Think you're missing the point. You're using God in the, well I forgot the word, but it's the word that basically means God is personable and directly interacts with humanity, sense. The word "God" can be applied to many various viewpoints, beliefs, and meanings. One of which is simply, "everything is literally a part of God," which means that no matter what you describe or imagine, "all that is and ever will be" is the definition of "God."Originally Posted by Kim
That is your definition, not the one and only definition. It's subjective.
“Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
― Anais Nin
Omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omni-. It's "all" by the very core definition. God = all. This is the teaching of all Abrahamic religions.
A god is defined as a supernatural entity, i.e. not natural.
Natural means within nature, an observable phenomenon. If you could observe the entity you called god, it would not be supernatural.
You have zero evidence of "god", and it would be counter-productive for you to attempt to provide any.
I said "God," not "a god."
Exactly.
“Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
― Anais Nin
My definition is applicable to "God" too.
Think you're missing something very basic...
No, it's not. You need to learn basic theology, if you're going to discuss theology. It seems like your understanding of such didn't start at the beginning, but rather mid-way.
Are you saying that "God" is not a supernatural entity?
You are defining god from within a framework of belief that is not mine. So it's a pointless conversation.
“Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
― Anais Nin
"a"? That's where your error is.
"God" is used for Abrahamic Religions... If you're going outside of such, then you aren't using the term correctly. If you're Baha'i, no one cares.
Not so. Many cultures and religions have multiple gods (if they have any at all), and you said that "people", the universe", essentially existence itself could be "god".
Regardless of whether we are talking of "a god", "no god", "any god", "God", "the god", a "god" is an entity which has supernatural properties.
You cannot "prove" "god" by making "it" as "natural" as existence itself, one and the same thing. That is just change the definition of a word and a concept to suit your own interests.
I never attempted to define god in the first place. I said there does not need to be a god for there to be a universe. You then presented a definition of god to contradict me, only that it's not applicable because I don't share the belief system that defines god as such. So your point is therefore null and void.
“Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
― Anais Nin
Honestly, you're both so far off on the most basic of definitions required to even have a discussion on religion, that it would be impossible to teach you something so basic and ingrained in religion and philosophy outside of speaking to you as young children with sticks and a sandbox for examples.
You began this further diversion by asserting that no matter what, "God" exists. Hardly someone who is interested in having a debate on religion...hardly someone who has anything to teach either.
You're discussing a topic that has a term as it's keystone to even have the discussion while simultaneously arguing that the term, the word itself, even exists, not that God exists, but that the term "God" even exists. It's like someone broke a part of your brain necessary for logical reasoning.
There are words for "people", "the universe", "existence" etc. They do not need to be equated with "God". As @Kim says, there does not necessarily need to a god for anything to exist: this is your assumption.
I came from a point suggesting god might not exist. Your response "the universe is god because that is the definition of god as per the religion I believe in." A definition of something is not proof that it exists.
“Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
― Anais Nin
That's... What... The... Term... Means...
Actually, for the term "God," that's exactly what it means.
No, the universe is completely within the laws of nature.
"I am." "Yahweh." "Tetragrammaton." Nothing?
Are you trying to demonstrate something that exists which is outside the laws of nature? You have not done so.
This is a thoughtful post that you put time into to clarify your position so it deserves a careful look before a response, so I will do that before I disappear in a couple days for the duration of Lent....I think part of the problem here is that my tolerance for things...
...[blah, blah, videos, links, blah blah, latsa stuff...]
...So your appeal to me would be in futility, and if I have my "free will"...
"A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........
"Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
attitude acceptable to today's standards." - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"
.
.
.
Yes, but it does not prove that god exists.
“Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
― Anais Nin
VEGETARIAN!We have those among my husbands progeny and I must say it makes it hard to plan a decent meal. However, I am making some strides.
I think Jesus ate whatever was put in front of him...
"A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........
"Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
attitude acceptable to today's standards." - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"
.
.
.
Well, it is known that he ensured that fish got slaughtered, and he once killed a swine of pigs for no reason.VEGETARIAN!
I think Jesus ate whatever was put in front of him...
How that sounds....VEGETARIAN!
“Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
― Anais Nin
You're both so ignorant of theology that it amazes me you're even able to function in society.
Oh, I like this. I'm using it. Ditto, exactly that for my response for most of the God posts in most of these pages.
"A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........
"Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
attitude acceptable to today's standards." - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"
.
.
.
Iceland seems to cope very well.
How that sounds....Its what he says.
"A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........
"Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
attitude acceptable to today's standards." - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"
.
.
.
Why would I be concerned with theology ("'the study of the nature of God and religious belief") if I don't believe god exists? If there is no god, there is no need for theology. Definitions are man-made.
“Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
― Anais Nin
http://www.pewforum.org/2010/09/28/u...wledge-survey/The Pew Forum on Religious Religion and Public Life released a survey on religious knowledge today. Atheists and Agnostics scored higher on it than anyone else, closely followed by Jews and Mormons, all Christians, Protestants and Catholics, were far behind.
That's overall, but when you get into specific religions it does show a startling lack of basic knowledge by practitioners. From the report:
More than four-in-ten Catholics in the United States (45%) do not know that their church teaches that the bread and wine used in Communion do not merely symbolize but actually become the body and blood of Christ. About half of Protestants (53%) cannot correctly identify Martin Luther as the person whose writings and actions inspired the Protestant Reformation, which made their religion a separate branch of Christianity. Roughly four-in-ten Jews (43%) do not recognize that Maimonides, one of the most venerated rabbis in history, was Jewish.
The study also showed that Americans have a fairly poor understanding of religions other than their own. Only about half of the people surveyed know that Martin Luther inspired the Reformation, the Dalai Lama is Buddhist, and Joseph Smith was a Mormon.
Well, for one, you're LSI and he is your Business ITR, and you're oblivious to the reality that your Ne is gimped compared to the norms of society.
"God" is a term that is a placeholder. Terms, words, thoughts, concepts, dimensions, time, space, etc. are all bounded things. "God" is a placeholder for that which is boundless, and, thus, contains all these things and more. This is what the term means when people use it. This is why "I am," "Yahweh," "Tetragrammaton," and "God" exist, because what they are placeholders for has no bounds to allow it to ever be known, conceived, spoken, etc. as it is infinite, all-inclusive, and all-exclusive in ways that it is beyond all things. If you think you "know it," then it is a part of "God" as what "God" is placeholder for has no bounds.
Swing and a miss
Yes, and He ate lamb at passover. (But can't agree with with your "no reason". Every word and action of the Word has meaning).
"A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........
"Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
attitude acceptable to today's standards." - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"
.
.
.
You can't converse with someone if you're both using different definitions. Eliza is speaking of a physical manifestation of God and the dogma that immediately surrounds such, and you're speaking of an individual god. There is a difference between "God" and "god," and you seem incapable of processing the distinction.
Posting Permissions
