Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ronin · 05-19-2003, 02:55 PM

Does the mere observance that 'God' has to be theorized and hypothesized in such assorted and conflicting ways speak volumes as to whether or not there actually is one.

Since the hidden qualities of this alleged entity is equivalent to the non-existent, what significance does theorizing about it have on existing and observable reality?

What is your direct position on the issue, Sri Spliff?

Philosoft · 05-19-2003, 06:48 PM

The problem arises from the inability to categorize God as a "thing." There are concrete things, made of matter and force particles, which can directly affect other concrete things; there are abstract things, which are strictly conceptual - ideas, mental representations, mathematics - and cannot directly affect concrete things. Abstract things can represent concrete things, but they are not the thing itself.

God, however, allegedly possesses the intangibility of an abstract thing, with the ability to affect concrete things. This is problematic because, with a sample size of one, we lack not only the ability to represent the God-thing itself, but we also have nothing of its kind to compare it to.

Thus, God-concepts are often haphazard collections of attributes with no actual concept to attach them to. And, with no concrete thing to reference, the actual content of the God-concept is rightly disputed.

Darth Dane · 05-22-2003, 02:52 PM

Does the mere observance that 'God' has to be theorized and hypothesized in such assorted and conflicting ways speak volumes as to whether or not there actually is one.

I don't know if it speaks volumes(which/what?)

Since the hidden qualities of this alleged entity is equivalent to the non-existent, what significance does theorizing about it have on existing and observable reality?

What is your direct position on the issue, Sri Spliff?

Sri Spliff? Are you mocking me or teasing in jest?

If God is not, then it bears no significance to the existing and observable Reality, obviously

If God Is, then there is a link that connects us with God (God created us!).

Since some say that there is an "un-observable" reality, then theorizing may get us closer to seeing or understanding who we are in realation to the reality we can't immediately perceive. The old question "Who am I?" springs to mind.

DD - I Am Spliff

Ronin · 05-22-2003, 05:50 PM

Quote:

I don't know if it speaks volumes(which/what?)

There is no such thing as a God.

If such a creature existed, such beliefs, theories and hypothesis would be rendered unnecessary ~ and the entire system of organized religion and a mystic's mumbo jumbo would collapse.

The fact that you have gone to great lengths to propose alternating variables for "God"...speaks volumes for His non-existence.

Quote:

Sri Spliff? Are you mocking me or teasing in jest?

Pick one.

Quote:

If God is not, then it bears no significance to the existing and observable Reality, obviously

If God Is, then there is a link that connects us with God (God created us!).

You left out the best one of all, Darth ~ If God is, but is not...then God is not.

Quote:

Since some say that there is an "un-observable" reality, then theorizing may get us closer to seeing or understanding who we are in realation to the reality we can't immediately perceive. The old question "Who am I?" springs to mind.

I am me...I am not un-obervable.

Darth Dane · 05-23-2003, 04:26 AM

There is no such thing as a God.

If such a creature existed, such beliefs, theories and hypothesis would be rendered unnecessary ~ and the entire system of organized religion and a mystic's mumbo jumbo would collapse.

Of course, in a sense, as "God" would direct our focus in the correct way?

The fact that you have gone to great lengths to propose alternating variables for "God"...speaks volumes for His non-existence.

I see your point however, I have experienced some different things, so I "know" that "God" Is. My theorizing is nesasary because no words are in and of themselves not enough to explain to someone like yourself what it is that I experienced. These theories are just pointing to the truth, they are not the truth in and of themselves.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sri Spliff? Are you mocking me or teasing in jest?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pick one.

So you are doing both?

You left out the best one of all, Darth ~ If God is, but is not...then God is not.

No, then God is and God is not.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since some say that there is an "un-observable" reality, then theorizing may get us closer to seeing or understanding who we are in realation to the reality we can't immediately perceive. The old question "Who am I?" springs to mind.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am me...I am not un-obervable.

