God and religion and beliefs

[Duty]

God is energy.

Energy is the only thing that can't be created or destroyed and exists everywhere and within everything.

Thus we are all God and a part of God.

So if God is the universe, why do we need to call it God? It seems redundant.

Plus, "God" usually implies some kind of supernatural power, as well as consciousness. The universe is neither of these...it is not a conscious entity nor does it possess anything but natural powers.

 

[acd]

Someone once quoted a saying to me that went along the lines of: All of existence is the Universe manifesting itself for itself. That seems to imply the universe has some sort of consciousness. But that doesn't make it true. I don't remember who said this. It may be pointless even posting. meh.

 

[Lucifer]

This isn't agnosticism then.

Doesn't agnosticism mean basically that you don't know? So if your not positive about your belief in God wouldn't you technically be an agnostic. Even though you lean toward believing in spirits if your not sure ..... trails off You get what I am saying right? I am confuzled

 

[Duty]

All of existence is the Universe manifesting itself for itself.

I have no idea what this even means. It might mean something that I'm missing, but I'm for some reason taking it as being mystical non-sense.

 

[mayflow]

Someone once quoted a saying to me that went along the lines of: All of existence is the Universe manifesting itself for itself. That seems to imply the universe has some sort of consciousness. But that doesn't make it true. I don't remember who said this. It may be pointless even posting. meh.

But couldn't the Universe be manifesting itself for itself without being conscious that it is doing so? Dancing just to dance?

 

[Duty]

Doesn't agnosticism mean basically that you don't know? So if your not positive about your belief in God wouldn't you technically be an agnostic. Even though you lean toward believing in spirits if your not sure ..... trails off You get what I am saying right? I am confuzled

But that isn't what he said...

My mind holds no rigid beliefs on this. I think that means I am agnostic, and I think there are countless possibilities. I think that heavens and hells exist, but I am not sure if there are actually planes of existence that we are normally unaware of. I do think they exist on a psychological level though.

He states he holds no rigid beliefs, but that he isn't sure God exists and that he suspends judgment about such. He does believe in heavens and hells, and it's debatable that that right there bars him from being any sort of nontheist (the term can, in a broader sense, mean disbelief in the supernatural).

If mayflow does not know if God exists, but believes in the supernatural, heaven, or the like, I'd say he is a mystic, and doesn't really fall on the spectrum of theist -> agnostic -> atheist.

 

[Lucifer]

So if God is the universe, why do we need to call it God? It seems redundant.

Plus, "God" usually implies some kind of supernatural power, as well as consciousness. The universe is neither of these...it is not a conscious entity nor does it possess anything but natural powers.

God is a ruler:

Of you are willing to stretch the definition of being and ruler a little bit I can see what Satya is saying. Don't the laws of the universe rule our fortunes? If God is a ruler the wouldn't the universe itself be a ruler, a ruler through its laws.

God is conscious:

consciousness |ˈk

 

[just me]

George Karlin was a funny guy at times.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sza4rh1YzsM

My video to share. It is concerning a man that walked on this earth. He performed miracles. He is in the history books, or at least last time I looked.
He stood up against what a lot of people today call religion. He was a healer.
He taught a better way to live by. He was killed. Scriptures were fulfilled. It is far from over. Some things cannot be changed. Many do not believe He was Who He said He was. I believe His Words He spoke are Truth. Many do not.
So be it.

 

[Duty]

Do you really know that the universe isn't awake or aware? And does God really imply consciousness in the conventional sense.

Yes, it does imply consciousness in the conventional sense...that this entity has a will and a purpose. Now, I can't say for certainty that the universe is without purpose (although it certainly appears so), but Okham's Razor seems appropriate here...it's impossible to determine if the universe has consciousness, but proposing that it does is just unnecessary to understanding it.

Wouldn't god be a being so far beyond our understanding that we could not comprehend any sort of consciousness, he- or it posses. Much like the universe is so incomprehensible.

Then why would anyone even say anything about God? If he is so incomprehensible then we can't know any property about him...including if he is comprehensible (or existent for that matter) and so we arrive at absurdity and self-contradiction.

 

[Lucifer]

Yes, it does imply consciousness in the conventional sense...that this entity has a will and a purpose.

Will isn't part of the definition of consciousness, being awake and aware is.

it's impossible to determine if the universe has consciousness, but proposing that it does is just unnecessary to understanding it.

If you were to conclusively determine that the universe is conscious wouldn't revolutionize your understanding of the universe, same thing if you were to prove it was unconscious.

Then why would anyone even say anything about God? If he is so incomprehensible then we can't know any property about him...including if he is comprehensible (or existent for that matter) and so we arrive at absurdity and self-contradiction.

