Hey, you were the one who said you couldn't define "God".
But okay - you mean something by "God"; what is it that you mean?
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is there any possibility of God's existence.
- Thread starter chinu
- Start date
But okay - you mean something by "God"; what is it that you mean?
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
Yes we couldn't describe God, but we believe he does exist.
God to me (is the unknown causer for the born of this universe to you)
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
When did I say this?
SkepticX
Member
If that's it then what makes you think this first cause (granted for the sake of discussion) is a being, or is conscious, or knows about or cares in the slightest what any beasties on any of the planets he/she/it caused think or feel? What makes you think that this first cause is anything anyone would worship and want to have a relationship with ... all that sort of thing that's a part of the gods that people actually believe in (as opposed to gods purely created for rhetorical and apologetic purposes)?
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
We can never know without the real prophets telling us the truth, I rely
on their prophecies, it's our evidence that it's a serious issue and those
who won't listen will be the losers.
Mary Blackchurch
Free from Stockholm Syndrome
Nope. Even animals love conditionally. Not every conscious human being can give love. Consider the psychopath, or sociopath. No love. Love itself is a very conditional verb. It's delightful - but always conditional. Even a mother's love, which is arguably the most unconditional, still has conditions. They're less easily seen, but they're still there.
What is magic about human emotion? And let's don't cherry pick about the animals. We know that humans are animals so let's clump us all in. What's magic about love/hate/fear/anger, etc? These are just circuitry that sparks from stimuli in the average brain.
it's only conditional upon the choice of the person. the potential is always there, always. it might not be manifested but a person isn't born a psychopath, or sociopath. they are created by both nature and nurture.
love isn't just a human emotion.
babies have to have nurturing, or physical affection; otherwise their growth and psycholgical well being becomes arrested.
Absolutely.
That's my point. One of two things is going on when @FearGod uses the term "God":
- he means something by it. If so, he should be able to tell us what he means.
- he doesn't mean something by it. In that case, I can disregard what he's saying, because he isn't trying to tell us anything meaningful.
momen
مؤمن
Because the hard problem of consciousness is yet to be solved.
SkepticX
Member
Sounds like a pretty sketchy affair, determining which prophets are true when you can't know what's true without the true prophets.
Good luck with that, since it's a serious issue and of course "serious issue" means serious personal responsibility.
...but you think you've solved it, and you've done it by invoking some sort of "Higher" consciousness?
All over the forum. You have all sorts of posts about God's commands, actions, etc.
momen
مؤمن
You can call it the god of gaps, but, for me at least, it answers many questions where science will always fall short of answering.
SkepticX
Member
There's nothing to be solved, only understood. That's not just semantics but a shift in thinking and perception that corrects errors based upon the stealthy presumption that there's something else somehow behind consciousness because we can ask questions about it that don't appear to have answers. It could well just be because those questions don't really apply very well to reality (like the "mysteries" implied by questions like Where is orange? and such--more subtle vagueness and incoherence are often mistaken for profundity). It could well be that we consciousness is simply a property of complex enough organics. Whatever the case, it's not reasonable to decide it's magic/supernatural just because we don't think we understand it yet.
It's a tried and true remedy.
Thor has assuaged fears of the unknown for millennia.
Newer, modified gods may be more useful for the same purpose, but not as cool.
Last edited:
Robert Landbeck
Member
That age old question that has dogged humanity for millennia may now have an answer but I don't think either side of the debate is going to appreciate it? But I'm TESTING it now for myself. And I mean that literally!
The first wholly new interpretation for two thousand years of the moral teachings of Christ has been published. Radically different from anything else we know of from theology or history, this new teaching is predicated upon the 'promise' of a precise, predefined, predictable and repeatable experience of transcendent omnipotence and called 'the first Resurrection' in the sense that the Resurrection of Jesus was intended to demonstrate Gods' willingness to reveal Himself and intervene directly into the natural world for those obedient to His Command, paving the way for access to the power of divine Will and ultimate proof as the justification of faith.
Thus 'faith' becomes an act of trust in action, the search along a defined path of strict self discipline, [a test of the human heart] to discover His 'Word' of a direct individual intervention into the natural world by omnipotent power that confirms divine will, law, command and covenant, which at the same time, realigning our moral compass with the Divine, "correcting human nature by a change in natural law, altering biology, consciousness and human ethical perception beyond all natural evolutionary boundaries." Thus is a man 'created' in the image and likeness of his Creator.
So like it or no, and many won't, a new religious teaching, a wisdom not of human intellectual origin, empirical, transcendent, prescient, testable by faith, meeting all Enlightenment criteria of evidence based causation and definitive proof now exists. Nothing short of an intellectual, moral and religious/spiritual revolution is getting under way. To test or not to test, that is the question? More info at The Final Freedoms
The first wholly new interpretation for two thousand years of the moral teachings of Christ has been published. Radically different from anything else we know of from theology or history, this new teaching is predicated upon the 'promise' of a precise, predefined, predictable and repeatable experience of transcendent omnipotence and called 'the first Resurrection' in the sense that the Resurrection of Jesus was intended to demonstrate Gods' willingness to reveal Himself and intervene directly into the natural world for those obedient to His Command, paving the way for access to the power of divine Will and ultimate proof as the justification of faith.
Thus 'faith' becomes an act of trust in action, the search along a defined path of strict self discipline, [a test of the human heart] to discover His 'Word' of a direct individual intervention into the natural world by omnipotent power that confirms divine will, law, command and covenant, which at the same time, realigning our moral compass with the Divine, "correcting human nature by a change in natural law, altering biology, consciousness and human ethical perception beyond all natural evolutionary boundaries." Thus is a man 'created' in the image and likeness of his Creator.
So like it or no, and many won't, a new religious teaching, a wisdom not of human intellectual origin, empirical, transcendent, prescient, testable by faith, meeting all Enlightenment criteria of evidence based causation and definitive proof now exists. Nothing short of an intellectual, moral and religious/spiritual revolution is getting under way. To test or not to test, that is the question? More info at The Final Freedoms
It's not even the God of the Gaps; it's something more bizarre. You'd need to establish that there's even a gap first.
I just think it's strange to go at the "problem" of consciousness by asserting - without any justification that you've hinted at yet - that there's more consciousness out there than what anyone is seriously suggesting.
If consciousness really is a problem, you seem to be compounding it.
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
That doesn't mean I know How God looks like.