Is Logic Valid in the Pursuit of Understanding God?

[Sikz]

If God is everything, then anything he concieves of must be a part of him. Therefore he cannot concieve of anything other than himself... By posting this I prove that I am concieving of something other than him- but if he is everything, I am part of him; so it's really HIM concieving of everything I concieve of.

Even if your idea of God isn't everything, substitute some other title in for "God" that includes God and everything else- it still seems to work.

So... What's with that?

 

[Yahweh]

Pantheism

If god is everything, then that pretty much reduces god down to nothing more that "the universe" (I might be wrong but that sounds like pantheism to me). That's almost atheistic. Nothing mystical, nothing magical.

Panentheism is a bit different. Panentheism is represented in every major religion in the world. Pantheism is not.

(See http://websyte.com/alan/pan.htm for a quick reference.)

 

[confused_ian]

my random thought

hey, I'm an athiest, not ruling out the idea that there may be 'something' that created the universe, as it fills a hole in science, but ultimately believe that religion can only continue to explain the areas around which we can't explain ourselves and therefore it will take a long time to say it isn't a possibility (if atall). However I can raise with confidence question about the Gods that are defined in most of our present day religions- for example, if God modeled us on his image, how could he look like us if he was everything or everwhere - moreover, if we were created in his image, would that not mean he intended to create us from day one. Based on with the anthropist theory, that the universe is the way it is so that we could be created - could we not see ourselves as the ultimately beggining of the purpose of the universe, to say that what we evolve into will become something more... final, or conclusive. this doesn't seem very likely, the universe is truelly random in it's creation of anything, why would God go through alll this trouble, and hundreds of billions of years, to vcreate a race which he can send a messiah to and tell them that they have to lives 'good' lives so that our souls, which there's no scientific evidence for, will go to a place, for eternity, which cannot be physically defined (apologies, i felt like letting go)

 

[Sikz]

If god is everything, then that pretty much reduces god down to nothing more that "the universe" (I might be wrong but that sounds like pantheism to me). That's almost atheistic. Nothing mystical, nothing magical.

Right, so substitute "universe" for "God" in my post. It's still very odd, take a look at it.

And confused_ian, I completely agree with you (although it was a little off the original topic of my post, but that's fine :P Still very interesting)

 

[the_truth]

If god is everything, but not omnipotent, then it is likely he can imagine nothing but himself. If it can think that is.

 

[Bob3141592]

Originally posted by Sikz
If God is everything, then anything he concieves of must be a part of him.

I don't see that your B necessarilly follows from your A. The object of a thought doesn't have to actually be a real object.

Maybe it depends on what your definition of "is" is, but i think this is a flaw in your reasoning that invalidates what follows it.

 

[Sikz]

I don't see that your B necessarilly follows from your A. The object of a thought doesn't have to actually be a real object.

Maybe it depends on what your definition of "is" is, but i think this is a flaw in your reasoning that invalidates what follows it.

True. However, there isn't even any SPACE outside of God, if he is everything- he's like a geometric point (the whole of existence, the whole of reality, the whole of the dimensions). If we think about a geometric point, it seems that it would not be able (due to it's lack of knowledge of dimensions that extend beyond itself) to concieve of another geometric point, of a line, of a square, etc etc- of nothing outside itself. Since God contains the entirety of all dimensions, all space, all existence (from his perspective at least, if he is everything), he will be like this geometric point. Right?

 

[AscensionX]

Confused Ian, you really are confused arent you.

You've put meaning to words which are used in different contexts. Keep in mind the Bible was transalted three times and is currently published in several different versions.

Dont give so much power to words. When it says 'god created man in his image' - perhaps image means likeness, or similiarity, perhaps it is referring to our ability to use free will or 'image' just describes our perception (mind).

Keep in mind that all words, even words which have been around for thousands of years have different meaning to different people. The best example I could use of this is legal terms.

The same english word in a contract to Australia would have different legal requirements of the same contract given in America- The words are the SAME but the meanings are DIFFERENT.

why would God go through all this trouble

- Well, personally I jokingly think that god just got his new SIMS- Universal edition, and is having a right old good game with it. Besides, billions of years is not exactly a lot of time next to eternity is it? He's got plenty of time to do what he wants.

To Sikz. You tell me what a Thought is, and how you are able to think one, and I'll answer your question.

