Time Out
Posts: 360 
Location: The desolate but charming outback of the prairies.
Location: The desolate but charming outback of the prairies.
March 26th, 2008, 03:09 PM
So let me ask our practising religionist friends their opinion on the nature of the God they worship;
Some religionists claim there is only One God ("I believe in one God, creator of heaven and earth"), indivisible and sovereign; some say he has three parts -Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Does that mean three exist in one?
The RC Church has also been trying to add Mary as a "co-creationist" in the last few years - does that make four?
So, One? Three? Four?
So let me ask our practising religionist friends their opinion on the nature of the God they worship;
Some religionists claim there is only One God ("I believe in one God, creator of heaven and earth"), indivisible and sovereign; some say he has three parts -Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Does that mean three exist in one?
The RC Church has also been trying to add Mary as a "co-creationist" in the last few years - does that make four?
So, One? Three? Four?
Super Genius
Posts: 1,116 
Location: Montreal
Location: Montreal
March 26th, 2008, 03:25 PM
God is All. God is One. God is all little bits of reality into one coherent system.
Whether this ''system'' is conscious or alive is a mystery... My own personal beliefs tend to make me say God is very much alive but this is my heart speaking more than my mind.
Quoting mrgrumpy
I know absolutely nothing about mechanics so I'm not sure whether or not the image you provide would be appropriate to my idea of what God is...
So, would that be like what, a transmission and engine working through a differential?
God is All. God is One. God is all little bits of reality into one coherent system.
Whether this ''system'' is conscious or alive is a mystery... My own personal beliefs tend to make me say God is very much alive but this is my heart speaking more than my mind.
Time Out
Posts: 360
Location: The desolate but charming outback of the prairies.
Location: The desolate but charming outback of the prairies.
March 26th, 2008, 03:33 PM
Would it be fair to conclude then that;
1. There is no empirical evidence to prove such an entity exists and
2. Your "heart speaking" is perhaps more emotion than anything to do with reality?
3.Are the three or four parts of what makes up this God, bits of reality or just a team of myths that give you some confidence in your own reality?
Quoting s_lone
I know absolutely nothing about mechanics so I'm not sure whether or not the image you provide would be appropriate to my idea of what God is...
God is All. God is One. God is all little bits of reality into one coherent system.
Whether this ''system'' is conscious or alive is a mystery... My own personal beliefs tend to make me say God is very much alive but this is my heart speaking more than my mind.
God is All. God is One. God is all little bits of reality into one coherent system.
Whether this ''system'' is conscious or alive is a mystery... My own personal beliefs tend to make me say God is very much alive but this is my heart speaking more than my mind.
Would it be fair to conclude then that;
1. There is no empirical evidence to prove such an entity exists and
2. Your "heart speaking" is perhaps more emotion than anything to do with reality?
3.Are the three or four parts of what makes up this God, bits of reality or just a team of myths that give you some confidence in your own reality?
Time Out
Posts: 360
Location: The desolate but charming outback of the prairies.
Location: The desolate but charming outback of the prairies.
March 26th, 2008, 03:40 PM
Maybe I've been premature in asking for conclusions; here's something to consider before answering;
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/gods.html
Maybe I've been premature in asking for conclusions; here's something to consider before answering;
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/gods.html
Super Genius
Posts: 1,116
Location: Montreal
Location: Montreal
March 26th, 2008, 03:56 PM
Quoting mrgrumpy
Such an entity does exist. When I say God is all and everything, that includes everything. We don't need any evidence to say that all that exists, exists... But is this all-encompasing 'entity' a coherent holistic being? Is it more than the sum of its parts? Or is it merely the sum of its parts? I don't have the answer to these questions.
Would it be fair to conclude then that;
1. There is no empirical evidence to prove such an entity exists and
1. There is no empirical evidence to prove such an entity exists and
Quoting mrgrumpy
Perhaps... but I'd say it's also a deep intuition. As I already mentioned many times in discussions about God in this forum, I don't believe myself to be more alive, conscious or noble than the Universe (God) itself. I don't see how human intelligence could be born out of a lifeless random lump of energy and matter.
2. Your "heart speaking" is perhaps more emotion than anything to do with reality?
Quoting mrgrumpy
Everything is part of God, according to my definition. Myths exist as much as the laws of gravity. If myths didn't exist, I wouldn't read books and watch movies.
3.Are the three or four parts of what makes up this God, bits of reality or just a team of myths that give you some confidence in your own reality?
Super Genius
Posts: 1,116
Location: Montreal
Location: Montreal
March 26th, 2008, 03:57 PM
Quoting mrgrumpy
This is an interesting link but the perspective I'm offering is not Christian. The Bible is a historical 'document' to me, not the Word of God.
Maybe I've been premature in asking for conclusions; here's something to consider before answering;
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/gods.html
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/gods.html
Knows No Bounds
Posts: 3,311 
Videos: 2
Location: 50° 30' N, 104° 38' W
Videos: 2
Location: 50° 30' N, 104° 38' W
March 26th, 2008, 04:05 PM
Quoting s_lone
That seems to me to be simply redefining the word god as a synonym for the cosmos. I don't see that it gets you anywhere useful or interesting. It certainly resolves the question of god's existence, but only by defining the question out of existence, and adds nothing to any discussion of god's nature or purposes.
God is All. God is One. God is all little bits of reality into one coherent system.
Time Out
Posts: 360
Location: The desolate but charming outback of the prairies.
Location: The desolate but charming outback of the prairies.
March 26th, 2008, 04:09 PM
"Everything is part of God, according to my definition. Myths exist as much as the laws of gravity. If myths didn't exist, I wouldn't read books and watch movies.[/quote]"
If myths exist as much as the laws of the universe, perhaps there is an issue with undestanding reality.
Would you concede that God could be best be spelled NATURE?
"Everything is part of God, according to my definition. Myths exist as much as the laws of gravity. If myths didn't exist, I wouldn't read books and watch movies.[/quote]"
If myths exist as much as the laws of the universe, perhaps there is an issue with undestanding reality.
Would you concede that God could be best be spelled NATURE?
Super Genius
Posts: 1,116
Location: Montreal
Location: Montreal
March 26th, 2008, 04:19 PM
You're right, with my definition, the existence of God is solved because you can't deny the existence of everything that exists. There's nothing very original here. But I believe it can help simplify the discussion because it doesn't create a seperation between the cosmos and God, like in Christian cosmology. The Christian God 'creator' is an entity entirely seperate of the cosmos, which is 'the created'. With that view, one has to wonder what is the nature of both God and the cosmos.
I prefer to see God as being both God and the cosmos... or simply, the cosmos as meaning ''everything that is''. I can focus my philosophical reflection on one reality instead of two. When I wonder what is the nature and purpose of God, I'm actually wondering if the Universe or Cosmos has any form of holistic coherent essence, or if it's merely the sum of its parts.
Quoting Dexter Sinister
That seems to me to be simply redefining the word god as a synonym for the cosmos. I don't see that it gets you anywhere useful or interesting. It certainly resolves the question of god's existence, but only by defining the question out of existence, and adds nothing to any discussion of god's nature or purposes.
You're right, with my definition, the existence of God is solved because you can't deny the existence of everything that exists. There's nothing very original here. But I believe it can help simplify the discussion because it doesn't create a seperation between the cosmos and God, like in Christian cosmology. The Christian God 'creator' is an entity entirely seperate of the cosmos, which is 'the created'. With that view, one has to wonder what is the nature of both God and the cosmos.
I prefer to see God as being both God and the cosmos... or simply, the cosmos as meaning ''everything that is''. I can focus my philosophical reflection on one reality instead of two. When I wonder what is the nature and purpose of God, I'm actually wondering if the Universe or Cosmos has any form of holistic coherent essence, or if it's merely the sum of its parts.
Super Genius
Posts: 1,116
Location: Montreal
Location: Montreal
March 26th, 2008, 04:20 PM
Quoting mrgrumpy
You can certainly replace the word God by Nature.... as long as Nature means 'everything that is'...
"Everything is part of God, according to my definition. Myths exist as much as the laws of gravity. If myths didn't exist, I wouldn't read books and watch movies."
If myths exist as much as the laws of the universe, perhaps there is an issue with undestanding reality.
Would you concede that God could be best be spelled NATURE?
If myths exist as much as the laws of the universe, perhaps there is an issue with undestanding reality.
Would you concede that God could be best be spelled NATURE?
Knows No Bounds
Posts: 3,311
Videos: 2
Location: 50° 30' N, 104° 38' W
Videos: 2
Location: 50° 30' N, 104° 38' W
March 26th, 2008, 04:40 PM
Quoting s_lone
C'mon s_lone, we both know you know better than to ask a question like that. That's three logical fallacies in a mere ten words: false analogy, false question, and a red herring.
What are the laws of the universe made of mrgrumpy?
Genius
Posts: 785
Location: Red Deer AB
Location: Red Deer AB
March 26th, 2008, 05:35 PM
There are 3 in the 3rd Heaven, they rule over the other two heavens (dirt to the clouds, realm of the fowl of heaven, beyond that the 2nd heaven, realm of the Angels) One who speaks the words to be done, the one who does the bidding of the said words, and the 3rd, the witness to the event, who can then do the same.
How much more black and white can it get?
There are 3 in the 3rd Heaven, they rule over the other two heavens (dirt to the clouds, realm of the fowl of heaven, beyond that the 2nd heaven, realm of the Angels) One who speaks the words to be done, the one who does the bidding of the said words, and the 3rd, the witness to the event, who can then do the same.
How much more black and white can it get?
Super Genius
Posts: 1,431
Location: china
Location: china
March 26th, 2008, 06:04 PM
[quote]
[quote]
Quote:
Laws of the Universe .- you Create 100% Of Your Reality And No One Can Create In Your Reality But You.
- it's Never About Another Person, Place, Or Thing.
- every Person, Place, Or Thing Is A Mirror And Has The Potential To Be A Gift For You.
- at Any Given Moment, You Either Are Giving Love, Or Asking For Love.
- everything Is God, For God Is All There Is. Therefore, I And You Must Be God, Too.
Super Genius
Posts: 1,116
Location: Montreal
Location: Montreal
March 26th, 2008, 10:54 PM
The point I want to make with my question ''What are the laws of the universe made of?'' is that some things seem to be simply immaterial. A poem is immaterial. A song is immaterial. A mathematical equation is immaterial. Some things are simply not made of matter, yet exist. These immaterial things are part of reality as much as that melting snow surrounding your house.
Mrgrumpy suggested that if I consider myths to be as real as the laws of gravity, I have some form of issue to deal with before understanding reality. I responded with a question and let me now answer with something more tangible.
I suggested ''myths'' were as real as the laws of gravity because both are made of something that is essentially immaterial in nature. I'll certainly agree that myths and the laws of physics aren't the same thing. They clearly are not. But they both exist right? They both are real in the sense that they exist. The difference between the two is that myths exist primarily in the psyche of humanity while the laws of physics exist in the structural fabric of the Universe. Myths have a more local existence and probably a temporally limited existence also... while the laws of physics seem to be temporally and spatially unlimited. The laws of physics certainly have a more tangible existence. But that doesn't in any way take away the reality of myths. A moving and powerful story can have as much impact on you than being hit by someone.
You can find hydrogen almost everywhere in the known universe, but you Dexter Sinister are absolutely unique and spatially limited. Does that make hydrogen more real than Dexter Sinister ??? (I would want to use your real name but I won't for obvious reasons). I certainly don't think so. From my point of view, Dexter Sinister has as much existence as hydrogen. In the same way, I consider myths to have as much existence as the laws of physics. They are different but both real.
And of course, I'm not saying Zeus actually existed as a God in the sky. But I am saying the concept of Zeus exists.
---
I don't believe matter to be THE prima materia of reality. It seems clear to me that the material world is a manifestation of reality but it isn't the only one. I may be wrong but in the end, it would seem that matter can always be understood as being structured energy.
And what is a structure made of Dex?
What is energy made of?
---
Why am I saying all this? To insist on the point that I consider everything to be part of God. Matter and thought forms. Music and geometry. Personalities and genetic codes. Dreams and myths. Gravity and photons. It's all real. And it's all part of ONE single reality. This reality is what I call God.
So to officially answer the question of the OP, I only believe in one God but I don't know if this God is a thinking entity.
Quoting Dexter Sinister
Well Dex, you know I want to discuss subjects like these seriously and in depth. I don't agree my question is a red herring because I'm simply not trying to divert the attention away from anything here. It may appear that is what I want to do but this is simply not true. I think the issues I raise in this debate are more than appropriate to the subject. We're talking about God here and we were talking specifically about my own definition of God, which is one in which all parts of reality, from the concrete to the abstract, are included within one unifying principle. It's to be expected that the discussion stretches itself out in various directions if we're gonna talk about 'reality' and 'everything that is'.
C'mon s_lone, we both know you know better than to ask a question like that. That's three logical fallacies in a mere ten words: false analogy, false question, and a red herring.
The point I want to make with my question ''What are the laws of the universe made of?'' is that some things seem to be simply immaterial. A poem is immaterial. A song is immaterial. A mathematical equation is immaterial. Some things are simply not made of matter, yet exist. These immaterial things are part of reality as much as that melting snow surrounding your house.
Mrgrumpy suggested that if I consider myths to be as real as the laws of gravity, I have some form of issue to deal with before understanding reality. I responded with a question and let me now answer with something more tangible.
I suggested ''myths'' were as real as the laws of gravity because both are made of something that is essentially immaterial in nature. I'll certainly agree that myths and the laws of physics aren't the same thing. They clearly are not. But they both exist right? They both are real in the sense that they exist. The difference between the two is that myths exist primarily in the psyche of humanity while the laws of physics exist in the structural fabric of the Universe. Myths have a more local existence and probably a temporally limited existence also... while the laws of physics seem to be temporally and spatially unlimited. The laws of physics certainly have a more tangible existence. But that doesn't in any way take away the reality of myths. A moving and powerful story can have as much impact on you than being hit by someone.
You can find hydrogen almost everywhere in the known universe, but you Dexter Sinister are absolutely unique and spatially limited. Does that make hydrogen more real than Dexter Sinister ??? (I would want to use your real name but I won't for obvious reasons). I certainly don't think so. From my point of view, Dexter Sinister has as much existence as hydrogen. In the same way, I consider myths to have as much existence as the laws of physics. They are different but both real.
And of course, I'm not saying Zeus actually existed as a God in the sky. But I am saying the concept of Zeus exists.
---
I don't believe matter to be THE prima materia of reality. It seems clear to me that the material world is a manifestation of reality but it isn't the only one. I may be wrong but in the end, it would seem that matter can always be understood as being structured energy.
And what is a structure made of Dex?
What is energy made of?
---
Why am I saying all this? To insist on the point that I consider everything to be part of God. Matter and thought forms. Music and geometry. Personalities and genetic codes. Dreams and myths. Gravity and photons. It's all real. And it's all part of ONE single reality. This reality is what I call God.
So to officially answer the question of the OP, I only believe in one God but I don't know if this God is a thinking entity.
