I talk with God

[Theoryofrelativity]

Roy I see the Trolls have arrived, my advice is to completely ignore them........ah I see you have

 

[LeeDa]

ouchness

 

[LeeDa]

Unbeliever

 

[LeeDa]

To be alive is to be God.

 

[SnakeLord]

SnakeLord, i do believe you misinterpret my intentions and beliefs. The only perspective i'm trying to push on other people is that truth can only be learned by experience. i am not saying that god exists

Then I would simply question using the word 'god'. What I'm trying to say is that you could have said exactly the same thing - but it would have come across a lot better, and a lot less religious, if you hadn't have substituted already existing and defined words with the term 'god'.

Your very first sentence was: "I talk with god every day of my life" - you even capitalised the 'g' - which is generally taken as a statement of belief in existence of a specific deity, whereas a lower case 'g' is generally used when referring to something material that you appreciate or 'worship', ("football was his god"). To be honest there seemed little choice but to consider your post a religious one. Of course I personally disagree with using the word 'god' at all, whether upper or lower case, because there are perfectly adequate words that can go in it's place, ("he loved football more than anything")

Again you imply belief in a specific deity by referring to "him" and "he", and also with: "he is too powerful, too intelligent to use mere words", again an implication in belief of a specific male deity.

So, while it might have been misunderstood, that is simply because of the words you used, (god), and indeed your next post where you said: "i figured that god exists", something surely only a theist would say?

i am saying that god is a word that can be defined as anything you want it to be.

Surely the same goes with any other word aswell then? The thing is that you simply substituted perfectly adequate words with the word 'god' when it need not have been done, (and I believe lowers the value of what you were trying to say). Of course that's just my opinion.

i can define the entire universe as god, or i can define the sun as god, or i can define a image in my mind as god--it doesnt matter

I would simply say that you define universe as universe and sun as sun. Why put a word in there that A) isn't needed, B) will be largely misunderstood and C) has no worth to what you're actually saying?

i say that what makes the sky blue is god because i know that without that which i call god, the sky would not be blue.

Ok, try and rephrase the sentence but without using the word 'god'. I just want to see what you say

but that is exactly what everyone does. you may call it math or you may call it god or you may call it history--but it is something which molds experience in to your offspring.

They're not the same thing. Undoubtedly if I teach my daughter tennis, you'd substitute 'tennis' and call it god - but that's dishonest. Indeed what you seem to be doing is substituting 'experience' for 'god'. It's not needed, and nor was it what I was implying.

the majority of our society sends their children away to be baby-sat for their entire child-adolescent years. they sit inside being told how the world works instead of going outside and actually learning/experiencing how it works.

Admittedly that is somewhat of a shame.

now, i do not doubt that math and history are important, but they teach the children nothing when the kids don't actually understand or see the relevance of it. to see how it is relevant and important, it is always better to show them how it works in reality and let them understand it subjectively.

I've always promoted the notion that people should do, instead of read, (in context) - but initially it is worth teaching children a wide variety of subjects. Certainly there will be many they have no interest in or cannot grasp - but it's a valid method to find out the best path for them. By doing a variety of things with my daughter, I am able to find out what she is actually interested in - and thus spend more time focusing on that aspect.

oh, im sure there are, you just havent defined them as gods. its only a word, anyways.

But no, there aren't. You might put an irrelevant word; ('god'), in the place of another word - but no matter how many times you say it, it doesn't make anything a 'god' of any kind.

What you're saying is no different to:

{me} I don't believe in leprechauns

{you} I'm sure you do, you just haven't defined them as leprechauns. It's only a word anyway.

It's worthless.

yes, it must be in perfect balance, because if it werent, then it would be a different universe. you have to realize that perfect is not an absolute, but a state that is defined subjectively.

In which case I define the universe as imperfect, which means it must be in imperfect balance because if it weren't, I'd say it was perfect.

To be honest, you're just devaluing words. I can call mathematics god, I can call an African elephant a banana if I so choose - but it is inherently meaningless and worthless.

 

[Godless]

Roy that was a good metaphor, I liked the style of writing, and it made sense, since just about anything that is unexplainable is atributed to a god.

Too bad the thread got distorted, but the original post was very eloquent.

Good job mate.

Godless

 

[RoyLennigan]

ahh, you all are great! you make my mind spin.

 

[RoyLennigan]

Are you a preist or monk or some such ridiculous religious puppet?

you sound like one fo sho.

oh no! do i?

Hey it's God here. Just dropping a line. Ta.

hey, how's it goin?

To be alive is to be God.

to be is simply to be.

 

[RoyLennigan]

Then I would simply question using the word 'god'. What I'm trying to say is that you could have said exactly the same thing - but it would have come across a lot better, and a lot less religious, if you hadn't have substituted already existing and defined words with the term 'god'.

The reason I use the word God is because there are a great many people who do believe God exists. I would rather incorporate their ideas into my own than ostrasize them from my beliefs. It is due to my personal philosophy that all explanations are only contradictory subjectively--and that their only objective differences are in degrees of complexity. A theist says that God created the universe; a scientist says that the universe is caused by natural processes--there is no difference objectively, only subjectively. If you worked hard enough, you could relate every biblical event with a correlating historical scientific event. And it would make perfect sense. Though at the same time, you can make an argument of deep and inherent conflict between religion and science, from a literal standpoint. Its all based on how the words are associated in your mind.

Your very first sentence was: "I talk with god every day of my life" - you even capitalised the 'g' - which is generally taken as a statement of belief in existence of a specific deity, whereas a lower case 'g' is generally used when referring to something material that you appreciate or 'worship', ("football was his god"). To be honest there seemed little choice but to consider your post a religious one. Of course I personally disagree with using the word 'god' at all, whether upper or lower case, because there are perfectly adequate words that can go in it's place, ("he loved football more than anything")

Well, this is the religious section after all I think most would agree that God is that which makes things change. So, you can see God as a great many things, or even all things combined, but it'll be different to the next person. How we percieve things is completely subjective--so God cannot exist as he does in any one of our minds just like democracy cannot exist in reality like it does in anyone's mind. My use of the word God is because it is a powerful word, no matter how you define it.

Again you imply belief in a specific deity by referring to "him" and "he", and also with: "he is too powerful, too intelligent to use mere words", again an implication in belief of a specific male deity.

So, while it might have been misunderstood, that is simply because of the words you used, (god), and indeed your next post where you said: "i figured that god exists", something surely only a theist would say?

It is in my nature not to make distinctions like theist or atheist, but its hard not to when indoctrined by society so constantly. I see people with beliefs, and I see similarities among those beliefs. I chose the words I did because of the effect they have on people.

Surely the same goes with any other word aswell then? The thing is that you simply substituted perfectly adequate words with the word 'god' when it need not have been done, (and I believe lowers the value of what you were trying to say). Of course that's just my opinion.

A valid opinion at that. But compromises must be made to cater to a greater variety of people. They say a picture is worth a thousand words. Well an experience does not have an exchange for words and so words can only convey so little of an idea.

I would simply say that you define universe as universe and sun as sun. Why put a word in there that A) isn't needed, B) will be largely misunderstood and C) has no worth to what you're actually saying?

Because the word God has meaning to some where that meaning is lacking in others. And by associating that meaning of God with that which is important to those less prone to belief in God, I hoped to cross boundaries of definition.

Ok, try and rephrase the sentence but without using the word 'god'. I just want to see what you say

"i say that what makes the sky blue is h because i know that without that which i call h, the sky would not be blue."

h=Planck's constant

They're not the same thing. Undoubtedly if I teach my daughter tennis, you'd substitute 'tennis' and call it god - but that's dishonest. Indeed what you seem to be doing is substituting 'experience' for 'god'. It's not needed, and nor was it what I was implying.

The problem is, I ultimately agree with you, but human common knowledge includes and puts much importance on the idea of God, and so I must respect that reverence and see how it fits in with reality (As, fundamentally, all thought and language and ideas are merely mental manifestations--predictions of what reality is like).

I've always promoted the notion that people should do, instead of read, (in context) - but initially it is worth teaching children a wide variety of subjects. Certainly there will be many they have no interest in or cannot grasp - but it's a valid method to find out the best path for them. By doing a variety of things with my daughter, I am able to find out what she is actually interested in - and thus spend more time focusing on that aspect.

Yes, I agree. During childhood it is important to show them as much diversity as you can. But it is really the parents choice as to how they want their child to end up. You can either keep showing them all these different things, or you can cater to their desires and interests at an early age (resulting in the likes of Mozart, child prodigy). Its a bit of a compromise, you must sacrifice mastery over one thing for knowledge of a great many things, or you must sacrifice general wisdom for specialized expertise.

But what happens to many children is that they get neither. They are turned away from their interests in order to teach them a variety of things which they are uninterested in, resulting in apathy towards learning. But i think this would be greatly remedied simply by having parents showing their children more at an early age.

But no, there aren't. You might put an irrelevant word; ('god'), in the place of another word - but no matter how many times you say it, it doesn't make anything a 'god' of any kind.

What you're saying is no different to:

{me} I don't believe in leprechauns

{you} I'm sure you do, you just haven't defined them as leprechauns. It's only a word anyway.

It's worthless.

Do you believe that you can put the following definition to a word:
"The cause of an effect"
Because at the simplest level, I think almost anyone's definition of God would come down to that.

In which case I define the universe as imperfect, which means it must be in imperfect balance because if it weren't, I'd say it was perfect.

But by that same logic it is a perfect universe for you to say that it is an imperfect universe. If it wasn't a perfect universe, then you would have said that it was a perfect universe. But in the universe that you say it is a perfect universe, that universe is perfect for you to say that it is a perfect universe. Do you see what I am trying to say? Any universe is a perfect universe for what is in it. Just like your face is a perfect face for the personality you have, because it is the only face that matches it. Things are the way they are because of everything else around them, and so they are perfect for each other.

To be honest, you're just devaluing words. I can call mathematics god, I can call an African elephant a banana if I so choose - but it is inherently meaningless and worthless.

You're either uncovering an inconsistancy in my philosophy, or you're proving it, I'm not quite sure, maybe both. The words we use only have meaning because we associate similar experiences with the same symbols.

Two cave men are sitting in the forest. A frog leaps by and the larger cave man utters a sound.
"Ug..."
The smaller cave man looks at the frog when the other caveman made the sound. They depart soon afterwards.

A few days later the same two cavemen are walking through the forest and the smaller one notices a frog. He says "Ug," being reminded of the sound by the sight of the frog.
The larger caveman, hearing the sound, looks over at the frog and says, "ug."

we say words in response to what we sense. Our current experiences are constantly related in our minds to stored memories--sounds, sights, smells, tastes, textures, feelings we experienced that are similar to what we are experiencing now. without those experiences, the words are meaningless. So we are not creating new ideas when we speak, we are bringing up old memories just by saying a word--a word that was said because old memories were brought up.

 

[john smith]

oh no! do i?

Yes, yes actually you do.

If you don't mind me asking, why do you believe in God?

 

[john smith]

Roy I see the Trolls have arrived, my advice is to completely ignore them........ah I see you have

And im sure the advice of someone who uses an avatar showing goat fucking is relative and worth paying attention to!

btw, sarcasm is the lowest form of wit which says something about you.

 

[Satyr]

I talk with God every day of my life

I talk with Others….same difference.

Sometimes when we’re lost and feel weak and vulnerable we seek out advice and support in others or in the quintessential Other.

It is how we comfort ourselves.

 

[RoyLennigan]

Yes, yes actually you do.

If you don't mind me asking, why do you believe in God?

god is very loosely defined and because of that, god can exist as a great number of things, subjectively. objectively there are no words and so god cannot exist, even though the entity or process 'god' describes still exists. what exists objectively cannot be described.

 

[Provita]

If you don't mind me asking, why do you believe in God?

Because I can,

Becuase I want to, and...

Because it makes most sense to me, perhaps not you, but yes to me.

 

[General_Paul]

Or RoyLennigan you can admit that your belief in god stems from a deeper seeded unconcious longing to find some meaning and purpose in life and the universe around us. Belief in god, and "speaking" with god are two different things. Your post is overly poetic and sappy and if I were a counselor, I'd stick you on some anti-psychotics and a padded white cell. Your analysis of light patterns and glass shards was over analyzing of simple normal light physics and analysis of wind patterns... I'm not going to even go into it.

 

[RoyLennigan]

Or RoyLennigan you can admit that your belief in god stems from a deeper seeded unconcious longing to find some meaning and purpose in life and the universe around us. Belief in god, and "speaking" with god are two different things. Your post is overly poetic and sappy and if I were a counselor, I'd stick you on some anti-psychotics and a padded white cell. Your analysis of light patterns and glass shards was over analyzing of simple normal light physics and analysis of wind patterns... I'm not going to even go into it.

if i were a counselor i would try to show you the way out of the white padded closed mind you're trapped in and i would take you off all the drugs you've convoluted your mind with. what is poetry but another way of saying the same thing? you seem to be the one over-analyzing, because you've obviously missed the more simple meaning underlying everything that i've said.

i don't long for a deeper meaning to life, i've found it already. and i know that deeper meaning is experience.

 

[RoyLennigan]

Because I can,

Becuase I want to, and...

Because it makes most sense to me, perhaps not you, but yes to me.

yes

and so god is subjective, and in being so, god is as real as the reality we experience. the question is about how real our perception is.

 

[geeser]

if i were a counselor i would try to show you the way out of the white padded closed mind you're trapped in and i would take you off all the drugs you've convoluted your mind with.

just becuase General Paul has a rational opinion that differs from your own he's a drug addict. however your poetic post, could be compared to being under the influence of LSD. go figure.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

just becuase General Paul has a rational opinion that differs from your own he's a drug addict. however your poetic post, could be compared to being under the influence of LSD. go figure.

apparantly geeser you didn't read the post fully, Roy was parrotting what GP said to him and elaborating, LC says : "he who throws the first stone should expect a brick in his face".

Or RoyLennigan you can admit that your belief in god stems from a deeper seeded unconcious longing to find some meaning and purpose in life and the universe around us. Belief in god, and "speaking" with god are two different things. Your post is overly poetic and sappy and if I were a counselor, I'd stick you on some anti-psychotics and a padded white cell. Your analysis of light patterns and glass shards was over analyzing of simple normal light physics and analysis of wind patterns... I'm not going to even go into it.

 

[SnakeLord]

The reason I use the word God is because there are a great many people who do believe God exists.

Question:

Consider for a moment that perhaps a 3 year old visits this site.. Does that mean you would say goo-goo ga-ga just to accomodate them?

I personally think your post was nicely expressed without the word 'god' used as a substitute for other suitable words. I guess it's just an opinion like anyone elses, but I would actually drop you points for it.

A theist says that God created the universe; a scientist says that the universe is caused by natural processes--there is no difference objectively, only subjectively.

But there is a difference - because those words have definitions. Like I said earlier, you can call tennis 'football' if you so choose, but then we're debating given definitions. 'Natural process' and 'god' are, by definition, two completely different things - and using one in place of the other is wrong.

I think most would agree that God is that which makes things change.

I wouldn't, and to my knowledge not many people that would consider themselves atheists would either.

It is in my nature not to make distinctions like theist or atheist, but its hard not to when indoctrined by society so constantly.

Distinctions and definitions are inevitable, which is pretty much why I have issue with the word usage of your original post. Words have been defined and are understood with the given definitions. To just change a definition as and when it suits you is undoubtedly going to cause issue.

But compromises must be made to cater to a greater variety of people.

I tend to disagree in this issue. A word has a definition, no need to completely change that definition simply because you think a religious man is going to read your writing.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words.

Maybe it's just me, but again I disagree.

Well an experience does not have an exchange for words and so words can only convey so little of an idea.

Strike 3 I disagree again.

Because the word God has meaning to some where that meaning is lacking in others

But 'God' has a defintion that is, (or can easily be), understood.

I hoped to cross boundaries of definition.

So it appears, but given that the word already has a definition, you're merely swapping 'tennis' for 'bananas'.

Do you believe that you can put the following definition to a word:
"The cause of an effect"

Yeah:

Cause.

- The producer of an effect
- A basis for an action or response; a reason

Because at the simplest level, I think almost anyone's definition of God would come down to that

anyone religious, maybe.

But by that same logic it is a perfect universe for you to say that it is an imperfect universe. If it wasn't a perfect universe, then you would have said that it was a perfect universe. But in the universe that you say it is a perfect universe, that universe is perfect for you to say that it is a perfect universe. Do you see what I am trying to say? Any universe is a perfect universe for what is in it. Just like your face is a perfect face for the personality you have, because it is the only face that matches it. Things are the way they are because of everything else around them, and so they are perfect for each other.

By definition, 'perfect' is unfailing. When it fails, it is by definition no longer perfect. The minute anyone can say that something in this universe went wrong, it is no longer perfect. Of course you could argue that it is actually perfect, but only seems imperfect, (or to have failed), to us humans - but then given that us humans are part of this universe, and thus would be imperfect when understanding perfect.. it means the universe is indeed imperfect.

we say words in response to what we sense. Our current experiences are constantly related in our minds to stored memories--sounds, sights, smells, tastes, textures, feelings we experienced that are similar to what we are experiencing now. without those experiences, the words are meaningless. So we are not creating new ideas when we speak, we are bringing up old memories just by saying a word--a word that was said because old memories were brought up.

Certainly, which is why we don't say 'bananas' instead of 'tennis'.