Are you your body? are you your thoughts? Are you your feelings? Are you your words? Are you your senses?

Or do You experience through these things? And express yourself through these things?

Are you your experience?

DD - Love Spliff

Ronin · 05-23-2003, 09:03 AM

Quote:

So you are doing both?

...and I'm not even omnipotent.

Quote:

No, then God is and God is not.

More importantly, we are and God is not.

Quote:

Are you your body? are you your thoughts? Are you your feelings? Are you your words? Are you your senses?

Yes.

Quote:

Or do You experience through these things? And express yourself through these things?

I experience through my brain and nervous system...which, by the way, exist.

Quote:

Are you your experience?

Yes.

...and any further assertions beyond that is pure fairy tale, which supports my OP position.

Darth Dane · 05-24-2003, 07:22 AM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So you are doing both?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...and I'm not even omnipotent.

In that case you can keep your comment to yourself.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, then God is and God is not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More importantly, we are and God is not.

We don't know that, but we each believe as we do, agreed?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you your body? are you your thoughts? Are you your feelings? Are you your words? Are you your senses?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes.

Then it seems you are just a robot follwoing the trends of the elctrons in your brain. Others support this theory, I disagree of course

we are that and a bit more.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or do You experience through these things? And express yourself through these things?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I experience through my brain and nervous system...which, by the way, exist.

So what the "I" is seperated from your brain and nervous system?

"You" don't experience anything, the brain experiences, see the difference? There is no "I".

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you your experience?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes.

Then you are the universe, you experience the entire universe, and then you say you are that experience?! Quite bold assertion, I might add.

...and any further assertions beyond that is pure fairy tale, which supports my OP position.

LOL, and you are your experience of the entire universe, which supports my idea of everything happening in the Mind.

You also experience other people, and so you must be the other people you meet. "Love thy neighbor as you would Love yourself" ?

DD - Love Spliff

lunachick · 05-24-2003, 07:36 AM

Quote:

...we are that and a bit more.

What's the "bit more"?

Darth Dane · 05-24-2003, 07:46 AM

What's the "bit more"?

There is energy(matter/physical) and conciousness

Conciousness, which the scientist still don't know where is or what it is, is the extra bit....as I see it.

Shiva = Conciousness
Shakti = Energy

Shiva and Shakti is making Love together, a dance between the two. "God" is the combined expression of Shiva/Shakti.

Conciousness directs energy

Energy expresses conciousness.

DD - Love Spliff

lunachick · 05-24-2003, 07:53 AM

Consciousness and energy are still brain and nervous system, though. Although, admittedly, the bit more that is energy is the physical body converting fuel.

05-19-2003, 02:55 PM	#1
Ronin Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Mississippi Posts: 5,047	Assorted 'God' theories ~ Does the mere observance that 'God' has to be theorized and hypothesized in such assorted and conflicting ways speak volumes as to whether or not there actually is one. Since the hidden qualities of this alleged entity is equivalent to the non-existent, what significance does theorizing about it have on existing and observable reality? What is your direct position on the issue, Sri Spliff?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-19-2003, 06:48 PM	#2
Philosoft Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Southeast of disorder Posts: 6,829	The problem arises from the inability to categorize God as a "thing." There are concrete things, made of matter and force particles, which can directly affect other concrete things; there are abstract things, which are strictly conceptual - ideas, mental representations, mathematics - and cannot directly affect concrete things. Abstract things can represent concrete things, but they are not the thing itself. God, however, allegedly possesses the intangibility of an abstract thing, with the ability to affect concrete things. This is problematic because, with a sample size of one, we lack not only the ability to represent the God-thing itself, but we also have nothing of its kind to compare it to. Thus, God-concepts are often haphazard collections of attributes with no actual concept to attach them to. And, with no concrete thing to reference, the actual content of the God-concept is rightly disputed.

05-22-2003, 02:52 PM	#3
Darth Dane Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Required Posts: 2,349	Does the mere observance that 'God' has to be theorized and hypothesized in such assorted and conflicting ways speak volumes as to whether or not there actually is one. I don't know if it speaks volumes(which/what?) Since the hidden qualities of this alleged entity is equivalent to the non-existent, what significance does theorizing about it have on existing and observable reality? What is your direct position on the issue, Sri Spliff? Sri Spliff? Are you mocking me or teasing in jest? If God is not, then it bears no significance to the existing and observable Reality, obviously If God Is, then there is a link that connects us with God (God created us!). Since some say that there is an "un-observable" reality, then theorizing may get us closer to seeing or understanding who we are in realation to the reality we can't immediately perceive. The old question "Who am I?" springs to mind. DD - I Am Spliff

05-23-2003, 04:26 AM	#5
Darth Dane Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Required Posts: 2,349	There is no such thing as a God. If such a creature existed, such beliefs, theories and hypothesis would be rendered unnecessary ~ and the entire system of organized religion and a mystic's mumbo jumbo would collapse. Of course, in a sense, as "God" would direct our focus in the correct way? The fact that you have gone to great lengths to propose alternating variables for "God"...speaks volumes for His non-existence. I see your point however, I have experienced some different things, so I "know" that "God" Is. My theorizing is nesasary because no words are in and of themselves not enough to explain to someone like yourself what it is that I experienced. These theories are just pointing to the truth, they are not the truth in and of themselves. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sri Spliff? Are you mocking me or teasing in jest? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pick one. So you are doing both? You left out the best one of all, Darth ~ If God is, but is not...then God is not. No, then God is and God is not. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Since some say that there is an "un-observable" reality, then theorizing may get us closer to seeing or understanding who we are in realation to the reality we can't immediately perceive. The old question "Who am I?" springs to mind. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am me...I am not un-obervable. Are you your body? are you your thoughts? Are you your feelings? Are you your words? Are you your senses? Or do You experience through these things? And express yourself through these things? Are you your experience? DD - Love Spliff

05-24-2003, 07:22 AM	#7
Darth Dane Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Required Posts: 2,349	quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So you are doing both? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ...and I'm not even omnipotent. In that case you can keep your comment to yourself. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No, then God is and God is not. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- More importantly, we are and God is not. We don't know that, but we each believe as we do, agreed? quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Are you your body? are you your thoughts? Are you your feelings? Are you your words? Are you your senses? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes. Then it seems you are just a robot follwoing the trends of the elctrons in your brain. Others support this theory, I disagree of course we are that and a bit more. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Or do You experience through these things? And express yourself through these things? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I experience through my brain and nervous system...which, by the way, exist. So what the "I" is seperated from your brain and nervous system? "You" don't experience anything, the brain experiences, see the difference? There is no "I". quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Are you your experience? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes. Then you are the universe, you experience the entire universe, and then you say you are that experience?! Quite bold assertion, I might add. ...and any further assertions beyond that is pure fairy tale, which supports my OP position. LOL, and you are your experience of the entire universe, which supports my idea of everything happening in the Mind. You also experience other people, and so you must be the other people you meet. "Love thy neighbor as you would Love yourself" ? DD - Love Spliff

05-24-2003, 07:46 AM	#9
Darth Dane Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Required Posts: 2,349	What's the "bit more"? There is energy(matter/physical) and conciousness Conciousness, which the scientist still don't know where is or what it is, is the extra bit....as I see it. Shiva = Conciousness Shakti = Energy Shiva and Shakti is making Love together, a dance between the two. "God" is the combined expression of Shiva/Shakti. Conciousness directs energy Energy expresses conciousness. DD - Love Spliff

05-24-2003, 07:53 AM	#10
lunachick Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: NZ Posts: 7,895	Consciousness and energy are still brain and nervous system, though. Although, admittedly, the bit more that is energy is the physical body converting fuel.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.