• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

the concept of God

stonewall50 said:
This is the only quote that matters. Science doesn't speak for or against religion. They are not mutually exclusive. I'm sick and tired of people trying to use science to tear down religious people, and religious people doing the same with religion.
Click to expand...

I never get sick of it. The religious literally shrink their Gods into tiny little gaps every time they try to misuse the ideas of faith, belief, knowledge, evidence and proof to force their delusions onto other people. It is the religious that are literally destroying their own religion through their desperate need to vindicate their deity. It is the religious that are politicising their faith in the temporal World. It is the religious that conflate science and atheism and in doing so take themselves out of the frame.

Science does what it does almost regardless of religion and delivers results, and the religious hate that.

I have no appreciation for the God that the religious describe, by proxy, through their personal prejudices. I cannot accept a being so allegedly powerful, wise, benevolent and supernatural and yet ultimately so, human? My concept of 'God' pertains mostly to the bizarre being that is expressed through the filter of humanity and that falls short of anything requiring admiration, love or respect.
 
Last edited:
RAMOSS said:
Well, before I answer that. I need to know something.

What do you mean when you say 'GOD'?? What is God? If you say 'God is spirit', what do you mean by 'Spirit'?
Click to expand...

God is that which created the universe
 
zyzygy said:
No doubt you have proof?
Click to expand...

Read what I wrote slowly so that it sinks in. You asked for a definition of God, I gave you mine.

God is that which created the universe. So whatever force you believe caused you and the universe around you to exist, that force is essentially your God.

So what proof are you looking for, that the universe exists?
 
Peter Grimm said:
Read what I wrote slowly so that it sinks in. You asked for a definition of God, I gave you mine.

God is that which created the universe. So whatever force you believe caused you and the universe around you to exist, that force is essentially your God.

So what proof are you looking for, that the universe exists?
Click to expand...

Then your definition sucks to the point that 'God' becomes meaningless.
 
Peter Grimm said:
What makes you say that?

A reasonably thought out answer would be preferable
Click to expand...

A reasonably thought out definition would be a better start my friend. I reckon the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the Universe so I'm going to call it 'God'. There you go, that's my analysis based upon your definition.
 
William Rea said:
No.

It is the nature of our Universe that masses attract each other through the gravitational force. It does not require a 'God' of any kind to understand and explain that and so, once again, Goddidit is not an explanation, as much as you would like it to be.

Do you have an explanation or are you just here to proselytise?
Click to expand...
I gave a rather detailed explanation - thank you.

I can see how you try to use the name of "nature" in a different way to give it a different meaning, and that is another example of how inadequate and defective the English language words really are.

If the universe has a nature and that nature produces gravity and all the laws of nature and nature does its stuff very well - then NATURE is just another word for a God, and a different name for God.

The nature-God or nature-as-God has been around forever, as it is not some new scientific discovery.
 
JP Cusick said:
I gave a rather detailed explanation - thank you.

I can see how you try to use the name of "nature" in a different way to give it a different meaning, and that is another example of how inadequate and defective the English language words really are.

If the universe has a nature and that nature produces gravity and all the laws of nature and nature does its stuff very well - then NATURE is just another word for a God, and a different name for God.

The nature-God or nature-as-God has been around forever, as it is not some new scientific discovery.
Click to expand...

I will tell you straight JP that trying to win an argument by definitions is going to go nowhere so let's make this simple. I define nature as the inherent phenomena of the physical world that is my definition and it is actually quite a commonly used definition.

You can, and you appear to, reject that definition but, what you can't do is redefine what I mean when I use the word in order to attempt to impose your God. So, let's be absolutely clear on this, when I use the term 'nature', the definition I gave is exactly what I mean and, if you continue to attempt to TELL ME what I mean by it when I use the word I will report it.

This tactic that you are attempting is apologetic philosophical sophistry and it is not impressive. If you want to continue to use 'nature' as a synonym for 'God' then that is up to you but, you will get absolutely nowhere with it.
 
William Rea said:
A reasonably thought out definition would be a better start my friend. I reckon the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the Universe so I'm going to call it 'God'. There you go, that's my analysis based upon your definition.
Click to expand...

I thought they taught critical thinking skills at UK public schools...your answer far exceeded expectations. Hmm. Well, thanks for your well-reasoned and thoughtful analysis, people such as yourself are a shining example to the rest of humanity what it can be like to attempt an open discussion on the topic of religion with an atheist - so kudos. You represent your peeps well.

I thought the spaghetti monster reference was especially tolerant, poignant, and really displayed what a thinking man you are. Bravo I say...bravo.
 
William Rea said:
I will tell you straight JP that trying to win an argument by definitions is going to go nowhere so let's make this simple. I define nature as the inherent phenomena of the physical world that is my definition and it is actually quite a commonly used definition.

You can, and you appear to, reject that definition but, what you can't do is redefine what I mean when I use the word in order to attempt to impose your God. So, let's be absolutely clear on this, when I use the term 'nature', the definition I gave is exactly what I mean and, if you continue to attempt to TELL ME what I mean by it when I use the word I will report it.

This tactic that you are attempting is apologetic philosophical sophistry and it is not impressive. If you want to continue to use 'nature' as a synonym for 'God' then that is up to you but, you will get absolutely nowhere with it.
Click to expand...
You are going to report me - who too? the dictionary definition police?

Even if you define "nature" in your own way as "the inherent phenomena of the physical world" then that is still giving nature the power of God in ruling the world and the universe.

Anyway this thread topic is = "the concept of God" so your concept of God (nature) is similar to mine in that regard.

If one wants to be an Atheist as in no-God then you can not replace God with just using another name.



====================================================



Peter Grimm said:
I thought they taught critical thinking skills at UK public schools...your answer far exceeded expectations. Hmm. Well, thanks for your well-reasoned and thoughtful analysis, people such as yourself are a shining example to the rest of humanity what it can be like to attempt an open discussion on the topic of religion with an atheist - so kudos. You represent your peeps well.

I thought the spaghetti monster reference was especially tolerant, poignant, and really displayed what a thinking man you are. Bravo I say...bravo.
Click to expand...
I believe that this is meant to be sarcasm, but that is uncertain.

:stop:
 
Peter Grimm said:
I thought they taught critical thinking skills at UK public schools...your answer far exceeded expectations. Hmm. Well, thanks for your well-reasoned and thoughtful analysis, people such as yourself are a shining example to the rest of humanity what it can be like to attempt an open discussion on the topic of religion with an atheist - so kudos. You represent your peeps well.

I thought the spaghetti monster reference was especially tolerant, poignant, and really displayed what a thinking man you are. Bravo I say...bravo.
Click to expand...

You do not get the point about the FSM.
 
zyzygy said:
You do not get the point about the FSM.
Click to expand...
You and that other person said that you believe the FSM (flying spaghetti monster) was your God and the FSM created the universe so be it.

If there is any other point about your God then it would be up to you two to tell the point since it is the "concept of God" that you 2 declared.

Keep up. :ws
 
JP Cusick said:
You and that other person said that you believe the FSM (flying spaghetti monster) was your God and the FSM created the universe so be it.

If there is any other point about your God then it would be up to you two to tell the point since it is the "concept of God" that you 2 declared.

Keep up. :ws
Click to expand...

The point is that there is an equal amount of evidence for both the FSM and some other god invented by mankind creating the universe. I do not insult you, please do not insult me. Attack the argument, not the arguer. No more personal remarks please, that is against the rules. Your insults reveal more about you that they do about me.
 
zyzygy said:
The point is that there is an equal amount of evidence for both the FSM and some other god invented by mankind creating the universe.
Click to expand...
Okay.

I would never say that your God (the FSM) was unequal to the other Gods.

It is still the same universe that got created by whichever name for God that anyone chooses.

zyzygy said:
I do not insult you, please do not insult me. Attack the argument, not the arguer. No more personal remarks please, that is against the rules. Your insults reveal more about you that they do about me.
Click to expand...
I was under the impression that it might not be possible to insult you, and as such then I just wish that you would tell whatever part do you find to be insulting.

What was the personal attack?

Did I insult your God? was it because I included "you two" together? was it the "smiley" saying about being with stupid? or did I insult you concept of God?

I respect the FSM - really I do.

:Oopsie
 
JP Cusick said:
I was under the impression that it might not be possible to insult you, and as such then I just wish that you would tell whatever part do you find to be insulting.

What was the personal attack?
Click to expand...

You insulted me with the I'm with stupid emoticon, as you well know. Cut out the mendacity please. To get back on topic, the only reasonable concept of god is that god is an invention of mankind.
 
zyzygy said:
You insulted me with the I'm with stupid emoticon, as you well know. Cut out the mendacity please. To get back on topic, the only reasonable concept of god is that god is an invention of mankind.
Click to expand...
In that case then I do offer you my apology for the insult.

I honestly saw it as just a silly icon and that it was just funny.

I myself would never had used that word as I do know better then to call anyone by that word, and I did not concider anyone taking an icon as literal as if its words were my own words, so clearly I was not correct in that view.

As such then I say again that I do apologize for that insult.



==================================================


calamity said:
Therein lies the rub. It's pretty obvious that gods are simply made up, just another construct of the human imagination.
Click to expand...
I see that as giving far too much credit to the human imagination because with very little effort we can separate fact from fiction so the imaginations are usually exposed quickly and easily.

