Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 133

Thread: concerning god

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0
    Mentioned
    Post(s)
    Tagged
    Thread(s)

    Default concerning god...

    In my never-ending search for something which may be perceived as truth, my mind continually wanders to the nature of that entity which is called ‘god.’ While most certainly it might be said that I have an unnatural fixation with the discovery of the nature of this entity, I do not consider any of my time spent pondering on the matter to be wasted.

    My previous thinking focused on semantic and definition. I thought that the existence or nonexistence of god depended entirely on how one was to define it. This still holds true, I believe (as I will go into greater detail below), however, I made an extreme fallacy in arguing that because there an infinite number of possible ways to define ‘god,’ then god must necessarily exist and be definable.

    It should be very clear that the problem here is that I essentially reified 'god' and defined it into existence. My only real qualification for such a being was that it is entirely outside of the scope of human understanding (this was essentially how I defined ‘god,’ wanting my definition to be as simple and unassuming as possible). Now I realize that this qualification is unnecessary and convoluted.

    It is still true that the existence of god is entirely dependent on definition, though. I could take any word and say that it has an infinite number of meanings and therefore exists, but that is a very foolish thing to do, because it is more saying the word itself exists rather than anything attributed to the word. In language, the meaning of any word can be solely derived from its definition; that is, how it is understood. If any given word has no tangible definition, then it is a useless word that really gives no insight into anything, real or unreal.

    To illustrate this, I will use an example of the word ‘unicorn.’ The word itself is, just like any other word, merely a string constant that has no relevance to anything real or unreal until I give it relevance by defining it. ‘Unicorn’ is meaningless in and of itself, and it may or may not exist, but it is not possible to know because I have not defined it. If, however, I were to define a unicorn as, most succinctly, “a horse with a horn attached to its head,” then it is given relevance and it can then be determined whether or not it exists. So, given the fact that there is no significant evidence that such a being exists or has existed outside of mythology and fantasy, I can conclude that it likely does not exist, at least in the current human scope of the universe.

    Note, however, that I did not say that it definitely does not exist, only that it likely does not exist. This is because the definition I put forth, though it does not have direct relevance to reality (that is, it doesn’t exist insofar as it is defined and within current human understanding), still is logically consistent and might therefore be said has a possibility of existing in reality.
    So, taking all of this into consideration, we can then apply some of the same rules to the word ‘god,’ namely:

    I. ‘god’ as an undefined word is a literal string constant which has no value
    II. Attaching a particular definition to ‘god’ gives it value and relevance to what is either real or unreal
    III. A god that has no indication of existing may still exist if the proposed definition for this god is logically consistent.

    Basically, this means that a suitable definition for the string ‘god’ has to be put forth before it can be determined whether or not that permutation of god exists. Criteria III implies that a god whose definition is logically inconsistent with itself or with the world has little to no chance of existing, in the same way you would call me crazy if I said ‘unicorn’ could be defined as “a horse which is not a horse.” In this way it is remarkably easy to discount at least the Abrahamic god from existence.

    This is more a commentary on the inadequacy of language to describe reality than anything, as I hinted at in korp’s Is nothing actually something? thread.

    What do you think? How do you define ‘god’?
    Last edited by nil; 03-22-2012 at 08:18 PM.

  2. #2
    Fuck-up NewBorn STAR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    TIM
    me>> Augusta whore
    Posts
    998
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    There is no other than I
    Then there is no other than god


    So only sentence ever that makes sense strictly is I am GOD

  3. #3
    Decadent Charlatan Aquagraph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Continental Vinnland
    TIM
    OmniPoLR
    Posts
    3,967
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    God is everything and everything that happens is obviously the will of God. She doesn't have a free will, neither do we. God is the machine. God is also the patterns and phenomenons that emerge. She is the Absolute and it may be referred to as Dao.

    There are also infinite number of smaller divine entities part of the Absolute, such as Phallus, Yoni, Tellus, Dreams, H2O, LSD, the Stars, Kali, Om, Oxygen, Sex, Fire, Semen and Eyes. Some of us are also angels who reflect the divinity and there are holy artists who make music praising this divinity such as Tool and maybe sometimes Led Zeppelin. These are personal experiences and therefore absolutely true. Not to you maybe, but it's not my problem if you can't experience the same divine I do. The bests advocates of my faith are surrealists, madmen, few people on psychedelics, mystics and people who lack dogmas.
    “I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden

  4. #4
    Fuck-up NewBorn STAR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    TIM
    me>> Augusta whore
    Posts
    998
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquagraph View Post
    God is everything and everything that happens is obviously the will of God. She doesn't have a free will, neither do we. God is the machine. God is also the patterns and phenomenons that emerge. She is the Absolute and it may be referred to as Dao.