Is it possible to understand the universe?

 

[just me]

I just realized I posted in between entp and intp discussion....sorry.

 

[mayflow]

Yes, it does imply consciousness in the conventional sense...that this entity has a will and a purpose. Now, I can't say for certainty that the universe is without purpose (although it certainly appears so), but Okham's Razor seems appropriate here...it's impossible to determine if the universe has consciousness, but proposing that it does is just unnecessary to understanding it.



Then why would anyone even say anything about God? If he is so incomprehensible then we can't know any property about him...including if he is comprehensible (or existent for that matter) and so we arrive at absurdity and self-contradiction.

I see a couple of things here. Duty seems to me to think that there may be a God but that that god is not comprehendable to us. He also quote Satya who seems to think that God is truth, but I may ask of both, then who is defining that "truth?"

 

[Duty]

Will isn't part of the definition of consciousness, being awake and aware is.

Are you seriously taking the dictionary as the authority in a philosophical discussion?

If you were to conclusively determine that the universe is conscious wouldn't revolutionize your understanding of the universe, same thing if you were to prove it was unconscious.



Is it possible to understand the universe?

Sure, it's possible. We understand quite a few things about it. Is it knowable at our current level of technology if it is conscious? No, not really.

I see a couple of things here. Duty seems to me to think that there may be a God but that that god is not comprehendable to us.

One of the worst misunderstandings of what I said ever.

 

[just me]

I am truly happy to hear someone else does not view the dictionary as more than a starting point.

 

[mayflow]

Are you seriously taking the dictionary as the authority in a philosophical discussion?



Sure, it's possible. We understand quite a few things about it. Is it knowable at our current level of technology if it is conscious? No, not really.




One of the worst misunderstandings of what I said ever.

So that means that you do understand god, and Satya's quote that you quoted basically said that God is truth and that if you run from this "truth" you are running from "God" , but I see this as no truth at all. Do you believe in your signature line, really?

 

[Lucifer]

Are you seriously taking the dictionary as the authority in a philosophical discussion?

Well if we can't agree on a definition of consciousness it's a little pointless having this discussion.

Sure, it's possible. We understand quite a few things about it. Is it knowable at our current level of technology if it is conscious? No, not really.

You mean totally understand the entire universe? That seems A little unbelievable to me. Can you explain why you say that?


How would you describe your religious beliefs? If you think the questions to personal I apologize.

 

[Duty]

Well if we can't agree on a definition of consciousness it's a little pointless having this discussion.

The point of philosophy is to debate it. I proposed a definition and if you have a problem with it, then you point out why it is flawed as respective to reality, not as respective as to if it agrees with the dictionary.

You mean totally understand the entire universe? That seems A little unbelievable to me. Can you explain why you say that?

At our current technology, no, we can't understand the entire universe. But that doesn't mean we can't understand it at all (which is what you asked, and if that is not what you meant, then perhaps you should rephrase your question).

How would you describe your religious beliefs? If you think the questions to personal I apologize.

I describe myself as nontheist...but not agnostic or atheist. The reason is that I think the God debate is generally meaningless because the terms commonly used in such discussion, such as, "God," "omnipotence" and the like are so insanely vague that saying, "God exists" or "God does not exist" is a meaningless statement.

Instead, one must take each definition individually. An explicit definition of these terms must be debated, and then when the conclusion has been run for that set of definitions, attention is turned to another. It is the only way the discussion can be meaningful.

So for certain definitions, I would be an atheist, for certain others an agnostic, and even for some (uninteresting ones, as they involve nothing supernatural or the like) I could claim theism. However, for all the ones that are interesting and normally take place in such a discussion, I universally agree in nontheism...that there is not enough proof to adequately assert there is a god.

 

[Lucifer]

The point of philosophy is to debate it. I proposed a definition and if you have a problem with it, then you point out why it is flawed as respective to reality, not as respective as to if it agrees with the dictionary.

I take my definition from the dictionary, just to make things simpler. Perhaps you should explicitly define what you think consciousness is so perhaps we can reach a consensus. I will respond to the rest of your post later I have class.

 

[just me]

It is not pointless when we cannot agree on a definition of something.
We seek truth and we seek reality, neither of which we most likely can agree on. Consciousness can be laid at the bottom step with the other words we are discussing. Truth has had its definition changed to represent the ways of the world instead of what it used to show as its definition. I sometimes wonder if humanity is digressing.

 

[Lucifer]

It is not pointless when we cannot agree on a definition of something.

It's been my experience that if you can't agree on the key definition in a premise you just and up arguing about to different things. And making false assumptions about what the person was talking about.