God
-
Again, interesting. People have roughly known where we come from for thousands of years. In the last 50 biology has told us exactly how it works. So why isn't the intellect satisfied? Why does the intellect even begin to think there is something corresponding to "ultimate reality"? There is no utilitarian reason to think there is an ultimate reality or that we would garner any immediate, tangible benefit from knowing what is was. The drive isn't "intellectual" it is spiritual. JM
John McIlroy wrote: People have roughly known where we come from for thousands of years For the past few thousands of years people believed their local equivalent of the Christian's Genesis creation story to the letter. More recently (in the grand scale of things) we have began to find more and more evidence to the contrary. But, this was not my point. The intellect wasn't satisified because, as I stated, "Intellect seeks answers. Answers are not what intellect likes. Intellect invents answers." Intellect's answer is a supreme divine being. Intellect likes the sound of that... Which would you prefer: A crappy life where afterwards youm get to live in ecstasy for eternity, or a crappy life where you die and are remembered for maybe two generations. I know which i'd choose if I didn't know better. However, I suspect that "path" was not what you meant, and you actually meant more along the lines of "why would we develop the need to seek answers in the first place"? In which case, I have already answered you in my previous reply. Or was your question "none of the above"? ________________ David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk "I loathe people who keep dogs. They are cowards who haven't got the guts to bite people themselves" - August Strindberg
-
God is that which is responsible for what is. "But, daddy, that was back in the hippie ages..." My twelve year old son - winning the argument. "Stan, you are an intelligent guy who responds in meaningful ways" Paul Watson 16/10/01
God is that which is responsible for what is. I prefer Spinoza's concept of 'that which is its own efficient cause' - 'caus essui' if I recall the Latin phrase. The difference, I think, is that your statement doesn't necessarily make you a panthiest. Right. I'll stop telling you what you think and go tape some knobs on a couple of hockey sticks. :)
-
I doubt goldfish or gophers spend much time pondering existential truths. Are they self-aware??.. You didn't say what ur defn. of God was?
Warning: Do not execute #include "stdio.h" int main(void) { printf("12\t\b\b"); printf("12\t\b\b"); return 0; } Sonork ID 100.9997 sijinjoseph
Well this is really the kind of conversation you need to have after a few drinks in warm pub on a cold winter night. So I'm not really in a position to trot out an entire apologia... but I just always thought the "people invented God" argument was totally illogical. Our lives and language are full on non-physical ideas and concepts that directly point to a non-physical dimension of our experience here on earth. But I don't have the time or energy to develop the whole thesis here.
-
Again, interesting. People have roughly known where we come from for thousands of years. In the last 50 biology has told us exactly how it works. So why isn't the intellect satisfied? Why does the intellect even begin to think there is something corresponding to "ultimate reality"? There is no utilitarian reason to think there is an ultimate reality or that we would garner any immediate, tangible benefit from knowing what is was. The drive isn't "intellectual" it is spiritual. JM
So basically God wants us to think about him?.. There is no utilitarian reason to think there is an ultimate reality or that we would garner any immediate, tangible benefit from knowing what is was. Why not?..That is one of the biggest mysteries..if we can get such a rush squashing bugs(software ones) why wouldn't we want an answet to such a big question?.."Why do we exist?"
Warning: Do not execute #include "stdio.h" int main(void) { printf("12\t\b\b"); printf("12\t\b\b"); return 0; } Sonork ID 100.9997 sijinjoseph
-
Well this is really the kind of conversation you need to have after a few drinks in warm pub on a cold winter night. So I'm not really in a position to trot out an entire apologia... but I just always thought the "people invented God" argument was totally illogical. Our lives and language are full on non-physical ideas and concepts that directly point to a non-physical dimension of our experience here on earth. But I don't have the time or energy to develop the whole thesis here.
You buy the first round and i'll come. Deal? ;) ________________ David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk "I loathe people who keep dogs. They are cowards who haven't got the guts to bite people themselves" - August Strindberg
-
Well this is really the kind of conversation you need to have after a few drinks in warm pub on a cold winter night. So I'm not really in a position to trot out an entire apologia... but I just always thought the "people invented God" argument was totally illogical. Our lives and language are full on non-physical ideas and concepts that directly point to a non-physical dimension of our experience here on earth. But I don't have the time or energy to develop the whole thesis here.
Our lives and language are full on non-physical ideas and concepts that directly point to a non-physical dimension of our experience here on earth Well John you say a lot of deep stuff but you don't support anything with examples or proof.. Ok Let me ask you this...why did God create us?..
Warning: Do not execute #include "stdio.h" int main(void) { printf("12\t\b\b"); printf("12\t\b\b"); return 0; } Sonork ID 100.9997 sijinjoseph
-
John McIlroy wrote: People have roughly known where we come from for thousands of years For the past few thousands of years people believed their local equivalent of the Christian's Genesis creation story to the letter. More recently (in the grand scale of things) we have began to find more and more evidence to the contrary. But, this was not my point. The intellect wasn't satisified because, as I stated, "Intellect seeks answers. Answers are not what intellect likes. Intellect invents answers." Intellect's answer is a supreme divine being. Intellect likes the sound of that... Which would you prefer: A crappy life where afterwards youm get to live in ecstasy for eternity, or a crappy life where you die and are remembered for maybe two generations. I know which i'd choose if I didn't know better. However, I suspect that "path" was not what you meant, and you actually meant more along the lines of "why would we develop the need to seek answers in the first place"? In which case, I have already answered you in my previous reply. Or was your question "none of the above"? ________________ David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk "I loathe people who keep dogs. They are cowards who haven't got the guts to bite people themselves" - August Strindberg
Well... what can I say. Now you've invented intellect as the arbiter in determining "good" answers and "bad" answers. Ones it likes and ones it doesn't like. Let's first leave out the obvious limitation that intellect itself is a completely non-physical concept to begin with. If we are only going to deal with the physical and not the spiritual... intellect is one of the first things that we must leave behind. If intellect were really the faculty in question wouldn't it embrace that which is true and verifiable, and abandon that which is untrue and non-verifiable? Where would "like" enter the picture? But in reality, spirituality is only secondarily a function of the intellect, and even that is the junior partner. It is primarily a function of the will... to love. But like I said to fully develop these concepts would take a lot of effort and time... which are in short supply. But it seems foolhardy and spurious to use a non-physical, spiritual faculty like intellect as the rationale for the human invention of spiritual ideas like God.
-
Our lives and language are full on non-physical ideas and concepts that directly point to a non-physical dimension of our experience here on earth Well John you say a lot of deep stuff but you don't support anything with examples or proof.. Ok Let me ask you this...why did God create us?..
Warning: Do not execute #include "stdio.h" int main(void) { printf("12\t\b\b"); printf("12\t\b\b"); return 0; } Sonork ID 100.9997 sijinjoseph
Sijin As long as you are only going to ask the easy questions... Ok Let me ask you this...why did God create us?.. The long answer might take a few years on a mountaintop to fully understand... but the Baltimore Catechism short answer would be: "To know Him and serve Him in this life... and live with Him for eternity in the next life." JM
-
Well... what can I say. Now you've invented intellect as the arbiter in determining "good" answers and "bad" answers. Ones it likes and ones it doesn't like. Let's first leave out the obvious limitation that intellect itself is a completely non-physical concept to begin with. If we are only going to deal with the physical and not the spiritual... intellect is one of the first things that we must leave behind. If intellect were really the faculty in question wouldn't it embrace that which is true and verifiable, and abandon that which is untrue and non-verifiable? Where would "like" enter the picture? But in reality, spirituality is only secondarily a function of the intellect, and even that is the junior partner. It is primarily a function of the will... to love. But like I said to fully develop these concepts would take a lot of effort and time... which are in short supply. But it seems foolhardy and spurious to use a non-physical, spiritual faculty like intellect as the rationale for the human invention of spiritual ideas like God.
Okay, so maybe intellect was a bad choice of word. Maybe "intellectual being" would have been more appropriate. If intellect were really the faculty in question wouldn't it embrace that which is true and verifiable, and abandon that which is untrue and non-verifiable? If you ask a religion man if he believes his faith is based on the truth, what will he answer? Where would "like" enter the picture? Once upon a time, when man knew no better, he was asked by hid child "Daddy, why did Grandaddy die?". The man thought long and hard about this question, then as he had no idea, answered that the child's grandfather had gone to a place so wonderful that it couldn't be described; so brilliant that it couldn't be imagined. So convienient that the child could find no more questions to ask. In other words, the belief in a superhuman divine being will answer any question that you want. But it seems foolhardy and spurious to use a non-physical, spiritual faculty like intellect as the rationale for the human invention of spiritual ideas like God. Whoa - I never said this was where religion came from, only why religion is so easy for an intellectual being to adopt and embrace. I believe religion as we know it today was based on many things, primarily the need to answer basic questions such as why did grandaddy die, and why are we starving (thus heaven was formed); and also from rulers to put the fear of god into people and get them to obey their masters and not revolt ("and then there was hell"). Taking the Bible as an example, it was written over hundreds of years, no doubt based on countless different stories told through hundreds of generations. ________________ David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk All things are possible except skiing through a revolving door. — Murphy's Laws of Technology
-
God is that which is responsible for what is. I prefer Spinoza's concept of 'that which is its own efficient cause' - 'caus essui' if I recall the Latin phrase. The difference, I think, is that your statement doesn't necessarily make you a panthiest. Right. I'll stop telling you what you think and go tape some knobs on a couple of hockey sticks. :)
Tim, You're not a Thomist? I thought it was "esse principi." But God himself told us His name to Moses in Exodus. I believe He called himself.... "I AM who AM." That about sums it up! JM
-
Sijin As long as you are only going to ask the easy questions... Ok Let me ask you this...why did God create us?.. The long answer might take a few years on a mountaintop to fully understand... but the Baltimore Catechism short answer would be: "To know Him and serve Him in this life... and live with Him for eternity in the next life." JM
So basically he created some friends so he wouldn't be lonely, that would look after him and care for him. I couldn't have put it better myself, only I would make one small change (switch "god" with "man"). ________________ David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk "I loathe people who keep dogs. They are cowards who haven't got the guts to bite people themselves" - August Strindberg
-
Okay, so maybe intellect was a bad choice of word. Maybe "intellectual being" would have been more appropriate. If intellect were really the faculty in question wouldn't it embrace that which is true and verifiable, and abandon that which is untrue and non-verifiable? If you ask a religion man if he believes his faith is based on the truth, what will he answer? Where would "like" enter the picture? Once upon a time, when man knew no better, he was asked by hid child "Daddy, why did Grandaddy die?". The man thought long and hard about this question, then as he had no idea, answered that the child's grandfather had gone to a place so wonderful that it couldn't be described; so brilliant that it couldn't be imagined. So convienient that the child could find no more questions to ask. In other words, the belief in a superhuman divine being will answer any question that you want. But it seems foolhardy and spurious to use a non-physical, spiritual faculty like intellect as the rationale for the human invention of spiritual ideas like God. Whoa - I never said this was where religion came from, only why religion is so easy for an intellectual being to adopt and embrace. I believe religion as we know it today was based on many things, primarily the need to answer basic questions such as why did grandaddy die, and why are we starving (thus heaven was formed); and also from rulers to put the fear of god into people and get them to obey their masters and not revolt ("and then there was hell"). Taking the Bible as an example, it was written over hundreds of years, no doubt based on countless different stories told through hundreds of generations. ________________ David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk All things are possible except skiing through a revolving door. — Murphy's Laws of Technology
David... The thing I find so fascinating is the insistence that death and separation would be in any way frightening, unnatural or in need of an explanation if we lived in a world limited to the physical. If everything eventually died, and if death was as natural as eating and breathing... why would it raise any questions or fears at all. Why would an explanation be necessary? Who would ever think to ask the question? To a fish... breathing in water is no mystery. It is completely and totally "natural." It is a very basic question... why would anyone fear death, or require mysterious explanations for life and its meaning or ultimate reality if all any human being had ever known was a life that ended in death. If the physical is the only reality that there ever was... why would we have such a panic and unease at something that is such an integral part of that natural physical milieu? To me... the fear of death and separation... and the need for understanding ultimate realities is an indication that in fact "death" is very unnatural to us, not what we were created for, and very much against the way we were "spiritually" wired. For a spiritual creature created in God's image and destined to live forever... death is a wholly unnatural event that breeds fear and unease... and is all wrong... and therfore is demanding of explanations and rationals. If our exstince was completely and totally limited to the physical I doubt we would give death a second thought. Not that we wouldn't instinctually try and avoid death (although that is another interesting topic)... but it wouldn't be in any way "surprising" or "fearful" or in need of any fancy explanations of God to make more palpable. We would live and die and not give either the slightest consideration. JM
-
So basically he created some friends so he wouldn't be lonely, that would look after him and care for him. I couldn't have put it better myself, only I would make one small change (switch "god" with "man"). ________________ David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk "I loathe people who keep dogs. They are cowards who haven't got the guts to bite people themselves" - August Strindberg
I don't remember saying anything about lonely, but I guess three messages is about the limit in terms of refraining from juvenile ridicule.
