Atheism meant the belief of no god

295
0
what does everyone mean when they talk/think about God? I just want some ideas that people are judging with. this is surely the most important question here.
 
295
0
we should analyze this together, when we have a good definition. we should be able to find out what it means and then it will be infinitely easier to evaluate its existence... agreed?
 
295
0
i mean: how can you argue for or against something, when you are unclear as to what it is that you are arguing for or against? we will base this examination on intelligence and reason, rather than emotion.
 
295
0
ok, so we know that someone is going to give the "classic" definition of God, namely: and being that is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, am i missing some necessary characteristic???

what does that mean? what is such a being? any other definitions are welcome.
 
295
0
there is the common conception, i perceive, of god, where god is something like a human standing outside of the universe, or maybe also inside of it, or maybe....

what does the word omnipotent mean, for example?

Omnipotence (literally, "all power") is power with no limits or inexhaustible, in other words, unlimited power. This trait is usually attributed only to God. Theists hold that examples of God's omnipotence include Creation and miracles.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotent

"all power" gives something of a different conception, doesn't it?
 
295
0
so... is it that omniscience means "all knowledge" and omnibenevolent means something like "all goodness"?

what a different picture this is painting, already!
 
295
0
so i am still wondering what is meant by God, to the people of this post and forum in general.
 
295
0
funny, how no one asked this question, but there were already four pages of debate, before i got here... maybe i am just out of the loop... or maybe assumption is running this gig... or maybe i am just dumb...
 
295
0
hmmmmmm....
 

Rade

arrow said:
God's definition of a "true" Christian is a soul that has by faith trusted in Jesus Christ's death on the Cross for sin. John 3:16
No, this is false, this is not what Jesus taught. Since this reference to John 3:16 was not deleted as a violation of forum rules, I will assume I can continue the argument. First, "God" never defined the "true Christian", in fact the term was not even used by Jesus, let alone God. Your quote of John 3:16 is John's philosophy, but clearly not the thinking of Jesus. We get to what Jesus would say about this in Luke 10:25-37. By any definition, a "true Christian" must be a human that wishes to have eternal life after death. And, in Luke 10:25 we see that Jesus addressed this issue...thus he was asked by a lawyer " ....what shall I do to inherit eternal life? And note that Jesus then asked then lawyer ...what is written in the law, how readest you ? And when the lawyer gave the correct answer derived from " the law"...note what Jesus said, he said ..."thou hast answered right, this do, and thou shalt live". So, you are welcome to put your faith on what "John 3:16" says, but I select to put my faith on what Jesus says, e.g., the "true christian" ...follows the law... and loves God with all his/her heart and soul ..... By his own words, Jesus died on the cross and was raised so that all humans would realize that when he said we must "follow the law" to have eternal life, he really meant it.
 
295
0
What is the God that you love with all your heart and soul? what do you love, is my question? something, and not other things, some people but not other people, some religion, but not other religions? do you love something called God, but is divided, and therefore limited? can God be anything less than everything? perhaps even everything puts a limit on God, for maybe He is greater than everything. What then is That? Rade, Arrow, group? please help dissolve these misunderstanding with me.
 
295
0
can God be defined by a name, a definition, a word, a form, an idea? is your love such that it transcends these definitions? anything less would surely limit God, would it not?
 

Rade

sameandnot said:
What is the God that you love with all your heart and soul? what do you love, is my question? something, and not other things, some people but not other people, some religion, but not other religions? do you love something called God, but is divided, and therefore limited? can God be anything less than everything? perhaps even everything puts a limit on God, for maybe He is greater than everything. What then is That? Rade, Arrow, group? please help dissolve these misunderstanding with me.
This is a good question, e.g., what is the "love of God" as understood by the "law" that Jesus mentions in my post above. Recall that when asked who it was, God said "just call me I AM". I hold this to mean that God = Existence. Thus to say one should love God, it is the same as saying one should love existence, and that you should love it with all your heart and soul for the simple reason that there is nothing else to love. But we can go further, we can also hold that there are only two ways to love any existent, (1) from inside the thing, and (2) from outside. And here we get to the point of the saying by Jesus, to love others (those outside self) as self (love of self); that is, in order to have comprehensive love, one must love all that exists, including one self (and note the difficult part of the philosophy, one also then must love those that hate them). Finally, as to your question, is God perhaps greater than everything (e.g., all that exists) ? Perhaps, but I do not see that it logically follows. Why must there be more than all that exists, limits as to alpha and omega ? --it is not clear to me in this philosophy of Jesus that anything is outside these limits or that such limits exist. Perhaps it is just that the purpose of existence is to continue to exist, and this then is the "concept" that humans "define" as being "God".
 
295
0
Rade said:
This is a good question, e.g., what is the "love of God" as understood by the "law" that Jesus mentions in my post above. Recall that when asked who it was, God said "just call me I AM". I hold this to mean that God = Existence. Thus to say one should love God, it is the same as saying one should love existence, and that you should love it with all your heart and soul for the simple reason that there is nothing else to love. But we can go further, we can also hold that there are only two ways to love any existent, (1) from inside the thing, and (2) from outside. And here we get to the point of the saying by Jesus, to love others (those outside self) as self (love of self); that is, in order to have comprehensive love, one must love all that exists, including one self (and note the difficult part of the philosophy, one also then must love those that hate them). Finally, as to your question, is God perhaps greater than everything (e.g., all that exists) ? Perhaps, but I do not see that it logically follows. Why must there be more than all that exists, limits as to alpha and omega ? --it is not clear to me in this philosophy of Jesus that anything is outside these limits or that such limits exist. Perhaps it is just that the purpose of existence is to continue to exist, and this then is the "concept" that humans "define" as being "God".

If God is, as was said, Existence... how can there be a distinction between inside and outside the self? is god inside or outside? this is not an "and/or" situation, i am suggesting. the distinction is an error of the mind... we agree? for if god is All then that which I refer to as "i" is also That. can "I" be both God and not God? It and not It. remember that we are talking about what "I" am, so we must acknowlege what "I" am not... namely a body/mind/ego.

interesting that whenever there is the identification with the body or the mind, the ego is there, permeating. so it is said that the body/mind is not Real, but then, that it is not really unreal. I may propose that the errors of the mind are the fruit of the seed of ignorance (ego), which is the identification of the "Self" with the body/mind. that is to say that it is the root of erroneous knowledge/belief. without Knowing the Self, how can any subsequent "knowledge" be credible?
 
192
1
We are all born atheist as are dogs and trees and rocks. Until we choose to believe in the existence of 'God', (whatever that is), we remain atheist.
 

Rade

sameandnot said:
If God is, as was said, Existence... how can there be a distinction between inside and outside the self? is god inside or outside? this is not an "and/or" situation, i am suggesting. the distinction is an error of the mind... we agree? for if god is All then that which I refer to as "i" is also That. can "I" be both God and not God? It and not It. remember that we are talking about what "I" am, so we must acknowlege what "I" am not... namely a body/mind/ego.
You lost me. All I am saying is that any single existent [a], that is, a subset [a] of God {= a to infinity, e.g., existence}, can love in only two ways (1) internal to [a] and (2) external to [a]. There are no other logical possibilities. Thus, to answer your first question, God (existence) is both inside [a] and outside [a], but our "knowledge" of what is inside and outside differs, that is, each [a] knows that it exists via processes of the mind (ps, I happen to have an unconventional view that it is the existential moment that provides such knowledge to [a] that it exists), but has uncertaintain knowledge (e.g., < 100 %) that anything exists outside [a].
And yes, I agree that God must be both "i" and "I", however, clearly "I" cannot both be God (existence) and non-God (non-existence) at the same time--this conclusion leads to a logical contradiction and thus must be rejected. To attempt to answer your last question...what the "I" is, is a very small (think # 1) subset of God, a subset of a larger existence that some folks call "God" other folks (me for example) call "existence". As to "what you as [a] are not", you are not "non-existence", what more does any human need to know. For if [a] in fact exists, then must logically follow the axiom "existence exists".
 
