God defined.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-12-2014, 11:30 AM
RE: God defined.
(28-12-2014 09:27 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(28-12-2014 09:12 AM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  I think she likes to consider the feelings of her water. She doesn't want to offend it. A sexy but moronic god.

Blasphemer! Nothing need be known about the Gwynnies beyond her being sweet and adorable and promoting love. Those vibrations are a simplistic expression of joy at the emotional level, as attested to by their popular misconception.

Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2014, 11:39 AM
RE: God defined.
(28-12-2014 09:34 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  ...
The separation between god and religion occurs at the level of naive theology. Mass control can only be exerted over an extant paradigm.

Huh

What I said earlier... I take it back.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2014, 11:44 AM
RE: God defined.
(28-12-2014 06:41 AM)gofish! Wrote:  Quick question: are we trying to define god as the theists would (a god hypothesis) or as a social phenomenon?

EIther is problematic. for example, there are so many different interpretations of god even within single religions (let alone different religions) that you risk setting up a strawman or, at best, a definition that any one religious sect could find fault.

Defining it as a social phenomenon might be difficult too, seeing as it would involve considerable archeological research, which is always vulnerable to lack of historical records.

That said, surely the latter would be more useful, given that it could provide an explanation for relgious behaviour?

After all, I see little point in trying to further refine the definition for something that does not exist outside of the human mind.

My answer to your first question is neither. Rather, it is an attempt to reduce all concepts of God, spiritual forces, etc. to a meaningful construct. The possible existence of all such "functional powers" are testable by scientific methods. True their non-existence can never be proven conclusively, just as we can never prove the existence of irrational numbers.

Their existence, however, can be given a probability rating according to inductive reasoning. If it can be demonstrated that the existence of such a force has never been validated, there is a very high probability that such a force does not exist.

At the same time, we must remain open to the "possible" existence of such a force.

If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities.--Voltaire.

"To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." --Thomas Paine.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2014, 11:48 AM
RE: God defined.
(28-12-2014 09:27 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(28-12-2014 09:12 AM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  I think she likes to consider the feelings of her water. She doesn't want to offend it. A sexy but moronic god.

Blasphemer! Nothing need be known about the Gwynnies beyond her being sweet and adorable and promoting love. Those vibrations are a simplistic expression of joy at the emotional level, as attested to by their popular misconception.

I feel the vibrations when I look at her.

If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities.--Voltaire.

"To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." --Thomas Paine.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2014, 12:01 PM
RE: God defined.
(28-12-2014 11:44 AM)666wannabe Wrote:  My answer to your first question is neither. Rather, it is an attempt to reduce all concepts of God, spiritual forces, etc. to a meaningful construct. The possible existence of all such "functional powers" are testable by scientific methods. True their non-existence can never be proven conclusively, just as we can never prove the existence of irrational numbers.

I'd quibble that you really agree with option 1, otherwise what other frame of reference would you use? Your own? Would you not look for some commin themes across religions?

(28-12-2014 11:44 AM)666wannabe Wrote:  There existence, however, can be given a probability rating according to inductive reasoning. If it can be demonstrated that the existence of such a force has never been validated, there is a very high probability that such a force does not exist.

At the same time, we must remain open to the "possible" existence of such a force.

Assuming you agree with my premise above, do you propose a "lowest common denominator" approach (i.e. simple deism) or a full-on theist approach?

"I don't mind being wrong...it's a time I get to learn something new..."
Me.
N.B: I routinely make edits to posts to correct grammar or spelling, or to restate a point more clearly. I only notify edits if they materially change meaning.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2014, 02:07 PM
RE: God defined.
(28-12-2014 11:16 AM)666wannabe Wrote:  
(28-12-2014 06:32 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Worship Slaves

I've been on TTA for nearly three years. In the beginning my mind was the void and HoC's posts were inexplicable mysteries.

No longer.

But I wonder ... how many more years before I reach his level of enlightenment?

Blush

Evolution is a very slow process, my child.

But it's clear, if you have read the testimony of the prophet, that copious amounts of mental stimulants can indeed increase the speed of such evolution, if one is so inclined to embark on that adventure.

Of course in order to receive the correct revelation of Gwynnies, one must already possess the presupposition of Gwynnies.

Then again, what the fuck am I actually talking about? Dodgy

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like evenheathen's post
28-12-2014, 02:51 PM
RE: God defined.
(28-12-2014 12:01 PM)gofish! Wrote:  
(28-12-2014 11:44 AM)666wannabe Wrote:  My answer to your first question is neither. Rather, it is an attempt to reduce all concepts of God, spiritual forces, etc. to a meaningful construct. The possible existence of all such "functional powers" are testable by scientific methods. True their non-existence can never be proven conclusively, just as we can never prove the existence of irrational numbers.

I'd quibble that you really agree with option 1, otherwise what other frame of reference would you use? Your own? Would you not look for some commin themes across religions?

(28-12-2014 11:44 AM)666wannabe Wrote:  There existence, however, can be given a probability rating according to inductive reasoning. If it can be demonstrated that the existence of such a force has never been validated, there is a very high probability that such a force does not exist.

At the same time, we must remain open to the "possible" existence of such a force.

Assuming you agree with my premise above, do you propose a "lowest common denominator" approach (i.e. simple deism) or a full-on theist approach?

gofish,

I am sorry but I am not grasping the basis of your argument. Perhaps, I have had a few too many cups of coffee.

The common theme across religions is the belief that God has a function in the affairs of the world, else there would be no reason to call God's supposed interventions a force. I think a theist would have to agree with this (at least, an honest theist). If I understand Deism correctly, it is the view that God created all things and then took a permanent vacation, leaving it up to humanity to work things out for ourselves. In which case, the idea of God is irrelevant.

It is my belief that prayers serves no purpose other than to reassure the pray-er that his/her desires are being duly noted by God and to give him/her the feeling that they have some kind of special influence with the ruler of the universe.

If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities.--Voltaire.

"To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." --Thomas Paine.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2014, 03:08 PM
RE: God defined.
(28-12-2014 02:51 PM)666wannabe Wrote:  
(28-12-2014 12:01 PM)gofish! Wrote:  I'd quibble that you really agree with option 1, otherwise what other frame of reference would you use? Your own? Would you not look for some commin themes across religions?


Assuming you agree with my premise above, do you propose a "lowest common denominator" approach (i.e. simple deism) or a full-on theist approach?

gofish,

I am sorry but I am not grasping the basis of your argument. Perhaps, I have had a few too many cups of coffee.

The common theme across religions is the belief that God has a function in the affairs of the world, else there would be no reason to call God's supposed interventions a force. I think a theist would have to agree with this (at least, an honest theist). If I understand Deism correctly, it is the view that God created all things and then took a permanent vacation, leaving it up to humanity to work things out for ourselves. In which case, the idea of God is irrelevant.

It is my belief that prayers serves no purpose other than to reassure the pray-er that his/her desires are being duly noted by God and to give him/her the feeling that they have some kind of special influence with the ruler of the universe.

Not sure I'm arguing, only seeking clarification for what you are trying to define. From your answer I think I get it now: full-on theist view of god. Thanks for your patience with my questions.

"I don't mind being wrong...it's a time I get to learn something new..."
Me.
N.B: I routinely make edits to posts to correct grammar or spelling, or to restate a point more clearly. I only notify edits if they materially change meaning.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: