This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Who is God?
One thing I've become aware of in these conversations is that TEDsters have many different opinions on who God is. Hopefully this conversation will become a collection of those viewpoints.
Please don't attack other people's ideas. If you want, ask questions for clarification. But be respectful.
And tell us, in your opinion - who is God?
Closing Statement from Tim Colgan
To be continued at
http://www.tedanon.com/
Carlin Covey
My opinion is rather mundane, I'm afraid. In my opinion God is (or "gods are", if you are a polytheist) an attempt to explain many puzzling issues in the world by attributing the explanations to supernatural intervention by (a) divine being(s). These explanations probably began as animistic notions, then some of these notions evolved into polytheism, then some of those ideas evolved into henotheism, and some of those into monotheism. More recently the scientific method gradually developed to explain many of the same puzzling issues. The theistic explanations postulate that the world is influenced by supernatural forces (in addition to natural forces), whereas the scientific explanations postulate that the world is influenced only by natural forces. I prefer the scientific method, which has brought us many improvements in health and comfort and technology. Notice that we are communicating with each other via the internet, rather than via prayer.
Gabo Moreno 100+
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVbnciQYMiM
Tim Colgan 50+
Pabs Lucas
Agustinus Lawandy
1. You might consider God as the creator in which case maybe a super-intelligent being (or not) which can be blamed for the causative, the roots of universe's principles and laws.
2. You might consider God as the sum of all physics equation, a rule for a system or the world's mysteries.
3. You might consider God as a personal being similar to human, like the most religion Hinduism Catholicism Islam etc.
4. You might consider God as a meme, an idea, which was invented by the humans and replicated until now which is a physical information contained in the brain in the form of patterns.
I have always seen 1 with apatheism (since this god doesn't matter much, of little significance exist or not, at least for now) to understand 1 by analogy, think of God as player who played Conway's Game of Life, a 0 player game which depends only on the rules and the initial conditions. I have always seen 2 just like most person do, it is simply an interpretation, you could interpret any piece of information however you wish, the physics sure inspires awe, as for taking nature law as a God or not, well that's up to you, and like 1, this one doesn't matter really (it's just an interpretation). And I have always believed 3 is just a species of 4, a meme, an idea that was invented by human and replicated by human, this last God is the pinnacle of religion and I've never believed in personal god, I'd consider it as a delusion.
Mir Akram Ali
Allan Macdougall 30+
The biblical phrase: "We are all created in God's image" attests to another example of anthropocentrism on a grand scale. Surely it is the other way round: God is actually created in OUR image.
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
then what is your creator?
Allan Macdougall 30+
I will add that I am agnostic. I do not believe in any God, but do possess a profound yearning for spirituality and reverence, on a personal scale, for things outside my/our normal frame of conscious understanding. This should remain as as it is - in the realms of awe and wonder - despite the onslaught of blinkered and objectivised science. I think adoration and reverence of the natural scheme of things is an essential part of the human condition, but as far as I'm concerned, it need not be ascribed to a God.
What I, and many other people do, is to apply metaphor to those things that science - or even words, fail to articulate. Metaphor can help explain the unexplainable. Poetry and art does this well. And so can religion, but what starts out as an innocent, searching metaphor, then moves into the realms of ingrained belief and dogma.
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
evolution needs a creator. evolution happens in special conditions under natural laws and such laws not exist without any controller and designer and law enforcer.
its like that you only see somethings happen inside a cyclotron and you see some new particles created there. but in what conditions? do not you see a cyclotron made situation ready for happening that happen for particles? evolution also needs many terms to happen.
without atoms working proper evolution has no meaning.
God usually created not direct.
God creates in natural steps.
God can created miraculously in one moment but does not like to create without natural steps.
for example God creates human in womb during 9 month while can create a 40 years old human at one moment.
out of metaphor you should die and if Hell existed after death you will have many problems.
please note God and religion is not equal to what church says.
please consider existence of God but not as church says.
Allan Macdougall 30+
Does your God condemn to eternal hell and damnation, all the people like me who happen to disagree with him? Why should I 'have many problems' just because I think autonomously? Your answer to that question may have some bearing on whether this conversation is worth continuing...
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
there two different method of creation.
they are not two continuous that have a "point" between them.
the default method of God is creating step by step and by tools. God uses tools and do not want to do works directly. while can do.
for example all angles are tools of God. or womb is tool of God for creating baby. or soil and water are tools of God for creating a fruit and so on.
also all tools are created by God.
God prefers to do anything with tools. while can do without tools.
but some times it is needed do do works without natural steps and tools like miracles of prophets. for example Moses (PBUH) made a bird with clay and blow it and it became a live bird. this is miracle.
"Does your God condemn to eternal hell and damnation, all the people like me who happen to disagree with him?"
yes God punishes who disobey God
please note God is not a man nor any kind of material
one day Moses (PBUH) said God:
I am sick please heal me!
God said:
go doctor.
M: what?! then what people say about me? I am prophet of God! and I should need doctor?!
God:
yes you think why I created drugs and herbs? they are useless?
I created them as a tool to people heal with them.
God: I abominate to do works without tools.
this is a rule of God:
"God abominates to do works without its tools"
"Why should I 'have many problems' just because I think autonomously? "
because you are the only animal having two gift:
1- wisdom
2- free will
the problems are test. its like problems of a student doing homework. doing home works has good results.
Gabo Moreno 100+
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVbnciQYMiM
:)
Kerry Monroe
I often hear the words design and creation in the greater Ted forum and talks.
Don't these words imply there is a designer or creator?
The human world has many "Gods". Some say their god is their belly. Most , almost all world religions have been invented by human thinking. Religions have been used to control an ignorant population for selfish gains. Most are founded on fancyful myths. Most religions inadequately answer life's important questions and believers are left confused , discontented and defrauded of time and wealth.
But religion's misuse/abuse of people's trust for all human history does not eliminate that the physical universe, all matter and life point to the existence of a designer or creator.
In recent years, our view into the the physical universe has improved dramatically. This clarified knowledge is exposing beautiful design and complex stable systems in every field of science. It is not a exposing random unreliable disorganized mess.
When visiting an art gallery we see the works of an artist, we may never meet him, but we know he exists.
We often meditate on the meaning of these works and at times praise the artist.The universe and life are proof that there is a thinking conscious personage, a designer, a creator. We would not be mistaken to acknowledge and meditate on the these master works.It may move us to utter or think thoughts of praise and gratitude to a grand creator.
Gabo Moreno 100+
Nope, the occurrence of the words "design" and "creation" in TED doesn't mean there is a designer creator. This is a clear example of a non-sequitur.
That you find complex things, or even well structured things, in nature does not mean there is a designer either. It just means that your conception of what nature is might be wrong. Reality is what reality is. There is no reason whatsoever to think that without a designer, there should be absolute and utter chaos and never ever be any structure, or complex system, anywhere to be seen. Furthermore, the basic idea(s) is(are) philosophically flawed: How did you decide that:
1. Human artifacts and designs are not part of nature,
2. Human stuff does not follow natural laws.
3. That nature alone should be a random unreliable disorganized mess.
4. That the universe is actually filled with "complex stable systems", despite you start and finish by thinking that such things are not part of nature. Make your mind, are these things part of nature or not?
Do you see? You have both an intrinsic contradiction (structure cannot be natural, there is structure in nature, thus there is a designer), and a problem defining where to put the boundary between natural and "designed." Whether and where to put the boundary between humans and nature itself. Our division between natural and artificial is ... well ... artificial and egocentric. Using such thing to infer a god is the extreme of egocentrism: we are so not natural that whatever looks, even if slightly, like something we have put together, or more complex than things we have put together, it should be the work of something like us, only much bigger and powerful.
Here a proposal: since we see at least some complex and stable systems in the universe/nature besides ourselves, why not conclude that thus humans are products and part of nature itself too?
I hope that came out clear enough.
Best,
--G
Kerry Monroe
non-sequitur? It may be convenient , but inaccurate.
My wife has been a graphic designer in an ad agency for 12 years. She designs things. An artist creates works of art. A musician creates music. An engineer engineers things.Different words should be used.
Gabo Moreno 100+
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
perhaps all humans are stupid.
people have many superstition even in modern world.
not anything the majority believe is truth.
http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.ahmedali/21:54
Abhiram Lohit 10+
God is not male, not female, not neuter. God does not have a personality.
It does not reward good nor punish evil, because at Its level, good and evil have no meaning.
It is neither intelligent nor stupid, because It has no use for those qualities.
It may or may not be "conscious" about the universe. It just exists.
It wants nothing, It gives nothing.
It is everywhere, because there is no 'thing' other than It.
It is nowhere, because there is no special location where It should be found.
I do not worship God, but I appreciate God, I admire God, because by doing so, I am admiring all this existence, all creatures, all planets, galaxies, humans, animals, birds, art, crime, justice, music, insects, viruses, bacteria, and myself. In effect, everything is God. I am God.
There is no bliss in God, neither is there pain. Because for God pleasure and pain have no meaning.
This is my God.
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
you mean God does not understand what have created?
"It is neither intelligent "
who is not intelligent how can create an intelligent human?
"It wants nothing,'
why created us and why sent prophets?
" It gives nothing."
who give you life?
"there is no 'thing' other than It."
what are you? you are God?
please do not say about God what you do not know.
http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.ahmedali/2:80
you have promise?
this God is created by you so it is a deity. not true God.
true God itself can talk and can decide and not need to you decide about what he do or not do.
Abhiram Lohit 10+
I don't understand what you mean, but If God created everything, then It created "the good, the bad and the ugly" :) So the good is from God, the bad is also from God. If you say there is "somebody else" who created bad, then your God is not all-powerful. What this implies is that good and bad are relative, made by humans for self-preservation.
"who is not intelligent how can create an intelligent human?"
Why should you assume that in the entire, infinite universe humans are "intelligent"? Without knowing what other activities are going on in the universe, how can you assume that our mode of thinking, speech and science is "intelligent"? That's because "we" are here. We are incapable of conceiving of anything outside of our sphere.
"why created us and why sent prophets?"
Who told you that God created us? If your God is all-powerful, there is nothing that "he" desires, because he has everything, he wants nothing. Why would he waste his "time" doing something that will not help him in any way? The only explanation of "Why we are here?" that I'm willing to accept is that it is the recreation or play for the "God thing". Other than that there is no meaning of life. What prophets? Who prophets? Oh you mean the human beings who wanted to be the center of attention of everybody else?
"what are you? you are God?"
If God is the only substance in the universe, I must be made up of "God particles". So I am God.
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
good and bad are selected by human by free will. not created. if you mean decision and Intend is creation then OK human is creator or good and bad. but all the power and mind and decision and all human has is from God. everything human creates is created by God at the same time. it is like a knife in your hand. you cut or knife cuts?
human is like a knife in hand of God.
but human has free will.
God created good and bad to human can know attributes of God.
"Why should you assume that in the entire, infinite universe humans are "intelligent"? "
anyway the knowledge and intelligence of a creator is more than its creature.
"Who told you that God created us?"
Koran and prophet. if not who created us and everything even atoms?
"If your God is all-powerful, there is nothing that "he" desires, because he has everything, he wants nothing. "
he wants somethings. but not for need. because he Intended to we know God.
God can only be known by his attributes. so created good and bad and human and wisdom and free will to God be known by human.
does a teacher need to homework?
"he wants nothing."
he wants to we obey him. but not because he needs anything.
why you think the only reason of wanting is need?
"What prophets? Who prophets? "
for example Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad (peace upon them).
"Oh you mean the human beings who wanted to be the center of attention of everybody else?"
attention by price of being killed and cursed by people?
no their goal was not attention.
"If God is the only substance in the universe, I must be made up of "God particles". So I am God."
you are made of material. and material is created by God.
if you are God can you create only one atom from nothing?
mojtaba azari
God create the warm but if we lose or killing the warm we will make cold.
God create the goodness but if we lose goodness we will make bad.
there ar'nt my word .they addapted from the Albert Einstein with his teacher.
Abhiram Lohit 10+
" if not who created us and everything even atoms?"
"if you are God can you create only one atom from nothing?"
My friend, why would you assume that a God created all this. It is possible that all this was present since eternity. If your God created this universe, then what was he doing before that? If your God is defined by the act of creation, then he was not God before that.
I don't have to create an atom because it's already here. It was always here in some form. The laws of physics made the transformation from one form to another.
" because he Intended to we know God"
For what purpose?
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
time itself is a created thing.
what is creator of time?
when you are at sleep dream you are out of time. you see future in dream of sleep.
"I don't have to create an atom because it's already here."
universe including atoms has a start time (near 14.5 Billion years ago)
so what is their creator at first?
http://www.ted.com/conversations/2142/why_our_universe_has_laws_of_p.html
"" because he Intended to we know God"
For what purpose?"
to be known itself is purpose.
God is not responsible to any one.
God INTENDED to be known.
this is entity and decision of God.
for example a human who is both extreme rich and extreme donor when see a poor gives him money, food,...
this has no purpose.
the entity (personality) of that human causes him to donor.
this is like you ask what is the purpose of sky that is blue?
blue is entity of sky.
this is sky.
Helen Hupe 30+
My God is hungry
he's just a bag of
bones
he's got no money
No lofty silver domes
Candle's can't help
him
hymns give him no
rest
doctors have no
cure
for his thin hollow
chest
Government patrols
police
are powerless
love is the only food
his lips will bless.
Richard Markham
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
we can know as we can.
how much of the water of ocean you can drink?
Paige Sullivan
Comment deleted
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
you speak so that seems 3 Abraham religions had same source and same start time in history.
please note that:
Islam started near 1400 years ago in Arabia peninsula.
Christianity started near 2000 years ago in Rome
Judaism started near 3500 years ago (Moses (PBUH) birth was 1571 B.C)
Abraham (PBUH) was near 4000 years ago
Noah (PBUH) had long age near 2000 years.
Adam (PBUH) came to earth at near max. 7000 years ago.
thy had not same origin to be splintered.
each has its own start. but all from one God
Comment deleted
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
I have Koran.
but no human claimed is writer of Koran.
so for who is Koran?
Muhammad (PBUH)? he was uneducated and did not write any thing in all his life only at age of 40 started saying some amazing sayings (Koran) that had many conflicts with believes of Arabs and leaded to war by Arabs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_career_of_Muhammad
so who is writer of Koran.
only one claimed is writer or Koran: Allah in the Koran.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the evidence you provide is not."
sure. and extraordinary evidence is Koran.
it is for 1400 years ago and you know every thing changed so much during 1400 years.
can you show one error in Koran?
