This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Can God be defined?
I find that after debating with many people, many don't have a definition of what "God" is. (For even when you go to a church many people have different definitions ; and not many have a "shared definition".) And I find that many people only list Gods, but (and correct me if I am wrong) that listing gods is just like listing various variations of Meats or dogs, you still haven't told me what a "dog" or a "meat" is! Or for that matter : What "God" is!
Also on the same matter, I am genially interested, what is the definition of "existence"?
Because these two issues are vital to the debate : "Does God exist?"
And I hope this question will be taken in good spirit, and that no offence is taken.
Strongly recommend you join my debate on this ( Can we ever design an experiment which can determine whether God exist or not?) on this link : http://www.ted.com/conversations/17451/can_we_ever_design_an_experime.html
Many thanks. (SORRY TO SPAM IT TO EVERYBODY ON THIS DEBATE, JUST THOUGHT THAT YOU COULD ALL PUT SOME VALUABLE INPUT INTO THIS DISCUSSION!!!)
Closing Statement from Bernard White
God mostly only have subjective definitions. (And very few have a "shared (objective) definition" of what "God" is!) And usually reflects the moral code of that individual! (And the society's values).
Yet God does hold many mystical properties, and is sometimes defined as emotions such as "Love", which is dependent on the human mind and relies in all of us.
While others choose to define God as being more of a "Personal God", which is external (independent) to the body, A God of intervention.
And other choose to define God as a more of a Impersonal God, one of pure logic and maths. (If I can say that!)
However I will not comment much more, due to the fact that I have a feeling I would not do a good job of it!
This is my closing comment. :D
Hope you liked it!
Chris Kelly 20+
So what is love?
We tend to think we experience love as an emotion. That which we experience as the emotion of love is actually the force of magnetism. We experience various degrees of magnetism ... as we 'love' our parents, partner and children to different degrees.
This is not the love of God, as magnetism changes, while the energy of love is constant. God is love without the conditions we use to define it; without the 'emotions' we associate it with.
Remove the human desire, and the rest is the pure, unadulterated energy of love.
If you understand that a wave, once observed, becomes a point, you can understand that God is the wave ... once it is 'observed' or 'defined', it's no longer the 'just' a wave, but becomes a point; matter; something observable. It now 'exists' within said point, but once 'becoming', it evolves to something beyond its omnificent self.
This is why God is the ineffable source (of every 'thing' we can observe), because once we define it, it becomes something else. Once observed/defined, it's a creation, not the creator. Once it "exists", it's no longer "God".
The way to source a creator is through its creation ... thus, to find God, we must look within. Beyond our ego, beyond our desires, beyond our intellectual level of mind ... once we get our 'selves' out of the way, we find God.
We may never adequately 'define' God, but we are certainly able to find God.
Bernard White 10+
I wonder how you would respond.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
What drives evolution? Survival. Can the concept of "survival" be separated from the concept of "existence"?
I could expand on this, but, I think those who spent some time thinking about it (and the meaning of symbols like "the kingdom of heaven is within", "life through death", virgin birth - without a physical father) understand what I mean.
Bernard White 10+
:D
I suppose if God was a tautology then it would be solved, and God probably would exist.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
Chris Kelly 20+
The "virgin birth" doesn't mean "without a physical father", nor does it have anything to do with PHYSICAL virginity. It had nothing to do with an intact hymen.
The savior myths are tales of SPIRITUALITY, and the virgin birth takes place when the mother is spiritually chaste.
All these myths are compilations of profound messages told in a 'story' format using an archetypal symbol we can relate to, but they are stories to be understood for their correspondences, more than the fundamental story itself.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
Red color often symbolizes blood on flags of many countries and the flags are often said to be "red with blood of the heroes" who fought for whatever ideals of that particular country - same kind of metaphor.
Usually, people are born from a biological father who is "like myself", but "not myself" - a distinct and different human being. I guess, metaphor of virgin birth conveys the idea that divinity does not come from "something else", distinct from itself.
In the same way, logic can show how the truth of one statement follows from the truth of another statement. But logic cannot validate itself, much like science cannot tell us what constitutes a scientific theory. Logic, science, and Bible are much like the sentence "this statement is true" - take it or leave it, and live with the implications.