80
0
In place of a full definition of what God would be, I find it sufficient to pick a few pre-requisites without which no entity would qualify to use the title (in my book):

1. All-Powerful: if you can't do it all, you don't qualify. As tough as you may be, if your abilities are limited then you're not tough enough to bear the big title.

2. All-Knowing: if you don't know, you don't qualify. You might be a "Q" entity from Star Trek but not God. Come to think of it, onmiscience sort of follows from omnipotence: if you're all-powerful then you can just give yourself omniscience.

3. Willful: if you have no intent, you don't qualify. You might be a force of nature that guides everything in the Universe, but I won't worship you. Why would I if it cannot influence you will? I might study you, but I won't call you God.

Then to decide if such a being can exist, we need to determine what it takes in order to exist. No full definition is needed here either, only a basic characteristic. In my book (again) you don't exist unless you have some sort of effect on something. The invisible pink unicorn doesn't exist for this reason: it doesn't affect reality. Gravity exists because it made me fall once, it had an effect. What is real matters. What doesn't matter is not real, it is not worthy of any consideration.

So can an omniscient, omnipotent willful being have an effect on reality?

If a being is able to implement its will, as God would have to be, then the plan must already be in motion. If the being is all-knowing as well then the plan is not going to change either: what could possibly change the mind of an omniscient? Once the universe has been created and set in motion then no further action is required for eternity. From the postulate of a creator who knew (omniscient) what it wanted (willful) and was capable of it (omnipotent) it follows that no further intervention is needed. Without the need for any further intervention the being has no effect, does not matter and therefore does not exist, if it once did.

I see no need to study "all" evidence, just to look at the pre-requisites and see if the concept is possible. Your own definitions may vary, and you may require more strictly mathematical derivations than the above, so you will have to do your own proofs or existence or non-existence. This one is what works for me.
 
295
0
Orefa said:
In place of a full definition of what God would be, I find it sufficient to pick a few pre-requisites without which no entity would qualify to use the title (in my book):

1. All-Powerful: if you can't do it all, you don't qualify. As tough as you may be, if your abilities are limited then you're not tough enough to bear the big title.

2. All-Knowing: if you don't know, you don't qualify. You might be a "Q" entity from Star Trek but not God. Come to think of it, onmiscience sort of follows from omnipotence: if you're all-powerful then you can just give yourself omniscience.

3. Willful: if you have no intent, you don't qualify. You might be a force of nature that guides everything in the Universe, but I won't worship you. Why would I if it cannot influence you will? I might study you, but I won't call you God.

man! this is difficult!! Orefa, what do you mean when you say "if you don't know, you don't qualify"? are you implying that god is some finite/bodily form that can know and do anything/everything? who is this "you" that you talk about? are you referring to some "human-like" being? some person, perhaps? do you see what i am saying? i think not but i will try to show you nonetheless.

it is apparent that you have anthropomorhised this "god-person". but when we talk about "god" are we talking about some "thing" inside the universe that, say, "throw the moon out to into space, and thereby play catch with Sirius?" do you see what i mean? is it some huge, brute, intellectual with infinite strength and knowledge?? someone whom you can walk up to and say, "hello, god... you sure are big and smart... do you think that you can take your big hand and cover the sun for a moment so that i may get some cool rest below this tree?" this is obviously rediculous, but the rediculousness only reflects the rediculousness of talking about and omnipotent "thing", without considering it first. i am not saying that you are rediculous, please do not think me rude, i am simply trying to reveal the abdurdity of the commonly held notion that god is some human with a grey beard sitting on cloud 9 (where ever that is) and controling everything, as a common human might. where is that "person"? do you see? what are we talking about when we say that it is "all power", "all knowing", "all goodness".

