Do you believe in God?

@Pythagorean,

Heres my way of seeing it. I dont believen god but yet i dont deny the exist of him.
I havnt seen any physcial proof of him. is he just made up or something?

1 Reply

@ThinkinLights,

D_bowden;98901 wrote:

Who cares i God exists if you don't have a mind to appreciate it when you are dead?

Because you have a mind to appreciate it while you are alive.

ThinkinLights;98927 wrote:

I havnt seen any physcial proof of him. is he just made up or something?

Is everything real purely physical?

And, if God is "made up", and the mind is an emergent feature of the brain (if the two are essentially the same), then even a made up God must physically exist in the process of thinking of God.

Remember, God is just a word, as made up as any other word. Instead of looking through a microscope for God, look out to the horizon and see which way these people who speak of God are pointing.

3 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;99001 wrote:

Because you have a mind to appreciate it while you are alive.

Remember, God is just a word, as made up as any other word. Instead of looking through a microscope for God, look out to the horizon and see which way these people who speak of God are pointing.

But God, if he exists, is not just a word. The word, "God" is just a word, but God (if he exists) is not just a word anymore than The Eiffel Tower (which does exist) is just a word. The Eiffel Tower is an edifice in Paris. Mixing up words and things can lead only to confusion.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;99001 wrote:

Because you have a mind to appreciate it while you are alive.

Is everything real purely physical?

And, if God is "made up", and the mind is an emergent feature of the brain (if the two are essentially the same), then even a made up God must physically exist in the process of thinking of God.

Remember, God is just a word, as made up as any other word. Instead of looking through a microscope for God, look out to the horizon and see which way these people who speak of God are pointing.

When i die will i feel emotion? will i apprecaite the difference between heaven and hell? should i live under the belief of God if when i die its not going to make a difference whether God condemns me or not in the way that i will no longer experience emotion. Is the concept of God more important in the way that we must abide in it because of the fact that God is all powerfull and good or is it more important to believe in God because the morals and virtues He/she/it enforces upon us which help us to live amongst each other in a way that we appreciate life and each other? Are people more important than the truth of the existence of God? Why is it important to believe in God? Is it do do with establishing a sort of quality of life amongst us all? Or is it because of the power God? It seems God is powerless if i realise that when i die its not gonna make a difference to me whether i am in heaven or hell.. they might aswel be the same thing without emotion or the senses. I used to want to believe in God because i liked the thought of having answers, hope that when i die there is something more afterlife and a greater Moral understanding. Now it seems like the concept of God just inhibits my ability to do any of these. There is so much controversy, so many opinions, too many questions without answers, too much predjudice and bias. It seems understanding ourselves rather than understanding God would give more answers.

Does it matter if God exists? Is believing in God really comforting to anyone or are they missing out on something greater? Like Humankind.

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

But not all words refer to things, Ken. Take, for example, love, or shame.

---------- Post added 10-21-2009 at 10:14 AM ----------

D_bowden;99006 wrote:

When i die will i feel emotion? will i apprecaite the difference between heaven and hell?

As far as I know, no.

D_bowden;99006 wrote:

should i live under the belief of God if when i die its not going to make a difference whether God condemns me or not in the way that i will no longer experience emotion.

This assumes that God condemns, whatever that might mean. There are many different ways of expressing the concept God.

D_bowden;99006 wrote:

Is the concept of God more important in the way that we must abide in it because of the fact that God is all powerfull and good or is it more important to believe in God because the morals and virtues He/she/it enforces upon us which help us to live amongst each other in a way that we appreciate life and each other?

I would say that God, as I understand Him, is important both because He is in some way all powerful and good, and because He helps us live better among one another, and because He helps us better appreciate this life and the lives of other people.

D_bowden;99006 wrote:

Are people more important than the truth of the existence of God?

Is there a difference?

D_bowden;99006 wrote:

Why is it important to believe in God?

It isn't necessarily important to believe in God.

