A God We Know Nothing About

[Oli]

This is the point of enquiry where you try and understand who/what God is.
The first point is scripture.

I've read scripture: it's an account of unverifiable origin.
I.e. the supposed source is the god it's claiming to talk about - not helpful.
How does it have any more validity than, say, Lord of the Rings?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Oli,

I've read scripture: it's an account of unverifiable origin.

Then I would suggest that you have misunderstood the point of the texts.
God would have to be the source, as God is the source of everything, and to try
find the origin of the source of everything doesn't make much sense.

How does it have any more validity than, say, Lord of the Rings?

It doesn't have to have any more validity, it is not a contest, it just is.
For you, orange juice is "bloody awful", for me, it lovely and refreshing.

janl

 

[Oli]

Oli,
Then I would suggest that you have misunderstood the point of the texts.

The point?

God would have to be the source, as God is the source of everything, and to try find the origin of the source of everything doesn't make much sense.

But god as the source is the problem: the bible claims that god exists and that it is correct in this claim because the source of this information is god.
To accept that it's true god must be accepted as a reality to start with.

It doesn't have to have any more validity, it is not a contest, it just is.

Then it's just another piece of fiction.
And even more dull in places than LoTR.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Oli,

The point?

The point is not to prove that God exists.

But god as the source is the problem: the bible claims that god exists and that it is correct in this claim because the source of this information is god.
To accept that it's true god must be accepted as a reality to start with.

The bible is not the only scripture, maybe you should read others as well.

You must accept that God is who/what he says he/she/it is. And that doesn't mean you have to believe it either.
Having done that, then you can make up your mind.
The trouble is you don't seem able to do that, thus you will always be
in this state of mind.

Then iot's just another piece of fiction.
And even more dull in places than LoTR.

And orange-juice is "bloody awful".
But is it really?

jan.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

If I look hard enough into the Bible I might find Amelia Earhart. Can we know God outside of a book?

Let's say a murder is committed. A person walks into the police station and admits to it. The media then publishes this report. People believe the police have their man. This is the stage we are at for God. The people believe they have their God. The police don't believe the confession and continue the investigation.

Evidence proves the confessor did not do the crime. Not only is one belief shattered but the police are vindicated, their belief turned true. Get my drift?

Belief in God is simply not enough to confirm God's existence. Perhaps science will someday find your God. You are not going to find him by believing in Him. It appears to me at least like a totally wasteful & futile endeavor. How can you be satisfied you know the truth when all you can do is believe?

I think the worst mistake believers make is saying that they know God. How many can honestly say they think there is a chance God might not exist? How many fear the thought of it? If God has made it so that we can never know then why can't people be happy with just believing? I don't understand this need to know or the false knowing of God.

 

[Oli]

The bible is not the only scripture, maybe you should read others as well.

Others?
Such as?

You must accept that God is who/what he says he/she/it is. And that doesn't mean you have to believe it either.

We're back to this again: how can I accept (believe) something if I can't "see" it?

Having done that, then you can make up your mind.

Seems like you have to make up your mind first to accept that god is there before you can hear what he/ she/ it says.

And orange-juice is "bloody awful".
But is it really?

I'd rather go thirsty.

 

[takandjive]

Are you familiar with the Church of the Invisible Pink Unicorn?

 

[Oli]

Me or Jan?

 

[Jan Ardena]

P.E,

Belief in God is simply not enough to confirm God's existence.

And non-belief in God is not enough to confirm God's non-existence.

Perhaps science will someday find your God.

This is a faith-based statement.

You are not going to find him by believing in Him.

What do you mean by "find him"?
I believe in God because it makes sense, and through
scriptures I can understand God in relation to myself.

How can you be satisfied you know the truth when all you can do is believe?

Belief is a step towards knowing the truth.

I think the worst mistake believers make is saying that they know God.

It is possible to know someone through their works.
It doesn't necessarily mean you know every intimate detail,
but you can know something.

How many can honestly say they think there is a chance God might not exist?

Obviously, people have.
But for some, there is no point in that thought.

If God has made it so that we can never know then why can't people be happy with just believing?

a) God hasn't made it so that we may never know.
b) Some people are happy with just believing, because God makes complete sense to them.

 

[Jan Ardena]

We're back to this again: how can I accept (believe) something if I can't "see" it?

That is your condition, you must see God in order to believe.
The mistake you make here is to assume that to see God, is
the only reason anyone should believe

Seems like you have to make up your mind first to accept that god is there before you can hear what he/ she/ it says.

This is your understand, based on the condition you have put upon acceptence.

I'd rather go thirsty.

No you wouldn't.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Are you familiar with the Church of the Invisible Pink Unicorn?

Your not gonna start that nonsense are you?

jan.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

So nothing can ever be "reproduced", in fact nothing is real since everyone has a different experience of whatever it you'd like to talk about.

Some might argue that. I would say we only have our experiences to go on. From them we deduce the nature of the 'real' world. That process is always selective, and individual. It's at that stage you build in a God or purpose or whatever - or not.

But the case of orange juice there is something that creates the individuals experience. Whether I like orange juice or not I can hand a glass of it to someone and let them have their own experience of it.
What is there of god that be handed around?

God wouldn't be infinite if He/She could be contained in a substance or pointed to as an object.

It's a relationship and perspective thing. I became a theist by deciding to test the claim that there is an intelligence 'out there'. I asked for help in a difficult situation and observed what happened. The results were equivocal, but I persevered and as situations worked themselves out, so I started to trust a bit more. Always there was (and is) a possible alternative explanation, but in time a relationship grows with this 'invisible friend' (as atheists like to call it). Meditation came my way. With that process has come a changed experience and perspective. It still feels like an ongoing experiment though.

With "deaf aliens" you can show sound waves in other forms, jokes can be demonstrated and explained as to how and why they work for us, and the psychological reasoning behind them.

I agree you could show them the sound, but not the experience of music, which they would explain as just rhymical patterns of sound that stimulate certain neuronal pathways in human brains. Same with humour. They might come up with a great theory as to the psychology of jokes, without ever understanding the experience of laughing.

 

[Oli]

Some might argue that. I would say we only have our experiences to go on. From them we deduce the nature of the 'real' world. That process is always selective, and individual. It's at that stage you build in a God or purpose or whatever - or not.
God wouldn't be infinite if He/She could be contained in a substance or pointed to as an object.

But whatever our individual experiences there is something there for us to experience: not so. apparently in the case of god.
Hence the scepticism.
My experience of orange juice is not the same as Jan's - but at least he and I can show orange juice is actually there, and let other people experience it for themselves.

It's a relationship and perspective thing. I became a theist by deciding to test the claim that there is an intelligence 'out there'. I asked for help in a difficult situation and observed what happened. The results were equivocal, but I persevered and as situations worked themselves out, so I started to trust a bit more. Always there was (and is) a possible alternative explanation, but in time a relationship grows with this 'invisible friend' (as atheists like to call it). Meditation came my way. With that process has come a changed experience and perspective. It still feels like an ongoing experiment though.

That's the problem with such experiences - you cannot know that things wouldn't have gone that without the asking and nascent belief, plus you yourself were thereafter taking a more positive outlook on life - which is a self-reinforcing thing.

I agree you could show them the sound, but not the experience of music, which they would explain as just rhymical patterns of sound that stimulate certain neuronal pathways in human brains. Same with humour. They might come up with a great theory as to the psychology of jokes, without ever understanding the experience of laughing.

Agreed - but again: at least we can show that there genuinely is something there to be experienced, as opposed to it being an internal individual "delusion".

 

[kerux]

God does exist.

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.

Relaxation is the best gate of all who don't like to think and feel. "God" is a word which etymologicallly means a "voice." In the King James Version of the Bible, the Creator is also called God, and there are Gods also mentioned in the KJV bible. Existence is of course different from insistence. To insist that a thing exists if it doesn't is folly. God is outside our existence, if you mean, the Creator or upholder of intergalactic or extragalactic order. His realm is of course infinite. Why would we have to know and reach his realm of existence when in fact we lack knowledge of our own existence. The so-called "man of the century" none other than Einstein left us a puzzle and even he died of solving and unsolvable problems. Well, live your live to the fullest as some agnostics try to convince in their ads saying "THERE's probably no god. So why worry? Enjoy your life!" Lol. Belief of anything is not by chance nor by coercion; it's a matter of decision and choice!

 

[Oli]

Relaxation is the best gate of all who don't like to think and feel.

:shrug:

"God" is a word which etymologicallly means a "voice."

No.

Oddly, the exact history of the word God is unknown. The word God is a relatively new European invention, which was never used in any of the ancient Judaeo-Christian scripture manuscripts that were written in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek or Latin.

According to the best efforts of linguists and researchers, the root of the present word God is the Sanskrit word hu which means to call upon, invoke, implore.

The root-meaning of the name (from Gothic root gheu; Sanskrit hub or emu, "to invoke or to sacrifice to") is either "the one invoked" or "the one sacrificed to." From different Indo-Germanic roots (div, "to shine" or "give light"; thes in thessasthai "to implore") come the Indo-Iranian deva, Sanskrit dyaus (gen. divas), Latin deus, Greek theos, Irish and Gaelic dia, all of which are generic names; also Greek Zeus (gen. Dios, Latin Jupiter (jovpater), Old Teutonic Tiu or Tiw (surviving in Tuesday), Latin Janus, Diana, and other proper names of pagan deities. The common name most widely used in Semitic occurs as 'el in Hebrew, 'ilu in Babylonian, 'ilah in Arabic, etc.; and though scholars are not agreed on the point, the root-meaning most probably is "the strong or mighty one."

http://wahiduddin.net/words/name_god.htm

To insist that a thing exists if it doesn't is folly.

Agreed.
But then you go and spoil it...

God is outside our existence, if you mean, the Creator or upholder of intergalactic or extragalactic order.

Unless by "outside of our existence" you mean "doesn't exist".
If he's outside of our existence in any other sense then how can he have any effect at all?
And you seem to hold no distinction between "galaxy" and "universe"...
Maybe a little education would be in order before you start spouting rubbish.

His realm is of course infinite.

Supposition.

The so-called "man of the century" none other than Einstein left us a puzzle and even he died of solving and unsolvable problems.

So what?
And how does one die of "solving problems"?
Or even unsolvable problems.

Well, live your live to the fullest as some agnostics try to convince in their ads

Agnostics run ads now?

Belief of anything is not by chance nor by coercion; it's a matter of decision and choice!

Uninformed choice, perhaps, judging by certain posters.

 

[kerux]

Very intelligent reply

Really, God is outside our existence for why should he exists in us? And God is a voice for why should the Word first be read if He is heard often. And really I sound weird to you because you follow an improbable science. Right, we belong to the Milky way galaxy, according to the astronomers or whoever they are. But what is that imaginary line that they agreed upon? Is this line existing in the strings or spectrum of pluriverses (the universe that science teaches the rookies). Rubbish? this is a funny word!

 

[Oli]

Really, God is outside our existence for why should he exists in us?

If he's "outside our existence" how can you tell he exists?

And God is a voice for why should the Word first be read if He is heard often.

Beats me.

And really I sound weird to you because you follow an improbable science.

No you sound really weird because you are really weird.
How can science be "improbable"?

Right, we belong to the Milky way galaxy, according to the astronomers or whoever they are. But what is that imaginary line that they agreed upon?

"Or whoever they are"?
Too lazy or too stupid to find out?
It's not an imaginary line at all.

Is this line existing in the strings or spectrum of pluriverses (the universe that science teaches the rookies). Rubbish? this is a funny word!

"spectrum of pluriverses"?
Now that is rubbish.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

But whatever our individual experiences there is something there for us to experience: not so. apparently in the case of god.
Hence the scepticism. My experience of orange juice is not the same as Jan's - but at least he and I can show orange juice is actually there, and let other people experience it for themselves..

If you think of God as "the other within the self", rather than as an external object - the experience of that relationship is there for anyone who takes the trouble to go looking. However, it may not be instant (relationships take time - even with aspects of your self!).

That's the problem with such experiences - you cannot know that things wouldn't have gone that without the asking and nascent belief, plus you yourself were thereafter taking a more positive outlook on life - which is a self-reinforcing thing.

Yes, I couldn't know, and that is an alternative explanation - there is never proof. However, it seems to be taking me somewhere, which is in a positive direction, so I continue to suspend my disbelief, and trust. Other people have had similar experiences, and transformed their lives, and the lives of others. Some I really admire.

Agreed - but again: at least we can show that there genuinely is something there to be experienced, as opposed to it being an internal individual "delusion".

It's a strange contemporary error, to regard our experiences as 'delusion', but our models of the world as 'real', when the latter are grounded in the former. Holy men from all over the world, from diverse religions and cultures describe similar experiences - of the realisation of oneness - call it Heaven or the Tao or Samadhi, Moksha or Nirvana. They even independently converged on similar methods to attain that realisation. Yet this is a delusion?

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

And non-belief in God is not enough to confirm God's non-existence.

Have I stated otherwise? No

Perhaps science will someday find your God. ”

This is a faith-based statement.

I said perhaps Jan. I have no faith that it will ever happen if that suits you better.

What do you mean by "find him"?
I believe in God because it makes sense, and through
scriptures I can understand God in relation to myself.

In your case Jan , you have to believe in many things to justify your theism. Could you believe in God without religion and all it entails? Forget the stories, the churches, the clergy, in fact forget everything sacred. Can you shove all that nonsense aside and still believe?
I told LG once that if you believe in God because of some written word then you must first believe the scribe who wrote it was being dictated to by God. I think it was the only time he ever agreed with me.

Belief is a step towards knowing the truth.

Belief is not a step towards knowing anything. You can't believe and know at the same time. For theism to have taken root, the first step was to fabricate the truth. Take a look around at just how many truths there are. All known truths about God should be exactly the same from religion to religion but there are several different versions.

It is possible to know someone through their works.
It doesn't necessarily mean you know every intimate detail,
but you can know something.

A real person yes, a god no.

a) God hasn't made it so that we may never know.
b) Some people are happy with just believing, because God makes complete sense to them.

a) You cannot possibly know something about an entity that cannot be proven.
b) I wish that were the case. I've been saying it all along. You wouldn't believe unless it made sense, in this I totally agree. Believe in God all you want, there is nothing else you can honestly do in good conscience once that decision is made.

 

[Oli]

If you think of God as "the other within the self", rather than as an external object - the experience of that relationship is there for anyone who takes the trouble to go looking. However, it may not be instant (relationships take time - even with aspects of your self!).

Again you've lost me.
I have no experience of an "other within myself".

It's a strange contemporary error, to regard our experiences as 'delusion', but our models of the world as 'real', when the latter are grounded in the former. Holy men from all over the world, from diverse religions and cultures describe similar experiences - of the realisation of oneness - call it Heaven or the Tao or Samadhi, Moksha or Nirvana. They even independently converged on similar methods to attain that realisation. Yet this is a delusion?

I did put the word "delusion in quote marks.
Hmmm, maybe they converged on on similar solutions because they're all human and share a (largely) common method of thinking and mental processing.
I'd be more surprised if they came up with wildly different methods - humans do things the human way.