Define God

neo wrote:

Scary, if true.

Yeah - the implications are staggering, ain't they? Laughing

Somehow, I suspect we've just lost mosta the folks trying to follow this thread, BTW Mr. Green

0 Replies

G'nite timber, See ya later

0 Replies

G'nite, neo. Thanks for the fun ... really looking forward to seeing ya later.

0 Replies

Echi,

Quote:

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".

What you have here is a 'god of the gaps', where god is inserted to explain the unknown.
This sort of logic is problematic. 100 years ago, this 'god' filled a much broader role than he does today, and 1000 years before that, even vaster.
Your god can be killed
We have been slowly killing and driving that god further and further back into the cosmos since the beginning of time.
How? With knowledge
Once, the only explanation for the growth or failure of crops was the will of god or his anger. Eventually, the study of plant life, through botany and biology, explained this 'mystery', and god was pushed back a step.
Do you see what I am getting at? The more we learn, the smaller 'gods' role becomes. You are following a god that is the juxtaposed enemy of truth and knowledge.

Besides, Echi, I really don't understand your position.
Most god believers use god to fill a role within the hard mechanics of their life ;ie they attribute 'him' with 'doing' something for them.
What you seem to have going is a perfectly sound model of the world, onto which you staple an extraneous god, which really serves no function at all.

0 Replies

We may have succeeded in killing a perception of God; but If God is truly the author of natural law, what we really have done is generate a better understanding of God.

0 Replies

Dok--
I do see what you mean about a "god of the gaps". But this gap is different than the ones you mentioned. There will always be an unknowable element in any explanation of natural occurences.

If it is true, as you say, that my god can be killed with knowledge, then it is a death that I would truly welcome.
I am also willing to give up the concept of "God" if I find that my understanding is too far from the conventional definition. It seems the answer to this might have to do with the definition of "supernatural".

As to the function of my concept of "God", it is close to my understanding of the Tao, and I use both terms, more or less, interchangeably.

0 Replies

echi wrote:

If it is true, as you say, that my god can be killed with knowledge, then it is a death that I would truly welcome.

Amen. I think my God would agree with your god. Laughing

Quote:

I am also willing to give up the concept of "God" if I find that my understanding is too far from the conventional definition.

Surely you jest, echi!

Whatever your concept of the unconcievable is, at this point, it is yours and it is precious because of that--and while I would think that the quest of knowledge would keep said concept mutable but consistent, I wouldn't like to think that anyone's concept was subject to convention.

That's too much like christianity to be easily digested.

I'm not criticizing you--just asking 'do you really mean it?' Confused

0 Replies

queen annie--

I jest not! (But I do see that my post is confusing.)

What I mean is that I will give up the name that I have assigned to the concept if it is not conventionally useful. If there is another name that is a better fit then, for the sake of communication, I would make a swap.

0 Replies

Well, the truth of it is 'God' is not a name but a title. The God of the bible has a personal name -Jehovah- it means 'he who causes to become'.

The Hebrews were afraid to pronounce it, so now we don't know how to pronounce it.

Modern day religionists think that if they use it, people will believe they don't acknowledge Jesus

Go figure.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Well, the truth of it is 'God' is not a name but a title. The God of the bible has a personal name -Jehovah- it means 'he who causes to become'.

That's interesting. Except for the pronoun, I think my definition might be pretty similar. Do you know where I can find more about the meaning of the name, Jehovah?

0 Replies

That Jehovah chose the pronoun 'he' to identify himself in no way demeans the pronoun 'she'. More to it, of course.

You might try This site for info. I'm sure that once other a2kers get wind of this post, they will send you to other sites; but you should at least get a look see at what the folks in Brooklyn say.

0 Replies

echi wrote:

What I mean is that I will give up the name that I have assigned to the concept if it is not conventionally useful. If there is another name that is a better fit then, for the sake of communication, I would make a swap.

Oh, I see. *sigh* Thanks for clarifying. Laughing

I get it, totally. That's the same reason I like 'THE'--it fits nothing yet everything, specifically non-specific.

Too bad the hindrance to communication of such ethereal concepts is not aided by vocabulary adjustments.

Quote:

A man that is of judgment and understanding, shall sometimes hear ignorant men differ, and know well within himself, that those which so differ, mean one thing, and yet they themselves would never agree.
~Francis Bacon

0 Replies

That's a great quote.

0 Replies

Have some more Bacon this morning, echi!

0 Replies

Good one, Queen Annie!

0 Replies

Never thought I would say this, but that was some good Bacon.

0 Replies

My wit often rises before my actual intelligence--which prefers often to sleep until right after lunch. Laughing

0 Replies

It is good to verify one's brain has fully spun up and stabilized at proper operating speed before engaging either one's voice or one's keyboard.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

It is good to verify one's brain has fully spun up and stabilized at proper operating speed before engaging either one's voice or one's keyboard.

Indeed!

The tragedy, though, lies not in the occasional premature engagement, but rather in the fact that not all operators realize that there is actual 'down-time' required and while mandatory for all operators, consent of same is not required. Question

I only say this as someone who must admit to having filled many years up with the tragic effects of my own words. Obliviousness-itis is one term for it. Rolling Eyes

But I'm feeling better these days. Laughing

Despite what I suspect was an actual relapse a few days ago. Embarrassed

Not cured, just in the process of recovery. :wink:

0 Replies

queen annie wrote:

timberlandko wrote:
It is good to verify one's brain has fully spun up and stabilized at proper operating speed before engaging either one's voice or one's keyboard.

Indeed!

The tragedy, though, lies not in the occasional premature engagement, but rather in the fact that not all operators realize that there is actual 'down-time' required and while mandatory for all operators, consent of same is not required.

I only say this as someone who must admit to having filled many years up with the tragic effects of my own words. Obliviousness-itis is one term for it.

But I'm feeling better these days.

Despite what I suspect was an actual relapse a few days ago.

Not cured, just in the process of recovery. :wink:

http://web4.ehost-services.com/el2ton1/laughing1.gif

Go Queen Annie!

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know