Definition of "god"?

[Frozenwolf150]

Only those who have caught a similar glimpse of the Emperor's new clothes can discuss how fine the fabrics are.

After reading over this topic, it sounds more like they would prefer to argue that you need to have tasted the Emperor's new clothes with your own tongue, after running your fingers up and down its seams, in order to remotely comprehend abstract concepts such as the fineness of fabrics.

 

[Piggy]

After reading over this topic, it sounds more like they would prefer to argue that you need to have tasted the Emperor's new clothes with your own tongue, after running your fingers up and down its seams, in order to remotely comprehend abstract concepts such as the fineness of fabrics.

No, because hey, we've all seen fabric.

On the other hand, I'd need a heckuva lot more than someone's assurance the leprechauns are real before I wasted my time discussing their preferences in furniture.

It's simply not reasonable to ask people to consider abstract theological concepts when God itself cannot even be defined.

The problem is, the old definitions of God (or gods) are dead.

So what does that leave?

We can continue with the old definitions, which are demonstrably wrong because they're contrary to fact.

Or we can refuse to define God, which means we're claiming that X may be real, but without saying what X might be, which is actually a non-claim... a bunch of talk about nothing... because the statement "X exists" cannot have truth value if X is undefined.

Or we can re-define God to align with what we now know about the world, and in doing so we either (A) make God into something it never was, or (B) made God indistinguishble from not-God (e.g., "love" or "the universe"). The first case is mere Humpty-Dumptyism, and the latter is just another version of the non-definition ploy, since God becomes defined as not-God + God with "God" having no qualities at all.

 

[articulett]

After reading over this topic, it sounds more like they would prefer to argue that you need to have tasted the Emperor's new clothes with your own tongue, after running your fingers up and down its seams, in order to remotely comprehend abstract concepts such as the fineness of fabrics.

Well then, count me out...

I'm not a clothes whore--real or imaginary. I can't even understand the average man-- much less the woo men.

 

[Olowkow]

...
I often wonder, especially here, why people who believe certain topics to be just "woo", spend so much sustained time and energy, over months and years, investigating them. It's kind of strange, and a bit inconsistent, to me.
I mean, I don't believe the moon is made of cheese, so I don't spend time on forums endlessly discussing the prospect. Yet there are some 'skeptics' here who spend most of their time discussing religion while believing it to be bunk.
I wonder why.

The way I see it, one who is seriously investigating or discussing religion or woo is motivated first by someone else bringing it up. I doubt that any atheist is going to go out of his way to discuss religion unless he has someone to address his disagreements to. Generally speaking, the reason anyone bothers to argue these things is to attempt to help the victim of "psychics" for example, or even of religion, to overcome their affliction or belief. I see these things in the same light as a drug addiction. I don't see much other motivation other than trying to help, here on the forum.

When the attempt to help is met with frustration or sarcasm or disingenuous heckling, often the arguer just gives up and responds in kind.

 

[BillyJoe]

Plumjam,

I don't understand how you cannot fail to see the basic error that you are making.
Here it is in a nutshell:

PlumJam fervently and intuitively believes that A is the correct philosophy.
PeanutButter fervently and intuitively believes that X is the correct philosophy.
A and X are mutually exclusive.

Which one is really and truely correct?

regards,
BillyJoe

 

[six7s]

PlumJam fervently and intuitively believes that A is the correct philosophy.
PeanutButter fervently and intuitively believes that X is the correct philosophy.
A and X are mutually exclusive.

Which one is really and truely correct?

Marmalade

Voulez-vous?
​

 

[Piggy]

See the name, Plum? JREF? It's the "E" thing. As long as people come here with unsupported and irrational beliefs, we'll continue to engage them, nicely if they come here nicely, nastily if they come here full of erm... bluster.

Sure it's repetitive, but we get new people in all the time. Believe me, the arguments we're sharing with you were all made years ago, but how would you feel if we said, "I don't want to discuss it with you because I already made my point clear to somebody else three years ago." That wouldn't be very helpful to you, would it?

It's also good for us, because it challenges our beliefs and our arguments.

There are some points I would have made when I first joined that I wouldn't try to make now, because the assumptions they were based on have been exposed as incorrect by someone on the board.

There are some complex ideas that I continue to find better ways to express, because I do keep engaging in discussions about them.

By reading thread posts from others who know more about the topic than I do, and following their links, I start to know a little more about it myself.

It's worth it.

 

[ynot]

God is a backward dog.

 

[six7s]

Kia ora ynot, long time no see!

Paul is dead

the devil once lived with god

 

[ehbowen]

Which is why, Meher Baba, in the first quote, made it clear that the relational dualistic realm is ultimately unreal; being a product of partial knowledge (ignorance).. in other words illusory. See the concept of Maya in Hinduism and Buddhism.

I'm kind of surprised that nobody has brought Kiri-Kin-Tha's First Law of Metaphysics into this: "Nothing unreal exists."

