God and religion and beliefs

[Faye]

I choose other because I think that all the options are correct.

 

[Duty]

I choose other because I think that all the options are correct.

So there is both only one God, yet more then one God?

 

[just me]

Sure, love is a specific physiological and/or psychological response to stimuli. However, ETHICS is a human concept, and was the topic of debate.

This is blatantly untrue. No one will die because of lack of belief in God.

If you are referring to psychological trauma because of lack of belief, then you are telling me that God is a psychological dependence. Now, out of respect for your beliefs, I'm offering to not continue down that line of thought, because it reduces God to being an addiction or phobia.



What?

Some folk might know the scriptures state that God is love. If love is a definition or description of God, then love has its place in this discussion.
I could go on and on about love, but wanted to stand my ground that love should be allowed to be discussed when discussing God. If not, then there is no need to discuss Him at all. I don't see ethics as the topic of debate, but rather a choice to be made as the topic for the discussion.

I did not say someone would die because of lack of belief of God. There may be many people that could argue the point of having their life saved by God in some form or another. I am not talking psychological dependence here, either. Many refuse to remember God walked this earth as a man in the form of Christ. This was not some abstract form of imagination. Jesus was here and was seen and heard and even touched. I will admit a lot of folk do not believe this to be true, but pinch yourself and wake up to reality. Maybe some people do not believe the words spoken by this man
to be the words of God. That does not make a person that believes some kind of a psychological nut. On the contrary, it makes those that refuse to believe to be the ones with the problem to the believers. To call people that believe in God as some kind of nuts is absurd and rude to those that do believe. I could call non-believers ignorant. It would not make me feel any better, so I choose not to. Choice is what this thread was about. We were asked to choose how we feel regarding several choices. Each person has a right to their own choice without someone else trying to tear them apart or try to make them look silly or stupid.
As for the "what" response, I was merely trying to state it not entirely appropriate for someone to seem as if they are an authority on God when they do not even study the scriptures and more than likely may never have tried to understand them. I see that as trying to cut a rope with a quarter.
No disrespect is meant toward anyone here.

 

[Lucifer]

Sure, a goldfish has will because it desires to eat and so tries to do so. It has a will to preserve itself, obtain positive stimuli, and get away from negative stimuli. A rock does not desire anything, it does not have a will, it does not have instinct, it only has physical laws that bound it.

Well this opens up a whole new can of worms. LOL Free will is the ability to choose between options under a given set of circumstances, can we agree on that?

Well, go and try to define them. Is omnipotence the power to do ANYTHING, including the logically contradictory? Is omnipotence just the most power you can possibly have? Is omnipotence just the most powerful creature but not the most possible? It has tons of different definitions, each with very significant ramifications.

See this is why a choose to use the dictionary in a philisophical argument it avoids confusion much like this. I will think over what you have to say though and get back to you.

 

[Naxx]

If god is everything and everywhere and all connected are we apart of god as well?

Is god a force of everything, living and non-living alike?

Is god just weather that comes and goes or does it actually make choices?

I don't know but I do believe in the good of people and the good of ideas.

The being I have a connection with takes care of me and my future; that is enough for me.

I don't need to know anything else about him/her/it besides that.

So even if my "god" is just a voice in my head or it's something conscious I do believe in it.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

I gave a simplified answer. I'm sure animals and aliens could probably contribute to the collective consciousness if they aren't already.



Perfect perception is not possible in the physical universe. Measurement error and cognitive bias always exist. Even between highly sophisticated computer systems there is communication error. Only mythical, supernatural Gods are described as "perfect" because they are based on abstract ideals and symbols.

I agree that perfect perception is not possible when it comes to taking measurements. However, if one entertains for a moment, the classic definition of God: the supreme cause - one could admit that such a being could perfectly understand the universe, as cause and not through sense.

For example, the homeowner's knowledge of his/her house is never so perfect as the cheif engineer/archtect's.

Duty, such a consciousness would answer your posts so far as well. While I am not a pantheist (one who holds that the universe is god), it is possible that things which seem to have no consciousness may indeed have it. If knowledge is complete and cannot be added to, there is no reason for acting to prove principles to oneself, nor is there any reason to act so as to learn, nor is there any reason to communicate - except out of kindness/generousity in communicating something of one's knowledge.

If you look at this video (borrowed from the science thread on the nature of time: [SIZE=Default]
http://www.tenthdimension.com/medialinks.php). Any being with tenth dimensional knowledge, would in fact have static knowledge of every possible existing thing. My opinion is that only the cause of existence, as cause could have this kind of consciousness. [/SIZE]

 

[Satya]

I saw this video and thought it would go great in this thread...

