I cannot define God, but I can define "God". It is a concept.
JL hello .... good to read you again!
A concept comprised of subjective observations that congregate into a metaphor that represents all of your personal thoughts on the subject (God) ..... whether or not religious in nature.
How are you sure your concept has no basis in reality?
Isn't reality based in the intellect .... built from the answers to our own queries?
Gelisgesti wrote:Isn't reality based in the intellect .... built from the answers to our own queries?
If that were true, how would Dubya feed himself?
He has a contract with Haliburton?
Neologism, you ask "How are you sure your concept has no basis in reality?" I know the reality of the concept is its constructural nature--humans made it up.
But are you really asking how one can know that the concept has no REFERENT in the world, that it is not pointing to something apart from itself?
No way to know for sure, just as I do not know for sure that there is not a unicorn somewhere on this vast planet. But that, of course, does not form any basis for a belief in unicorns.
JLNobody wrote:Neologism, you ask "How are you sure your concept has no basis in reality?" I know the reality of the concept is its constructural nature--humans made it up.
But are you really asking how one can know that the concept has no REFERENT in the world, that it is not pointing to something apart from itself?
No way to know for sure, just as I do not know for sure that there is not a unicorn somewhere on this vast planet. But that, of course, does not form any basis for a belief in unicorns.
Sniff! A neologism is a thing, whereas a neologist is a person. You referred to me as a thing; therefore you have dehumanized me. Snivel!
Well. You're just a nobody. How about that?
OK, so much for that; what if it were possible to test the existence of God? What would you consider as evidence?
neologist wrote: What would you consider as evidence?
I know this one... Sound reasoning.
That would do it for me.
God.
A three letter word encompassing Everything. By definition there is nothing outside Everything. If there is you're not looking at Everything.
Everything is an abstract absolute. An idea, for sure, but not that difficult to relate to.
Within Everything there are countless subdivisions, and we call them Objects and Energies. Everything is alive.
That's why we need the extra word (god). "Everything" implies the existence of something, but says nothing about it's state of existence. This particular everything is alive, and we (or maybe just me) know it as God.
Neologist, I did not refer to you at all. ?????
Your question about what would constitute evidence for the existence of a God is impossible for me to answer. I would have to know something about the nature of a God in order to know what would constitute evidence for its existence.
The concept is meaningless to me. That's why I am an atheist, not because I do not believe in the existence of something that is meaningful but non-existent.
But JL; who were you referring to as neologism? Oh well; never mind. I'll have to come back to this when there is more time.
You have made some valid points. Or, should I say, some points which are valid.
"What would constitute evidence for the existence of a god?"
Strange question. What about defining god, for starters, as an idea. The idea could be 'the living everything', and looking at the known and the unknown universe as an abstract singularity makes sense. This requires no proof aside from logic. Logic tells me that everything that exists can be thought of as a whole.
It may sound like much, but following this trail of thought a lot of pieces click into place...
NeoloGIST. Sorry, that was a typo.
Cyracuz wrote:"What would constitute evidence for the existence of a god?"
Strange question. What about defining god, for starters, as an idea. The idea could be 'the living everything', and looking at the known and the unknown universe as an abstract singularity makes sense. This requires no proof aside from logic. Logic tells me that everything that exists can be thought of as a whole.
It may sound like much, but following this trail of thought a lot of pieces click into place...
I think it over simplifies. It shows a deterministic God and places on him the blame for human suffering.
Yes, it argues towars determinism. But remember that every single part of this 'god' of mine exerts it's influence on everything else, in proportion to the thing's size and energylevel. As part of god, humans are able to determine to a limited degree, and this gives the impression of free will. We are part of god, part of nature, and as any force of nature we can exert our pressure to the extent of our capacity. This determinism you speak of is the source of our free will.
And as for the blame for human suffering... I can't say I see why that is so. I'd say that ignorance has the blame for human suffering.
Then does God have the power to end suffering?
If anywhere, the power to end suffering is within god. But so is the power to cause suffering.
It's like the belief of Krishnaites, that all suffering comes from the erroneous belief that one is separate from god. Failure to understand the truth is the sole reason for suffering. From ignorance people lay it on eachother, and because of ignorance it is hard to shed it.
So, is (human) suffering part of God's purpose?
It is part of god. That much I can say based on the line of reasoning I am following. To talk about purpose at this point would be assumption, because I am not sure it is a valid way to pose the problematique.
But I am thinking that human suffering is a human affair, and as I said, it has more to do with our own ignorance than the concept of god.