 

[ynot]

Kia ora ynot, long time no see!

Paul is dead

the devil once lived with god

. . . . .

Do geese see God?

 

[Piggy]

Do geese see God?

Uh-hu.

 

[BillyJoe]

plumjam has made a strategic move...

....he has left the building.

 

[Piggy]

I'd like to offer a definition of God.

And I'd like to do it rather objectively.

The only common thread that runs through all conceptions of God is the conception.

God is an idea.

Does that mean God exists? Well, only if you accept that God is a mental construction.

God is the natural result of certain features of the human brain, including:

• A highly developed, always-on pattern-seeking function
• An instinctive desire to deduce the meaning of events
• The tendency to scan the environment for human activity
• The ability to imagine
• A strong attachment to parents and a fundamental desire to be loved
• An inability to comprehend, in any practical way, the true scale of the universe

In other words, God is an artifact of the typical human brain.

That's why it has arisen in every human culture, in forms so varied that no common thread is universal among their descriptions... and yet it persists.

That is why people continue to believe in its reality despite every evidence to the contrary.

God is indeed within us. The prophets were only wrong about one thing.

God is nowhere else.

 

[Tricky]

I'd like to offer a definition of God.

And I'd like to do it rather objectively.

The only common thread that runs through all conceptions of God is the conception.

God is an idea.

Does that mean God exists? Well, only if you accept that God is a mental construction.

God is the natural result of certain features of the human brain, including:

• A highly developed, always-on pattern-seeking function
• An instinctive desire to deduce the meaning of events
• The tendency to scan the environment for human activity
• The ability to imagine
• A strong attachment to parents and a fundamental desire to be loved
• An inability to comprehend, in any practical way, the true scale of the universe

In other words, God is an artifact of the typical human brain.

That's why it has arisen in every human culture, in forms so varied that no common thread is universal among their descriptions... and yet it persists.

That is why people continue to believe in its reality despite every evidence to the contrary.

God is indeed within us. The prophets were only wrong about one thing.

God is nowhere else.

Excellent points, Piggy. We are always being asked, "Does love exist?" or "Does the soul exist" or "Does free will exist" and the answer is the same for all. As mental constructs and as (arguably) useful concepts, sure they exist. Probably as certain combinations of brain processes they exist. As entities separate from minds, no they don't exist.

A fairly good argument could be made that creating or accepting the concept of God or gods is a thing that minds do, just as they accept the concept of love to encompass certain mental and physiological reactions. So in that sense, God is a common, though not universal, characteristic of many beings.

Our minds create many things. We are wonderfully inventive in ways of describing certain feelings and phenomena. Heck yes, I've believed in God in the past. It may even have some use in describing certain mental processes and how humans interact with each other. In such, it is like the concept of "love" or "hate" or "envy" or "empathy". It describes a set of characteristics generated by the mind. It is not a thing apart from the mind.

 

[beeksc1]

God is an infinite set.

Infinity and one.

God®™ is the most fantastic invention, ever!
Easy to use and available in a wide variety of sizes and flavours to suit all budgets
Simply apply to ANYTHING and your God®™ will expand to fill ANY and ALL holes in your logic, understanding, anything at all!

Denial of what is inside of you and all around us?

virtual photons

"In physics, a virtual particle is a particle that exists for a limited time and space, introducing uncertainty in their energy and momentum due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. (Indeed, because energy and momentum in quantum mechanics are time and space derivative operators, then due to Fourier transforms their spans are inversely proportional to time duration and position spans, respectively)."

God is a backward dog.

Cleaver?
3. superficially skillful, resourceful

I'd like to offer a definition of God.
God is an idea
God is the natural result of certain features of the human brain, including:

• A highly developed, always-on pattern-seeking function
• An instinctive desire to deduce the meaning of events
• The tendency to scan the environment for human activity
• The ability to imagine
• A strong attachment to parents and a fundamental desire to be loved
• An inability to comprehend, in any practical way, the true scale of the universe

In other words, God is an artifact of the typical human brain.
That's why it has arisen in every human culture, in forms so varied that no common thread is universal among their descriptions... and yet it persists.
That is why people continue to believe in its reality despite every evidence to the contrary.
God is indeed within us. The prophets were only wrong about one thing.
God is nowhere else.

Right one, I think

Perhaps, "God" is a concept

Try to dispel preconceived notions that pertain to our Creator as a typical image of Christianily and conceptualize an entity that represents the divine presence in our universe

Like, god could be a quality that exists within every living being; perhaps, god is the essence that pursues freedom, compassion, and one love

On a broader note -

What do these words mean?

Love
Compassion
Integrity
Knowledge
Wisdom
Comprehension
Consciousness
Inspiration
Acknowledgement
Actualization
Intelligence
Enlightenment
Truth
Essence

What are these words are getting at?

