essence of God?

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

It is completely arbitrary to say there are no gods.

It isn't arbitrary if one bases the assertion upon a premise.

Quote:

That is simply denying one possible explanation for the REALITY of existence.

You may not like the fact that I designate it arbitrary...but it most assuredly is.

Quote:

That you may disagree with the premise or the conclusion is another matter.

You deny the possible explanation for "the REALITY of existence" in regard to pink elephants and gremlins. That doesn't make your denial arbitrary.

Frank Apisa wrote:
Blue...flying pink elephants and gremlins are not included in this conversation as possible explanations for the REALITY of existence.

Says you. If one wishes to include flying pink elephants and gremlins along with God in this conversation to be considered "as possible explanations for the REALITY of existence" then there is nothing stopping that inclusion. Your attempts to dictate criteria notwithstanding. You hold them in different regard, others do not.

Frank Apisa wrote:
The notion of a GOD...is.

He...and apparently you...are dismissing the possibility of a god simply because you want to dismiss it.

I suggest that it is not that easily dismissed as a possibility.

Krumple explained why he dismisses the possibility of a god. That you disagree with his explanation and that you assert that that possibility is not easily dismissed is another matter.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

It is completely arbitrary to say there are no gods.

It isn't arbitrary if one bases the assertion upon a premise.

In my opinion...the assertion of a premise upon which to claim it is not arbitrary to assert the impossibility of a god...is arbitrary.

Quote:

That is simply denying one possible explanation for the REALITY of existence.

You may not like the fact that I designate it arbitrary...but it most assuredly is.

Quote:

That you may disagree with the premise or the conclusion is another matter.

You deny the possible explanation for "the REALITY of existence" in regard to pink elephants and gremlins. That doesn't make your denial arbitrary.

Where have I denied the possible explanation for "the REALITY of existence" in regard to pink elephants and gremlins?

Point me to the exact wording that fits that particular straw man.

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Blue...flying pink elephants and gremlins are not included in this conversation as possible explanations for the REALITY of existence.

Says you. If one wishes to include flying pink elephants and gremlins along with God in this conversation to be considered "as possible explanations for the REALITY of existence" then there is nothing stopping that inclusion. Your attempts to dictate criteria notwithstanding. You hold them in different regard, others do not.

Frank Apisa wrote:
The notion of a GOD...is.

He...and apparently you...are dismissing the possibility of a god simply because you want to dismiss it.

I suggest that it is not that easily dismissed as a possibility.

Krumple explained why he dismisses the possibility of a god. That you disagree with his explanation and that you assert that that possibility is not easily dismissed is another matter.

Is there a god, InfraBlue?

Krumple asserts there isn't! That is a completely arbitrary dismissal of a possible explanation for the true nature of the REALITY of existence.

Just wondering how you feel about it.

0 Replies

To point out that god was imagined, not witnessed, is not arbitrary.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

To point out that god was imagined, not witnessed, is not arbitrary.

To point out that "god" was imagined...is totally arbitrary, Edgar.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

your mind is arbitrary, that's what's arbitrary.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

your mind is arbitrary, that's what's arbitrary.

The question of "What is the true nature of the REALITY of existence?" has been pondered throughout history, Edgar.

Some people want to say the REALITY is this...some that...some something else.

Any of them might be right...or they might all be wrong.

Bottom line: It is almost certain that none of us knows for sure.

Anyone guessing, "There is a creator GOD" is allowed that guess.

Anyone guessing, "There are no gods, creator or otherwise" is allowed that guess.

Me...I do not know...and really do not have enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess.

Anyone asserting "there is a GOD" or "There has to be a GOD" is simply being arbitrary...although getting someone locked into that mindset to acknowledge the guess as arbitrary is almost impossible.

Anyone asserting "there are no gods" or "there cannot be any gods" is simply being arbitrary...although getting someone locked into that mindset to acknowledge the guess as arbitrary is almost impossible.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Anyone asserting "there is a GOD" or "There has to be a GOD" is simply being arbitrary...

That's well put,Frank. However it's a good guess that there's something largely abstract that we don't yet have a good hold of, and which is or is't God depending on one's definition of "God" and "exist"

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
Anyone asserting "there is a GOD" or "There has to be a GOD" is simply being arbitrary...
That's well put,Frank. However it's a good guess that there's something largely abstract that we don't yet have a good hold of, and which is or is't God depending on one's definition of "God" and "exist"

Whatever came before the Big Bang qualifies as an unknown...and may or may not be closer to what we think of as a god...than some might feel comfortable with.

I don't know...and I strongly suspect no one here does either.

Anyone who insists certain things are impossible in that vein is being arbitrary and guessing...just as anyone who insists it has to be is.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Blue...flying pink elephants and gremlins are not included in this conversation as possible explanations for the REALITY of existence. The notion of a GOD...is.

He...and apparently you...are dismissing the possibility of a god simply because you want to dismiss it.

I suggest that it is not that easily dismissed as a possibility.

See Frank you walked right into the trap. I didn't get you the first time, Blue had to assist me. You tried to get out of it by changing the subject to how aggressive I am in discussions about the mental capacities of some of this forums users. But anyways I'm getting distracted again.

How is it that you can make an assessment between flying pink elephants, gremlins or a god? You have done the typical apologist method of special pleading where the concept of "god" is exempt from the same category of mythological creatures when flying pink elephants and gremlins have JUST as much validity to them as a "god" has. Which is to say NONE.

Frank I don't think I have ever called you a moron or stupid. I don't think you are either, but I do think you have a certain hangup about this idea of being open-minded means to make special reserve for certain concepts that are hot debate topics. I think this too is a cop-out. The concept of gods is probably directly linked to our notion of self. We constantly want to put personalities into reality. I think it is built into how our brains function so we are able to relate to our surroundings. So often times this get's elevated to a god status.

I have tried to use the premise of a person born without the senses functioning. Such as being blind, deaf, unable to smell or taste and you can't feel touch sensations. You were born this way yet your body is kept alive but you have no ability to sense "others".

This is a philosophical mental exercise to evaluate how the self and other get constructed. Without the ability to sense "other" you don't develop a sense of "self" either. You wouldn't learn concepts at all because you have nothing to base the data of the senses on. There wouldn't be a god idea. Yet this doesn't stop theists from assuming that you magically would create a god concept. It is functionally impossible. This points out that we develop the concept of god based on the concept of self. This is probably why so many theists try to put in their favorite traits for characteristics of their god.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Blue...flying pink elephants and gremlins are not included in this conversation as possible explanations for the REALITY of existence. The notion of a GOD...is.

He...and apparently you...are dismissing the possibility of a god simply because you want to dismiss it.

I suggest that it is not that easily dismissed as a possibility.

See Frank you walked right into the trap. I didn't get you the first time, Blue had to assist me. You tried to get out of it by changing the subject to how aggressive I am in discussions about the mental capacities of some of this forums users. But anyways I'm getting distracted again.

I did not walk into any trap, Krumple. If you want to kid yourself into thinking I did, though...or if thinking so provides you with an ego boost...go for it.

Quote:

How is it that you can make an assessment between flying pink elephants, gremlins or a god?

What does that even mean?

Quote:

You have done the typical apologist method of special pleading where the concept of "god" is exempt from the same category of mythological creatures when flying pink elephants and gremlins have JUST as much validity to them as a "god" has. Which is to say NONE.

Nonsense. No special pleading here at all.

I frankly acknowledge that you can put a series of letters together and say, "well how about the existence of xhngap;ys or nehinleybns or bgubnqpmyts?

Or pink elephants or gremlins.

But the question of "What is the true nature of the REALITY of existence?" CAN include the possibility that a single thing existed before all else and was a part of how all the rest came into being.

I understand atheists like you want to exclude that possibility and still maintain that "I am open-minded and scientific" posture...but all I get out of that is a big laugh...and the wonder of how you kid yourself about it.

Quote:

Frank I don't think I have ever called you a moron or stupid. I don't think you are either, but I do think you have a certain hangup about this idea of being open-minded means to make special reserve for certain concepts that are hot debate topics. I think this too is a cop-out.

I never said you called me a moron or stupid...but I can tell you that I have seen you call several theists here in this forum those words many, many times. You do it regularly.

Here is my position on this issue, Krumple:

I do not know if there is a GOD or if there are gods; I do not know if there are no gods; I see no reason to suspect gods cannot exist; I see no reason that suggests gods are needed to explain existence; I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction.

What do you see as inappropriate, illogical, or wrong about that position?

Quote:

The concept of gods is probably directly linked to our notion of self. We constantly want to put personalities into reality. I think it is built into how our brains function so we are able to relate to our surroundings. So often times this get's elevated to a god status.

Those guesses mean nothing to me at all...except that I appreciate the guesses. The concept of gods may be much deeper...but that also would be just a guess.

Quote:

I have tried to use the premise of a person born without the senses functioning. Such as being blind, deaf, unable to smell or taste and you can't feel touch sensations. You were born this way yet your body is kept alive but you have no ability to sense "others".

That is fine...and cogent, Krumple. I appreciate it; acknowledge it; and understand how it can come to mind.

But it may be completely wrong.

And your guess that gods are impossible....MAY BE WRONG also.

Quote:

This is a philosophical mental exercise to evaluate how the self and other get constructed. Without the ability to sense "other" you don't develop a sense of "self" either. You wouldn't learn concepts at all because you have nothing to base the data of the senses on. There wouldn't be a god idea. Yet this doesn't stop theists from assuming that you magically would create a god concept. It is functionally impossible. This points out that we develop the concept of god based on the concept of self. This is probably why so many theists try to put in their favorite traits for characteristics of their god.

All that may be so...and it does not impact on the fundamental flaw in the assertion that there are no gods...and that gods are impossible.

Think it out...and you will see.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Whatever came before the Big Bang qualifies as an unknown

Meantime tho we can speculate. To avoid contradiction and paradox we might assume the Universe is cyclical, has always existed in one form or another: bang, evolution, burnout, dispersion, crunch, bang….

Quote:

...and may or may not be closer to what we think of as a god

The pantheist of course sees it somewhat in this way

Quote:

...than some might feel comfortable with.

Yes it's interesting how so many of us are so uncomfortable with the rest of us

Quote:

I don't know...and I strongly suspect no one here does either.

Too much though, the skeptic throws up his hands where the philo finds new ways to look at it all, incorporating discoveries whenever pertinent

Quote:

Anyone who insists certain things are impossible in that vein is being arbitrary and guessing...just as anyone who insists it has to be is.

Yet the insistence that things are the way they are because that's the way they have to be also sidesteps all those contradictions

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
Whatever came before the Big Bang qualifies as an unknown

Meantime tho we can speculate. To avoid contradiction and paradox we might assume the Universe is cyclical, has always existed in one form or another: bang, evolution, burnout, dispersion, crunch, bang….

And you can speculate on a god.

All you will end up doing is guessing.

Quote:

Quote:
...and may or may not be closer to what we think of as a god

The pantheist of course sees it somewhat in this way

Whatever. Fact is though...IT MIGHT BE.

Quote:

Quote:
...than some might feel comfortable with.

Yes it's interesting how so many of us are so uncomfortable with the rest of us

Indeed.

Quote:

Quote:
I don't know...and I strongly suspect no one here does either.

Too much though, the skeptic throws up his hands where the philo finds new ways to look at it all, incorporating discoveries whenever pertinent

I don't think so, Dale. We all look for answers...skeptics, agnostics, atheists, theists, philosophers.

We all do.

Quote:

Quote:
Anyone who insists certain things are impossible in that vein is being arbitrary and guessing...just as anyone who insists it has to be is.
Yet the insistence that things are the way they are because that's the way they have to be also sidesteps all those contradictions

Do not understand what you are trying to say there.

However things are...that is the way they ARE.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I don't think so, Dale. We all look for answers...skeptics, agnostics, atheists, theists, philosophers. We all do.

The skeptic and the theist Frank will look harder for answers that serve his own foregone conclusion whereas the philo will consider both

Yet the insistence that things are the way they are because that's the way they have to be also sidesteps all those contradictions

Quote:

Do not understand what you are trying to say there.

Conclusions entailing no contradictions nor paradox suggest greater likelihood

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
I don't think so, Dale. We all look for answers...skeptics, agnostics, atheists, theists, philosophers. We all do.

The skeptic and the theist Frank will look harder for answers that serve his own foregone conclusion whereas the philo will consider both

You may think that...but my experience tells me that most people look for things that will verify what they already assume.

I do not see scientists as appreciably more open-minded than skeptics or theists...and I do not see skeptics and theists as particularly open-minded. Being close-minded seems to be the in thing these days.

Also, not sure why you are using "skeptic"...but if you are using it as a substitute of atheist...that is an error.

I am a skeptic...and I am not an atheist. I think many atheists are NOT skeptics...but rather that they travel the road you are suggesting...looking only to verify what they presume to be correct.

Quote:

Yet the insistence that things are the way they are because that's the way they have to be also sidesteps all those contradictions

I'm not sure who has characterized that...but if you are paraphrasing what I have said...you are messing it up.

I am saying what IS...IS. That is NOT the same as saying it is what it is because that is they way it has to be.

Quote:

Quote:
Do not understand what you are trying to say there.

Conclusions entailing no contradictions nor paradox suggest greater likelihood

I have no idea of what you are trying to say here, Dale. Please write in complete sentences and say what you mean to say. I am interested, but you are not being clear.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

...most people look for things that will verify what they already assume.

Yea Frank I had supposed that's pretty much what I was trying to express myself

Quote:

I do not see scientists as appreciably more open-minded than skeptics or theists

Now we have to argue about "appreciably". I suppose many "scientists" are dead set against the theist, but then we wouldn't say they're open minded

Quote:

Also, not sure why you are using "skeptic"...but if you are using it as a substitute of atheist...that is an error.

I'd call the atheist a kind of skeptic
I tend to generalize where you prefer specifics

Quote:

I think many atheists are NOT skeptics...

True but don't you suppose they're more likely to be

Quote:
Yet the insistence that things are the way they are because that's the way they have to be also sidesteps all those contradictions

Quote:

I'm not sure who has characterized that...but if you are paraphrasing what I have said...you are messing it up.

Then I apologize. I was merely endorsing the basic notion as logical by virtue being of free of contradiction

Quote:

I am saying what IS...IS.

You might have to elaborate a bit on that assertion, Frank, as it leaves your Average Clod (me) somewhat in the dark

Quote:

That is NOT the same as saying it is what it is because that is they way it has to be.

I'm sure however it isn't, as you say. What it does mean is that I doubt things could be much different
I'm quite sure our respective positions are very similar while I've noticed how easy to misconstruing another correspondents' meaning

Especially my own

Quote:

Being close-minded seems to be the in thing these days.

Best one yet, you've made the rest of my day Frank

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

Just a couple of comments, Dale.

I prefer not to think of atheists as “skeptics”…mostly because many of them limit their skepticism to just the existence of gods. Many are not “skeptical” at all about the notion that gods do not exist.

I, on the other hand…am a skeptic. I am skeptical about claims made by theists and by strong atheists (not many of those here in A2K).

As for “what IS…IS”…well, the best way to clarify that is to say that I am saying “what IS…IS.”

Not being a wise-ass, just not sure of what problem you have with that.

Whatever the truth about existence IS…that is what it IS. I have no idea of what it is…but I cannot create a scenario where what IS…isn’t…or what isn’t…is.

It is a form of a tautology as I see it.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Many are not “skeptical” at all about the notion that gods do not exist.

Point well taken Frank. Could have found a better word

Quote:

….what IS…isn’t…or what isn’t…is. It is a form of a tautology as I see it.

Yes, it's exactly that to which I object. It doesn't seem to convey substantial meaning

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
….what IS…isn’t…or what isn’t…is. It is a form of a tautology as I see it.
Yes, it's exactly that to which I object. It doesn't seem to convey substantial meaning

Can't help you further on that, Dale. It seems pretty clear cut to me...but maybe someone else will give it a go.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Well, Dale, language (and logic) may be correct.

Yes Frank I could be dead wrong

Quote:

Either there are gods (is a GOD) or there are none.

I hear you Frank and indeed you might be right. However to mantain perspective you should entertain the notion that She is a natural phenom, an abstraction the existence of which depending entirely upon own defs of the terms entailed in Her description

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
Well, Dale, language (and logic) may be correct.

Yes Frank I could be dead wrong

Quote:
Either there are gods (is a GOD) or there are none.
I hear you Frank and indeed you might be right. However to mantain perspective you should entertain the notion that She is a natural phenom, an abstraction the existence of which depending entirely upon own defs of the terms entailed in Her description

Leaving aside the "she" (I much prefer "IT")...

...if there is a GOD...IT is a part of nature. IT is not unnatural. So I am not sure of your point, Dale. By asserting that there MAY BE a GOD, I am not in any way suggesting anything unnatural or supernatural. Nothing actually requires a GOD to be either.

1 Reply

essence of God?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know