The Definition of God?

[Lusca]

as to suffering well God gave us free will so if God eliminated that which would cause us to suffer our free will is null and void

How does the idea of our free will justify God allowing natural disasters to kill thousands of people?

Also, does free will not break down when an entity who knows all possible outcomes exists? The entire concept of free will is that we have the ability to decide for ourselves, but if a being already knows what we choose then we don't really have the ability to choose, do we? Because if a being knows the choice then that choice has already been determined and we are not able to choose for ourselves as the choice has already been made, in a sense?

[Whitefox]

mani, there is a difference between challenging a person's views and finding them false from the start. I follow the idea of "What a person believes is true to them" because it is, with that I can question and challenge what they believe but reach a better understanding of what they believe and how it affects them because I don't dismiss it out of hand. We could debate all our lives about my personal belief system and some may change or disappear altogether but they may also never, if that is the case it is because they are true to me as those of another are true to them.

As to your statement about abstract ideas, you are assuming that God is an abstract concept created by the mind of man. If God exist as something utterly beyond humankind than we think of it in terms of our humanity for we are human, not to mention the limitations to perspective added by experience and limited understanding of our surroundings. I am merely stating how I believe God reveled itself to me, but I don't believe this to be a complete or inherently accurate revelations nor do I deny that other faiths or spiritual views are incorrect for I accept they may be even more accurate than my own. This doesn't mean I stop at "I can't understand so why bother" I develop my own spirituality through study and reflection. One day we may fully understand a divine being, or we may never overcome the limitation of human perspective in that regard

How does the idea of our free will justify God allowing natural disasters to kill thousands of people?

Also, does free will not break down when an entity who knows all possible outcomes exists? The entire concept of free will is that we have the ability to decide for ourselves, but if a being already knows what we choose then we don't really have the ability to choose, do we? Because if a being knows the choice then that choice has already been determined and we are not able to choose for ourselves as the choice has already been made, in a sense?

We have the means to limit the affects of natural disasters, that we choose to allow people to live in a state where the impact of such is greater is our own choosing essentially.

Secondly, as I understand (free will is not my particular area of study nor has it ever been save lightly). God knows what potential choices we can make, choices are limited by experience and personal perspective, this doesn't define us for we act in a moment which God who exist outside of that moment and so when you make a decision that potential is defined more or less (I say less because there are futures that choice creates)

[Lusca]

If only the stuff we could see were of any note, etc. then life would be a lot more boring than it already is.

Our observable universe is far from boring, I assure you.

Have you ever looked at the stars at night, or walked through a forest, or explored the underwater world by diving? The riotous colour, clashing scent, discordant sound and awe-inspiring beauty of our universe is truly amazing, and if none of this moves you emotionally then I find it hard to think you experience emotion at all.

[mani]

mani, there is a difference between challenging a person's views and finding them false from the start.

Not really. All that should matter is whether the arguments stand or not, anyway.

I follow the idea of "What a person believes is true to them" because it is, with that I can question and challenge what they believe but reach a better understanding of what they believe and how it affects them because I don't dismiss it out of hand.

They are only "true to you" in that you believe they are true. You're saying that if someone believes something, then they believe it - yeah, but that's not saying anything. And it doesn't mean that any claims about the world that are part of their beliefs are necessarily valid.

As to your statement about abstract ideas, you are assuming that God is an abstract concept created by the mind of man.

No - I'm saying that the concept of God is something abstract, as are all concepts (the concept of a reptile, a lamp, a triangle, etc.).

If God exist as something utterly beyond humankind than we think of it in terms of our humanity for we are human, not to mention the limitations to perspective added by experience and limited understanding of our surroundings.

This is a circular argument: "If he exists beyond our understanding, then he is beyond our understanding." Sure, but you still haven't shown that any abstract concept is beyond our understanding. You're assuming what I'm asking you to prove.

This doesn't mean I stop at "I can't understand so why bother"

Actually, that's exactly what you're doing. The "why bother" in your case is hand-waving about mysterious deities and circular arguments in which it is by definition impossible to learn something new about how the real world really works.

[Stiletto Kitty]

That being said I don't think that is the true form of God as no one can truly comprehend the nature or form of God or his influence on reality.

The Bible was written by 10 men. If no one can comprehend God or understand his nature, exactly how was it possible for 10 men to accurately record teachings based on conversations they had with him?

[VaanDiablo]

"Observable reality encompasses literally everything you have ever, and will ever, experience."

Therefore, what I say is boring, is boring.

"Not at all. There's no recursion in the strawmen conversations I gave, because one side of each conversation didn't actually offer anything new - and the first side wasn't even asking "why" to begin with, they were asserting something about the other side's argument."

Ok, I understand where you're coming from there. But my reasoning is that if all you do is argue that someone's point is invalid without giving them reasons i.e. "don't worry about it", then the arguement is unnecessary.

"Yes, and people without hands can't thumb-wrestle; it doesn't mean that thumb-wrestling is impossible. I don't know what you're getting at here; did you think I said that anyone can do any mental feat, always?"

Nope, that was covered by me saying you are both right and wrong. It's impossible for someone without eyes or a method of vision or sight from birth to have any concept, abstract or not, of colour. This means that one person cannot experience one thing. But you say "human" and can be talking about the collective - in which case I whole heartedly agree with you. On pretty much everything.


"Our observable universe is far from boring, I assure you.
Have you ever looked at the stars at night, or walked through a forest, or explored the underwater world by diving? The riotous colour, clashing scent, discordant sound and awe-inspiring beauty of our universe is truly amazing, and if none of this moves you emotionally then I find it hard to think you experience emotion at all. "

Don't get me wrong, every time I find out something outstanding and new fireworks blossom in my mind and I shit rainbows for days, once i realise it's still amazing and staying that way, it loses how amazing it is and becomes my idea of boring and that is; "something that doesn't change drastically". If I worked in a mental institute, I'd be shitting unicorns that shit rainbows as long as I focus on the differing actions of the patients, if I looked at the fact they themselves aren't changing from spewing random but lovely shit, the unicorns would die and my rainbows would dissipate.


"The Bible was written by 10 men. If no one can comprehend God or understand his nature, exactly how was it possible for 10 men to accurately record teachings based on conversations they had with him?"

I recently created a game concept from scratch with four of my mates. Doesn't mean I've met the anti-bodies we're making the game about, nor do we delude ourselves into thinking they're real.

[mani]

"Observable reality encompasses literally everything you have ever, and will ever, experience."

Therefore, what I say is boring, is boring.

Whatever you say, buddy. Gotta say, though, I'm not inclined to think you've got a thoughtful or insightful worldview when you say that literally everything is too boring to bother looking into. Me? Call me crazy, but everything amazing or fascinating that's ever happened to me...happened in reality. So, you know, on the whole I'm pretty happy with "everything." Seems pretty neat.

If I worked in a mental institute, I'd be shitting unicorns that shit rainbows as long as I focus on the differing actions of the patients, if I looked at the fact they themselves aren't changing from spewing random but lovely shit, the unicorns would die and my rainbows would dissipate.

What does this even mean.

[VaanDiablo]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I'm not happy. I'm just arguing that that arguement can be settled by just saying it's perceptual; "What [i]say is boring, is boring [to me]".

It means I can look at the changing aspects of something for ever and find it interesting - but then I'm not looking a the whole item, when I start doing that and stop noticing the main but overall small changes, it becomes boring. Like how you change a root folder from visible to invisible all the other folders and items inside it also become invisible, such is my view of the world.

End all; I'm saying that I can view the universe as a whole and make it boring at will. This doesn't necessarily mean Ii always view the whole shabang as boring. In the end, I suppose all of this was just to get you lot thinking about why everything is mystical. Have you ever had to argue this stuff before? If you have, you're blessed. If you haven't I hope your defending the "inane" has proved fruitful for your own views of the world.

[Stiletto Kitty]

Hmm. Epic sized walls of text. I have no idea why my previous post kinda was empty and lost everything but....

Now my personal stance is I believe in a Christian (predominately Catholic) God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit but not as separate beings but merely aspects of God) because that is how God and spirituality were revealed to me. That being a God who is beyond time and space who is all knowing (in that God knows all potential outcomes), as to suffering well God gave us free will so if God eliminated that which would cause us to suffer our free will is null and void and so it exist, is genderless (as god is beyond such things).

1. Usually parents tell their children that Santa Claus buys them Christmas presents. Though that is taught and ingrained into the minds of many children they do often grow to question this belief and many do stop believing this tale as true. The same can be said of God and religion. Just because it's taught to you doesn't mean it's a good reason to continue believing it.

2. God can't be all knowing. If he was all knowing and knew all possible outcomes, he would have known that humans would be destructive creatures. Must suck to be him and know that the beings supposedly made in his image are perhaps the most (self) destructive beings on the planet.

3. Christianity is a monotheistic belief system. Since God is all knowing and all powerful, perhaps there is a limit to his knowledge. Since he could not ever have had the chance to interact with other sentient beings (cause in Christianity he is the only one of his kind), how would he know that if he created multiple beings in his image that when they interacted they wouldn't always interact harmoniously with one another.

I understand much of my understanding of God is influenced by Neo-Platonic school of philosophy and the works of many different philosophers and theologians, that the understanding of God evolved and changed and will continue to do so in all likelihood.

I don't think it is possible for the understanding of God to evolve. No matter what you believe God to be, it wouldn't change the nature of his being. And the nature of his being would be limited and unique to individual's perception based on interaction with him. I think it would be best to say "a person's relationship with god can evolve".

I believe in God (for any number of reasons) but because of the manner in which I live my life and experiences I've had, I refuse to believe that god is all powerful, merciful, forgiving, kind, and the being that ultimately judges us. My perception of him won't change the nature of his being, nor will it necessarily coincide with that of the Pope, but if he exists then he has to exist in a state that is unaffected by what we believe him to be. (I hope that made sense.)

Just because we have no proof of it, does not mean there is no proof at all. I can say that about anything here but I'm referring to "An idea or consciousness cannot interact with a material, physical entity," in specific.

This makes sense. But doesn't seem to be applicable to God since in many cultures, there have been... reports of divine intervention and rituals that allow people to communicate with God.
In Islam all followers are capable of talking to God for themselves via prayer. That's an interaction.
In Christianity, God was able to impregnate a woman named Mary. That's an interaction of a strange sort though since I'm certain this means god has bodily fluids..

Also, in answer to the title/question; Me. I am my own "God" due to me defining the paths I take and having utmost control overr my life. You are also your own "God". Everyone else, too. Everyone is "God". Everyone is also perfect. No one can be you aswell as you can be, therefore you are the perfect you.

There's a difference between God and be an individual.... On one hand, God controls the universe and everything in it, on the other you can only control you.

The subject of "God" is very much an "eye of the beholder" kind of thing.

I support this.

[VaanDiablo]

I call bullshit to religion. Sorry, but I hate the idea of something stupidly explainable for something so complex such as the universe and all of that within and around it.

[Reno]

I once saw Jesus in an ashtray. If nothing else, this proves that ash trays exist. As for what they're best used for, that may be up for debate. Personally I think they can be used for more than just religious mind games, but hell if the neocons will ever agree to that. And you can forget about the tea party right the fuck now. Ultimately, it's just one of those things that needs to be interpreted rationally. But you know what? Fuck that shit. I want to be as insane about this as possible, and I am pretty sure that roughly 50% of Americans (and Canadians too eehehehe) will agree with me on that point. After all, we are all contractually obligated upon being born into this world to respect fear cower in abject terror before the supreme might and wisdom of the Bible and the Christian Faith which our society was originally founded on by the founding fathers who definitely weren't heathens of any sort and actually meant for us to be living under the jackbooted heels of a clandestine corporate theocracy. Don't believe me? Look it up you infidels it's in Revelations probably.

[VaanDiablo]

Dat probably. But seriously, dude that "I once saw Jesus in an ashtray. If nothing else, this proves that ash trays exist." almost made me wet my pants with laughter.

And you're right, depending on your views of course, that Christianity is very much a fear driven cult. Yet I think the Bible is great. It's, like, the world's best selling self-help book, ever. Literally. All the fables and stories are all about bettering yourself (to the best of my limited knowledge) even if the hymns are a little ott and preachy and let the rest of the book down, somewhat.

Ever looked up scientology? Based on books written by a convict, now a world renowned religion-cult-smut-thing. It's very possible that every single other biblical writing or religious book is founded in a similar way. At least christianity doesn't preach that you have dead alien ghosts called Thetans living in your stomache and blocking you from transcendance.

[Lusca]

I think the Bible is great. It's, like, the world's best selling self-help book, ever. Literally. All the fables and stories are all about bettering yourself (to the best of my limited knowledge)

You do realise the Old Testament is part of the Bible, right?

[VaanDiablo]

I don't see where you're coming from? Of course, I do realise that part of the Bible is still part of the Bible, irregardless of it's age, but what does that have to do with my comment?

[Lusca]

My point is that the Old Testament is a book full of genocide, racism, sexism, nonsensical laws, animal sacrifice, superstitious nonsense, jealousy, infanticide, slavery and other such bad shit.

How you can think that it is in any way great or about bettering yourself is beyond me.