These references to "self" are impossible to explain without absurdity. So, if what I write doesn't make sense, I can understand. It's the same "take it or leave it" kind of deal :-).
osman yılmaz
Gabriela Nogueira
My personal opinion about God is that you can't see Him with your eyes or prove scientifically. You just believe, and if you believe, because your heart tells you to do this. Your heart just needs something bigger to believe, something beyond reason. I really don't know what God is, and I think nobody knows. But, for me, God can be everything and He can be everywhere.
Peter Law 30+
You have to be specific when you speak of God. A new car can be a God, a new baby can be a God, in this generation, money is certainly a God. Your God is whatever you devote your time & resources to. Many follow the Hebrew God of the bible; myself included, but mR. Dawkins et al would presumably elevate Mr. Darwin to a higher plane.
I guess what you are really after is a definition of the biblical God of the Old & New Testaments, but you can't be bothered to study them for yourself. I can admire your honesty, many people get their idea of God from Athiest websites & naturally go a bit off course.
I can only give you my personal understanding of God; it will be hopelessly flawed as human beings are hopelessly flawed. But since you ask.....
God is an infinite spiritual being. He is infinite in presence, power, understanding, &, thankfully for us, in love. He created the universe in order to have children. He came to earth in human form to show his love for us, & was raised up as a superhuman in order to give us a glimpse of our potential, if we just trust him. True to form, we killed him & told him to go away. It doesn't have to be like that. He loves us, we are his children.
That's what my God is like, how about yours ?
:-)
Bernard White 10+
I prefer listening to people's opinions ( and perspectives rather than just looking it up on the Internet, and then anchor myself to one perception! :D).
What would my definition of God be, it would probably be a sight pantheistic / deist God, (I'll give it a try) :
"A faceless impersonal face that is directly responsible of the organisation of cosmic matter, and governs the universe (through simplicity and maths?)"
Yet many accuse me of semantics when I tell them this I my definition of God, if I had to make one.
Wile you make some very good + interesting points!
Does this suffice for you? :D
And I suppose all Gods have immense power, just a thought! :P so Darwin was powerful, because he created the theory of evolution.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
One as a supernatural being, creator etc.
Secondly as a metaphor for what you focus your life on is you don't focus on the god above. So my god is loving and caring for family and friends, and broader humanity to a lesser extent, and learning, hopefully improving, to have a full and happy contributing life.
I'm not sure why he assumes the discussion refers to an envangelical christian god.
The next question might be to definer what a spirit being or spirit or spirit realm is. Is it made of spiritual atoms. Its just an extension of the speculative realm we really have no idea about, with nothing testable, and consequently many contradictory positions.
Chris Kelly 20+
Au contraire! There are plenty of ways for a human being to access and therefore "test" various spiritual realms.
"Seek and ye shall find."
Peter Law 30+
Your view of God is reasonable if you look at the wonders of nature & deduce the need for an intelligent creator.
My perspective is based on yours plus a trust in the person of Jesus Christ as encapsulated in the bible. We all have to follow where the evidence leads.
Hi Obey.
We can only speculate on spiritual atoms. My view is that there are no atoms, or at least no mass, involved. This would remove the effects of time as my understanding is that time needs mass to operate. So eternity would make some sort of sense. This needs faith, but no more than Dark Matter etc. which we have to infer to fit our understanding.
:-)
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
I think, when one speaks of God as something specific, especially, material, it's idolatry. Atheists are quite correct when they point out that God can't be found in nature - whatever we look at is not God. That's the whole idea. Religions also prohibit idolatry - making gods out of material things. There is no contradiction here.
Chris Kelly 20+
I quite disagree.
If we could not make Gods out of material things, there would be no point in our having incarnated our souls to this Earthly realm.
Indeed, it is ONLY through our materialistic form that we are able to evolve our soul and ascend to the next kingdom of evolution.
Some know it as "Christ consciousness".
Christians know it as 'resurrection'.
Hindus know it as 'the rainbow body'.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
Pabitra Mukhopadhyay 30+
Bernard White 10+
Yet I must admit, all this discussion doesn't have much piratical purpose. (If that is why you don't like the 'God' question anymore.)
Also if you don't mind me asking, why post this comment (without explanation as to why you don't feel interested in the 'God' conversation!) on a TED conversation about 'God'? :P Seems rather odd to me, no offence intended ofcouse. :)
Pabitra Mukhopadhyay 30+
If it looks odd to you, I am undone. No offense taken. :)
Cheers!
Chris Kelly 20+
Yet, you felt compelled to comment. Curious.
Don Wesley 50+
If Science suggests that Dark-Matter must exist, and we now find, that it doesn't;
why can’t we say God exists, but can’t explain, what and how he does whatever he does.
Conversations like these, sound like a waste of time and meaningless. [Ecclesiastes]
Let us just get busy and make this present world more just, more beautiful; and more helpful to those who are suffering.
Talk about boring conversations; I off to find something worthwhile doing for humanity.
Is there an afterlife? (FULL DEBATE)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbzd6ZbCowY&feature=youtu.be
Obey No1kinobe 50+
I'm not sure we have sufficient evidence to say any does exist.
Science is a process that keeps improving our knowledge. The edges are speculative as and any part may be replaced if a better explanation is found.
Just like we have replaced gods of thunder, the sun, disease and famine causing gods with natural explanations.
The conversation is optional. I think we can discuss these ideas and still find time to make a positive impact.
Don Wesley 50+
Like the big one Cern has just realized.
Bye.
Avi Dey
But "Nature vs Nurture" debate continues today as it has over the last two centuries particularly among scentists and scholars of all cultural and spiritual heritage of humanity.
FNU Sheany
Additionally, I feel like after a certain point in life you just realize that it is not important if you can define God, and you no longer questions his existence because something inexplicable has grown within yourself. and that we look into ourselves to find the answers rather than elsewhere. I hope that makes sense, and I apologize if my response is a bit off-topic somehow. Thanks for bringing this argument up.
Jordan Burrill
I understand what you mean. We and It become 'entangled'. It becomes difficult (and unimportant) to try to figure out where It ends and we begin. And that is what It and we really want!
Cheers'
Jordan
Nunya Byznes
Bernard White 10+
And that we can not imagine anything too "powerful" (ect..).
Playing Devil's Advocate what would you say to "Christian" or "Muslims" who define God as the "eternal all powerful creator, who governs our universe". They have come up with a pretty good definition of their God.
Nunya Byznes
Bernard White 10+
Playing Devil Advocate (again :P), you could say God's power was limited, and that "why does God have to be "all powerful". For I feel that you may be going along the same lines of the ontological argument, which I would probably disagree with. (But I won't go into reason why, until you say whether you believe the ontological argument or not!)
Nunya Byznes
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Are you suggesting we imagine something beyond our ability to define, or define it as something limited by definition. That's kind of a definition.
Could this just be our brains labelling aspects of life and the universe we find it hard to comprehend god, and personifying it?
Nunya Byznes
I would say that the view that essentially holds God as a catchall for things we do not understand is the product of placing none higher than man himself and predicated on the denial of events of [benevolent] Divine revelation. To the former I would say that simply because man is far and away on a higher intellectual plane than what we know is a narrow view, far narrower than the earthcentric view of those opposed to Galileo. To the latter, I would ask how it is that the Faith has endured for so long?
Obey No1kinobe 50+
What binds electrons to atoms? Electromagnetic force.
Quarks, well I don't know enough about them, but why not natural forces?
Im not assuming gods or more intelligent aliens dont exist. I'm just saying we don't have compelling evidence for their existence.
Do you think the existence of a god or goddesses are proven reasonably?
Nunya Byznes
As to compelling evidence of the existence of God, I believe that the foregoing and my preceding cover that. Perhaps not to your satisfacion, but it is good start. I think the more burdensome proposition is in disbelief.
To believe in the big bang / evolutionary theory with no underlying purpose for any life at all is hard put to justify itself; and aliens still will not answer pupose nor the any-matter-coming-from-nothing shortcoming (where did aliens come from?). Believe or disbelieve---that is the question put to every one of us. From what I know and have experienced, belief in (and more importantly, submission to) God is the far more reasonable conclusion.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
How did this god do that.
Magic?
Where did this god come from?
You just move the questions about the physical universe back to questions about practically non existent god.