ALL POWER. all that is power... is the definition of "omnipotence" (by wikipedia)

how can we say that some human-like thing is, at the same time "a thing" and the power of gravity that allows fusion to occur, or the power of the sun to heat the planets?

ok i am finished.
 
295
0
i mean: we cannot say that god is an entity whom is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent. all we can say is: what we are referring to when we say "god", is simple omnisciece, omnibenevolence and omnipotence. in other words, what we refer to as being god is: all-power, all-knowing (or all-knowledge), and all-goodness. (period) ;)
 
295
0
to say that god is some entity, is to limit god, to being not some other entity... no? therefore we cannot say that god is some "thing". but rather examine if there is all-power, and what is all-power? if there is all-knowing, and what is it? etc. still, even though we have labeled "god" as being such characteristics, we must also know that, what "god" really is, is also not limited by our definitions, and is thereby infinitely more than we can ever say He is.
 
80
0
sameandnot said:
man! this is difficult!!
It's only difficult if you try to grasp too much. Maybe you are reading more into it that what is there. I never spoke of a big bearded guy or a sexy gal either. This is why my little "proof" works for me, I don't try to over-analyze the concept of God, just to state what it would take for me to start worshipping. (By the way, I think She would also have to be hot. :tongue2:)

A willful, all-powerful and all-knowing reality is what it would take. This reality does not have to be tangible, but it does need to be real otherwise what's the point? That's all.
 
295
0
good!* the point is to talk about this as well as think about it in ways that are coherent, and continue to shed light on the Reality. many do not even know what it is they say, and it is quite silly.

check it: so long as you have a concept of what you are, you are limiting yourSelf and pretending to be something that you ARE not. When you impose your will, you are projecing it from an idea of what you are, which is, in Reality, false to begin with. this may be too much, for right now, but it must be "put it out there", as it might be "seen". when you have no self- or otherwise-imposed idea of self, then you are. and what's more: you are equivalent with "That," which, in itself, Is, and also cannot be named. do you see that, the limiting of one's Self, by defining it as being some particular thing, is the seed of the seperation from That unnamable Source, which is actually only (and all of) That/This? it's only logic. pure rationality has derived all of this explanation.

*a message for: orefa!!

amazing how the ego fights for its survival in the face That... just doesn't want to let go.
 

mugsby

sameandnot so far you've talked a lot but havin't made one point (to me at least), :zzz:
 
295
0
mugsby said:
sameandnot so far you've talked a lot but havin't made one point (to me at least), :zzz:
who am i to think that i can make knowledge claims, such as what you want to hear? i can, however, identify where we have our ignorances, and therefore help to unfold the mind to greater and greater self-awareness, by exposing ignorance and assumptions. your comment was not unforeseen, mugsby. it was known that it would come at some point, and perhaps even today! lo and behold, you have done it! really... with our finite minds (as in our limited means to "know" every"thing"), how can i make claims that suggest i know everything.

here is a point, just for you, since the previous post was not enough, apparently: we can not say what it is, but only negate that which it is not. suggestion: begin by examing what you are... rather, determine if you have long believed yourself to be something you are not. after you have seen what you are not, or what is not, what you are left with is what is, and what you ARE. no?

"the mind is a labyrinth", was once said. you find your way through the labyrinth, by negating the possible ways you might go, (those which you have found to not be the way) and then by actualizing the only path that remains.

my previous post, told you in plain words the seed of Ignorance, itself being Ignorance, yet you want me to make claims, that are some how greater than that!! i know, i am not saying things that You want to hear. sorry.
 

mugsby

it's not that your saying things i don't want to hear, your just rambling. you can form you opinions based on what you have personaly experienced and learned in your limited time on earth or live in speculation. whatever works for you. :wink:
 

Related Threads for: Atheism meant the belief of no god

Replies
59
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
41
Views
7K
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
22
Views
10K
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
5K

Hot Threads

Top