A God We Know Nothing About

[PsychoticEpisode]

Is there anybody here who believes in God(s) and yet is quite prepared to leave it at that. IOW, admit that it is impossible to speculate on God's existence or non-existence, thus eliminating anything religiously associated with a god or gods as the case may be. All you have is a belief that a God exists.

Would atheists be more receptive to a believer that does not try to expand their beliefs.... i.e. philosophies, bibles, churches, rites, etc.? Would atheists/theists be less inclined to argue? Would such a belief be seen as too close to being atheist for most theists and vice versa? Would society benefit or be constantly muddled in the belief/non-belief controversy?

Personally I can accept someone's belief in a god if only they were willing to leave it at that. Does the willingness of both sides to accept the other become greater if both parties agree to disagree?

For atheists, is it possible that it isn't the belief in a god that we find most perturbing but how all the trappings eventually become integrated with everyday life's decisions and policies?

 

[Bishadi]

Is there anybody here who believes in God(s) and yet is quite prepared to leave it at that. IOW, admit that it is impossible to speculate on God's existence or non-existence, thus eliminating anything religiously associated with a god or gods as the case may be. All you have is a belief that a God exists.

Would atheists be more receptive to a believer that does not try to expand their beliefs.... i.e. philosophies, bibles, churches, rites, etc.? Would atheists/theists be less inclined to argue? Would such a belief be seen as too close to being atheist for most theists and vice versa? Would society benefit or be constantly muddled in the belief/non-belief controversy?

Personally I can accept someone's belief in a god if only they were willing to leave it at that. Does the willingness of both sides to accept the other become greater if both parties agree to disagree?

For atheists, is it possible that it isn't the belief in a god that we find most perturbing but how all the trappings eventually become integrated with everyday life's decisions and policies?

Believers of theology often break the very rules of the belief.

The bending of rules is what alienates believers from just being honest.

For example: God says (per bible) that man was born in the garden (nature) but then many believe God was mad at man and kicked him out of the garden, but that isn't correct per Genesis 3 as God was sharing as if proud.

And in reality, as much as we all wish to think we are separate from nature, we all know we can never leave nature.

My point here, if is mother nature is God himself, then HE was our creator, our beginning and ending and our life's blood all in ONE.

As then we can see, that for mankind to 'believe' they are separat from the garden, then by choice, them folk have isolated themselves from God.

That is how and why i believe the believers break the rules of theology by even considering themselve ever separate from God; some are in the belief, God is on a thrown, which not only is impossible to prove, but incurs the idol mentality and isolation from direct responsibility.

But to know God is, all that exists (all of existence/nature), then not only is mankind describing him (with words/math) but also capable of experiencing him, teaching about him, and conveying knowledge to the next generations to honor him.

The biggest difference, is that a god on a thrown, and a god as all that is, are like having an idol to worship or being capable of appreciating just being alive. If each person knew that every step you take and every action you impose to exist, by choice, was right on God's back, in his life, in his world; then responsibility would begin to be known by each person alive and conscious.

So there is much to know about God, the issue is, is your God on a thrown or do you appreciate life and thankful for every breath you take?

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

So there is much to know about God, the issue is, is your God on a thrown or do you appreciate life and thankful for every breath you take?

For a god on a throne we must speculate, for an all encompassing nature god we can use testable theory to at least show how it was or is done? Is that what you are saying?

 

[Bishadi]

For a god on a throne we must speculate,

And i would say, that by reading the globes theological renditions; then lots of speculation is rampant.

for an all encompassing nature god we can use testable theory to at least show how it was or is done? Is that what you are saying?

That would be the pinnacle, kind of like the apocolypse (to reveal) in which as most of the old writting suggested, a day would come when mankind will understand.

Now observing that we as a species were born within all of existence, then in a real sense, we the children of existence.

We learn, we share, we comprehend compassion; we know LOVE all the while still submissive to God (nature).

And since every word in existence was created by mankind, then it makes sense that everything we know of God, came from mankind within the body of mother nature.

the divide could not come from God, but from mankind and i suggest it is based from words

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

And since every word in existence was created by mankind, then it makes sense that everything we know of God, came from mankind within the body of mother nature.

So just by speculating about a god(s)we are exhibiting a natural tendency because we are the part of nature (God in this case) that can. Something like that? I still think it is speculation. What about non-testable claims?

 

[wynn]

Is there anybody here who believes in God(s) and yet is quite prepared to leave it at that. IOW, admit that it is impossible to speculate on God's existence or non-existence, thus eliminating anything religiously associated with a god or gods as the case may be. All you have is a belief that a God exists.

I am sure there are people who have this sort of non-specific belief in God. However, such a non-specific belief in God is not likely to be stable; ie. it can only be upheld for a limited extent of time, and sooner or later, the person will either seek to be more specific, or give up the belief all together.

Would atheists be more receptive to a believer that does not try to expand their beliefs.... i.e. philosophies, bibles, churches, rites, etc.?

Receptive - how?
In that they wouldn't accuse theists of idiocity, illusion, indoctrination and such?

Would atheists/theists be less inclined to argue?

Well, with a non-specific belief in God, then there would not be much to talk about anyway, for either party.

Would such a belief be seen as too close to being atheist for most theists and vice versa?

What's the use of a non-specific belief in God? Sure, one can maintain such a belief, as some kind of an ornament or extra, but like I said earlier, it's not a stable situation.

Would society benefit or be constantly muddled in the belief/non-belief controversy?

I don't know.

Personally I can accept someone's belief in a god if only they were willing to leave it at that.

How come?

Does the willingness of both sides to accept the other become greater if both parties agree to disagree?

'Accept each other while agreeing to disagree'? That is a contradiction in terms.

For atheists, is it possible that it isn't the belief in a god that we find most perturbing but how all the trappings eventually become integrated with everyday life's decisions and policies?

What is there that eventually is not 'integrated with everyday life's decisions and policies'?

 

[wynn]

So just by speculating about a god(s)we are exhibiting a natural tendency because we are the part of nature (God in this case) that can. Something like that? I still think it is speculation. What about non-testable claims?

Are there any non-testable claims?

As far as I know, all claims are testable, it's just that some require a lot of qualifications and resources in order to be tested.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

Are there any non-testable claims?

As far as I know, all claims are testable, it's just that some require a lot of qualifications and resources in order to be tested.

How about God created the universe or Jesus is the son of God or God flooded the Earth or God is love, God is nature?

 

[takandjive]

^ Isn't that just regular ol' pantheism?

 

[Jan Ardena]

PsychoticEpisode,

Is there anybody here who believes in God(s) and yet is quite prepared to leave it at that.

That is a pointless endeavour.

IOW, admit that it is impossible to speculate on God's existence or non-existence, thus eliminating anything religiously associated with a god or gods as the case may be.

Waste of time.

All you have is a belief that a God exists.

Based on common sense.

Personally I can accept someone's belief in a god if only they were willing to leave it at that.

Uh!
Why make it any of your business?

Does the willingness of both sides to accept the other become greater if both parties agree to disagree?

Mind your own business.
If you don't like it, then you can always go away, and live how you want.

jan.

 

[Bishadi]

So just by speculating about a god(s)we are exhibiting a natural tendency because we are the part of nature (God in this case) that can. Something like that?

and that self reflection is a choice we each can make without any interferences; choice is ours to make on the matter of beliefs and benchmarks.

I still think it is speculation.

IN a sense, every opinion is speculative until verified; does it make sense to remain causal?

What about non-testable claims?

Them are the ones any can observe but if the patch to reality cannot be bridged; then to the sci-fi pile.

eg... walkin on water

But items like, "jesus arose from the dead".......... in viewing history, many people were buried alive because identifying who is dead and who is not was not perfected even 200 years ago; so i use reality for the possibility to bridge the miracle; and so if a person looked into my eyes and says, i saw it; then i can at least have an idea of what the possibilities could be, rather than accept the concept as magic or miracles.

i don't do either, just as i can observe God as all of existence and be capable of comprehending many of the ideas purported to represent God but not as some dude on a throne pulling my strings, when i have no strings attached to me.

my focus is on reality as well being capable of observing what many claim but will always try and keep my feet on solid ground before taking a position of any choice i make.

 

[wynn]

How about God created the universe or Jesus is the son of God or God flooded the Earth or God is love, God is nature?

What's the problem? Go to the one who made those claims and ask him what qualifications are required to test those claims. Then acquire those qualifications and test those claims.

 

[Bishadi]

PsychoticEpisode,



That is a pointless endeavour.



Waste of time.



Based on common sense.



Uh!
Why make it any of your business?



Mind your own business.
If you don't like it, then you can always go away, and live how you want.

jan.

PE>>....... do you see how the complacent become defensive rather than objective?

this is where i see integrity fails many when it comes to beliefs

almost like the 2LoT.........some are just so wrapped up in what they accept as fact, rather than allow knowledge to evolve as it has since the first word ever 'created' by mankind!

 

[wynn]

PE>>....... do you see how the complacent become defensive rather than objective?

So you're saying that Jan Ardena is 'complacent' and 'defensive rather than objective'?

 

[Bishadi]

So you're saying that Jan Ardena is 'complacent' and 'defensive rather than objective'?

see for yourself

That is a pointless endeavour.



Waste of time.



Based on common sense.



Uh!
Why make it any of your business?



Mind your own business.
If you don't like it, then you can always go away, and live how you want.

that be a person defending religions corruption, not God!

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

PsychoticEpisode,



That is a pointless endeavour.



Waste of time.



Based on common sense.



Uh!
Why make it any of your business?



Mind your own business.
If you don't like it, then you can always go away, and live how you want.

jan.

Jan, In the OP I merely asked the question, is there anybody?...I'll put you down as one that can't.

I'm not telling you to forego your imagination. My personal opnion shouldn't matter to you either. Claiming god is this or that means nothing and as a result should be pushed aside. God exists?...Fine, I have no problem with that. Why expound? You're not doing yourself or anyone else any favors.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

What's the problem? Go to the one who made those claims and ask him what qualifications are required to test those claims. Then acquire those qualifications and test those claims.

You asked....What do you think happens here all the time?

Fact is, there are no tests that can substantiate a god claim. If one believes in god then all things connected to it are also non-testable beliefs. You can't even call it theory.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

PE>>....... do you see how the complacent become defensive rather than objective?

this is where i see integrity fails many when it comes to beliefs

almost like the 2LoT.........some are just so wrapped up in what they accept as fact, rather than allow knowledge to evolve as it has since the first word ever 'created' by mankind!

I for one cannot ever be satisfied without knowing. Complacency is a form of satisfaction one gets by knowing their points are untestable.

 

[Bishadi]

I for one cannot ever be satisfied without knowing.

that has been my curse over the course of my life

i often wonder if it would have been easier to just be a follower

Complacency is a form of satisfaction one gets by knowing their points are untestable.

I like that.


That made the quote list. 4-4-09

is that yours? as i will keep the link, date and time along with it.


another question; the stupid little idea i mentioned about G-d being 'all of existence' (nature).......... have you observed this before?

and have you measured some of the renditions within the variety of theologies against it? Just curious.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

I like that.


That made the quote list. 4-4-09

is that yours? as i will keep the link, date and time along with it.

:shrug:....if I plagerized it then I didn't do it on purpose. Ironic in a thread about not knowing.

another question; the stupid little idea i mentioned about G-d being 'all of existence' (nature).......... have you observed this before?

and have you measured some of the renditions within the variety of theologies against it? Just curious.

I would be lying if I said I concerned myself about studying those matters. Sure, from time to time it comes up in conversations. But I know that I can't know.... Jan may think that makes me complacent but you see the difference. As I've mentioned.... believe it and leave it at that, works both ways.