17
   

A God That Makes Sense?

 
 
neologist
 
  3  
Reply Fri 14 Aug, 2015 07:35 am
@GodisGay,
GodisGay wrote:
. . . Now i must go out. . .
Just when we were having fun?
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Fri 14 Aug, 2015 07:45 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
So you are saying that if a god (a personal god) exists...it might not want to let us know it exists.

Fine.

That does not impact on what I said about a hypothetical god that would want us to know...the kind Neo was talking about.

A God that truly did not want us to exist would not fit the description of a God that makes sense so that can't be the answer either. The answer must lie in the WAY that we discover and know God. Just figuring out the way the universe works (science) is obviously not the way this God chose to reveal itself.

As wacky as GodisGay is, I think he may have come closest to specifying the way that makes sense. He looked for God in the unique artifacts around us, in his case - dogs. He is too disenchanted with humans (except himself) but I think they are the appropriate thing to study and the most accessible human to you is yourself. The answers, or at least the first clues, must be internal.
Frank Apisa
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 14 Aug, 2015 07:49 am
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
So you are saying that if a god (a personal god) exists...it might not want to let us know it exists.

Fine.

That does not impact on what I said about a hypothetical god that would want us to know...the kind Neo was talking about.

A God that truly did not want us to exist would not fit the description of a God that makes sense so that can't be the answer either.


Huh???

Who has brought up a god that truly did not want us to exist?
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Aug, 2015 07:57 am
@GodisGay,
Quote:

Q1. Did you come first in Uni and passed with the highest score?
Q2. Have you got married and never had an argument with your wife?
Q3. What is your profession and has your profession fully satisfied all the answers you need from life?


The questions a man asks are often more revealing than his answers. These say so much about you. Q2 especially. Q1 - who cares? Q3 - I feel bad for you if you say yours does.
0 Replies
 
Smileyrius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Aug, 2015 08:07 am
@GodisGay,
Welcome to A2k GiG, A lot of information to get through I see you have a lot of interesting ideas, If I may Ill address a few, always happy to have a chat

Quote:
If there were no religion we would all be as one within harmony and respect for each other
Would you say that Atheists live as one in harmony right now? If not have you seen anything to suggest it would be different if you rid the world of religion?
I find that religion is one of many vehicles man uses to justify war, but rarely the sole cause.

Quote:
proof that God indeed is false
which god? you appear to be making a case against a god you yourself have defined. Based on your data I assume catholic upbringing?

Quote:
Lying will mean you going to hell burning in liquid and molten heat
A common misconception. Hell (Gehenna) is a little valley outside Jerusalem. It is very warm this time of year given, but I'm not sure it could be considered molten yet Smile

Quote:
Still no answers to the questions i have imposed? Fairly simple but testing questions really.

Perhaps it is not the questions the posters are objecting to, but the demeanor in which you ask the questions. Insults aren't oft the finest way of drawing a willing response, my gramps always used to say you catch more flies with honey than mud. That said, I am happy to help you out.


Q1. What do you fear the most? Heights, specifically from a non secure platform.
Q2. Do you Pray to your non existing God that it never happens to you? I cant say Ive prayed to any gods asking not to be placed on an unsecure platform at altitude.
Q3. Do you pray more that bad things don't happen to you than the good things you are grateful for? Bad things happen to everyone, I cant imagine less bad things would happen just cause you ask for them not to. I find giving thanks is far more useful, it helps focus on the positive things in your life.

Hope that helps bud, perhaps one question in return, do you believe a person can be both intelligent and believe in God? not speaking about myself specifically, I'm not that bright.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Aug, 2015 08:12 am
@GodisGay,
Quote:
Perfect = Good
Perfect = Knows all (including knowing i am typing this)
Perfect = No emotion

God created an imperfect world and could see the imperfection that the future would bring.
*This would mean God is not perfect because he knows what bad is and knew bad would happen thus ruling out God exists*


Where the hell did you get the idea that God wanted this to be a perfect world? BTW, your definition of 'perfect' is really whack.

Granted, Life is a ******* meat grinder. Remember, the task here is to posit a God that makes sense, so the question is:

Why did God want it to be?
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Aug, 2015 09:18 am
@Leadfoot,
When you speak of 'us', you actually need to establish what you think constitutes the qualitative change in structural complexity which makes any "life form" a unique quantum leap. There is no biological discontinuity as far as I know which significantly separates humans from other species. The 'point' therefore is that unless you can establish a uniqueness principle for life in general, the anthropocentric concept of' 'causality' in general, and 'prime mover' in particular is merely a bit of simplistic speculation. Call such an argument metaphysical' if you like, but all attempts to get a vantage point on 'science' are therefore metaphysical by definition.

I cited the pragmatist Rorty above who points out that the functionality of religious belief in accounting for epistemology is no longer tenable, even if it remains functional for some at an emotional level. If you are interested in that argument I recommend googling the Rorty lecture on 'Compatability of Science and Religion' on youtube.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Aug, 2015 09:31 am
http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/crying-with-laughter.gif
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Aug, 2015 09:51 am
@fresco,
Quote:
There is no biological discontinuity as far as I know which significantly separates humans from other species. The 'point' therefore is that unless you can establish a uniqueness principle for life ....

Good grief man, why do you go on about biology here. Other than casual scientific curiosity, Biology has no significance here. As far as uniqueness in the context of this discussion, no other object in existence sits around discussing things like 'a God that makes sense'. Not that you have actually contributed to that discussion.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Aug, 2015 10:42 am
@GodisGay,
You truly are hilarious. Who is Setana? Do you really think that throwing around schoolyard taunts constitutes intelligent debate? It's a shame that you don't want to talk to me though, you really are entertaining.
0 Replies
 
Banana Breath
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Aug, 2015 10:42 am
Both the majority of religious thinkers and the majority of scientific thinkers fail miserably because of human arrogance. Religious thinkers because they think of God as a human-like old man in the clouds, and scientific thinkers because the majority of them can't grasp powers greater than what they can observe.
If you believe "everything," that is, the universe, time, light, life, and all that we know and can observe, came into being as a direct outcome of the big bang, where did that singularity come from? How could that single point encapsulate all of a universe, all of time, all of space, and the necessary ingredients for all life within all of time? And that singularity had to exist PRIOR to the big bang in order for the big bang to occur, yet time itself didn't exist, so how could it have been before then? If the singularity comes from a place OUTSIDE of everything we know as time and space, what would you like to call that place? If it comes from a time BEFORE time began, what would you like to call that time?
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Fri 14 Aug, 2015 10:44 am
@Banana Breath,
Banana Breath wrote:

Both the majority of religious thinkers and the majority of scientific thinkers fail miserably because of human arrogance. Religious thinkers because they think of God as a human-like old man in the clouds, and scientific thinkers because the majority of them can't grasp powers greater than what they can observe.
If you believe "everything," that is, the universe, time, light, life, and all that we know and can observe, came into being as a direct outcome of the big bang, where did that singularity come from? How could that single point encapsulate all of a universe, all of time, all of space, and the necessary ingredients for all life within all of time? And that singularity had to exist PRIOR to the big bang in order for the big bang to occur, yet time itself didn't exist, so how could it have been before then? If the singularity comes from a place OUTSIDE of everything we know as time and space, what would you like to call that place? If it comes from a time BEFORE time began, what would you like to call that time?



Why is "I do not know" or "I have no idea" not acceptable to so many people?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Aug, 2015 10:45 am
@Banana Breath,
Have you ever read Huis clos (No Exit) by Sartre?
Banana Breath
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Aug, 2015 11:07 am
@Setanta,
I haven't read it, but I'm familiar with the ideas; it was a bit peripheral to my own academic work; Aristotle, Marx, Descartes and Heidegger were more central though I've been primarily based in the interstices between the arts and sciences. Along a related vein, are you familiar with the Twilight Zone episode "Five characters in search of an exit?"
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Aug, 2015 11:21 am
@Leadfoot,
I thought that I had contributed to the point that a God concept makes sense for those who need a palliative against fear of the void. And contrary to your amateur acquaintance with 'biology' you are obviously unaware of the 'systems view' of biology by writers such as Maturana, who see languaging as merely a form of complex adaptive organizational behavior which occurs to some extent in other species. Such a view gives the sobering picture that what we are doing right now is merely a form of social dancing or sparring, the semantic content being an irrelevance since it is unlikely to have any operative effect on the subsequent adaptive behavior of either of us. That view also implies that nebulous concepts like 'God as an active agent' are part of the price we pay as a species with a cognitive ability (via a unique grammar evoking agents acting on objects) to envisage and contemplate 'consequences'.
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Fri 14 Aug, 2015 11:30 am
Leadfoot

Fresco likes to talk the way dumb people think smart people talk.

It can be fun to read what he writes with that in mind.
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Fri 14 Aug, 2015 11:41 am
@Frank Apisa,
...especially if you are too dumb to follow up such ideas for yourself .
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Aug, 2015 11:57 am
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
We're not going to have the He/She God debate , are we?
Only Foot if you like

Quote:
If God is just 'mother nature' , that fails the 'give a ****' test as well
Not when you factor in concepts yet to be developed

Quote:
Your cosmology is out of date
I had though it pretty original

Quote:
All the evidence....... No 'Big Crunch'. No second go round.
Nah, too much paradox, contradiction in that "entropy" thing. 'Way too early to conclude anything at all
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Aug, 2015 12:27 pm
@dalehileman,
Quote:
Quote:
"We're not going to have the He/She God debate , are we?"

Only Foot if you like

Quote:
"If God is just 'mother nature' , that fails the 'give a ****' test as well"

Not when you factor in concepts yet to be developed

Quote:
"Your cosmology is out of date"

I had though it pretty original

Quote:
"All the evidence....... No 'Big Crunch'. No second go round."

Nah, too much paradox, contradiction in that "entropy" thing. 'Way too early to conclude anything at all

Déjà vu? I thought we had this conversation before. Ok, take 2.
Kind of silly to have a he /she God debate when you don't believe in is existence, let alone it's sex.

I'm still waiting on the rest of the 'developments' to come.

The theory that the earth is supported on the backs of turtles was original. No points for pure originality.

Yes, no 'Big Crunch' does create a paradox, but you can't dismiss good evidence just because of that. Sometimes you have to look outside the box to see the resolution.

But I'm curious. You are perfectly willing to accept the latest science when it supports your position but when it contradicts it, you capriciously reject it. What is your justification for that ? Makes it hard to take your argument seriously.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Aug, 2015 12:33 pm
@fresco,
Quote:
I thought that I had contributed to the point that a God concept makes sense for those who need a palliative against fear of the void.

Dismissing your opponent as a weak minded self deluded idiot is not contributing. (Yes, I was paraphrasing you.)

In general I would characterize your style as "If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit."
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/23/2024 at 08:34:33