Reply
Fri 3 Sep, 2010 08:05 am
The Divine......
Hi I suppose this may be the wrong place for this thread, but I would like to discuss God for a minute. Like does He exist? Well I know what I think (that he does), but I am open to feedback from the rest of the community on this highly controversial subject. Also I know that some sister sites have no creedence for the almighty, under the assertion that we now live in an imperialist and pragmatic world, where any love of rainbows, or belief in miracles is purely fancy and frivilous. But what about the Tao which the late Bruce Lee told us about? What about the Aiki of Aikido. What about the truth in the face of darkness, of the hope where once there was none. Please provide constructive feedback to this thread or don't even bother, thanks John.
@john2054,
The most constructive feedback I can offer in this situation is to do a search and read the other hundred or so 'does god exist and in what form' threads on the forum.
@john2054,
It would be difficult to critically examine the love of rainbows without seeming to be a jerk.
In the spirit of Aikido, I accept the label "imperialist." Call me Borg.
Doesn't the divine pervade all being? If so, the Borg is an expression of it. The question is: how?
Well do you have any type of proof for the existence of God? To say that "I believe P" or "I think P" does not mean that "I know P". The two former sentences are subjective, while the latter is objective. It would not follow from "believing" or "thinking" that an object "is" in a sense; we have to "know" it.
However, in all honesty I suggest, if you really want to get into the existence/non-existence of God, you should do philosophy. Just a thought. Toodles.
@Ding an Sich,
Lately I've had my own private meaning of "know" >> that which can not be denied.
Did you just say Toodles?
@Ding an Sich,
Quote: Well do you have any type of proof for the existence of God? To say that "I believe P" or "I think P" does not mean that "I know P". The two former sentences are subjective, while the latter is objective. It would not follow from "believing" or "thinking" that an object "is" in a sense; we have to "know" it.
However, in all honesty I suggest, if you really want to get into the existence/non-existence of God, you should do philosophy. Just a thought. Toodles.
Hi Ding. Well for your information i did study and pass the philosophy at my pre-degree acess qualification under father Daniel Joseph a couple of years ago. And we studied in class the philosophy of religion, but I have been in hospital a couple of times since then, and so I can quite fairly say that I have forgotten most of what I have been taught. Not all mind. The thing for me is that God is not, and should not be looked at purely in objective terms. But we should try and appreciate him subjectively, god with a small g, the god of faith, hope charity and prayer. The god that those of us who have been to church know from singing songs of his worship. The god of love. And so on. I don't want to bore you all here, and so am going to leave it there. I am however open to feedback on all of this, thanks!
@john2054,
I have argued extensively on this forum that "existence" ="mutual relationship".
If you call yourself "a believer" you do not
hold that belief, you
are that belief. The existence of "self" is predicated on the existence of "a deity" and vice versa. Such a self will define the role and nature of "evidence" in that relationship. Thus no amount of so called "rational argument" is going to shift or alter that belief because of the defence mechanisms operating to preserve self integrity.
@fresco,
john2054 wrote:
But we should try and appreciate him subjectively, god with a small g, the god of faith, hope charity and prayer. The god that those of us who have been to church know from singing songs of his worship. The god of love. And so on.
Well this is all nice, but it begs the question raised in your first post, "does he exist?" Before we get into worship, love, singing, etc...
fresco wrote:
I have argued extensively on this forum that "existence" ="mutual relationship".
If you call yourself "a believer" you do not hold that belief, you are that belief. The existence of "self" is predicated on the existence of "a deity" and vice versa. Such a self will define the role and nature of "evidence" in that relationship. Thus no amount of so called "rational argument" is going to shift or alter that belief because of the defence mechanisms operating to preserve self integrity.
Interesting thought.
@john2054,
Hi john you do seem to have it correct prayers do work and miricles can happen.
I have known many people that know allha is great and others that know that the work of Joseph smith was inspired by god.
You do know that others think this to be true don't you?
Many people have prayed to many different god's and had their prayers answered, so I see no reason for your god to not be able to be real also. Please do not take anything I just shared with you to be hateful as I was only sharing other point of views with you other than your own.
These may not be perfect and I am almost sure that they have incorrect info in them but they are close to what I would describe as a rational explanations.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3YOIImOoYM&feature=related
Please do not miss this one also
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKb1LXxKNHY&feature=channel
@reasoning logic,
Hi fellow thinkers, i'm going to try and keep this as civil as possible given the situation. You said that my definition of God, as faith hope charity and love, is a poor one. Well did you realise that this is the very definition taken from the Bible itself? Corinthians v13 to be exact. If you don't believe me seek out a Bible and look it up youself. Do you dare do this? And also in the bible is in the old testament where God himself revealed a rainbow to Noah after he stepped from the ark, onto the fresh new grass, and showed him a rainbow and whispered in his ear HERE, THIS IS MY PROMISE TO YOU THAT I NEVER AGAIN WILL FLOOD THE EARTH TO DISTINCTION AGAIN. THIS IS MY COVENANT TO YOU THAT I AM ALIVE. And so it has stayed to this day, that whenever it rains, on occasion, the sky is filled with the great seven splendid simple and perfect colours of the rainbow. Or that's how the story goes anyway. I will be interested to know what you think of this......
@john2054,
Quote:....the sky is filled with the great seven splendid simple and perfect colours ....
Point of information: In earlier years only
four colours were recognized as present which represented the four gospels. "Seven" came in later in accordance with the "magic number seven" and the seven notes of the musical scale in accordance with "the music of the spheres". "Indigo" was invented for that specific purpose.
Isn't perceptual set wonderful, especially if you are not living in Pakistan at the moment !
@john2054,
Your quote : [You said that my definition of God, as faith hope charity and love, is a poor one. ]
No I would never say that and if that is your definition of god I would say to continue on, as I think that everyone should define god the same way.
I may be sorry that I have shared neuroscience with you.
@reasoning logic,
The Bible is a good book. But it was written by men. People who seem to think that it is a work of litterature along the lines of The Lord of the Rings will be sadly disappointed. Sure it was inspired by god, but as much as i hate to tell you this because it was written by men it is bound to have mistakes. There as contradictions, or confusions rather, in it. Much of the old testament does not read very well. But there are also moments within it, take Elijah's story from the old testament kings 19 i think, the story of a guy who goes from a field to a cave, sits therein for a while and asks 'god' questions within. Such as why he is persecuted for having a correct and true faith. Then I think God sent him down an angel to answer him, and then he goes off. And later on he dies and goes to heaven. It is a GOOD story. That's right, a story. I can't verify it as fact. But just because we recognise that the bible is a book of stories doesn't make us as less so for doing so. And I for one still feel proud to count myself a Christian. John.
@fresco,
fresco wrote:
Point of information: In earlier years only
four colours were recognized as present which represented the four gospels. "Seven" came in later in accordance with the "magic number seven" and the seven notes of the musical scale in accordance with "the music of the spheres". "Indigo" was invented for that specific purpose.
Isn't perceptual set wonderful, especially if you are not living in Pakistan at the moment !
Interesting. I read once that in the traditional Chinese perspective they didn't have different words for blue and green. As it happens, Chinese turquoise is both.
The four gospels have also been associated with the four elements. It's a fun game to try to figure out which is which.
@Arjuna,
Quote: in the traditional Chinese perspective they didn't have different words for blue and green.
...also in Zulu,
luhlaza is the word for both "blue" and "green".
From a psychological point of view, divisions are functional, which underpins the philosophical area called "structuralism", with manifestations in sociology, linguistics, and other fields.
@fresco,
Hi fresco, I didn't know that about the colours. So thankyou for telling me. John.
@reasoning logic,
Cool vid by Richard. I don't agreee with what the man says, but he seems to be getting more reasonable in the way that he is saying it. Thanks.
@john2054,
john2054 wrote:
Quote: Well do you have any type of proof for the existence of God? To say that "I believe P" or "I think P" does not mean that "I know P". The two former sentences are subjective, while the latter is objective. It would not follow from "believing" or "thinking" that an object "is" in a sense; we have to "know" it.
However, in all honesty I suggest, if you really want to get into the existence/non-existence of God, you should do philosophy. Just a thought. Toodles.
Hi Ding. Well for your information i did study and pass the philosophy at my pre-degree acess qualification under father Daniel Joseph a couple of years ago. And we studied in class the philosophy of religion, but I have been in hospital a couple of times since then, and so I can quite fairly say that I have forgotten most of what I have been taught. Not all mind. The thing for me is that God is not, and should not be looked at purely in objective terms. But we should try and appreciate him subjectively, god with a small g, the god of faith, hope charity and prayer. The god that those of us who have been to church know from singing songs of his worship. The god of love. And so on. I don't want to bore you all here, and so am going to leave it there. I am however open to feedback on all of this, thanks!
So you do not have a proof for God?
Youre also begging the question that God does indeed exist in your post. "But we should try and appreciate him subjectively, god with a small g, the god of faith, hope charity and prayer". -But how is it that God exist?
Just letting you know.
Ittekimasu.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace