Possible God

I know that this question wasn't directed at me, but I went to TPT website and I like what they have to say.

Thanks Geckopelli.

 

My pleasure!

I've been reading them most of my life.

 

I checked out the plain truth site too. I concur with dz. Excellent. Thanks geckopelli.

 

name callings aren't proof of anything
name givings aren't either.
whatever is out there, doesn't have to give a dam what any of us pretend to know about it. and certainly doesn't have to in order to exist.

gods, or something close enough to them, are just as capable of existing, no matter how much bullshit beliefs about them may be full of.

its that simple. the rest may well be no more then human egotistical speculation.

my heart, my soul, tells me, there is at least one something, closer then any other something, to the attributes that would define it as being a god.

logically of course, i can't really expect this to mean anything to anyone.
people do catch beliefs in lies and distortions all the time.

my point really is that these are entirely separate things that just don't have that much to do with each other.

 

It is making it difficult for you to comprehend what I am saying because your stereotype is causing you to come to a conclusion. The answers are everywhere. The receiver-reporters of questions and answers are you and I.

My God as I have defined it, purely at a functional level, is anyone's aspiration at any given moment.

 

the mnax,
You seem to feel you know all about the predilictions of a god you can only describe in emotional terms. Good luck with that.

You claim that god is "out there".
Why are you so opposed to taking a look "out there"?
Is your faith so transparent as to be invisible in the light of day?

thedope,

What sterotypes?

I completly understand what you're saying.

Do you understand what Solipsism is?

Your inability to discuss the concept without inclusion of the self is a Solipsistic postion-- quite untenable.

A god dependent upon faith is no god at all, but merely a republican!

 

Your cataloging my position as solipsistic.

Are you able to discuss anything with anyone without the inclusion of your own associative reference?

Faith when properly interpreted in this instance is simply a little willingness to allow for a possibility, not a mindless insistence that a thing be so.

 

Your position IS solipsistic.
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=386423&f=85

My frame of reference is not Subjective. It's Objective.

"when properly interpreted "-- pure solipsism!

You interpret-- I observe.

You defend a preconcieved postion-- your arguments are static.

I seek a postion above the one I hold-- my arguments are dynamic.

 

Actually my position includes the dynamism of any given moment. Our dance is mutual.
In this discussion it appears that you gain your self proclaimed objective status by virtue of the proclamation itself.
You may claim to seek a position above the one you hold but you continue to reiterate to one you have already posited.

 

My statement was in regard a definition of faith, did you consider at all the definition.

 

Please state my position as you see it.

I earn my objective status by citing objective data-- something you have failed to do.

You state opinions based on other opinions. I compare opinion to factual evidence.

I would require you to make a clear and concise statement as to the nature of a possible god that does not require the existence of humans,
as I have done several times.

 

I fully understand it- and considered all perturbutions.

You defined your definition with the caveat "proper interpretation". A judgement.
Solipsism.

You said "Faith when properly interpreted in this instance is simply a little willingness to allow for a possibility"

But dictionary,com says:

Faith -

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to stick with the accepted meanings of words-- otherwise, what value language?

 

As I see it you have not done what you claim to have done which is to make a statement that does not require the existence of humans. Are you speaking to me from disembodied state?

 

You're reaching. the validity of a statement is not depedent up on the words being spoken or heard-- that's Solipsism.

If the Earth implodes tomarrow and kills every living thing on it, the Universe in general will continue on it's evolutionary path.

This is a valid statement not based on a human observer. Or do you deny this?

 

Any word symbol is meaningless aside and apart from it's experiential conjugations, always representing an embodied awareness.

I would say that it is a valid extrapolation of an inference to observable phenomena. One I might add accomplished by you, a human observer.

 

More solipsism.

Humans are a subset of the Universe, not the other way around as you contend.
Events occur without human observation.

If a creator exist, how can it's existence be depedant upon that which was crerated?

Anyone else disagree with this?

 

The definition I supply is the allegiance to a set of principles. The principle, to allow for the possibility and the allegiance the "willingness" to apply that principle.

 

Drop your alligence and open your mind.

 

I do not contend that the universe is a subset of humanity. I do not suggest that events depend on human participation. I do not suggest that a creators existence is dependent upon that which was created. All these characterizations of what I have said are fabricated by you to fulfill your definition of solipsism. None are quotes of mine.

 

The willingness to allow is in fact a mind opening application.