If You. . . .

[Unveiled Artist]

To me, it isn't just a matter of us knowing God, but is more about whether God knows us. He is looking at us as individuals to see if we will make valuable citizens of his incoming kingdom. If we qualify, he will find us....even when we didn't think we were looking for him.

Can you force yourself to believe god does not exist (to where he cannot contact you since he does not exist)? or regardless if you contact him or he contacts you, is it impossible for you to force yourself to believe he does not exist?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Can anyone force themselves to believe in anything non-existent?

For example, if I said "Zaremoni exists" and gave you characteristics "it has blue hair, green eyes, and purple skin" and it hates you, can you force yourself to believe in this regardless of how the information was given to you? Can you feel the hate from Zaremoni; and, if you do, how do you describe that hate (from your experiences) if it is independent of yourself?

 

[Meander_Z]

Numbers are non-existent and yet we believe in them, use them daily, take our belief for granted, indoctrinate our children into this belief, and rarely ask questions about it.

Numbers are useful, and non-divisive, and yet still not real. There are a lot of differences between numbers and God, mostly in the way we relate to them. Numbers rarely evoke fervor and when/if they do, that happens in an intellectual language far above most of our heads.

Concepts of non-real entities can be useful and important. Though not equally so to all people at all times.

It might be just as interesting to ask...

If you don't believe in the number 2, do you think you could force yourself to believe?

If you do believe in the number 2, do you think you could force yourself not to believe?

I read this more as a logical paradox than a challenge to faith/reason. The use of the word belief is quaint since it's really a matter of establishing the parameters of belief. The concept of number 2 is easy to believe in since I have experience of it. The literal existence of number 2 requires a certain indulgence in abstract thinking but it's still doable. To eliminate belief in the literal existence of number 2 is easy enough since I can narrow the parameters of literal existence to include only solid objects. The elimination of the concept of number 2... ah well that's a trick, since the concept is replicated everywhere, but I could imagine what a world without the number 2 might look like. I could fantasize about some culture somewhere that might have gotten by without ever conceptualizing a pair of things as a unit unto itself, and I could force myself (I prefer the term indulge over force) to believe in such a culture and the strange effects of lacking such a concept. All of this without going to hell, or destroying my own sanity.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Numbers are non-existent and yet we believe in them, use them daily, take our belief for granted, indoctrinate our children into this belief, and rarely ask questions about it.

Numbers are useful, and non-divisive, and yet still not real. There are a lot of differences between numbers and God, mostly in the way we relate to them. Numbers rarely evoke fervor and when/if they do, that happens in an intellectual language far above most of our heads.

Concepts of non-real entities can be useful and important. Though not equally so to all people at all times.

It might be just as interesting to ask...

If you don't believe in the number 2, do you think you could force yourself to believe?

If you do believe in the number 2, do you think you could force yourself not to believe?

I read this more as a logical paradox than a challenge to faith/reason. The use of the word belief is quaint since it's really a matter of establishing the parameters of belief. The concept of number 2 is easy to believe in since I have experience of it. The literal existence of number 2 requires a certain indulgence in abstract thinking but it's still doable. To eliminate belief in the literal existence of number 2 is easy enough since I can narrow the parameters of literal existence to include only solid objects. The elimination of the concept of number 2... ah well that's a trick, since the concept is replicated everywhere, but I could imagine what a world without the number 2 might look like. I could fantasize about some culture somewhere that might have gotten by without ever conceptualizing a pair of things as a unit unto itself, and I could force myself (I prefer the term indulge over force) to believe in such a culture and the strange effects of lacking such a concept. All of this without going to hell, or destroying my own sanity.

Isn't that like saying if I had two pencil in front of me lined, that the pencils do not exist together because two does not exis?

If we change the language, we'd still have two objects regardless. So, existence of some things are independent of us. If no humans existed, the language and logic of how we believe one thing doubled makes two things. However, even without calling it a name, it's still doubled regardless. So two still exists independent of us. It's the fact that two separate objects put together doubles.

Do you mean that our definition or logic of how we came know one thing doubled is two or do you mean that the two pencils in front of me does not exist because the number two doesn't exist?

Is the number two dependent on the number of pencils in front of me or are you talking the language and logic we use rather than what that logic or language is based or defined by? If that makes sense?

 

[Bird123]

If you don't believe: Could you force yourself to believe in God?

Or

If you do believe: Could you force yourself not to believe in God?

Force Yourself? To what end? For what purpose? Isn't it better to search and discover the Real truth rather than settle on mere Beliefs??

 

[Meander_Z]

Isn't that like saying if I had two pencil in front of me lined, that the pencils do not exist together because two does not exis?

If we change the language, we'd still have two objects regardless. So, existence of some things are independent of us. If no humans existed, the language and logic of how we believe one thing doubled makes two things. However, even without calling it a name, it's still doubled regardless. So two still exists independent of us. It's the fact that two separate objects put together doubles.

Do you mean that our definition or logic of how we came know one thing doubled is two or do you mean that the two pencils in front of me does not exist because the number two doesn't exist?

Is the number two dependent on the number of pencils in front of me or are you talking the language and logic we use rather than what that logic or language is based or defined by? If that makes sense?

Counting is an act of labeling individual objects in such a way that the amount of total objects is illuminated. The name associated with a particular amount has meaning even without any real objects present. I don't have to show you 2 objects in order for you to grasp the concept 2... although if you were 2 and learning this concept for the first time the objects would be essential to your enlightenment.

You have one pencil, and you have one pencil next to it. Without counting you still have as many objects as you have, but you don't have language to express the amount. The objects are real, the number itself is abstract. Imagine if you not only lost the word 2, but also lost the ability to hold the thought of 2. You would still have one and one. You could never quite achieve the thought of both objects under a single label which is the amount of total objects. You might have the idea of none, one, more than one, and many more than one, but counting the pencils would be outside of your scope. You would look at your 2 pencils and say, "I have more than one. I have one and one." This would be the best description you could give.

I'm teasing at the confusion of real objects and abstract concepts. People don't actually get hung up on the question is God an object or a concept. God is a concept. But when we start discussing the question of whether God is real, everyone seems to lose this distinction. If God were an object we could point to God an end all disagreement. Yup, there he is, and that's what he looks like. God is not an object. God is a concept. When talking about the reality of a concept you have to follow different rules. I can demonstrate the concept 2 by teaching you counting. I can point out that this concept is useful. 2 is a much simpler concept than God. In language the word God is associated with all kinds of things. This in itself isn't a problem. The number two can be applied to any kind of objects so long as they are a pair, including two people, or two ideas.

The question "What is God?" deals with abstracts far more difficult to grasp than the ones we encounter while counting. God is a very big concept, and one that I find worth discussing... but we can't actually do that unless we can agree upon some basic logical assertions that almost always fly out the window as soon as God becomes the concept under examination. A Christian might be inclined to argue that God is a real as any object, even though they know this is not what their experience of God has taught them. An atheist might argue that the concept of God is pointless, despite the fact that science as we know it developed out of an examination of the natural world which was inspired by the desire to understand God through his creation.

My point is a silly one... but not a pointless one. To believe is to acknowledge the utility of a concept. It is not to become a fanatic incapable of rational thought. To not believe is to reject the utility of a concept. It does not eradicate the concept or reduce its usefulness to others.

I think that believers would have much to gain by contemplating a universe free of God. I think that non believers would have much to gain by contemplating a universe dependent upon God. Instead most people get hung up on proving that they are right, have always been right, and always will be right. They are wrong, but I'm hardly the one to prove it to them. Instead I ask them to contemplate the number 2, as a less contentious metaphor for God the concept. God has been around as long as counting, God has inspired as many innovations as counting. God is not any more or less real than the numbers produced by counting.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Counting is an act of labeling individual objects in such a way that the amount of total objects is illuminated. The name associated with a particular amount has meaning even without any real objects present. I don't have to show you 2 objects in order for you to grasp the concept 2... although if you were 2 and learning this concept for the first time the objects would be essential to your enlightenment.

You have one pencil, and you have one pencil next to it. Without counting you still have as many objects as you have, but you don't have language to express the amount. The objects are real, the number itself is abstract. Imagine if you not only lost the word 2, but also lost the ability to hold the thought of 2. You would still have one and one. You could never quite achieve the thought of both objects under a single label which is the amount of total objects. You might have the idea of none, one, more than one, and many more than one, but counting the pencils would be outside of your scope. You would look at your 2 pencils and say, "I have more than one. I have one and one." This would be the best description you could give.

I'm teasing at the confusion of real objects and abstract concepts. People don't actually get hung up on the question is God an object or a concept. God is a concept. But when we start discussing the question of whether God is real, everyone seems to lose this distinction. If God were an object we could point to God an end all disagreement. Yup, there he is, and that's what he looks like. God is not an object. God is a concept. When talking about the reality of a concept you have to follow different rules. I can demonstrate the concept 2 by teaching you counting. I can point out that this concept is useful. 2 is a much simpler concept than God. In language the word God is associated with all kinds of things. This in itself isn't a problem. The number two can be applied to any kind of objects so long as they are a pair, including two people, or two ideas.

The question "What is God?" deals with abstracts far more difficult to grasp than the ones we encounter while counting. God is a very big concept, and one that I find worth discussing... but we can't actually do that unless we can agree upon some basic logical assertions that almost always fly out the window as soon as God becomes the concept under examination. A Christian might be inclined to argue that God is a real as any object, even though they know this is not what their experience of God has taught them. An atheist might argue that the concept of God is pointless, despite the fact that science as we know it developed out of an examination of the natural world which was inspired by the desire to understand God through his creation.

