Jobar

yguy, existence is neither logical nor illogical; it just is. Logic is a creation of our minds, a framework for our languages; it allows us to communicate with each other about what each individual perceives *about* reality. Without the framework, language is useless, senseless, pointless. 'Definition' is also a necessary part of any language; we cannot talk about something which is undefined. Such a thing is, in the exact sense of the term, meaningless. (Remember that 'meaning' and 'definition' are synonyms.)

If you want to talk about some of the mystical traditions which call God meaningless, now- you've come to the right guy.

Nowhere357

Ha ha you are funny today.

Really, though, exactly what are you talking about, when you talk about how we can't talk about it? And if we can't talk about it, how is that you can talk about it?

And I have accessed your mind - through your posts.

I made this statement:
If we want to know whether we believe something - to whatever degree of certainty we require - we have to know what we're talking about! Of course we need a definition.
I say we need a definition - and you say I'm wrong? You are being silly. "God" is a word, words have meanings, and we capture them with definitions.

But you know this, you're really trying to make some other point, right? Is it possible for you to actually state your point?

Tabula_rasa

yguy,

You mentioned in this thread that you are here to talk about what God is not, so I want to make sure that I understand what you are saying.

Q: Are you stating that the God you believe in is an entity that does not force His will upon everybody?

Is this a correct interpretation of your statements? If not, would you please correct this so that it reads the way you meant it to?

Some thoughts occured to me while considering your statement that makes it confusing to understand what you meant:
- Does God force his will on some people, but not others? (e.g., God forced his will upon Job, the virgin mother, etc.)
- Does God sometimes force his will on everybody, but at other times doesn't? (e.g., the great flood purportedly wiped out, in effect, everthing on this planet.)
- Are our souls a part of who we are, meaning does your definition for somebody (subset of everybody) include the part that is refered to as the soul? (e.g., God forces his will upon some of our souls by banishing them to eternal damnation with no possibility of getting out after our mortal bodies die.)

If you could be very specific here, I would appreciate it. What attribute are you saying God does not possess in your original statement?

Thanks,
Tabula_rasa

Philosoft

We also seem to have an independent judgement mechanism that works along side religious dictates. I happen to agree with "Thou shalt not kill." But the condemnation of homosexuality, for example (wherever it might exist in the Bible), is much less obviously necessary, so I don't condemn it. But what does this have to do with my stupidity?
C'mon, you aren't being very imaginative. There are certainly more than two options for this omnipotent being.

Theli

I don't think you read my reply right, beings are neither logical or illogical. And fictional beings by definition do not factually exist.
He may have an idea of a god wich includes contradictions and mystery, but he cannot connect that idea to something existing in reality unless the idea itself is tanglible.
This is why it is impossible for this said god to exist.

yguy

When did I say that? AFAIK, that's an inference of yours drawn from my assertion that God is undefinable.

That's the problem. You're trying to "capture" God in a few words, to corner Him and take His picture, intellectually speaking. Can't be done.

I have said exactly what I mean. If you don't see any value in it, further conversation is pointless.

Wyz_sub10

Isn't that what every deity-following group on earth does? If god cannot be defined, then the concept of god and the notion of "coming to know god" are meaningless.

You should discuss "knowing god through his creation" with Theophilus. It would be interesting to see what, if any, common ground you would find on this very issue.

Ogotay

Ah, yes.. My mistake.


And partly my poor English..

Would you agree that the belief in and existence of God are the illogical parts?
I guess I should have said that from the first post. ;P

But because all we have is the belief, I said that God "itself" is illogical.




But does anybody have any reason to not act on our logic sense when deciding to believe in something illogical or not?

yguy

Many do. Big mistake, in my view.

Non sequitur, with respect to the notion of coming to know God, as knowing your parents has nothing to do with your ability to define them; but I agree that any "concept of God" is meaningless.

yguy

The question is why you condemn or condone this or that. To condemn homosexuality because the "in crowd" condemns it would be as stupid as condoning it for the same reason.

Then I leave it to you to come up with another one, wiseguy.