On what God is

[water]

Lads,

It is good to have you all here. Just thought I'd send you all my love and best wishes.



And Wes, I think your view on God is predominately shaped by the way the popular Roman Catholic understanding is; as far as I can tell, it can be quite sado-masochistic. So I think it is time to practically consider some other views on God.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Logically, the very concept of choice is simply innapplicable to a being of omniscience, omnipotence or omnipresence.

How is that so?

Choice and purpose only make sense in the context of linear time. God is by definition, not necessarily subject to that context.

What about abscence of time?

 

[TruthSeeker]

And Wes, I think your view on God is predominately shaped by the way the popular Roman Catholic understanding is; as far as I can tell, it can be quite sado-masochistic. So I think it is time to practically consider some other views on God.

Huumm... it is impossible not to agree with that.....

 

[MarcAC]

How confusing. *smirk*

Or confused. To me, God is totally necessary - or else I'll start seeing things like you. I would agree with most of your thoughts except the anti God and thus anti absolute objectivity one.

 

[MarcAC]

Why would God need to create us for a reason? Why wouldn't He just create us spontaneously? Aren't us just His dream... a figment of His imagination?

Well, let's say I infer from what I experience and I have never seen anything created without some reason for creating it. Whatever we dream has some connection with our everyday lives, whatever we imagine has some connection with our everyday lives. We dream what we dream for a reason, we imagine what we imagine for a reason - even if it is indirect.

 

[MarcAC]

What makes you think, as a human... that your line of thought there has any relevance in the context of god?

I was created by God - I think.

You have erroniously assumed you are privy to that which applies to a creator.

Let's say I perceive creation and I attribute what I perceive to Creator.

Reason does not apply to a "god" in the way you can conceive of it unless of course you assume it does... in which case you are sadly inconsistent with your reasoning.

Realise what you just stated there Wes? How do you come by the line; "does not apply [] in the way you can conceive of it"? Why state that anyway? What diff. does it make?

Perhaps god had no choice? Logically, the very concept of choice is simply innapplicable to a being of omniscience, omnipotence or omnipresence.

I prefer to say God is dynamic - choice is only applicable from a Human perspective. We, from here, may attribute some actions to God - He was going in the direction then He chose to go in that direction. Really He must know in what direction he was going in the first place - it's just that we didn't. But why should God overwhelm our minds with such unnecessary complexities? Why should we? Then again I find it fun so... whatever.

Choice and purpose only make sense in the context of linear time. God is by definition, not necessarily subject to that context.

Not necessarily; thus not excluded from it either. An omnipotent being, I would think, may regulate His abilities. Like taking on human form - thus entering linear time. Hmmm that rings a bell...

 

[MarcAC]

My my, I'd advise you all to get back to life though... I'm seeing post numbers in the thousands - you'll eventually start referring to existence as sciforums. Give it a break - remember there's a lot more to life than what some half wit lunatics like me have to type on sciforums - please.

 

[wesmorris]

And Wes, I think your view on God is predominately shaped by the way the popular Roman Catholic understanding is; as far as I can tell, it can be quite sado-masochistic.

How is this applicable to the discussion? Nebulous objection and negative implications about how you think I think don't help me to understand your objection. If you have a problem with my perspective, state it regarding something specific I've said. Cite an example such that I might have a chance to respond. Illustrate to me where you think I've gone wrong.

So I think it is time to practically consider some other views on God.

Perhaps then, you could offer one. I don't really appreciate your condescending tone. If you smell bias, demonstrate it or don't make the accusation.

 

[MarcAC]

I basically said the same thing directly prior to this statement by Raithere in another thread. I think he summarized the issue of god quite succinctly:

If God wanted me to believe in him, I would.
Therefore either God does not exist or God does not care if I believe in him or not.
Either way, I'm set.

~Raithere

Also, Raithere forgot a few options. God allows us free will, thus God may want us to believe in Him, but we choose not to. Omnipotence and Omniscience do not negate free will - knowledge is not action. But yes, either way, he's set.

 

[MarcAC]

Nebulous objection and negative implications about how you think I think don't help me to understand your objection.

You actually do that a lot Wes - yet I understand your objections - and accept your other mannerisms to an appreciable extent. A nice principle to adhere to is; be fair and take what you give. Jesus said that in some paraphrase about do unto others as you'd have them do unto you. But then, in your state, that doesn't mean a thing does it?

 

[wesmorris]

You actually do that a lot Wes - yet I understand your objections - and accept your other mannerisms to an appreciable extent. A nice principle to adhere to is; be fair and take what you give.

Is that an objective principle, or just a little something you've been working on? You're right though.. it's a nice principle. Can you really show how I've violated it, or is it god's will that you presume you have a clue?

When you show me where I've demanded that someone dare not defend themselves, or that they should not dare respond or question my authority... I'll concede the point.

You act as if I expect her not to question what I've said. Why do you think that? If I'm told I'm nebulous, do I not offer explanation if possible or admit to it? If I'm not, how am I supposed to know you didn't know what I meant?

Jesus said that in some paraphrase about do unto others as you'd have them do unto you.

Perhaps then you haven't examined what I'm doing very closely. My objection is intended to garner clarification. Is it that hard to understand?

But then, in your state, that doesn't mean a thing does it?

What do you intend to imply with "your state"? Because I'm no bible thumper? I accept the wisdom because it's valid. That you think "jesus" said it is of little consequence to me. It does make me curious as to your capacity to think for yourself. It always makes me suspiscious like that though, when people hide behind the purported words of dead guys... just on the basis that they think they're cool or whatever. Pansy. Ha.

 

[water]

Logically, the very concept of choice is simply innapplicable to a being of omniscience, omnipotence or omnipresence.

Not at all.
Omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent does not mean all-controlling.

And what is most, one, a human, does NOT know what this being of omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence knows. And if one does know that, one acts as one sees fit, one has free will.

Choice and purpose only make sense in the context of linear time. God is by definition, not necessarily subject to that context.

There are great problems with linear causality and linear time.
Linear causality forces you to set a first cause.


* * *

And Wes, I think your view on God is predominately shaped by the way the popular Roman Catholic understanding is; as far as I can tell, it can be quite sado-masochistic.

How is this applicable to the discussion? Nebulous objection and negative implications about how you think I think don't help me to understand your objection. If you have a problem with my perspective, state it regarding something specific I've said. Cite an example such that I might have a chance to respond. Illustrate to me where you think I've gone wrong.

It was a general comment.
I come here in good mood and good intention. I have also proven to address a lot of things -- witness the plethora of threads I have started here recently. If I see something that grabs my interest, I make notice of it, and if it is a topic wide enough, I start a thread.

And it is not how I think *you* think. It is how I think about a certain outlook -- whereby by this outlook I do not mean you personally. But since you are the one having a certain outlook (like everyone else), and if I wish to make comments to that outlook, then I have to quote, name the source.
It is nothing personal though.

Perhaps then, you could offer one. I don't really appreciate your condescending tone. If you smell bias, demonstrate it or don't make the accusation.

How you take it.
I wasn't being condescending at all.

We could, if we'd try really hard, and also if we'd screw around with the rules of English, make all texts completely impersonal, and all we'd be juggling with were arguments, whoever made them.

So instead of saying

And Wes, I think your view on God is predominately shaped by the way the popular Roman Catholic understanding is; as far as I can tell, it can be quite sado-masochistic. So I think it is time to practically consider some other views on God.

I could say

That view on God is predominately shaped by the way the popular Roman Catholic understanding is; it can be quite sado-masochistic. It is time to practically consider some other views on God.


Which one do you like better?

You act as if I expect her not to question what I've said. Why do you think that? If I'm told I'm nebulous, do I not offer explanation if possible or admit to it? If I'm not, how am I supposed to know you didn't know what I meant?

I never said *you* were nebulous.
I say a *sentence*, an *argument* is nebulous or stupid or brilliant or something.
Worlds of difference.

What do you intend to imply with "your state"? Because I'm no bible thumper? I accept the wisdom because it's valid. That you think "jesus" said it is of little consequence to me. It does make me curious as to your capacity to think for yourself. It always makes me suspiscious like that though, when people hide behind the purported words of dead guys... just on the basis that they think they're cool or whatever. Pansy. Ha.

Einstein is a dead guy too.



* * *

MarcAC Also, Raithere forgot a few options. God allows us free will, thus God may want us to believe in Him, but we choose not to. Omnipotence and Omniscience do not negate free will - knowledge is not action. But yes, either way, he's set.

But I find it intriguing and challenging to find out how one is set.

 

[wesmorris]

Not at all.
Omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent does not mean all-controlling.

Have I implied that it does?

And what is most, one, a human, does NOT know what this being of omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence knows.

So we agree.

And if one does know that, one acts as one sees fit, one has free will.

Why is free will depenedent on knowing the above?

There are great problems with linear causality and linear time.
Linear causality forces you to set a first cause.

... or admit you can't know it, or try to find it. Perhaps though, if it can't be known that fact reveals much.

It was a general comment.

*shrug* You've said it before but failed to back it up. Doing it more than once without clarification is annoying to me. I asked you to specify before, but you ignored it.. that's fine.. but you do it again as some apparent cart blanche rejection of my "sour" perspective or whatever. I think you're reading negativity into something that is not negative at all.

I come here in good mood and good intention.

Cool then. You may have simply overlooked how what you said might sound to me. Regardless, you can't know I think you sound condescending unless I tell you.

And it is not how I think *you* think. It is how I think about a certain outlook -- whereby by this outlook I do not mean you personally.

But you said it personally.

But since you are the one having a certain outlook (like everyone else), and if I wish to make comments to that outlook, then I have to quote, name the source.

I'm really not so sure you completley understand my outlook.

It is nothing personal though.

BS. From the woman who stated how "creepy" she thinks my view is, that statement is not plausible.

How you take it.
I wasn't being condescending at all.

Sounded that way to me. Sounded like a lecture to a student to me. I was probably just annoyed that you again dodged the opportunity to clarify and instead, just told me I should change. You mention: "I think it is time to practically consider some other views on God." while offering no such view.. and tell me I should consider the nothing you offer. How can I do that?

I have come to the conclusion that most "other views on god" are still steeped in circularity, or dilluted to uselessness regarding the original spirit of the term. Well, that or bullshit hippy mumbo jumbo. All that might be subjective utilitarian and I'll not argue against it... but I've yet to see a useful (even vague) definition of god that keeps to the spirit of "creator, all-powerful" theme and can withstand what I deem to be reasonable skepticism. So pony up, or stop giving me shit about what you think I think. Oh, and don't lump me into your goddamn "mislead god view" bullshit. If you want to debate some goddishness, you could at least be half-assed specific.

What's most interesting about all that to me is that the very idea of goddish types renders this whole scenerio (that it can't be known) necessary by its very conception. To me this says something about concepts and the geometry of thought and all. Kind of trippy stuff.

We could, if we'd try really hard, and also if we'd screw around with the rules of English, make all texts completely impersonal, and all we'd be juggling with were arguments, whoever made them.

So instead of saying

And Wes, I think your view on God is predominately shaped by the way the popular Roman Catholic understanding is; as far as I can tell, it can be quite sado-masochistic. So I think it is time to practically consider some other views on God.

I could say

That view on God is predominately shaped by the way the popular Roman Catholic understanding is; it can be quite sado-masochistic. It is time to practically consider some other views on God.


Which one do you like better?

Neither offers substance, as you haven't offered any views to consider, yet prescribe consideration. To what?

I find the idea of god particularly interesting because of the way I see its structure in a logical framework. Logic bounces right off of it. The ideas it represents negate and confirm themselves simultaneously, depending on your perspective... it's a logical singularity of sorts. Neither side of the issue can resonate with the other, as that which they debate requires that they remain opposed. Bah, something like that. Honestly it just kind of trips me out how I percieve it all to work. Something very Heisenburgy about it to me.

I never said *you* were nebulous.

And I never said you said I was.

I say a *sentence*, an *argument* is nebulous or stupid or brilliant or something.

Okay. I don't see how you thought the term was applied to you except by me. I didn't say you called me nebulous. I called your criticism nebulous.

Einstein is a dead guy too.

So what? "Do unto others" can be conceived of an promoted by a 10 year old. E=mc^2 takes a humongous investment to comprehend. If you stand behind Einstein just because you think he's neato, then you're as lame as I previously stated. If you are accept his conclusion based on the criticism of other scientists and further state that you are assuming he was correct in the context in which you quote him, then I don't think you're "hiding behind him".... He discovered and proved stuff that you couldn't have possibly proven.

 

[water]

Omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent does not mean all-controlling.

Have I implied that it does?

You said:

Logically, the very concept of choice is simply innapplicable to a being of omniscience, omnipotence or omnipresence.

I must have misread, I apologize.

And if one does know that, one acts as one sees fit, one has free will.

Why is free will depenedent on knowing the above?

It is often argued that if God is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent, then human free will is impossible.
I'm not saying you argue this way, but I was under the impression you were. I realized my error soon after posting, but by then it was too late to correct it.

It was a general comment.

*shrug* You've said it before but failed to back it up. Doing it more than once without clarification is annoying to me. I asked you to specify before, but you ignored it.. that's fine..but you do it again as some apparent cart blanche rejection of my "sour" perspective or whatever. I think you're reading negativity into something that is not negative at all.

The negativity is meant for the popular Roman Catholic view on God.

But you said it personally.

Not like there is some way to say something about someone or someone's thoughts without sounding personal ...

It is nothing personal though.

BS. From the woman who stated how "creepy" she thinks my view is, that statement is not plausible.

You give me so little credit.
I'm still a stodgy shrew for you, hm?

Sounded that way to me. Sounded like a lecture to a student to me.

That's because *you* chose to feel like a student.

I was probably just annoyed that you again dodged the opportunity to clarify and instead, just told me I should change.

SHOULD?!
For a relativist, you let yourself be dreadfully influenced by what other people say.

You mention: "I think it is time to practically consider some other views on God." while offering no such view.. and tell me I should consider the nothing you offer. How can I do that?

No, I actually thought that those other views are known to you anyway.

I have come to the conclusion that most "other views on god" are still steeped in circularity, or dilluted to uselessness regarding the original spirit of the term. Well, that or bullshit hippy mumbo jumbo. All that might be subjective utilitarian and I'll not argue against it... but I've yet to see a useful (even vague) definition of god that keeps to the spirit of "creator, all-powerful" theme and can withstand what I deem to be reasonable skepticism.

I've been going on and on, and I have also told you that before ('member the story about Descartes and his reconceptualization of movement?), about two-way inductive reasoning and how faith and the "definition of God" can not be a thought experiment.

I wish I could bring it over to you more succintly, but the thing is that it demands preparation. This is why I rather start a new thread on the topic, even though the topic emerged within an argument about something else.

Oh, and don't lump me into your goddamn "mislead god view" bullshit.

I'm not doing that. I'm sorry you read me that way.

If you want to debate some goddishness, you could at least be half-assed specific.

I am, in my way -- in a somewhat grand style though: Follow the threads I start. It is simply too much to bring up certain topics in a thread -- as I think they are worth of more special attention.

What's most interesting about all that to me is that the very idea of goddish types renders this whole scenerio (that it can't be known) necessary by its very conception. To me this says something about concepts and the geometry of thought and all. Kind of trippy stuff.

Look, start a thread on the impossibility to know God, and we can then devote ourselves to this particular issue.

In my time here I have come to realize that certain topics demand very particular approaches, and that it is simply better to start a new thread and set a particular direction to the topic in question. It's more practical.

Which one do you like better?

Neither offers substance, as you haven't offered any views to consider, yet prescribe consideration. To what?

You missed my point -- I said:

"We could, if we'd try really hard, and also if we'd screw around with the rules of English, make all texts completely impersonal, and all we'd be juggling with were arguments, whoever made them."

See? No more "I think" or "in my opinion" or "from my perspective". Just plain, impersonal arguments. Almost like formal logics.

I find the idea of god particularly interesting because of the way I see its structure in a logical framework. Logic bounces right off of it. The ideas it represents negate and confirm themselves simultaneously, depending on your perspective... it's a logical singularity of sorts. Neither side of the issue can resonate with the other, as that which they debate requires that they remain opposed. Bah, something like that. Honestly it just kind of trips me out how I percieve it all to work. Something very Heisenburgy about it to me.

Personally, I would love to see an essay on the topic of logic bouncing off of the concept of God.
Really, I sometimes feel downright sorry for certain ideas that get burried in threads, without being actually exposed.

The way you feel about my comment on considering other views, I feel about what you've just said above -- that you know more but haven't said it. Only that I don't get angry about it.

