No, it doesn't. It can only require the most that we are capable of, which is to form some vague and limited notion of the greatest conceivable being. That's the problem.
Complex views of God
- Thread starter Pit
- Start date
No, it doesn't. It can only require the most that we are capable of, which is to form some vague and limited notion of the greatest conceivable being. That's the problem.
Big Chiller
Registered Senior Member
If we absolutely cannot truly conceive of the greatest possible being then there is no question of us needing to do that is there. Also the greatest possible being would have to be the controller of all our specified knowledge if you think about it and wouldn't fall within any of our understandings.
Notice I said "pantheistic ideas" in post #90, which is consistent with what you can read here, and in a bunch of other places. Sometimes I wonder why I bother being so careful with my choice of words when people like you are just going to fail to appreciate it. Also, pay closer attention to Monist Idealist Pantheism (aka Monistic Idealism) and note the similarities.
Aside from all that, you've picked on one example and ignored the rest.
Just when I thought your arguments couldn't get any more impotent...
From merriam webster online:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god
Funny, my deities don't require worship, they just are willing to be hit up for favors and/or keep me company and/or make my life interesting.
Since my deities are not that demanding, you're invalidating my views on religion, Jan. Claiming they are illegitimate somehow.
I find this to be disrespectful.
Last edited:
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
Dictionaries are older than theistic religion? Dictionaries all contain exactly the same definition and have always done so?
You seem to be imagining your dictionary as if it was one of your sacred scriptures, as if it was divine revelation or something.
In real life, words have uses. People use words to express ideas. The people who use words have lived in different places, in different historical periods and in different circumstances. So when we inquire into the history of words, we find that a single word has often been used by different people at different times to express a whole variety of ideas. The ideas that a single word has been used to express are usually (but not always) related, but they aren't always entirely consistent with one another.
And a dictionary, in turn, typically just briefly lists the most common usages for each word at the particular time and place where the dictionary was compiled.
Take a look at the 'Bible' of dictionaries sometime, the Oxford English Dictionary. This fascinating book has essays on each word, explaining when the earliest usage of a word was attested, what the origin of the word appears to have been, and gives examples of the different ways that the word has been used subsequently.
A simple reading of this thread invalidates this claim.
You need to open your mind and let god out of the little box you've put it in.
God needs to be reincarnated. Perhaps since it was "us" that killed him. It should be us also to bring him to life. A world where a word divides individuals from those who understand the words the least. It is time to pick up the shovel and bury the murderous hatchet. Brahman-Universe-God- does it all not lead the mind in the same general direction. Each word is a different bird, but all with the same meaning. The power of God will always be in our hands, the only question is when we are ready to use it.
This whole discourse came about due to Rav's claim that ''God is the universe'', is a definition of God. I used the dictionary definition to show that
he is wrong, that it is a concept based on the basic definition.
The basic dictionary definition corresponds with all the scriptoral definitions, whereas ''God IS the universe'' does not.
Pan-theos, is different from Pan-theist, the latter being brought into western consciousness much later. Also the concept differs where the old idea of what we regard as ''pantheism'' was not ''God is the universe'', but a respect for (mother) nature. And a desire to live in harmony with her.
My personal stance during this whole conversation never went beyond my acceptance of scriptures, as oppose to non-acceptance regardless of belief.
I'm quite sure that if you or anyone had definitions of God that contradicted the scriptures, you would have used it by now. So I get the feeling there aren't any.
jan.
NietzscheHimself,
We didn't kill God.
We severed the connection.
jan.
We didn't kill God.
We severed the connection.
jan.
Is that all you have? Bronze age myths?
Stick around.
The bottom line is that you can't invalidate my position unless you can demonstrate that a personal creator god does indeed exist. All you have done thus far is demonstrate that you are half a step away from declaring a dictionary definition to be proof of the existence of a theistic god. But as Yazata has correctly pointed out, all it demonstrates is that the theistic notion of god is currently the most common and widely accepted. Less than five minutes of research however demonstrates beyond any doubt whatsoever that different notions of god have existed for a long, long time.