D_bowden;99006 wrote:

It seems God is powerless if i realise that when i die its not gonna make a difference to me whether i am in heaven or hell.

Heaven and Hell are in this life, as far as I can tell.

D_bowden;99006 wrote:

It seems understanding ourselves rather than understanding God would give more answers.

Unless, of course, understanding ourselves and understanding God are the very same thing.

D_bowden;99006 wrote:

Does it matter if God exists? Is believing in God really comforting to anyone or are they missing out on something greater? Like Humankind.

Sure it matters if God exists, but it doesn't matter so much if you do not care if He exists.

One of my favorite teachings of Jesus is this: when asked 'What is the most important Commandment?' Jesus replies, 'Love God, and Love thy neighbor as thyself.'

Notice, he was not asked about the two most important commandments, but the most important commandment. So why does he give what appears to be two responses, instead of the one? Because they are the same commandment, only phrased differently.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;99007 wrote:

But not all words refer to things, Ken. Take, for example, love, or shame.

---------- Post added 10-21-2009 at 10:14 AM ----------

.

I agree (but not with your examples). But I did not maintain that all words refer to something. Far from it. I just pointed out that there is a difference between a word and whatever thing it purports to refer to, even if there is no such thing. So, when you say that God is only a word, that is false. The word "God" is only a word. And the word "God" is not God (if there is a God). You are confusing words with things, as I said. The word, "mermaid" is not a mermaid. And protons existed way before the word, "proton" existed. The word is not the thing, and conversely.

"Love" is the name of an emotion. And "shame" is the name of a feeling. But, "although" is not the name of anything since it is not a name at all.

2 Replies

@Pythagorean,

Right, God is only a word. No sense confusing yourself just to dispute me, Ken. The three combined letters G-O-D is just a word. Whatever it refers to is whatever it refers to, rather than that collection of three letters.

Emotions and feelings are not things, and they are things, depending upon which definition you would like to use. So, you are both wrong are right to dispute my claim that 'not all words refer to things' with respect to my given examples.

Hey, but at least you're trying, right?

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

To Didymos Thomas,

Thank you for your help, sometimes i confuse myself with my questions.

I guess the thing that troubles me most is should we all encourage a concept that is most effective at establishing quality of life amongst us all? Is the most effective concept one which is very hard to understand and so ambigous like that of God? Or is it something more simple? Surely If there is a God and this God is all good then living amongst each other with respect and peace would be it's greatest will? Or is what is good greater than world peace? Everything that God commands us to do seems to be that which makes life better for us all. This is why i assume Gods greatest will is for all of us to live amongst each in peace.

Is the easiest way or most effective way of achieving this the best way? If so is the understanding or having belief in God the easiest or most effective way of doing this? Even if i don't believe in God but care about establishing equal quality of life in the world should i lie to myself for a greater good? Is this what we should all do even if we don't believe in God?

1 Reply

@D bowden,

D_bowden;99020 wrote:

I guess the thing that troubles me most is should we all encourage a concept that is most effective at establishing quality of life amongst us all?

What is most effective will be different for everyone. No one can walk the same path, however similar our trails might be. For some, God works quite well, for others, not so well. It doesn't matter. What does matter is being the best person you can be.

You should only believe what makes sense to you. It sounds like you already know that peace and love should be your aims. That's the best start. Study, meditate - if God makes sense for you, He will come. If not, no worry. There are plenty of other ways to talk about the truth. God is just one way of discussing things, of thinking about things.

0 Replies

@Pythagorean,

D_bowden wrote:

Is the easiest way or most effective way of achieving this the best way? If so is the understanding or having belief in God the easiest or most effective way of doing this? Even if i don't believe in God but care about establishing equal quality of life in the world should i lie to myself for a greater good? Is this what we should all do even if we don't believe in God?

It's not necessary that one believe in God to do good in the world. Focus less on God, and more on your desire to do good, and the quality of life you desire for yourself and others will come. Most importantly, never deceive yourself into believing something that goes against your own reasonable judgment. If you don't believe in God, you don't believe, and there's nothing wrong with that. It won't hinder you from doing good. Lying to yourself won't change the fact that you honestly don't believe, either.

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;99018 wrote:

Right, God is only a word. No sense confusing yourself just to dispute me, Ken. The three combined letters G-O-D is just a word. Whatever it refers to is whatever it refers to, rather than that collection of three letters.

Emotions and feelings are not things, and they are things, depending upon which definition you would like to use. So, you are both wrong are right to dispute my claim that 'not all words refer to things' with respect to my given examples.

Hey, but at least you're trying, right?

No. If God exists, God is not only a word, God is not a word at all. The word "God" is a word. Just as the Eiffel Tower is not either a word, nor, only a word, (although the term, "The Eiffel Tower" is certainly a word) The Eiffel Tower is an edifice in Paris. You have to distinguish between "the Eiffel Tower" and, the Eiffel Tower. Why you find that hard, I don't know. Do you think that when people worship God, they believe they are worshiping the word "God". No more than when people climb the Eiffel Tower do they believe they are climbing the term, "the Eiffel Tower".

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;99032 wrote:

No. If God exists, God is not only a word, God is not a word at all. The word "God" is a word. Just as the Eiffel Tower is not either a word, nor, only a word, (although the term, "The Eiffel Tower" is certainly a word) The Eiffel Tower is an edifice in Paris. You have to distinguish between "the Eiffel Tower" and, the Eiffel Tower. Why you find that hard, I don't know. Do ;you think that when people worship God, they believe they are worshiping the word "God". No more than when people climb the Eiffel Tower do they believe they are climbing the term, "the Eiffel Tower".

Are you seriously asking these questions? Have you ever met anyone that upon climbing Mt. Everest thought they were climbing the term "Mt. Everest"? Besides anyone that was seriously mentally ill, that is?

What makes you think DT cannot grasp the distinction between a word and the thing it refers to? There are many clues in his posting which indicate that he acknowledges the distinction, don't you think?

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;99033 wrote:

Are you seriously asking these questions? Have you ever met anyone that upon climbing Mt. Everest thought they were climbing the term "Mt. Everest"? Besides anyone that was seriously mentally ill, that is?

What makes you think DT cannot grasp the distinction between a word and the thing it refers to? There are many clues in his posting which indicate that he acknowledges the distinction, don't you think?

Because he says that God is just a word. But the word "God" is a word. Surely, God is not a word. If God exists then God is The Supreme Being. Actually I think he may be confused as between talking about words, and talking about what the words are supposed to refer to. (Since I am not a detective, I do not look for clues). As for Mt. Everest, I do not know. But if someone says that God is just a word, then what do you think he means? Since that certainly is false on the face of it.

0 Replies

@Pythagorean,

When he said "God is just a word", he meant that the word "God" is just a word. He wasn't saying that the thing the word "God" refers to is just a word. If I say "dog" is just a word, I would mean that the word "dog" is just a word, not that the animal dog doesn't exist. Why would you think this?

Sometimes you can infer what someone means by following assumptions. Why you take everything at face value, I have no idea. It's almost as if you ignore contextual clues just to get a response out of people.

I can do the same thing. For instance, you just said:

Quote:

As for Mt. Everest, I do not know.

Now, I could take this as you meaning you don't know what Mt. Everest is, or that you don't know if you've ever met anyone that upon climbing Mt. Everest thought they were climbing the term "Mt. Everest" (which would be odd, don't you think? how on earth couldn't you know if you encountered this?!), or that you do not know how the example "Mt. Everest" applies to this conversation, or that you simply didn't mean anything by it.

Which should I pick? You're versed in South American geography as you're aware Quito is the capital of Ecuador. Perhaps you're just not versed in Asian geography? Or perhaps you just don't remember if you've ever met anyone that thought they were literally climbing a word. Maybe it just slipped your memory! Have you ever had any serious brain injury? Are you a forgetful person?

1 Reply

@Pythagorean,

Previously posted:

Johnny Fresh;98885 wrote:

If you believe in logic than you believe in God:

You agree that nothing cannot create something, right?
everything must come from something, you see.

now you'll agree that time is a finite thing (ex. if i say, count to a infinity, will you ever reach infinity? No.)

Meaning that something immaterial (without matter) and omnipresent (without time) Must have created everything.

0 Replies

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;99041 wrote:

When he said "God is just a word", he meant that the word "God" is just a word. He wasn't saying that the thing the word "God" refers to is just a word. If I say "dog" is just a word, I would mean that the word "dog" is just a word, not that the animal dog doesn't exist. Why would you think this?

Sometimes you can infer what someone means by following assumptions. Why you take everything at face value, I have no idea. It's almost as if you ignore contextual clues just to get a response out of people.

I can do the same thing. For instance, you just said:

Now, I could take this as you meaning you don't know what Mt. Everest is, or that you don't know if you've ever met anyone that upon climbing Mt. Everest thought they were climbing the term "Mt. Everest" (which would be odd, don't you think? how on earth couldn't you know if you encountered this?!), or that you do not know how the example "Mt. Everest" applies to this conversation, or that you simply didn't mean anything by it.

Which should I pick? You're versed in South American geography as you're aware Quito is the capital of Ecuador. Perhaps you're just not versed in Asian geography? Or perhaps you just don't remember if you've ever met anyone that thought they were literally climbing a word. Maybe it just slipped your memory! Have you ever had any serious brain injury? Are you a forgetful person?

But if what he meant when he wrote, "God is just a word" was, that the word, "God, was just a word (as you say he did) then what is it you think he meant by that? Surely you don't think he was telling people that the word, "God" is just a word. Why would he tell anyone that?

I agree with you that even if someone says (or writes) something that when it is taken literally, is false or foolish, we should try to give that person the benefit of doubt, and try to interpret him in some way that makes what he says true or sensible. In fact, that principle is sometimes called,"the principle of charity". So for instance when someone makes a slip of the tongue, we often automatically understand he made a slip of the tongue, and not even bother to correct him (or maybe say, "you mean Gretel and not Gretchen, don't you?"). So yes, I think we should exercise the principle of charity. But then, what do you think he was trying to say, or really saying, when he said that God was just a word? For, literally speaking, that isn't true.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

If you believe in logic than you believe in God:

You agree that nothing cannot create something, right?
everything must come from something, you see.

now you'll agree that time is a finite thing (ex. if i say, count to a infinity, will you ever reach infinity? No.)

Meaning that something immaterial (without matter) and omnipresent (without time) Must have created everything.

1 Reply

@Johnny Fresh,

Johnny Fresh;99091 wrote:

If you believe in logic than you believe in God:

You agree that nothing cannot create something, right?
everything must come from something, you see.

now you'll agree that time is a finite thing (ex. if i say, count to a infinity, will you ever reach infinity? No.)

Meaning that something immaterial (without matter) and omnipresent (without time) Must have created everything.

Ah, okay. Well, that's that sorted out. Thanks for that.

If only you'd turned up 2000 years ago, think of all the lives you would have saved!

:rolleyes:

What did god come from?

1 Reply

@gojo1978,

gojo1978;99103 wrote:

Ah, okay. Well, that's that sorted out. Thanks for that.

If only you'd turned up 2000 years ago, think of all the lives you would have saved!

:rolleyes:

What did god come from?

Why would you suppose that God came from anywhere, and was not eternal?

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;99106 wrote:

Why would you suppose that God came from anywhere, and was not eternal?

I'm not supposing anything at all, I'm just following his "logic".

Apparently nothing cannot create something.

So what created god?

3 Replies

Do you believe in God?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know