Definition of Intelligence:

1. (uncountable) Capacity of mind, especially to understand principles, truths, facts or meanings, acquire knowledge, and apply it to practice; the ability to learn and comprehend.
2. (countable) An entity that has such capacities.
3. (uncountable) Information, usually secret, about the enemy or about hostile activities.
4. (countable) A political or military department, agency or unit designed to gather such information.

Further, brothas (such as Pac) from the west side acknowledge the original life giving force and orient the concept into his beats...

"God bless the dead & buried *****
Don't worry if you see God first tell Him **** got worse
I ain't mad, I know you're representin the crew
And I can picture you in Heaven with a blunt & a brew" ~Pac

"God
When I was alone, and had nothing
I asked for a friend to help me bear the pain
No one came, except God" ~Pac

And most other hip hop artists orient our essential being into their tracks/tunes:

Public Enemy - Welcome to the terrordome

"Never question what I am God knows
Cause it's comin' from the heart...

When I get mad
I put it down on a pad
Give ya somethin' that cha never had controllin'
Fear of high rollin'
God bless your soul and keep livin'" -Chuck D

Fear of high rollin' ... hmmmm

And there tons more, bonez, a tribe called quest, nas (one love) and the other hip hop artists who include a description of "God" seemingly never ends

Oh and we cannot forget the heart of reggae.

Ever listen to Peter Tosh, Bob Marley, Black Uhuru, Groundation (representin'), Soldiers of Jah Army, etc?

Have you heard? The subsequent messiah might have returned? And guess what, the brothas not white. "The Rastafari movement (also known as Rastafari, or simply Rasta) is a new religious movement[1] that accepts Haile Selassie I, the former Emperor of Ethiopia, as God incarnate, called Jah[2] or Jah Rastafari. He is also seen as part of the Holy Trinity as the messiah promised in the Bible to return."

-Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rastafari
Give praise to Jah!
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalms 68:4-68:4&version=9

And some people who believe in atheistic evolution mean to say they go beyond o) all the cultures, celebrations, and creative expressions that pursue an expansion of the human experience?

So that person would approach a Shaman (which literally means - he or she knows) and attempt to convey that theistic evolution was not how it happened?

Paul Mooney says the white man is the boldest creatures on this planet

but to doubt the essential being that exists within every living being seems to surpass audacity and crawl into a realm that breeds sheer stup...

This message realizes that an individual has the freedom to believe in whatever he may wish; whether the person believes in spirituality or places a belief in atheism.

Perhaps, our body is a vehicle that essentially collects experience for the divine mind...

Please, do not take this message in an incorrect way; a person can go his/her worldly life without acknowledging the presence of our original life giving force and still make it to the unified "pool" of consciousness; it is not like the world will end. You can form your own mentality.

It is your worldly right!

And of course modern (western) science cannot confirm the existence of the supernatural realm. Is not the beauty of of our essence?

Perhaps, "god" or our Creator / the original life giving force is like a vibe; maybe the concept we are referring to, can only be felt and experienced through the individuated level.

Perhaps, the original giver of life is like the rhythm of music; it cannot be scene; but it can def be felt and experienced

If a person denies the existence of divine powers in our universe: that person must ask themselves the questions,

"do I enjoy to dance?"
"do I indulge myself in the vibes that flow from the beats?"
"do I recognize the powers behind the activity that calls for communal participation?"
"do I flourish in the opportunity to cut loose, be myself, and be apart of the group at the same time?"

For all the peeps who believe in atheism, do you play music or do you dance on a regular basis?

Is there a correlation among an acknowledgment of the divine forces in our universe and a passion to dance and share the wonders of rhythmic music?

And btw, people who have called themselves atheists are some of the "hippest/coolest" people I know

Peace ~beeks

 

[BillyJoe]

Whatever you say.

 

[Zygar]

I'd like to offer a definition of God.

And I'd like to do it rather objectively.

The only common thread that runs through all conceptions of God is the conception.

God is an idea.

Does that mean God exists? Well, only if you accept that God is a mental construction.

God is the natural result of certain features of the human brain, including:

• A highly developed, always-on pattern-seeking function
• An instinctive desire to deduce the meaning of events
• The tendency to scan the environment for human activity
• The ability to imagine
• A strong attachment to parents and a fundamental desire to be loved
• An inability to comprehend, in any practical way, the true scale of the universe

In other words, God is an artifact of the typical human brain.

That's why it has arisen in every human culture, in forms so varied that no common thread is universal among their descriptions... and yet it persists.

That is why people continue to believe in its reality despite every evidence to the contrary.

God is indeed within us. The prophets were only wrong about one thing.

God is nowhere else.

I'm just letting you know, I'm going to be stealing this. Very poignant.

 

[ynot]

Cleaver?

Is this meant as a clever cutting response?

 

[Piggy]

I'm just letting you know, I'm going to be stealing this. Very poignant.

By all means. It's an open source post.