What is god?

[workmx]

The statement points to the truth, but isn't the truth itself. As a pointer it can be true if you experience God as the only truth and find out that the statement is correct.

For example, I can tell you that a 40 degree lake is cold and you can confirm that by jumping in. Both the actual lake and the statement about is it can be true. The lake can be true as an actuality and the statement about the lake can be true as a pointer. That said, words aren't water and statements aren't God.

This is a simple matter - it is about the logical absolutes (in this case, the law of the excluded middle).

That law states that every statement must be true/false. There is no third option.

I take it that you are saying that the statement is not true, therefore the original claim also not true.

So, god is not the only truth.

 

[oi_antz]

But what am I do to do with answers that make no sense and are irrational/unjustified?

If someone tells you that the sky is green, you will likely ignore them, right?

If I thought they were wrong, yes.

On page 7, I noted that I have a large brain and rationality, as do all humans.

No mention of a superior anything.

Can I trust your comprehension?

Can I? And does the miscommunication rest solely on me, or are you partly responsible for producing that idea?

Besides that, the staetement was intended to provide a framework for the question that followed: why did the christian god give humans these things if it did not want us to use them?

That question remains unanswered...

I noticed that.

 

[Viren]

This is a simple matter - it is about the logical absolutes (in this case, the law of the excluded middle).

That law states that every statement must be true/false. There is no third option.

I take it that you are saying that the statement is not true, therefore the original claim also not true.

So, god is not the only truth.

False doesn't exist in actuality.

 

[workmx]

Can I? And does the miscommunication rest solely on me, or are you partly responsible for producing that idea?

I did not make the false claim...

In fact, I provided evidence that your claim may be correct.

I noticed that.

So, turn-about is fair play.

If I thought they were wrong, yes.

So, why believe in god?

 

[workmx]

False doesn't exist in actuality.

Exactly, which is why there is probably no god.

 

[oi_antz]

I did not make the false claim...

In fact, I provided evidence that your claim may be correct.

My question is, are you partially responsible for leading me to that idea?

So, turn-about is fair play.

It's a fair question I do not like to obey silly rules, thank you.

So, why believe in god?

It makes better sense than to not believe it, and because of that it seems more likely to be true. Therefore I believe it is more likely to be true than not.

 

[Viren]

Exactly, which is why there is probably no god.

God is. Truth is. Probability is a function of the mind dependent of duality.

 

[workmx]

God is. Truth is. Probability is a function of the mind dependent of duality.

How do you know that gods exist?

Surely it is more rational to assume that gods do not exist?

 

[workmx]

My question is, are you partially responsible for leading me to that idea?

Okay - I accept that.

It's a fair question I do not like to obey silly rules, thank you.

Me too.

It makes better sense than to not believe it, and because of that it seems more likely to be true. Therefore I believe it is more likely to be true than not.

Okay - in what way does it make better sense?

I don't understand.

 

[oi_antz]

Me too.

Why did you attempt to impose one on me? It appears to be a dodge.

Okay - in what way does it make better sense?

I don't understand.

The alternative view requires an accusation of lie or delusion. I just think it makes better sense to accept that God is real and interacts with humankind than to assume that everyone who believes they have interacted with God is delusional or lying. I include myself in that statistic, because I can be sure that I am not lying.

 

[workmx]

Why did you attempt to impose one on me? It appears to be a dodge.

Because you did the same to me.

wrkmx, is #28 inconvenient or difficult to address?

The alternative view requires an accusation of lie or delusion. I just think it makes better sense to accept that God is real and interacts with humankind than to assume that everyone who believes they have interacted with God is delusional or lying. I include myself in that statistic, because I can be sure that I am not lying.

I thnk there are more options that those two.

Maybe you were misinformed.

Afterall, anyone who indoctrines a person into religion has something to gain from it.

While the person indoctrinated has very little to gain from it (I am assuming the gods likely do not exist, in saying this).

 

[Viren]

How do you know that gods exist?

