17 Aug 12
1 edit
Originally posted by SuzianneI don't need any "g"ods not even yours - those that do need other "g"ods need them for numerous reasons - for example those who hold that the characteristics ascribed to your deity ("G"od) are not feasible, or perhaps those who believe in multiple deities.
Yeah, yeah, the definition of "g"ods.
What I meant is, we have the one God, why do we need any other "g"ods?
Care to tackle my question now?
17 Aug 12
Originally posted by AgergExtremely unlikely but perhaps 2 questions there!
Why does "God", and the space in which it supposedly dwells exist? what is the ultimate purpose of this "God" entity?
Question open to [b]all theists (and of course non-theists if they wish)[/b]
1. Why does the god who created everything exist - what is its purpose?
2. Why do the other false gods exist?
I believe the first question can only be answered by "god has no purpose", because with the absence of everything there could be no purposes either. ie an absence of purposes. A creator-god must surely have created purposes for other things?
2. Ignorance and Control. Ignorance of the many providing Control for the few. I dont need to elaborate - you all know the story.
17 Aug 12
I'm not a theist by any commonly accepted use of the term, but since I did start a thread titled "God" I guess I should put in my two cents worth
Firstly the "space" in which "God" "dwells" is totally unknown to any regular human thinking and dont let any Christians tell you any different (not that you would 🙂 )
The ultimate purpose is to eliminate the barrier between us and "God"
There is one barrier but it is broken up into "10 000 things"
In other words there are are a multitude of barriers between you and direct lighting. At the moment we live with indirect lighting.
The story goes that we all have the god-seed within us (all humans)
. This is the potential we have been given to grow our seeds.
(or so the analogy goes) .
It's a psychological thing basically. Proper understanding of psychology, meaning what the purpose of our brains are , (yes the story goes that the brain has another function other than just navigating us around the world and processing emotions,etc.).
The functions of our brains are to allign our wills with that of "Gods" .
It is a unifying our egos ,(or the understanding of who we are), with that which we are meant to be.
Everyone's journey is unique, like fingerprints. So you cant just give someone a set of instructions and tell them to follow it. you can prepare someone wit archetypes but ultimately you have to make the journey.
So the purpose of this non-existent "god entity" is to break the separation between us and "Him" (It's not a "him" but we'll just go with that for now)
This includes all dualities like birth and death.
Logically (for me anyway) this leads me to the conclusion that there is no "space" as we envisiage it and also that "God" resides in a place where there is no entropy. So basically we would exist in a realm where we co-created our "world" and where we had no physical bodies
17 Aug 12
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHinds"He" didn't create us so we can worship him. That is just another lie. We are equal to "God" , who is non-existent as a separate entity, "He" or It is just an idea to help us intergrate our thoughts with a different universal 'language' (which transforms our very beings)
I think there are many reasons God must exist. I do not pretend to know the ultimate purpose of God. However, I believe one purpose is to show how insignificant we are "in the grand scheme of things" and yet show that God places great worth to us, because He created us in His own image so we can worship Him.
17 Aug 12
Originally posted by AgergHi Agerg. Atheist here, but—
Why does "God", and the space in which it supposedly dwells exist? what is the ultimate purpose of this "God" entity?
Question open to [b]all theists (and of course non-theists if they wish)[/b]
I think a standard theological position is that God (I do get the intent of your clarifying “G”, by the way) is the necessary being—or the necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of contingent beings, the contingent universe. The existence of G is necessary for (or as an explanation for) contingent existence. G’s existence itself requires no further necessary or sufficient conditions: G just is. If this were not so, then G would just be another contingent being (a “g” if you wish).
I think that is reflected in both the cosmological and teleological (“watchmaker” ) arguments (“proofs” ) for G. I think they both fail (and have argued against them before). Anselm’s ontological argument I think fails on other grounds (existence is not an “attribute” ); but there are other ontological arguments that I am not familiar with.
One could argue, I think (though I would not) that the only necessary and sufficient condition for contingent being is a generative Being-Itself.* I just don’t like the metaphysical notion of some pre-existential “being-ness” (some non-instantiated ontological “essence” ).
One way around all this is simply to deny the reality of any absolute nihil prior to the generation (e.g., via the “big bang” ) of the universe-as-it-is. (And absolute nihil other than G, that is—which raises other problems, in which—as philosopher G.E. Moore once put it—“nothing” always gets treated “as a queer kind of ‘something’”. Empty space, perhaps; but that is not really nihil, since it entails dimensionality.) I am no cosmologist, but I see no need to posit such a nihil prior to the singularity—a nihil that might suggest the need of an unexplainable “supernatural” creator to achieve a creatio ex nihilo. Prior to the “big bang”, I would suggest the logical possibility of a natural “something”, the nature of which we do not know. (I include energy as a “something” here.) If G is sui generis, why not some natural energy configuration—again, the nature of which we do not know?
In any event, I do not see that piling mystery on top of mystery (the supernatural on top of the singularity) adds any explanatory clarity. Ockham’s razor may well apply.
Sorry to go on so. I suspect the best answer that any theist can give (without making G contingent—even teleologically so: whatever “purpose” G has would also have to be, as it were, sui generis with G) is outlined in my first paragraph.
Cheers. Hope all is well with you and yours!
_________________________________________________________
* Protestant theologian Paul Tillich pretty much defined G this way, but more “conventional” theologians (such as Barth) objected that Tillich was too close to pantheism, or a Stoic identification of theos with phusis.
17 Aug 12
Originally posted by SuzianneKnucklehead! This is not about spelling.
I just wanna know what is this "emporer"?
The word is emperor.
More to the topic in the OP, there is only one God. Why are there any other "g"ods?
Tell me this : If there is only one God then how would you count "Him"?
Let me clarify - Do you mean there is one separate entity who is known by us as "God" ? (with a big "g"? )
17 Aug 12
Originally posted by RJHindsI am insignificant yet God places great worth in me. You know what that is RJ? It's called narcissism.
I think there are many reasons God must exist. I do not pretend to know the ultimate purpose of God. However, I believe one purpose is to show how insignificant we are "in the grand scheme of things" and yet show that God places great worth to us, because He created us in His own image so we can worship Him.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
17 Aug 12
Originally posted by karoly aczelFirstly the "space" in which "God" "dwells" is totally unknown to any regular human thinking and dont let any Christians tell you any different (not that you would 🙂 )
I'm not a theist by any commonly accepted use of the term, but since I did start a thread titled "God" I guess I should put in my two cents worth
Firstly the "space" in which "God" "dwells" is totally unknown to any regular human thinking and dont let any Christians tell you any different (not that you would 🙂 )
The ultimate purpose is to elim ...[text shortened]... ere we co-created our "world" and where we had no physical bodies
why is unknown? does it exist outside of physics? do we know anymore information about what is in this space and what we do there once we have lost our physical bodies?
The ultimate purpose is to eliminate the barrier between us and "God"
why does god want us to be like him/it. what conditions do we need to meet to breakdown these barriers?
why does this god keep itself separate from humanity, we doenst it explain to us what it wants us to do and why?
17 Aug 12
Originally posted by vistesdThe real problem is that we find it really hard to deal with the dimensional nature of time and the fact that it is an integral part of space. It is simply meaningless to talk of nihil prior to the existence of space, just as it is meaningless to talk of nihil beyond the left edge of the universe. Time and spacial dimensions are either infinite or finite, but if finite, either way, there is no 'beyond'. One may suggest the existence of other dimensions orthogonal to the ones we know or in some way totally separate from the ones we know but it is an error to place points outside our dimensions then label their position on one of our dimensions in relation to something else.
I am no cosmologist, but I see no need to posit such a nihil prior to the singularity—a nihil that might suggest the need of an unexplainable “supernatural” creator to achieve a creatio ex nihilo.
And finally it is meaningless to talk of nihil as an existence at some location not measured using known dimensions.
17 Aug 12
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadThanks, tw. Good points. Agreed, of course.
The real problem is that we find it really hard to deal with the dimensional nature of time and the fact that it is an integral part of space. It is simply meaningless to talk of nihil prior to the existence of space, just as it is meaningless to talk of nihil beyond the left edge of the universe. Time and spacial dimensions are either infinite or finite, ingless to talk of nihil as an existence at some location not measured using known dimensions.
Your last sentence puts an exclamation point on Moore’s observation about how people tend to treat the notion of “nothing” as a “queer kind of ‘something’”—nihil an existence! I’m not sure that true (or absolute) nihil is a concept that we can coherently form—which is why you end up with sayings such as: “Well, there was nothing there”! In ordinary conversation, with a context, this is no problem—e.g., it might be apparent that I was looking for some stuff in a room, or a galaxy in a particular corner of space. But when you move to metaphysics (ontology), all kinds of confusion can result—in which people think they know what they’re talking about, because we understand they terms perfectly well in an ordinary context.
I am always reminded of that poem (by Ogden Nash, I think):
Yesterday upon the stair
I met a man who wasn’t there.
He wasn't there again today—
Oh how I wish he’d go away!
_________________________________________________
I thought of you yesterday. I just started reading Sam Harris’ book The Moral Landscape, about how science can weigh in on an objective account of ethics and morality. So far, it’s really good (though I’ve barely begun). I recalled your point about science and aesthetics some time back. If you haven’t already, I think you would really like Harris’ book.
Good to talk with you again. Be well.
17 Aug 12
Originally posted by vistesdOnce you give it a property, even the property of being nothingness, it is something.
Thanks, tw. Good points. Agreed, of course.
Your last sentence puts an exclamation point on Moore’s observation about how people tend to treat the notion of “nothing” as a “queer kind of ‘something’”—nihil an existence! I’m not sure that true (or absolute) nihil is a concept that we can coherently form—which is why you end up with sayings such as: “ ...[text shortened]... already, I think you would really like Harris’ book.
Good to talk with you again. Be well.
17 Aug 12
Originally posted by vistesdAlthough possibly not the exact same context, that poem does highlight the way we struggle with the concept of absence.
I am always reminded of that poem (by Ogden Nash, I think):
Yesterday upon the stair
I met a man who wasn’t there.
He wasn't there again today—
Oh how I wish he’d go away!
It made me think of this one:
“Only in silence the word,
Only in dark the light,
Only in dying life:
Bright the hawk's flight
On the empty sky.
—The Creation of Éa”
― Ursula K. Le Guin
Some things owe their existence to opposites or contrast, and some things are essentially the absence of something else.
If you haven’t already, I think you would really like Harris’ book..
Thanks for the recommendation. Its a bit beyond my means at the present, but I'm taking note of it and will consider it when I have a bit more money.
17 Aug 12
Originally posted by twhitehead…and some things are essentially the absence of something else.
Although possibly not the exact same context, that poem does highlight the way we struggle with the concept of absence.
It made me think of this one:“Only in silence the word,
Only in dark the light,
Only in dying life:
Bright the hawk's flight
On the empty sky.
—The Creation of Éa”
― Ursula K. Le Guin
Some things owe th ...[text shortened]... s at the present, but I'm taking note of it and will consider it when I have a bit more money.
Exactly. And in ordinary, contextual conversation, we can understand that.
Yeah, I have a tight book budget as well, and often have to put myself on a book-buying ban for a couple of months.