Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including,

hahahaha is that the response you were looking for?

But, seriously, do you even know who Satan is? Jesus said to Peter "Get thee behind me Satan" why does he call Peter Satan, he goes on to qualify "You desire the things of this world and not the things of heaven"

So you are saying the desire for things of this world causes the things of heaven to be hidden. Look at Maslows heirarchy of human needs. The basic need for food shelter and security are diametrically opposed to the higher needs of love and purpose. In order to fullfill our higher needs we must sacrifice some of our basic needs. In order to express love we may need to share some of our food. We may need to sacrifice some of our security.

The whole concept of good and evil revolve around this concept of doing unto others as we would want others to do to us.

While I understand we should give our thoughts feely to help humanity, there is also a need to pay the rent and bills and buy food. So remuneration is often necessary for the efforts we put into studying and sharing our views on life.

You are assuming that no one was there. Science does not have all the answers and the ones it does have are woefully inadequate and constantly in need of updating.

And certainly being a priest or atheist matters a great deal in terms of understanding the point of view of the individual making observations and statements.

While we as individuals are limited to our own personal experiences, it is quite possible that some kind of intelligence existed at the time of the big bang and that we are just ignorant of how to communicate with it at this point of our evolution.

Yes.

Red: "[you use] the God word (or a variation thereof) merely as a linguistic pigeon hole for a basket of emotions, ethics and morality"

Rev: "The short answer is, yes!"

and

Rev: "I find it impossible to think of anything outside GOD"

Yes, I said that I find it impossible to think of anything outside GOD. But obviously I did not make it fully clear what I what I had in mind. The art of communication is not an easy one.

IMO, as a unitheist--and there are a growing number of us in the group on Facebook--I do not think of the reality I call, GOD, as a being with an inside or an outside.

I think of GOD as something like what philosophers--for example, Kurt Godel (a spiritually-minded logician and mathematician)--call, "a universal consciousness--a seething, yet organized, self-aware field of energy...". I think that this field only becomes truly conscious in persons.

KURT GODEL AND RELIGION
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_G%C3%B6del
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel/#GodPhiVie
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems

THIS IS INTERESTING
http://www.godexplained.org/pdf/Brock-Junkin_God-Explained.pdf

You? James, is the following to me, or who? BTW, my life's work is all about exploring ways to connect with, tune into or to communicate effectively with GOD--about which I will say more, later.

James, If I understand what you said above, I assume your basic idea is this: The BIG bang was not a random act of "nature". If that is what you meant, I agree with you.

IMO, behind the whole mystery of why there is anything there is what I like to call a GOD-like consciousness, or intelligence, with which we were, and still are somehow, intimately involved.

Let's think about. HOW?

It's not that simple. Different people have different preferences for how they like to be treated.

For example some people, if they make a mistake, would like to admit it. Maybe they don't want everyone else to quietly notice it and go gossiping about them. While other people prefer to keep it hidden. They feel more comfortable with their self-image of not making mistakes.

No. I mean you didn't answer my questions in any way. If you think the questions are invalid, then you can say so, and explain why.



Given a year to think about it, are you now able to define GOD? I mean completely (as you currently see it), in one message, using language that ordinary educated people can understand (no made-up words).

Whenever I spoke to children in my church, including my children (Now married with families), and my grandchildren (the youngest is now fifteen)--about complex ideas and concepts I have always found it quite helpful to start by saying something like the following: Let's talk about the north and south poles. Keep in mind that I am not talking about poles that stick out the ground. By pointing to a spot on a globe they usually get what I mean.

Similarly, even when they are quite young, I find that most children understand what I mean when I say: GOD is not a name that I use for a supernatural and human-like being with certain attributes, or qualities--the kind of being (God) defined in most dictionaries, or the kind believed in and worshiped by church-going theists and denied by atheists. Nor is GOD an object--one with dimensions that one can point to and say: There is GOD. GOD cannot be put in a box or described in a book.

Yes, there is more that can be said here, but I will leave it there, for now.

Rev wrote:
..... even when they are quite young, I find that most children understand what I mean when I say: GOD is not a name that I use for a supernatural and human-like being with certain attributes, or qualities--the kind of being (God) defined in most dictionaries, or the kind believed in and worshiped by church-going theists and denied by atheists. Nor is GOD an object--one with dimensions that one can point to and say: There is GOD. GOD cannot be put in a box or described in a book.


OK REV- it seems we now know what is not GOD. Perhaps now you could explain what is the state that we can recognise as 'the existence of godness'. You have told us it is not corporeal. It has no definitive shape. It has no dimensions. It cannot be described in a book, presumably because there are no words to describe it. You are not leaving much to work with.

Actually I think 'the existence of godness' sounds a bit non-existent to me.

Originally Posted By: Kallog--Thursday, May 12.




Then Bill S responded to Kallog's rhetorical questions:
Bill S., thanks for your help in making the point, clearly, that the asking of too many rhetorical questions ( not really questions at all)--one after the other--is not the best way to encourage the sharing of ideas.

Ubiquity. GOD is ubiquitous--everywhere present and at the same time. To learn more, join us on Facebook.

All are welcome and invited to be equal partners in the unitheism group. Enjoy having a lively dialogue, not a divisive debate, about unitheism--part of the friendly, we hope, dialogue with atheists.

Sincere atheists and skeptics: Unitheists appreciate your contribution to the search for basic truths. Unitheists enjoy the search for truth perhaps more than in the finding of it--if such a thing really is possible.

Not much to work with?

IMO, and that of many modern physicists--especially the new quantum physicists--we have the infinity of space, in which to get things done, and the eternity of time in which to do it. What more do we--as G0d-like co-creators within GOD--need?

The Uncertainty Principle
First published (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) Mon Oct 8, 2001; substantive revision Mon Jul 3, 2006

Quantum mechanics is generally regarded as the physical theory that is our best candidate for a fundamental and universal description of the physical world.

The conceptual framework employed by this theory differs drastically from that of classical physics. Indeed, the transition from classical to quantum physics marks a genuine revolution in our understanding of the physical world....
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-uncertainty/
================================================
The work of modern physicists, like Werner Heisenberg and Kurt Godel--both, like Max _Planck, Einstein and others in their field, were highly spiritual individuals and their work reminds us to be humble and, like Socrates, to acknowledge how little we really know about the nature of things.Our knowledge in not an absolute and certain thing. It is, like GOD, a relative, uncertain and incomplete work in the process of becoming.

If we choose, we are free to opt in and be part of the process--what an opportunity! We are also free to opt out and miss out--what a shame and a waste, if we did!

PROCESS THEOLOGY AND UNITHEISM ARE ONE AND THE SAME
As I have said before, check out
Process Theology--the work of A.N. Whitehead (mathematician and philosopher) and the Rev. Charles Hartshorne--his best interpreter.

Also, check out the work of Alan Turing, the great mathematician and logician, who laid the mathematical foundation of modern computer technology. During WW 2, his knowledge of how to break enemy codes helped defeat the Nazis. He was also a deeply spiritual and deeply troubled person.

No, they were not rhetorical questions. They're certainly hard questions. But how about an honest "I don't know or have any possible idea".

The only consistent thing I've picked up about GOD is that it isn't a physical object or non-physical being, but that it is composed of everything in the universe, and some more beyond.

With only that to go on, GOD is indistinguishable from "everything". So coming back to my earlier suggestion. How about just drop the confusing name and call it "nature"?

I really do hope for some idea as to why GOD isn't the same as nature. But if you find you can't do that, then you really should be thinking a bit more critically whether the idea has any merit at all.

Maybe the traditional Gods with their excess baggage do actually serve a useful purpose. Maybe you're stripped off the good parts as well as the bad and just left a dead core.

Kallog, I agree with what I think you are you implying: Whether or not a question is rhetorical depends on two things. I depends on the intention of the one who posed the question in the first place and on the perception of the one who heard it. I heard your questions as rhetorical. And I think, so did Bill S.

For example, were I to ask a poster--who will remain unnamed : Who taught you how to write, to ask questions and to carry on a civilized dialogue? it would be disingenuous of me to pretend that I asked the question in the spirit of having a civilized dialogue. I would mean it as a dart, even a dagger--the kind of undiplomatic comment which stops communication.

However, I could apologize (that is, explain) and say what my intentions are, which I assume you did when you wrote:

So, thanks for your explanation. With the caveat that I make no claim that I have all the answers, or that my answers are the final word, I will accept your explanation and proceed to answer what you call "hard" questions as best I can.

With this in mind, take note of my response to the comments by Ellis.

OK. I try not to use sarcasm or rhetorical questions - for the reason you gave. But sometimes I ask extreme questions and really want an answer, which would illuminate something. The problem is most people refuse to answer those because they think it's just an attack - or they're afraid of revealing what they don't know. I'm not specifically thinking of you here, but general internet discussions, and people in the real world. I see any question as fair game, even if the answer is "the question is invalid because.." or "I don't know".

But if you have an honest discussion, sometimes it can lead to realizing that you don't understand something as well as you would like. That's the usefulness of arguing, it encourages critical thought, which can lead to actually improving understanding, as opposed to "preaching to the choir".

Good comments and well received. As long as you warn me and give me the right to plead ignorance or, if necessary, the right to remain silent, go ahead, ask your "extreme questions".

BTW, Kallog, this could open the door for all of us to satisfy our curiosities about other posters. For example, though I respect peoples right to privacy, I am very curious about all who post here, but:

ARE ALL QUESTIONS "fair game" as you say. Is it fair for us to ask one another about: Where we live, work and play? Our Birth date, our family life? Our religion? Our politics? The kind we ask people running for public office?

Or personal questions like: Are we loners? Health? Love life? To what extent we are ideological, or not? What motivates us to get involved in forums like this? What kind of questions do we welcome? Or not welcome?


BTW 2. Of course I like being with people with whom I have a lot in common, but I also find that differences of race, creed and class can also be very enriching. I very much like the basic principle known as the Golden Rule. Is it possible that it too has its flaws and can be improved on?

To obviate, or remove, the threat that I am on the attack, that I am only interested in preaching at people in the attempt to indoctrinate them, I usually preface my comments with the acronym IMO (in my opinion). Perhaps I should write IMSO--meaning in my sincere opinion.

DOCTRINAIRE
'Doctrinaire' can be used as a noun to describe an impractical theorist--one who stubbornly tries to apply a theory without considering the actual circumstances.
This means that, ideologically speaking, I am open, flexible and non-dogmatic. I very consciously try to avoid being a doctrinaire.

I will give you the last word about having: Back to what GOD is... in my next post.

You didn't quite understand my idea. Those questions really are fine. You can answer with "I prefer to keep that private". I'm talking about responding to anything that might seem like a possible insult with an actual insult. Many people do this because they're deathly afraid of being insulted without fighting back. It's the shoot first, ask questions later mentality that causes many of the interpersonal problems people have.

You commented
OK, tell me! I'm curious enough to ask: How would you answer some of my questions?