the God term
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-04-2013, 11:34 AM
RE: the God term
(15-04-2013 08:40 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(15-04-2013 08:05 PM)childeye Wrote:  Not true. God has been defined as Love for millenia in numerous cultures and religions. I did not make it up as you propose. I am just agreeing that this makes sense pertaining to the moral imperative.

Perhaps, but more importantly, it conflicts with the Prime Directive an unforgiveable breech of the Guiding Principles of the UFP.

You might want to reconsider what you have said here, especially in light of the following, and I quote:

"The only stated exception to the Prime Directive is the Omega Directive. Whenever the Omega Directive is in force, the Prime Directive is effectively rescinded."

[Image: ioH6gUu.gif]

Me, if I were Riker reading your post. (took me abit to find it!) Big Grin

[Image: 3d366d5c-72a0-4228-b835-f404c2970188_zps...1381867723]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cheapthrillseaker's post
16-04-2013, 11:51 AM
RE: the God term
(16-04-2013 11:19 AM)childeye Wrote:  But let's look at this term god again. I have said it refers to an absolute Truth in presuming there must be one, whether it be the first energy of life that precedes evolution or Love/empathy, person or thing, etc... That such an absolute exists is a foregone conclusion or the words knowledge and ignorance have no substantial meaning.

This is what you have yet to prove. Steven Hawking, among others, has been working on a unified theory of everything for most of the last 30 years. The reason for this is the fact that trying to tie Quantum theory into Relativity is a maddening chase of causes following results mirrored effects in seemingly unrelated subjects. Quantum theory to date is nothing but mathematical formulas because the world it describes is so nonsensical that Einstein was convinced it was wrong. The problem is Quantum theory is probably the single most tested (in real world applications) theory in all of science. Cell phones, bar scanners, gps all rely on quantum theory.


If such an absolute was already known and unquestioned as you state such a unified theory would already exist but nothing in science is unquestioned. To tie back to an earlier example Evolution through natural selection is constantly tested and all Biologists have stated exactly how this could be disproven. To date not 1 credible source has ever been found to counter Evolution. Even with overwhelming empirical evidence Evolution is not unquestioned, nothing is.

Now what I am ultimately trying to convey to you is this "Your initial assumption is what is being challenged and as of yet you have not provided any arguments that are not presuppositional."

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
16-04-2013, 12:00 PM
RE: the God term
(16-04-2013 09:07 AM)morondog Wrote:  According to the OP you asked for my def of God. I answered the OP. You're free to make your little homilies of what Christianity is or isn't, but all your psychoanalysis doesn't change what the word means to me Wink
I can understand that. But that doesn't mean Hitler who claimed to be a christian, was a Christian. Nor does what you claim to be a christian comprise the truth about what christianity is. I appreciate that you gave your definition of god for the purpose of this op, but you can't fault me for seeing the adjective weasel being used. So you don't like the term god is seen for what it is, and I can only speculate as to the why in my endeavour to understand you. I am a Christian, and you are not. Who would know more about what it means to be a Christian?

Quote:Quite a lot of people seem quite happy with the suggestion that anyone who doesn't believe as they do will go to hell. It might sound like the devil to you but *your God* is the one who condemns them to go there, according to that ridiculous book.
See, this is what I am talking about. You say things about the bible and the God therein, which you clearly know nothing about. In Christianity, the Christ suffers a horrible and gruesome death to save people from hell, not to send people to hell. I am blown away that you don't know this. In the Spirit of Christ there is no condemnation. Granted, the bible speaks of an end of evil and death itself in a lake of fire, but why be mad at that? Sounds good to me. I suspect you are talking about an eternal torment for those who don't want to have empathy but what that eternal torment means is unclear.

Therefore I am here pointing out what I perceive to be a clear moral Truth, that Love/empathy is goodness and to despise it is evil.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-04-2013, 12:17 PM
RE: the God term
(16-04-2013 12:00 PM)childeye Wrote:  
(16-04-2013 09:07 AM)morondog Wrote:  Quite a lot of people seem quite happy with the suggestion that anyone who doesn't believe as they do will go to hell.

See, this is what I am talking about. You say things about the bible and the God therein, which you clearly know nothing about. In Christianity, the Christ suffers a horrible and gruesome death to save people from hell, not to send people to hell. I am blown away that you don't know this. In the Spirit of Christ there is no condemnation.

What does the bible say about hell and salvation, since we clearly know nothing about it? That is where you got your information about 'the Christ' and salvation, yes? If not, please share your sources.

If Jesus died for our sins, why is there still sin? If man was created from dust, why is there still dust? If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-04-2013, 12:21 PM (This post was last modified: 16-04-2013 12:24 PM by mitchelljames87.)
RE: the God term
The word 'God' is, quite simply, a word used in the English language, to name, not to define, the cause of the universe in a religious concept.

the difficulties arising from this thread I believe are that childeye has asked us to define God. It is not a slight on your religious belief, childeye, but the reason as to why atheists can not define God as a physical entity is because one can not define that which does not exist. Nor can one define something into existence. As is always the case in philosophy, we must be careful with the words we use to describe our arguments as to stop misinterpretation or confusion.

We could, however, define God as a name given to the 'cause of the universe in a religious concept' (the reason why we must add 'in a religious concept' is because we wouldn't refer to the big bang theory as 'God', because of it's inclinations to religious belief).

I hope this is more of a help than a hindrance,

regards

'The four most over-rated things in the world are champagne, lobster, anal sex and picnics.' - Christopher Hitchins
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like mitchelljames87's post
16-04-2013, 12:36 PM (This post was last modified: 16-04-2013 12:41 PM by mitchelljames87.)
RE: the God term
Apologies, but may I also add a note as to the notion of 'God as a source of morality'.

An atheist would not disagree that religion is a source of morality, because it's clear that the Bible, Qur’an, Torah, etc., give guidance as to a 'construct of moral belief'.

The issues we would have regarding religious scripture as a source of morality is that it often comes part-and-parcel with religious belief, to which we do not subscribe.

An atheist (or perhaps more appropriately, a humanist) finds morality in social constructs (friends, family, personal & social experiences) or through reading ethical theory and philosophy, such as 'The Good Life' set out by Aristotle in the Nicomachean Ethics, of which has no religious connotations.

It's not necessarily true that atheists believe that religious morality is invalid; rather, that we cannot associate ourselves with anything religious.

Yet, as Alain de Botton points out quite excellently in his latest book, perhaps an athiests morality could be informed by religious morality, i.e., do not kill, treat others as you would be treated, yet without the subsequent belief in God.

'The four most over-rated things in the world are champagne, lobster, anal sex and picnics.' - Christopher Hitchins
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes mitchelljames87's post
16-04-2013, 12:41 PM
RE: the God term
(16-04-2013 12:36 PM)mitchelljames87 Wrote:  Apologies, but may I also add a note as to the notion of 'God as a source of morality'.

An atheist would not disagree that religion is a source of morality, because it's clear that the Bible, Qur’an, Torah, etc., give guidance as to a 'construct of moral belief'.

The issues we would have regarding religious scripture as a source of morality is that it often comes part-and-parcel with religious belief, to which we do not prescribe.

An atheist (or perhaps more appropriately, a humanist) finds morality in social constructs (friends, family, personal & social experiences) or through reading ethical theory and philosophy, such as 'The Good Life' set out by Aristotle in the Nicomachean Ethics, of which has no religious connotations.

It's not necessarily that atheists believe that religious morality is invalid; rather, that we cannot associate ourselves with anything religious.

Yet, as Alain de Botton points out quite excellently in his latest book, perhaps an athiests morality could be informed by religious morality, i.e., do not kill, treat others as you would be treated, yet without the subsequent belief in God.

Those basic aspects of morality not only predate the extant religions, they are violated by the extant religions.

As an atheist, I do not reject religious morality because it is mixed with the supernatural;
I reject religious morality because it contains vile, ugly precepts.

The largest three religions are misogynistic, xenophobic, and violent. Their moralities are anti-human, shame-based, and disgusting.

Fuck religious morality.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Chas's post
16-04-2013, 12:43 PM
RE: the God term
(16-04-2013 12:36 PM)mitchelljames87 Wrote:  Apologies, but may I also add a note as to the notion of 'God as a source of morality'.

An atheist would not disagree that religion is a source of morality, because it's clear that the Bible, Qur’an, Torah, etc., give guidance as to a 'construct of moral belief'.

The issues we would have regarding religious scripture as a source of morality is that it often comes part-and-parcel with religious belief, to which we do not prescribe.

An atheist (or perhaps more appropriately, a humanist) finds morality in social constructs (friends, family, personal & social experiences) or through reading ethical theory and philosophy, such as 'The Good Life' set out by Aristotle in the Nicomachean Ethics, of which has no religious connotations.

It's not necessarily that atheists believe that religious morality is invalid; rather, that we cannot associate ourselves with anything religious.

