Define God

neologist wrote:

Failed attempts aside, I continue to solicit opinions regarding the nature of God, or god, as you may specify. Most of the discussions in the S&R forum hinge on basic definitions as this.

If so that is only because of repetitively narrow notions put forward as to supernatural circumstance. The sty is the limit, let your imagination populate itself with every variation of flying piggies.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

neologist wrote:
Failed attempts aside, I continue to solicit opinions regarding the nature of God, or god, as you may specify. Most of the discussions in the S&R forum hinge on basic definitions as this.
If so that is only because of repetitively narrow notions put forward as to supernatural circumstance. The sty is the limit, let your imagination populate itself with every variation of flying piggies.

One not be a believer to advance a 'definition'

If your concept of god is a flying pig, then your posts suddenly make more sense.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Well, that certainly elevates the discussion.

Made in his own image they says ... if I looks like him then he looks like me I says ..... or was he putting us on?

0 Replies

Gelisgesti wrote:

neologist wrote:
Well, that certainly elevates the discussion.

Made in his own image they says ... if I looks like him then he looks like me I says ..... or was he putting us on?

Define 'image.'

I suspect most would opine that we were created to be like God in quality rather than appearance.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Define 'image.'

I suspect most would opine that we were created to be like God in quality rather than appearance.

0 Replies

Describe image .... image, image .... how about 'an image is a paradigm for personification'?

0 Replies

geologist wrote:

Chummily wrote:
geologist wrote:
Failed attempts aside, I continue to solicit opinions regarding the nature of God, or god, as you may specify. Most of the discussions in the S&R forum hinge on basic definitions as this.
If so that is only because of repetitively narrow notions put forward as to supernatural circumstance. The sty is the limit, let your imagination populate itself with every variation of flying piggies.
One not be a believer to advance a 'definition'

If your concept of god is a flying pig, then your posts suddenly make more sense.

Christianity consists of two parts: a collection of precepts and a collection of opinions.

If it's of any further clarification, I'm watching the Godfather.

0 Replies

The thread topic is 'Define God.' Your definition of christianity, while interesting, is off topic.

Getting back to your definition of god as a flying pig:
Perhaps that is why the Hebrews declined to eat pork.
Or just your tricky gnosis?

Fess up, Chumsy. what is it?

0 Replies

Said definition of Christianity circumscribes the thread topic "Define God". Thus my definition is not off topic. The Christian god is a collection of precepts and a collection of opinions unless of course you can demonstrate otherwise.

Flying piggies was a euphemism i.e. supplanting an expression of an unpleasant or embarrassing notion (that being god) with a more inoffensive substitute (that being flying piggies).

What "tricky" knowledge of spiritual mysteries do you purport that I possess?

0 Replies

Tricky gnosis is just a play on words with no real meaning. I conjured it up as a special gift for you.

What you say of the god worshipped by nominal christians is probably correct. I don't subscribe to nominal christianity.

Before I offer a 'demonstration' I should ask what are your standards of proof/truth. There are several threads in the S&R forum dealing with proof and truth. They all seem to be caught in their respective revolving doors.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Tricky gnosis is just a play on words with no real meaning. I conjured it up as a special gift for you.

I like special gifts, like today when Amun-Ra raised his fiery spirit to full glory within the noonday ether.

neologist wrote:

Before I offer a 'demonstration' I should ask what are your standards of proof/truth. There are several threads in the S&R forum dealing with proof and truth. They all seem to be caught in their respective revolving doors.

We've been friends for over a year now, and I want you to know I did everything in my power to stop this from happening, but it's out of my hands now.

0 Replies

A quick game to explore your definition of God

0 Replies

Good game rosborne but one which does not address the central issue of the meaning of "existence".

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

A quick game to explore your definition of God

Interesting, but merely a word smorgasbord.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
A quick game to explore your definition of God
Interesting, but merely a word smorgasbord.

What's the matter, can't get to the end without gettin' killed. Smile

0 Replies

I got: "You have been awarded the TPM medal of distinction! This is our second highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground"

But I do not understand why I had to "bite the bullet" for claiming that a higher standard of proof is needed for god then for evolution. After all, evolution clearly belongs to the natural world and as such is immediately more plausible than god which belongs to the supernatural world, and thus would by necessity require a higher level of proof to bring it into the natural world.

That is unless one can claim leprechauns require the same level of proof as hydrolysis.

It's well understood that leprechauns are sourced from folklore-myth-fantasy so why shouldn't proof of leprechauns carry a higher burden, given hydrolysis has no such absurd restrictions.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

neologist wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
A quick game to explore your definition of God
Interesting, but merely a word smorgasbord.

What's the matter, can't get to the end without gettin' killed.

Starting with the quality of omniscience, a word which attributes great power at the expense of free will. No mater how great his power, one knowing in advance the end of a sequence of events would be, in effect, powerless to prevent it.

However, one who can rightfully call himself 'he who causes to become' would not be so limited.

My making this distinction disqualifies me from playing the game.

Kind of gets us into a discussion of free will, doesn't it? For if God lacks free will, how could he impart free will to his intelligent creation?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know