Reply
Fri 21 Dec, 2007 03:35 pm
I know it's an old subject on these boards, but it gets ignored time after time. Seems that religious folk only want to rant and atheists just want to ridicule.
So I'd like to present a challenge.
To religious people:
Please define this god you're talking about in a way that doesn't make it sound like something impossible. If you can't then there's no need to talk about it, because any discussion will be pointless if we don't know what we are talking about.
To atheists:
Please define this thing you're ridiculing, so that it is an actual concept you are battering, not just the misunderstood ideas of others. And if it's definition is something impossible, don't you think it may be the case that you just got the concept wrong?
The point is that "god" is just a word. A concept. Unless we can establish just what lies behind the word there is really no point in discussing wether it is real or not.
Some great topics listed there. God is nothing to me but God is something in conversation/discussion though.
I don't get why when people talk about God they talk, so personally, even within denominations, about their perceptions of it all, almost like they were talking about their perceptions and experiences of tasting strawberry ice cream and yet, in the very next moment they will argue and dismiss others as if it's "out there", waiting to be discovered and verified in exactly the same way by all of us. Some are just better at seeing God than others apparently. Even though I've actually been told, to my face, that strawberry ice cream isn't as good as chocolate, I managed to brush the remark off with little effort. Tell me "God" is a literal being who has laid out a specific, hand written plan for us all and oohhh boy, watch out! I guess we want to be on as solid ground as possible and God is the sacred projection of certainty in an uncertain world, knock it and all else crumbles. Weird.
Yeh, I was hoping we would get a lot more views from people. But it seemed to pitter out. Not contentious enough I guess.
Anthropomorphic god, disinterested god, process of universe god - all the same; all non existent.
rosborne979 wrote:
Yeh, I was hoping we would get a lot more views from people. But it seemed to pitter out. Not contentious enough I guess.
Yeah, but it gets more attention than mine.
edgar wrote:Anthropomorphic god, disinterested god, process of universe god - all the same; all non existent.
What about the concept god. As a concept we would have to say it exists. When it comes to the meaning behind the word there is less certainty, mainly because that meaning has never been properly decided.
Take the word mountain, for instance. If each and every one of us had our own definition of what a mountain is, I bet we'd have a hard time agreeing on wether or not mountains are real.
It has always amused me, the arguments over the existance of God.
It can neither be proven, nor disproven.
Aspects of Religion on the other hand, is a different matter.
Religion attempts to define God (among other things). Interestngly enough, I've come across one or two Christian religious writings that state God is impossible to define - an attempt in futility.
Cyracuz wrote:What about the concept god. As a concept we would have to say it exists.
You make the claim that the concept exists. OK, substantiate your claim with the reasonable proviso that you define your terms.
"Existence" is axiomatic to communication about "concepts" and it only applies to concepts That is the point which I have been hammering for the last five years on this forum. For concept "believer" the concept "God" relates to the concept " the universe" via the concept "creator". For the concept "atheist" this is not the case.
IMO It is merely a shortcoming of dualistic thinking to assume "existence" has any meaning without the inclusion of the idiosyncracies of an observer. "Mountains" exist by by virtue of common agreement as to their functional relationships/expectancies of relationships, to the lifespans of diverse communicators....."physicality", "permanence" etc. For "God" there is no such agreement, hence the quest for definition is futile.
Hmmm... I could argue that "god" is a term that means "all dualistic concepts added up until there is only one singularity"
I've done this before, but then I called it "the Living Everything". This concept refers to something we can envision, no matter how abstract it may be.
For the concept "me" that is what the concept "god" means. :wink:
Strangest thing, many religious texts seem to support this notion.
Cyracuz,
.....then as Wittgenstein said "of that we should remain silent". In other words the resolution of dualities negates the need to communicate, so "the request for definition" is a random perturbation in the eternal flux.
I haven't thought about it enough to say if I agree that it negates the need to communicate. But I know it negates the ability to do so. When trying to convey ideas of the concept of singularities, the dualistic nature of language works agains that particular intent.
The point is subtle.."who" is communicating with "whom" since all is unity ?
According to some esoteric traditions, the transcendent position is marked by quiesecence ....the need to communicate indicating non-attainment.
(see for example Krishnamurti on "the cessation of thought"....or Gurdjieff on "chatter").
Fresco & Cyracuz,
I'll respond in kind shortly, happy holiday season!
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace