Do you believe in God?

@KaseiJin,

It all depends on what god one is talking about.

I am sure someone has already said that in this lengthy thread.

I do not believe anything because I am always open to correction for the sake of learning. But I do think that the intricate complexity of creation absolutely suggests that some Force beyond comprehension is the Originator of this delicate and detailed design we see all around us.

What that Force is I cannot begin to imagine.

1 Reply

@hirukai,

hirukai wrote:

The random chance is an intention, have you ever left something to random chance? Have you ever been unsure of something but necessarily you have to take a decision?
Do you remember this?

Of course I do not think random chance was the intention on the universe, the only thing that I am doing is closing up every door, every window and every hole where the most skepticals could ran away.
Pd: "Good sense is the most evenly distributed thing in the world, for all people suppose themselves so well provided with it that even those who are the most difficult to satisfy in every other respect never seem to desire more than they have." Descartes
Would you like cup of coffee?

Carpe Diem et Memento Mori

If you do not know the nature of something it is randow, independently of whenever it was chosen to or not.

0 Replies

@Pythagorean,

Do you know what dialectic is? I guess you don't know.
Random is an intention, not an agent and there is no intention without agent.

Carpe Diem et Memento Mori

2 Replies

@hirukai,

hirukai wrote:

Do you know what dialectic is? I guess you don't know.
Random is an intention, not an agent and there is no intention without agent.

Carpe Diem et Memento Mori

While I agree that the Creator is incomprehensible, to define it as perfect or infinity is also simply trying to do the same as those that want to define it by other means.

I think that mankind will benefit greatly when they stop trying to somehow be familiar with the Force of creation, and just simply acknowledge that it is there. and that we do not have to know it personally, and it does not have to owe us anything.

Most of the destructive attitude of our history, and our very existence, has been the direct result of trying to be familiar with what we know is out there, and insist on recognizing and defining, or completely denying.

When man gets past that stage of self interest we will enter into a new age of enlightenment and possibility.

0 Replies

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder;50041 wrote:

But I do think that the intricate complexity of creation absolutely suggests that some Force beyond comprehension is the Originator of this delicate and detailed design we see all around us.

What that Force is I cannot begin to imagine.

Well put, I would say. I am still reading, and by tonight I should be able to finish it off (if, in fact, that time window does open for me). I would much more so tend to offer encouragement on leaving capitalizations out of the wording chosen (unless it is a proper noun), when speaking on the matter, however. (But of course, that's just me.)

The choices in the poll--if I may point out one thinkable drawback-- have no room for that of believing in god--where that word is a common noun, left open for a number of referents. I consider myself a non-theist agnostic.

I hope you will excuse me, hirukai, as I cannot fully make out exactly what it is you wish to drive home with the following quote of yours:

[indent]Mr kaseiJin… on its own the name you want to assign to the creator, you cannot deny him even if that name is only he. God is perfect, infinity and immutable, the only three sane concepts that it can give to God, them free of any contradiction.[/indent]

It is my desire to assign no name to any understanding regarding any possible external reality deemed worthy of being a god. It was, in my previous post, however, my intention to point out that it would be best to use YHWH instead of "God." While using English (and this is a drive of mine, I will admit) it would be better (if not best) to use the word 'god' when not referring to the YHWH model. Baal is not YHWH, just as Rah, and Dagon are not YHWH-- nor Izanagi, Krishina, Zeus, and so many other models.

Why would anyone not say, I would ponder, that 'god is perfect;' all along fully knowing, of course, that the declaration of being 'perfect' would surely be that emotion of the subjective declarer?

Also, why on earth would anyone wish to assign a gender to god? What does sex have to do with any possible such entity? (and for those who may profess sex as being their god, there is sadly [perhaps?] no English pronoun form that I know of which signifies any bisexual or asexual singular entity. )

0 Replies

@hirukai,

hirukai wrote:

Do you know what dialectic is? I guess you don't know.
Random is an intention, not an agent and there is no intention without agent.

Carpe Diem et Memento Mori

So, you see this as a brawl, or a competition? With such sight, proper discussion cannot exist. I will ignore this for now.

I think that my statement was a bit incomplete: What I mean is that although it is correct to state everthing has a reason, it is also correct to state that everthing started at randow on a certain point. There are things in life that can be seen from different, but correct, view points.

None of these 3 concepts can be applied to god: Perfection is subjective, infinity is impossible as there is always something bigger, only the universe itself is infinite. Immutability? Depends of how you see god, as a immutable god would not act, and some would chose to not call it a god then.

0 Replies

@Pythagorean,

All of this debating about a god is futile. There is not controling god, out there. You must accept that we are Life-Energy or Spirit animating a physical body. Collectively we have created the universe, individually we create our own reality.
Majic

1 Reply

@Majic,

Majic wrote:

All of this debating about a god is futile. There is not controling god, out there. You must accept that we are Life-Energy or Spirit animating a physical body. Collectively we have created the universe, individually we create our own reality.
Majic

Though I mostly agree with this, an affirmation winhout arguments will not convince those who disagree Smile

0 Replies

@Pythagorean,

relativity is the black hole fo any argument.

Now, the idea is not denying God but also accept any intervention of him in humankind, he is the first cause no more. Humankind has to stopped teaching about a good God, and also humankind must stopped fighting whether God exist or not, God's intention only God knows, and post mortem nobody knows anything. Do you want to know what a consciousness' evolution is?

Pd: of course everybody can have his own point of view, but if I can do that contradiction raise his hand in every argument save of mine... do you wan to see? And I will not speak about ayhing seem to post mortem, God must'n say anythng and I don't know anything

yes... dear friends... of course you can laugh a lot.

keep on rolling.

Carpe Diem et Memento Mori

0 Replies

@Pythagorean,

Perception is everthing: the presence of light doesnt makes the blind able to see.

This is a philosopy forum, useless conversations are the rule! Smile

0 Replies

@Pythagorean,

Carpe Diem et Memento Mori

1 Reply

@Pythagorean,

For anyone interested, there is a DVD release titled "The Four Horsemen" that was released last year. It has the famous contemporary atheists Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens sit down for a two hour discussion over the current state of religion and atheism. I found it an interesting watch and a good use of time. For those who watch, it may also clear up some misconceptions about both parties that have arisen in this thread.

You can learn more about it here:
'THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!' by Discussions With Richard Dawkins: Episode 1, RDFRS - RichardDawkins.net

Amazon.com: The Four Horsemen: Four Horseman: Movies & TV

0 Replies

@hirukai,

hirukai wrote:

Carpe Diem et Memento Mori

Unless I misinterpreted your last post, you commented on it this discussion hasnt going anywhere so far, and discussions not going anywhere are common on this forum Smile

(And pretty much everwhere, then I think about it)

The way you speak is a problem, because it makes you sound extremelly arrogant, and not everone is as tolerant to arrogance as I am. If you are trully not arrogant, change your manner of speaking then.

Were I a ghost incapable of interaction with the world I perceive, I would still perceive it, still evolve psychologically, still be awake. Now, were I a perceptionless being, even if I was capable of action, I would not act, as I would not be aware of this my capacity. Winhout any measure of time I would not even be able to think, and for all purposes not exist until something changed my state and made me able to perceive things.

You can perceive winhout action, but not act winhout perception.

0 Replies

@Pythagorean,

"You can perceive without action, but not act without perception."

This remark would have been totally nonsensical had it not been for its preceding paragraph. Well said! I enjoyed that immensely.

0 Replies

@Pythagorean,

hi kids...

as for kindergarden. Of course anybody can act with no perception, but nothing in the universe change only for a perception, it change for the action. For example, "The way you speak is a problem, because it makes you sound extremelly arrogant, and not everone is as tolerant to arrogance as I am. If you are trully not arrogant, change your manner of speaking then". Manored could have perceived me as an arrogant time before, but his perception doesn`t affect me till he express his feeling. It doesn't matter perception was the origin of an action, if you keep your perception with no action, anything isn't affected, perception remains quite and the universe won't know what you perceive, and in fact you would be a ghost.
If you like a pretty girl and you do not say her anything do you think she can understand something about your state? no, no, nononononononoooooo. You must uterize your perception for it can make a change.

I think you both work with eastern philoshopies. That could be the point you concentrate in your inner part and all what your inner part can chage from a perception, but your inner change doesn't matter to the universe, the universe only chage when uterizing your perception, as I am doing... perception is relative because is mine and anybody can say the contrary till the acion is done.

I cannot change my speaking mode, but you can fight in a group against me, in that case I woulnd't seem so arrogant.

pd: el remache... manored from those who read this topic I only know what some of you say about it... again, if perception isn't uterized it make no change, it doesn't affect anything, because your perception is unknow for everybody save for you.

Carpe Diem et Memento Mori

1 Reply

@hirukai,

hirukai wrote:

Of course anybody can act with no perception,

Give me an example.

hirukai wrote:

but nothing in the universe change only for a perception,

My mind does.

The whole point of the idea is the fact that perception is relative: The universe and what we perceive will change around us, only the mind will not change beyond what we allow.

0 Replies

@Pythagorean,

hi kid...

"Of course anybody can act with no perception" It was a lapsus, the sentence is this of course nobody can act with no perception or anybody can't act with no perception... that's it.

if your mind change with perception it doesn't affect your surround, if you perceive a chicken that chicken do not change, only if you act on the chicken it can change.

"Of course anybody can act with no perception" if you didn't have perceived this, you didn't wrote this "give me an example"

"again, if perception isn't uterized it make no change, it doesn't affect anything, because your perception is unknow for everybody save for you." if your mind change universe do not change save you say you can act with mind's power... maybe being you God?

this is the confusion we are talking about the intention, do you remember? for that reason, I am talking about perception, and acting, of course the universe change independently from human being, but when human being act in the universe, it change as a result from human being intervention.

Perception is relative and nothing more I do know that... or do you think time is relative?

go ahead...

Carpe Diem et Memento Mori

1 Reply

@hirukai,

God is One

=
MJA

0 Replies

@Pythagorean,

My mind is part of the universe, so, if it changes, so does the universe. And I do, by the way, perceive changes in the reality as my mind change, and even especialized effort brings results. For example, if I mentally program myself to wake up at a certain time, I will wake up at a certain time, and whenever I concentrate on influencing a certain thing in my mind the results turn out good, often better than what I had visualized. There are even some experiments of the matter where randow number generators had their results not be randow at all due to the experimenters asking a large number of people to try to mentally influence it.

Perception is relative and time, being something perceived, is as well. The fact that perception is relative also means that the universe as we perceive it, along with the actions we peform on it, are ultimately meaningless. You can see a human doing something and say it was the will of an intelligent being or a consequence of a serie of chemical reactions.

0 Replies

@Pythagorean,

Time isn't relative, perception of time is the relative thing, that's the reason why only perception is relative, you could perceive time slow or faster, but time is always the same, that fact is confirmed because after death there is no time, perception of motion has stopped.
Carpe Diem et Memento Mori

2 Replies

Do you believe in God?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know