Joseph Backs

The whole question of our definition of God has to do with our undefinition of him. Because we can doubt what we're seeing, as has been put forth about the angel, then we can doubt that it is God, and subsequently we may doubt that there is a God.

Except, there are some things in this world that we do not doubt. And if we do, we must quickly employ some kind of reason to shed some light on something or other - whether or not it can be or cannot be (is a deception).

I don't believe that calling into doubt the experience of having an angel come before us and hold out his hand let us see our past future whatever and bless us with a grace and leave would be such a wise idea, being that the perception fits everything our "idea" of an angel tells us an angel really is.

Anyway that's that damn Matrix debate again ... what I'm getting down to here is brass tax gentleman. I don't subscribe (or perscribe) to any particular denomination, but I do like to reason for the most probable, because it is most probable.

Haven't the best of the philosophers of times past already proven that there's a god, based on what many of us still like to call good sense and fine and proper deduction?

If a philosopher (a purely pragmatic SOB) can prove using pure thinking that there is a god, why are we continually discussing it here? Why, because some empirical knowledge doesn't harken up the presence of God? Where does this conclusion dividing up our subjective experience and objective experience take us except into total darkness in terms of what we can know?

And why? The reason is, it's fun to doubt everything, and very unsettling to be certain about the things we once were certain about doubting.

Then again, Empiricism doesn't really harken up a hell of a lot that isn't directly experienced, now does it? Oh, yes, I suppose that's what philosophy is for.

Jo. B.

Joseph Backs

One Question:

"Do you believe in saldfjag?"

I'd say: "What the hell is that?"


Second Question:

"Do you believe in the moon?"

If anyone asked that question I'm sure we can agree the reply would be very different - probably one of tremendous laughter, followed by a jeer in the person's face.

J.O .B.

Amie

Hi Joseph
define moon

seesaw

Amie:
Hi,

Well I have thought about this a lot (and still thinking about it), and I'm not sure what or if anything would make me believe that there is god/s.

Amie:
I'm not sure if you have to define god/s to not believe. I just don't know if you can define something you don't believe in.

Amie

Hey David!
Thanks for your answer you science buff you! I will venure back to CF soon enough...
So have your hands full with those anti evolutionists huh?
David Out of curiosity how would you personally define God?

seesaw

I don't think I could say I would believe in them, because how would I know that it was an angel sense I have never seen an angel before. I would probably believe that there must be another explanation.

seesaw

LOL, yeah those wacky people over there make me lose my mind. I'm not really sure how I would define god I guess I would define him as a fictional character.

seesaw

Amie:

Yes, completely, No one can say that they don't have faith in something in there life. But you have to define faith because some people have different definitions of faith.

Amie

Thats what I think as well but I think that for some they may define it more so as a trust or confidence instead of the word "faith" however I think we are probably all talking about the same thing here. I just feel some people are not comfortable with the word "faith" for some reason...

seesaw

I agree, I think that some people just don't like the word faith, or as you said feel uncomfortable with the word. As for me I really have no problem with it. I know that I have faith (or trust, or whatever word you want to call it) that when me, my friends, and my family gets into a car we'll be ok.