[YOUTUBE]SVXQG8qdc0U[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Naxx]

Funny video, however the two guys refuse to listen to each other. Even if one presents a better arguement it doesn't really matter if theres no connect in the communication.

That being said I enjoy the ideas of Pantheism alot more than Christianity. I think it's less constricting but Pantheism still has many rules like Christianity.

 

[just me]

Interesting. I thought each listened to the other, though. Big difference in listening and agreeing.

 

[Duty]

See this is why a choose to use the dictionary in a philisophical argument it avoids confusion much like this. I will think over what you have to say though and get back to you.

No, you don't use the dictionary, because the 5 different definitions mean vastly different things, they just happen to be represented by the same word.

Grabidong is "the power of the most powerful entity that exists."
Tiliodong is "the most power an entity could possibly possess."
Omnipotent is "the power to do anything, including the logically impossible."

See, I've divided up the word into 3 different words now. However, they're all the same thing, just a different representation of letters. You can't just get the dictionary out in a philosophical debate.

 

[Eric86]

I voted for the first option.

 

[Jana]

It is hard to discuss these things because in many cases there is no logical explanation why one belive that there is God. I can say that I know, but I don't know how I know it. I feel that it is the right thing, I can't say or belive something else.
It' s like with good song. First you feel it, then later you find reason.

Sorry for my English, I understand all, but I have problem with expressing myself

 

[Firelily]

I am "New Age" (although, I dislike using that term to describe myself). As far as "god" I see it more as a collective source. Something seemingly that all mighty and high can't possibly be an entity, it's diffucalt for me to describe. I have very solid spiritual beleif systems, however to most they appear scattered, unfounded, and loose. I believe in the afterlife, the astral plane, astrology, tarot, energy (this is a very wide term for many many things), spirits, ghosts, symbolism, all stuff in that realm. They are all very important to me.

I'm pretty much with Indigo on this one.

 

[Black Swan]

I think we're all "gods" belonging to a collective source. (Now-if I can only will the universe to give me the winning power ball numbers).

 

[Azure_Knight]

I find it difficult to talk about belief in God because it is subjective. Some people will ask for faith, and others will usually ask for proof. I find it an interesting but troublesome argument to talk about religion; how can I come to answers if I am not sure in 'belief'?

 

[RyanS]

j

 

[Minerva]

There's a group that my best friend knows that believes Kane was the first vampire and Abel was the first werewolf. I don't believe it, but it's very interesting, so I

 

[IndigoSensor]

I don't think I have ever herd you lay out your belief system before, Minerva. Yet again, I find it interesting that mine is very much alike yours. Now if I only had your abillity to explain things conscicely, :tongue1:.

 

[TaylorS]

I don't have much use for the term "god", the term encompasses many different concepts that are given the same label out of social convention and from people using the label to describe their beliefs out of fear of being persecuted as "heretics", "apostates", "atheists", etc. The "god" of the Pantheist is a very different concept from the "god" of the Abrahamic religions and both are different concepts from the polytheism of early civilizations, the odd faux-polytheistic pantheism of modern Hinduism, and the animistic quasi-monotheism of many aboriginal peoples. The term is not helpful is describing by spiritual views.

1. I am a Physicalist or Metaphysical Naturalist, AKA a "Materialist". I don't believe in supernatural realms and/or supernatural beings. I do not believe in an incorporeal "soul" that survives death.

2. Nature, the Cosmos itself, is my "god" and the source of my spirituality. The spiritual experience is that which leads one to realize that we are an intimate part of the Cosmos, not apart and above it. From star-dust we came 5 billion years ago, and star dust we shall be again 5 billion years hence.

 

[Thoth]

I'm gonna have a hard time with this one, as my time spent looking for answers have left me with a firm set of ideas that don't always have accurate words to describe them.

Basically, I follow along with the whole "As Above, so it is Below" bit, but often not in the way a lot of the new-agey/paranormal/whatever else types look at it. The All is One and None, as I often say.

There may well be a God, Goddess, gods and goddesses, devils, saints, nature spirits, Devas, fae, and whatever else. They may exist within physical existance, outside of, alongside of, or in an entirely unrelated state. Ultimately there is the infinite universe with all of its possibilities, and I am contained within it. The infinite universe that contains me is also contained within myself, forming and endless loop of what "contains" what. In reality, nothing is contained. The division between "within" and "without" is a false construct of the human mind, as are all other divisions. The All is One.

Explaining that is hard enough, but trying to get the part of the One being None is a great deal harder. I'm gonna leave it alone.