    There are also infinite number of smaller divine entities part of the Absolute, such as Phallus, Yoni, Tellus, Dreams, H2O, LSD, the Stars, Kali, Om, Oxygen, Sex, Fire, Semen and Eyes. Some of us are also angels who reflect the divinity and there are holy artists who make music praising this divinity such as Tool and maybe sometimes Led Zeppelin. These are personal experiences and therefore absolutely true. Not to you maybe, but it's not my problem if you can't experience the same divine I do. The bests advocates of my faith are surrealists, madmen, few people on psychedelics, mystics and people who lack dogmas.
    YOu are MY GOD I AM YOUR GOD. holding hands in a park lsd tabs on our tongues.

    But there can be so many sane GODLY PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY AR MORE SANE IN THEYR CRAZINESS AS IN GIVING MOAR PLEASURE THAN THE SANELY INSANE FLIES EVERYWHERE BUZZING AROUND

  5. #5
    Mariano Rajoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,120
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nil View Post
    In my never-ending search for something which may be perceived as truth, my mind continually wanders to the nature of that being which is called ‘god.’ While most certainly it might be said that I have an unnatural fixation with the discovery of the nature of this being, I do not consider any of my time spent pondering on the matter to be wasted.
    The Western philosophical and theological tradition would phrase the question as "what is the nature of being", instead of "what is the nature of this being". The orthodox position is that God is being, not a being. It is through this insight that God is also truth. Insofar as our being coincides with God's being can we know something of God. The Christian tradition would also introduce "grace" at this point, as well as the narrative of Christ as both God and man.

    God as old-guy-in-the-clouds-that-points-his-finger-into-peoples-lives-every-now-and-then is a modern and contemporary notion.
    LII
    that is what i was getting at. if there is an inescapable appropriation that is required in the act of understanding, this brings into question the validity of socionics in describing what is real, and hence stubborn contradictions that continue to plague me.

  6. #6
    Fuck-up NewBorn STAR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    TIM
    me>> Augusta whore
    Posts
    998
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nil View Post
    In my never-ending search for something which may be perceived as truth, my mind continually wanders to the nature of that being which is called ‘god.’ While most certainly it might be said that I have an unnatural fixation with the discovery of the nature of this being, I do not consider any of my time spent pondering on the matter to be wasted.

    My previous thinking focused on semantic and definition. I thought that the existence or nonexistence of god depended entirely on how one was to define it. This still holds true, I believe (as I will go into greater detail below), however, I made an extreme fallacy in arguing that because there an infinite number of possible ways to define ‘god,’ then god must necessarily exist and be definable.

    It should be very clear that the problem here is that I essentially reified 'god' and defined it into existence. My only real qualification for such a being was that it is entirely outside of the scope of human understanding (this was essentially how I defined ‘god,’ wanting my definition to be as simple and unassuming as possible). Now I realize that this qualification is unnecessary and convoluted.

    It is still true that the existence of god is entirely dependent on definition, though. I could take any word and say that it has an infinite number of meanings and therefore exists, but that is a very foolish thing to do, because it is more saying the word itself exists rather than anything attributed to the word. In language, the meaning of any word can be solely derived from its definition; that is, how it is understood. If any given word has no tangible definition, then it is a useless word that really gives no insight into anything, real or unreal.

    To illustrate this, I will use an example of the word ‘unicorn.’ The word itself is, just like any other word, merely a string constant that has no relevance to anything real or unreal until I give it relevance by defining it. ‘Unicorn’ is meaningless in and of itself, and it may or may not exist, but it is not possible to know because I have not defined it. If, however, I were to define a unicorn as, most succinctly, “a horse with a horn attached to its head,” then it is given relevance and it can then be determined whether or not it exists. So, given the fact that there is no significant evidence that such a being exists or has existed outside of mythology and fantasy, I can conclude that it likely does not exist, at least in the current human scope of the universe.

    Note, however, that I did not say that it definitely does not exist, only that it likely does not exist. This is because the definition I put forth, though it does not have direct relevance to reality (that is, it doesn’t exist insofar as it is defined and within current human understanding), still is logically consistent and might therefore be said has a possibility of existing in reality.
    So, taking all of this into consideration, we can then apply some of the same rules to the word ‘god,’ namely:

    I. ‘god’ as an undefined word is a literal string constant which has no value
    II. Attaching a particular definition to ‘god’ gives it value and relevance to what is either real or unreal
    III. A god that has no indication of existing may still exist if the proposed definition for this god is logically consistent.

    Basically, this means that a suitable definition for the string ‘god’ has to be put forth before it can be determined whether or not that permutation of god exists. Criteria III implies that a god whose definition is logically inconsistent with itself or with the world has little to no chance of existing, in the same way you would call me crazy if I said ‘unicorn’ could be defined as “a horse which is not a horse.” In this way it is remarkably easy to discount at least the Abrahamic god from existence.

    This is more a commentary on the inadequacy of language to describe reality than anything, as I hinted at in korp’s Is nothing actually something? thread.

    What do you think? How do you define ‘god’?
    Also about the neverending search you talk mi fellow. You always know god, but the istantly you know that you know god you will start dumbing him for better gods like you have always done. Because god hates and loves hiself like that

    or how my friend aqua stated: YOUR LAND FOR MY PRICK or MY PRICK FOR YOUR PUSSY WHICH WAY EVER GETS REALLY CLOSER TO THE GODLY GOAL

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,934
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    God is the eternal creator of the universe, he is the God of the living. You can know God by observing nature & by knowing the essence of life, and what it means to be alive.
    What is the difference between watching a dog, and an ultra realistic virtual simulation of a dog? I think this is at the heart of what it means to know God. The dog has the spirit of life in it. The dog has a real subjective view of you, where the virtual simulation is programmed. So interaction with the living dog is transcendental, but interaction with a virtual simulation is one sided and dead. The program of a dog can be perfected to the highest degree, but it will never reach the endless irrational level of interactivity of a living dog.

  8. #8
    lump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    Fi/Te 641 sp/sx
    Posts
    12,628
    Mentioned
    635 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    ive never tried to pin down a precise definition of "god" before and i'm not sure if i can respond in the same context as the op. i suppose, thinking about it right now, i would define god as an energy that envelops and permeates everything humans can perceive. but thats probably a poor definition because its moveable, like as humans expand what they can perceive and understand more and more, "god" would be shifting, or something? "can possibly perceive" seems like a cop-out for some reason.

  9. #9
    Darn Socks Director Abbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Southwest USA
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    6,728
    Mentioned
    237 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    "God" is both a noun and an adjective. Three people are God and God is three people.
    God created the universe, God sent God to Earth to be born and die, then God came back to life and went back to be with God, while God came down to be with us.
    Making simple things complicated is fun.

    ESTj
    1w2 sp/so 1-2-6
    Brilliand's Younger Sister
    Squishy's Older Sister

    Johari Nohari

    Quote Originally Posted by Ritella View Post
    Over here, we'll put up with (almost) all of your crap. You just have to use the secret phrase: "I don't value it. It's related to <insert random element here>, which is not in my quadra."
    Quote Originally Posted by Aquagraph View Post
    Abbie is so boring and rigid it's awesome instead of boring and rigid. She seems so practical and down-to-the-ground.

  10. #10
    Fuck-up NewBorn STAR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    TIM
    me>> Augusta whore
    Posts
    998
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Director Abbie View Post
    "God" is both a noun and an adjective. Three people are God and God is three people.
    God created the universe, God sent God to Earth to be born and die, then God came back to life and went back to be with God, while God came down to be with us.
    Making simple things complicated is fun.
    Ye pretty much. You smarty smary <3 <3

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0
    Mentioned
    Post(s)
    Tagged
    Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mariano Rajoy View Post
    The Western philosophical and theological tradition would phrase the question as "what is the nature of being", instead of "what is the nature of this being". The orthodox position is that God is being, not a being. It is through this insight that God is also truth. Insofar as our being coincides with God's being can we know something of God. The Christian tradition would also introduce "grace" at this point, as well as the narrative of Christ as both God and man.

    God as old-guy-in-the-clouds-that-points-his-finger-into-peoples-lives-every-now-and-then is a modern and contemporary notion.
    I'm not too concerned with the western philosophical tradition, but thanks for your input regardless. The whole point of my OP is that the existence of god is dependent upon how you define the word 'god,' so whether you pin the attribute of immanence or transcendence (or possibly a mixture of both) to this god has to do with the definition. Of course the nature of language requires that assumptions are made whether they are wanted or not (in this case my phrasing implied that god is necessarily transcendent), however, I would much prefer to say that in my OP, I did not directly make any assumptions concerning the nature of god. I am for the time being completely agnostic in this whole debate and make no assumptions concerning the nature of any god that may exist. What seems like an assumption in this case is more the result of inadequate language, though perhaps I could rephrase that sentence better to take out the implication you mentioned.
    Quote Originally Posted by Director Abbie View Post
    "God" is both a noun and an adjective. Three people are God and God is three people.
    God created the universe, God sent God to Earth to be born and die, then God came back to life and went back to be with God, while God came down to be with us.
    Making simple things complicated is fun.
    This view is actually incredibly simple. Sadly, it also falls apart under the slightest non-dogmatic rational analysis. The trinity is the biggest cop-out I have ever seen in my life and I am quite certain one of the largest failures of logic in the history of humanity.

  12. #12
    Decadent Charlatan Aquagraph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Continental Vinnland
    TIM
    OmniPoLR
    Posts
    3,967
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Not to say that it isn't part of the Nicene Creed but where does Jesus say that he is God?
    “I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden

  13. #13
    Darn Socks Director Abbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Southwest USA
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    6,728
    Mentioned
    237 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nil View Post
    The trinity is the biggest cop-out I have ever seen in my life and I am quite certain one of the largest failures of logic in the history of humanity.
    How is that illogical? Three sides make a triangle and three people make God. A circle can be both green and round, and Jesus can be both God and man. A failure of semantics is possible, but there is no failure in logic.

    ESTj
    1w2 sp/so 1-2-6
    Brilliand's Younger Sister
    Squishy's Older Sister

    Johari Nohari

    Quote Originally Posted by Ritella View Post
    Over here, we'll put up with (almost) all of your crap. You just have to use the secret phrase: "I don't value it. It's related to <insert random element here>, which is not in my quadra."
    Quote Originally Posted by Aquagraph View Post
    Abbie is so boring and rigid it's awesome instead of boring and rigid. She seems so practical and down-to-the-ground.

  14. #14
    Darn Socks Director Abbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Southwest USA
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    6,728
    Mentioned
    237 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquagraph View Post
    Not to say that it isn't part of the Nicene Creed but where does Jesus say that he is God?
    Matthew 26:63-64
    John 10:30

    ESTj
    1w2 sp/so 1-2-6
    Brilliand's Younger Sister
    Squishy's Older Sister

    Johari Nohari

    Quote Originally Posted by Ritella View Post
    Over here, we'll put up with (almost) all of your crap. You just have to use the secret phrase: "I don't value it. It's related to <insert random element here>, which is not in my quadra."
    Quote Originally Posted by Aquagraph View Post
    Abbie is so boring and rigid it's awesome instead of boring and rigid. She seems so practical and down-to-the-ground.

  15. #15
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,337
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    There is logic, and then there is God.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    18,006
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nil View Post
    I made an extreme fallacy in arguing that because there an infinite number of possible ways to define ‘god,’ then god must necessarily exist and be definable.
    Nah.

    It is still true that the existence of god is entirely dependent on definition, though. I could take any word and say that it has an infinite number of meanings and therefore exists
    Nah.

  17. #17
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,337
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default


  18. #18
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Lol this topic...

    One thing I'd like to suggest is the development of semantics. Originally language started off as oral, and much of this oral language was passed through stories and myths, thus a culture's mythology is intimately related to it's language. The first myths and legends were passed down to communicate meaning between fellow members of the tribe and words were the devices. These words eventually came to encapisulate a unique meaning to that particular culture.

    God is an english word, we see that many cultures have religions and gods, but this is a bit of a misnomer as to what is actually meant. God is the closest definition in english to some other word in a different language. This was likely discovered when cultures intermingled and spirituality was discussed, a person from one culture mentioned a concept of something and gave it a word, the englishman realized it was similar in meaning to what they call "God".

    Therefore in modern times things have moved towards a bit more confounding and integral definition of the word god than may have been meant or understood in a culture's oral tradition, due to the overlapping of cultures.

    I think to really understand what is meant one has to move backwards from what is already known to the root of human culture, language, and mythology. Try to understand the entire dynamic process of development of the concept in human culture.

    In a modern sense I'd consider myself an atheist in the sense I don't believe in a supernatural being which resembles a human or divine father figure who grants wishes and has a list of shoulds and should nots which are cosmically rewarded when followed or punished when not followed. With a priest or king who has a special relationship with this divine being that allows them to articulate or act on some divine will.

    In a more liberal sense I'd consider myself a theist in the sense that I believe there is something deeper to reality than what exists at first glance, the concept of a pantheistic god I like -- that is a god which exists in everything and everyone -- maybe some kind of spiritual energy field in concept, emotionally I find this concept to be rather inspiring, pleasing, and harmonizing but logically I realize the difficulty in finding evidence for the existence of such a thing. Therefore instead of completely rejecting my own feelings or logic, instead I continue on the path of a skeptic... continuing to feel as I please but questioning and challenging these feelings in pursuit of more clarity and deeper understanding. I find this element of a "religion of the mind" is what is missing in culture today, much of modern religion is a "religion of the heart" and one which seeks to rapidly insatiate the impulsive needs of people's hearts. If I found definitive evidence that some kind of spiritual energy didn't exist and things where meaningless, I don't think I'd be especially upset, because by that time I'd understand fully why being upset is meaningless.

  19. #19
    Darn Socks Director Abbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Southwest USA
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    6,728
    Mentioned
    237 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by polikujm View Post
    "If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't." -Lyall Watson

    ESTj
    1w2 sp/so 1-2-6
    Brilliand's Younger Sister
    Squishy's Older Sister

    Johari Nohari

    Quote Originally Posted by Ritella View Post
    Over here, we'll put up with (almost) all of your crap. You just have to use the secret phrase: "I don't value it. It's related to <insert random element here>, which is not in my quadra."
    Quote Originally Posted by Aquagraph View Post
    Abbie is so boring and rigid it's awesome instead of boring and rigid. She seems so practical and down-to-the-ground.

  20. #20
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nil View Post
    In my never-ending search for something which may be perceived as truth, my mind continually wanders to the nature of that entity which is called ‘god.’ While most certainly it might be said that I have an unnatural fixation with the discovery of the nature of this entity, I do not consider any of my time spent pondering on the matter to be wasted.

    My previous thinking focused on semantic and definition. I thought that the existence or nonexistence of god depended entirely on how one was to define it. This still holds true, I believe (as I will go into greater detail below), however, I made an extreme fallacy in arguing that because there an infinite number of possible ways to define ‘god,’ then god must necessarily exist and be definable.

    It should be very clear that the problem here is that I essentially reified 'god' and defined it into existence. My only real qualification for such a being was that it is entirely outside of the scope of human understanding (this was essentially how I defined ‘god,’ wanting my definition to be as simple and unassuming as possible). Now I realize that this qualification is unnecessary and convoluted.

    It is still true that the existence of god is entirely dependent on definition, though. I could take any word and say that it has an infinite number of meanings and therefore exists, but that is a very foolish thing to do, because it is more saying the word itself exists rather than anything attributed to the word. In language, the meaning of any word can be solely derived from its definition; that is, how it is understood. If any given word has no tangible definition, then it is a useless word that really gives no insight into anything, real or unreal.

    To illustrate this, I will use an example of the word ‘unicorn.’ The word itself is, just like any other word, merely a string constant that has no relevance to anything real or unreal until I give it relevance by defining it. ‘Unicorn’ is meaningless in and of itself, and it may or may not exist, but it is not possible to know because I have not defined it. If, however, I were to define a unicorn as, most succinctly, “a horse with a horn attached to its head,” then it is given relevance and it can then be determined whether or not it exists. So, given the fact that there is no significant evidence that such a being exists or has existed outside of mythology and fantasy, I can conclude that it likely does not exist, at least in the current human scope of the universe.

    Note, however, that I did not say that it definitely does not exist, only that it likely does not exist. This is because the definition I put forth, though it does not have direct relevance to reality (that is, it doesn’t exist insofar as it is defined and within current human understanding), still is logically consistent and might therefore be said has a possibility of existing in reality.
    So, taking all of this into consideration, we can then apply some of the same rules to the word ‘god,’ namely:

    I. ‘god’ as an undefined word is a literal string constant which has no value
    II. Attaching a particular definition to ‘god’ gives it value and relevance to what is either real or unreal
    III. A god that has no indication of existing may still exist if the proposed definition for this god is logically consistent.

    Basically, this means that a suitable definition for the string ‘god’ has to be put forth before it can be determined whether or not that permutation of god exists. Criteria III implies that a god whose definition is logically inconsistent with itself or with the world has little to no chance of existing, in the same way you would call me crazy if I said ‘unicorn’ could be defined as “a horse which is not a horse.” In this way it is remarkably easy to discount at least the Abrahamic god from existence.

    This is more a commentary on the inadequacy of language to describe reality than anything, as I hinted at in korp’s Is nothing actually something? thread.

    What do you think? How do you define ‘god’?
    Get over God; get into your own life, humanity, and the moment.

    Not that it's ever that simple. But, you know. Gotta push in the right direction.
    Last edited by Gilly; 03-23-2012 at 05:33 AM.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  21. #21
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by polikujm View Post
    This was funny until I realized that you posted it.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  22. #22
    Creepy-pokeball

    Default

    This is seriously not the forum for this topic, lol.

  23. #23
    Korpsy Knievel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    4,234
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Some topical dialogue from earlier tonight (with a few edits):


    <k0rp> and I was just pondering whether other languages have words for Nothingness or Nonbeing that aren't derivative of Thingness and Being.
    <k0rp> because as you pointed out earlier, there must be a perceiver of a percept for a perception to arise.
    <k0rp> so the issue with observing nothingness that is devoid of even time or space is that there's no way to insert a perceptive being without violating the nothingness, even if it were possible for said insertion to occur.
    <k0rp> stuffing a +4D object into zero dimensions is kinda tough.
    <k0rp> so the language problem would have to follow a solution to that issue.
    <k0rp> one might argue that it's possible for a disembodied consciousness to visit a 0D un-universe, but we have no way of verifying such a thing.

    <nil> yeah

    <k0rp> so your thread has something of the opposite problem, going from cognizing Nothingness to Everythinngness.
    <k0rp> and that Everything includes a potentially infinite universe or universes, plus a transcendent Deity, so it's a serious sort of everything indeed.
    <k0rp> because words don't exist to adequately encompass those thing beyond our comprehension, because they're imperceptible by any means and thus inconceivable, most especially the totality of existence.

    <nil> my thread is essentially an attempt to determine the relevance language has with reality, I think
    <nil> the best I can come up with given my current knowledge
    <nil> and understanding


    <k0rp> I'd say language will only ever be a symbolic representation of the real.


