I talk with God

[SnakeLord]

hehe I like the happeh masturbation analogy you may have a point

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=50735&page=1&pp=20

From what I remember, Happeh starts posting on about page 12 or 13, (in my browser at least), with some claim that Monica Lewinski was an "Israeli agent" sent to destroy America. From there it descended into absolute and utter lunacy. Give it a read sometime.

I debated Buddha a tiny tad on his 95% of men have a preference for other men! Was even forced to google at some point to find out what his source was.

I'd probably debate the issue aswell, although admittedly I did accidentally end up in a pub one day when football was on. Was quite a shocking site to see when these guys teams scored goals. I'm one of these people that requires my own space - and doesn't like it when people invade that space, (like when people talk right in your face etc), so was kinda shocked to see a bunch of grown men sweating and hugging each other.

However, there are self confessed types on here who do admit to the sex drugs and religion rock and roll life before atheism! Their demons are apparant.

I suppose some would hope, want and believe that there was some sky daddy - from a sort of 'protection' aspect, but then cannot reconcile that with the supposed nature of these beings as given in religious texts.

-----

but when you say tree, you usually don't think of a bronze tree, or a sentient tree, or a family tree. you think of a living tree that you most easily associate a memory with. in the case of the word god, there are many definitions that do not line up like the definition of a tree does.

I suppose it would be worth doing a survey to see exactly what springs to mind when the word 'god' is mentioned. I do personally get the feeling that the majority would answer in favour of an 'omnipotent sky being' - a deity/entity, creator of the universe etc. I doubt many would really answer 'a passion for {sport}' or whatever. So in that respect 'god' is exactly the same as 'tree' - memory, (for most I would presume), comes in the form of some religious belief in a specific deity. We have to understand that there are a mass amount of religious people on the planet and that pretty much everyone has been subject to the understanding of 'god' in that way probably a whole lot more than any other way.

perhaps clear to you, but maybe that is because all you have ever heard about god was that god is a he and that he has supernatural powers and controls all of nature. this is not my indoctrination so it is not my definition of god.

Again I would consider a survey as worthwhile. I wasn't brought up in a religious setting - and yet like the majority, I was subject to certain teaching with regards to 'gods' - encompassing both old and new, remembered and forgotten.

But I would personally put my money on the majority of people relating the word 'god' to a specific deity - even more so given the word 'he' accompanied it.

then what is the common definition of god? what is the definition of god that, if told to every god-believer, they would understand and agree?

Once more a survey would be rather interesting, but for now I would consider the definition I gave earlier as reasonably on the mark:

- A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.

the specific definitions create different definitions. when you say tree, i might think of an oak tree i saw in southern florida near the beach. but when you say a bonzai tree i might automatically switch over to a small, twisted tree i saw in china town. they are both trees, as you are saying. so, my definition of god has similarities to those of christianity or judaism or buddhism, but its still god. what makes the analogy any different? why is it so bad that i describe natural processes as god?

I don't think I'd say 'bad' as much as I'd say 'out of place'. I often go out to take photographs - and being mainly into nature, (birds, plants etc), I do find myself in awe of that which shares this planet with us. I can sit down for hours trying to get a decent picture of a toadstool, and although I suppose the picture doesn't come out quite like my brain envisions it, I can see beauty in what I'm looking at. It's coloured spots, lumps poking out the side, the piece of dead bark and dewed moss sitting next to it - but I wouldn't ever see reason to use the word 'god' or 'he'. I guess it's just where we differ.

my intent is not to change the definition of god, but to show that god is not necessarily exactly like it is written in the bible. my intention is to show that god is more likely to exist as a part of natural processes.

So in short form:

Nature exists?

you should also notice that i stopped capitalising the pronoun 'i'. does that mean my definition of myself has changed?

There is certainly always a reason for change, yes. In this instance I wouldn't put it down to definitions regarding yourself, but perhaps just a moment of typing laziness... we all do it at some stage. But I do feel that 'God' and 'he' differ vastly to 'god' and 'it'.

i don't mean that 'god' has no definition. i mean that it has no commonly accepted definition and that there are so many differing definitions that it might as well have no definition.

This is certainly something we could debate upon - and I would still be quite interested to see a survey regarding it. I would dispute the point and say that there is a commonly accepted definition, (to degree), and while there most certainly are differing definitions when it comes to real detail, I believe the word by itself is enough to give a commonly held image.

yes, which is one of the reasons why i used the word god. because i wanted to relate to people--i wanted to show them that god is not just a mythical being that is only true in ignorant worshippers. i wanted to show that god can be something that we can all see is real--it only depends on how you allocate his meaning.

So you mean 'nature', 'reality'?

but, again, i am still talking about the ultimate creator of our universe. the bringer of all existence. whether i am talking about an oak or a bonzai, i am still talking about a tree--an organism that photosynthesizes light and fixes nitrogen and grows a woody stalk.

In this situation I feel it's the differences that stand out. One is 30 foot tall, the other is 1 foot tall. One sways in the wind, the other falls over. One is in a plant pot, the other is in a park.

We could possibly say that when it comes to universe origins either 'god' or 'big bang', but although they would share that similarity, they are so different in detail that I do not see how one can be exchanged for the other.

i also love to write and i enjoy taking pictures from time to time (my sister is an abstract photographer). my love of writing has lead me to the knowledge that words can never convey an experience, no matter how good a writer you are. its like the exponential curve towards an asymptote; you can always get closer to a better understanding, but you can never relay it exactly how it is.

I suppose that would explain book sale drops and movie sale improvements.

i would consider them two sides of the same coin. but our society has caused us to think that they are two different coins altogether, when they are not.

I'm sure there are many that feel the same way, but I personally would be inclined to disagree.

then maybe you have not understood a deeper meaning to what i was trying to say. my intention is not to describe natural processes as god, but to describe god as natural processes.

Perhaps, yes - again I suppose a common understanding of 'god' would be helpful. If it was indeed a 'omnipotent being, creator yada yada' then I would be inclined to write that 'what people envision as the work of such a being is merely the work of natural processes'.

 

[Provita]

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

How can you define something infinite?

 

[RoyLennigan]

I suppose it would be worth doing a survey to see exactly what springs to mind when the word 'god' is mentioned. I do personally get the feeling that the majority would answer in favour of an 'omnipotent sky being' - a deity/entity, creator of the universe etc. I doubt many would really answer 'a passion for {sport}' or whatever. So in that respect 'god' is exactly the same as 'tree' - memory, (for most I would presume), comes in the form of some religious belief in a specific deity. We have to understand that there are a mass amount of religious people on the planet and that pretty much everyone has been subject to the understanding of 'god' in that way probably a whole lot more than any other way.

Again I would consider a survey as worthwhile. I wasn't brought up in a religious setting - and yet like the majority, I was subject to certain teaching with regards to 'gods' - encompassing both old and new, remembered and forgotten.

But I would personally put my money on the majority of people relating the word 'god' to a specific deity - even more so given the word 'he' accompanied it.

Once more a survey would be rather interesting, but for now I would consider the definition I gave earlier as reasonably on the mark:

- A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.

but words like 'supernatural' and 'deity' are much debated on as well, probably more so than the word god. what exactly is supernatural? most would say it is intangible and non-physical--it is beyond natural. but we don't even have a limit to what is natural. natural is simply what exists--what we can experience. so even if there are forces that we aren't aware of, the simple act of discovering or experiencing them would make then natural. so i would still say that the most widely accepted definition of god would be 'a force which caused the creation and continuation of our universe as we know it.' and that definition is in line with what i have been describing as well.

by using words that describe abstracts only manifested in our thoughts we create perspectives on how the world works that are not ideas based on real things. by using words we think without defining and we don't associate words like god or supernatural to what we are really experiencing. so what i am saying is that rather than shunning those who speak of god as a specific male deity or whatever, we should show them that god is natural and that the supernatural is natural. there is no real difference, there can't be.

So in short form:

Nature exists?

yeah. the most accurate explanation of the universe is that it simply exists.

There is certainly always a reason for change, yes. In this instance I wouldn't put it down to definitions regarding yourself, but perhaps just a moment of typing laziness... we all do it at some stage. But I do feel that 'God' and 'he' differ vastly to 'god' and 'it'.

yes, i guess they do. i guess i just did that because i had found a definition of god that connected with so many others, yet explained in a different way. and so even though my god is different, i still felt i could use the same word. even though my god is nature, i still choose to call it god because i want to make a connection between the definition of god and nature.

This is certainly something we could debate upon - and I would still be quite interested to see a survey regarding it. I would dispute the point and say that there is a commonly accepted definition, (to degree), and while there most certainly are differing definitions when it comes to real detail, I believe the word by itself is enough to give a commonly held image.

yes, i think i agree with that now, though to a certain degree. and i agree with it because i think there is a common definition of god and that my definition agrees with it. i have stated it above. i think that if you are looking for a general consensus of all peoples on what god is, that it would be a more vague and simple response--a force that caused our universe, and invariably, us to be formed or created.

So you mean 'nature', 'reality'?

yes.

I'm sure there are many that feel the same way, but I personally would be inclined to disagree.

in all decisions you must take a leap of faith; you must make an assumption about what is going to happen before you really do it. just by moving your hand you have to assume where it is going. in science you must assume an outcome, or that your test is going to do what is predicted. you have to have faith in the studies that others have made before you and you have to have faith in your own senses. nothing is ultimately proven, we just discover probabilities, great or small. in quantum physics you can't say exactly where an electron is, because by the time you make a measurement, it is somewhere else. so what we experience is not exactly how it is, but we have to have faith that is enough so that we may make accurate decisions. its a constant give and take between what we assume and what we are experiencing. faith and knowledge.

Perhaps, yes - again I suppose a common understanding of 'god' would be helpful. If it was indeed a 'omnipotent being, creator yada yada' then I would be inclined to write that 'what people envision as the work of such a being is merely the work of natural processes'.

i wouldn't say 'merely the work of natural processes' though, that is too demeaning. natural processes are much more awe-inspiring than any written story of god. at least to me.

 

[RoyLennigan]

How can you define something infinite?

thats whats so hard, you can't define anything completely because it is always tied up with something else ad infinitum. everything is part of everything else in some way.