Possible God

You have completley failed in your attempt to avoid ambiguity.
You yourself define God as "a Diety"-- God is a God. And any other definition is "silly". But that one's not?

Atheism is just as blinding a belief as any other theism.

 

Ridgid Definition of "What is Real?": Componets of Reality affect other Componets of Reality in an Observable Manner.

This definiton has held up in more than one Physics Forum; Reality can only be defined with respect to itself.

I'd say-- sort of.

Another way of looking at it is the say the way God really is, makes a measurement on what Reality can be.
Which brings us back to Natural Law as manifestations of God's will.

 

Unwarranted personification.

Not to mention, what of the greeks and their gods? They were gods without the Judeo-Christian restriction.

For that matter, what of the books of the Apochraphia (sp?) that were disallowed from the bible by the Roman Catholic Church because they disagree on the concept of God and the role of the church?

No, your definition of god is to narrow-- a product of the media, not the world's religions.

 

thought this was still on page one, ignore post.

 

Ah but you mistake my intentions. I don't wish to contribute to the purpose of this thread in "defining God". The purpose of that post is to dissuade people from referring to non conscious, non-volitional forces as "Gods", as the word "God" is better applied to conscious, volitional deities. Calling energy, nature, the earth, the universe, etc God is creating ambiguity. It seems that he wasn't though, he just phrased it awkwardly and I misinterpreted him.

I really don't know what a characteristic of a God is. Every religion's God has their own characteristics. None of which were created by observation. Until a Godly being is discovered and its characteristics are observed, I don't wish to try to define God.

Carry on.

 

You claim alot of unsubstantiated Knowledge. You must be very religious in your own way.

 

Ultimately it isn't possible that humans be as good as their own abstractions, anything created OR discovered in the World for a Universe FOR knowledge, systematized on the encryptions of scientific materials. It is possible that goodness have a Being of sorts more than just nothing to get better truth than the Science can convince reason, i.e. the reason of determinable progressive mindedness: What is Truth? What is the self-inclusive determination?

Time is both beyond and within the Self. No more possibilities... hence...:hat: as well, no more reality because of the ordinary existence of Science.

 

Again, as soon as the "self" comes into play we're back to an unwarranted and complicating assumption.

You've just replaced "God" with "Self" [Isn't that a line from ALTERED STATES?].
Mathematically, "self" adds another X-factor.
Truth?- relative to what? Y-factor

But in a way, I agree. Perhaps the philosophical point of the existence of a god-force is just another way of questioning the existence of Free Will.
-------
And there, once again, I find myself at odds with traditional religious thinking.

It seem to me that rigid control or our behavior (pre-destination, genetic programming, devine intervention, the devil made me do it-- whatever) is a pre-resiquite for God.

Contrawise, if Free Will truly exist in some abstract form. then God can be dispensened with altogether.

But Reality probably lies in the middle; our behavior is free within parameters that allow for a chaotic number of possibilites within the realm of Real proabilities. Which is totally in line with the concept of an Indifferent God.

If God created Existence and then stepped back and never interacted with it again, the agnostics are right. But it would be a hollow victory.
The point would've been rendered moot: a difference which makes no difference is no difference.

 

Actually, I believe that I claimed (thank you for the concept anyway) that God was without reality, i.e. beyond reality. But through at least Christian belief He was re-discovered to me within reality.
" But reality probably lies in the middle."

Right, but I was thinking about the creative Self wishing to be free into this per being the realm of the God Force ( , there and then there would no longer be needed wasted imagination for Free Will, in esence, the will needing the origin of it's folly or inpspiration to be known for the reality as imagined.

Now the discovering Self is in the Reality of not imagination but God part of reality: doubt that? Because, and this the bright thought for the active Ego, it must be an imagination to put God beyond reality (No God did not create Existence, eespecially de-facto), and the middle term is not reality, but an imagination of 'self'. God created the Situation imaginably real or not.

 

Again,
How does inventing a concept, i.e., "the self" have anymore validity than inventing the god-concept? Where's your empirical evidence?
Your view is completley homocentric and assumse the Ego has an importance that is not evident in the scheme of things as we knowit to be so far.

Or to be logical about it,
"Now the discovering Self is in the Reality of not imagination but God part of reality" = Self is Reality, God part of Reality/Reality = God is part of Self.
And that, my friend, is Solipsism-- the most useless viewpoint ever concieved.





= Solipsism.

 

All humanly observable phenomena arise at the moment of conception.
The idea of a discrete self is solipsistic, or ego centric.
The idea of a universal, perpetually emergent self, or indivisible reality is unintelligible to the ego centric.
By definition, empirical evidence is always experiential.
Science is all about expanding the range of the senses, being able to make observations of things, that without amplification, would be inaccessible to our experience.
Reality is without rhetorical purpose.

 

Trying to define God is what gets us all in trouble.

God, as I see it is:

1)Omnipotent
2)Omnipresent


Hmm...I've know of something just like that.

omg TIME!

 

But that scientific version of God could seem to have a different image than the one we got due to possibility thinking, actually "plausibility thinking" is a better nomenclature.

 

What?

 

Pfft. Coherency is so last decade. Get with the times!

 

Right there, there's a problem. Most gods of antiquity were neither omnipotent nor omniscient. My own perspective is influenced by process theology, especially Hartshorne's Ominipotence and Other Theological Mistakes that argues God can do anything that can be done and know everything that can be known, but that doesn't mean literally everything. God can't do things which are logically inconsistent, like make a rock (S)he can't lift. And since God has given us free will, (S)he can't predict exactly how our lives are going to turn out. Hartshorne argues further that God gives free will not only to us but to the rest of creation as well, which leaves the concept of omnipotence and omniscience so qualified as to be almost tautological. Process theology is panentheist, but in some respects its close to pantheism and deism in its conception of divinity. Rabbi Harold Kushner, a Jewish process theologian, portrays God as a somewhat Clintonesque or Oprahesque figure who feels our pain but can't necessarily do anything about it. Why would anyone worship such a deity? Because they want to, I guess. God acts by inspiring postive action in us, and that is potent, if not omnipotent. God is so cool!

 

Don't YOU (again: habit forming) believe that God is constantly present when you walk into a church, or cathedral.

"Yaa..ah, but does "He" know I'm there?'

A quote from one of those old Italian movies.

 

in a reality of near infinite diversity, nothing has to be omnipotend, omniscient, or infallable, for one or several completely unknows to just happen to be closer to all these things then any others happens to be.

there really doesn't need to be a whole lot else to it.

i believe there's something big friendly and invisible that gives great hugs because i've been hugged by it. beyond that though, i'm simply not convinced anyone has the slightest idea what they're talking about.

 

St. Thomas Aquinas once said that man's logic are like straw in describing who God is.