    <nil> I don't disagree with that
    <nil> or a negation of the real
    <nil> for those things which have words but do not exist in reality


    <k0rp> math and muscial notation are similarly idiomatic.
    <k0rp> they're all capable of referring to things within their own domains on an equivalent plane, but when addressing "the real" they're merely representational and semiotic.
    <k0rp> I thought about your thread while walking the dog earlier, taking note of how even animal minds can make associations and perform abstractions of a sort.
    <k0rp> my dog's memory is pretty good for places where she's spotted dropped food, or squirrels, or other items of interest.
    <k0rp> she's also, much to my chagrin, learned to associate fire and people hooting in the dark as at a party, with fireworks, which scare the shit out her.
    <k0rp> when I visit a certain store near here there's a post where I tie the dog up as I make purchases inside.
    <k0rp> the store employees usually have a box of dog biscuits on hand and they like giving one to the dog at each visit.
    <k0rp> normally she takes them, but recently she hasn't.
    <k0rp> and I think this is because last week when she was tied up, someone a block or so away began lighting off fireworks, so now she remembers that event each time she's stationed there and she becomes too jumpy to accept her usual treat.
    <k0rp> she has recently been more eager to leave there than usual, too, dragging me down the street with grater alacrity.
    <k0rp> so even without a formal language, and a limited ability to recognize language, even animals are capable of association and abstraction without knowing the name of things.


    <nil> that's interesting


    <k0rp> then the dog shit on the sidewalk and my metaphysical musings were interrupted by the act of scooping up hot feces in a plastic bag-wrapped hand.


    <nil> ah, the bitter sting of reality
    <nil> yet at the same time it is these mundane occurrences which impart meaning and keep us here




    And later...




    <k0rp> just as Nothingness has to be spoken of in relation to the Somethingness to which we're experientially biased via embodied cognition and living (i.e Being instead of Nonbeing), we as agents with limited apperceptual powers are only capable of discussing Everything by enumerating some incomplete portion of the known or imagined Somethings contituent of Everything.
    <k0rp> so we can't intelligibly describe the All because its predicates (i.e those properties or things which are contingent upon the All) are only partly known, and partly knowable, even through the combination of acquaintence, rationalization, revelation, and/or intuition.
    <k0rp> so basically an act of faith is necessary to believe that one can convincingly know or comminucate the true nature of the All.
    <k0rp> and that faith winds up filling in the blanks of the unknown, unknowable portion of Everything with notional and experiential yet still incomplete and often faulty assumptions of ontology, teleology, ethics, etc.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mariano Rajoy View Post
    The Western philosophical and theological tradition would phrase the question as "what is the nature of being", instead of "what is the nature of this being". The orthodox position is that God is being, not a being.

    The interests of theology and philosophy often intersect though they are not synonymous, and where the first offers its answers the second often questions or ignores whether they're valid or necessary. And there is no such thing as "orthodox philosophy", nor, given the profusion of disparate and fractious xian sects, is there a singular or justifiable Western claimant to theological primacy.

  24. #24
    Mariano Rajoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,120
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    My suggestion to this thread is to investigate the "Logos". The nature of language and being have been consistent themes throughout Western philosophy/theology. FWIW: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos
    LII
    that is what i was getting at. if there is an inescapable appropriation that is required in the act of understanding, this brings into question the validity of socionics in describing what is real, and hence stubborn contradictions that continue to plague me.

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    18,006
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nil View Post
    So, taking all of this into consideration, we can then apply some of the same rules to the word ‘god,’ namely:

    I. ‘god’ as an undefined word is a literal string constant which has no value
    II. Attaching a particular definition to ‘god’ gives it value and relevance to what is either real or unreal
    III. A god that has no indication of existing may still exist if the proposed definition for this god is logically consistent.

    Basically, this means that a suitable definition for the string ‘god’ has to be put forth before it can be determined whether or not that permutation of god exists. Criteria III implies that a god whose definition is logically inconsistent with itself or with the world has little to no chance of existing, in the same way you would call me crazy if I said ‘unicorn’ could be defined as “a horse which is not a horse.” In this way it is remarkably easy to discount at least the Abrahamic god from existence.
    First and foremost.

    Seeing you refer to the Abrahamic religions which encompasses the Christian God all of your points above can be said to be completely redundant.

    Let's focus on Christian God, for example:

    1. Defined by Christians he is incomprehensible and imperceivable which means there is no possible way to disprove his existence.

    2. It follows from point 1 that there is likewise no possible way to prove the existence of God for the same reasons given.

    3. If God can be said to exist on the basis that we can not know whether or not he exists, then he can also be said not to exist by the merits of the same logic.

    4. Points 1 through 3 being established, we can now say that all statements about God are necessarily self-negating by their own nature. Redundant. Null. Zero.

    5. We are in the possession of no statement regarding the existence of any God after eliminating all statements like those above, and therefore have nothing to believe or doubt.

    Boom, your head exploded!

  26. #26
    Fuck-up NewBorn STAR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    TIM
    me>> Augusta whore
    Posts
    998
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    if you are not god you dont exist

  27. #27
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    18,006
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NewBorn STAR View Post
    if you are not god you dont exist
    Go read a comic book.

  28. #28
    Fuck-up NewBorn STAR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    TIM
    me>> Augusta whore
    Posts
    998
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Absurd View Post
    Go read a comic book.
    I AM DOING IT

  29. #29
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    18,006
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NewBorn STAR View Post
    I AM DOING IT
    Alright.

  30. #30
    The Iniquitous inumbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    954
    Posts
    5,989
    Mentioned
    70 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't know. God is in the realm of what we don't know, don't understand, can't explain, can't fathom or imagine, can't see in a way where we could see: unknown. I don't know that I see it as all that different from questions about the universe. I mean, how big is the universe? If it ends, then what is beyond it? If there's nothing beyond it, how can that be? If it's all a sea or sphere or something of parallel universes stacked against each other, then what is outside of that? Does it go on forever and if so how can it? When did the universe begin and what was before it? What was before that? What will be after it? I feel like I can answer every one of these questions with "God" and all it means is that I don't know what this existence thing even is. With every question and mystery I don't really see [God] as providing anything that helps me though. God becomes all of existence in a way. God is what is, undefined. Or God is somehow the reason as to why anything is or isn't. I can only sense that the problem is in our minds. We can't understand the universe(s) and existence in a way where it satisfies us--where there aren't any more questions. We can't imagine what it would be like. And we can't grasp the endless--that there will never be all the answers or any end to questions and that's just the way it is. This reminds me of the phrase "God is in the details" or in a kernel of experience--a single conscious moment... a moment where there are no questions and all are answered and unanswered and the moment itself feels "complete." Inside it the unknown = the known and the distinction of known/unknown is meaningless. Of course I'm not satisfied with that either.

  31. #31
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    18,006
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    I don't know. God is in the realm of what we don't know, don't understand, can't explain, can't fathom or imagine, can't see in a way where we could see: unknown. I don't know that I see it as all that different from questions about the universe.
    All things microcosmic and macrocosmic are pushed by a force that can't be seen directly but is known to exist by what it does. It slides. In order to become into what you are, you must slide, flow, or else you can't become. In other words, you have to bloom when it is time to bloom, and that time comes once, not twice.

    I feel like I can answer every one of these questions with "God" and all it means is that I don't know what this existence thing even is.

  32. #32
    The Iniquitous inumbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    954
    Posts
    5,989
    Mentioned
    70 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    surely the 'time' comes over and over... otherwise it may have already passed.

  33. #33

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0
    Mentioned
    Post(s)
    Tagged
    Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    I don't know. God is in the realm of what we don't know, don't understand, can't explain, can't fathom or imagine, can't see in a way where we could see: unknown. I don't know that I see it as all that different from questions about the universe. I mean, how big is the universe? If it ends, then what is beyond it? If there's nothing beyond it, how can that be? If it's all a sea or sphere or something of parallel universes stacked against each other, then what is outside of that? Does it go on forever and if so how can it? When did the universe begin and what was before it? What was before that? What will be after it? I feel like I can answer every one of these questions with "God" and all it means is that I don't know what this existence thing even is. With every question and mystery I don't really see [God] as providing anything that helps me though. God becomes all of existence in a way. God is what is, undefined. Or God is somehow the reason as to why anything is or isn't. I can only sense that the problem is in our minds. We can't understand the universe(s) and existence in a way where it satisfies us--where there aren't any more questions. We can't imagine what it would be like. And we can't grasp the endless--that there will never be all the answers or any end to questions and that's just the way it is. This reminds me of the phrase "God is in the details" or in a kernel of experience--a single conscious moment... a moment where there are no questions and all are answered and unanswered and the moment itself feels "complete." Inside it the unknown = the known and the distinction of known/unknown is meaningless. Of course I'm not satisfied with that either.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absurd View Post
    First and foremost.

    Seeing you refer to the Abrahamic religions which encompasses the Christian God all of your points above can be said to be completely redundant.

    Let's focus on Christian God, for example:

    1. Defined by Christians he is incomprehensible and imperceivable which means there is no possible way to disprove his existence.

    2. It follows from point 1 that there is likewise no possible way to prove the existence of God for the same reasons given.

    3. If God can be said to exist on the basis that we can not know whether or not he exists, then he can also be said not to exist by the merits of the same logic.

    4. Points 1 through 3 being established, we can now say that all statements about God are necessarily self-negating by their own nature. Redundant. Null. Zero.

    5. We are in the possession of no statement regarding the existence of any God after eliminating all statements like those above, and therefore have nothing to believe or doubt.

    Boom, your head exploded!
    Absurd, my friend, your logic in this matter seems rather impeccable. However, let me clarify a few things:

    1. This entire argument is contingent upon point 1, so this argument only holds true in the event that it is assumed that god is incomprehensible and imperceptible (which, as you already said, is assumed in most christian traditions, and in fact I already said that it was previously the one qualification I had concerning god). Outside of this assumption, however (ie. if it were to be assumed that it is possible for god to be perceived or understood), this entire implication chain is moot. But you probably already knew that. My goal is to assume as little about what god may be as possible, but of course some assumptions are necessary. And now my thinking on the matter is becoming all convoluted so I will stop now.

    2. The logic from point 2 to point 3 is sound, but unfortunately I find it to be the case that most christians remain obstinately gnostic concerning the existence of god and espouse point 1 wholeheartedly while also vehemently tossing out point 2. So your argument really stops being relevant to christianity after point 2 because most christians think that god can be logically or empirically proven to exist.

    As to the bold in Loki's post and absurd's point 1, I would like to believe that god is at least partly comprehensible or perceivable by man, and therefore is not or shall not be forever unknown. But the limitations of language really does destroy everything. My greatest realization from all this is that the question "Does god exist?" is a meaningless question in and of itself. There are probably many other meaningless questions alongside of that one. I think perhaps this is what Loki was saying to begin with.

    Whatever exists, exists, and the purpose of language, as far as I can tell, is merely to label what exists in such a way that what exists can make sense within the limited capabilities of the human brain. Language, then, could perhaps be seen as a primary or secondary tool used to understand the images perceived from 'reality'.

    'Reality' -> perception (sense data) -> word (labeling) -> definition (?)

    My original purpose for this thread was honestly about the existence or nonexistence of god, with a hint or two about the relation language has with reality thrown in here and there. Now it is very clear where this thread is heading. The truth is that 'god' is just a word, and theoretically anything that applies to that word would also apply to any other word. So you can replace the string constant 'god' in the OP with anything, it shouldn't change the point. Now, as to whether or not that point is correct is an entirely different story.

    Thinking. Writing. I'll be back to this thread later. Try not to bastardize it too much while I'm gone.

  34. #34
    Korpsy Knievel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    4,234
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I would like to take this moment to shit in succession upon a practitioner of christianity, of islam, and of judaism. Thank you.

  35. #35

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    373
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I have a faith in God.

  36. #36
    Decadent Charlatan Aquagraph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Continental Vinnland
    TIM
    OmniPoLR
    Posts
    3,967
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Director Abbie View Post
    Matthew 26:63-64
    John 10:30
    The latter is pretty convincing but the first one ain't so. I hope there's more for the sake of logic, you polytheist you. Like one could imagine it being a point a wise god should have more emphasis on in the scriptures, especially since Trinity ain't so obvious and common sense when one talks about himself being a son of itself. Does he somewhere say that he is the Holy Spirit as well?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly View Post
    Get over God; get into your own life, humanity, and the moment.
    Spirituality seems important to lives of many. I'd advocate against religion, but something gives me an impression that nil isn't part of framed spirituality that is religion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurama View Post
    I have a faith in God.
    A faith? Do you need three of those to get to Heaven?
    Last edited by Aquagraph; 03-24-2012 at 10:39 AM.
    “I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden

  37. #37
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    18,006
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nil View Post
    Absurd, my friend, your logic in this matter seems rather impeccable.
    Thanks. Flawless is what Absurd is made of.

    1. Outside of this assumption, however (ie. if it were to be assumed that it is possible for god to be perceived or understood), this entire implication chain is moot. But you probably already knew that.
    Well yes, that's actually correct, but I'm not assuming anything, I'm just working with what you and others assume.

    2. The logic from point 2 to point 3 is sound, but unfortunately I find it to be the case that most christians remain obstinately gnostic concerning the existence of god and espouse point 1 wholeheartedly while also vehemently tossing out point 2. So your argument really stops being relevant to christianity after point 2 because most christians think that god can be logically or empirically proven to exist.
    I don't know who "most Christians" are. I hail from a quite Catholic country and it is the opposite to what you say, not many Gnostics at all. Freemasonry welcomes Gnostics with open arms, that is Christians, not Catholics. And, again, I don't know who "most Christians" are.

    Quote Originally Posted by k0rpsy View Post
    I would like to take this moment to shit in succession upon a practitioner of christianity, of islam, and of judaism. Thank you.
    God loves you, korpsey.
    Last edited by Absurd; 03-24-2012 at 11:23 AM.

  38. #38
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    this thread is full of overcomplication. the definition of god is simply a conscious agent that is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipresent, which makes it an inconsistent notion not worthy of much further discussion. time to move ahead.

  39. #39
    Decadent Charlatan Aquagraph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Continental Vinnland
    TIM
    OmniPoLR
    Posts
    3,967
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labocat View Post
    this thread is full of overcomplication. the definition of god is simply a conscious agent that is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipresent, which makes it an inconsistent notion not worthy of much further discussion. time to move ahead.
    What are polytheists then? Or do they simply have deities who are not really gods?
    “I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden

  40. #40
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    people who raise the inconsistency to an even more bewildering level.

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •