Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 397 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
The universes expansion accelleration solved.
by Marchimedes
05/14/20 07:25 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
Marchimedes 4
Page 28 of 35 < 1 2 ... 26 27 28 29 30 ... 34 35 >
Topic Options
#20547 - 04/17/07 05:58 AM Re: Evidence for God [Re: reasonable]
redewenur Offline
Megastar

Registered: 02/14/07
Posts: 1840
Originally Posted By: redewenur
One simply cannot see into the mind of another in order verify that they have the same understanding and experience.

But this is better:

Originally Posted By: reasonable
One privately thinks of an apple and another of an orange. Which one exists? And then here comes another guy with a melon in his head.

_________________________
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler

Top
.
#20549 - 04/17/07 06:33 AM Re: Evidence for God [Re: Revlgking]
reasonable Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 04/17/07
Posts: 4
well... iduno... I know what 'god' should mean in the western world, but. It used to be the supreme being. Nowadays it usually is an idea of sorts, an abstration of a "creative principle".

Then, of course, for some people, it is simply a reasurance that someone is in charge.

I recall one sage saying "God is the will of all". That idea of God I can relate to. Does it exist as an entity? Definetly not.

To me it seems (am I projecting?) that your idea of God is similar to mine, that it is the embodiment of everything that is. But once we adopt this definition, the topic of this thread becomes meaningless.

It is in vogue now to deny God as an entity. But God as an abstraction, no matter how nice souding, is both true and false.
God the creator cannot be separated from the Universe and can be found only as the universe itself. God the distinct entity in the Universe is not its God.

Top
#20572 - 04/17/07 08:40 PM Re: Evidence for God [Re: reasonable]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Originally Posted By: reasonable
well...
To me it seems (am I projecting?) that your (REVLGK) idea of God is similar to mine, that it is the embodiment of everything that is.
If you are referring to me, yes.

But keep in mind: I like to think of GØD as dynamic being in the eternal NOW--around, within and through all that is, including us. I repeat: GØD is not A being--separate and apart from us. We access GØD--this dynamic power and knowledge, everywhere present, through the active use of wisdom, faith, hope and love.

If we make this choice, it becomes obvious in everything we think, say and do, especially do.

THE PRICE OF BEING NEUTRAL
Neutrality is, by nature, sinful and the root cause of so much human suffering and pain. It gives the opportunity for evil to enter our lives. Holocausts come to us as a result of too much neutrality. So does all form of terrorism, including the recent killings in Virginia.

THE PRICE OF BEING DELIBERATELY EVIL
The outright rejection of the Love of GØD simply compounds the evil, the suffering and pain in the NOW, not in some future place called hell.

NO GOD, MESSIAH, OR RELIGION HAS THE KEYS TO HEAVEN AND HELL
==============================================================
I feel the same way about heaven. IMO, it is not just some place of salvation, way in the future, one to which only one so-called "true" religion has the keys and to which only the "faithful" to the "one true church"--ones who promise to pray, pay and pay, will go.

OPEN TO ALL MORAL, LOVING AND GOOD PEOPLE
=========================================
The abundant life of joyous adventure, justice, peace, beauty and truth must be real and experienced in the NOW, or not at all. And it can be in the NOW. All we need do, as free individuals, is make that choice to truly love one another.
==================000000000000000000000000000000=================


Edited by Revlgking (04/17/07 10:18 PM)
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#20573 - 04/17/07 09:47 PM Re: Evidence for God [Re: Revlgking]
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
reasonable wrote:
"that it is the embodiment of everything that is. But once we adopt this definition, the topic of this thread becomes meaningless."

The topic of this thread has been meaningless since its inception. There has not been a single byte of information provided, by anyone, that constituted evidence.

This thread has done nothing more than serve as a vehicle for trolling and fluff.

The reality is that if the definition of god is as you state: "embodiment of everything that is" and revlgking has gone on record agreeing with that definition.

Then we have a far better word that, by dictionary definition means "the embodiment of everything." That word is universe.

Redefining another word is not just anti-science it is intellectually dishonest.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#20574 - 04/17/07 10:03 PM Re: Evidence for God [Re: DA Morgan]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
The universe. Interesting.

Warren, as unitheists, you and I heartily agree, right?

Now why didn't we think of that?

Thanks for your contribution, DA smile. And I am serious. It fits into the concept that GØD and the universe, the cosmos--phyically, mentally and spiritually--are ONE.


Edited by Revlgking (04/17/07 10:10 PM)
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#20576 - 04/17/07 11:14 PM Re: Evidence for God [Re: Revlgking]
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
It doesn't fit the concept of GØD because GØD is a shallow contrivance masquerading as something of substance.