I don't really get it nunya, how answering a mystery with an even greater mystery actually helps explain anything. How does saying god did it plug a gap in our knowledge when you don't know anything concrete about this god, how it came to exist, and how it made the universe?
osman yılmaz
sharmin shanur
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Not knowing where trees came from is not a sound argument for the existence of gods.
Seems like we can imagine something as being unimaginable, and that it interacts with us and cares what we eat and how we treat slaves.
Bernard White 10+
Can we? :p. Please explain. I find this hard to accept.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
What does all powerful really mean?
What does omni present mean?
Like infinity these are hard for humans to comprehend?
It practical terms it just means theists can use this god to explain anything they want as it can do anything, even create a universe that looks 13 billion years old, 6000 years ago.
Nothingness, what is outside of our universe, and the infinite, and the quantum are concepts our poor brains have not really evolved to deal with.
Im just suggesting some theists define god as something we can not comprehend properly, beyond our ability to understand, that we can not imagine it in detail, as any thing we imagine in detail puts limits on it.
Then some of them suggest this limitless thing cares about what we eat, wear, and whether we have foreskins. It is kind of odd. The limitless being defined a million different ways by different people and cultures.
sharmin shanur
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Maybe humans evolved via natural processes and imagine gods, demons, nature spirits, elves, trolls, fairies etc.
Jordan Burrill
I was just thinking, the Monroe Institute has other shorter and less involved programs you could also consider - seriously.
(I take on students, but it is a more intensive year-long workshop. I charge the price I do to get folks to really invest in it and to discourage New Age groovers who go from one workshop to another - never do the work, just feel good, cool and hip.)
But, if you ever want any ideas or experiential tips from me - just ask.
cheers!
Jordan
Bernard White 10+
(Hope this doesn't sound patronizing, was not my intent!)
Jordan Burrill
No, you're not patronizing at all, I do admit to being a bit of a bumbler from time to time - It's my super power! :D. But, did you mean I need to press it a second time, after hitting the "Submit" button?
Your Fuddling Friend,
Jordan
mary ellen johnson
Jordan Burrill
I think your definition is perfect. But I also believe we can flesh it out a little with additional experiences. There are groups, teachers, workshops and organizations that specialize in helping folks who've had an NDE (such as your experience seems to have been), and use that experience as a spring-board into Devine-level OBE explorations. I know how it feels to have a multi-dimensional experience that is as, or more concretely real as every day 'physical' life experience - and not have the words to really communicate the experience to anyone else. My personal experience is that as I have more and more of these experiences, that I can begin adding detail to my definition of 'god'. (I don't even really like the word 'God'. Too limiting, politically and emotionally loaded). We can also begin building a more experientially-based model or picture of life or reality, as well. (If you want, you can checkout my personal experiences at TrueAscensionLLC.com)
I can't help but think of an intervue I saw a long time ago with the founder of Analytical Psychology, Carl Jung. He was asked 'do you belive in God?' Jung thought for a moment and then said; "No, ... I don't believe in God, I know!" His sense of 'knowing' was precipitated by a massive heart attach and a full-blown NDE so concrete that his analysis of it was that it was real - not a hallucination.
May I ask you to consider personal exploration / evidence-gathering for yourself. Years ago, I participated in a version of the Monroe Institute's "Gateway" program. It was very fruitful to my personal development. In fact, I still use many of the tools/skills I learned and pass them on to others. I feel that our belief systems can be organic and grow as we do.
Best Wishes,
Jordan
Bernard White 10+
Can we ever design an experiment which can determine whether God exist or not? on this link : http://www.ted.com/conversations/17451/can_we_ever_design_an_experime.html
I will give this reply more consideration later.
Jordan Burrill
Sounds very interesting I'm going to chech it out now - thanks!
cheers,
jordan
mary ellen johnson
It is a highly personal conversation that plays in ones mind. On one single occasion, I shared my story of God talking to me while I was in a coma. The general consensus of the small group was essentially that it was me talking to me, my subconscious comforting me. I simply nodded for how in the world would I explain or prove my experience to truly be the voice of God? Would it matter to this group that I had fearlessly questioned this experience open to the possibility they were correct? No. I innately knew It was God. My personal definition of God is unconditional Love.
Bernard White 10+
While yes I do agree with you, definitions of God are mostly subjective.
Strongly recommend you join my debate on this ( Can we ever design an experiment which can determine whether God exist or not?) on this link : http://www.ted.com/conversations/17451/can_we_ever_design_an_experime.html
Many thanks.
(Sorry to spam)
mouad mazari
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Chris Kelly 20+
This is why God is referred to as a "He" and called the "Father".
The idea of "one" true God comes from this point; it's like saying there is one true water ... yet we know many types ... rivers, seas, oceans, and different forms (steam, liquid, ice) ... but it's still ONE water.
Each of us ... every human being on earth ... has a small essence of the spirit of God within us. It is upon us to choose whether to grow it or ignore it. To observe it is to make it real.
Wave/point.
mouad mazari
Obey No1kinobe 50+
No, that's about it.
Bernard White 10+
But doesn't that take the meaning out of the word "God" completely?
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Bernard White 10+
Therefore (and correct me if I am wrong) you can't really discuss whether it "exists" or not.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
If people define as much as they can about what they believe god is, or the gods and goddesses.
I guess monotheism may be relatively new, the last 3000 or so years, out of 100,000 to 200,000 years of homo sapiens, so perhaps we don't leave out polytheists or nature spirits etc,.
Bernard White 10+
I mean to have a meaningful conversation about whether "Santa" exists or not you would probably have to have a shared definition. I hope this makes sense, therefore it is not up to the believe (as is commonly said) to define what Santa is. Both the unbeliever and the belier need to know what "Santa" is.
I mean the unbeliever in "Einstein theory of relativity" would probably need to know what the theory actually was, and provide evidence that it is wrong, just like the believer needs to provide some degree of evidence to claim that it is most probable / true. (With scientific principles that is).
Kind regards Bernard. :-)
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Bernard White 10+
Many thanks.
Jordan Burrill
I've popped over here from the food fight over the censorship of talks by Sheldrake and Hancock (whom I respect as valid, important researchers). Let's see how this goes... As I understand it, the question is "Can God be defined or What is it?
In my personal experience, something has to be observed or experienced - long before it can be defined. The larger or more complex it is, the more time, effort, critical evaluation and patience it will require to even begin to define It.
For the last twenty or so years, I've become uncomfortable with the word God. First, because of the temptation to anthropormorphize It. Second, well ... look at world history. "God" has been a convenient excuse for countless atrocities commited by us 'talking monkeys'. Definitions are guesses or rationalizations if they are not discriptions of experiences. So, it is reasonalbe to expect any definition of It to expand, as experience with It grows.
I decided to set aside my religious beliefs (model of 'Reality') over twenty years ago because of inconsistancies between it and what I had begun to observe and experience in my life.
I've set up tools for myself, to critique my interpretation of experiences, ideas and research findings. It's very important to have tools to root-out wishful thinking, self-deception and unconscious motivations - otherwise ...we can go down the 'rabbit hole', not to return (see: George Price, Mathematician/Geneticist)!
Here is one; Imagine a bar graph. One end has folks who choose ideas for their model of reality based on what makes them 'feel' safe, secure or gives them feelings of status. At the other end of our graph are those folks who really, really want to know what is what - regardless of where it leads. Most of us are somewhere on this graph I call "the Spectrum of Belief". It is a tough slogg to set aside cherished beliefs and build a new model based on critiqued, experiencial evidence. I know this.
Jordan
TrueAscensionLLC.com
Daniel Matlock
So many people can't easily step into the "I am not and will never be sure" position. For trying to define God, I see it as the first step. So many people very quickly and very loudly get on the wrong path just because of this issue.
Also, I read in your comments an inherent respect for others opinions. You don't instantly trash other beliefs. Very refreshing.
One thing I would comment on though is that, while your goals and motivations work for you, it doesn't have to apply to all other people. I see very different ideas in these posts. That is great. But so many take the vain of " if you are religious you are deluded". Not everyone is up to deep philosophical existential challenges. I don't see the problem letting others chose their path.
Jordan Burrill
Whew, this conversation area appeared to be pretty dead. I was beginning to wonder if 'god' was as dead here as Schrodinger's cat! I agree with you. Someone could well use the same tools that I use and come to different conclusions, A different model, etc. And is just fine! That is why I believe the early existentialists - ('existence precedes essence'), had a good starting point. 'Here I am, so what the hell does it all mean?' For me, the important thing is to take personal responsibility for what information (or "puzzle pieces", as you nicely put it), that I choose to to include in my 'present' model, by using enough introspection to critique those descisions, as to my real motives (feelings of security or pieces that really fit?). This is of course,always easier than it sounds. It can be a tough slogg, involving well - a life time of work.
Speaking of a life time, perhaps this is a large part of why we are here - it certainly isn't my idea of a great vacation spot! It's like a boot camp!
I do believe that any effort at a 'definition' or model of what I will call 'The Great Center of All Being' should be organic and grow as we do. My wife had the inspired good sense to actually ask It what or how It would like to be addressed. I wish that I had had the smarts to do this! The powerful and affirmative answer she got - immediately was "The One". Seems It can define Itself, thankyou very much :)!
As this little example shows, I am clearly 'not the sharpest knife in the draw'! But, that just has to be o:k. If It really likes me as much as It tells me It does, I guess that should really be enough for my self-esteem. Now, to try to live this out!
This leads me to my last thought for today. I do quite alot of reading in the areas of psi functoning, conscious research, NDEs, etc. by emminent physicists, clinical psychologist and explorers who have degrees coming out of their ears. Still, as is often said; 'experience is the best teacher'.
Cheers!
Jordan
Etienne Vernier
Mike Miller
Etienne Vernier
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Went to Buddhist temples, funerals, watched them pray and make offerings.
The scriptures, the teachings, the belief in spirits and the afterlife.
I guess some even believe in gods, just that they are not key to escaping the cycle of reincarnation and suffering.
Also Buddha and the Bohisatta are about as close to being gods as you can get without being born a god.
The culture was also infused with brahamanism and other spiritual beliefs all overlaping
I suggest it is perhaps a bit Western Centric not to consider Buddhism a type of religion.
Etienne Vernier
Ed Schulte 50+
It is not a "religion" and a as you futher point too it is a "Philosophy" ....but lets add ...it can...by intervention by the human ego, be turned into a "Religion"
The same applies to that which is called "Christianity" ..the word Christ doesn't refer to a person or Personality ...it is derived for the Greek "Christos" which then meant a Principle ( very similar to Philosophy )
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Religion is an organized collection of belief systems, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral value.
Buddhism is a religion by this definition.
It's also another man (as in male) made religion and sexist in practice. I wonder if the Dalai Lama will ever be reincarnated as a female. Although some teachings resonate with me. People trying to makes sense of life.
Nathan Cook
Grace Greene 10+
If God were human, he would be called a sociopath and kept away from society. But he is God, so he is worshiped by the sheeple who are afraid to refuse to do so.
God is a cruel sadist who loves to hear screams of torment - as demonstrated by his willingness to throw unbelievers in hell. As humankind has been around a long time, and as Christianity is in great decline, the number of people writhing and screaming in tormented pain is growing at a rapid clip. As God is omniscient, "He" is well aware of the suffering and screams, and as more and more are going to hell, the volume is increasing. God is also omnipotent, so "He" has the power to close down Hell, relieve the suffering, silence the screams, and blot out the memory of the torment of "His" victims. But "He" chooses not to. "He" appears to enjoy watching and listening to suffering. He is also a misogynist. His hatred of women is especially pronounced.
Any description of God must include this documented description. As many who are afraid of Hell worship the tyrant and are ashamed of doing so, they pretend that God is something other than the monster that the Bible describes. They do this in order to block out their conscience that tells them how wrong this is - all in the name of survival - so they can live with themselves. This is where disagreement about God comes into play - even in a single church. But if you speak of God (as opposed to Thor or Mithra or Pele, etc.), "His" own book describes "Him" well enough.
Good thing "He" doesn't exist.
Consciousness exists though. Consciousness is not God, though it is much more than a brain in a body.
Bernard White 10+
Then what are the Greek Gods? (+ Egyptian, Norse, Roman Ancient Gods ect...)
Are they are just "pretenders" (/ not Gods) due to them not being the "character described in the Bible"?
Or do you have a different definition for them? Please tell me if I have misunderstood your position. :)
Because going by the Christian definition you have posed, the Egyptian Gods seem very different. (I might be wrong on this!) While not all Gods do promise an after life of punishment if they go against them. I mean there are many religions where they believe only in a positive after life, but it is interesting to note that you view this is a requirement. So if I was to pose a hypothetical scenario, of a being of extreme power who was the original creator and sent everybody to heaven afterwards, I am assuming by your definition then this wouldn't be a "God"? (Is this right?)
