What if no religions are correct, but there still is a God?

God said follow Him. He never said about following christian or other religions. According to christianity, our religion is a way to gather the followers to worship God and know Him, understand the Bible, the word of God. But some people may have interpret His words incorrectly leading to misunderstandings and confusion.

0 Replies

@neologist,

Well like there is an Alien civilization far more advanced then us who might have created this "toy" world of ours to which we decided to call God? Its is possible, probably unlikely, but above all, Human beings never got anything right at a fundamental level. Your second half in the thread tittle is self evident.

0 Replies

All religions, all deities and gods have all been made up. There may be a higher power of some kind in the universe, but if it does exist, it is no god of any made up religion.

0 Replies

Ok.. so has anyone determined what "God" is?

2 Replies

@jerlands,

The thread, for the most part, assumed the Judeo-Christian one.

1 Reply

@jerlands,

jerlands wrote:

Ok.. so has anyone determined what "God" is?

The (theoretical) variable which holds all the solutions to all your fears. In other words a thing to help you with your delusions.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

The thread, for the most part, assumed the Judeo-Christian one.

Ok.. but "God" is a word and words are containers of some type that relay a message to our minds. This goes beyond what we meaning we assign a word but into the question of what words essentially are. I mean.. if we were just starting to form language do you think we'd have survived had we called light "dung" rather than light? I think words are more important than we might realize.

2 Replies

@jerlands,

jerlands wrote:

if we were just starting to form language do you think we'd have survived had we called light "dung" rather than light? I think words are more important than we might realize.

What are you even saying here? If we called light dung, it would still be light. You seem to be mixing the concept with the sound. Who cares if we called light, dung? It would still mean light. It would STILL be light, NOT dung. So what are you even saying?

A word is a pointer to an experience. It points to the concept. If you are talking with someone and say a word that the other person does not have a concept of, they wouldn't be able to understand the sentences based on it.

When you say the word tree, you aren't thinking the person means dog. If we did, then you could never have a conversation, ever. Nothing would make any sense. So your dung/light statement is insanity.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Quote:

Who cares if we called light, dung? It would still mean light. It would STILL be light, NOT dung. So what are you even saying?

No... light would then be dung and all that it encompases and I doubt we would ever see. Words are a form of expression, like touch can be a form of expression or a facial feature can be a form of expression. Oddly we are able to recognize the expression of non-human forms like a bear for instance and know when it might pose threat but only because the bear exhibits something recognizable that for some reason we relate to.

1 Reply

@jerlands,

jerlands wrote:

No... light would then be dung and all that it encompases

What the hell are you talking about? Just this very thing, your statement a lone proves you wrong.

There is the word light, with it's meaning.

The fact that you chose the word "dung" proves that you are wrong. Because saying dung itself has a definition. I am not confusing it with light or anything else. You say dung, I know what you are talking about, there is no confusion.

Calling light dung, IN NO ******* WAY changes what light is. It would still be light. Words don't produce the object, the object exists and we name it.

Are you insane?

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Quote:

What the hell are you talking about?

The word light has it's origins that arose in it's form for some reason. Like humans arose in their form for some reason or anything else arises in it's form for some reason. A big mac is viewed as food for some but toxic to others and that is not a matter of perspective but a matter of truth, recognizing the reality of the big mac.

1 Reply

@jerlands,

jerlands wrote:

Quote:
What the hell are you talking about?

The word light has it's origins that arose in it's form for some reason. Like humans arose in their form for some reason or anything else arises in it's form for some reason. A big mac is viewed as food for some but toxic to others and that is not a matter of perspective but a matter of truth, recognizing the reality of the big mac.

It isn't that the big mac is poison and food. What you are attempting to do here is suggest, red is green to some people and green is red to other people. No. That is not the case. This is absurd.

This is like a person calling candy food. Sure based on it's definition people would know what you are referring to. But it can contain other definitions as well. But you can't say candy is a car. That is silly.

Just because one person calls a big mac poison, doesn't actually make it poison. They are referring to it's characteristics. To the person who says a big mac is poison, it still is food. It didn't cease being food. All they did was reference another characteristic it has. Which is why people can understand what you are saying if you were to say a big mac is poison. They would understand. But if you said a big mac is a car, they would be confused because it does not contain that characteristic in which a car has.

If what you are suggesting were actually "true" then we would never be able to communicate at all period. The reason we CAN communicate is because we understand the characteristics or the definition of the word and agree on what they are. If we didn't agree then there is chaos. You would never be able to communicate. As soon as you said one word people would have no idea what you were attempting to say.

For example, You say the word tree and everyone thinks something completely different. It would render the word completely meaningless. A word with infinite definitions is NOT a word.

Light is light.
dung is dung.

There is NO confusion. You calling light dung, does not make light cease being light, it would still be light. All you did was change it's name/title. You haven't changed any of it's characteristics.

0 Replies

@jerlands,

"What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other word would smell as sweet;"

2 Replies

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

"What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other word would smell as sweet;"

Yes but that doesn't address why a rose is called a rose.. if we only had our sense of smell then yes, but we have more senses than that.

1 Reply

@jerlands,

jerlands wrote:

Quote:
"What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other word would smell as sweet;"

Yes but that doesn't address why a rose is called a rose.. if we only had our sense of smell then yes, but we have more senses than that.

If you have no senses at all, then the rose does not exist. Because how can you determine somethings existence if you have NO way to verify it?

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

"What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other word would smell as sweet;"

Also, the context that quote is in is to accept or reject something because of it's association.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Quote:

If you have no senses at all, then the rose does not exist. Because how can you determine somethings existence if you have NO way to verify it?

If you had no senses at all then I think you'd technically be dead?

2 Replies

@jerlands,

jerlands wrote:

Quote:
If you have no senses at all, then the rose does not exist. Because how can you determine somethings existence if you have NO way to verify it?

If you had no senses at all then I think you'd technically be dead?

If that were true then blind people are what 1/5th dead? Or people who are both blind and deaf are 2/5ths dead? That is silly.

There is a very small portion of the human population who are born without the ability to feel pain. Their pain receptors do not work. They don't experience pain at all. They usually don't live very long but some have. Look it up, it's fascinating. They typically bite off their own tongues and rip their eye balls out because they don't feel any pain. If they do happen to live to young adult age they tend to break bones and not know they have broken them. Pain does not exist for them.

Are you suggesting that they are in some way dead because they don't feel pain?

Or how about this. I claim there is an 8th sense. Are you in some way partially dead because you don't have this 8th sense? No. That is silly.

1 Reply

@jerlands,

jerlands wrote:

Quote:
If you have no senses at all, then the rose does not exist. Because how can you determine somethings existence if you have NO way to verify it?

If you had no senses at all then I think you'd technically be dead?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRaCFUtpxFU

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Quote:

If that were true then blind people are what 1/5th dead? Or people who are both blind and deaf are 2/5ths dead? That is silly.

In ancient egypt they used to blind some musicians so they would better develop their other senses (at least this is my recollection.)

No.. if you had no senses then you'd technically be dead. Is there's such a thing as partially dead or a percentage dead? Well... if a person is 75 years old and life expectancy is 85 is the person 88% dead? I don't think so.

1 Reply

What if no religions are correct, but there still is a God?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know