is God free?

Cyracuz wrote:

There is a difference between god and what man says about god. People who use god as justification for acts they know are evil are wrong about god. Or in other words, they do not refer to the supreme being when they use the term god, but to their egos and needs. That is why all men say their god is good.

And of course, there might not be a god.

0 Replies

Frank-

It was Sunday.It was very popular with the mums and grandmums.Must be the apple pie I guess.

I saw Guy Mitchell at the Blackpool Winter Gardens.
By heck Frank-we's ancient sods ain't we.Frankie Laine too.What flash.And Johnie Ray.He made the girls cry which had no end of positive conditioning.
You Yanks eh?Tall poppy syndrome in spades.Still-it seems to work.

I wouldn't say the Beatles took over the music industry.Most blokes here think they were terrible.
I'm one.Now Dylan and The Dead and all that Jazz-more like it.100 years from now the fab four will be gone.Dylan will never go.

Max Wall did a routine of funny walks in boots and black tights interspaced with daft piano.Absurdists such as myself used to lose control of themselves.
He looked completely mad.He probably was.
Ever see Charlie Drake?Tommy Cooper?He actually died live on screen.Just typing his name makes me laugh.
Yanks are not so good on humour.You are very serious people which is probably just as well in view of your world historical role.

Good luck

spendius.

0 Replies

The suggestion of a God with the human-like ability to will anything and make uninhibited decisions is a logical absurdity. God does not exist physically. Any disproof of God must disprove him on His spiritual grounds: think Augustinian theology. God could not persay "will" the universe into existence; God exists because the universe exists.

0 Replies

Thalion wrote:

The suggestion of a God with the human-like ability to will anything and make uninhibited decisions is a logical absurdity. God does not exist physically. Any disproof of God must disprove him on His spiritual grounds: think Augustinian theology. God could not persay "will" the universe into existence; God exists because the universe exists.

Interesting guess!

To bad you didn't present it as speculation. If you had, it would actually have differed from the guesses theists make about REALITY. Instead...it is simply a different guess.

0 Replies

Quote:

God could not persay "will" the universe into existence; God exists because the universe exists.

Sounds like wordplay. The universe exists because the universe exists. Some kind of apriori analytical nonsense.

The suggestion of a God with human-like abilities is absurd you say. How about the suggestion of a Human with god-like abilities. Equally absurd if you ask me, but I'm not sure everyone would agree.

What I mean is that all our abilities, characteristics and all our achievments are gifts given us. Nature has given us this, and still, whenever we see an animal that does something cute it is always, "look how human that baby seal looks" or something like that.

God, or in another word, the Oneness, is not a concious entity, though part of it are consious entities who think themselves to be separate beings. We are of God but not God in the same way that heat is a product of fire, but it is not fire. Still, not fire, no heat.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
God could not persay "will" the universe into existence; God exists because the universe exists.

Sounds like wordplay. The universe exists because the universe exists. Some kind of apriori analytical nonsense.

The suggestion of a God with human-like abilities is absurd you say. How about the suggestion of a Human with god-like abilities. Equally absurd if you ask me, but I'm not sure everyone would agree.

What I mean is that all our abilities, characteristics and all our achievments are gifts given us. Nature has given us this, and still, whenever we see an animal that does something cute it is always, "look how human that baby seal looks" or something like that.

God, or in another word, the Oneness, is not a concious entity, though part of it are consious entities who think themselves to be separate beings. We are of God but not God in the same way that heat is a product of fire, but it is not fire. Still, not fire, no heat.

How do you people write this shyt with a straight face...assuming you have a straight face on when you write it.

How can you state any of this stuff unequivocally?

What do you know about what the REALITY is?

0 Replies

what is it you don't understand frank. Maybe just not in the mood to do some soulsearching... Smile

I am not wrong here. Not very precise, but not false. I know what the reality is because it is painfully logical. My bet is you know it too. My bet is that when you consider it in you own terms, you get a sense of the greatness that the world around us continuously reveals.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

what is it you don't understand frank. Maybe just not in the mood to do some soulsearching...

I am not wrong here. Not very precise, but not false. I know what the reality is because it is painfully logical. My bet is you know it too. My bet is that when you consider it in you own terms, you get a sense of the greatness that the world around us continuously reveals.

With all the respect in the world, Cy...

...my bet is that you like to present your guesses as fact...and are having trouble owning up to that now that you have been called on it.

There is very little "logical" about your reasoning on this issue.

And as for what you see "the world around us continuously reveal[ing]"...

...I am more than willing to discuss what you see being revealed that causes you to state without equivocation:

Quote:

What I mean is that all our abilities, characteristics and all our achievments are gifts given us. Nature has given us this, and still, whenever we see an animal that does something cute it is always, "look how human that baby seal looks" or something like that.

God, or in another word, the Oneness, is not a concious entity, though part of it are consious entities who think themselves to be separate beings. We are of God but not God in the same way that heat is a product of fire, but it is not fire. Still, not fire, no heat.

Why is that not labelled as pure guesswork...

...and why should I give it any more credence than I give any of the other guesswork bandied about as fact in this forum?

0 Replies

He's not free...but I heard that Dec 26 Wal Mart is rolling back the price of Him significantly

0 Replies

Some people seem unable to understand that things can exist that do not physically exist. I still don't believe anyone really understood what I was talking about in the long debate we had a couple days ago.

0 Replies

Thalion wrote:

Some people seem unable to understand that things can exist that do not physically exist.

What are you actually saying here?????

Quote:

I still don't believe anyone really understood what I was talking about in the long debate we had a couple days ago.

What are you actually saying here?????

0 Replies

Ideas/Ideals exist independently of matter; this does not make them inherently false. Mathematics is entirely in the mind but it serves as a representation of reality. I have never heard anyone criticize math for not being able to be "observed" as a material thing (not as ideas) in the same way that people criticize God.

Regarding what I posted in that other debate; no one criticized the Metaphysical argument itself. All that was criticized was the grounds upon which I was declaring God, which I've already spoken of above.

0 Replies

Thalion wrote:

Ideas/Ideals exist independently of matter; this does not make them inherently false. Mathematics is entirely in the mind but it serves as a representation of reality. I have never heard anyone criticize math for not being able to be "observed" as a material thing (not as ideas) in the same way that people criticize God.

Well...I'm not sure who has been criticizing your god because they cannot see the god...but that really doesn't happen very often on A2K.

Perhaps you are not listening to the arguments actually pressented...and instead are making absurd arguments up so that you can argue that they are absurd.

In any case, tell me who it is that you think is getting on your supposed god for supposedly being invisible...and I will personally give him/her a buncha shyt on your behalf.

That is...if anyone actually has.

Quote:

Regarding what I posted in that other debate; no one criticized the Metaphysical argument itself. All that was criticized was the grounds upon which I was declaring God, which I've already spoken of above.

I don't have one goddam idea of what in hell you are talking about.

If you have some arguments for the existence of your god...list them here or at least give a link to whatever you said elsewhere....so that people can figure out what in hell has got you all riled up.

Jeez!

0 Replies

free? What's that?

0 Replies

Quote:

Ideas/Ideals exist independently of matter; this does not make them inherently false. Mathematics is entirely in the mind but it serves as a representation of reality. I have never heard anyone criticize math for not being able to be "observed" as a material thing (not as ideas) in the same way that people criticize God.

God as an idea or ideal seems like a good, functional definition. Someone was arguing with you about that, Thalion?

0 Replies

Thalion

I will not discuss your statement about the existence of ideas independently of matter, because it is not the main question.
The problem is this: God, to a theist, IS NOT AN IDEA! God is an entity that has existence and is external to your mind.
Theists believe they have an idea of God because there is a God. If not, God woud be only a mental fact. I don't know any religion that would accept that.

So, if God is an entity that has is own independent existence, he is a being. Once you accept that, you must define it. What is God? And there starts the problem.
First, you have many different definitions of God. Greek Gods, for instance, were not invisible. They were not transcendent.
Christian God is transcendent. But what is this God, this entity you claim to exist? What properties does he have? Is he a physical being? If not, what is your God?
You cannot define God by what he isn't, like saying he is invisible (not visible). That is not a definition.
You see, to me the problem of a philosophical discussion about God is that people never give a definition of God. That is not a grammatical question, it's a ontological one.

0 Replies

How do atoms and molecules and other stuff arrange themselves in such a way that the assemblage,which is constantly in flux,has the capacity,or need,to ponder itself and its workings.
Is it a sense of self importance?
Why do some not have that capacity?
Why does the universe have to have meaning?
Why does one set of assemblages desperately want one particular football team to win and another set want another to win
.(Ignoring gambling)?
What is winning?

spendius.

0 Replies

good questions all.

0 Replies

Speaking as an indistinct assemblage of vibrating strings...

the universe must have meaning because there's no other way that a cow kicking over a lamp and starting a fire that burns up a city where sodomists cavort would be in the least remarkable.

0 Replies

I have defined my God as the Zeitgeist/Absolute Truth.

What is rational is real; what is real it rational. The concept that God does not exist in physical reality is no different from the concept that chairs do not exist in reality; both are Ideal projections on to matter. Hence, ideas as things that do not "physcially" exist still exist and can in a theistic sense.

Some people were making numerous jokes when I said that I can define God as anything I want and believe in His existence because of that definition, viz., the lettuce comments. In general people were criticizing the notion that that which exists in the mind as an idea is greater that which "actually" exists, because we cannot know what actually exists. All that matters to us is the interaction with ideas and physical reality because we never experience physical reality independent of those ideas. Someone said that it is pointless to prove a God that is nothing more than something in your imagination, when it is not something imagined, but a philosophical description of our lives. We need both science/mathematics, as a study of how physical reality functions, and philosophy, as a metaphysical explanation, to work together. It is the combination of those things that I can God. I got annoyed because many seemed to think my thoughts were absurd when they made no argument against my metaphysical argument. All that was said was that claiming God's existence was absurd, when I have just defined him to exist through the process of my argument.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know