Comment deleted
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
you compaire a philosopher like Rumi to Muhammad (PBUH)?
Rumi was an Muslim scientist and all Rumi has is from Koran.
every single poem of Rumi is interpret of verses of Koran.
without Koran Rumi is nothing.
also prophet was uneducated.
how an uneducated man could say a book that is source for poems of Rumi?
Rumi is student of Koran.
also you doubt in history. no problem. but at list one claim should be found in history that show prophet was an educated man or scientist or poet or had scientific connections with other countries. please note prophet had many enemies and made many lies against him and if they could Indeed do that to disprove Koran:
http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.sahih/29:48
many wars of prophet was by Arabs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_career_of_Muhammad
so how he could say such book?
he was shepherd and had a donkey and did not say such things until age 40.
"So, I believe Muhammad was a gifted poet."
great Arab poets say:
Koran is poet but is not poet.
they tried but finally said we can not say poem like Koran. until today no one claimed can say poem like Koran.
"many geniuses are self-educated"
but there is no evidence is for this.
self educate is for who can write. but prophet could not even write a simple word.
also how after 1400 years this book is still fresh and no error and scientifically no conflict.
"He used his knowledge "
what knowledge. do you know what were the scientific beliefs of that time? silly:
stars are daughters of God.
Arabs had 360 deity that prayed them
they killed cows to make Gods happy.
earth is flat and nothing is under earth
also many many silly beliefs.
"I suspect that you are so trapped in your belief that it is currently impossible to satisfy your request."
please do not prejudice and show your certain scientific evidence.
Bill Bruehl
How about Buddhism? Hinduism? The Patriarchal traditions reject both; Buddhists, because their religion is not about gods, and HIndus because, by Patriarchal doctrine, they are thought to have too many gods. 'Course they do have Brahma, a concept very like the Patriarchal God of Judaism (which started it the Patriarchal idea) and Christianity (which brought in things from every sort of religion in the Roman Empire) and Islam (which really developed in order to tame obstreperous tribes) and worked so well it conquered most of the territories from Spain to Indonesia. They knew how to control. So do Christians who traditionally back up governments.
The interesting thing to think about is how conditions in the areas they were successful contributed to the definition of God or the very lack of God or for the need of dozens of Gods. What conditions require a single, master overall, a Father of Fathers? Not a mother?? Figure that out and you'll know a lot about the God idea. Not all humans have had the same needs as these tribal peoples from the Near and Middle East who developed the One God concept. Will it continue to work at the end of the 21st Century when people from all over the world can come to TED on the Web and talk about their different beliefs? THAT is unprecedented. There will be consequences. And then? What then?
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
"how conditions in the areas they were successful contributed to the definition of God or the very lack of God or for the need of dozens of Gods. "
please note that it is not related to conditions of areas.
better to know before prophet Muhammad (PBUH) start saying amazing sayings at age of 40 (he was uneducated and did not write anything at ll his life) the Arab people had 365 God (statue) and prayed them. and each tribe had a special God (deity).
the origin of only one God always backs to prophets (Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad (peace on them all).
also about father it is in Christianity and Muslims consider it a deviation and Muslims believe God is not material at all and so is not human that need a father or mother.
"who developed the One God concept."
only prophets. not people themselves. people always tend to create many Gods.
this difference between Muhammad (PBUH) and Arab people resulted many wars between prophet and Arab people of that time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_career_of_Muhammad
so if you want to seek the origin of one God you concept should study about prophets. especially Final prophet. because about other history is not clear and even changed and paper was not invented to history be recorded clear.
but about Final history is much better available.
Guy Johnson
What seems to be common about the God concept is that it fills a very specific role: It's that which stands for the singularities about existence. For example, it is impossible for anyone in the universe to have a plan for the universe. Thus God is/has the plan. It is impossible for anyone in the universe to know everything about the universe. But God knows everything. It is impossible to have all power or to be everywhere, so that's just what God has and does.
So, God is just what we (or anything in existence) cannot be. God is thus fundamentally unknowable. And yet because the definition or derivation of God as "the singularity" is so commonly conceived by most any human mind, God is very commonly recognized and "believed in" and we find it easy to reference God commonly. "There must be a God" most would say, and they are both right and wrong. It's correct that there must be this common concept of God because it is a naturally emergent construct of the human mind doing what it does well. But on the other hand, God can have no "real" existence because God's definition is in effect "that which cannot exist in reality as we know it". Yet, one can just as well say from the same singularity derivation, "God encompasses ALL of existence". God's "nonexistence in reality" and "existence as the entirety" are both correct!
Believers typically focus on God's nature as the entirety and then anthropomorphize the concept to ease discussing God's expression, i.e. the revelation of the universe to humanity. OK, fine, but this "humanizing" of God is one place where Godness gets on a messy and slippery slope toward confusion. Then of course when God's "will" enters the fray, you're in the realm of pure politics, so watch out!
Tim Colgan 50+
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
Great response Guy
Arash the Archer
so what i say is that it is something that we WILL get beyond, slowly, gradually and eventually.
Naiem Yeganeh 10+
God is something we don't know what is it, how does it look like, and what is it made from, and how did he appear, however, (based on religion) we know exactly what he wants and how he thinks. Not quiet convincing to me though.
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
we can know God as much as we can. but Gos is absolute and unlimited and we can not know it absolute.
in Islam is said that God has 4 zone of knowing. the zone 1-3 is only for itself and God is alone. humans are allowed to know God in zone 4 as they try and can. it is called nearing to God. near of God means knowing God more and more. near of God does not mean physical near. it is knowing.
Colleen Steen 500+
You misquoted me and twisted my words again, in a recent comment.
I DO NOT appreciate it, and you only weaken your argument.
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
I apologize misquoting. please clarify you meaning.
dingle mcringleberry
Then it became a reason to war against each other.
I think anyone who is presented the facts without any personal bias can easily come to the conclusion that the concept of god is a roadblock in the progression of humanity. Nothing more, nothing less.
A better question would be what does god do?
I'd like to know.
Theists, please elaborate. What does god do?
The answer to this question will also answer the question originally asked.
Example.
Lance armstrong.
Nobody knows what or who he is.
What does he do?
He bikes.
He's a biker.
So, what does god do?
inthegarden beyondthecave
I do not think the idea of God was first invented to keep people in line. We are social animals. Being social is part of what enabled us to survive as a species. The community is stronger than the loner. It can hunt mammoths during the ice age. The lone hunter probably could not do that. Being a social animal involves having perceptual abilities that are very sensitive to the moods, intentions, and meanings of others. I think primitive humans experienced non-human reality with those perceptual abilities. When they heard the thunder, they perceived god's anger. When they felt a soft wind blowing accross their neck, they perceived it as the breath of a a nature spirit. They perceived reality as filled with these spirits because anthropomorphic perceptualization provided them with an understanding of reality that fit their social nature.
Then later, there was an ideaization of God. As people worked on determining what an ideal human life would be like, they attriuted that kind of life to the gods. As there was a movement toward realizing there can be only one perfect ideal, this lead toward monotheism, at least in Jewish, Christian, Islamic line of religions. Karen Armstrong's book called The Great Transformation is very good at laying out this transformation of Religion.
For most of Human history, before Newtonian science revealed a mechanistic world, atheism as we now know it would have been very hard to conceive. How could the world avoid slipping into chaos without the intellegent guidance of gods continually acting intentionally to keep it organized?
You ask, "What does God do?" Those who have made it through the Great Transformation say God is the ideal, perfect spirit. If God exists, what God does is love spirit, and since God loves spirit, God serves spirit. (By "spirit", I mean all conscious beings who have cares and concerns. In other words, "spirits" are those beings who have the capacity to suffer and the capacity to enjoy).
Comment deleted
inthegarden beyondthecave
inthegarden beyondthecave
I did not mean to suggest that religion is never used as a way of controlling other people. I just meant that I do not think that is the original motive behind religion.
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
"A better question would be what does god do?"
God created all creatures including sky universe material humans animals and all things (unless itself) even time and space and place are created by God. time does not take God (like when you are in sleep dream with no place and time) and controlled and feed and look its creatures.
all the existence depends on God. why you exist? why material exist?
Helen Hupe 30+
Charles Johnson
An atheist would argue that there is no God. An agnostic, only that there is no way to know. Each religion, of course, promotes its own spiritual and mystical knowledge. In Christianity, it is taught that their is a triune God, only one of which may be said to answer the "who" question directly, and God Himself, may be known indirectly as someone who is the Father. The complications become apparent rather quickly.
The question might be better asked: Why is God? There are several more competent to answer that question. Joseph Campbell left us with a body of work that offers many clues. There are many clues in all of the religious texts.
Reading each of the responses in this thread also offers many clues as to the purpose of God in human society.
Personally, my belief requires daily exercise in the rejection of all psychological manifestations of fear. At a very simplistic level, call such manifestations such personal weaknesses that would lead to any of the seven deadly sins. In other words, I seek to discover my purpose, one awareness at a time, and have faith that that purpose flows from a power greater than myself.
Comment deleted
Comment deleted
Comment deleted
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
God is manager and controller of all atoms and electrons to work exact and proper to we can have a life and drink water.
Neil Abelardo Pacheco
we have different definition of God, believers and non-believers.
to the non-believers there definition of God does not exist and sometimes not incline with there lifestyle.that is why they easily jump to a conclusion that there is no God but the truth is there definition of God is unrealistic. (non-believers are good people too, but ofcourse not all. they choose to live a simplified life)
to the believers, not all but some have been mislead to believe in a God whom will give them an easy life and spoon feed them every good things in this world. its like having a child whos at the right age stil does not how to write and read, not knowing the difference between left and right...
(believers are the ones but not all has the difficulty of being a good person, confused because of there expectations and demands)
as long as we acknowledge something good in this world and hold to it, it something that can drive one person to be close to God, to be part of the goodness of God.
Going back to the question Who is God? its like this, God is Angel and the rest of all of us are Demons which is untrue. it just happen that we choose different path to remain a good person.
so the question should not be asking WHO is GOD? but HOW to be close to GOD?
(not in a sense of being close to a specific person but being a better person.)
Finding ways to be a good person not only in a religious way but in a civilized manner too...
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
what is the benefit of being a good person?
for your benefit in life of world or for satisfaction of God?
if for your life OK, no problem. but if for God then are you sure God accept any kind of being good as you like.
for example may you think being homosexual is good. but God does not like it. or other examples.
even does God accept being good without not believing him?
its like a high value cheque with no signature.
is not it better to communicate God before being good and ask him what kind of good he accept?
Tim blackburn 30+
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
"any god exsisitng a part from anything but pure benevolence, is a fake."
I did not understand you.
please explain more.
Colleen Steen 500+
The benefit of being a good person, is that it is pleasurable to the giver and reciever , and at the same time, contributes to the benefit of the whole of humankind.
You have brought "homosexual" into your discussion and stated that "God does not like it". That is prejudice, and meant to harm a certain group of people.
Over and over again S.R. Ahmadi, you are presenting "cheques with no signature" (to use your own words).
dingle mcringleberry
It's perfectly fine to imply logic when it comes to disproving OTHER religions, but once the atheists swing by, people retreat back to their stubborn stance where faith is triumphant over logic and reason.
Faith in god can't be disproven, but faith to an extent that is clearly even to modern theists insanely senseless CAN be disproven?
Because to me, faith in god is just as senseless as faith in the belief that "god" frowns upon homosexuality.
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
"The benefit of being a good person, is that it is pleasurable to the giver and reciever ,"
if we assume the life is limited to this world and death is finish then you are right.
but I disagree this assume.
http://goo.gl/OX89
for having pleasurable life after death we should be the version of Good God really accept. the true version is not necessarily the version we think God accept or or the version church or other reference say) each human himself has the responsibility to find God.
"You have brought "homosexual" into your discussion and stated that "God does not like it". That is prejudice, and meant to harm a certain group of people."
I say according to Koran. but can you prove it is prejudice?
you mean we do not talk because all groups should not be harmed? so a judge should not send people to jail because they will be harmed.
this is talk.
"Over and over again S.R. Ahmadi, you are presenting "cheques with no signature" (to use your own words)."
I do not think I have used this term more than 1 or 2 times.
any way you too can use your own words.
Dear Cole Barnshaw,
"Faith in god can't be disproven, but faith to an extent that is clearly even to modern theists insanely senseless CAN be disproven?"
please explain more. I did not underestand.
dingle mcringleberry
I was not addressing you, I was addressing colleen.
On behalf of atheism, I was stating that it is fine for one religion to bash another religion and use logic to disprove it, but apparently their own faith can;t be disproven with logic. As if they think they are an exception.
I was trying to get this across: Christians typically will say, "faith is all I need". They always say it. So do other religions, but most of my experience in terms of debate in this field is with Christians.
Anyways, they always say that logic can not disprove god because they have faith. Then, they go ahead and attempt to disprove YOUR faith with logic. This is hypocritical.
Neil Abelardo Pacheco
regarding the "homo"-part... ive always believe in this...
Men are Black while Women are White, vice-versa. and the "homos" etc..etc. are the Rainbow-colored type. They're just here to color up the world.
...still sometimes can be a distraction....... well...patience is a virtue...
Colleen Steen 500+
You say you are addressing me? "On behalf of atheism"? That's interesting!
I don't think it is EVER "fine for one religion to bash another religion" for any reason.
What exactly are you trying to say young man?
dingle mcringleberry
Behalf - "for the benefit of"
My point was for the benefit of atheism, I was explaining what I said to s.r
What exactly are you trying to say..?
My point was grammatically correct (weird that I even have to argue that) and it seems to me like you're avoiding what I said.
You criticized many fundamentalist religions when you labeled the belief in god's disapproval of homosexuality as a false principle and stated that it is wrong to believe so.
You were (in my mind) bashing, you were making senseless statements with negative connotation. Maybe not senseless, but at least hypocritical. But the definition of "bashing" has nothing to do with the subject matter.
Rather than exploit any minor detail that you think may be interpreted differently by certain people, how about you post a rebuttal, and show me why it's possible for you to disprove S.R's belief with logic, but it is impossible to disprove Christianity (seems like your a christian) with logic.
I'm curious.
P.S If you criticize me for assuming your a Christian, I will not respond. It's very fair to make that assumption.
This post was conceived due to anger towards the hypocrisy that Christians form when they say things like that.
Unless you are not, in which case I apologize for being so militant.
Colleen Steen 500+
I'm not avoiding anything. I still don't know what you are trying to say.
I have not criticized religion. I didn't "label" anything. As far as I know, one's sexual preference is not connected to any religious belief.
If "bashing" has "nothing to do with the subject matter", why do you label it as such?
No, I am not Christian...perhaps you made a false assumption? If you are curious about something, don't make false assumptions and accusations...ask the question. Perhaps you wouldn't have to be so "militant" to use your word, if you got appropriate information before assuming and accusing.
dingle mcringleberry
Common christian point: Faith can not be proven or disproven by logic.
From what I previously thought, you were a christian who was attempting to disprove S.R's faith in the fact that god did not approve of homosexuality, by using logic ("this belief is prejudice, and is meant to harm certain people").
This made me furious, because I thought you were going back on your belief that faith is beyond logic, by saying that your logic was greater than his faith in god's disapproval of homosexuality.
But the circumstances I assumed were not as I had thought.
My bad.
As for my comment on how the definition of bashing is not related to the subject matter, may I cite myself "you were bashing (in my mind)". I thought this would make myself clear when I say that in my mind it is bashing but the definition of bashing is not a subject of debate here.
Perhaps you are making a false assumption by calling me cole?
My point here being you can not label anything as the 'appropriate information" people take what they see out of context, don't use that against me.
Colleen Steen 500+
I realized from the beginning that your point was not applicable to me. Unfortunately, you did not open your heart and mind to information that might have helped you realize that.
Does it ever occur to you that you may be talking/writing in circles without having all information? Does it occur to you to ask the questions which may give you appropriate information? You are right..."the circumstances you assumed were not as you thought".
You identify yourself as Cole...is it a "false assumption" for me to call you that? If you'd prefer something different, make that known. Be clear with your communications.
dingle mcringleberry
But there's this thing called impulse.
This is ridiculous, I attempted to be diplomatic, but you're telling me to "be clear with my communications" when was just trying to get a point across.
That is such an immature exploitation, it's not even something that can logically be used against my point.
I don't know why but you keep forming more and more angles for this argument to continue.
This doesn't even have anything to do with the original topic. I just wanted to make myself clear to avoid confusion.
I care about this discussion, so I will no longer engage myself in this petty argument,
If you care too, I hope you will do the same.
Colleen Steen 500+
It IS ridiculous...thanks for noticing. You were trying to get a point across, however, your point was based on assumptions and false accusations. That is why I advise you to be clear, based on accurate information. I'm not in any way arguing "your point" because your "point" is very unclear, which is why I'm suggesting that you base your arguments on accurate, appropriate information. Yes, I agree with you that your argument is called "impulse"....as you say...ridiculous!
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
Try to input as much as you output in life, and especially on TED. The way you are arguing, logic seems to be a new word in your developing vocabulary, remember "logic" is a subject and discipline as well as a skill.
Just relax, and try to get into other people's shoes more often when considering spirituality, religion, "God", and belief systems. These topics are interesting and can teach you a lot about humanity.
Wise words: The pleasures of ignorance are as great, in their way, as the pleasures of knowledge. - Aldous Huxley
Genuine ignorance is... profitable because it is likely to be accompanied by humility, curiosity, and open mindedness; whereas ability to repeat catch-phrases, cant terms, familiar propositions, gives the conceit of learning and coats the mind with varnish waterproof to new ideas. - John Dewey
Now people take ignorance the wrong way too often. Ignorance is simply being unaware or lack of knowledge. My point here is, no one knows everything, and when you create certainties, you best look at them from many perspectives as a self practice of understanding.
Just advice, take it for what it is worth.
dingle mcringleberry
Common christian point: Faith can not be proven or disproven by logic.
From what I previously thought, you were a christian who was attempting to disprove S.R's faith in the fact that god did not approve of homosexuality, by using logic ("this belief is prejudice, and is meant to harm certain people").
This made me furious, because I thought you were going back on your belief that faith is beyond logic, by saying that your logic was greater than his faith in god's disapproval of homosexuality."
This was my point until I learned that the circumstances did not fit.
Colleen Steen 500+
How about if you learn what the truth is, before spending so much time arguing something that is not truth?
dingle mcringleberry
Logic is just in my opinion the polar opposite of faith. That's why I say it so much.
But consider this
The reason I'm not inputing much is because ted isn't what I thought it would be, and it frustrates me to see that even people at ted believe in fundamentalist principles.
I can't consider god and religion, because I already have, until the age of 13 I was christian.
And I am cynical, and live by the pessimistic induction.
Holden Caulfield except with a 3.9 basically.
It's my biggest flaw, but also my strength.
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
inthegarden beyondthecave
The true light of prophesy is the Golden Rule. Only with that rule can any of us distinguish between what is true prophesy and mere human confusion about God.
You cannot understand what someone else is saying until you are willing to understand what they are saying from their perspective. Consequenbtly, you cannot really understand what God is trying to convey to you by giving you this life until you are willing to submit to the principle that defines God's nature: the Golden Rule. God never does to others what God would not do to God's self, because what God does to others, God does to God's self.
