Desert Snake
Veteran Member
ps: Don't bother to reply, cause.. whatever..
Hahaha
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!
ps: Don't bother to reply, cause.. whatever..
In my theology, not. Because any type of description is an expression of our universe and by extension, of the creation. G-d is independent of creation and so there is nothing that we can say about His nature in the positive. This is also true about words such as "destruction" or "creation". If we want to apply them to G-d, we have to remove the facade that is the universe and in that circumstance, these concepts do not exist.Right, but the point is that it is possible to say things about God, to use concepts and words to get some grasp of who or what God is (or is not) and is capable of (or not), whether one does so apophatically or cataphatically. My earlier question, whether God is capable of destroying Herself - or incapable of destroying Herself - therefore has some sense to it.
In my theology, not. Because any type of description is an expression of our universe and by extension, of the creation. G-d is independent of creation and so there is nothing that we can say about His nature in the positive. This is also true about words such as "destruction" or "creation". If we want to apply them to G-d, we have to remove the facade that is the universe and in that circumstance, these concepts do not exist.
The only thing that we can really discuss is our subjective perception of what G-d does and understand that G-d intended that we perceive it as such, even though its not an adequate or accurate understanding of what G-d actually did.
We can do whatever we want, so long as we realize we are not touching on G-d Himself, only on our perception of what G-d has done.Can we, in your opinion, discuss our subjective perceptions of what God is or is not capable of doing?
We can do whatever we want, so long as we realize we are not touching on G-d Himself, only on our perception of what G-d has done.
Again, we can't speak anything about G-d Himself, only about our perception of what G-d has done.Okay, so is it your perception that God is (in)capable of destroying Herself?
Again, we can't speak anything about G-d Himself, only about our perception of what G-d has done.
You are asking me about my perceptions G-d's actual capabilities. That is not the same as what I'm talking about. I'm talking about our perception of what G-d has caused to happen. G-d causes events to occur that we perceive as an expression of love, so we say G-d loves. Not because G-d's nature is loving, but because G-d intends that we perceive Him as loving through the events that He causes. We can't say anything about G-d's nature, because love is a concept and by extension created and G-d is the Creator, not the created.
Since we can only speak of our perception of Him, we can only speak of the results of His causation within the creation, because as creatures we are also bound by the creation. So its impossible for me to answer your question, because that would require a perception of G-d outside the creation.
Again, we can't speak anything about G-d Himself, only about our perception of what G-d has done.
You are asking me about my perceptions G-d's actual capabilities. That is not the same as what I'm talking about. I'm talking about our perception of what G-d has caused to happen. G-d causes events to occur that we perceive as an expression of love, so we say G-d loves. Not because G-d's nature is loving, but because G-d intends that we perceive Him as loving through the events that He causes. We can't say anything about G-d's nature, because love is a concept and by extension created and G-d is the Creator, not the created.
Since we can only speak of our perception of Him, we can only speak of the results of His causation within the creation, because as creatures we are also bound by the creation. So its impossible for me to answer your question, because that would require a perception of G-d outside the creation.
Ok.Ugh the whole G-d thing is obnoxious. Its GOD. God almost certainly doesn't care about your hyphen placement. If God does care about it he's so petty that he's probably upset at you for talking about him in the first place since anyone can fill in G-d with God in their minds.
Also we can't speak anything about God because God has never unambiguously demonstrated that he definitely exists. Our perception makes matters worse because we have no way of distinguishing God's actions from an advanced alien, or a demon, or a different God.
God is essence and we call the essence God because it is unique.
There's obviously a lot of mysteries in nature and our cosmos... But what is this "great mystery"? Is there even such a thing?
No, I am referring to scientific laws. The laws of thermodynamics. These are laws that govern out universe. We don't live in a chaotic system. Gravity always pulls in the same direction and never turns into orange juice. We are governed by logic.
I would be one of those who would argue that the Tanakh is far from logical...
I don't know if there is such a thing, as we would call I thing. I'm very playful with the idea of the Tao, as I think Lao-tzu was. I don't know if there is a Tao, but the conception we call the Tao.
How does that affect my point?Except that in the scientific sense a law doesn't mean this- as though we were speaking of a written law, conceived by somebody. Its basically a premise unable to be contradicted through experimentation.
How does that affect my point?
I am not saying, that if gravity stopped, that its going to be ticketed, or that its written in the magna carta universum that the Earth has to rotate in the direction that causes the sun to rise in the east or risk jail time.Because you seem to be arguing that scientific laws are laws of such a sort. Am I wrong?
It seems that a lot of people have a sense of wonder and mystery from being alive. A sense of wonder and awe toward the universe. Let's call this the great mystery, and am I wrong to say many theists define this mystery as God?
My question is why call the mystery God? Lao-tzu did not believe we could speak of the great mystery in any truthful terms, and merely called it the Tao to call it 'something'.
The mystery might really exist, or it might be something of our perception, and actually void of any 'suchness'.
What makes me an atheist in spite of accepting the Tao, is I do not call the mystery a god. I do not believe the ideas of gods do the mystery justice. I believe the mystery and the universe are much greater than these concepts.
That is my question for you friends: what causes the mystery to be called god, and people to attach all these human terms and conceptions to the unfathomable?
It seems that a lot of people have a sense of wonder and mystery from being alive. A sense of wonder and awe toward the universe. Let's call this the great mystery, and am I wrong to say many theists define this mystery as God?
My question is why call the mystery God? Lao-tzu did not believe we could speak of the great mystery in any truthful terms, and merely called it the Tao to call it 'something'.
The mystery might really exist, or it might be something of our perception, and actually void of any 'suchness'.
What makes me an atheist in spite of accepting the Tao, is I do not call the mystery a god. I do not believe the ideas of gods do the mystery justice. I believe the mystery and the universe are much greater than these concepts.
That is my question for you friends: what causes the mystery to be called god, and people to attach all these human terms and conceptions to the unfathomable?