I tire of this imbecilic nonsense. YOYO!
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#20577 - 04/17/07 11:50 PM Re: Evidence for God [Re: DA Morgan]
Tim Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/16/06
Posts: 192
Loc: California
DA, you say that God is a contrivance, or some device cleverly made up. That is not what God is; merely some invention of the human intellect. He is not dead, as Nietzshe (sp?) declared. The flowers blooming their fragrance. The waters meandering down from the mountain, reflecting the sun's rays. This beautiful, green planet, hurtling along an elliptical orbit. Man, conscious of his thoughts, and able to do as he wishes, and subjugate nature, and make creations of his own. All of this -this good Earth- is possible by our very Maker, who sustains our very breath. God, worthy of all praise, the very makeup of this universe.
(excuse my poeticness, anyone who while reading that, saw that literally those descriptions would not be so)

Top
#20579 - 04/18/07 12:13 AM Re: Evidence for God [Re: DA Morgan]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
GØD..."as something of substance." writes DA Morgan. Right on! DA, All the substance I know, and more, is GØD. What more can we ask?

Tim, you speak of, "God, worthy of all praise, the very makeup of this universe." I like your poetry. Your thread has been a great success. Keep on defending your sincerely held beliefs.

Tim, BTW, you mentioned Nietzsche. Check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche

Interestingly, his father was an Evangelical Lutheran minister.


Edited by Revlgking (04/18/07 12:26 AM)
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#20582 - 04/18/07 12:57 AM Re: Evidence for God [Re: Revlgking]
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Tim wrote:
"DA, you say that God is a contrivance"

I did not. I said GØD is a shallow contrivance masquerading as substance.

I have put a kill on this thread and will no longer respond so if you are truly interested in this contact me through the user-list or start a new thread.

BTW: If it doesn't relate to science, in some fashion, I will not respond.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#20586 - 04/18/07 03:47 AM Re: Evidence for God [Re: DA Morgan]
Tim Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/16/06
Posts: 192
Loc: California
my computer dictionary has the route for science. here it is, by definition: "[14th century. Via Old French from Latin scientia , from scient- , present participle stem of scire “to know,” ultimately “to discern,” from an Indo-European word meaning “to cut.”]
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
therefore, by definition, you are implying that if it doesnt relate to knowing or discerning, then you wont respond. am i right in deducing that? (oh wait, never mind, you cant respond, so thats a rhetorical question). today, it seems people have defined science so narrowly, that they forget what its very foundations are: and that is to know. to know what? the planets? why we are here? history of our planet? what are we? etc.
and i understand why you would no longer answer on this thread; my apologies.

Top
#20587 - 04/18/07 05:20 AM Re: Evidence for God [Re: Tim]
Ellis Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/08/07
Posts: 1490
Loc: Australia
God exists in the presence of belief and belief exists in the presence of faith. So if you believe then your god, however you imagine him/her/it then he/she/it exists.

As I have pointed out before--if you do not believe then god does not exist--like Tinkerbell, you have to believe in god for the entity/thing/universe you imagine as god to have existence.

So the anwer to "Does god exist?" is "Only inside your own imagination, but there the concept of god is unfettered."

Top
#20612 - 04/18/07 08:19 PM Re: Evidence for God [Re: Ellis]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Ellis you write:
Quote:
God exists in the presence of belief and belief exists in the presence of faith. So if you believe then your god, however you imagine him/her/it then he/she/it exists.
I agree with you, Ellis. And I will add, here is how I imagine god: I imagine GØD--(Orthodox Jews use G-d)--as encompassing all that we call existence. I use my special symbol and the term 'panentheism, to make this point clear.

I do not insist that others have to believe as I do. I just find that it works for me.

BTW, I have no objection to those who prefer to use the traditional spelling, God. But let us be clear as to what we mean by the term.

How many theists actually think of God as a masculine, human-like and objective being somewhere out there looking down on us? I suspect only very few.

I also suspect that this is what atheists have in mind when they they say: "There is no evidence that there is a God. People who believe there is one are deluded."

Atheists may think of conscious existence as depressing, as being meaningless and absurd, and that non-existence is to be prefered. But I can't imagine any atheist ever saying: "There is no evidence for existence." Can you?

In my opinion: The fact of existence, for better or for worse, and my consciousness of it is all the evidence I need to say: I BELIEVE IN GØD. Existence is good (GØD), and we call all help to make it better until, eventually, it becomes the best. Like the old rhyme goes:

GOOD BETTER BEST, NEVER LET IT REST, 'TILL THE GOOD IS BETTER AND THE BETTER BEST.
================
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#20625 - 04/19/07 01:57 AM Re: Evidence for God [Re: Revlgking]
terrytnewzealand Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/02/06
Posts: 1031
Loc: Whangarei New Zealand
Revlgking wrote:

"But let us be clear as to what we mean by the term."

I have been trying to get someone to provide a meaningful definition since I first contributed to this thread. Saying, "God is another word for all there is" is not a meaningful definition. Is the God you believe in still basically just the Old Testament God expanded a bit? I've already shown you can't rely on anything in the OT to tell you what God is.

Top
#20630 - 04/19/07 03:41 AM Re: Evidence for God [Re: terrytnewzealand]
Warren Offline
Member

Registered: 04/08/07
Posts: 45
Loc: Paducah, Kentucky
I prefer to use the term divine over God and believe while it's not synonymous with the universe, the universe is permeated with the divine.

I characterize the divine as law, life, and love-- law being the physics of the universe, life the basis of awareness, and love our conscious creating, enjoying, and sharing.

Since this is ontological (in the sense of defining a concept into being), rather than requiring evidence of existence I would ask myself if this is a valid concept of the ultimate, at least vis-a-vis the human experience. If I postulate that life (awareness) is good, which I do, it works to my satisfaction.

Top
#20632 - 04/19/07 06:28 AM Re: Evidence for God [Re: Warren]
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Again a bit of integrity is required here.

No one alive, despite hubris to the contrary, knows for sure the answer in the scientific sense that we know the melting point of water from ice.

We all come to terms with this based upon culture, background, education, and intelligence.

This entire discussion MUST end up with no more substance than a discussion of favorite colours or favorite foods.

Personally I like Laotian food and the colour mauve.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#20634 - 04/19/07 06:41 AM Re: Evidence for God [Re: Warren]
Ellis Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/08/07
Posts: 1490
Loc: Australia
In order for "divine" to have any verisimilitude there has to be belief in the concept of divinity. Gods are described as divine--so 'divine' is a characteristic of a god- like entity, or state of mind. But first there has to be belief. Warren- you will believe as you wish, your version of god has as much veracity as that of highest prelate on the planet. But it is not proof of god's existence. It is how you personally believe your god to manifest him/her/its self to you. How do you prove the truth of your belief?

I respect this belief of yours, but I do not share it as I believe there is no such thing as god in any of the possible manifestations described over time (and there have been lots).

Top
#20636 - 04/19/07 07:48 AM Re: Evidence for God [Re: Ellis]
redewenur Offline
Megastar

Registered: 02/14/07
Posts: 1840
I suppose that, for an atheist, perhaps the nearest approach to the recognition of a deity could be the acknowledgement of 'intangibles' - such as love, joy, wonder etc. - as life enhancing principles experienced by sentient beings. Such a description doesn't require further evidence, belief is not required, a name is optional, and history is irrelevant (all of which happens to eliminate potential conflict).
_________________________
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler

Top
#20637 - 04/19/07 07:56 AM Re: Evidence for God [Re: Ellis]
terrytnewzealand Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/02/06
Posts: 1031
Loc: Whangarei New Zealand
Ellis wrote:

"But first there has to be belief."

I see what you have been getting at. The belief defines God or Gods. Gods can therefore be anything we like them to be. Hence there are as many Gods as there are people who believe. Possibly more if people who believe in multiple gods outnumber those who don't believe in them at all.

Top
#20638 - 04/19/07 08:01 AM Re: Evidence for God [Re: terrytnewzealand]
terrytnewzealand Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/02/06
Posts: 1031
Loc: Whangarei New Zealand
Redewenur wrote:

"perhaps the nearest approach to the recognition of a deity could be the acknowledgement of life enhancing 'intangibles' - such as love, joy, wonder etc."

Those were amoung the Gods the Greeks accepted. But shouldn't we also include less desirable emotions in this expanded concept of God?

Top
#20640 - 04/19/07 08:17 AM Re: Evidence for God [Re: terrytnewzealand]
redewenur Offline
Megastar

Registered: 02/14/07
Posts: 1840
Originally Posted By: terrytnewzealand
But shouldn't we also include less desirable emotions in this expanded concept of God?

No (at least, it doesn't fit my hypothetical description), because they aren't 'life enhancing principles', but merely the absence of same. It's analogous to saying that food is life enhancing, and 'anti-food' isn't - anti-food doesn't exist; it's a false concept. There's either food, or the lack of food.

I couldn't call it 'an expanded concept of God'. It's an unembellished concept in that it calls for neither religious belief nor evidence of supernatural causation.
_________________________
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler

Top
Page 28 of 35 < 1 2 ... 26 27 28 29 30 ... 34 35 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.