So what? "Do unto others" can be conceived of an promoted by a 10 year old. E=mc^2 takes a humongous investment to comprehend. If you stand behind Einstein just because you think he's neato, then you're as lame as I previously stated. If you are accept his conclusion based on the criticism of other scientists and further state that you are assuming he was correct in the context in which you quote him, then I don't think you're "hiding behind him".... He discovered and proved stuff that you couldn't have possibly proven.

But tell me -- what worth and importance does Relativity theory have in my everyday life? Do I eat it, sleep with it? Does it effect the way I am with people, the way I socialize? Does it have impact on the way I do my work?

It surely is an achievement, but I can do nothing with it when it comes to my daily life.

 

[MarcAC]

When you show me where I've demanded that someone dare not defend themselves, or that they should not dare respond or question my authority... I'll concede the point.

I fail to see how water did that... but... I'm not needed here...

You act as if I expect her not to question what I've said.

Didn't mean it that was Sir Morris - it's just the way you attacked the post that's all.

My objection is intended to garner clarification. Is it that hard to understand?

Understood - but it's just the way it's done - makes one wonder if that was the only intention.

What do you intend to imply with "your state"? Because I'm no bible thumper? I accept the wisdom because it's valid. That you think "jesus" said it is of little consequence to me. It does make me curious as to your capacity to think for yourself. It always makes me suspiscious like that though, when people hide behind the purported words of dead guys... just on the basis that they think they're cool or whatever. Pansy. Ha.

Your apparent state of agnosticism (no objective truth from a human perspective) - nothing else. Why do you accept your subjective conclusion that such reasoning is valid?

If you were to look at it (as I'm sure you have?) you'd realise that an agnostic who claims that any line of reasoning is valid or invalid... in fact... claims anything... violates the basic tenet of agnosticism. I accpet the wisdom through faith. Do you?

 

[MarcAC]

"Do unto others" can be conceived of an promoted by a 10 year old.

Such is God's Word - it certainly doesn't negate its value.

 

[wesmorris]

I fail to see how water did that... but... I'm not needed here...

Jeeeeeeeeez. You don't get it eh? I didn't say water did that. You accused me of "not taking what I give". Think about it for chrissake. I didn't say anything to her I don't think people should say to me.

Didn't mean it that was Sir Morris - it's just the way you attacked the post that's all.

LOL. You've seen me "attack" posts. How you could constrew it as an attack in that sense is beyond me. Perhaps you think you know more than you do. Doesn't matter to a gnostic a guess.

Understood - but it's just the way it's done - makes one wonder if that was the only intention.

You chivalry is charming, though misplaced. You like here so you're quick to jump to her defense. I understand, but you're reading too much into it. Often in trying to sound as nuetral as I can, it comes out cold. Did you notice that perhaps she did the same thing?

Your apparent state of agnosticism (no objective truth from a human perspective) - nothing else. Why do you accept your subjective conclusion that such reasoning is valid?

I accept that it's valid subjectively. Note my frequent use of variations on "to me, is seems". Things make sense to me, but how can I expect you to agree when you are not privy to my perception?

If you were to look at it (as I'm sure you have?) you'd realise that an agnostic who claims that any line of reasoning is valid or invalid... in fact... claims anything... violates the basic tenet of agnosticism.

LOL. Did the concept of subjective validity never occur to you.. the gnostic? I suppose not as your knowledge is claimed to be objective.

I accpet the wisdom through faith. Do you?[/color]

I accept it through reason, which is ultimately based on faith.

The problem with hueristics is that you'll might miss the optimal solution by way of assuming it out of your set of potential solutions. Faith is unavoidable, but should be kept minimal in the context of philosophy, such that goal of our endeavors - truth - is not simply assumed away. With the grab bag of presumptions in which you indulge, it seems truthful solutions are simply not your concern.

 

[wesmorris]

Such is God's Word

Do you offer more than presumption?

- it certainly doesn't negate its value.

The source and the wisdom are not necessarily related. Hitler said some wise things I'm sure.

 

[wesmorris]

I must have misread, I apologize.

No problem.

It is often argued that if God is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent, then human free will is impossible.

I wasn't making that argument at all. I thought you had more respect for me than to think I'd make such a case. It's irrelevant.

I'm not saying you argue this way, but I was under the impression you were. I realized my error soon after posting, but by then it was too late to correct it.

Thanks for clarifying. It's no big deal.

The negativity is meant for the popular Roman Catholic view on God.

Yeah well, my argument is about the boundaries of logic. I'd think you'd see it. It's frustrating to me that I can't communicate my thoughts well enough that you gain my intended meaning.

Not like there is some way to say something about someone or someone's thoughts without sounding personal ...

Exactly. I didn't request you not to be personal. YOU said "it's not personal".

You give me so little credit.

I might say the same. Perhaps you could consider that my argument is not from spite.

I'm still a stodgy shrew for you, hm?

LOL. That was a joke. I was just giving you hell.

That's because *you* chose to feel like a student.

Bullshit. That's because you were accusational with me and had missed the mark by a long shot as you confessed above. You were lecturing me. I thought this was a discussion.

For a relativist, you let yourself be dreadfully influenced by what other people say.

*sigh* I don't like it when my friends bust a lecture out on me in the middle of a nice discussion. Especially those friends I hold in high regard, like yourself. Surely you can understand even if you can't relate. You seem to think my objections to the notion of god are based in spite or something. They aren't.

No, I actually thought that those other views are known to you anyway.

I've heard a ton of them, but as I explained...

Given that I hold your mind in high regard, I figured you'd come up with something unique.. but you're not talking.

I've been going on and on, and I have also told you that before ('member the story about Descartes and his reconceptualization of movement?), about two-way inductive reasoning and how faith and the "definition of God" can not be a thought experiment.

I understand but I thought I satisfactorally refuted your assertions. Vain of me I suppose.

I wish I could bring it over to you more succintly, but the thing is that it demands preparation.

I understand. My only means of preparation is debating a point until I can condense it down into a concise thought. Hehe... maybe someday my preparation will be complete. The bitch is, it seems the more concise I think I am, the more prone to misunderstanding things become.

I'm not doing that. I'm sorry you read me that way.

Actually, you were at least to some extent... but you straightened it out above.

I am, in my way -- in a somewhat grand style though: Follow the threads I start.

Ha! Now you're assigning homework!

I mostly follow your threads as you might have noticed.

Look, start a thread on the impossibility to know God, and we can then devote ourselves to this particular issue.

I'm sure I've done that before and it's been done to death. You don't think this thread warrants the discussion?

In my time here I have come to realize that certain topics demand very particular approaches, and that it is simply better to start a new thread and set a particular direction to the topic in question. It's more practical.

As you wish.

You missed my point -- I said:

"We could, if we'd try really hard, and also if we'd screw around with the rules of English, make all texts completely impersonal, and all we'd be juggling with were arguments, whoever made them."

But I never asked you not to be personal. YOU said "it isn't personal". I don't mind personal. It was personal. You made a number of presumptions about me based on what I said but as you now know, they were wrong. No biggie, but that's personal to me.

See? No more "I think" or "in my opinion" or "from my perspective". Just plain, impersonal arguments. Almost like formal logics.

How boring. Hehe. Just KIDDING goddamnit.

Personally, I would love to see an essay on the topic of logic bouncing off of the concept of God.

Well, I'd never phrased it just that way and have really only been reacting to what's said rather than writing an essay. I'm not sure if I have it in me but I'll try to remember to give it a go.

Really, I sometimes feel downright sorry for certain ideas that get burried in threads, without being actually exposed.

Such is the way of sciforums.

The way you feel about my comment on considering other views, I feel about what you've just said above -- that you know more but haven't said it.

I'd swear I've said it ad infinitum. Look at my freakin post count for chrissake.

Only that I don't get angry about it.

You mean you didn't get angry about it. Would you say you've never been angry with something you've read on sci? Would you say you've never let that anger show in your response? Is it better to pretend you're not angry and bottle all that shit up so you can assplode about it later?

But tell me -- what worth and importance does Relativity theory have in my everyday life?

What relevance does that have in the context of my assertion? If you were to quote him all day because of your adoration for him, you'd suck. The words either have substance or they don't. Who said them is of little consequence on their validity.

 

[Karmashock]

Science has no opinion on God what so ever.

Science is an agnostic, not an atheist or a deist.