Your most recent post is talking about a Deitous Heirarchy - Gods within Gods within Gods etc. Who created god? that's what you are asking there, and what is the limit to god? God is NOT A PERSON FFS. I can't believe the ignorance of the human race. God is a concept, a notion, a power, a lifeforce, THE FORCE, everywhere. Not some giant guy with a beard sitting on a gold chair inside a palace in the clouds. Get your head out of the sand.

 

[Sikz]

This thread has nothing to do with "who created God?" whatsoever. What it is is "How can an eternally closed system concieve of something other than itself, its thoughts, or possible extensions of itself?" It seems that it wouldn't be able to, yet apparently it does... Unless someone doesn't think so? Or if you agree, how does that work out?

 

[AscensionX]

No here's the real brain boggler - how do you figure out you are in an externally closed system? Because once you know that you assume that there must be another system that created or closed you off, there's no easy way you can connect to it, but it doesn't mean you can't concieve that it is there...

The only real parallel to this idea that I know of is system infrastructure in database design, programs that are closed off when they exist in larger directories etc...

I'll change my angle. What are the boundaries of thought? Can you concieve of something that is not possible within this universe? You obviously can concieve of an external system, so tell us what you think it might be (im serious man I am interested).

The matrix 2 & 3 have ALOT of this philisophical content in them I don't know why so many ppl badmouthed the films.

 

[Thallium]

To discuss God you should read the Bible to have a source of reference and not just philosophise about God without knowing much of what has been said about him. This would be fatal because then you could end up with a "truth" that suits your beliefs. And who said that YOU are allways right? No. Read the Bible or other religious scripts to get a better insight.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Well then you should also read the Quran and the Upanishads, and the scriptures of all the faiths, no? And travel to tribal lands to study animism?

 

[Thallium]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Well then you should also read the Quran and the Upanishads, and the scriptures of all the faiths, no? And travel to tribal lands to study animism?

Were these questions addressed to me? If so, my answer is: Why not? Or do you want to make up your own god?

 

[Thallium]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Well then you should also read the Quran and the Upanishads, and the scriptures of all the faiths, no? And travel to tribal lands to study animism?

Were these questions addressed to me? If so, my answer is: Why not?
Or do you want to create your own god out of considering god?

 

[olde drunk]

assumming that god is all that is, and we are aware of ourselves and concieve of god while being a part of god.

simply, my finger is a part of me, my toe, my penis, etc. and yet i experience the world differently with each of my attributes. do i have to say that my penis and finger create two different experiences?

for god, all that is, his/her/its experience of the universe is different through each of us. damn, god was able to experience home runs by Sosa and dunks by Jordan and thoughts by Plato. sorry gals, my mind is male dominant. god can also experience my unique recipes and views of the world. we are a part of all that is.

this may better explain why we 'sense' that we are part of something greater than ourselves.

 

[Sikz]

To discuss God you should read the Bible to have a source of reference and not just philosophise about God without knowing much of what has been said about him. This would be fatal because then you could end up with a "truth" that suits your beliefs. And who said that YOU are allways right? No. Read the Bible or other religious scripts to get a better insight.

Firstly I have to utterly disagree. "Phisophising" is using logic and reason to try and reach conclusions, and any God should easily be revealed through logical thought- since if there is one it created the entire universe, there should be some fingerprint-type thing.

Secondly, I have read nearly the entire Bible, I was a VERY strong Christian until I started to notice the vast multitude of blatant paradoxes and impossibilities in that religion. I am exceptionally familiar with several other religions as well, and have some knowledge about most (most of the larger ones, at least). What is WRITTEN about God is utterly subject to "philosophising" and logical examination, and as such doesn't hold as much weight as you seem to be implying.

I could end up with a "truth" that suits my beliefs? What's wrong with that? No one has ever wound up with a "truth" that did NOT suit their beliefs- by acknowledging the "truth" the beliefs are changed. And what do I possesses that I can use as a yardstick to see if what I think is right? All I have is what I think, what I have thought, and what I will think- those are my only instruments.

 

[AscensionX]

I agree with Sikz, besides even ancient greek philosophers came to believe that the 'many gods' idea was rather foolish and they would have to be part of a larger entity - and they never got to read the bible!

Is ALL of god in the bible? is all of god in any amount of books?

 

[Thallium]

Originally posted by Sikz
Firstly I have to utterly disagree. "Phisophising" is using logic and reason to try and reach conclusions, and any God should easily be revealed through logical thought- since if there is one it created the entire universe, there should be some fingerprint-type thing.

Maybe god is logic since everything else is logic. But I think I will stop saying anything because you have to choose this yourself whether you want to believe or not. And if he exists, he is there whether you believe it or not. It's your choice.

I could end up with a "truth" that suits my beliefs? What's wrong with that? [/B]

What is wrong with that is that you will not be sure that your "out-of-discussion-and-reasonable-thinking-constructed" god exists.

 

[Thallium]

And also I speak for my own faith, not for other beliefs.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Sikz
If God is everything, then anything he concieves of must be a part of him. Therefore he cannot concieve of anything other than himself... By posting this I prove that I am concieving of something other than him- but if he is everything, I am part of him; so it's really HIM concieving of everything I concieve of.
Even if your idea of God isn't everything, substitute some other title in for "God" that includes God and everything else- it still seems to work.
So... What's with that?

What if it was all originally concieved by God, in the beginning, then simply ran/run as a sorta 'program/app', see you too had a thought, yesterday, that someone else is probably thinking of today, (this post is proof of that{?}) and who is to say that God works on a level of "thoughts" in the manner we know them, there might just be another way that isn't yet obvious enough (to you) for you to accept/know it...possible?

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by AscensionX
I agree with Sikz, besides even ancient greek philosophers came to believe that the 'many gods' idea was rather foolish and they would have to be part of a larger entity - and they never got to read the bible!

Don't forget that many Greeks also came to the conclusion that ALL Gods are silly, childish ideas. And they didn't need the bible to reach that conclusion, though I'm sure it would have helped.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Eh
(SNIP)[/color] Don't forget that many Greeks also came to the conclusion that ALL Gods are silly, childish ideas. And they didn't need the bible to reach that conclusion, though I'm sure it would have helped. (SNoP)[/color]

And perhaps that is why they reached that conclusion, an absence of knowledge...not a source of it...

 

[Eh]

Nah, I'm sure they find the bible equally as silly.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Eh
Nah, I'm sure they find the bible equally as silly.

About as silly as this remark, no doubt!

 

[Eh]

Yes, because magic deities with anger problems and talking snakes is so much more reasonable than the Greek gods. Anyone who makes fun of the Greek superstitions while believing the bible to be true is throwing stones while living in a glass house.

 

[Thallium]

To "Eh": Forget about greek gods. And if you choose to lay derogatory comments on my belief, that's fine. I at least expected you to be able to discuss this marturely and not attack anyone. Indirectly or not.

I was just thinking of the bible and pondered on something. Take the account of the creation of our earth, is this written in a romanticised tone? Because all other parts of the bible are written in a neutral, observing way like they are facts.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Eh
Yes, because magic deities with anger problems and talking snakes is so much more reasonable than the Greek gods. Anyone who makes fun of the Greek superstitions while believing the bible to be true is throwing stones while living in a glass house.

Uhmmm no because your (pretending to be) speaking for the 'Greeks' (of history) thinking the Bible "Silly" but if timelines serve this one properly (as they do) then the "Greeks" didn't know of most of the Christian part of the bible...

As for the Bibles language, what did you expect to find, "In the beginning there was DNA (AGCT) as erupted from the "Quantum Particlulate Medium" and God saw that it was good"...simple beginnings, simple explanations, belieing the reality of the "depth of profundity' that is actually ensconced within the meaning, and Context, of the words/histories/truths buried within...

 

[Thallium]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
As for the Bibles language, what did you expect to find, "In the beginning there was DNA (AGCT) as erupted from the "Quantum Particlulate Medium" and God saw that it was good"...simple beginnings, simple explanations, believing the reality of the "depth of profundity' that is actually ensconced within the meaning, and Context, of the words/histories/truths buried within...

Well said. I could not have worded it better.

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by Thallium
To "Eh": Forget about greek gods. And if you choose to lay derogatory comments on my belief, that's fine. I at least expected you to be able to discuss this marturely and not attack anyone. Indirectly or not.

Whatever. If you want to call the ancient religions silly, I'm just saying you're in a no better position.

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Uhmmm no because your (pretending to be) speaking for the 'Greeks' (of history) thinking the Bible "Silly" but if timelines serve this one properly (as they do) then the "Greeks" didn't know of most of the Christian part of the bible...