For God, there is no distance between God and others. While we are each ignorant of what others feel, God has no such ignorance. For us, that ignorance is what defines the boundaries of our "self" that separate us from others. God's self has no such boundary because God has no such ignroance of others. God loves others as God love's God's self because, through God's omniscience, the others are always experienced by God as being part of God's self.
Only when you are truly willing to submit to the will of God (which is summarized by the Golden Rule) will you be able to begin to distinguish true prophecy from false prophesy.
True prophets do not say "This is true because it is in this book". Rather they say "This seems to be true because it seems to me that believing this is what is required by the golden rule." They leave open the possibility that future experience will show that the Golden Rule requires something else.
Your view looks like a prejudice based on an unwillingnes to submit to God's will: the Golden Rule. Engaging in a power struggle in which conflicting groups each claim to have the better book is probably not God's will. The golden rule would seem to offer a better way: Reason.
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
you are very clever.
people talk me from other side of earth by their own Image of God and religion before understand what I mean by God or religion.
inthegarden beyondthecave
I am sorry if I have been unfair. I have perhaps a little more awareness of the Koran than the average person in my country, but I still know very little. Nevertheless I do have some considerable experience with listening to people who believe their book has no errors within it.
I do not believe I am clever in the sense sometimes used to attack someone as being capable of manipulating words but uninterested in the truth. Getting at the truth of the questions we are discussing is my sincere wish.
I did not like the unconditioned assertion you made that God does not like homosexuality. Such assertions shbould not be made lightly. I know good people who are hurt by this kind of comment. We know that thoughtless, mean, and violent people will use your kind of comment to justify cruel, unfair, and/or violent behavior. In my experience, this is the kind of fruit that results from a religiousness that takes an ancient book, rather than goodness of spirit guided by something like the golden rule, as the ultimate guide to what is right or desired by God.
Ancient books have much to teach us, but only if we can read them as a mixture of insight and error. The Golden Rule, affirmed by both the Bible and the Koran does not only allow us to judge between right and wrong, it morally obligates us to do so. Any approach to ancient books that prohibits us from following that dictate of the Golden Rule when it comes to evaluating alleged prophesy is at odds with that very principle that both the Bible and the Koran affirm.
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
"I did not like the unconditioned assertion you made that God does not like homosexuality. "
you can like or dislike any thing. you have free will.
but Koran clearly disagree homosexuality. and a nation called "loot nation" all were killed by a disaster because they left their women and become homosexual. the story is clear in Koran and also Islamic law has banned homosexuality.
please distinguish between Koran and Bible. the today Bible and today Koran have mane many differences and can not be compared. original Bible (what Jesus (PBUH) himself said) is not available today.
Bran Corvus
That is god for me
Michelle Huertas
I don't know about religion, I wasn't raised on religion I don't believe there is a big man in the sky. As long as I walk through life treating others the way I would want to be treated...be a good person and raise my kids the same way...raise them to have love and compassion...to get a good education and to be productive members of society... I KNOW I will be okay without religion.
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
David Smith
God would be the force of nature. Many people and religions have called God many different things, but it all boils down to the same idea that collectively, we belong to the same beginning. Whether or not a God is sentient is the true question; since who "God" is could be as simple as the laws of physics.
suman aryal
E G 10+
Tim blackburn 30+
Tim Colgan 50+
inthegarden beyondthecave
The
Good,
The ground of reason,
Defines our one and only path
To wisdom, knowledge, truth, perpetual peace, and life.
The good is known provisionally, and only very partially,
Through all our careful applications of The Golden Rule
To our so very incomplete experience of being spirit.
But, this is our only knowledge of what is right,
And so this best but partial knowledge should
Determine what should count for now,
Both generally and in specific cases,
As reason or the methods of science
And of reason’s other progeny,
Or what a word should mean,
(Generally or in a context)
Like “justice”, “truth”,
“Equality”, or “know”
Or “I” or even “is”.
Nidal Prasovic
I wish to have an ultimate theory
(or God, or prime mover, or whatever)
that explains or covers everything,
then it should cover everything.
You know?
If God is good, how can he/she be
a God if he/she doesn't encompass
bad? Or evil? Even of the worst kind?
I he/she is being which thinks, shouldn't
he/she be able to "think" thoughts of
rocks? Atoms? Cows? Dogs?
You know?
Shouldn't he/she be able to BE a dog?
If it is energy, how matter comes
into picture? Is it not part of God
too? If my theory explains observable
how does it cope with unobservable?
If true "nothing" doesn't exist, where
am I getting the idea of it?
Shouldn't my God be at least slightly mad?
When someone asks something like
"is Big Bang real?", "who is God?",
"is there this God and where is he or she?",
"is it really truth that there is
nothing but energy and space?",
looking back at the path I traveled so far,
all I can do is smile.
Words are powerful, young Jedi,
but they are not that powerful.
That is what I think.
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
Helen Hupe 30+
You speak as if you were an oracle by saying that God is a delusion......Until you can offer me better rea
sons than you have so far I won't accept your pronouncements.