Define God

neologist,

Does art exist ?
Yes for a human - No for an ant ?

Does gemutlichkeit exist ? (Actually "God" might go with this one !)
Yes for some humans - No for an ant ?

Does a tree exist ?
Yes for a human - No for an ant ?

It seems self evident to me that "existence" is about the dynamic relationhips between "observer" and "observed" and neither can be defined without the other nor without considerations of wider contexts.

If you care to check out "ontology" via Google you should get a glimpse the depth of the problem.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

neologist,

Does art exist ?
Yes for a human - No for an ant ?

Does gemutlichkeit exist ? (Actually "God" might go with this one !)
Yes for some humans - No for an ant ?

Does a tree exist ?
Yes for a human - No for an ant ?

It seems self evident to me that "existence" is about the dynamic relationhips between "observer" and "observed" and neither can be defined without the other nor without considerations of wider contexts.

If you care to check out "ontology" via Google you should get a glimpse the depth of the problem.

If your best argument for a belief in God is that existence or non-existence can't be objectively defined, then, as far as I'm concerned, I've won the argument. If you have to go through that kind of mental acrobatics to avoid the possibility that you're wrong, you're simply in the realm of fantasy thinking.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

God either exists or does not exist. Our speculations are irrelevant.

For me to demonstrate his existence would require an ability to call upon the supernatural. I don't have it.

I didn't suggest that anyone demonstrate his existence. I said that if you can't even show some evidence strongly suggestive of his existence, then there is no realistic basis for believing in it.

0 Replies

Brandon,

Congratulations on your win !

( Don't forget to carry your winners certificate with you at all times, especially when travelling by air with suspicious looking passengers.)

0 Replies

Interesting - a related, almost parallel thought to one just presented in this discussion may be found on a contemporaneously ongoing thread Here.

0 Replies

timber,

Thanks...your position on "logic" makes complete sense to me.

You might like to take a look at Polkinhorne's stuff.
He is a theologian and also a Cambridge mathematical physicist.

http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/quarks/reflections.shtml

0 Replies

I'm familiar with Polkinghorne, and in agreement with his rejection of the notion that science and religion need be incompatible and adversarial. Again, it is not so much the religionist proposition to which I take exception (at least in context of these discussions), it more is the manner in which that proposition is forwarded.

0 Replies

fresco-

I've read timber's post and it does make sense.But where does it take us to because we do have to be going somewhere and with what we have to hand.

Don't you think it is rather pointless intellectually to go around these circles without any reference to the social realities.It seems to me that doing so rather places one out of the loop.Have you thought of standing for office if only in order to discover the sheer recalcitrance of the material.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Brandon,

Congratulations on your win !

( Don't forget to carry your winners certificate with you at all times, especially when travelling by air with suspicious looking passengers.)

Thanks. It was strictly routine, though. I'd like to thank all the little people whose contributions were so invaluable in reaching this success. Thank you! I love you all! This isn't just a victory for me, but a victory for the people.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

neologist wrote:
God either exists or does not exist. Our speculations are irrelevant.

For me to demonstrate his existence would require an ability to call upon the supernatural. I don't have it.

I didn't suggest that anyone demonstrate his existence. I said that if you can't even show some evidence strongly suggestive of his existence, then there is no realistic basis for believing in it.

I didn't say I couln't do that.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

neologist,

Does art exist ?
Yes for a human - No for an ant ?

Does gemutlichkeit exist ? (Actually "God" might go with this one !)
Yes for some humans - No for an ant ?

Does a tree exist ?
Yes for a human - No for an ant ?

It seems self evident to me that "existence" is about the dynamic relationhips between "observer" and "observed" and neither can be defined without the other nor without considerations of wider contexts.

If you care to check out "ontology" via Google you should get a glimpse the depth of the problem.

Right, and if I am speaking in the forest and my wife doesn't hear me, am I still wrong?

Or, in a more practical sense: If you loan me the money and I am too stupid to remember to pay you back, do you just say "OK, neo", or do you call your friend Tony The Torso?

0 Replies

Is it the consensus, here, that God is necessarily supernatural?

0 Replies

Apparently, by definition. Though not all believe in God's existence.

0 Replies

echi wrote:

Is it the consensus, here, that God is necessarily supernatural?

No. Count me out of the 'supernatural' vote.

While supernatural is defined as:
existing or occurring outside the normal experience or knowledge of man; not explainable by the known forces or laws of nature

I personally do not think God is 'not explainable by the known forces or laws of nature'--although not necessarily explainable. However, I have come to understand God as the known forces or laws of nature. The forces and laws explain God, not vice versa.

Not that I'm a pantheist--I'm no kind of 'eist.' I believe God is sentient.

But I think God is a lot closer than most realize--just perhaps not recognized.

0 Replies

Quote:

supernatural-
existing or occurring outside the normal experience or knowledge of man; not explainable by the known forces or laws of nature

My understanding has been that God is the reason why natural processes are as they are; I attach no personality to God.
I assume that everything exists according to natural law. But why nature behaves as it does remains a mystery. Basically, it is this mystery that I have for a long time referred to as "God". But if God is necessarily supernatural, then I am not sure if I believe in God. (The name is not very important to me. What is important is that I correctly represent myself.)
According to the above definition, "my" God is supernatural. But according to the one below, I think it isn't.

Quote:

supernatural-
Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
Of or relating to a deity.
Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.

0 Replies

Just to stir things up, there's always Lovelock's Gaia Hypothesis ... and perhaps Lovelock himself thinks too small; why should not the universe be Gaia, with Earth and its biomass but relationally infitessimal components within the overall ultimate, sentient organic entity?

0 Replies

In my personal opinion, I believe God to be the author of all natural and moral law. Our perception of space and time allows us to function as sentient beings within those laws, but God's power over space, time and causality transcends ours.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Just to stir things up, there's always Lovelock's Gaia Hypothesis ... and perhaps Lovelock himself thinks too small; why should not the universe be Gaia, with Earth and its biomass but relationally infitessimal components within the overall ultimate, sentient organic entity?

And man is the invading microbe. Have you read the Hot Zone?

0 Replies

Yup, I've read Preston's foray into science a la Stephen King ... fascinating, scary stuff. However, the entailed homeostais of the Gaia Hypothesis rather obviates you conjecture, IMO - though perhaps Terra/Gaia is the invading virus for Universe/Gaia Twisted Evil

:wink:

0 Replies

Scary, if true.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know