No I'm not. Taking the claim that many of the ancient Greek philosophers rejected the old religion for being silly, I'm merely pointing out that they would likely do the same for the bible. Why? Because both religions have the elements to warrent the label of superstition.

As for the Bibles language, what did you expect to find, "In the beginning there was DNA (AGCT) as erupted from the "Quantum Particlulate Medium" and God saw that it was good"...

No, I expect to find supernatural mythology, and that's exactly what we have in the bible. Nothing surprising here.

simple beginnings, simple explanations, belieing the reality of the "depth of profundity' that is actually ensconced within the meaning, and Context, of the words/histories/truths buried within...

Yes, you can make the facts fit with any myth you please.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Eh
No I'm not. Taking the claim that many of the ancient Greek philosophers rejected the old religion for being silly, I'm merely pointing out that they would likely do the same for the bible. Why? Because both religions have the elements to warrent the label of superstition. Uhmm, well, that is your opinion, and yours exclusively, NOT "The Greeks of old"[/color]
No, I expect to find supernatural mythology, and that's exactly what we have in the bible. Nothing surprising here. Ummm, yup! another opinion! (Oh yes..BTW...some of that which you call "Supernatural Mythology" is historically accountable and accounted for...but not all some is still a mystery...even more so for you...[/color]
Yes, you can make the facts fit with any myth you please.

Now on that last line, I would agree with you, just look at your signature...!

 

[Eh]

(Oh yes..BTW...some of that which you call "Supernatural Mythology" is historically accountable and accounted for...but not all some is still a mystery...even more so for you...

Oh yeah? A supernatural event in the bible is historically accountable? Interesting news there.

Edit: Didn't read the blue.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

got you now, you can't even read right, play with those words, twist it, must be funny, to you, amuse yourself!

(How did you get from Supernatural Mythology to Supernatural event 'Quantum leaping' are you?)

EDIT X²

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Eh
Edit: Didn't read the blue.

O.K. Thanks for telling me...

 

[metasystem]

I don't mean to speak for someone else, but what I understood Eh to mean was that the Bible presents one worldview. Since the ontological postulates that that worldview is based upon are not provable (i.e. they have to be taken on faith alone), then the Biblical worldview cannot *necessarily* be considered *better* than any other (non-falsifiable) one.

In an epistemological context, the only worldview that withstands falsifiability is the scientific one. However because science makes no claim as to *first cause* (i.e. pre-Big Bang), even those that subscribe to the scientific worldview are free to speculate/ believe in any first cause they choose, including ones based on monotheism (Judeo-Christian/ Islamic), polytheism (ancient Greeks), atheism, pantheism, panentheism, agnosticism, etc. etc.

The fact that one believes fervently in anyone of these first causes does not mean that it necessarily is the one that corroborates with reality.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by metasystem
I don't mean to speak for someone else, but what I understood Eh to mean was that the Bible presents one worldview. Since the ontological postulates that that worldview is based upon are not provable (i.e. they have to be taken on faith alone), then the Biblical worldview cannot *necessarily* be considered *better* than any other (non-falsifiable) one.

In an epistemological context, the only worldview that withstands falsifiability is the scientific one. However because science makes no claim as to *first cause* (i.e. pre-Big Bang), even those that subscribe to the scientific worldview are free to speculate/ believe in any first cause they choose, including ones based on monotheism (Judeo-Christian/ Islamic), polytheism (ancient Greeks), atheism, pantheism, panentheism, agnosticism, etc. etc.

The fact that one believes fervently in anyone of these first causes does not mean that it necessarily is the one that corroborates with reality.

Although I can easily, and reasonably, agree with just about everything you have said, The choice I make in my own life, as it is in everyones lives, is based upon something, that something, in my life, is my life, the event history therein that has proven to me what I needed to know, continueously, and currently, ongoing, and that becomes more faith based inasmuch as it is Trust...in God.

 

[Thallium]

You guys know what? When I suggested you to read all religious scripts to be able to discuss god, I have thought about it and I take that back. You should discuss the existence and function of God with reason. I had to get that out because I was not aware of what I was writing back then. I deeply disagree with my comment and now I contradict it. That was what I had to say.

 

[vedder]

Originally posted by Thallium
You guys know what? When I suggested you to read all religious scripts to be able to discuss god, I have thought about it and I take that back. You should discuss the existence and function of God with reason.

Well, i am interested in comparative religion anyway. The concept god is a function of the human psyche. Just about every people through history had a god in some form. I think that may lend creedence to the idea of a god archtype. Wether or not god exists in some way or other is really irrelavent because if seeing the world through some type of god archtype is actually what happens then it happens for a good reason since archtypes normally conspire to benefiet humans as a species.

 

[Thomas4]

Originally posted by confused_ian
hey, I'm an athiest, not ruling out the idea that there may be 'something' that created the universe, as it fills a hole in science, but ultimately believe that religion can only continue to explain the areas around which we can't explain ourselves and therefore it will take a long time to say it isn't a possibility (if atall). However I can raise with confidence question about the Gods that are defined in most of our present day religions- for example, if God modeled us on his image, how could he look like us if he was everything or everwhere - moreover, if we were created in his image, would that not mean he intended to create us from day one. Based on with the anthropist theory, that the universe is the way it is so that we could be created - could we not see ourselves as the ultimately beggining of the purpose of the universe, to say that what we evolve into will become something more... final, or conclusive. this doesn't seem very likely, the universe is truelly random in it's creation of anything, why would God go through alll this trouble, and hundreds of billions of years, to vcreate a race which he can send a messiah to and tell them that they have to lives 'good' lives so that our souls, which there's no scientific evidence for, will go to a place, for eternity, which cannot be physically defined (apologies, i felt like letting go)

when it says god created us in his image some think it means he gave us control over everything on Earth and maybe more maybe the universe as he has control over everything it just says in his likeness he is ruler over all we rule over all we know and we didnt evolve have u ever read about carbin testing if the item u r testing is exposed to water the test will be eratic and so u must find somthing that hasnt been cataminated be water well if u beleave in the bible the great flood comes to mind just a lil 40 day and 40 nights of hard core rain and let me get this straight ur complaining abiut god sending us a messia jesus was here 2035 years aproximatly and died 2004 years ago from the begening in the bible u can go down the list of who begot who till u reach noah am I am sure ull fine it wasnt billion of years worth of decendents I am not actualy a hard core chirstian but if i got somthin wrong please tell me

 

[Thomas4]

imagen

Originally posted by the_truth
If god is everything, but not omnipotent, then it is likely he can imagine nothing but himself. If it can think that is.

God can creat he oviusly created us ie he can see all even things that don't exist do all if God so wishes it it will be done

 

[Thomas4]

God is everything ?

Originally posted by Sikz
True. However, there isn't even any SPACE outside of God, if he is everything- he's like a geometric point (the whole of existence, the whole of reality, the whole of the dimensions). If we think about a geometric point, it seems that it would not be able (due to it's lack of knowledge of dimensions that extend beyond itself) to concieve of another geometric point, of a line, of a square, etc etc- of nothing outside itself. Since God contains the entirety of all dimensions, all space, all existence (from his perspective at least, if he is everything), he will be like this geometric point. Right?

i may be wrong but i never read God is every thing if this is true which i dought were is hell

 

[Thomas4]

^

read in the bible that is and hell meaning the absence of god

 

[Thomas4]

Originally posted by Sikz
This thread has nothing to do with "who created God?" whatsoever. What it is is "How can an eternally closed system concieve of something other than itself, its thoughts, or possible extensions of itself?" It seems that it wouldn't be able to, yet apparently it does... Unless someone doesn't think so? Or if you agree, how does that work out?

you are a human trying to understand God look at your self as a dog trying to understand man it can a lil but not in a complex way and (dog is giving us benifit of the dought) :)

 

[Thomas4]

true but

Originally posted by olde drunk
assumming that god is all that is, and we are aware of ourselves and concieve of god while being a part of god.

simply, my finger is a part of me, my toe, my penis, etc. and yet i experience the world differently with each of my attributes. do i have to say that my penis and finger create two different experiences?

for god, all that is, his/her/its experience of the universe is different through each of us. damn, god was able to experience home runs by Sosa and dunks by Jordan and thoughts by Plato. sorry gals, my mind is male dominant. god can also experience my unique recipes and views of the world. we are a part of all that is.

this may better explain why we 'sense' that we are part of something greater than ourselves.

God cant/wont look upon sin he doesn't experience drunks experiances as Jesus died when the worlds sin was put on to him so we may go to the "kingdome of god" (shome me were it says were going to hevan)he saide God why have u forsaken me for god had turn his back and was not able to look at him for he had the sin of the world oh his shoulders somwere in revealations it says there are 7 lamp post and these r my eyes they scan to and fro and see all it was jesus that said it after he had died some guy was brought to him i think it was enoch not sure

 

[Thomas4]

Originally posted by Sikz
Firstly I have to utterly disagree. "Phisophising" is using logic and reason to try and reach conclusions, and any God should easily be revealed through logical thought- since if there is one it created the entire universe, there should be some fingerprint-type thing.

Secondly, I have read nearly the entire Bible, I was a VERY strong Christian until I started to notice the vast multitude of blatant paradoxes and impossibilities in that religion. I am exceptionally familiar with several other religions as well, and have some knowledge about most (most of the larger ones, at least). What is WRITTEN about God is utterly subject to "philosophising" and logical examination, and as such doesn't hold as much weight as you seem to be implying.

I could end up with a "truth" that suits my beliefs? What's wrong with that? No one has ever wound up with a "truth" that did NOT suit their beliefs- by acknowledging the "truth" the beliefs are changed. And what do I possesses that I can use as a yardstick to see if what I think is right? All I have is what I think, what I have thought, and what I will think- those are my only instruments.

logicly well that's the problem we as humans r very proud we think we can figure our anything what is logic but all the information WE as humans have gatherd u really think our logic can figure out but u r the pridefull one and a fingerprint got has put it in every man that he knows there is a god (in the bible somwere)why do u think there r so many religiopns we all know the truth some just either r doughting thomases just mad at him if there's a God why does he let this happen u must go thro trail and tribulations Why because satan was perfection and look at him if the most perfect angle could commet a sin then all now must be tested b4 kintering the kindom of god pass r fail its up to u don't fail cause r mad and wana get back at him ask ur self is there a God and u will know the aswer. what r these loop holes inconsistantsys tell me i wana know

 

[Thomas4]

Originally posted by AscensionX
I agree with Sikz, besides even ancient greek philosophers came to believe that the 'many gods' idea was rather foolish and they would have to be part of a larger entity - and they never got to read the bible!

Is ALL of god in the bible? is all of god in any amount of books?

my theory is that the fallin angles god children in gennises made them selfs out to be gods a separate book that should be in the bible isn't because some people don't accept it i haven't read it all but I am sure they have there reasons it was by Enoch one of the men still alive when he went to the kindome of god still alive! he says the children of god cam and showd the childeren of man the metals of the Earth and how to make wepons from them and breatplates and to wage war ,these i beleave to be the greek gods

Is ALL of god in the bible
jesus said there r things u r not yet ready to know. what do u think those r ? i duno u ?

 

[Thomas4]

Originally posted by Eh
No I'm not. Taking the claim that many of the ancient Greek philosophers rejected the old religion for being silly, I'm merely pointing out that they would likely do the same for the bible. Why? Because both religions have the elements to warrent the label of superstition.

No, I expect to find supernatural mythology, and that's exactly what we have in the bible. Nothing surprising here.

Yes, you can make the facts fit with any myth you please.

that's because myths r mainly based on some solid acount all religions and the same history like the flood even the mayans and aztecs (not just the flood but I am tierd and can't recall the others right now )

 

[Thallium]

Originally posted by vedder
Just about every people through history had a god in some form. I think that may lend creedence to the idea of a god archtype.

I could not have put it better meself.
But I also agree with Thomas!

 

[Sikz]

Woa Thomas4... Might want to use a little punctuation, it makes it easier to read.

But you have some very good points, nonetheless. How can we try to understand something that, if it exists, is far beyond our comprehension? But what else can we do? We can't simply follow a random religion blindly because one day we got "inspired" and felt that it was correct- others have had the same feeling about other religions.

If you say we can't logicly come to a conclusion about God, what other method do you propose? It's a rather important decision, seeing as the Gods of several religions tend to cast people into burning pits of eternal anguish if they don't believe... If you claim logic to be invalid in this pursuit you've got to provide some other means.

 

[Tsu]

Originally posted by Sikz
Woa Thomas4... Might want to use a little punctuation, it makes it easier to read.

Not to mention your spelling. Your poor communication skills initially make your intelligence appear to be at the same level. Most of us don't have the time to try to decipher what you mean (as opposed to what you've written). I tried to read your first two posts but just skipped the rest. Sorry. Poor communication is a pet peeve of mine.