I do of course realize that your main objection here is not to the existence of different metaphysical positions but to the use of the word God to refer to them. This is no doubt because you believe it is wrong to assign the name to anything less than the most significant and fundamental ontological entity, which in your view is a personal creator god. But as I have already pointed out, pantheists believe that the universe itself is the most significant and fundamental ontological entity, and it is for this reason (and others that I have pointed out in this thread) that it is often referred to as God.
See here for an enlightening discussion on how the pantheist typically assigns divinity to the universe in much the same way that theists assign it to their personal creator god.
Last edited:
and what now stands in its place?
Hate-reason-a pit-morals- dreams
What is the essence that sparks your life?
Rav,
I'm not trying to inalidate your position, nor am I trying to
prove to you that a personal creator god exists.
I'm saying that ''God IS the universe'' is not a definition of God, but a concept
of God based on the definition of God.
I've demonstrated that there is only one definition of God from which all
concepts of God arise.
Yazata, like yourself, doesn't seem able to get past religion, and the existence of God. Neither of these subject have anything to do with where
I'm coming from.
I'm not saying that different notions, concepts, or ideas of God have NOT
existed for a long time. In fact I'm growing tired of trying to get that through to you.
I don't have any objections. If for you God IS the universe, then fine, that is your belief, and I respect that. But your perception of God is based on the basic, one and only definition of God. You have simply chosen NOT accept the concept.
If that definition of God was removed from our consciousness, we wouldn't be
having this conversation.
Your filtering everything I say, through ''religion'' and ''religious feeling'', as
if my whole point is being made through emotion. I trying to explain to you
that it is not based on theism, religion, personal preference, or emotion.
There is NO definition of God, that is not related to the basic, or scriptorial definition.
Yes, ''referred'' to as God, based on the basic definition, nothing else.
Thanks for the link, but it backs up what I am saying.
jan.
I'm not trying to inalidate your position, nor am I trying to
prove to you that a personal creator god exists.
I'm saying that ''God IS the universe'' is not a definition of God, but a concept
of God based on the definition of God.
I've demonstrated that there is only one definition of God from which all
concepts of God arise.
Yazata, like yourself, doesn't seem able to get past religion, and the existence of God. Neither of these subject have anything to do with where
I'm coming from.
I'm not saying that different notions, concepts, or ideas of God have NOT
existed for a long time. In fact I'm growing tired of trying to get that through to you.
I don't have any objections. If for you God IS the universe, then fine, that is your belief, and I respect that. But your perception of God is based on the basic, one and only definition of God. You have simply chosen NOT accept the concept.
If that definition of God was removed from our consciousness, we wouldn't be
having this conversation.
Your filtering everything I say, through ''religion'' and ''religious feeling'', as
if my whole point is being made through emotion. I trying to explain to you
that it is not based on theism, religion, personal preference, or emotion.
There is NO definition of God, that is not related to the basic, or scriptorial definition.
Yes, ''referred'' to as God, based on the basic definition, nothing else.
[/QUOTE]
Thanks for the link, but it backs up what I am saying.
jan.
NietzscheHimself,
Ultimately, a struggle for existence.
A decent into animalistic behaviour with human consciousness,
a living nightmare.
Each generation, before extinction realising it's the end of the world as we know it.
Each new generation begins it life with the madness of the last one.
Technology as saviour.
Chaos.
I'll stop before it starts to get depressing.
Trying my best to hold on to the essential qualities of everything I encounter. Forging friendships of like-minds. Learning to accept that
this hopelessness, despair, devolution, and breakdown, is a necessary part
of the material atmosphere, scientifically explained as entropy And is revealed
through scripture, and explained.
Slowly but surely understanding who and what God is, and my relationship to Him.
jan.
Ultimately, a struggle for existence.
A decent into animalistic behaviour with human consciousness,
a living nightmare.
Each generation, before extinction realising it's the end of the world as we know it.
Each new generation begins it life with the madness of the last one.
Technology as saviour.
Chaos.
I'll stop before it starts to get depressing.
Trying my best to hold on to the essential qualities of everything I encounter. Forging friendships of like-minds. Learning to accept that
this hopelessness, despair, devolution, and breakdown, is a necessary part
of the material atmosphere, scientifically explained as entropy And is revealed
through scripture, and explained.
Slowly but surely understanding who and what God is, and my relationship to Him.
jan.