OmarKhayyam
Well-Known Member
There are 'greater and lesser' in this life.
I believe in life after death.
There are 'greater and lesser' in the next life.
Non-responsive. HOW did you arrive at that "knowledge?"
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
There are 'greater and lesser' in this life.
I believe in life after death.
There are 'greater and lesser' in the next life.
No, you would not be incorrect to describe your left foot as God. Indeed you may be perfectly correct. But the question would remain: what do you mean by 'God'? To say God is your left foot isn't to define God, you are just saying the one thing is synonymous with the other. What does your left foot do that inspires a belief-in that you need to defend and discuss on a religious forum? And what are the religious aspects of your left foot, which distinguishes it from your right foot and all other feet? And why would you use such an example, rather than answer a simple question?
[FONT="]Greetings Cottage. There is one, but it involves a totally different approach from what has been discussed so far in this thread. Instead of trying to get logical arguments from individuals that you can argue against this approach calls for you to find out about God for yourself. This can be done by following the guidance and perennial knowledge from the religion founders to look within. Check these out taken from "Essential Spirituality" by Roger Walsh: [/FONT][FONT="] .. if there is one, utterly compelling and self-evident proof for the existence of God .. Is there one? If there is let us hear it.[/FONT]
ha ha. Not exactly, eating broken glass (half a bottle) can be dangerous!"Within me" at the moment is some lasagna and 1/2 bottle of a nice Chianti.
That what you mean?
Thank you for that. If I read you right you are saying that there is indubitable proof, but this proof can only be understood in terms faith, which is the keystone of the belief. And of course I must agree that on those terms any self-evident proof contradicts the necessity for faith.
However I would say that despite this 'true for me' belief as faith, there needs to be an element of reason. In your shoes, for example, I would have to ask why there needs to be faith at all? An all-sufficient, creator Being, if that is what God is, surely doesn't need to test his creation or crave adoration. It would seem to me that in order to accept the irrational aspects, one needs to have faith that the faith held is true in spite of anything to the contrary. In other words a double dose of faith. Faith upon faith! And I don't see how the suspension of reason could ever be justified on that basis.
_______________________________________
Now it really makes no sense to me when you say God quells proof of himself in those who don't have the faith. By definition their is no gain or benefit that God can derive from such a ploy, and unbelievers cannot suffer sanctions inflicted on then by a mere concept. So reason has its place, whatever the religion or belief. After all, you cannot believe in what cannot be believed!
Exactly. If Willamena wants to define God as her toe (without any further claims), then fine. I believe in her God (but I will continue to think of and refer to it as her toe, thank you very much). Some people define God as energy, nature, the Universe itself, and so on. All of those things I believe in, even if I don't think it's relevant to call them "God".I don't see why we should all agree that the left foot example isn't God. For the purposes of the argument 'God' will be whatever the believers say it is. (I addressed this point in more fully in post 109)
Non-responsive. HOW did you arrive at that "knowledge?"
But if we have defined "paper clip," we can presume to judge. We don't "have that information" by hearing it from others. All we have, then, is their information (or what passes for it).That is exactly the point. We don't! We cannot presume to know what 'God' is, and we cannot discuss whether it might be, until we hear the claim.
Once we have the information, ie what is said to be God's essence, what it is said he has supposedly done and what he will supposedly do, then we can examine the propositions and ask is the belief rationally defensible, and are the propositions self-contradictory?
OK, sorry I missed this earlier.
However hidden in that answer IS a partial definition of god. To wit: That god has a religious aspect. Further such religious aspects are well enough defined to allow you to distinguish between various feet that might be said to be god. So you are dismissive of her claim that her left foot is god.
On what basis do you make that judgment? And having made it does that not require you to have some idea of what god is? An idea well enough defined to decide that her left foot ain't god UNLESS she can show some "religious aspect"?
OK, sorry I missed this earlier.
However hidden in that answer IS a partial definition of god. To wit: That god has a religious aspect. Further such religious aspects are well enough defined to allow you to distinguish between various feet that might be said to be god. So you are dismissive of her claim that her left foot is god.
On what basis do you make that judgment? And having made it does that not require you to have some idea of what god is? An idea well enough defined to decide that her left foot ain't god UNLESS she can show some "religious aspect"?
But if we have defined "paper clip," we can presume to judge. We don't "have that information" by hearing it from others. All we have, then, is their information (or what passes for it).
_______________________
i hope that answers your query in a sort of way. there is no evidence of God but faith.
It isnt for me to pick one of these and then impose it upon a believer.
None of us knows what the other means by "paperclip" --at all. We only know it because we have defined it. When someone says "paperclip," we draw on that definition. Nothing else.Paperclips exist, I know exactly what is meant by 'paperclip'. But I don't know what you mean by God. I know of more than a dozen common discriptions of God, and that list isn't exhaustive. Just say what you mean when you use the word 'God'. It isn't a trick question.
[/font][/color]
It can't be imposed upon anyone, anyway.
None of us knows what the other means by "paperclip" --at all. We only know it because we have defined it. When someone says "paperclip," we draw on that definition. Nothing else.
You can listen to every description of God known to man, but unless one of them strikes a chord with the definition you hold, it's blue-in-the-face time.
"God" cannot be said to be or not be, to have or not have, to exist or not exist, so in fact it is more a trick question than you know. If it helps, I took at stab at describing it last month.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1696230-post40.html
*psst* It's not always about you.And I'm astonished at the way are still telling me what my response will be before I've heard your answer!
*psst* It's not always about you.
And yet it in this context is self-evidently was!
Really, you can't pretend to be making a general point when you refuse to answer my questions. :no:
you said>>>>This is crucial because here was an opportunity to establish a proof by demonstrating why how these things things are necessary, and therefore not irrational
_______________________
thanks for responding to a very long post. I think you have summed up your position well. Maybe I haven't. My post was more of an aside, knowing that it wasn't "exactly" how you wanted people to respond. So it really doesn't deal with any real prerequisites of your original thread starter.
In far to tedious and probably unclear manner I simply wanted to say two things. The first being that there is no proof (...for you), though there is proof for me. And secondly that that proof is the faith itself. As I have it and you don't (I'm assuming....correct me if I'm wrong)....it follows that I can't take the opportunity to prove God anything to you.
I followed with some verses to amplify and qualify my two statements. I also addressed (with verse and comment) some of your later posts that pertain to the sovereignty, foreknowledge, control, preordainment, and hidden purposes of God.
As an aside it got to be rather verbose. My apologies. But summed up...
yes there is proof....faith is the actual evidence. No, there isn't any proof (for you) as it's not verifiable by any without faith. Yes God hides his stuff because salvation is by faith (therefore excluding universal, public evidence). Yes God decides who He saves according to His own council. Yes, He imposes "blinders" on those He chooses not to save, or who are pre-salvation.
I hope this clarifies some of my previous muddled responses somewhat.