My point is a silly one... but not a pointless one. To believe is to acknowledge the utility of a concept. It is not to become a fanatic incapable of rational thought. To not believe is to reject the utility of a concept. It does not eradicate the concept or reduce its usefulness to others.

I think that believers would have much to gain by contemplating a universe free of God. I think that non believers would have much to gain by contemplating a universe dependent upon God. Instead most people get hung up on proving that they are right, have always been right, and always will be right. They are wrong, but I'm hardly the one to prove it to them. Instead I ask them to contemplate the number 2, as a less contentious metaphor for God the concept. God has been around as long as counting, God has inspired as many innovations as counting. God is not any more or less real than the numbers produced by counting.

That makes sense. I understand your point.

To believer X, god is not a concept. It's not a "2". 2 would be the words that describe it like love and so forth. But it has a foundation for which this concept is based on, and its an entity they call god given it's a person of worship.

To nonbeliever Y, god is a concept. There is no foundation. As a result, the concept are based on ideas, thoughts, and abstract things.

My question is how can a concept of god be imagined when god does not exist for a concept of it to be imagined? If there were no pencils (pretending pencils are the only thing that can be counted), why would someone assume a concept of a number two would exist and if so, how would that person explain it given there is no foundation to use and validate the claim?

-

How can a believer contemplate on a universe free of god if that believer grown up where nothing exist but god? If existence is dependent on god, how can one contemplate existence of anything and anyone without god?

on the other hand

How can a non-believer (say someone who knows god does not exist) contemplate on a universe dependent on god when they have no concept nor foundation of what a god is to consider it beyond their imagination or playing with the idea, information, and claims other people make rather than their own experiences and knowledge?

 

[LuisDantas]

And I have no problem with that.

If you say so. But that renders the very relevance of the god-idea into serious question.

 

[Deeje]

Can you force yourself to believe god does not exist (to where he cannot contact you since he does not exist)? or regardless if you contact him or he contacts you, is it impossible for you to force yourself to believe he does not exist?

I don't believe that spiritual people are made, I believe that they are born. Nature and nurture determines a lot about who we become as individuals. Neither one of those two components comes out on top unless one out-dominates the other. That has a lot to do with our emotional make-up. We all have free will and we can choose our own course in life. If we don't like who we are, then we can change...if we really want to. Its what motivates us that makes the difference.

If we are spiritual people, then we are at least in a category that God can evaluate. If we are hard core atheists, (God haters) then God has no use for us. If we pursue spirituality according to our own ideas, we can also be led down a wrong path. According to the Bible, (which I believe is God's only communication with man) it says that an adversary can hijack our spirituality to gain worship for himself by means of it. He does this by deception, creating a delusion. Only God can reveal that deception. (2 Thessalonians 2:9-12) or permit the delusion.

If it is God who chooses us, then all we can do is our best to become the kind of citizen he is looking for. We can't force ourselves to be what we are not, so at the end of the day, all we can do is choose what feels right for us and hope for the best.

Can we learn to be the kind of people God requires? Well, if we really wanted to move to another country, and we studied up on all their laws, even if we disagreed with some of them, we have no choice but to obey them if we want to live there.
If a person shows a willingness to obey, despite what they feel, then citizenship will be granted on the basis of that willingness.
It is rebelliousness that God will not tolerate....as he has demonstrated from the beginning.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I read your post in full. Do you really believe hard core atheists (atheists) are god haters? and whose god do we hate out of all the gods out there. Why would an atheist (to generalize all atheists) choose the christian god?

Sorry, that got me for a second.

We can't force ourselves to be what we are not, so at the end of the day, all we can do is choose what feels right for us and hope for the best.

Yeah. I don't know many christians who can entertain the idea that god doesn't exist since god is part of who they are and you can't change a person. Likewise, I can't change who I am given it's not a choice to believe in any god, you believe because you are called regardless of how we translate it (either called by ones heart or called by an outside party).

I can entertain the concept of believing a god exists, though. That doesn't change anything just means I can at least think of what-if based on the information I have from visiting a Hindu temple, talking to a Pagan, siting in a sermon, or meeting at the Hall.

Do you think god is the only thing christians can't entertain the non-existence of, or is it the same with other subjects that are not religious in nature say thinking about what-if two and two is five even though we know it equals four?

 

[Deeje]

I read your post in full. Do you really believe hard core atheists (atheists) are god haters?

Some of the ones I have communicated with are actually haters of those who believe in what they cannot. Believers are relegated to the ranks of brainless twits. Some of them actually are, sadly. They tend to give the rest a bad rep.

and whose god do we hate out of all the gods out there. Why would an atheist (to generalize all atheists) choose the christian god?

We have some former atheists in our ranks and it was a latent spirituality in them that was touched by something they heard or experienced. God virtually tapped them on the shoulder and introduced himself.
He will not force himself on anyone, but the experience is undeniable..... either a a lightbulb moment

or a slow awakening from examining the Bible for themselves.

Sorry, that got me for a second.

We all respond as our nature or nurture dictates. We cannot alter who we are, but do we really know who we are better than our Creator? He sees past actions and thoughts to the inner person....the one he calls "the secret person of the heart". That is the one he will draw, not necessarily the pious "all show on top" kind of person. He knows who we really are even when we don't. (Matthew 7:21-23)

Yeah. I don't know many christians who can entertain the idea that god doesn't exist since god is part of who they are and you can't change a person. Likewise, I can't change who I am given it's not a choice to believe in any god, you believe because you are called regardless of how we translate it (either called by ones heart or called by an outside party).

We are all in the process of revealing who we really are....the one God sees. We don't have to believe in him for that to happen.

I can entertain the concept of believing a god exists, though. That doesn't change anything just means I can at least think of what-if based on the information I have from visiting a Hindu temple, talking to a Pagan, siting in a sermon, or meeting at the Hall.

Indeed....it takes something to touch the heart....regardless of what form that takes. What is in our heart will be brought out and the real person will stand before their Maker.

Do you think god is the only thing christians can't entertain the non-existence of, or is it the same with other subjects that are not religious in nature say thinking about what-if two and two is five even though we know it equals four?

Not sure I understand the question....?

Can you give me an example?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Haha. I like that:

Some of the ones I have communicated with are actually haters of those who believe in what they cannot. Believers are relegated to the ranks of brainless twits. Some of them actually are, sadly

To tell you honestly, in my experience the only atheists I met that were god-haters were online. One gentleman just looked at me and thought all Americans were christian, I told him I wasn't. I asked him what he believed; and, he said many people in Korea don't believe in god and said he was atheist. They have no religion. There was no bias or anything.

On the other end of the coin, and this is just experience, many people are Catholics here and have a huge opinion against those who differ in values. So, you'll find christians who are more blunt than others. No hell-fire and damnation that I see online; but, compared to the two, you have to admit that christians and muslims do have a way of expressing their beliefs even if they don't see the harm it causes. It does cause harm.

I guess personal experience is the key here. I never was raised religious and wouldn't be have been christian at all if I hadn't moved in this area. So it could be the environment too.

I wouldn't say believers are brainless, though. I just find it's hard for you all to be open-minded without the mention of god, scripture, and/or the Church. Nothing wrong with it. It can get annoying sometimes in discussions that cause for more objective views and support not just personal experience and apostle testimonies.

We all respond as our nature or nurture dictates. We cannot alter who we are, but do we really know who we are better than our Creator?

Depends on what you believe. From how you see things, no. From how I see things, there is no creator. We are who we are without the need to refer to someone outside of ourselves edit but through our genealogical line and natural environment. The need to search and connect with an entity is beyond me. I kind of understand the role of jesus christ given he is human. However, he also believed in an entity; so, it's interesting to say the least.

Indeed....it takes something to touch the heart....regardless of what form that takes. What is in our heart will be brought out and the real person will stand before their Maker.

The first part I agree with. I don't understand the "Stand before their maker". That is like saying just because my mother is my mother, I an required to stand before her not because she told me to. She could be way on the other side of the world. But the fact she is my mother and that only says I should stand before her does not make sense.

In other words, how does being a parent in and of itself require a child to stand before their parent and do what their parent want them to do? When that child reaches adulthood, and never knew his mother, what about "being a mother" requires him to submit to her?

How does being a creator (and the nature as the creator) make it required for creation to stand before or be judged by it?

Not sure I understand the question....?

Do you think god is the only thing christians can't entertain the non-existence of, or is it the same with other subjects that are not religious in nature say thinking about what-if two and two is five even though we know it equals four?​

I notice christians can't (and some just don't want to) entertain that god does not exist. However, some can entertain the idea that we can one day stand on Mercury even though it's the closest planet to the sun.

Do you think they can't entertain the idea there is no god because it is religious in nature, are they allowed to by their god, or another reason?

 

[Meander_Z]

That makes sense. I understand your point.

To believer X, god is not a concept. It's not a "2". 2 would be the words that describe it like love and so forth. But it has a foundation for which this concept is based on, and its an entity they call god given it's a person of worship.

To nonbeliever Y, god is a concept. There is no foundation. As a result, the concept are based on ideas, thoughts, and abstract things.

I still think there is a misunderstanding of language. I assert that God is always a concept. Love is a concept. Time is a concept. Justice is a concept. Justice is a concept that is flawed. It hasn't had the kinks worked out. It exists as an ideal that is meant to be perfect but is not. Someone who has been treated unfairly might say "Justice is not real." But what they mean to say is "Justice did not work for me. It failed to function on my behalf." They aren't calling into question the existence of the concept. If they didn't have a concept of justice they could not make such a statement, they could not in fact feel as if they had been treated unfairly. A concept is not an imaginary thing, although imaginary things are also concepts.

When I'm talking about a concept I'm talking about a human description of events, processes, or relationships that is not observable in itself. Time is real. Time is not an object. Time is a description of change as it unfolds from one moment of experience to the next. You can point to the moment, you cannot point to the process of change. We can only talk about time because the human mind has invented languages that handle this kind of abstract description. We can treat time as an object (a thing in itself) but time is not a thing. It's a process. This process was happening long before humans had a word to describe it, and time does not depend upon humans thinking about it in order to continue.

I would argue that believer X. Thinks that God has to be an object because non-believer Y has spent so much time convincing believer X that only objects are real. Y doesn't actually believe that only objects are real, but Y is annoyed by the possibility that X may try to force Y to accept a whole book's worth of assertions about God if believer X gets any headway in the argument. X knows God to be real therefore God must be an object. No.

God is always a concept no matter how much you believe. Arguing that God is an object only leads you down an unsubstantiated line of reasoning that every atheist knows how to exploit. God is a concept. A concept can be real. A concept can function without humans having language to describe it. A concept can also be false or imaginary.

My question is how can a concept of god be imagined when god does not exist for a concept of it to be imagined? If there were no pencils (pretending pencils are the only thing that can be counted), why would someone assume a concept of a number two would exist and if so, how would that person explain it given there is no foundation to use and validate the claim?

I think this is much easier to do than you might think. Humans use metaphor and analogy to create concepts even when we don't precisely understand the processes taking place. You used the term foundation to describe God, and this is an example of a metaphor being used to visualize or describe the concept of God. A foundation is a real world object, the base of a building, but you are using this word as a concept in a well established analogy. God is to reality as a foundation is to a building. God doesn't have to exist in order for this analogy to be meaningful. In fact you are defining the concept of God through use of this analogy. You have three real experiences; foundation, building, and reality. By comparing reality to a building you are able to infer the existence of God. This is actually where most of our understanding about God comes from. Before there were holy scriptures there were metaphors and analogies. Metaphors and analogies are used in holy scriptures to define and explain God.

How can a believer contemplate on a universe free of god if that believer grown up where nothing exist but god? If existence is dependent on god, how can one contemplate existence of anything and anyone without god?

I have a difficult time believing that any believer has never had a single moment of doubt, or a single moment of feeling forsaken by God. Even Jesus knew this feeling, and He above anyone could be described as a true believer. But even if one has never had this experience they can use metaphor and analogy again to grasp the concept. Imagine God is like the sun, and it is night time. Imagine it was perpetual night time. Imagine that the sun was just a dream, and you woke up into a world of perpetual night. Why would you want to imagine such a thing? Because this is the world that many people live in everyday. This is a world that most people find themselves in at least for a few moments at a time throughout their life. This exercise helps you build real empathy for those who lack your faith rather than looking down on them as sinners or mad men. It may also give you a clearer idea of what God is and what God isn't, or at the very least it can help you to appreciate the presence of God more fully.

How can a non-believer (say someone who knows god does not exist) contemplate on a universe dependent on god when they have no concept nor foundation of what a god is to consider it beyond their imagination or playing with the idea, information, and claims other people make rather than their own experiences and knowledge?

And this one is simply a matter of indulgence. The act of remembering what it was to be a child, with a child's trust that all will be well, that magic can happen, that there are monsters under the bed and angles living in the lamp light. There may be a few people who have lived their entire lives without ever holding a single magical belief, but I have a hard time believing this is true for most as well. This requires letting go of cynicism, giving up hard cold truth in favor of a little beauty and innocence. Most people don't lack this ability. What they lack is willingness. They think their hardness and intelligence makes them superior. They take comfort in looking down their noses at others, because they've lost the comfort of idle dreams. The benefit of doing this is in my opinion self evident. Do it because it feels good. Do it because it matters. Do it because children make better company than cynical adults... but the best company of all comes from adults who are capable of intelligent rational thought but still maintain their joyfulness of life. Even among the atheists I know, the best of them are always able to return to this state even for a few moments, and they aren't angry at believers for believing. They simply don't believe, but they understand believing. They have empathy for belief.

It's an absolute stubborn illusion that we are incapable of agreement and empathy. All of us can envision the possibility of God. All of us an envision the possibility of No-God. This isn't an abandonment of faith or reason. This is an attempt to see both sides.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I can be influenced by facts, scientific law, or scientific theory and introduce/dispose of beliefs based on these. However, I cannot force myself to believe or disbelieve based on no empirical evidence.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It's an absolute stubborn illusion that we are incapable of agreement and empathy. All of us can envision the possibility of God. All of us an envision the possibility of No-God. This isn't an abandonment of faith or reason. This is an attempt to see both sides.

I'd have to go back and read your post a couple of times. It's a tongue twister. How do you envision a possibility of god? For example, god to me is life. If I were to think of an entity, I'd have no where to start. I'd have to trust what I read in the book is real in order to have some information to envision a god I know doesn't exist. However, I do not believe the information in any sacred book describes an entity independent of ourselves. It's based on human wants, needs, and experiences with life in manner of analogy, stories, and relationship with people and self. Yet, to dig into all of the testimonies and information to find something "non-human" to go by is little to nothing.

Where would I start?

As for concept, I don't know what a god is to see him as an entity. I also can't verify if the concept of god is correct given god does not exist. So, what is the concept based on? We have ideas and so forth, but maybe some believers mistake the ideas, opinions, and beliefs for foundations. It could be because they are experience results from the beliefs and ideas they have and because these experiences can be literally proven, they conclude so can the source be literally proven as well (yet, no one really wants to prove it, just say the claim or quote scripture).

If god is a concept, what is god a concept of?
What is the foundation of this concept or analogy?
I know it's based on religion. If I went by religion, I can answer the questions. However, just in and of itself, what does "god" mean either as concept or as object?

 

[Meander_Z]

I'd have to go back and read your post a couple of times. It's a tongue twister. How do you envision a possibility of god? For example, god to me is life. If I were to think of an entity, I'd have no where to start. I'd have to trust what I read in the book is real in order to have some information to envision a god I know doesn't exist. However, I do not believe the information in any sacred book describes an entity independent of ourselves. It's based on human wants, needs, and experiences with life in manner of analogy, stories, and relationship with people and self. Yet, to dig into all of the testimonies and information to find something "non-human" to go by is little to nothing.

Where would I start?

As for concept, I don't know what a god is to see him as an entity. I also can't verify if the concept of god is correct given god does not exist. So, what is the concept based on? We have ideas and so forth, but maybe some believers mistake the ideas, opinions, and beliefs for foundations. It could be because they are experience results from the beliefs and ideas they have and because these experiences can be literally proven, they conclude so can the source be literally proven as well (yet, no one really wants to prove it, just say the claim or quote scripture).

If god is a concept, what is god a concept of?
What is the foundation of this concept or analogy?
I know it's based on religion. If I went by religion, I can answer the questions. However, just in and of itself, what does "god" mean either as concept or as object?

Now we are getting into some much bigger questions... that start diverging from my original point. For all those words the original point is a very simple one. Namely: God is a concept not a object. The concept of God is bigger and more complicated than the concept of 2. Concepts can be independent of human thought (a description of a real process) or can be invented by human thought (via analogy and metaphor). It does us some good to attempt to understand alternative perspectives on the God concept.

I have the ability to envision God as an entity. I had imaginary friends as a kid, same basic principle. You describe God as life. Also a valid way of envisioning the God-concept. This is probably the earliest God-concept people ever had. God as birth. God as earth. God as mother. We've moved God around and changed the language and definitions a lot. Monotheism prefers God as law. God as perfection. God as judge. I am able to envision all these different ways of seeing God, but I still have my own preferences in how I envision and define God for myself.

You've already got a hold of the God-concept. Knowing the God-concept doesn't require agreement with any particular notion of God. I would define the concept as "that which humans think about when contemplating the mysterious and unexplainable aspects of experience and reality." Once God was found in the reproductive functions (sex, birth, menstruation, ejaculation). Later God moved into heaven as the movement of planets and stars. Now God is found in the quantum fluctuations of an atom. I see God as real, but constantly changing based on the parameters of human understanding and imagination.

How much does God exist as an independent entity? This is a really big question. One that I don't have an answer to. I'm more likely to challenge any simple answers to this question than to attempt to provide one myself.

I interact with God as if God is an independent entity, but this does not mean that there is an independent entity for me to interact with. My own experience of God in intrinsically rooted in me. I can experience blessings and coincidences that happen externally, but I have no assurance that God manifests these things. I could be manifesting them for myself. I could be interpreting random events as meaningful ones. I'm very comfortable with doubt and uncertainty. God dwells in the dark spaces of my consciousness. God manifests through things I do not understand. Being uncertain brings me closer to God. I don't wait around for miracles. I probe into mysteries. God is one of my favorite mysteries, and this is one of the ways in which I express my love for God.

I respect and affirm all states of belief and non-belief. I indulge various states of belief and non-belief as I quest for my own deeper understanding of God/reality/self. I think the reason that there are so many differences in how we see God, comes from the variety of ways we have used and envisioned God over time. Some people need the heavenly God of perfection, suggested by the night sky and written about in the Bible. Some people need the earthy mother of our primal ancestors, and they craft rituals to contact her. Some people don't feel that they need God at all, or maybe they just haven't conceived of a complex enough vision of God to meet their needs. To each their own, and may we all try to understand one another despite our very different visions.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Now we are getting into some much bigger questions... that start diverging from my original point. For all those words the original point is a very simple one. Namely: God is a concept not a object. The concept of God is bigger and more complicated than the concept of 2. Concepts can be independent of human thought (a description of a real process) or can be invented by human thought (via analogy and metaphor). It does us some good to attempt to understand alternative perspectives on the God concept.

I have the ability to envision God as an entity. I had imaginary friends as a kid, same basic principle. You describe God as life. Also a valid way of envisioning the God-concept. This is probably the earliest God-concept people ever had. God as birth. God as earth. God as mother. We've moved God around and changed the language and definitions a lot. Monotheism prefers God as law. God as perfection. God as judge. I am able to envision all these different ways of seeing God, but I still have my own preferences in how I envision and define God for myself.

You've already got a hold of the God-concept. Knowing the God-concept doesn't require agreement with any particular notion of God. I would define the concept as "that which humans think about when contemplating the mysterious and unexplainable aspects of experience and reality." Once God was found in the reproductive functions (sex, birth, menstruation, ejaculation). Later God moved into heaven as the movement of planets and stars. Now God is found in the quantum fluctuations of an atom. I see God as real, but constantly changing based on the parameters of human understanding and imagination.

How much does God exist as an independent entity? This is a really big question. One that I don't have an answer to. I'm more likely to challenge any simple answers to this question than to attempt to provide one myself.

I interact with God as if God is an independent entity, but this does not mean that there is an independent entity for me to interact with. My own experience of God in intrinsically rooted in me. I can experience blessings and coincidences that happen externally, but I have no assurance that God manifests these things. I could be manifesting them for myself. I could be interpreting random events as meaningful ones. I'm very comfortable with doubt and uncertainty. God dwells in the dark spaces of my consciousness. God manifests through things I do not understand. Being uncertain brings me closer to God. I don't wait around for miracles. I probe into mysteries. God is one of my favorite mysteries, and this is one of the ways in which I express my love for God.

I respect and affirm all states of belief and non-belief. I indulge various states of belief and non-belief as I quest for my own deeper understanding of God/reality/self. I think the reason that there are so many differences in how we see God, comes from the variety of ways we have used and envisioned God over time. Some people need the heavenly God of perfection, suggested by the night sky and written about in the Bible. Some people need the earthy mother of our primal ancestors, and they craft rituals to contact her. Some people don't feel that they need God at all, or maybe they just haven't conceived of a complex enough vision of God to meet their needs. To each their own, and may we all try to understand one another despite our very different visions.

I guess god is a concept for some people. If I did not move and did not become christian four years ago, I would have no concept of god. I did not own a bible. I was completely ignorant to a god-concept or a god-fact depending on who I speak with.

But take out the word god and just talk about life. There isn't anything complex about it. It's pretty simple. We make things more complicated than what nature has provided us to live with. We can play around with language and call anything god; but, what identifies god as an unique concept in its own right?

What is god if it is a separate concept without a concrete foundation to base the definition on?

Why do you believe in god? Life is pretty simple when we stop making things complicated. Whatever we do "in the name of god" can be applied to life. We don't have to "pray to the creator to bless our food" just be mindful of what you are eating will nourish you and by that means thank life for the nourishment you receive without making life into a noun.

My puzzlement is listening to people use a god-concept as a fact. Life is a fact. I can call it god or anything else. But we are a part of life. God is just a word.

There are so many definitions of the word god that to say it is even a concept begs the question, what concept does god represent?

 

[Spideymon77]

The simple answer for me is no. When I was losing my faith, I clang desperately to any shred of hope that the after life exists. I couldn't believe though, it was impossible. Eventually, I just accepted it. I can't force myself to believe.

 

[Meander_Z]

I guess god is a concept for some people. If I did not move and did not become christian four years ago, I would have no concept of god. I did not own a bible. I was completely ignorant to a god-concept or a god-fact depending on who I speak with.

But take out the word god and just talk about life. There isn't anything complex about it. It's pretty simple. We make things more complicated than what nature has provided us to live with. We can play around with language and call anything god; but, what identifies god as an unique concept in its own right?

What is god if it is a separate concept without a concrete foundation to base the definition on?

Why do you believe in god? Life is pretty simple when we stop making things complicated. Whatever we do "in the name of god" can be applied to life. We don't have to "pray to the creator to bless our food" just be mindful of what you are eating will nourish you and by that means thank life for the nourishment you receive without making life into a noun.

My puzzlement is listening to people use a god-concept as a fact. Life is a fact. I can call it god or anything else. But we are a part of life. God is just a word.

There are so many definitions of the word god that to say it is even a concept begs the question, what concept does god represent?

I'm not sure I can answer these questions any better than I already have without just repeating myself.

God is a complex concept that has been defined a number of different ways by a number of different people, and yet we all have the ability to call the concept to mind when someone speaks of it. I have defined this concept as "that which humans think of when they consider the aspects of experience and reality which they do not understand in a concrete way." A Christian might define it as "the literal supreme creator of the universe, my judge and father." A pagan might define it as "the metaphorical pantheistic assembly of archetypes from a particular tradition." An atheist might define it as "an imaginary character from history used to explain natural phenomenon." A new age thinker might define it as "an ineffable cosmic consciousness."

You don't seem to be asking how to define the God concept in general though. You seem to be asking which of these is correct and worth believing in. I've only really offered up that the concept in and of itself is real, and that choosing to believe in the concept based on any of the previous definitions makes for a useful exercise in developing empathy for other believers. I also have offered up that choosing to doubt the concept based on any of the previous definitions is also a useful exercise in developing empathy with other non-believers.

I grasp that it is a challenge for someone who believes in a literal God father to doubt their own conception of God and indulge the possibility that God is an imaginary character from history, but doing so is not impossible and does not require a surrender of faith. Conversely it is a challenge for someone who believes God to be an imaginary character from history to indulge in belief in a literal father God, but doing so is not impossible and does not require a surrender of reason.

Some people do equate God with life, and I don't think this is an invalid way of describing God, except that when we talk about God we are not referencing the same thing that we are referencing when we talk about life. God becomes a handy distinction if one wants to talk about that which one finds sacred or profound in contrast to life which may also be defined as what one finds common place or mundane. But I don't doubt that some people see every aspect of life as sacred, and truly believe that Life is equal to God.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I read all you said. The questions I ask are not meant for you to repeat what you have already said. I separate quotes to make sense of longer post. Reading it in sections helps better.

God is a complex concept that has been defined a number of different ways by a number of different people, and yet we all have the ability to call the concept to mind when someone speaks of it.

It depends. Ive met one person who has never heard of the wors god, concept, literal, nor definition of it. He cant percieve in his mind what concept or object (whichever one, doesnt matter) doesnt exist to him unless he was making up something and just labeled it "god." The word means nothing in and of itself.

I have defined this concept as "that which humans think of when they consider the aspects of experience and reality which they do not understand in a concrete way."

The definition of god? Id have to re-read what thst definition applies to. God is not always a concept. God can be literal just as a chair is, say, blocks of wood that are build in a certain way to sit on it.

You don't seem to be asking how to define the God concept in

Im asking how to define god as a concept without concrete foundation of what this concept is based on?

If god is just a concept, what is it based on thats not concrete?

You don't seem to be asking how to define the God concept in general though. You seem to be asking which of these is correct and worth believing

I never said anything about which concept of god is correct or worth believing. Dont know where you got that.

How do you define god (in general) as a concept without it being based on something concrete?

Can god as a concept stand alone in definition or, like a chair, does it need a foundation to which it is a label or concept of?

I've only really offered up that the concept in and of itself is real, and that choosing to believe in the concept based on any of the previous definitions makes for a useful exercise in developing empathy for other believer

True.

I also have offered up that choosing to doubt the concept based on any of the previous definitions is also a useful exercise in developing empathy with other non-believers.

True

I grasp that it is a challenge for someone who believes in a literal God father to doubt their own conception of God and indulge the possibility that God is an imaginary character from history, but doing so is not impossible and does not require a surrender of faith.

The reason is god is not a concept to them. He is an "object" and fact. I can entertain I have no android in my hand but to honestly ask me to try and imagine that I have no phone in my hand is, well, impossible outside of my imagination.

When some of us ask believers to pretend that god does not exist, we are asking them not to use their imagination but entertain that god does not exist. How can one do that if god is existence? Thats like saying to a blind man whose been blind his whole life he can "literaly" entertain the concept of light even if he hadnt heard of it before.

In other words, believers who cant imagine a place without god are blind people who cant describe life with light. Regardless if light is a concept or literally, without enough information to imagine, he could make up anything and call it light.

Conversely it is a challenge for someone who believes God to be an imaginary character from history to indulge in belief in a literal father God, but doing so is not impossible and does not require a surrender of reason.

This, I agree with. Its like if the blind person had a understansing concept of light, he canbelieve in it. But to believe it literal, he cannot (taking out heresay and other peoples testimony right now). I disagree that it is not impossible. How can a blind person literally imagine light? What is he going by based on personal experiences? What ias his concept of light based on? And how wohld he describe it to mirror what the ligt actually is?

Some people do equate God with life, and I don't think this is an invalid way of describing God, except that when we talk about God we are not referencing the same thing that we are referencing when we talk about life.

Well, if you talk about a hindu god, each like boddhistvas means different aspects of life we experience.

Brahman we can disifer as life given thats what makes up brahma.

Life usually involves a lot of sacrifice and a lot of changing and adapting things for the better. Life also involves love and hate. This is the christian god and jesus represents.

Different mesangers bring morals that people get from environment, culture, and language. These morals are a part of human life and can be translated as part of life itself since we are not separated from it.

I can translate any religion I can think of as being life in its multifacets. Religion is like the different pizzle pieces. The puzzle is life. Some define the picture on the puzzle as a message from god others just go with the flow.

God becomes a handy distinction if one wants to talk about that which one finds sacred or profound in contrast to life which may also be defined as what one finds common place or mundane. But I don't doubt that some people see every aspect of life as sacred, and truly believe that Life is equal to God.

Life is sacred. We chop of life via our religions but regardless of how we define different aspects of life and define it, its the same. Its sacred regardless.