Surely it is more rational to assume that gods do not exist?

God as truth exists. I'm not talking about different gods.

 

[workmx]

God as truth exists. I'm not talking about different gods.

So, you recognise that other gods exist - excellent.

 

[oi_antz]

Because you did the same to me.

I might be sorry for that, can you show me where this happened?

I thnk there are more options that those two.

Could you tell me the other options? Why would someone claim to have interacted with God if it were not one of the following:

• True
• A delusion
• A lie

Maybe you were misinformed.

Can you explain what you mean with this?

Afterall, anyone who indoctrines a person into religion has something to gain from it.

People generally are motivated by something they desire, whether they are indoctrinating a person into/out of a religion, or otherwise.

While the person indoctrinated has very little to gain from it

I don't think this is true. Why would someone make a decision if they did not perceive the gain from that decision to greater fulfil a need than the perceived gain from an alternative option?

(I am assuming the gods likely do not exist, in saying this).

Have you considered how the validity of your statements and beliefs would be impacted if this assumption is incorrect?

 

[Viren]

So, you recognise that other gods exist - excellent.

no

 

[workmx]

no

But you have already recognised that they exist:

God as truth exists. I'm not talking about different gods.

If not, you should have said:

I'm not talking about the possible existence of different gods.

 

[workmx]

I might be sorry for that, can you show me where this happened?

I quoted it above, I think it was in the "what is god?" thread - http://www.christianforums.com/t7819208-12/

But don't worry about it. These things happen.

Could you tell me the other options? Why would someone claim to have interacted with God if it were not one of the following:

• True
• A delusion
• A lie

It is simply not possible to know if gods exist.

Yet, some people think they do. Maybe one of this misguided people convinced you of something that it is not possible to know.

In that case, you may have been misinformed.

It happens a lot, for example: some people believe that homeopathy/acupunture works, even though that is simply impossible.

The world is not perfect.

I don't think this is true. Why would someone make a decision if they did not perceive the gain from that decision to greater fulfil a need than the perceived gain from an alternative option?

A perceived gain is not the same as a real world gain.

Have you considered how the validity of your statements and beliefs would be impacted if this assumption is incorrect?

Of course, every day. Why else would I be here?

 

[oi_antz]

I quoted it above, I think it was in the "what is god?" thread - http://www.christianforums.com/t7819208-12/

But don't worry about it. These things happen.

I would not worry about making a mistake, but I normally do worry about being accused of making a mistake when I don't think I did. Can you please show me why you have claimed that I imposed a silly rule on you? I don't remember doing that and I might be sorry for it (I might not too, but let's see).

It is simply not possible to know if gods exist.

Yet, some people think they do. Maybe one of this misguided people convinced you of something that it is not possible to know.

In that case, you may have been misinformed.

It happens a lot, for example: some people believe that homeopathy/acupunture works, even though that is simply impossible.

The world is not perfect.

You have not read my question carefully enough. You seem to be describing why someone would be wrong to believe that God is real, but that is not my question. My quesion is specifically worded about people who make claims to have interacted with God. Here it is again:

Why would someone claim to have interacted with God if it were not one of the following:

• True
• A delusion
• A lie

Plus, I would like to know why you think that homeopathy and acupuncture cannot possibly work. I would be willing to accept that they are generally not well understood sciences, but they must surely be capable of having a positive effect. Especially homeopathy since it is a science of chemistry.

A perceived gain is not the same as a real world gain.

Sure, but we can only ever predict the outcome of our decisions since the outcome does not happen before the decision is made. So every decision we make is based on a belief we have of what the outcome of that decision will be. So even though you might assume that there is little to gain from believing an indoctrination, the person who is choosing to believe it is doing so because they think that they will gain from it, in one way or another (whether by glory or pleasure in an afterlife, or for glory, pleasure or peace in the present life, or even for achieving a greater sense of knowing what is true). They are all things that can potentially be gained, and some of them are actually gained as a result of accepting indoctrination.

Of course, every day. Why else would I be here?

As many people as are here, is as many reasons for being here, is what I have found. But thanks for answering this question for me. It is good for me to know that

 

[workmx]

You have not read my question carefully enough. You seem to be describing why someone would be wrong to believe that God is real, but that is not my question. My quesion is specifically worded about people who make claims to have interacted with God. Here it is again:


Why would someone claim to have interacted with God if it were not one of the following:

• True
• A delusion
• A lie

Okay, a claim that a person has interacted with a god: I would need specific information about the claim.

There are many reasons why people may think that they have interacted with a god, from confirmation bias to sleep paralysis.

Do you have a specific case in mind?

Plus, I would like to know why you think that homeopathy and acupuncture cannot possibly work. I would be willing to accept that they are generally not well understood sciences, but they must surely be capable of having a positive effect. Especially homeopathy since it is a science of chemistry.

There are no mechanisms for them to work. It is simply medically impossible for them to work.

Most likely any effect from both is a placebo effect.

And both are dangerous psuedosciences not sciences.

Check out What's the harm? for information on why they are dangerous.

Acupuncture has contributed to one death (the patient did not seek effective treatment): What's the harm in acupuncture?

Multiple deaths have been linked to homeopathy: What's the harm in homeopathy?

Sure, but we can only ever predict the outcome of our decisions since the outcome does not happen before the decision is made. So every decision we make is based on a belief we have of what the outcome of that decision will be. So even though you might assume that there is little to gain from believing an indoctrination, the person who is choosing to believe it is doing so because they think that they will gain from it, in one way or another (whether by glory or pleasure in an afterlife, or for glory, pleasure or peace in the present life, or even for achieving a greater sense of knowing what is true). They are all things that can potentially be gained, and some of them are actually gained as a result of accepting indoctrination.

If belief was free I might agree, but in many churches it costs 10% of your wage.

Plus, as indicated above: it may make peoiple more likely to belive other things whcih could do them harm.

As many people as are here, is as many reasons for being here, is what I have found. But thanks for answering this question for me. It is good for me to know that

No worries.

 

[oi_antz]

[/LIST]Okay, a claim that a person has interacted with a god: I would need specific information about the claim.

There are many reasons why people may think that they have interacted with a god, from confirmation bias to sleep paralysis.

Do you have a specific case in mind?

Yes I have had a specific case in mind as I went there with you.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 3:13-17

As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”

.. to me, there is no other explanation. Either it is true, whoever made the claim lied, or whoever claims to have seen this happened was delusional. There are all sorts of other examples of God interacting with people, such as this one. I would be looking for an example that cannot be explained by lie, truth or delusion. Please let me know if you can think of another explanation.

There are no mechanisms for them to work. It is simply medically impossible for them to work.

Most likely any effect from both is a placebo effect.

And both are dangerous psuedosciences not sciences.

Check out What's the harm? for information on why they are dangerous.

Acupuncture has contributed to one death (the patient did not seek effective treatment): What's the harm in acupuncture?

Multiple deaths have been linked to homeopathy: What's the harm in homeopathy?

Ok, thanks for that. I see that in the case of acupuncture, the harm is the result of applying an ineffective treatment. This can be claimed about any treatment though. For the homeopathy, the definition given on that website is different to the definition I had in mind before. It says

"Homeopathy is a practice created by Samuel Hahnemann that believes that incredibly minute quantities of substances dissolved in water can have powerful effects."

.. whereas I had thought homeopathy to be home remedies, mostly potions from herbs etc.

In that case, I agree with you that people are able to believe things that aren't true. But, as you can see, it is not really relevant to the matter of making sense of claims of God interacting with people.

If belief was free I might agree, but in many churches it costs 10% of your wage.

Why do you think you need a church to approve your belief? Does a church have the power to resurrect you into everlasting life? This must be another rhetorical device.

Plus, as indicated above: it may make peoiple more likely to belive other things whcih could do them harm.

I accept that is possible. Can you please reiterate the point you wanted to make?