Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Justin's definition from his letter to Typhro is my preferred.I have. I agree with you on many points, such as the many different working definitions of "God" seen on this board, from vaporous to comical.
From an ignostic perspective, a robust definition of "God" would be nice. Necessary, even.
Falsifiable would be better.
I will understand if you decline.
I have a rational understanding of Christianity and angels and demons. The virgin birth is about faith again and not about any understanding of God fathering a son. Jesus being the Son of God is a about Jesus personifying the Logos/Reason, not about him being half genie. Havent seen any miracles to believe in them today.I asked you do you believe this God of yours answers your prayers or the Christian God answers other Christians prayers in the present. From your answer above, I take it that you dont believe the Christian God answers your prayers or any other Christians prayers. What other Christian beliefs dont you hold? Do you believe the Christian God created all things? Do you believe the Christian God fathered a son? Do you believe miracles still happen today as they did in the past? Do you believe angels and demons are active in the world today? Im guessing from your comments below that you dont believe these things, but could you please confirm it one way or the other.
I dont care about your excuse for dumbing down the conversation. The only argument that should be taking place is about a correct understanding of God. Not looking for kids to justify your strawman because they have the same understanding.Your condescension is misplaced because it is directed at me, but what I gave you isnt my understanding of God. As I just showed you, the understanding of God that you describe as being that of a seven-year-old is not my understanding, but the understanding of the vast majority of Christians in the U.S. today and many who contribute to these forums.
And how many of these understandings are rational and how many are just guys in the sky with differing management styles?My understanding of the Christian God is that it is imaginary and that goes for the Muslim, Hindu, Greek, Roman, Norse, Egyptian, Aztec and all other gods as well. I understand gods to be imaginary entities that insecure and credulous people use for emotional comfort. Gods comes in many shapes and forms from the vague, distant impersonal force of the deists to the petty, vindictive and all-to-human personal gods of Christianity and Islam. However, the one thing they all have in common is that there isnt a single shred of sound evidence or a single sound argument to prove that any one of them is real.
Completely irrelevant in a philosophical conversation to consider the beliefs of those not studied in the subject.However, what the majority thinks about God is not irrelevant at all. What the majority thinks about God influences their decisions and affects their behaviour. They think their church should have a say in the government. They think homosexuality should be discouraged so they oppose gay rights. They reject the theory of evolution and some try to have creationism taught in public school science classes. In other countries, what people think about their God motivates them to attack and kill people for making drawings or anything else they consider blasphemous and for the purely religious crime of apostasy.
Not at all. We need to get you up to speed on the last two and half millennia of conversation around the concept of God so you realize how silly that question is.By the way, I dont need to argue against your God or any other god. What you need to do is prove that it is real.
It is in direct opposition about what you said about the Laws so hopefully you have some reason to believe that and arent just guessing. The laws existing show that there are parts of the universe at rest and the exploration of their nature can show you how a God can be present and active but not offer any proof materially.I dont think Ive ever found someone responding to the ideology presented in those Heisenberg quotes. Explain how that would prove the Christian God is real.
(reply) Please explain this space-time continuum that you speak of and explain exactly how the concpet of time can't be applied to the universe; as you said earlier
Justin's definition from his letter to Typhro is my preferred.
Justin: "That which always maintains the same nature, and in the same manner, and is the cause of all other thingsthat, indeed, is God."
I'm not sure how much of the discussion around God is falsifiable but the goal is to consider the most rational option and disregard what seems impossible.
I have a rational understanding of Christianity and angels and demons. The virgin birth is about faith again and not about any understanding of God fathering a son. Jesus being the Son of God is a about Jesus personifying the Logos/Reason, not about him being half genie. Havent seen any miracles to believe in them today.
I dont care about your excuse for dumbing down the conversation. The only argument that should be taking place is about a correct understanding of God. Not looking for kids to justify your strawman because they have the same understanding.
If you have no argument against a rational understanding of God then we have been wasting our time.
And how many of these understandings are rational and how many are just guys in the sky with differing management styles?
Completely irrelevant in a philosophical conversation to consider the beliefs of those not studied in the subject.
You are getting your politics and your religion mixed up. When you start look towards religious beliefs to fix political problems you might want to rethink that.
Not at all. We need to get you up to speed on the last two and half millennia of conversation around the concept of God so you realize how silly that question is.
It is in direct opposition about what you said about the Laws so hopefully you have some reason to believe that and arent just guessing. The laws existing show that there are parts of the universe at rest and the exploration of their nature can show you how a God can be present and active but not offer any proof materially.
That is one of the earliest church father’s definitions that we have. Where do you get your understanding of the “Christian” God? I can assume what you are imagining but if you have an actual definition that describes what you consider the “Christian” God that would probably be more appropriate.That looks like a deistic god concept that has been labeled "God", then with an attempted slight-of-hand becomes the Christian "God".
It depends on the model of the universe and its origin that you are working with. If you start with something material then it being temporal and temporary makes sense but if you see matter as a product of the laws and the laws aren’t temporal or temporary then there is reason to believe that their source isn’t as well.For instance, if the instantiation of the cosmos required a first cause, perhaps it was just a mechanism that was limited to that one purpose. And it may not have survived that process. And you (or Justin) have called it "God".
Maybe. We were discussing a variety of understandings of God not gods so still going to be a proper noun labeling the origin and not a blanket term describing the forces in the universe like with polytheism. But correct speaking and writing is weak point for me."a God"? I know it is pedantic, but should it not be "God" or "a god"?
PanentheismAre we talking about a personal god or a deistic god?
Yes it will appear undetectable because all that appears to us is in flux. We are limited by our senses to only what changes, that is why we look to our intellect for what is constant.And this god can be present and active and undetectable?
But won't a universe with an undetectable god will appear godless?
My working definition the Christian "God" is "a character in a book". That's why I asked you.That is one of the earliest church fathers definitions that we have. Where do you get your understanding of the Christian God? I can assume what you are imagining but if you have an actual definition that describes what you consider the Christian God that would probably be more appropriate.
But we don't know if that source deserves the name "God". And the universe may have always existed.It depends on the model of the universe and its origin that you are working with. If you start with something material then it being temporal and temporary makes sense but if you see matter as a product of the laws and the laws arent temporal or temporary then there is reason to believe that their source isnt as well.
It comes across as sloppy, like you are getting Christian god and the pantheistic "god" confused.Maybe. We were discussing a variety of understandings of God not gods so still going to be a proper noun labeling the origin and not a blanket term describing the forces in the universe like with polytheism. But correct speaking and writing is weak point for me.
It did appear for a moment that you were defending the Christian god.Panentheism
How do we delineate between undetectable and nonexistent? Other than 'nonexistent' would be the positive claim.Yes it will appear undetectable because all that appears to us is in flux. We are limited by our senses to only what changes, that is why we look to our intellect for what is constant.
Not your understanding of God in the Bible. What do you think the Christian understanding is since you think I have made a mistake with panentheism? Who are you getting your definition from?My working definition the Christian "God" is "a character in a book". That's why I asked you.
Deserves the name? Huh? What makes something deserve the name other than being the source of the universe?But we don't know if that source deserves the name "God". And the universe may have always existed.
ReasonHow do we delineate between undetectable and nonexistent? Other than 'nonexistent' would be the positive claim.
The ideas/forms.What do you think is constant about our intellect? Our sense of "self"?
A rational understanding of Christianity and angels and demons would lead one to conclude that the central claims of Christianity are untrue and that angels and demons are imaginary. Do you adhere to the Statement of Faith that this site uses to define Christianity?I have a rational understanding of Christianity and angels and demons. The virgin birth is about faith again and not about any understanding of God fathering a son. Jesus being the Son of God is a about Jesus personifying the Logos/Reason, not about him being half genie. Havent seen any miracles to believe in them today.
Im endeavouring to discover your understanding of God. Your comments seem to range through deism, pantheism, panentheism and Christianity. To avoid further confusion, please give us a factual description of your God. We are certainly wasting our time discussing your God if you cannot give us a factual description of it.The only argument that should be taking place is about a correct understanding of God.
If you have no argument against a rational understanding of God then we have been wasting our time.
Not one of them is rational, obviously. No understanding of gods is rational when there isnt a single shred of sound evidence or a single sound argument to prove that any one of them is real. You keep using the word rational, but from the way you use it, it doesnt appear that you know what it means.ElijahW said:And how many of these understandings are rational and how many are just guys in the sky with differing management styles?3sigma said:My understanding of the Christian God is that it is imaginary and that goes for the Muslim, Hindu, Greek, Roman, Norse, Egyptian, Aztec and all other gods as well. I understand gods to be imaginary entities that insecure and credulous people use for emotional comfort. Gods comes in many shapes and forms from the vague, distant impersonal force of the deists to the petty, vindictive and all-to-human personal gods of Christianity and Islam. However, the one thing they all have in common is that there isnt a single shred of sound evidence or a single sound argument to prove that any one of them is real.
Homophobia is not a political problem. Christians seeking to have creationism taught in public school science classes is not a political problem; its motivated by religious beliefs. Attacking and killing people for blasphemy and apostasy is not a political problem. It is also motivated entirely by religious beliefs.You are getting your politics and your religion mixed up. When you start look towards religious beliefs to fix political problems you might want to rethink that.
Oh please. Imagine someone tells you fairies are real and that you need to provide arguments against them to prove they arent. You respond by saying that you dont need to argue against fairies and that it is up to the person claiming they are real to prove their claims. That person responds by saying that you need to be brought up to speed on the millennia of conversation around the concept of fairies so you realise how silly that question is. What would you think of such a person? Would you say that person had a rational understanding of fairies? From your comments so far, perhaps you would say thatElijahW said:Not at all. We need to get you up to speed on the last two and half millennia of conversation around the concept of God so you realize how silly that question is.3sigma said:By the way, I dont need to argue against your God or any other god. What you need to do is prove that it is real.
A rational understanding of angels and demons, if you take artistic representation of them literally, would be that they dont exist. A rational understanding of angels and demons ,if you interpret the texts rationally, are nothing but forces, ideals and memes.A rational understanding of Christianity and angels and demons would lead one to conclude that the central claims of Christianity are untrue and that angels and demons are imaginary. Do you adhere to the Statement of Faith that this site uses to define Christianity?
From post # 87 That which always maintains the same nature, and in the same manner, and is the cause of all other thingsthat, indeed, is God. Justin MartyrIm endeavouring to discover your understanding of God. Your comments seem to range through deism, pantheism, panentheism and Christianity. To avoid further confusion, please give us a factual description of your God. We are certainly wasting our time discussing your God if you cannot give us a factual description of it.
Why would you assume that no one has ever popularized a rational understanding of the beginning of the universe? When do you think people first started philosophizing about the world reasonably?Not one of them is rational, obviously. No understanding of gods is rational when there isnt a single shred of sound evidence or a single sound argument to prove that any one of them is real. You keep using the word rational, but from the way you use it, it doesnt appear that you know what it means.
Legislating gay marriage is a political issue. All the issues you think are coming from religion are coming from politicians trying to get votes. If you think that Bob and Jane in church are the ones deciding what issues we focus on then you have a much higher opinion of their influence and greater trust of the politicians to actually represent the will of the people.Homophobia is not a political problem. Christians seeking to have creationism taught in public school science classes is not a political problem; its motivated by religious beliefs. Attacking and killing people for blasphemy and apostasy is not a political problem. It is also motivated entirely by religious beliefs.
It depends. Am I up to speed on the conversation around fairies or is all I know about them come from television? If I am uninformed then I would obviously try to inform myself because there is no point in asking for proof of a concept I am unfamiliar with.Oh please. Imagine someone tells you fairies are real and that you need to provide arguments against them to prove they arent. You respond by saying that you dont need to argue against fairies and that it is up to the person claiming they are real to prove their claims. That person responds by saying that you need to be brought up to speed on the millennia of conversation around the concept of fairies so you realise how silly that question is. What would you think of such a person? Would you say that person had a rational understanding of fairies? From your comments so far, perhaps you would say that
From post #91 Prove it? How would you prove a constant in the universe?There are now over two hundred posts in this thread and you have made fifty of them. Can you point to anywhere in those fifty posts that you have provided some sound evidence or made a sound argument proving true your claims that your God is outside time, constant and unchanging and caused the Big Bang? So far, all weve seen is baseless assertions followed by endless evasion. If you cannot establish the validity or truth of your claims then why should anyone believe a word you say?
You appear to have misunderstood my request. I asked for a factual description of your God, not a baseless, arbitrary claim. That claim has no more support than the claim that Santa Claus is the cause of all other things.That which always maintains the same nature, and in the same manner, and is the cause of all other thingsthat, indeed, is God.
What a specious question. The only connection your God has with the beginning of the universe is your utterly baseless, arbitrary, unproven claim that it caused it.Why would you assume that no one has ever popularized a rational understanding of the beginning of the universe?
But homophobia isnt.Legislating gay marriage is a political issue.
You think Muslims in multiple different countries around the world rioting, attacking and killing people over cartoon drawings is due to some politicians trying to get votes? You think all the sectarian violence around the world today is just due to politicians trying to get votes? You need to read the news more often.All the issues you think are coming from religion are coming from politicians trying to get votes.
Are you for real? Fairies are imaginary. Any person claiming that fairies are real and telling you that you need to prove they arent, that he doesnt need to prove they are and that you need to be brought up to speed on the millennia of conversation around the concept of fairies so that you realise how silly you are to question his claim, would be nothing more than a deluded fool and patronising to boot. Again, fairies are imaginary. There is no more sound evidence that fairies are real than there is that your God is real.Am I up to speed on the conversation around fairies or is all I know about them come from television? If I am uninformed then I would obviously try to inform myself because there is no point in asking for proof of a concept I am unfamiliar with.
I asked you to point to posts where you provided some sound evidence or made a sound argument that proves your claims are true and all you give me is these questions. I give up. This conversation is beyond pointless.From post #91 Prove it? How would you prove a constant in the universe?
From post #93 It's not about believing, it's about understanding. Do you understand the problem of asking for proof for something that is constant in the universe?
The nature of the beginning isn't like a ball of matter but like the initial Ideal.You appear to have misunderstood my request. I asked for a factual description of your God, not a baseless, arbitrary claim. That claim has no more support than the claim that Santa Claus is the cause of all other things.
Describe this Christian God of yours. Tell us something factual about it. For example, what are its dimensions? Lets start with something basicwhat is its composition? Is it composed of matter or energy? Give us factssomething that is actually true.
If you cant even give us a factual description of what it is you are talking about then there is no point in continuing the conversation. It would be as pointless as discussing how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. In fact, come to think of it, its already that pointless. Actually, this discussion is probably more pointless because at least we know pins are real
So you have no reason for assuming they should all be understood superstitions and have no ability to tell when someone is speaking rationally about God and when someone is repeating the superstitious. It's just an assumption you have been working with since childhood? Do you think maybe there is a possibility working with that assumption has been a mistake?What a specious question. The only connection your God has with the beginning of the universe is your utterly baseless, arbitrary, unproven claim that it caused it.
And that isn't a religious product either. Get some life experience and see for yourself.But homophobia isnt.
I think most of it is about gaining control over the masses and using the opposition to rally up the masses into their way of thinking/control, in this case the west, in the US case the liberals.You think Muslims in multiple different countries around the world rioting, attacking and killing people over cartoon drawings is due to some politicians trying to get votes? You think all the sectarian violence around the world today is just due to politicians trying to get votes? You need to read the news more often.
Fairy is a word. The only use I know of the word is from Television. If the person is trying to explain something with the word rationally then I am going to need to put away my understanding and start to read some and figure out how they are using the word.Are you for real? Fairies are imaginary. Any person claiming that fairies are real and telling you that you need to prove they arent, that he doesnt need to prove they are and that you need to be brought up to speed on the millennia of conversation around the concept of fairies so that you realise how silly you are to question his claim, would be nothing more than a deluded fool and patronising to boot. Again, fairies are imaginary. There is no more sound evidence that fairies are real than there is that your God is real.
Keep thinking about how it would be possible to prove a constant in the universe and maybe something will come to you eventually. You are still too stuck in your superstitious understanding of God to properly contemplate the idea in discussion here.I asked you to point to posts where you provided some sound evidence or made a sound argument that proves your claims are true and all you give me is these questions. I give up. This conversation is beyond pointless.
What's wrong with my definition? Every can agree that God is a character in a book - movies too - and it is falsifiable, should someone want to demonstrate that it is more that just a character in a book.Not your understanding of God in the Bible.
In my limited exposure to Christianity (most of it being on this board) I would not venture to summarize the "Christian" understanding of god beyond that it involves "Jesus" and "a bible". You have taken the panetheistic approach, just one of many approaches. Many.What do you think the Christian understanding is since you think I have made a mistake with panentheism? Who are you getting your definition from?
Deserves the name? Huh? What makes something deserve the name other than being the source of the universe?
If you want to argue for the universe always existing all you need to do is make an argument for how that is possible. Its easy to say that it always existed but its another thing to explain how anything can be around for an infinite amount of years.
If you reason into existence a god that is undetectable, how do you know if you have been successful?Reason
The ideas/forms.
You arent addressing the understanding. You are only pointing out one way the concept has been presented. If you think that the definition of God comes from taking mythology literal then we can move from there but the definition still wouldnt be a character in a book. If you are building your understanding from taking myth literally then it would be nice to see where you picked up that thinking or if you are just working with an assumption.What's wrong with my definition? Every can agree that God is a character in a book - movies too - and it is falsifiable, should someone want to demonstrate that it is more that just a character in a book.
To my knowledge I have presented the most clear and concise definition, from the earliest Christian thinkers to do so. You have no definition because you are basing your understanding on what people say about God on a message board. Do you think that is a rational approach to understanding Christianity or the concept of God?In my limited exposure to Christianity (most of it being on this board) I would not venture to summarize the "Christian" understanding of god beyond that it involves "Jesus" and "a bible". You have taken the panetheistic approach, just one of many approaches. Many.
Nope. Earlier in this thread the idea of nothing into something was argued for how God could change and I took some time trying to explain why that wasnt the case because nothing doesnt actually exist.Do you believe it is possible for nothing to exist? I don't mean 'empty space'. And if there is something, it is the universe.
I missed that. What was the difference or a link please?Note that in my previous posts I delineate between "universe" and "cosmos".
If I got rid of all the anthropomorphic understandings of God I would still consider what I am describing to be God and the proper label to use.If the mechanism that was resposible for the current instantiation of the cosmos had the intelligence of, say, a toaster oven, would you still call it God? All the natural forces that got us to where we are at this moment still follow your panethiestic approach, do they not? You would still have to show me how you fit this in.
The other options that I am aware of seem unreasonable, is why I believe what I believe.If you reason into existence a god that is undetectable, how do you know if you have been successful?
It has been presented in many ways. Comical, vaporous, contradictory, and the common "you have to believe in order to understand".You arent addressing the understanding. You are only pointing out one way the concept has been presented.
I am trying to avoid assumptions. I think the single most reliable pathway to truth is to accept those things that are demonstrated through empirical evidence. So far, no one has demonstrated that God is more than a character in a book.If you think that the definition of God comes from taking mythology literal then we can move from there but the definition still wouldnt be a character in a book. If you are building your understanding from taking myth literally then it would be nice to see where you picked up that thinking or if you are just working with an assumption.
Yes, but those definitions are post hoc rationalizations that start with a belief in God, and fail to first establish the possibility of the existence of gods. I have seen no reason to presume this possibility, or accept a definition that does so, until that possibility has been established.To my knowledge I have presented the most clear and concise definition, from the earliest Christian thinkers to do so.
I do not think it is rational to presuppose the possibility for the existence of "God" or "god" or "gods" before I have had a chance to evaluate the evidence.You have no definition because you are basing your understanding on what people say about God on a message board. Do you think that is a rational approach to understanding Christianity or the concept of God?
Depending on the context, the terms can be interchangeable, but for clarity, I consider the universe to be everything at any time (if 'time' can be applied as we think), and the cosmos to be everything that is now in our universe.Nope. Earlier in this thread the idea of nothing into something was argued for how God could change and I took some time trying to explain why that wasnt the case because nothing doesnt actually exist.
I missed that. What was the difference or a link please?
But you won't get rid of them.If I got rid of all the anthropomorphic understandings of God I would still consider what I am describing to be God and the proper label to use.
You will need to show me that God is more than just superstition.Just because it is common to understand God like a person doesnt mean that is correct. If you think there is something in the creed that is specific to a superstitious understanding of God I will take a look.
You are reasoning why you believe.The other options that I am aware of seem unreasonable, is why I believe what I believe.
Let's take a look at that definition that you accept and see what it looks like and where it comes from. I have already provided one that I prefer.Try this: Define God from the perspective of someone that does not believe.
I have seen it done, in a comprehensive manner, and I accept it. I don't use it as my working definition as it is a bit bulky. I will let you have a shot at it before I post the link.
Let's take a look at that definition that you accept and see what it looks like and where it comes from. I have already provided one that I prefer.
...
If you want to argue against God then it needs to be against the most informed and rational understanding.
...
Definition first please. I'll go back if needed. You aren't understanding me and are asking questions about fairies so maybe if I can see what understanding of "God" you are working with then I can communicate what I am trying to say better.As I said, the one you prefer is faulty.
A few pages ago you said:
And now you ignore the bulk of my post and ask to peek at my answer?
Definition first please. I'll go back if needed. You aren't understanding me and are asking questions about fairies so maybe if I can see what understanding of "God" you are working with then I can communicate what I am trying to say better.
Ok sense you can't find a definition and for some reason you would like another definition here you go.Rationalizing backwards from your definition is what got you mired where you are now.
Just start with a clean slate, but the bible to the side, and describe God.
Then we test that description.
Rationalizing backwards from your definition is what got you mired where you are now.
Just start with a clean slate, but the bible to the side, and describe God.
Then we test that description.
Ok sense you can't find a definition and for some reason you would like another definition here you go.
God: The cause of the universe.
Edit: I should rephrase. You refuse to provide a definition of God. I shouldn't assume it is because you couldn't find one that would help in your argument.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?