place
    Joined
    11 Sep '04
    Moves
    7707
    21 Apr '06 00:45
    Originally posted by howardgee
    It is not incongruous; it is entirely consistent.
    (do you understand what incongruous means?)

    Now get on with defining God.
    Raise the bar a little and ask for the underlying physics of God's being. Or at least the mechanism that God uses to perform His miracles.
  10. Cosmos
    Joined
    21 Jan '04
    Moves
    11184
    21 Apr '06 02:19
    Originally posted by frogstomp
    Raise the bar a little and ask for the underlying physics of God's being. Or at least the mechanism that God uses to perform His miracles.
    Ha ha, you must be joking, Frogstomp!

    So far we haven't had a single property of God defined by anyone other than me. What chance an explanation of the underlying physics!?!
  11. Standard memberorfeo
    Paralysed analyst
    On a ship of fools
    Joined
    26 May '04
    Moves
    25780
    21 Apr '06 02:28
    Originally posted by howardgee
    Ha ha, you must be joking, Frogstomp!

    So far we haven't had a single property of God defined by anyone other than me. What chance an explanation of the underlying physics!?!
    Well, I think I've already made clear that the assumption that the physical universe is all there is, is problematic.
  12. Cosmos
    Joined
    21 Jan '04
    Moves
    11184
    21 Apr '06 06:02
    Originally posted by orfeo
    Well, I think I've already made clear that the assumption that the physical universe is all there is, is problematic.
    You haven't.

    Whats that got to do with God's properties anyway?
  13. Standard memberorfeo
    Paralysed analyst
    On a ship of fools
    Joined
    26 May '04
    Moves
    25780
    21 Apr '06 07:58
    Originally posted by howardgee
    You haven't.

    Whats that got to do with God's properties anyway?
    You and frogstomp started talking about physics.
  14. Standard memberDavid C
    Flamenco Sketches
    Spain, in spirit
    Joined
    09 Sep '04
    Moves
    59422
    21 Apr '06 10:14
    Originally posted by orfeo
    Well, I think I've already made clear that the assumption that the physical universe is all there is, is problematic.
    Surely not in this thread. In what way is it "problematic"?
  15. Joined
    11 Jan '06
    Moves
    469
    21 Apr '06 11:13
    God is Transcendent:

    Merriam-Webster online dictionary:

    "Main Entry: tran·scen·dent
    Pronunciation: -d&nt
    Function: adjective
    Etymology: Latin transcendent-, transcendens, present participle of transcendere
    1 a : exceeding usual limits : SURPASSING
    b : extending or lying beyond the limits of ordinary experience
    c in Kantian philosophy : being beyond the limits of all possible experience and knowledge
    2 : being beyond comprehension
    3 : transcending the universe or material existence"
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree