kankara

I find the concept a simple sentiment many wish hold for a, for the lack of better words, "backup". When those matters in which they are unable, or think they are unable, to handle, they wish turn to a 'higher power' for assistance.

Though, we might remember that each of us, may have had a mentor or someone similar that we have turned to, for guidance. Is this similar? Where therein does the concept change..?

Why listen and trust one that is within physical contact that can hurt, disappoint, and overly not truly listen? Over one can never judge your appearence, and loyal to you for all your time? (presupposing) What then, indeed, is God?

P.S.. I make reference to God, as the presupposed Father of Christ, not of Christ himself.

John Page

God is a concept, something in your mind.

God is a hypothetical cause.

kankara

Oh, I dont disagree.. but there are those that condemn some of holding a close sentiment to this 'concept'.. yet the concept of a mentor, is of little difference, save the physical being.

sidewinder

I think the "higher power" is a certain state of mind within a human being. It cannot be proven that the so-called guidance of a "higher power" is some being outside of the human mind. The guidance comes from your the human mind. The "higher state" of mind is a certain way to think about something which directs your actions.


If anyone has a mentor, it is (or possibly was) a human being. These mentors lived human lives and provide us with some kind of guidance by which we can apply to our lives. The difference is a human being is real and we know it without a doubt, while the different versions of God are not real and we have no reason to believe he, she, or it is real.

This seems to translate into the fact that you don't like to be judged or criticized by other people. Not many people like it but it's a fact of life, right or wrong. Why not just stop being concerned with what people think about your looks? Most people agree that what matters most with people is their character and not looks.

The bottom line is you have to accept that we are all human and we all make mistakes. The faster you accept this and learn how to deal with it effectively, the happier you will be.

WJ

K,

It is not very meaningful or adequate to attempt definitions of a Being such as the human concept or understanding of God, without some understanding of our nature as humans. You might say then what follows is Progressive Revelation, which is a practical way of revealing this power in both a personally subjective way and... .

Beyond that, as an opinion or an attempt to define God in a simple way, I would say that God is a metaphysical force. Further, you might could say I'm making an inference based on my personal experience of consciousness.

Hint: Ask yourself how would you attempt an adequate definition of sentience viz. existence.

As William James's once described, without feeling, the 'philosophy' of religion would not exist. Philosophy lives in words, but truth and fact well up in our lives in ways that exceed verbal formulation.

In spite of that, it would be contradictory for me to even assert that a definition is possible!

But as we know, irony, paradox and contradiction are all very much a part of human life.

Walrus

Dianna

Because two heads are better than one.

You seem to be equating god with imaginary playmates.

Is god a separate sentient being? Or is it just us?

John Page

I go for the imaginary playmate definition.

(And that's because I think it best fits the purpose and function of god, not just because its funny).

[ February 25, 2002: Message edited by: John Page ]</p>

Ender

Human consciousness is forever an incompleteness, which gives rise to the inference that man is essentially ‘desire.’ By no means am I indicating a libidinal drive or some irreducible metaphysical principle that causes all desires, because human consciousness doesn’t necessarily want to return to the material object- it wants both ways. This is the phenomenological explication of God- a freedom that is its own necessary being. Aristotle was the first to introduce the idea of man’s desire to be God. However, since it’s impossible to be both a “wholeness” and ”emptiness” God is a paradox and does not exist. A fullness that is emptiness is a contradiction.

The fundamental desire to be God is the reason why we generally believe in God, and the reason why man is a “useless passion!”

~WiGGiN~

Answerer

Hi kankara, I have said before in one of my postings that the christianity God come mainly from the needs of humans rather than he actually existed. Similarity, it was the same for the Jews whose God was based on race and the muslims having got their ideas from the christian and Jews are the same.Furthermore, their concept of God as a human form is definately wrong and is based more on fantasy than reality.

bgponder

Ender the Theothanatologist,

Halloo.
Ah, the relation of ideas. You say:

Does this mean that since God is supposed to encompass, or exist as, everything, including all concepts, and there exist antithetical concepts, this God concept is parodoxical, and therefore does not exist, conceptually and logically?

Or, does this mean that since God is defined as existing as the sum total of all things, including concepts, and some concepts are antithetical, this is parodoxical, and we cannot logically determine(or perhaps rather, use logic in order to determine) the truth or falsity of God's existence--since questions of existence are matters of facts?

Am I even close?

Peace, Humean cornbread Barry

[ February 25, 2002: Message edited by: bgponder ]</p>