-
Tim, You're not a Thomist? I thought it was "esse principi." But God himself told us His name to Moses in Exodus. I believe He called himself.... "I AM who AM." That about sums it up! JM
No - More's supreme being still implies a dichotomy between the creator and her creation. Check this link for more on what I was getting at: http://frank.mtsu.edu/~rbombard/RB/Spinoza/arg.html
-
I was initially going to post this in the Christian Thread but i guess it deserves a thread of it's own. Just wanted to know what ur definition of God is? and Do you think God created You or did You create God?
Warning: Do not execute #include "stdio.h" int main(void) { printf("12\t\b\b"); printf("12\t\b\b"); return 0; } Sonork ID 100.9997 sijinjoseph
It's a funny thing about God. He gives us enough evidence of His existance to believe in Him beyond a shadow of a doubt, if people would search for it with an open mind. While at the same time He left enough mystery, doubt, and evidence against Himself so that an Atheist could also be convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that He doesn't exist. You can't prove He does exist, but you can't prove he doesn't exist either. The theology behind this apparent contradiction is simple. If God left enough proof of himself so that there was absolutely no doubt in anyone's mind that he exists, then there would no longer be a choice involved in our faith in and obedience to him. We would simply have to, or be considered insane. God's ultimate motivation is for His people to love Him freely and truly. If we had no choice our love would not be as valueable to Him. Sort of like programming an artifical girl friend for yourself. She only does what she's programmed to do. She has no free will. So big deal. She HAS to love you. God is looking for people who freely, and truly love Him, inspite of all scientific arguments. Now no scientific or intellectual argument will ever convince a hard-core atheist that there is a God. They simply have chosen not to believe. I gave up arguing with such people long ago. It's pointless. They accuse "religious" people of blindly following fairy tales without examining the evidence, but at the same time they cling tenaciously to the age-old arguments against God (that have more holes in them than the Titanic) in the very same way. "Who created God then?"(how could the being who created time have a chronological begining?) or "If God is all-powerful and all-good why is there evil in the world?"(People have free choice, remember?) As far as man creating God to give themselves a purpose in life, or excuse to commit evil in the name of religion or whatever. I might believe this if we still lived in the days of the ancient Roman and Greek gods. They were just like us. They were created in our image, by small-minded men. They were lustful, greedy, jealous, full of pride. The real God, however, if you get to know him, is far more complicated, far higher above anything men could think up, and way too backward from us! People who use this argument don't really know God enough to support this idea. In fact the reason most athiests are atheists is because they don't know who God really is. One theologian said, "Tell me about the God you don't believe in and I probably wouldn't believe in him either."
-
It's a funny thing about God. He gives us enough evidence of His existance to believe in Him beyond a shadow of a doubt, if people would search for it with an open mind. While at the same time He left enough mystery, doubt, and evidence against Himself so that an Atheist could also be convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that He doesn't exist. You can't prove He does exist, but you can't prove he doesn't exist either. The theology behind this apparent contradiction is simple. If God left enough proof of himself so that there was absolutely no doubt in anyone's mind that he exists, then there would no longer be a choice involved in our faith in and obedience to him. We would simply have to, or be considered insane. God's ultimate motivation is for His people to love Him freely and truly. If we had no choice our love would not be as valueable to Him. Sort of like programming an artifical girl friend for yourself. She only does what she's programmed to do. She has no free will. So big deal. She HAS to love you. God is looking for people who freely, and truly love Him, inspite of all scientific arguments. Now no scientific or intellectual argument will ever convince a hard-core atheist that there is a God. They simply have chosen not to believe. I gave up arguing with such people long ago. It's pointless. They accuse "religious" people of blindly following fairy tales without examining the evidence, but at the same time they cling tenaciously to the age-old arguments against God (that have more holes in them than the Titanic) in the very same way. "Who created God then?"(how could the being who created time have a chronological begining?) or "If God is all-powerful and all-good why is there evil in the world?"(People have free choice, remember?) As far as man creating God to give themselves a purpose in life, or excuse to commit evil in the name of religion or whatever. I might believe this if we still lived in the days of the ancient Roman and Greek gods. They were just like us. They were created in our image, by small-minded men. They were lustful, greedy, jealous, full of pride. The real God, however, if you get to know him, is far more complicated, far higher above anything men could think up, and way too backward from us! People who use this argument don't really know God enough to support this idea. In fact the reason most athiests are atheists is because they don't know who God really is. One theologian said, "Tell me about the God you don't believe in and I probably wouldn't believe in him either."
Kevin Ranville wrote: You can't prove He does exist, but you can't prove he doesn't exist either. You *can* prove that He exists, but because of the issues related to free will, the proof is to the individual. Christian After all, there's nothing wrong with an elite as long as I'm allowed to be part of it!! - Mike Burston Oct 23, 2001
Sonork ID 100.10002:MeanManOz
I live in Bob's HungOut now
-
David... The thing I find so fascinating is the insistence that death and separation would be in any way frightening, unnatural or in need of an explanation if we lived in a world limited to the physical. If everything eventually died, and if death was as natural as eating and breathing... why would it raise any questions or fears at all. Why would an explanation be necessary? Who would ever think to ask the question? To a fish... breathing in water is no mystery. It is completely and totally "natural." It is a very basic question... why would anyone fear death, or require mysterious explanations for life and its meaning or ultimate reality if all any human being had ever known was a life that ended in death. If the physical is the only reality that there ever was... why would we have such a panic and unease at something that is such an integral part of that natural physical milieu? To me... the fear of death and separation... and the need for understanding ultimate realities is an indication that in fact "death" is very unnatural to us, not what we were created for, and very much against the way we were "spiritually" wired. For a spiritual creature created in God's image and destined to live forever... death is a wholly unnatural event that breeds fear and unease... and is all wrong... and therfore is demanding of explanations and rationals. If our exstince was completely and totally limited to the physical I doubt we would give death a second thought. Not that we wouldn't instinctually try and avoid death (although that is another interesting topic)... but it wouldn't be in any way "surprising" or "fearful" or in need of any fancy explanations of God to make more palpable. We would live and die and not give either the slightest consideration. JM
Without the ramifications of life after death humans would do anything they want; steal, kill, rape, lie, covet, etc. Humans desiring authoritative positions created heaven, hell, god, etc. in order to keep their “flock” in line. Everything else was added to verify his existence and scare people from diversion. Religion is spiritual politics. Do you know any honest politicians?
-
Just wanted to know what ur definition of God is? God is a mythical entity, loosely based on our own consciousness, that we can use to give security, control, comfort and meaning to our lives. That is my description, but according to The Little Oxford Dictionary, god is a superhuman being worshipped as possessing divine power. True story: as I was looking that up, I mistakenly read the definition of “goby” as that of “god”: A small fish with ventral [abdominal] fins joined into a disk or sucker Luckily though I thought “this doesn’t sound right” before blindly copying it out. ;) Do you think God created You or did You create God? I think my definition above will answer this from me, but this question really has no meaning. Surrounding my reply you will have people stating both, some as beliefs, some as facts, but each person will justify their own interpretations, so not really giving you an answer you can use. God you’ve gotta love religion. ________________ David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk "I loathe people who keep dogs. They are cowards who haven't got the guts to bite people themselves" - August Strindberg
David Wulff wrote: God is a mythical entity, loosely based on our own consciousness, that we can use to give security, control, comfort and meaning to our lives. If I were to say that your wife was a mythical entity ( assuming you're married ), based on the fact I have no evidence of her existance, would that make her disappear ? What if she offered to fly to australia and slap me in the face to *prove* she exists and I refused the offer but continued to claim she doesn't exist ? David Wulff wrote: Do you think God created You or did You create God? A lot of people have and do create 'gods' for themselves, sadly most call him Jesus and muddy the waters with regard to Christianity. That does nothing to alter the fact of God's existance. Christian After all, there's nothing wrong with an elite as long as I'm allowed to be part of it!! - Mike Burston Oct 23, 2001
Sonork ID 100.10002:MeanManOz
I live in Bob's HungOut now
-
Kevin Ranville wrote: You can't prove He does exist, but you can't prove he doesn't exist either. You *can* prove that He exists, but because of the issues related to free will, the proof is to the individual. Christian After all, there's nothing wrong with an elite as long as I'm allowed to be part of it!! - Mike Burston Oct 23, 2001
Sonork ID 100.10002:MeanManOz
I live in Bob's HungOut now
-
I was in a hurry and I skimmed it. I don't even remember what I said ( and update is too slow for me to be able to check ), but if I was at odds with your intention, then it's because I didn't take/have time to read it all, and I'm arrogant enough to post anyway. :rose: Christian After all, there's nothing wrong with an elite as long as I'm allowed to be part of it!! - Mike Burston Oct 23, 2001
Sonork ID 100.10002:MeanManOz
I live in Bob's HungOut now