Would be interested to see your response.
While I feel that you are putting "God" (from your definition of an egocentric (/narcissistic), psychopathic being which has extreme power :p) in a slightly bad light. Even though I would be inclined to agree with you.
However it is interested how some can view the same "God" you are describing as a saviour and light bringer, and view that "only God would know what is good" (So in that sense a prejudice against "non-believers" may be good), and that maybe "Gods utility is the only one which matters!". Just a few thoughts.
With your last point, it would help me if you could define "Consciousness" and "existence" and "real". Because I don't think it is logical to assume that just because you are self- aware then you real (/exist). (You could be a computer program and ticked into believing you are self-aware, and yet not really be "real", in the sense most people use the word.) I could be very wrong on this though!
While also how do you know :
1. That the external world is real? (/exist?)
2. That other people are real? (/exist?)
Don Wesley 50+
It is definitions like you are suggesting that give religion a bad name.
Don Wesley
Nathan Cook
Bernard White 10+
Is it "Daniel Matlock"?
Because I am not sure he will get the notification, unless you "reply" it to him. :)
Nathan Cook
Daniel Matlock
And I am also a rookie! And I hope that I am not upsetting everyone.
Bernard White 10+
Strongly recommend you join my debate on this ( Can we ever design an experiment which can determine whether God exist or not?) on this link : http://www.ted.com/conversations/17451/can_we_ever_design_an_experime.html
Many thanks.
Nathan Cook
Bernard White 10+
I'm not sure there can be a "spirit /soul" without a God.
I think I may be wrong on this, but I have heard people say this.
Would be interested in your opinion!
Also, a slight side question, Do you believe in an "afterlife"? Because there "could" still be an afterlife without a God....
Nathan Cook
Core beliefs i hold dear.
Grace Greene 10+
Spiritualists are a group who communicate messages from the deceased in their religious services.
You may be interested in knowing that of those aged 18-24, LESS THAN ONE PERCENT have a Biblical worldview and most call themselves spiritual. The older the population, the greater the belief in the Biblical God.
I consider myself spiritual even though I am an atheist. I believe in the eternal validity of my (and your) soul. I have a god-concept equivalent, but it is not God.
Nathan Cook
Mike Miller
Etienne Vernier
Grace Greene 10+
If God were human, he would be called a sociopath and kept away from society. But he is God, so he is worshiped by the sheeple who are afraid to refuse to do so.
God is a cruel sadist who loves to hear screams of torment - as demonstrated by his eagerness to throw unbelievers in hell. As humankind has been around a long time, and as Christianity is in great decline, the number of people writhing and screaming in tormented pain is growing at a rapid clip. As God is omniscient, "He" is well aware of the suffering and screams, and as more and more are going to hell, the volume is increasing. God is also omnipotent, so "He" has the power to close Hell, relieve the suffering, silence the screams, and blot out the memory of the torment of "His" victims. But "He" chooses not to. "He" appears to enjoy watching and listening to suffering. He is also a misogynist. His hatred of women is especially pronounced.
Any description of God must include this documented description. As many worship the tyrant and are ashamed of doing so because they are afraid of Hell, they pretend that God is something other than the terrorist that the Bible describes. This is where disagreement about God comes into play. But if you speak of God (as opposed to Thor or Odin or Pele, etc.), "His" own book describes "Him" well enough.
Good thing "He" doesn't exist.
Consciousness exists though. Consciousness is not God, though it is much more than a brain in a body.
Nathan Cook
Bernard White 10+
But doesn't this mean all the "Gods" like Thor, Odin, Pele, Zeus, Jupiter aren't Gods because they don't fit the Christian definition of a God very well. (they are not all powerful, all knowing, and all loving, know you might not think the Christian God is loving!)
Bernard White 10+
Strongly recommend you join my debate on this ( Can we ever design an experiment which can determine whether God exist or not?) on this link : http://www.ted.com/conversations/17451/can_we_ever_design_an_experime.html
Many thanks.
Nathan Cook
Grace Greene 10+
Nathan Cook