God

Originally posted by Agerg
An outright no - I do not believe "God" exists. Indeed I go further to say I don't even consider myself as agnostic about this - I firmly convinced it is make-believe. Moreover if (for the sake of intellectual honesty) I have to be agnostic, then the extent to which I doubt my conviction it doesn't exist is less than my conviction 4.2944626494857362595736 + sqrt(3) is not your lucky number.

Well i cant fault that logic - never have. Neither did the buddhists. (Well most of them🙂 )

I guess I was trying to get at different ideas of God with this thread as it is quite clear that no one has any one idea that is universal and satisfies all logical posters (and all possible , logical questions), except maybe this complete denial ,like you have shown here.

Well if there ever was a god it would've had to have started with you because thats the only way it could make sense. But it cant make sense as a logical structure because of it's non rational nature.
It is an invisible force of nature, but even that is not exactly god. I'm happy with a caricature or with an existensial analogy to point to "God", I dont try to define It precisely as this has always caused more problems than it has solved..

So yeah, either god is everywhere, in everything and therefor cant be distinguished from what is not god, or like you say , there is no god.
edit: or so I reckon

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Well i cant fault that logic - never have. Neither did the buddhists. (Well most of them🙂 )

I guess I was trying to get at different ideas of God with this thread as it is quite clear that no one has any one idea that is universal and satisfies all logical posters (and all possible , logical questions), except maybe this complete denial ,like you ha istinguished from what is not god, or like you say , there is no god.
edit: or so I reckon

So yeah, either god is everywhere, in everything and therefor cant be distinguished from what is not god, or like you say , there is no god.
I was careful to stipulate I was referring to "God" as opposed to some undefined "god". Indeed I don't say there is no god because I simply don't have a workable definition of that term (little 'g'😉.
But at any rate, you cannot make the conclusion you make here. Even if there did exist some sort of supernatural thing - some sort of god, it doesn't have to be "everywhere" at all. Indeed such a thing might exist at only one point, for a limited amount of time, and limited to being capable of precisely one thing for all we know!

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]So yeah, either god is everywhere, in everything and therefor cant be distinguished from what is not god, or like you say , there is no god.
I was careful to stipulate I was referring to "God" as opposed to some undefined "god". Indeed I don't say there is no god because I simply don't have a workable definition of that term (little 'g'😉.
But at any amount of time, and limited to being capable of precisely one thing for all we know![/b]

Indeed, well one thing I know about eternity, if our "original faces" are timeless(eternal) then I doubt we would experience that (eternity) encased as we are in these meat sacks. Or any other similarly athropomorphized get ups.

What do you think of this, (I like it) ? "When things are doing their jobs properly then they aren't noticed at all."
Then again i wonder about twiteheads alleged "telepathy machine" too and wonder what lengths someone would go just to offer a feasible, if unlikely proposition to explain my bizarre thoughts. Same with the two guys putting their hands up for a whole bunch of crop circles. how many did they do again? Or did they just lose count because they were having so much fun?

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]So yeah, either god is everywhere, in everything and therefor cant be distinguished from what is not god, or like you say , there is no god.
I was careful to stipulate I was referring to "God" as opposed to some undefined "god". Indeed I don't say there is no god because I simply don't have a workable definition of that term (little 'g'😉.
But at any amount of time, and limited to being capable of precisely one thing for all we know![/b]

I think the only valid view on the subject comes from within.
Humans learn by mimicking but intuition starts to play a more prominent part in ones thinking as one gets older.
So while the only way forward is to eliminate that which is wrong and what you have left must be true (at least in part- at least in this theory 🙂 )

Eliminate that which is false. Find that which is true.
Eliminating falsities is done everyday by just about anyone. Finding that which is true is more like finding your piece of the jigsaw. Like someone playing a guitar for 20 years,(assuming he/she was getting into it and improving,etc.), they "learn" things about the guitar . The way that instrument can affect music. How to talk with a guitar without making any noise.How a 50 cent piece of plastic can sometimes be the most important thing in the world. And a whole bunch of other lessons and nuances that will ultimatetly please the guitarist more than hir audience.
Now there's never going to be anyone quite like you. Even twins testify to this. People are unique in a very enigmatic way. So I reckon, if any "truth" (or corner of the jigsaw),to be found, it will only be found by you - if there is one to be found in the first place.
Do you also believe we are 3-d?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Indeed, well one thing I know about eternity, if our "original faces" are timeless(eternal) then I doubt we would experience that (eternity) encased as we are in these meat sacks. Or any other similarly athropomorphized get ups.

What do you think of this, (I like it) ? "When things are doing their jobs properly then they aren't noticed at all."
Then ...[text shortened]... many did they do again? Or did they just lose count because they were having so much fun?

Indeed, well one thing I know about eternity, if our "original faces" are timeless(eternal) then I doubt we would experience that (eternity) encased as we are in these meat sacks. Or any other similarly athropomorphized get ups.
Not sure what you're saying here since you hid an "I doubt" inside a statement you claim to be (at least) one thing know about eternity.
If I remove the "I doubt" bit and just negate the rest of it then you're claiming far more than you can justify; on the otherhand if the "well one thing I know" part was mistakenly typed then...well...probably - but what you envision it would be may be far more appealing that what it (hypothetically) actually is.

What do you think of this, (I like it) ? "When things are doing their jobs properly then they aren't noticed at all."
Makes sense - if for no reason other than you don't have to think about fixing or complaining about them.

Then again i wonder about twiteheads alleged "telepathy machine" too and wonder what lengths someone would go just to offer a feasible, if unlikely proposition to explain my bizarre thoughts.
Couldn't even begin to explain them - or understand them ;]

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I think the only valid view on the subject comes from within.
Humans learn by mimicking but intuition starts to play a more prominent part in ones thinking as one gets older.
So while the only way forward is to eliminate that which is wrong and what you have left must be true (at least in part- at least in this theory 🙂 )

Eliminate that which is by you - if there is one to be found in the first place.
Do you also believe we are 3-d?

I think the only valid view on the subject comes from within.
Humans learn by mimicking but intuition starts to play a more prominent part in ones thinking as one gets older.
Conversely I think the only valid view on the subject (of little 'g' god - wh) is the empty view (or in other words - no view at all) since we are equipped to know/infer/reason about no element of the so-called supernatural.

Eliminate that which is false. Find that which is true.
Eliminating falsities is done everyday by just about anyone. Finding that which is true is more like finding your piece of the jigsaw. Like someone playing a guitar for 20 years,(assuming he/she was getting into it and improving,etc.), they "learn" things about the guitar . The way that instrument can affect music. How to talk with a guitar without making any noise.How a 50 cent piece of plastic can sometimes be the most important thing in the world. And a whole bunch of other lessons and nuances that will ultimatetly please the guitarist more than hir audience.
Now there's never going to be anyone quite like you. Even twins testify to this. People are unique in a very enigmatic way. So I reckon, if any "truth" (or corner of the jigsaw),to be found, it will only be found by you - if there is one to be found in the first place.
Yes, we often converge upon, then hone our skills in activities that compliment our physical/mental abilities - no argument there; but that said, by no generous abstraction I can think of do I see how the "eliminating falsities" notion you mention here goes any way to justifying your own inner notions of "god".

Do you also believe we are 3-d?
I see no reason to ponder about any dimensions fully specifying us other than the 3 spatial dimensions ad 1 time dimension we are all so familiar with.

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]I think the only valid view on the subject comes from within.
Humans learn by mimicking but intuition starts to play a more prominent part in ones thinking as one gets older.
Conversely I think the only valid view on the subject (of little 'g' god - wh) is the empty view (or in other words - no view at all) since we are equipped to know/infer/ other than the 3 spatial dimensions ad 1 time dimension we are all so familiar with.[/b]

Eliminating falsities...well yes and no. But generally speaking that is the general doctrine I am evoking here. That is where at the beginning all is well and mountains are mountains, it is said when one becomes interested in buddhahood (an interchangeable noun here with "universe" or "dharma" , etc.) and seeks it earnestly mountains are no longer mountains but , after enlightenment mountains are mountains again.
Time and time again we are lead back to this simple story. Not just any story. It is supposed to be a story about everyone's journey.But everytime it is told there is a slightly different nuance and emphasis depending on who is listening.

If I sound like I'm trying to justify my notions of 'god' then thats not exactly my intention . My notions are for me and I'm somehow trying to work with your words here because, as you probably have realized, you and some other atheists here, sound like buddhists half the time you speak about "God" anyway. 🙂

Now isn't that odd. Not only that but I'm sure most of you, if not all of you have absolutely no intention of evoking buddhism when they speak.

(I'm just jumping around here, I hope my answer is alright - at least a bit enjoyable on some level 🙂 )

So you would call the "force of animation" "time" ?
Because "time" sounds like a very limited description of what would be the fourth dimension.
And I think there is some "force of animation" (perhaps even a spark of "intelligence"(whatever that is) ), that moves my 3d body around. Anyway I wouldn't call it "time". Time through which we enter into this world. Time that is slowed down so we can weed through a life or two at a pace where the info will make sense. Hopefully at a pace where the timing will be just right for all of us, or as many as practically possible, to understand fully what our lives mean to us. Not that they mean anything out here. No sireee.

But whereas I dream and immediately see the purpose to my life, written a thousand different ways by the dream writers, others see dreaming as a result of chemical interactions taking part in the brain.
Now I'm sure some interactions are taking place in my brain but when I see myself in a dream I have no doubt that that is a fourth dimensional body I see. A body that can have many adventures all around the world in only 15 minutes or conversely a body that can make time seem like it has nearly stopped. And thats just the tip of the iceberg.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Point blank question: Do you believe in "God" (with a big "g" ) in any way shape or form?

I do, but my concepts of "God" do not seem to coincide with any other posters here except maybe a few who seem to deny the existence of "God".

I feel I am all alone in my beliefs and yet no one can come close to explaining to me why I am wrong.

But lets just keep it simple to start with, eh?

I do not believe in any previously postulated gods. But...if we accept James Lovelocks's 'Gaia hypothesis', then we may re-conceptualize the earth itself as 'god'. If so, then perhaps we could accommodate ourselves with a 'god hypothesis' with a small 'g'.

Originally posted by rwingett
I do not believe in any previously postulated gods. But...if we accept James Lovelocks's 'Gaia hypothesis', then we may re-conceptualize the earth itself as 'god'. If so, then perhaps we could accommodate ourselves with a 'god hypothesis' with a small 'g'.

The Earth may be a living entity in its own right but the idea of god V God seems to me like thinking about god as our universe being one cell in a multidimensional being, like in a body, apoptosis taking out cells that are about to go rogue, our universe may be like that, part of a multidimensional body that somehow co-ordinates energies and movement among whole universes, if so, something we as humans would never be able to understand in a billion years much less our lifetimes.

That concept could explain why our universe was born, where it came from, what function it is doing for the larger body we can't see and where it is going, since no cell lasts forever, it does the larger body good to end its existence to make room for new cell universes.

That is not what I necessarily believe in, just pointing out there may be more to this god thing than we could EVER understand.

The gist of all that would go to show why there is no interaction between such a god and the Earth, it would be like humans trying to interact with a single quark.

Originally posted by sonhouse
The Earth may be a living entity in its own right but the idea of god V God seems to me like thinking about god as our universe being one cell in a multidimensional being, like in a body, apoptosis taking out cells that are about to go rogue, our universe may be like that, part of a multidimensional body that somehow co-ordinates energies and movement among tween such a god and the Earth, it would be like humans trying to interact with a single quark.

"The gist of all that would go to show why there is no interaction between such a god and the Earth, it would be like humans trying to interact with a single quark."

Somehow this reminds me of the last minute of Men in Black.

YouTube

Originally posted by rwingett
I do not believe in any previously postulated gods. But...if we accept James Lovelocks's 'Gaia hypothesis', then we may re-conceptualize the earth itself as 'god'. If so, then perhaps we could accommodate ourselves with a 'god hypothesis' with a small 'g'.

It's admirable that you would bring this up but I fear the christians just aren't going to buy into this very much. So as much as we could accomodate ourselves with a god-hypothesis it's worth noting the opening quote on avalanchethecats profile : "Believe those who are seeking the truth, doubt those that find it.", and how "the truth" (whether it be biblical or scientific) comes back to one's understanding of his own ego and it's place in the whole world.

Now many mysteries of the human body and psyche have been discovered by Hindus and bhuddists (not so much by christians).
We need not starve our bodies to find out how long we can go without food. We can quickly learn from others what it took them years to learn,like the Buddha's practice of asthetics. Apparently he starved himself and performed some very difficult and painful yoga to "seek" his truth only to discover the middle way. Only to find a very humane and intelligent point of focus in his being which was directing him beyond his ego which showed him the way beyond all opposites, all poles. It took me about 5 minutes to understand that part of his 6year journey.

So is there anything new under the sun or do we keep coming upon the same energies disguised in different forms to keep teaching us the same lessons that were permeating between master and pupil for thousands of years? And are our technologies in synch with the Gaia principle?Do we place too much faith in technology? Or are we teetering on the edge of massive mistake in human history?
Well one thing I know, while we may have to look back to learn from the past, there is no adequate past lesson or even a combination of lessons that will solve our current dilemma. This is a unique pickle and it's going to take some unique answers, not previously found in our history. It's also going to take some unique people who can easily think outside the box and come up with workeable ideas. (And then we have to motivate a political body to get behind these ideas 😛 I'll leave that bit to someone else )

Please note: when I say "current dilemma" I mean the inevitable end of the lifeforce as it inhabits a physical body. The "end" could be apocalyptic in nature, it could be mini-apocalyptic, it could be masses of people dying or it could just be you. See you wouldn't know .
And even in the Twighlight Zone where the guy thought he was trapped in a nuclear winter forever, it turned out that "they" had actually built a dome to put over the nuclear bombed city, so while the only guy alive in there in his bombshelter was going crazy thinking that the whole world was virtually gone , it was really his madness that made him stay in his bombshelter, getting ever more paranoid as to why the radiation levels weren't going down after a few months 🙂
(In the show the guy in the bomb shelter was the militant type, not listening to others, including his family, that change was possible,etc.)

Originally posted by sonhouse
The Earth may be a living entity in its own right but the idea of god V God seems to me like thinking about god as our universe being one cell in a multidimensional being, like in a body, apoptosis taking out cells that are about to go rogue, our universe may be like that, part of a multidimensional body that somehow co-ordinates energies and movement among tween such a god and the Earth, it would be like humans trying to interact with a single quark.

Yeah. It is a "god thing" and should be talked of in that sort of light, I reckon.
To know that "god" really represents the gap in knowledge between us and someone who knows how matter manifests. One who could possibly co-create physical realities, discovering their spiritual, naked selves and harbouring not a single doubt more about the universe and his/her place in it.
It is one who has realized that their original nature is Spirit, their ego and human side is only a costume that we wear until it is necessary.

My which friend said "When we lie on our stomachs , we embrace the world, holding to it tightly as we cower in uncertainty. When we lie on our backs we uncoil with our fronts to the stars and our back to the Earth."
She wasn't trying to tie this in with any other point but I haven't heard that anywhere else . She'd at least have to come from a universe where the Earth is spherical.
I thought it was at once a very shallow and also very deep insight into a persons relationship with their body and the planet.

I guess lying on your side means your feeling foetal 🙂

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Point blank question: Do you believe in "God" (with a big "g" ) in any way shape or form?

I do, but my concepts of "God" do not seem to coincide with any other posters here except maybe a few who seem to deny the existence of "God".

I feel I am all alone in my beliefs and yet no one can come close to explaining to me why I am wrong.

But lets just keep it simple to start with, eh?

Cheers Charlie. The difficulty is with the word for me. Its all embracing of so many different theistic ways of seeing. Theism/Pantheism/Panentheism.

I can say what I am not. I am not a scientific materialistic reductionist - that we are an accident that has emerged from a totally physical universe - minds that have just happened from clouds of inert gas and dust.

I'm not a creationist, but I think the designer argument has some force if we remove it from a separate "clockmaker" Designer Being. The design has designed itself if you like. The usual materialistic reductionist story is far more unbelievable to me, and much sounds as miraculous as any pop-up miracle myth.

Do I believe in "God" as usually conceived? No. Do I not believe in any sort of transcendent or Ground of existence beyond the physical? Definitely not.
(I think I align where you are coming from in your later posts here.)

One thing - if "God" is - he/she it will be well beyond our puny words to describe such, and will not be separate in any manner whatsoever from the manifested world. So where is God's boundary? A bit silly to me to even ask about boundaries with "God".

The implications of monotheism - God is One - are ill thought through usually. For starters - nothing can be outside of "God". Devil believers are not monotheists.


Most humans at present (perhaps always) need some visualization to approach the Ineffable. if its helpful, fine. But unfortunately we humans have a real tendency to project onto "God" our own view of the world leading to great harm sometimes. And unfortunately it is usually a blurred confusion of ill formed ideas that results, an unhelpful mash.

I prefer not to use the word for the above reasons.

Simple answer: yes


I just can't believe that the totality of everything just came into being without something or someone outside of this existence



Manny

Originally posted by menace71
Simple answer: yes


I just can't believe that the totality of everything just came into being without something or someone outside of this existence



Manny

Yes, but why sway toward the bible, and only the bible, for explanations of our origins?
(I apologize if you do in fact look elsewhere🙂 )