xddga

this is kind of bad terminology. correct, but bad really. I was always told that God w/ a capital G always refers to the biblical form of higher power (capatalized because we substutite that word for His name considering He doesn't have one, same w/ He/His/It/She/Her/etc); while god w/ a lower case g always donotes pretty much every other entity of supreme being. *shrugs* Maybe I'm just an idiot, but that's what I've been told... only reason why I use the word "god" to describe what I feel/believe is there really is no other term or word. in fact I think that term is completely wrong what for what i believe as it represents a completely different idea and image from what I think.

I never said that my defenition of god is just the universe, and if it came off that way I apoligize. I think the universe is more a part of "god" then anything, such as a memory/dream/thought/feeling is a part of you. while i did state that I think god is made up everything (which includes much more then just the physical universe, such as peoples thoughts, feelings, intentions of their actions, dreams, etc), it is much more then the sum of the parts. Much like you are made of a bunch of parts that work together as one. Although, like I said earlier, I do not believe that this "god" has a will of it's own, but works together with all it's parts (us) much like herds of animals work together in order to go through life.
as for the true nature of the "god" i believe in, I can't really say. I guess you'd need to know the meaning of life and what purpose we serve as living creatures to truly understand what a "god" is (no matter what your deffination of one is).

Maybe this is true, maybe it's not. But based on all time searching for an answer to "what is god?" and all my expirences, I feel this is correct for me. I didn't simply wake up one day and "create" this idea, but is the product of a life long search and countless hours of questioning every facet of my life, existince, and expirences, then questioning the answers I get from them. to say it was simply created, and therefore wrong, because it's what I want is rather harsh.

Maybe I am wrong on every fundemental level. maybe everything I believe in is false, like you say, but oh well. At least I'm trying to find the answers for myself and have made me a much better person because of it, and I'm proud of that fact.

Wyckd

whether it was instant or it took time... that is not what i was challenging...

i was simply challenging the fact that... a God cannot be a God if its existence was created by men.


Mantus> the largest religions of this world sprung off of the one and same God...
Jews, Muslims and Catholics all believe inthe same God. but different things of "him"...

Jews deny that this God sent a messiah. And wait for one.

Cathlics believe this God sent a messiah, whom was Jesus Christ, and worship him from there.

Muslims believe this God gave their prophet Muhammed divine inspriation to write their holy doctrines which they call the Qu'Ran.. (Koran)

all the other religions... well... im just gonna say it.. sprung out of nowhere. THESE religions wre in fact created by men, and are of course... false.

Mantus

Who do you suppose created that God?

Don't judge what you don't know please.

tecoyah

It is through such Hypocracy as this....that many run from the folds of the church.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

asaris

Tecoyah -- if you're going to use such an inflammatory word as hypocritical, at least use it correctly. Wyckd's statement might be insensitive, but it's certainly not hypocritical.

And, in fact, the RCC and most Christian churches do not teach that non-Christian religions simply sprung out of nowhere, as if they were entirely false. They are all a falling away from true religion, and so are false in some sense, but they all (or almost all) contain some truth. In fact, since we all have a certain approach to God which often biases us, we can often learn a lot about true religion and true spirituality by studying these other religions

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

xddga

while the wording isn't exactly right, I do agree w/ the statement. I've known many religious ppl who hold the view that they are right and everyone else is wrong and can, and will, burn in hell. There's no if's, and's, or but's about it. There is no salvation for those who don't follow the one true and holy path. It's that attitude that I can not stand. It get's so bad that these ppl hate those of an other faith, ideals, or practices. Religion is not about hate, it's about compassion and wisdom, and being open to your fellow man regardless of any circumstances. Their very way of life, to borrow tecoyah's word, is hypocritical to their faith because of this.

Maybe it's just me, but of all the people I know like that and try to follow their religion to a T like that, I've never seen one that ever seemed happy. They all seemed depressed and misserable... I don't know, just a passing thought.

oh, and btw, Wyckd, no religion just "sprung out nowhere". Those that do end up more a less a cult or fall by the wayside as mythology. Everyone had to come from somewhere and all took many generations to take root and gain followers. And without followers and people spreading the ideas of the religion, you have nothing.
Most of today's religions and philosophies have also been around just as long, if not longer, then your so called "true religions".

asaris

This is what is commonly known as logical thinking. If I believe p, and you believe ~p, one of us must be wrong. Since I believe p, I'm likely to believe that you are wrong.

But religion, or Christianity at least (and I'm pretty sure this applies to all three of the monotheistic religions) is not just about compassion and wisdom, but also about holiness. Depending on what you mean by 'being open to your fellow man', this may or may not preclude that. In any case, we are taught to love even our enemies -- and few non-Christians are really our enemies. Hate is surely not an essential part of Christianity, and I feel bad for you if you've only met hateful Christians.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

RCAlyra2004

Zen Tom's comment about becoming a God seems a little Glib... and a little scary.


This is a little more realistic:
God is the imaginary friend adults have to prevent the despair over the pointlessness of life.

__________________
Living on the edge of sanity

Mantus

Thats not logical thinking. One has no more of a base to believe in p then ~p therefore one's assumption is made on faith not logic.

asaris

I don't think that's quite right, Mantus. What I meant was that, given the fact that one believes that p, it's logical to believe ~(~p). (In fact, logic requires it). The question of whether or not one is epistemically justified in believing that p is a separate question.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

ubertuber

Actually, there are entire formal religious structures dedicated to the idea of attaining godhood. I think you'd be surprised by how mainstream some of them are... Mormonism comes to mind quickly.

Wow - just realized that I dug this one out of the ground. Sorry 'bout that.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

Seeker

Whoa! I'm sorry I missed this earlier...

These 'other' religions did not just spring out of the ground. A lot of the perceived 'other' religions actually stem from the base religion or worshipping of Gaia, the feminine mother to all of nature, before the times of Christ! It was a 'gold bull' that was being worshiped when Moses came down from the mountain... that was very representative of the "Age of Taurus" in which mankind were mastering agricultural and survival needs, these times were a very matriarchal and feminine age in which fertility cults flourished... coming into the "Age of Aries", we began to move to a more patriarchal age, males took over the ruling and the age of dominating and suppressing the female aspects of worship. It's where our 'instincts' gave way to our 'rational minds'. Development of ego, individuation, philosophical developments by Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle gave rise to the "masculine archetypal principle", and after a couple of thousand years... ego was very much the rule, over and above mother nature.

Then enter Jesus and Buddha... their teachings bringing the concept that that ego development wasn’t enough; the ego must be yoked to something greater through sacrifice and non-attachment. So, enter again the rebirth of the oldest religions where the feminine and nature worshipping is reviving old roots in Paganism, Goddess worship etc...

I can't see how you can state that 'other' religions sprung outta nowhere... much of it has roots going back to the beginning of times...

__________________
To those who wander but who are not lost...

~ Knowledge is not something you acquire, it is something you open yourself to.

tecoyah

Interesting, since I have, indeed studied world religions as much as my feeble mind allows. But I certainly agree there is much to be learned from reading as much of them as possible. My post was not meant to be inflamatory, but rather an expression of what reality I see resulting from the type of statement made.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

erics

After reading through this thread, instantly the philospher Volitare pop's into my head, and the quote "If God didn't exist it would be necessary to invent him."

God is part of the evolutionary process "man" must go through as intelligent beings that question both existance and death.

If us as intelligent beings can exist, then an "intelligent" universe can exist. A universal conscience if you will

although in a religious sense God was a name given, as man is not supposed to be able to utter his name

__________________
"What's the benefit of laughing
When you only have to cry?
Why take the big adventure
When you're only left to die???
"

nezmot

I don't get you RCAlyra? Why is it glib? With respect, I think you've missed the point, which, from the way I read it, is that God is an invention of Mankind's. Looking back at the various gods through the ages provides an insight into what was going on at the time the deity in question was created (both in a political and psychological manner). In a way, it mirror's Ustwo's comment, only in a less joky (glib?) manner. Just my humble opinion.

loganmule

xddga, your comment that everything in the universe comprises the entity we call God is a theme developed in one of Feist's Midkemia novels...good fantasy series, if you like that sort of thing. But I digress.

Attempting to define God is problematic. We're like blind people trying to define an elephant by only touching part of it (why do I always touch the trunk and think I'm being attacked by a giant snake?). That's why everyone's definition is right....kinda. I personally am close to tecoyah's take on God, yet I have to recognize that my subjective sense of things doesn't make it objectively so. Maybe my beliefs spring from the need to reconcile my instinct for survival with my knowledge of our mortality.

Essentially, finite beings such a ourselves simply don't have the capacity to describe or experience the infinite...though there a moments, all too fleeting, when I have the sense that I'm participating in divinity.

Well, this was an easy one...what say we go on to describe the sound of one hand clapping?

solowe1

I believe that Human Conciousness is the (equals) the Conceptual Understanding of Cause and Effect. Therefore the human mind cannot contemplate the meaning of God. The meaning of God is tied up with the idea of infinitity--what came before---what will come after. Because the Universe(or everything, if you will) appears to have niether a cause nor an end, and because this is antithetic to what human conciousness is capable of conceptualizing, God had to be invented. This is not to say God does or does not exist. Just because our conciousness is unable to envision "The Before" of everything, it doesn't mean it did not exist. The same can be said for "Forever"

Now I wish to be proven incorrect.

To begin proving my idea incorrect could someone please inform the class whether Human Conciousness both in its physical and holistic manifestations can "think" in any terms other than "Cause" and "Effect".

josobot

"Enduring rational reality"

noahfor

Are you actually saying that human consciousness IS the conceptual understanding of cause and effect? I perceive a computer screen. Are you saying that somehow this perception is a result of understanding cause an effect, that without this understanding no perception is possible?

solowe1

I'm not sure that perception and conciousness can be classified as the same thing. On the other hand, perception itself is never anything more than the effect of a cause. This might sound like a cop out. But I believe its been established that nothing we see, smell, hear, touch, or feel is experienced first hand. It is all broken down into electrical and chemical signals and then reestablished upon the conciousness. The conciousness for its own point has been proven to ignore or change its view of the world "if that view defies expectations". Therefore I don't believe you can discount cause and effect as a major ingrediant in the sensory systems of our worlds.

Through the interaction of the organs of the eye and the miracle of light we are able to see a computer screen. Because of the physical properties of plastic and metal we can have a computer screen before us. Because of tangled web of affairs stretching back into the pleistoscene our species has learned through the smallest possible steps how to conceive, manufacture and ultimately use a computer screen. I could go on but I have to get to work.

I will point out one other thing. Some pets like to watch t.v. My cat ignors the t.v. like its not there. No matter what kind of birds are flying around on the screen or what kind of small animals are running around, my cat couldn't be bothered with it. Why. I believe its because they are missing crucial components that would make my cat say "hey look a lovely bird, I would like to eat it now". I think its possible that for other animals, ---an object that has no smell or scent does not really exist. So what does this mean. I'm not sure....I will think about it at work and see if I come up with an answer.

nezmot

Thinking abstractly is thinking in terms other than cause and effect. 1+1=2 is thinking in terms other than cause and effect. Neither 1 is doing anything to one another, and neither is responsible for causing a 2. Likewise, the two exists as a distinctly separate idea to the two 1s. They all simply exist, in an abstract, non causal space.

Another example might by attempting to observe the mind, and contemplating the 'identity' of the mind. Or imagining/remembering the taste of cheese on the tongue.

solowe1

1+1=2 is as much an example of cause and effect as any and every example one can make. Mathematics itself is defined by cause and effect. Mathematics is controlled by logic and logic is the study of cause and effect.

Further I would disagree that abstract thinking is not defined by cause and effect. The action of Thinking, whether it is an act of observation or one of creativity, is controlled by completely biological factors. At the heart of my original question is really this. Please bear with me again as I unfold my idea.

The body is made up entirely of living cells(individual life forms, mind you) selfishly trying to replicate and survive. These cells take advantage of symbiotic relationships with both like and unlike cells in order to facilitate replication and survival. The Effect of these symbiotic relationships is that over millions of years of evolution layers and webs of these concurrent relationships between cells makes a higher organism. Our bodies are made up of an emalgamation of selfish individual life forms whose personal survival depend upon cooperation with other cells. Going further with this idea; "Thinking" whether it be abstract or observational can be defined as the act of nerve cells, individual life forms themselves, cooperating with each other for survival. We now know this to be the truth, though few of us like to admit it. These are scientific certainties.

Now you may deny, and rightly so, that human conciousness is much more than the sum of its parts. The question is, can it be that conciousness arose through millions of years of evolution, as an holistic adaptation of cooperating nerve cells. What if conciousness itself is only a far reaching bi-product of this cooperation. If so, then I would put forth the proposition that miraculous as this conciousness might be, it still must be controlled by the logical conclusions of cause and effect.

nezmot

Oh yes - I'm in complete agreement with you here in saying that it emerges from cause and effect (deterministic) processes, (as an accidental but far reaching and fascinating bi-product) but that doesn't mean it can't transcend those things and act in unpredictable and non deterministic ways.

With those qualifications made then, I'd still say that 1+1=2, as a timeless model of the inter-relationships between abstract quantities, must be devoid of cause and effect.

I don't think logic has anything to do with cause and effect. Cause and effect must have time in order to exist. Logic as a system of abstract ideas doesn't have time. 'IF's don't 'happen' before 'THEN's any more than 'AND' s are responsible for 'NOT's. But I suspect that's not the point you were making.

solowe1

An interesting parallel to this discussion can be found in the relatively new theory of "teemosis". http://www.thesecondevolution.com/paper3origins.pdf

The general idea of Teemosis is this:

First---general scientific knowledge of DNA over the last 50 years has led biologists to the understanding that DNA is made up of four chemicals that occur primarily in base pairs, that accumulate in long chains that constitute to some degree a biological alphabet which tell the cells which proteins are to be made in various amounts for a certain period of time for the purpose of producing any number of biological effects.

Second---what is missing. How can the production of proteins code for inherent behavior, (ie a baby sea turtle breaks out of its shell and runs like hell for the water immediately, without any prior learning experience telling it to do so.)(ie second example, while DNA can tell the cells to create liver cells by directing the production of proteins, it cannot by any means that I understand, code for the actual shape of the liver(or the eye, or the hand, or the brain for that matter.)

Teemosis attempts to alleviate these problems by theorizing that a second evolutionary process is at work behind the scenes. This process uses what scientists have dubbed "junk DNA" to construct high order behavior in organisms by utilizing stresses in the environment as a mechanism of change. This is an intersting subject of study, and may well be the next big biological breakthrough in the study of life.

I still have a problem understanding how a chain of chemicals can define specific behaviors and objective body structures. Rupert Sheldrake is a radical scientist with some very unscientific ideas. He is considered a hack by most "real" scientists. One theory of his that has always interested me is his idea of "morphogenetic fields" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphogenetic_field
The idea that the patterns of biological and physical structure, function and behavior are located both within the genes and without(outside) the body in the form of a energy field if you will, that may also house the concious realm. This enery field connects all life in general, but has even stronger connections with life forms of the same kind.

Scientists in general have no love for this idea because it cannot be proven or disproven(yet). I really like the idea because it represents a higher belief; it represents the idea of why we are here.

pandaman87

this all depends on who you ask, many people god is the big person in the sky, watching everything.

For Tillich, god is your ultimate concern, a concept that trancends the worldly.

For Freud, god is this internalized idea, that was once necessary for society to survive, but is now outdated.

for me, I think of god as somewhat of a watchmaker, not a new idea, but I like it.

nanotech

Let me say what I know from the Quran:
God has created time

This is perhaps one of the reasons why we do not have the power to see God. You might think God has a 2d picture, 3d picture? What if its 4 or 5 dimensions.

Our brain can imagine:
1 dimensional view
2 dimensional view
3 dimensional view

Time is the Fourth dimension and since he created time, the revelation might be 4th dimensional. So it is not a picture that can fit currently in our brain.

A related topic fromt he hadeeth. One prophet asked to see God.
"God said you cannot see me" The prophet insisted so God revealed himself to the mountain and the mountain broke to peices. My conclusion is that our brain does not have the power to see God.

Therefor since we cannot even see God, how can we know who exaclty is God or where did he come from? Unfortunatly, I don't think that would be possible

Justsomeguy

infinite goodness

Pacifier

You're arguing like any other religious person, hiding god always where we, at the moment, can't look. In history mountains, the sky and other "unreachable" realms were used to hide god, but we destoryed all of that hideouts, now you're looking for a new one.

BTW: do you know the Invisible Pink Unicorn?

"The point of this silliness is to prod the theist into remembering that their preaching is likely to be viewed by atheists as having all the credibility and seriousness of [the atheists'] preaching about the IPU"

"Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them."

God is nothing, but a hallucination. And for me it is kind of scary yet fascinating how people are conditioning their brains to believe the absurd and irrational.

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

Justsomeguy

I could easily say your statement is irrational and absurd.

Pacifier

Yes, you could. But I think you would need rather good arguments to convince me that the belief in an unprovable, unobservable diety is rational.

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

Ch'i

I don't believe in this, but I read a book that peddled the idea that God is a highly developed being who was able to survive the last "Big crunch." Thought it was interesting.

It's just as rational as calling an unprovable, unobservable diety a hallucination.