Yet, as Alain de Botton points out quite excellently in his latest book, perhaps an athiests morality could be informed by religious morality, i.e., do not kill, treat others as you would be treated, yet without the subsequent belief in God.

I would counter your argument with Christopher Hitchens "Morality exists not because of religion but in spite of it". Religion tends to give passes to immoral actions if such actions were undertaken for the furthering of the religion or the supposed will of the deity that is being worshiped. See the genocide in canaan as proscribed in the bible as a prime example. Thou shalt not kill unless the victem doesn't believe in the same sky fairy as you then it's ok.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
16-04-2013, 12:48 PM
RE: the God term
(16-04-2013 12:00 PM)childeye Wrote:  I am a Christian, and you are not. Who would know more about what it means to be a Christian?

Quote:Quite a lot of people seem quite happy with the suggestion that anyone who doesn't believe as they do will go to hell. It might sound like the devil to you but *your God* is the one who condemns them to go there, according to that ridiculous book.
See, this is what I am talking about. You say things about the bible and the God therein, which you clearly know nothing about.

In the Spirit of Christ there is no condemnation.

OI Angry Don't go telling me what I do and do not know about Christianity. I was one for a good long while. I sang the songs. I read the book. You clearly skipped all the sections where God says "kill my enemies with extreme violence". Who doesn't know his Bible ? Christ himself says "if you don't follow a bunch of totally arbitrary and stupid rules, and believe in MEEEEEEEE, then you can go burn in hell". Spirit of no condemnation my hairy ass.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like morondog's post
16-04-2013, 12:49 PM (This post was last modified: 16-04-2013 12:53 PM by childeye.)
RE: the God term
(16-04-2013 11:51 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(16-04-2013 11:19 AM)childeye Wrote:  But let's look at this term god again. I have said it refers to an absolute Truth in presuming there must be one, whether it be the first energy of life that precedes evolution or Love/empathy, person or thing, etc... That such an absolute exists is a foregone conclusion or the words knowledge and ignorance have no substantial meaning.

This is what you have yet to prove. Steven Hawking, among others, has been working on a unified theory of everything for most of the last 30 years. The reason for this is the fact that trying to tie Quantum theory into Relativity is a maddening chase of causes following results mirrored effects in seemingly unrelated subjects. Quantum theory to date is nothing but mathematical formulas because the world it describes is so nonsensical that Einstein was convinced it was wrong. The problem is Quantum theory is probably the single most tested (in real world applications) theory in all of science. Cell phones, bar scanners, gps all rely on quantum theory.


If such an absolute was already known and unquestioned as you state such a unified theory would already exist but nothing in science is unquestioned. To tie back to an earlier example Evolution through natural selection is constantly tested and all Biologists have stated exactly how this could be disproven. To date not 1 credible source has ever been found to counter Evolution. Even with overwhelming empirical evidence Evolution is not unquestioned, nothing is.

Now what I am ultimately trying to convey to you is this "Your initial assumption is what is being challenged and as of yet you have not provided any arguments that are not presuppositional."
Good post, Revenant77. In my view of quantum mechanics as based upon my definition of God as being Spirit, there will never be an answer or mathematical formula that will resove the matter. One cannot ever fully digitize that which is built upon faith since mathematically there is always a point between two points on a straight line that goes on forever in both directions. Moreover, what is meant by the term straight in this instance most likely can only be comprehended fully in three dimensional thought. But that doesn't matter since the simple fact still remains there is no end to that which is eternal. Hence we end up using the word analog to describe that thing we digitize as in analogous of.

In simple terms, Thee God/absolute is a "person", for that is the highest word we can esteem in consciousness. And therefore the absolute cannot be fully defined in any amount of words or numbers. At least not by any corporeal means. The way I see it, the realization of the necessity of faith is a revelation wherein we apprehend that which is eternal. Some things are travelling so fast, that we just don't see them, yet they are all around us. Hence relativity exists but only in the context of an absolute which can only be attained by faith. Hence quantum mechanics is evidence of that which in relativity exists as an absolute unattainable through quantum mechanics.

In conclusion I have nothing to offer that is not presuppositional pertaining to the absolute, only to the mechanics of it. But even my lack of knowledge in itself is a knowledge that is credible. I look for the most meaning in life rather than no meaning. I consider what is that elusive happiness, fullfillment to the best I am able. I experience Love and Empathy as a fulfilling sense of purpose that gives meaning to Life. And I have found the Christ to be a door into the eternal where there exists unlimited new heights and fresh and indescribable imaginings.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: