If God Exists...

[JunkYard]

do you really think he would limit his presence to one single religion? I know there are many Atheists who have no belief at all. Do you really think that because of thier disbelief, that God, if he exist would deny them if thier heart was in the right place?

God is many things, imo but above all else he is Love. I realize that the Bible states that none come to the father but by Christ, but couldn't this just mean that if we do as Christ did, and embrace the father as love, that we can come to him in this manner? Isn't this what Jesus did? Surrender to his fathers will? To me God's will is obvious; he wants us to love one another, just as christ loved us, and embrace this unifying spirit.

Just a question to ponder, as I'm getting frustrated with all the exclusion and/or division created in God's name. If he exists, I believe he wants unity, and peace among mankind...


Junk~

[Oneironaut]

do you really think he would limit his presence to one single religion?
Well, he would have to, unless somehow you've found two religions that don't contradict each other's beliefs. Religions all contradict each other's beliefs somewhere (or else there's no point in calling them separate religions), and two conflicting religions cannot both be true for the same reason that two contradicting scientific theories (like say, the Big Bang theory and the steady-state theory in cosmology) cannot both be true.

If Mormonism is true, then Islam is false. If Islam is true, then Hinduism is false. If Hinduism is true, then Scientology is false. If Scientology is true, then the religion of the ancient Greeks is false. If the religion of the ancient Greeks is true, then the beliefs of hunter-gatherer tribes in central Papua New Guinea are false, and so on...

I don't see how a single God could encompass all the monotheistic, polytheistic and atheistic religions out there. It just isn't logically possible. But then again, since when have religions cared about logic?

[JunkYard]

Good point, Oneironaut and I'm glad you chimed in. I never said anything about the absolute truth of a religion, I asked if God would limit his 'presence' to a single one. You should already know what I think God is...if you read the entire post and ever watched me ramble on about it, lol! (I tend to do that) :D For sake of not seeming repititious or 'redundant', I'll refrain from elaborating my views any further on who God is to me, cool?

Isn't it possible that God is present in most every 'major' world religion, and even a few minor one's, and even among Atheists who have no religious views at all? Is there a common theme among these religions that would help unify mankind if they would rid themselves of thier need to think thier views are the one and only 'truth'?

I personally think that if G-d exists that he is perfectly capable of reaching every single person on earth no matter what thier religion is, or lack thereof...


Junk~

[Polymirize]

I think that god (whatever that means) would have to realise that he exists on a level beyond our limited human perceptions. So he'd realise that any view of him is like trying to see the whole of the world through the window, you're never going to see all aspects and facets at once.
Having that awareness, I'd hope that god would put a lot less emphasis on how we humans choose to conceptualize him, whether as an old man, a blue heroic youth, a vibration of energy, etc; and much more emphasis on how we choose to interact with him, (or perhaps I should say, how we interact with ourselves and everything else). God is just a variable term for something greater than ourselves, that is unexpressible.

I think all religions are obviously flawed because they're metaphors for the manner in which man comes to reality. I don't take them seriously, but I try to learn from them. Just because Plato's allegory of the cave never happened historically, doesn't mean we can't find some meaning in its characters shedding the shackles of ignorance.

[JunkYard]

^^I'd give you rep for that post, but you have it disabled, so I'll just give it a BIG :thumbsup:


Thanks,

[rabbitslayer]

The way that you perceive "God" has a _lot_ to do with your spiritual upbringing (whether explicit or not). ie a young boy raised a Muslim will pray to Allah and occasionally receive a "spiritual experience" -- which he will perceive in Muslim terms. A christian boy will pray to "God" (ie Yahweh) and if he gets a revelation it will be in Christian terms. A Wiccan perceives spiritual experiences in Wiccan terms. A Buddhist with "becoming one with existence" or something like that. How different are all those really? So maybe its just your brain setting something off that makes you high and you start hallucinating shit... I don't know, the whole thing smells fishy to me.

[JunkYard]

The way that you perceive "God" has a _lot_ to do with your spiritual upbringing (whether explicit or not). ie a young boy raised a Muslim will pray to Allah and occasionally receive a "spiritual experience" -- which he will perceive in Muslim terms. A christian boy will pray to "God" (ie Yahweh) and if he gets a revelation it will be in Christian terms. A Wiccan perceives spiritual experiences in Wiccan terms. A Buddhist with "becoming one with existence" or something like that. How different are all those really? So maybe its just your brain setting something off that makes you high and you start hallucinating shit... I don't know, the whole thing smells fishy to me.


if you do some shrooms and have some sort of hallucination, is the 'experience' real, or no? I say yes, it is real! Same with G-d experience...the only difference with a G-d experience, or religious experience is that it is based on thought, emotion, and/or spiritual awarness as opposed to being induced by a substance. It's still real, only derived from a different source.

[Oneironaut]

Isn't it possible that God is present in most every 'major' world religion, and even a few minor one's, and even among Atheists who have no religious views at all?
What do you mean by God being "present" in religions and in atheists? Traditionally God has been defined as being omnipresent, that is, existing in all locations at all times, but I don't think that's what you meant.

Is there a common theme among these religions that would help unify mankind if they would rid themselves of thier need to think thier views are the one and only 'truth'?
No, it seems the only unifying theme among all the major religions that I can think of is their belief that all other religions are false. And I don't blame them, either. If you sincerely believe your religion is true, then you have to reject the possibility that other religions which contradict your own are true. If you're a Muslim and believe in the indivisibility of God, you have to reject the Christian idea of the Trinity. If you're a Jew and you think God wants people to eat cows but not pigs, you're going to have to reject the Hindu belief that God wants people to eat pigs but not cows.

Religions are conglomerations of various ideas, each one of which is either true or false. Even if you're not a fundamentalist who believes every word of your scripture and insists on following every ritual to the letter, some of the basic tenets of your religion are going to force you to reject the basic tenets of other religions. For example, if you believe in a single entity called God, which you apparently do, you are in essence saying that every religion is false that incorporates hard polytheism (the belief that there are many gods which are not manifestations of a single entity). You are also saying that the atheist varieties of Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, etc. are false religions.

I personally think that if G-d exists that he is perfectly capable of reaching every single person on earth no matter what thier religion is, or lack thereof...
I personally believe that God doesn't exist. If he really could reach me, he would have done so on one of the numerous times I have begged for some sign of his existence. He has not indicated his presence to me in any recognizable form, so I can only conclude that either he doesn't care enough to make his presence knowable or he doesn't exist. If there is some entity called God which is influencing the events of my life somehow, I have yet to see the evidence, and I can't take any hypothesis seriously unless there is at least some kind of evidence for it.

“Dear Lord: The gods have been good to me. For the first time in my life, everything is absolutely perfect just the way it is. So here's the deal: You freeze everything the way it is, and I won't ask for anything more. If that is OK, please give me absolutely no sign. OK, deal. In gratitude, I present you this offering of cookies and milk. If you want me to eat them for you, give me no sign. Thy will be done. (munch munch munch)” —Homer Simpson

[rabbitslayer]

[edit: this is in response to OP... yeh im baked whatcha gon do...]

Exactly. Only I have a feeling you think that God (or G-d as you'll have it) CAUSES that brainstate, while shrooms causes it in a shrooms experience. I say your own brain causes it, which makes you perceive God... yes, if you like, your experience is REAL (at least to you, right?)... that doesn't mean the God you saw or heard or felt actually exists. Just that your brain is capable of perceiving it.

[JunkYard]

[edit: this is in response to OP... yeh im baked whatcha gon do...]

Exactly. Only I have a feeling you think that God (or G-d as you'll have it) CAUSES that brainstate, while shrooms causes it in a shrooms experience. I say your own brain causes it, which makes you perceive God... yes, if you like, your experience is REAL (at least to you, right?)... that doesn't mean the God you saw or heard or felt actually exists. Just that your brain is capable of perceiving it.


Exactly, so why should it matter what you believe is real or not? All of our experiences are experienced subjectively, so we really have no clue as to what "reality" actually is...only the way we percieve it, lol!

Great post, btw!


Junk~

[rabbitslayer]

Exactly, so why should it matter what you believe is real or not? All of our experiences are experienced subjectively, so we really have no clue as to what "reality" actually is...only the way we percieve it, lol!

Great post, btw!


Junk~


Because if your beliefs about what is "real" affect your decisions in ways that affect other people's lives... that's trouble all around. If you believe that God will transport the souls of anyone you kill to a place of eternal bliss, why not go cap a few people? If you believe Muslims are going to Hell anyways, why not go on a Crusade and slaughter a couple hundred?

PS thanks :) this is an interesting conversation lol

[JunkYard]

What do you mean by God being "present" in religions and in atheists? Traditionally God has been defined as being omnipresent, that is, existing in all locations at all times, but I don't think that's what you meant.

Yes, in 'some' religions, but not all. But, what I'm saying is that perhaps no religion has it all right, but they might have a portion, or common ground by which they could work together if they chose to do so.


No, it seems the only unifying theme among all the major religions that I can think of is their belief that all other religions are false.

That's not unifying at all, is it? How about the value of love that most preach, but rarely adhere to? That'sa what I'm getting at, Oneironaut. Even Atheists find value in that, many of then anyway...



And I don't blame them, either. If you sincerely believe your religion is true, then you have to reject the possibility that other religions which contradict your own are true. If you're a Muslim and believe in the indivisibility of God, you have to reject the Christian idea of the Trinity. If you're a Jew and you think God wants people to eat cows but not pigs, you're going to have to reject the Hindu belief that God wants people to eat pigs but not cows.

Again I'm not talking about the truth of a religion, I'm talking about G-d's presence in the majority of them...even if not adhered to most the time. The common ground/theme, or unifying element within each. Just that part!


Religions are conglomerations of various ideas, each one of which is either true or false. Even if you're not a fundamentalist who believes every word of your scripture and insists on following every ritual to the letter, some of the basic tenets of your religion are going to force you to reject the basic tenets of other religions. For example, if you believe in a single entity called God, which you apparently do, you are in essence saying that every religion is false that incorporates hard polytheism (the belief that there are many gods which are not manifestations of a single entity). You are also saying that the atheist varieties of Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, etc. are false religions.

So true, but we all don't have to agree, man! All we must do is find a way to get along and live in peace amongst each other...find a common ground on which to build.


I personally believe that God doesn't exist. If he really could reach me, he would have done so on one of the numerous times I have begged for some sign of his existence. He has not indicated his presence to me in any recognizable form, so I can only conclude that either he doesn't care enough to make his presence knowable or he doesn't exist. If there is some entity called God which is influencing the events of my life somehow, I have yet to see the evidence, and I can't take any hypothesis seriously unless there is at least some kind of evidence for it.

It doesn't matter if you belive or not, and G-d certainly isn't obligated to force you to believe, or make his existance known to you. Even so, you have a common ground with the many religions, imo. Then again, I don't know you very well at all, and you may very well be a heartless scrub out for blood, lol!


â??Dear Lord: The gods have been good to me. For the first time in my life, everything is absolutely perfect just the way it is. So here's the deal: You freeze everything the way it is, and I won't ask for anything more. If that is OK, please give me absolutely no sign. OK, deal. In gratitude, I present you this offering of cookies and milk. If you want me to eat them for you, give me no sign. Thy will be done. (munch munch munch)â?� â??Homer Simpson


LMAO! Classic!

[Pass That Shit]

It's not about religion. It's about faith. Faith comes by hearing the word of God. If you hear it, and accept it, he will come and live in your heart. After his death, (or should I say resurection) he said he will come to us, and he has.

All religions stem from the jewish religion in the bible. Religions are just acting like they are jews. Religious organizations are all man made, and a believer in God would not lay down another foundation then that which has been laid. Jesus is the Rock. The gospel is out. What gives me the right to start my own religion? We are to buy the truth and sell it not. Jesus said, come buy without money.

Religions disagree cause they make all their beliefs known. If we make all our beliefs known, how many of us will agree with each other in everything? It's very common to find two of the same religion disagreeing about spirituality or the bible.
To me, all religions are branches from the same tree.

[rabbitslayer]

All religions stem from the jewish religion in the bible. Religions are just acting like they are jews

Whoa! Even the ones that were started and practiced for hundreds of years before Abraham?

[Polymirize]

Religions are conglomerations of various ideas, each one of which is either true or false. Even if you're not a fundamentalist who believes every word of your scripture and insists on following every ritual to the letter, some of the basic tenets of your religion are going to force you to reject the basic tenets of other religions. For example, if you believe in a single entity called God, which you apparently do, you are in essence saying that every religion is false that incorporates hard polytheism (the belief that there are many gods which are not manifestations of a single entity). You are also saying that the atheist varieties of Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, etc. are false religions.


I don't know why you assume that facts are the only aspect of the world. Especially ones which are distinctly either true or false. You must miss out on so much of the color of existence with that outlook.
As an example, I like athletic dark haired girls. It just does something for me. It's my belief that tight bodied athletic girls are as hot as they can be.
Let's say that you like thicker blondes. Well, you're obviously wrong.

Not really though, because of course, just because something is true for me, doesn't necessarily mean its going to be true for you. My truths don't render your own truths false.

You're thinking of god as this massive objective force. But if god is everywhere, then he's also a part of you, or maybe, you're just a part of him... So of course subjectivity is going to come into play. How do you understand god? It has to be on your own terms.

Tell me, are all universal forces aspects of the same primal force? I know they've theoretically unifed the weak and strong nuclear forces to electromagnetism... but gravity remains apart thus far. What do you think though, if you had to guess beyond the evidence, is there simply one universal force emanating in multiple ways? Or are their multiple forces interacting?

And lastly, would it matter?

[delusionsofNORMALity]

i suppose that god is best defined as an intelligence behind the creation and operation of the universe and religion as a vehicle of social control and/or change through mysticism. why do most people insist on linking the two? it seems to me the ultimate conceit that a man could understand the desires of an intelligence capable of the creation of everything and yet almost all religions claim to do just this.

modern religions give their followers a list of rules supposedly handed down from a deity and require them to follow those rules and to worship that deity in hopes of a future reward. it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the only difference between government and religion is worship. of what possible use could worship be to an entity capable of envisioning and creating all of reality? maybe it's the rules that are important and the worship that is mere formality. for the most part these rules can be summed up by saying be nice and treat others with respect, all the rest seems to be nothing more than political posing and flowery prose.

god, however, has nothing to do with rules. this is an intelligence far beyond anything we could ever dream of and many religions would have us believe that we were created in his image, the audacity of that conceit amazes me. if this god were to even notice this one species on this one little rock floating in space, i doubt it would care whether we were screwing our neighbor's wives or eating pigs or whatever.

maybe the blessed are those who are thankful that the universe was created (by whatever) and that they are alive. maybe you only have to be nice and treat others with respect to be amongst the chosen. maybe we should enjoy the life we have and try to improve it instead of worrying about what comes after. if god is out there somewhere maybe we should just say a quick thanks and get on with our lives.

[JunkYard]

i suppose that god is best defined as an intelligence behind the creation and operation of the universe and religion as a vehicle of social control and/or change through mysticism. why do most people insist on linking the two? it seems to me the ultimate conceit that a man could understand the desires of an intelligence capable of the creation of everything and yet almost all religions claim to do just this.

It would be nice to seperate G-d and religion, but some people need religion to help validate thier views. I believe that G-d is many things, and yes I do believe he has a will for his ceation and every part of it. It's not about conceit, it's more about our desires to know our maker. Sure, it's impossible to fully understand something so much bigger than ourselves, and a futile endeavor to try, but what we can do is assume that he/she/it wants the best for what he made.


modern religions give their followers a list of rules supposedly handed down from a deity and require them to follow those rules and to worship that deity in hopes of a future reward. it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the only difference between government and religion is worship. of what possible use could worship be to an entity capable of envisioning and creating all of reality? maybe it's the rules that are important and the worship that is mere formality. for the most part these rules can be summed up by saying be nice and treat others with respect, all the rest seems to be nothing more than political posing and flowery prose.

I'm not one who blieves that G-d demands, or needs worship at all. (Obviously) Rules are meant to be broken, and being nice just doesn't cut it when we're to know thyself. (Imo) Sure, it's good for those around you, but what does it do for self? The flowery prose is more than that as it touches on a deeper subject...condition if self, and that is what matters. We all have an opportunity to feel peace, contentment, serenity and joy in this lfe, and sometimes religion can help us achieve this state. The kicker is that most religion has been so organized and has far too many manmade rules placed to help keep the peace. The truth is that we all come to 'realization' in our own time and on our own terms. Self evaluation, and a good sense that we are all the same and in the same boat can lend some leadway into acceptance, btut it's not an easy road for most.


god, however, has nothing to do with rules. this is an intelligence far beyond anything we could ever dream of and many religions would have us believe that we were created in his image, the audacity of that conceit amazes me. if this god were to even notice this one species on this one little rock floating in space, i doubt it would care whether we were screwing our neighbor's wives or eating pigs or whatever.

Audacity? Please delusions...we are a great deal like G-d. (Imo) I should know, he's my homey, yo! :cool: We create, we destroy, we have great power, great minds, and we all wear a crown, meaning we are the dominant one's in our 'known' existance. We are kings and far too many trade in thier kingship for lesser realitities.

As far as what G-d cares about, how can we know? We can't, but religion serves as a means of becoming that which has been deemed G-ds will by man. If you think about it, all religious rules are manmade, but many of them serve as great tools to help one find satisfaction in this life. Then again, many of them serve for controling purposes, and can bite my salty chocolate balls. (Not all of them, but some)


maybe the blessed are those who are thankful that the universe was created (by whatever) and that they are alive. maybe you only have to be nice and treat others with respect to be amongst the chosen. maybe we should enjoy the life we have and try to improve it instead of worrying about what comes after. if god is out there somewhere maybe we should just say a quick thanks and get on with our lives.


YES!!! :thumbsup:

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

god damnit, sorry poly, i gave you good rep, but the bad rep button was selected :( i hate computers, i cant undo that mistake! >.< and now im all worked up over that i forgot what i wanted to post..... aiiieeeeeeee someone end my misery please!

[JunkYard]

god damnit, sorry poly, i gave you good rep, but the bad rep button was selected :( i hate computers, i cant undo that mistake! >.< and now im all worked up over that i forgot what i wanted to post..... aiiieeeeeeee someone end my misery please!

I was gonna give poly rep myself, but it was turned off at the time, then when it was turned it back on, I found that I have to spread more rep around before I can give it again, lol!

We should be able to rep who we want when we want to...

[Oneironaut]

I don't know why you assume that facts are the only aspect of the world. Especially ones which are distinctly either true or false. You must miss out on so much of the color of existence with that outlook.

As an example, I like athletic dark haired girls. It just does something for me. It's my belief that tight bodied athletic girls are as hot as they can be.
Let's say that you like thicker blondes. Well, you're obviously wrong.
Subjective opinions are not the same thing as objective facts. I don't object to religious opinions; there is no point in doing that. If a Muslim says he likes wearing turbans, or if a Hindu says he hates the smell of beef, or if a Christian says he finds thievery immoral, nobody can argue with those opinions. But if a Muslim says that there is a supernatural intelligence who wants us to wear turbans, or if a Hindu says that there is a supernatural intelligence that doesn't want us to eat cows, or if a Christian says there is a supernatural intelligence that wants us to refrain from stealing, those are claims of objective truth. All religions are full of claims of objective truth. When someone claims there is a God, that there is no hell, or that we all have immortal souls, those are claims about reality that can either be true or false. There cannot be one God and many gods and no gods all at the same time. There cannot be a hell and no hell at the same time. We cannot both possess and lack immortal souls. Just because nobody has mustered up any good objective evidence for their religious claims does not exclude them from the realm of claims about objective truth.

Not really though, because of course, just because something is true for me, doesn't necessarily mean its going to be true for you. My truths don't render your own truths false.
Your opinions don't render my opinions false. However, we still inhabit the same objective reality, where truths are truths and falsehoods are falsehoods for all observers. Subjectivity has to do with your personal emotional reactions to the objective things you perceive; objectivity encompasses everything else, including the existence or non-existence of supernatural entities.

You're thinking of god as this massive objective force. But if god is everywhere, then he's also a part of you, or maybe, you're just a part of him... So of course subjectivity is going to come into play. How do you understand god? It has to be on your own terms.
If God exists, then he must have some objective reality. The problem with your argument is that you are not defining the term "God". If there is an entity out there worthy of the name "God", then it must have some attributes which make it a god and differentiate it from things which are not gods. If it does not have any attributes that you can define, then the term "God" becomes utterly meaningless, and you might as well just substitute it with another meaningless word like "flubbertygoo" because you're not going to be able to make any coherent sentences with it. However, if it is an entity with certain definable attributes, then it must lack other definable attributes, and thus it becomes part of objective reality. It is logically possible for something to be beautiful for you and ugly for me (because it triggers different neurochemical reactions in our different brain structures), but something cannot logically exist for you and not exist for me.

Tell me, are all universal forces aspects of the same primal force? I know they've theoretically unifed the weak and strong nuclear forces to electromagnetism... but gravity remains apart thus far. What do you think though, if you had to guess beyond the evidence, is there simply one universal force emanating in multiple ways? Or are their multiple forces interacting?
That's a physics question. If there is only one unified physical force, I think it's misleading to call it "God" with all the supernatural baggage that word holds. "God" implies an entity that has consciousness, intelligence and personal relationships with human beings, which electromagnetism, gravity, etc. do not.

And lastly, would it matter?
Yes, it would matter a lot. If there is a deity out there, I would be very interested in knowing what its attributes are, how I can obtain knowledge about it, what role it plays in cosmology, how it alters events in our universe, etc. In fact, I cannot think of anything whose existence would be of more importance.

[Polymirize]

Oneiron, must you constantly redefine my terms? sigh....

;)

Ok, I'm going to readdress some things. But first, I'd like you to qualify your statement that god, if he existed, would have to exist in an objectively real sense. why?
You seem to think that subjectivity doesn't exist in the world. But I think, and could quite eloquently argue, that subjectivity is the heart of world-formation.
Since this matter cannot be proven, even in your own objective sense, isn't rather fundamentalist to refuse to allow for other possibilities beyond your current scope of thought?

Second, with the physics example, I wasn't attempting to make any claims about the unified force being god. My point is that we can perceive this force as seperate, or as unified. All that really changes is the math. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure a unified theory will do wonders for physics, but we won't abandon our earlier conceptions of it, just as we still use newtonian physics today.

Yes, Einstein was apparently right, or at least, more right than Newton, but we still use Newton's system. Why? Hasn't Einstein rendered it utterly false?

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

I was gonna give poly rep myself, but it was turned off at the time, then when it was turned it back on, I found that I have to spread more rep around before I can give it again, lol!

We should be able to rep who we want when we want to...

i agree, cuz i dont actually care if anyone wants to rep or de rep 500 times in a row...

i mean, say you REALLY REALY loove a post, and want to rep the person approperiately? i mean come on, dont some good posts deserve like 5 rep points? lol or some that deserve 50 dereps? lol

[PatrickHenry]

Ah, the eternal question that nobody really knows the answer to. Focus on what works for you, that's all that matters. It will only be revealed to you upon death.

Live a good life and help others!

[jdmarcus59]

do you really think he would limit his presence to one single religion? I know there are many Atheists who have no belief at all. Do you really think that because of thier disbelief, that God, if he exist would deny them if thier heart was in the right place?

God is many things, imo but above all else he is Love. I realize that the Bible states that none come to the father but by Christ, but couldn't this just mean that if we do as Christ did, and embrace the father as love, that we can come to him in this manner? Isn't this what Jesus did? Surrender to his fathers will? To me God's will is obvious; he wants us to love one another, just as christ loved us, and embrace this unifying spirit.

Just a question to ponder, as I'm getting frustrated with all the exclusion and/or division created in God's name. If he exists, I believe he wants unity, and peace among mankind...


Junk~jesus said, I,am the way the truth, and the life.
He also said, my sheep hear my voice, and they follow him. He is the good
shepard, His sheep will follow no other vocie.

[Oneironaut]

Oneiron, must you constantly redefine my terms? sigh....

;)

Ok, I'm going to readdress some things. But first, I'd like you to qualify your statement that god, if he existed, would have to exist in an objectively real sense. why?
First of all, define "God". When you use the word God, you are referring to a specific subset of possible entities which presumably excludes watermelons and black holes. What attributes does this subset of possible entities have that watermelons and black holes do not have? When you can define the term "God" for me without evoking some kind of objective attributes, please tell me what that definition is. Without some kind of preliminary definition of "God", all discussion of God's existence is completely meaningless. So far, the only attribute you have given to this God concept is the attribute of subjectivity.

All subjectivity stems from some complex arrangement of objective things. Your thoughts and emotions are neuronal patterns in your brain, which are, in principle, objectively quantifiable, because your brain is a physical object and your subjective consciousness is just a complex emergent phenomenon of the trillions of neurons firing around in your brain in response to trillions of internal and external stimuli. Consciousness is complex, sure, but everything it entails can essentially be boiled down to subatomic particles following the laws of physics.

You seem to think that subjectivity doesn't exist in the world. But I think, and could quite eloquently argue, that subjectivity is the heart of world-formation.
Since this matter cannot be proven, even in your own objective sense, isn't rather fundamentalist to refuse to allow for other possibilities beyond your current scope of thought?
Fundamentalist? Are you sure that's the right word?
Fundamentalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism)

I don't see what's wrong with only accepting propositions which are logically coherent and evidence-based. Purely subjective entities which have no objective corollaries in the material world and which cannot influence the material world in any directly observable manner (whatever the hell those entities supposedly are...) are indistinguishable from non-existent entities, so I don't see why I should make any kind of distinction between unprovable unmeasurable entities and non-existent entities.

Existent subjective phenomena like love and morality and sadness can be observed by their effects on the real world. We can observe the loving care a mother provides a newborn baby, we can observe that the vast majority of people follow basic moral principles like refraining from murder, and we can see the physiological effects of sadness and hear the first-person testimony of a sad person. We can make logically coherent theories about the sociological, psychological and neurological principles that underly these phenomena. Whatever this "God" thing is you're talking about, it is not anything like the subjective phenomena that actually exist and affect the real world.

I'm not a close-minded individual. I really honestly am not. My belief that God doesn't exist is just as fragile as my belief that unicorns don't exist. Show me enough real evidence that unicorns exist (a living specimen, a corpse or some good fossils) and I will be forced to change my beliefs. Same goes for God, but first you will have to define what kinds of attributes this God entity has so we can determine what kinds of things count as evidence of God's existence.

My inability to cram the idea of God into my head is comparable to my inability to cram the idea of unicorns into my head, but further complicated by the fact that I can't even conceive of a logically coherent entity that would be worthy of the name "God", whereas unicorns are not logically implausible entities and I could easily conceive of what a unicorn might be. Any entity, subjective or not, that has no observable corollary in the material universe is, to me, as unintelligible as the idea of a round cube.

Second, with the physics example, I wasn't attempting to make any claims about the unified force being god. My point is that we can perceive this force as seperate, or as unified. All that really changes is the math. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure a unified theory will do wonders for physics, but we won't abandon our earlier conceptions of it, just as we still use newtonian physics today.

Yes, Einstein was apparently right, or at least, more right than Newton, but we still use Newton's system. Why? Hasn't Einstein rendered it utterly false?
We still use Newton's system because most of the speeds we travel at are way too slow to be affected by Einsteinian relativity. Newton's laws are very simple to use and applicable for pretty much all the speeds we need to worry about here on Earth. Unless you're launching a satellite into space of something, ignoring Einstein's equations isn't going to do much harm. Nobody really cares if they experience a time dilation of a fraction of a nanosecond on their flight to Hong Kong.

[JunkYard]

jesus said, I,am the way the truth, and the life.
He also said, my sheep hear my voice, and they follow him. He is the good
shepard, His sheep will follow no other vocie.


How does one come to embrace, or believe in the Christ man? You do it by embracing his ways, man! Christ was all about the love of father, who is defined as love, and love for mankind...even enemies. None come to the father but by love, bro. This was the message of the Christ.


His sheep are those who live by the law of love, ;)


Junk~

[Pass That Shit]

JY,

Faith comes by hearing the word of God. Hearing his voice is believing in his word. As it is written, man shall not live by bread and water alone but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Just as your body needs a daily feeding, so does your soul. :pimp:

[JunkYard]

How do you know his voice when you hear it, PTS? Assuming for a minute that he is a personal God, and not an impersonal - personal God, how do you know when he speaks to you? Do you hear his voice, can you identify his sheep?

If you limit yourself to the words in a book, then you have cut off the phone line. But, If you do as the Christ man did, and embrace him (God) as love, then that love will speak to you on a daily basis. "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God"

The Christ man is speaking of Spirit here, not a book, bro. You know that tho, don't you? :rasta:


Junk~

[Polymirize]

That was a very good post Oneironaut, I'm going to attempt to break it up and speak to the main points, and you'll have to let me know if I miss anything.

All bold text my own.

First of all, define "God". When you use the word God, you are referring to a specific subset of possible entities which presumably excludes watermelons and black holes. What attributes does this subset of possible entities have that watermelons and black holes do not have? When you can define the term "God" for me without evoking some kind of objective attributes, please tell me what that definition is. Without some kind of preliminary definition of "God", all discussion of God's existence is completely meaningless. So far, the only attribute you have given to this God concept is the attribute of subjectivity.

I would never be so arrogant to assume to be able to define god (and if you knew me, you'd realise that that's saying something). The nature of god is undefinable. it is all attributes, or more correctly perhaps, no attributes at all. I would suggest that all attributes are subjective aspects of the mind, much like kantian categories, whereas god both within and outside of mind, inherent also within the world.
Realise that this is a two edged sword of course, saying both everything and nothing. The existence of such a god necessitates the falsification of all doctrine. Any definition is right only in part, which is perhaps also to say, not at all.

All subjectivity stems from some complex arrangement of objective things. Your thoughts and emotions are neuronal patterns in your brain, which are, in principle, objectively quantifiable, because your brain is a physical object and your subjective consciousness is just a complex emergent phenomenon of the trillions of neurons firing around in your brain in response to trillions of internal and external stimuli. Consciousness is complex, sure, but everything it entails can essentially be boiled down to subatomic particles following the laws of physics.

But the labels you attach to these objective things of yours are subjective ones?
What does the thought "What does a thought look like?" look like?
Hmmmm, we may have to agree to disagree here. I have seen no evidence, despite the remarkable advances in neurobiology that supports a complete materialist reduction. I think it would be remarkably unscientific to assume as such until the evidence is in. And I suspect it never will be. I have a greatly developed faith in science's ability to describe the evolution of the universe, life, and perhaps even the human mind. But I find it curious that there seem to be corresponding gaps within all these diverse fields that allow for the unseen to slip through the cracks. The origin of the big bang, the first spark of life on earth, and human consciousness.
I wouldn't necessarily argue for a supernatural answer. But the answer exists outside of the current "facts" that create our reality. And I'm open to that, rather than attempting sweep these embaressing unknowns under the rug.
Science can only progess by exploring the unknown, never by hiding from it.

Fundamentalist? Are you sure that's the right word?
Fundamentalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism)

Yes. Fundamentalism. As I use it, a strict adherence to central doctrine, often to the point of ignoring alternative claims or challenges. I know we're more used to seeing this concept applied to religious groups, but I find it remarkably apt to describe most atheistic and materialistic doctrines as well.

We still use Newton's system because most of the speeds we travel at are way too slow to be affected by Einsteinian relativity. Newton's laws are very simple to use and applicable for pretty much all the speeds we need to worry about here on Earth. Unless you're launching a satellite into space of something, ignoring Einstein's equations isn't going to do much harm. Nobody really cares if they experience a time dilation of a fraction of a nanosecond on their flight to Hong Kong.

Exactly. We can still use newtonian physics because it still does a rather accurate job of modeling our world for us. Relativity does an even better job, at an even larger scale. And currently physics is working to go even beyond Einstein, who's equations have been shown, like Newton's, to not match entirely to reality, despite how well they serve our purposes.
Physics serves to model our universe, but it doesn't describe it. It's another subjective lens that we use to interpret what we observe. Science is a tool for understanding reality, just as ancient cultures used religion. I'll go one futher and say that science is better because it's more adaptive. But these adaptations come from awareness of factors outside of the current scope, rather than simple meditation upon what "already is".

This is my point with physics, science, myth, and religion: it's all a subjective understanding. Your objectivity is subjective. So what are you asking for?



whoa, I think I lost myself somewhere in the middle there. But hopefully I made my point, or several of them, clear...

peace.

[JunkYard]

jesus said, I,am the way the truth, and the life.
He also said, my sheep hear my voice, and they follow him. He is the good
shepard, His sheep will follow no other vocie.


John 13:34-35

34. A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
35. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.


Love is the voice...


Junk~

[Pass That Shit]

You make good points about Jesus and love. There is nothing greater than charity. :jointsmile:
Love is a Spirit. Love is of substance. Love is alive and eternal. :pimp:

[JunkYard]

Most bible translations use Love in 1 Corinthians 13 instead of charity, but charity is so closely related to love that it's hard to seperate them.

Yes, Love is fluid and of God, and is one with God. In it is life and this life was/is the light of men.

John 1:4


Junk~

[notransfer]

the initial post says everything i think

i dont believe in any one prophet because i think they all had bomb ideas to live by..

in terms of christ if we all could work to try to live as he did, the world simply would be better...

i dont purely believe in jesus, but i think hes quite the act to follow when it comes to being generally good...

[JunkYard]

Agreed :thumbsup:

[Erosea]

I believe that every religions hold little bits of the truth, but honestly, God is so beyond us that there is no way we could ever describe God except to put him on a human level, which completely makes him not God at all.

I think that everyone starts out at a different place, and so everyone's road to God, to enlightenment, will be vastly different. All peaceful and loving religions are beautiful, and hold a tiny peice of truth in them. We should start focusing on the similarities instead of the differences.

[MotleyCrueBoy24]

The higher power would not deny any non believer. OR any wrong doer.