Snakelord
I can see it was my mistake to take you off my ignore list
I can see it was my mistake to take you off my ignore list
Defining what is God.
- Thread starter lightgigantic
- Start date
my definition of what god would be... ugh, god is too personified to me. anyway,
god would be the reason for what we know as reality.
i can't say he himself created, because maybe he's part of the process of what we know as reality, not necessarily a single creator. so in this mentioned case, there's more than a god.
in addition, one can exchange all the he/himself/etc. with objects. so god isn't living, and is something else. and maybe there's more than one of them.
perhaps there is a single creator. i've no idea.
and no matter how much i think about it, it stretches beyond my capacity to understand it, such as an ant would have no fucking idea what i'm doing with this computer.
but you never know, science may also provide the answer one day.
i've no idea how, but perhaps.
so from my muddled up issues of god, to come up with a definition of god, i would define him as i said earlier: god is the reason for what we know as reality, and this reason for reality would include why, how, dahdha we are here.
god would be the reason for what we know as reality.
i can't say he himself created, because maybe he's part of the process of what we know as reality, not necessarily a single creator. so in this mentioned case, there's more than a god.
in addition, one can exchange all the he/himself/etc. with objects. so god isn't living, and is something else. and maybe there's more than one of them.
perhaps there is a single creator. i've no idea.
and no matter how much i think about it, it stretches beyond my capacity to understand it, such as an ant would have no fucking idea what i'm doing with this computer.
but you never know, science may also provide the answer one day.
i've no idea how, but perhaps.
so from my muddled up issues of god, to come up with a definition of god, i would define him as i said earlier: god is the reason for what we know as reality, and this reason for reality would include why, how, dahdha we are here.
And yet again you suffer the very logical fallacies I am trying to wean you off.
The atheist does NOT always offer a definition that god is socially constructed.
This is gross generalisation on your part.
And yet you shoot them down on the basis that they are atheist... and thus their definition is inferior. Logical Fallacy.LG said:
You are asking for A definition. Not THE definition.LG said:
You are asking for any definition as long as it abides by the boundaries set out in your OP.
It doesn't have to be the one the Theist believes in, or any of the ones the Atheist lacks belief in.
Until you ignore the person and only concentrate on WHAT they say you will forever suffer in debates.
Okay - then debate with them on WHAT THEY SAY - NOT ON WHO THEY ARE!LG said:
So far you have failed to do it - and even your claims to the contrary merely reinforce that this is what you have done.
Then abide by it.LG said:
Sarkus:
You will note, however, that the showing of our resident Atheists here have not been too good, beyond "it's a fantasy so it doesn't matter!".
In general, mind you.
You will note, however, that the showing of our resident Atheists here have not been too good, beyond "it's a fantasy so it doesn't matter!".
In general, mind you.
In truth though, do we really know more or are smarter than an ant? are we better? Are we happier? Do our lives have more meaning? I say no.
We don't know why we're here just like the ant. It lives and dies like us. It understands in the context of our lives like us and where we find ourselves.
we are not really superior as well we have a symbiotic relationship with all living beings. We need them.
Because something exists and is what it is, is perfection? I am the creator of my thoughts and those in my thoughts have no choice in the matter. Their opinions don't count, its perfect because i make all the rules. LoL. Evidently thats the extent of a theists justification for the perfection of their creator, because it is limited in scope just like them.
The agnostics were at least on the right track or had a clue that a creator of this universe has to be a base one. Its through imperfection that it learns and the fact everyone has a butthole should also give you a clue as well.
Sarkus
Then perhaps you could offer a definition since it seems all we are getting at the moment is the notion that 'god is an imagination so it doesn't matter' (as pointed out by PJ) and that god is socially constructed (based on socially constructed empirical suppositions it seems)
Then perhaps you could offer a definition since it seems all we are getting at the moment is the notion that 'god is an imagination so it doesn't matter' (as pointed out by PJ) and that god is socially constructed (based on socially constructed empirical suppositions it seems)
Onthe contrary people are not in control of their thoughts, since their environment and association bears a considerable influence - it indicates our inability to remain completely independant(there is the argument that since god is the most superior element of reality and therefore has independance in full, he can actually control his thoughts - therefore the process of one controlling their mind is to develop an awareness of god, instead of falling prey to the unlimited distractions of ephemeral existence)
Its not clear how god is limited
Still it remains unclear exactly what your reasoning is
the difference between the human form of life and the animal form of life is that we know how things are and we know how things should be (like for instance it doesn't appear that animals ruminate in the fashion of your intro above - instead animals tend to be engaged 24/7 in sleeping eating mating and defending - ironically much of the advancement we have in materialistic civilization brings a majority of humanity to the same platform (the only difference is that a dog runs around on four legs to do its business and we run around on four wheels)
the only unique difference is that humanity has the opportunity to acquire transcendental knowledge, commonly received through religiousity
therefore transcendental knowledge deals with understanding the ultimate cause to determine what is the essence that we are dependant on (rather than the plethora of subsequent effects - which is the pursuit of empiricism)
No
the problem is that you want to talk about definitons that you can't qualify with anything except the idiosyncratic (eg - god is called huey. duey and Louie etc etc but as to how god is omnipresent, eternal, omniscient, the relationship between the phenomenal world and the living entity and god etc etc all gets lost in your sojourn into the absurd)
Do tell, what would you like me to qualify it with?
In my last post, that you have seemingly passed over, I explained that you do not have the level to understand the gods. That isn't specifically your fault, you're just human. To attain true understanding as a human you have but one choice which is to be in direct contact with these beings. Now, while I said choice, it isn't actually your choice but theirs. Anyone that has not been in direct contact with these beings is simply "uneducated", (again not their fault), in the ways of gods and any ability to understand the concepts of those beings.
Now, if you were honest you'd realise and agree that I gave you more than "huey, duey and louie", but now you seemingly want me to explain "how" they are what they are. The answer to that I gave: They have always been the way they are, there simply is no "how". Does your vision of a god differ from this? Can you tell me how your god/s are omniscient etc? Simply put, "how" is not a valid question.
As for using the term "absurd", please.. I and the gods are not swayed or bothered by those that do not know/understand those gods.
To explain briefly once again as it was seemingly missed on my last post...
There are many gods, there always has been. These gods have many "powers" that I have pointed out. During one of their festivals one of the gods came up with an idea, clicked his fingers and that idea became a reality. That is what you and I would call a "universe". It didn't mean much on the other side of course.. Our universe is but like a marble to them.
There are human stories about gods - they all differ because they perhaps got a glimpse of one of these different gods, but there is also the most widely accepted story of a god that created the universe, is a part of it and even had to sleep after taking an entire, (6000 years) "6 days" to create it. It's ridiculous. In actual fact there is no need for sleep and creating something as simple as a universe does not take 6 millennia but 6 gazillionths of a nanosecond.
Now, kindly tell me exactly how you want me to qualify it and I shall do just that.
if you qualify a concept by two contradictory definitions (ie - there are numeorus individuals and that they exist as the cause of all causes) you have a problem ( or at least you have a concept that cannot be discussed)
therefore a quality of god is that he is omnipotent
(in other words omnipotence is a quality of god since one cannot conceive of a greater state than being omnipotent)
lol symbiotic relationship reminds me of obi-wan kenobi.
anyway, yeah, i agree with you.
i can't say, in nature we're superior the them.
if i were to speak of superiority in species, i would say it's the one that is most successful in breeding thatahath, just to be general.
i DO however think we are smarter. my bias towards biology/science makes me believe so. unless they have another dimension to them, to which i can't see.
but no, i dont think we're better or more superior than ants.
i respect them actually. they're ridiculously awesome when it comes to politics.
do our lives have more meaning? i guess in buddhism, no. and i think i agree with you when it comes to how much we mean in life compared to ants.
The day of rest has nothing to do with God needing rest.
It is the day God rests ...... from putting up with the wickedness of mankind.
Get it?
The day of the Lord starts with man's destruction of himself....nuclear war.
God's judgments, including earthquakes destroying them that are destroying the Earth.
That's His day of rest....when His people, those that have been persecuted and stood for the truth down through the ages, will receive a blessing.
They will be a part of a glorious new day apart from the darkness and evil that has permeated this world since the beginning.
That is what the sabbath was a natural type of....The Holy Spirit.
Jesus, speaking of those that turn back,....He swore would they would not enter into His "rest".
It is speaking of the millennium.
Last edited:
Ex 20:10-11
11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
Ex 31:17
17 "It is a sign between Me and the sons of Israel forever; for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, but on the seventh day He ceased from labor, and was refreshed."
I don't know TheVisitor, sounds like past tense to me. Past tense denotes an event which has already occured.
My main point is this. Humans need rest since our physcial bodies and minds can become tired. God, of course, is not physical and has no brain, yet he still enjoys resting, otherwise he wouldn't choose to do so. For some reason, God chose to rest. He rested because resting made him happy. A God must do everything for a specific reason because God is perfectly logical, and everything he does is to eventually bring him happiness (similar to humans).
The fact that resting is "good" to God and the fact that he enjoys resting shows a lack of energy, or a lack of something.
Now I'm not saying I would want a perfect God, because I wouldn't. I don't want a robot of a God who is like a computer and has no emotion. I would rather a God which has emotion and a free will. Similarily, God wouldn't want robots as people who love him because they are programmed to.
11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
Ex 31:17
17 "It is a sign between Me and the sons of Israel forever; for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, but on the seventh day He ceased from labor, and was refreshed."
I don't know TheVisitor, sounds like past tense to me. Past tense denotes an event which has already occured.
My main point is this. Humans need rest since our physcial bodies and minds can become tired. God, of course, is not physical and has no brain, yet he still enjoys resting, otherwise he wouldn't choose to do so. For some reason, God chose to rest. He rested because resting made him happy. A God must do everything for a specific reason because God is perfectly logical, and everything he does is to eventually bring him happiness (similar to humans).
The fact that resting is "good" to God and the fact that he enjoys resting shows a lack of energy, or a lack of something.
Now I'm not saying I would want a perfect God, because I wouldn't. I don't want a robot of a God who is like a computer and has no emotion. I would rather a God which has emotion and a free will. Similarily, God wouldn't want robots as people who love him because they are programmed to.
Last edited:
Ok, we really need to resolve this issue. A few times now you have said "cause of all causes", but it doesn't mean anything. Kindly explain 'cause of all causes' in depth and tell me how it is of relevance to the beings I have described.
-------
The actual gods, (the ones I have described), do not rest and nor do they really get all that bothered over the acts of humans. I mean c'mon, do you really get all upset when you see one ant kill another?
Furthermore, your gods rest did not come about due to man's wickedness.. there wasn't any at the time he rested. He rested because he'd just made everything.
sarva (all)-kāraṇa (causes)-kāraṇam (the means)