What is God?

[S.A.M.]

we all know what is God "a law that in this world gets corrupted"
a man buys a machine that does the job of 100 men the men lose their
jobs the man keeps all the money the law/system says i am god believe in me
i will create jobs put food etc but no food for the 100 men

what is god?
you tell me

Actually in Islam the man with the money is obligated to provide either a means for employment or provision for the unemployed.

There is a social tax on all Muslims 0.2% of their income, to enable this.

Plus Islam discourages monopolies and corporations as they create social inequality.
For the same reason reason it forbids usury, and interest for loans.

 

[Prince_James]

Samcdkey:

So morality is thus just a proclaimation from an arbitrary judge?

"Rightness is an embodiment of the greater good."

Does not this contradict with an arbitrary judge?

And moreover, is Allah himself good, or non-moral, because he determines what is good, and thus cannot be good himself?

 

[George Wildman]

There is a social tax on all Muslims 0.2% of their income, to enable this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
you mean on all who work those who lost their job pay nothing right?
all gods are corrupt right? because the world is corrupt those 100 men
lost their jobs and you tell me rubbish i have seen many systems they all suck!

 

[S.A.M.]

Samcdkey:
So morality is thus just a proclaimation from an arbitrary judge?

Isn't it always? What is law? Why do (or don't) you follow it?

"Rightness is an embodiment of the greater good."

Does not this contradict with an arbitrary judge?

You forget, people interpret the greater good in many ways.
That is where judgement comes in.

And moreover, is Allah himself good, or non-moral, because he determines what is good, and thus cannot be good himself?

Morality is a human concept; it applies to no one else, example animals are neither good nor bad. So it also does not apply to God.

 

[George Wildman]

And moreover, is Allah himself good, or non-moral, because he determines what is good, and thus cannot be good himself?
-------------------------------------------
those 100 men are good because allah gets to keep it all for himself and the machine/system

 

[Prince_James]

samcdkey:

"Isn't it always? What is law? Why do (or don't) you follow it?"

I do not deny that the law is indeed arbitrary. And as to why we follow it, for fear of punishment.

Yet how can a perfect being be arbitrary? To act merely on whim implies that God is not content. To not be content means to lack something. Are you claiming God lacks something?

"You forget, people interpret the greater good in many ways.
That is where judgement comes in."

But if there is a greater good, it stands to reason that it is not arbitrary.

"Morality is a human concept; it applies to no one else, example animals are neither good nor bad. So it also does not apply to God. "

Then how can we truly say that good is good, if it did not come from a good being?

 

[S.A.M.]

I do not deny that the law is indeed arbitrary. And as to why we follow it, for fear of punishment.

That is the only reason you follow it? So, in the absence of law, yet knowing the definition of morality as defined by law, you would have no problem in commiting theft, murder, etc to achieve your ends?

Yet how can a perfect being be arbitrary? To act merely on whim implies that God is not content. To not be content means to lack something. Are you claiming God lacks something?

There is a balance in all things in nature.
For humans the balance is between acceptable boundaries and free will.
Islam provides the moral and natural boundaries of acceptable behavior.
Beyond that there is accountability for the choices you make.
How is this arbitrary?

But if there is a greater good, it stands to reason that it is not arbitrary.

Yes, but human beings are curious and persistent creatures.
And also fallible. They have moral dilemmas and sometimes not everything is black and white. This is where free will comes in. You make the choice to the best of your knowledge and ability. It is the underlying motivation that is important since we cannot always predict the consequences of our actions.

Then how can we truly say that good is good, if it did not come from a good being?

We don't have to, we choose based on our knowledge, experience and understanding. After all, right or wrong, we are responsible only for our own actions. The information is available to look at. The interpretation is directed by your motive. You can see the glass as half full or half empty.

 

[Godless]

What is god?

In ancient time when men realised that they had an inner voice, a developing consciousness that was verbably communicating from one hemisphere of his brain "consciouness" to the other "subconsciouness" this voice he had no ability to define became his personal god. While others were still developing, and in sense had not the ability to consciously think for himself, this voice was his quide, his consciouness is what is god.

God is nothing more then the unexplainable inner voice of each conscious mind, god is I, god is You! Not a being of supernatural powers, though to the primitive men, thinking with an inner voice is supernatural power, to a primitive mind, consciousness is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, for were ever he/she goes his/her consciousness is always it's companion.

The case for bicameralism


CONSCIOUSNESS AND THE VOICES OF THE MIND
Godless

 

[Jaster Mereel]

What is god?

In ancient time when men realised that they had an inner voice, a developing consciousness that was verbably communicating from one hemisphere of his brain "consciouness" to the other "subconsciouness" this voice he had no ability to define became his personal god. While others were still developing, and in sense had not the ability to consciously think for himself, this voice was his quide, his consciouness is what is god.

God is nothing more then the unexplainable inner voice of each conscious mind, god is I, god is You! Not a being of supernatural powers, though to the primitive men, thinking with an inner voice is supernatural power, to a primitive mind, consciousness is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, for were ever he/she goes his/her consciousness is always it's companion.

The case for bicameralism


CONSCIOUSNESS AND THE VOICES OF THE MIND
Godless

Correct me if I am wrong, Godless, but from this I take it that you believe people from the past to be inferior in some way to people now? As in, you believe that people have become progressively more "intelligent" over time, on a human time-scale? I find this belief to be implicit in your statements. Is my conclusion correct?

 

[Jaster Mereel]

what is god: god is a mear thought. percieved whilst dreaming, halucinating, imagining, living only in the realm of fantasy.
god is wishful thinking.

Completely irrelevant. This topic was clearly not created to debate the existence of God, but rather to understand how people define the concept.

Religon causes war...History teaches that!
"God" is the central element designed to hold doctrine and law in balance within humanity ...
without God there is no balance..
without balance there is no religon,,
The harsh reality is..there was never a "God" in the first place, humans created it to relate to their mortality and give them a sense of continuity to live the rest of their lives with problems that have no answers.

This is also irrelevant. As I said above, this thread was clearly not created to debate this. The fact that some of the atheists in here have used it as an opportunity to preach about the evils of religion, and how there is no God, is highly disappointing. Why do you guys find it so hard to speak about God in even a hypothetical manner, as the creator of this thread asked?

 

[audible]

Completely irrelevant. This topic was clearly not created to debate the existence of God, but rather to understand how people define the concept.

so because I defined god as a mear thought, it's not relevant, I know what baumgarten required, so I gave my opinion, but you dont like it, please do fuck off!.

 

[sony]

God is one way of healing a man's desire for myth. he is a defined entity based on human experience of the world. err.. am I being relevant?

 

[mis-t-highs]

this thread was clearly not created to debate this. Why do you guys find it so hard to speak about God in even a hypothetical manner, as the creator of this thread asked?

so lets consider hypothetically that a god exists, ok considered.
believed it from tha age of lets say five thats when it was first indoctrinated into me, believed it was true, until twelve years ago, when I realised it could only be hypothetical.
all atheist can consider a god hypothetically, but thats all it can remain, what more need be said.

what do you want us to say.

 

[Prince_James]

samcdkey:

"That is the only reason you follow it? So, in the absence of law, yet knowing the definition of morality as defined by law, you would have no problem in commiting theft, murder, etc to achieve your ends?"

I would not feel myself beholden to any law in the absence of a law, no. Does this mean I would commit theft, murder, et cetera? No. For I do affirm morality as existent even outside of law, but under a system of ethics which does not derive its authority from whims, divine or otherwise. That being said, if someone was my sworn enemy that intended to do me harm, or the enemy of my country, I would not at all feel guilty in stealing from them if the situation demanded it, nor killing them (one could hardly call this murder).

"There is a balance in all things in nature.
For humans the balance is between acceptable boundaries and free will.
Islam provides the moral and natural boundaries of acceptable behavior.
Beyond that there is accountability for the choices you make.
How is this arbitrary?"

In that God has set those boundaries on a whim. By your definition, murder would cease to be a sin if God had so decided it was not, or sometime in the future decided it was not. If there is no inherent goodness or evil in an act, then we cannot proclaim that it is anything but arbitrary, even for the creator, to hvae declared them thus.

"Yes, but human beings are curious and persistent creatures.
And also fallible. They have moral dilemmas and sometimes not everything is black and white. This is where free will comes in. You make the choice to the best of your knowledge and ability. It is the underlying motivation that is important since we cannot always predict the consequences of our actions."

I shall agree that motivation is an important consideration in any act and we can, indeed, falter morally, without being so blameworthy as to be declared evil.

"We don't have to, we choose based on our knowledge, experience and understanding. After all, right or wrong, we are responsible only for our own actions. The information is available to look at. The interpretation is directed by your motive. You can see the glass as half full or half empty. "

So then it is we who decide what is good and evil?

 

[(Q)]

That is the only reason you follow it? So, in the absence of law, yet knowing the definition of morality as defined by law, you would have no problem in commiting theft, murder, etc to achieve your ends?

It's hilarious that theists automatically assume such nonsense with lack of scriptures, yet conveniently forget their religions were used to commit theft and murder.

There is a balance in all things in nature.
For humans the balance is between acceptable boundaries and free will.
Islam provides the moral and natural boundaries of acceptable behavior.
Beyond that there is accountability for the choices you make.

Killing is acceptable in your religion, what other choice would anyone make requiring accountability beyond that?

 

[S.A.M.]

Hi!

It's hilarious that theists automatically assume such nonsense with lack of scriptures,

Talking specifically about law here, since scriptures can be optional.

yet conveniently forget their religions were used to commit theft and murder.

People are prone to self-delusion.
More obvious now than ever.

Killing is acceptable in your religion, what other choice would anyone make requiring accountability beyond that?

Killing is acceptable in self-defence and in those cases where a deathof one may protect society, e.g. a dictator or a terrorist. To suggest otherwise ignores the necessity for law. Or are you an anarchist?

 

[Godless]

Correct me if I am wrong, Godless, but from this I take it that you believe people from the past to be inferior in some way to people now?

Did ancient people have knowledge of quantum physics? That the world was round? that the universe does not revolve around the earth? Epistemology is hiarchial, all that we know now has evolved to what we know now.

However the mentality of ancient men, before they had consciousness as you and I define it, wasn't the same as ours. READ the DEAM links. That's the reason I provide them :bugeye:

 

[S.A.M.]

For I do affirm morality as existent even outside of law, but under a system of ethics which does not derive its authority from whims, divine or otherwise.

But without laws at all what criteria would you use to differentiate right from wrong? e.g. a pedophile thinks its alright to have sex with a child. In the absence of any legal system, what determines who is right and who is wrong? And what determines the definition of the system of ethics?

That being said, if someone was my sworn enemy that intended to do me harm, or the enemy of my country, I would not at all feel guilty in stealing from them if the situation demanded it, nor killing them (one could hardly call this murder).

Then you support terrorists and suicide bombers?

In that God has set those boundaries on a whim. By your definition, murder would cease to be a sin if God had so decided it was not, or sometime in the future decided it was not.

Murder is not a sin in Islam under two conditions:
1. when in self-defense
2. when the death of the person is required for the preservation of society (as a terrorist or oppressive dictator)

If there is no inherent goodness or evil in an act, then we cannot proclaim that it is anything but arbitrary, even for the creator, to hvae declared them thus.

Not everything is good or bad except when taken out of context.
There may be good reasons for lying, stealing, murder etc.

So then it is we who decide what is good and evil?

We act based on our reasoning; it is not infallible.
We are still accountable for our actions, based on our motives.

 

[(Q)]

Killing is acceptable in self-defence and in those cases where a deathof one may protect society, e.g. a dictator or a terrorist. To suggest otherwise ignores the necessity for law. Or are you an anarchist?

Killing for any reason to prop up a religion is totally unacceptable and contradictive. It only serves as evidence that the religion is manmade.

If god created everyone and controlled everyones destiny, what would be the need for protecting oneself against another one of gods creations?

 

[S.A.M.]

Killing for any reason to prop up a religion is totally unacceptable and contradictive. It only serves as evidence that the religion is manmade.

give me an example how killing props up Islam

If god created everyone and controlled everyones destiny, what would be the need for protecting oneself against another one of gods creations?

we've already been through this :bugeye:
boundaries for acceptable behavior vs free will, remember?