No one could have faked (or imagined) the original book of the Bible (the J source) but other parts of the Bible like Jonah being swallowed by a whale (or big fish) is obviously fiction.

Some people claim that Jesus Christ was a made-up fictional character but I can not accept any human imagination being that clever or that inspired.
 
JP Cusick said:
In that case then I do offer you my apology for the insult.

I honestly saw it as just a silly icon and that it was just funny.

I myself would never had used that word as I do know better then to call anyone by that word, and I did not concider anyone taking an icon as literal as if its words were my own words, so clearly I was not correct in that view.

As such then I say again that I do apologize for that insult.



==================================================



I see that as giving far too much credit to the human imagination because with very little effort we can separate fact from fiction so the imaginations are usually exposed quickly and easily.

No one could have faked (or imagined) the original book of the Bible (the J source) but other parts of the Bible like Jonah being swallowed by a whale (or big fish) is obviously fiction.

Some people claim that Jesus Christ was a made-up fictional character but I can not accept any human imagination being that clever or that inspired.
Click to expand...

I would not sell the human imagination short. In fact, I have more faith in it than I do a savior being sent here to die for our sins.
 
calamity said:
I would not sell the human imagination short. In fact, I have more faith in it than I do a savior being sent here to die for our sins.
Click to expand...
It is possible that in ancient times that the people did not violate and degrade the human imagination as it is done today, so maybe those people really did have better and more enlightened vision which has been lost in today's degenerate world.

There are parts of the Bible in both the elder and in the newer testaments that are put there by deceit or by imagination or for some unknown reason so you are correct that the human imagination was active, but by the science of "Biblical Criticism" we have learned how to separate the fact from fiction in all the ancient manuscripts and texts.

My real objection is that you say all the "gods" were made-up and that is just your own imagination drawing a wrong conclusion.

People have always lied about God or just preached as they believed when they were wrong, but there is a reality which we call as God.

Even where you say that you reject the claim that "a savior being sent here to die for our sins" and you are correct that is not accurate or true but Christianity preaches that way, and the point of the crucifixion was far more complicated then what most people know, so I say you are rejecting Jesus based on the wrong imagination of Christianity and not on the truth.
 
JP Cusick said:
It is possible that in ancient times that the people did not violate and degrade the human imagination as it is done today, so maybe those people really did have better and more enlightened vision which has been lost in today's degenerate world.

There are parts of the Bible in both the elder and in the newer testaments that are put there by deceit or by imagination or for some unknown reason so you are correct that the human imagination was active, but by the science of "Biblical Criticism" we have learned how to separate the fact from fiction in all the ancient manuscripts and texts.

My real objection is that you say all the "gods" were made-up and that is just your own imagination drawing a wrong conclusion.

People have always lied about God or just preached as they believed when they were wrong, but there is a reality which we call as God.

Even where you say that you reject the claim that "a savior being sent here to die for our sins" and you are correct that is not accurate or true but Christianity preaches that way, and the point of the crucifixion was far more complicated then what most people know, so I say you are rejecting Jesus based on the wrong imagination of Christianity and not on the truth.
Click to expand...

Picture an evening filled with darkness, nothing to do but stare at millions of points of light in the sky on a moonless night. Of course the imagination will be free to wander and wonder in that kind of environment.
 
Medusa said:
what do you say about this quote cited from another site?they were asked what kind of God would be their ideal god

'The problem is... "God" can't exist. There is no way that some being could be somewhere, forever, with no beginning or end, or food source, capable of controlling everything... I could go on, but it's sufficient to say, the idea of god is ridiculous, if you really think about it.

joe_citizen AM
Click to expand...

I think it fits a narrow definition of what god might be. What if we changed words like "nature" or "laws of physics" to god. Wouldn't that resolve those issues? Does god have to be anthropomorphic? If so why?
 
calamity said:
Picture an evening filled with darkness, nothing to do but stare at millions of points of light in the sky on a moonless night. Of course the imagination will be free to wander and wonder in that kind of environment.
Click to expand...
I say it is meant to be that way.

I once heard a Sage from India say that how could India be anything but deeply religious when they have the majestic Himalayan mountains along their border.

I am all for the human imagination, but I do not see any connection to that with discounting the real God.

The only way to be an effective CREATOR is by having a very competent and precise imagination.

This is why I say we need to stay away from works of fiction and fantasy because they distort the imagination which can be used for better purposes.

The Bible has been the dominant piece of literature for near two thousand years so it does not sit under the claim of being a novel.



========================================


fmw said:
I think it fits a narrow definition of what god might be. What if we changed words like "nature" or "laws of physics" to god. Wouldn't that resolve those issues? Does god have to be anthropomorphic? If so why?
Click to expand...
I agree.

Locking God into some human definition is very naive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom