The mystery of G-D the Benevolent and the Garden of Eden

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

You really just can't grasp this can you.

Of course you can accept or denounce any notion of God you wish because you've already constructed the ruleset from which to govern your judge.

Prove to me you believe God does not exist. You can't. For the same reason no one can prove that they believe God does exist. Both parties have applied a nature to God, you denounce, they accept.

I can't make this anymore clear.

So anyone can make any claims they like and we have to submit to them ..sorry but that aint me..I asked what god in particular are we going to debase..

@xris,

xris wrote:

So anyone can make any claims they like and we have to submit to them ..sorry but that aint me..I asked what god in particular are we going to debase..

I'm telling you, you have the power to base or debase any God because you are actually the God!

I never once said you should submit to anything. My opinion is that you should critically think on your own, but understand that some things do not have an objective truth; they are constructed by us, we apply the meaning and very nature.

And for the record, in case you still can't grasp this: I am not religious. I don't consider myself a theist or an atheist.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

I'm telling you, you have the power to base or debase any God because you are actually the God!

I never once said you should submit to anything. My opinion is that you should critically think on your own, but understand that some things do not have an objective truth; they are constructed by us, we apply the meaning and very nature.

And for the record, in case you still can't grasp this: I am not religious. I don't consider myself a theist or an atheist.

SO do you want me to disprove any god or not and what do you think about a god that created you as a plaything? yes i am god i am the god of not accepting statements without examination..I assume you are an agnostic like me..

@xris,

xris wrote:

SO do you want me to disprove any god or not and what do you think about a god that created you as a plaything? yes i am god i am the god of not accepting statements without examination..I assume you are an agnostic like me..

We are the Gods, and we have the power to construct any notion of God we choose. Furthermore, we have the power to accept and denounce anyone else's notion (it's nothing special). I'm not a theist because I believe there is no God. I'm not an atheist because I believe there is a God. I'm not an agnostic because I know both can exist depending on the consciousness rationalizing.

So what am I? A thinker.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

We are the Gods, and we have the power to construct any notion of God we choose. I'm not a theist because I believe there is no God. I'm not an atheist because I believe there is a God. I'm not an agnostic because I know both can exist depending on the consciousness rationalizing.

So what am I? A thinker.

We are all thinkers. So you think we can know god?

@xris,

xris wrote:

We are all thinkers. So you think we can know god?

If you construct the notion and accept it, of course you know God. God is interchangeable with any notion you decide to construct.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

If you construct the notion and accept it, of course you know God. God is interchangeable with any notion you decide to construct.

So have you constructed a god that defies argument? have you come across a god that bares examination or dont you examine them?

@xris,

xris wrote:

So have you constructed a god that defies argument? have you come across a god that bares examination or dont you examine them?

Any notion can be examined. There's no way to construct an abstract notion that cannot be examined, just as there's no way to construct an abstract notion that will offer an objective proof.

I prefer not to use the word at all. I think it's been placed on a pedestal for far too long, with it's mystical preconceptions, plagued by years and years of religious torment. Debating whether there's a God is no different than debating whether orcs and goblins exists, except again, that there are more elusive preconceived notions behind "God". In other words, it's silly to put more emphasize on accepting or denouncing the term "God" just because it has a mystical preconception. I think "God" is only a placeholding term used for justification of meaning for existence. There's nothing special about the word and there's no objective truth behind it.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

Any notion can be examined. There's no way to construct an abstract notion that cannot be examined, just as there's no way to construct an abstract notion that will offer an objective proof.

I prefer not to use the word at all. I think it's been placed on a pedestal for far too long, with it's mystical preconceptions, plagued by years and years of religious torment. Debating whether there's a God is no different than debating whether orcs and goblins exists, except again, that there are more elusive preconceived notions behind "God". In other words, it's silly to put more emphasize on accepting or denouncing the term "God" just because it has a mystical preconception. I think "God" is only a placeholding term used for justification of meaning for existence. There's nothing special about the word and there's no objective truth behind it.

You seem confused..god is a possibility but not to be considered and if he is, not to be examined..He is on a par with goblins and elves and they to should not be examined:perplexed:.How am i denouncing" GOD" by questioning a certain claim about god..I dont think i should have to defend my questioning on another's claims. They have made their claims through centuries when if you ever dared question..you got burnt at the stake.Try questioning god on a christian forum or a muslim forum..just try it.So dont think your anger at my debate will turn me away.

@xris,

xris wrote:

You seem confused..god is a possibility but not to be considered and if he is, not to be examined..He is on a par with goblins and elves and they to should not be examined:perplexed:.How am i denouncing" GOD" by questioning a certain claim about god..I dont think i should have to defend my questioning on another's claims. They have made their claims through centuries when if you ever dared question..you got burnt at the stake.Try questioning god on a christian forum or a muslim forum..just try it.So dont think your anger at my debate will turn me away.

I'll try again to clarify. I'm not angry, I'm just disappointed we are micommunicating (but this isn't the first or last time I will)

God has nothing to do with possibility. You either accept or denounce a nature of God you've constructed. Everything should be considered and examined, including any notion of a creator, life-force, spirit, cookie, couch, love, goblin you can conjure. But, I think it's silly to only closely examine a few terms that have a preconceived elusive notion. Why not place "reptilian man" on the pedestal instead of "God"?

The point is no one has to defend any of these abstract claims, as there's nothing to defend with except their own reasoning - they've constructed the notion through their own reasoning. You can choose to denounce their claims, but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist for the person. Anything can exist notionally; the nonexistent cannot be spoken, the existent can be spoken. As long as the notion of "God" exists for the one person, regardless how outlandish the claims are, it exists. But this is not profound that it exists. It's not profound for a goblin, God, or elf to exist. You can create any reality you choose. We only attach a profoundness to it, and then attempt to attack it based on rules we've constructed.

It seems your angst is more against those that are more open with their notions, not necessarily that they have the notions to begin with. And not only open, but those that consider these notions to be objective truth, and burn people at the stake that don't agree with them.

In terms of that, I agree completely.

@xris,

xris,

Consider this, if you write a story, a work of fiction, are you evil and malevolent because you have something bad happen to a character in the story? Of couse not, it's just something you made up. If somehow however, magically we'll say, someone could tell that character that you caused their pain and suffering, would that character then think you were evil? Quite possibly. But that character's opinion of you and the reality of you are two different perspectives.

As this pertains to life, someone is telling you that you are just a character in a story (I am) and that the author of the story is ultimately to blame for all the bad things that have happened to you. First of all you need to decide whether or not you believe it. If not, why even ask questions about it? If you don't believe God exists, why should he interest you in the least? Second, should you believe it, you need to decide what your opinion of the author is. If you're going to allow the bad that happens to taint your opinion of the author, despite that without the bad you probably wouldn't be an interesting enough character for the author to bother thinking up in the first place, then that is the sort of character that the author has decided you will be.

Let's face it, we all love reading about the suffering protagonist... if we love to read such a story, can we really despise the author for writing it?

Zetherin,

I really don't see where you're going with this crusade about this all being just people's notions of God. Of course it's just a notion of God. Anyone who claims supreme authority to knowledge of God is just a liar. So I fail to see why you're calling me or anyone else delusional.

@Solace,

Quote:

It seems your angst is more against those that are more open with their notions, not necessarily that they have the notions to begin with. And not only open, but those that consider these notions to be objective truth, and burn people at the stake that don't agree with them.

In terms of that, I agree completely.

:shifty:Ah yes, I forgot to mention; if you don't agree with me I am going to burn you at the stake.:devilish:

@Alan McDougall,

XRIS,

Some say he became aware that he was alone in the abyssimal dark before he had created existence.

He was lonely maybe??

@Alan McDougall,

Before we speculate about God's motivation for acting, shouldn't we consider a few questions?

First, the notion that actions have motivations is based on animal behavior. Why does God need motivation? Can we evaluate God's actions in human terms like motivation?

Second, even if God has motivation, how could we possibly know what they are?

@Solace,

Solace wrote:

Zetherin,

I really don't see where you're going with this crusade about this all being just people's notions of God. Of course it's just a notion of God. Anyone who claims supreme authority to knowledge of God is just a liar. So I fail to see why you're calling me or anyone else delusional.

I'll try to sum it up.

1.) It's silly to demand objective proof for an abstract notion we've constructed.

2.) It's even sillier to then, when we haven't received the objective proof, state it doesn't exist notionally (to the person believing) because of a ruleset we've constructed to verify.

3.) To choose this one term "God", and place it on a pedestal above "Goblin", indicates that there is mystical preconception behind the word "God". A preconception that we take as more personal. This is why there is an insane amount of emotional response when it's mentioned.

4.) "God" is then used as a placeholder for meaning for existence.

5.) Logically, however, "God" is interchangeable with any other abstract notion. Therefore, the argument for or against "God" is no more profound than the argument for or against "Goblin", from an objective standpoint. This is where the delusion lies.

@Solace,

Xris,
Let me propose a complete hypothetical to you. This is reaching thought and it might allow you to grasp how little we know of God. For a moment consider those less fortunate in the world as enduring a Karma for past offenses as they appeal to our "heart" for redemption. Are we to hear their plea or do we ignore their plight? Do we become more human and do all we can to forgive them? We are here to save ourselves. By ignoring them we condemn ourselves. You see we are in this together. By bringing that "heart" into the picture, we also bring divine help as we truly consider others more than self. You are waiting for God to do something, and He's waiting for us to do something, so to speak. Just a thought.

William

@Zetherin,

Okay Zeth, I see what you're saying. But when we tell our notion of God (or any other thing) do we have to clarify that it is just our notion? I mean I realize that whether or not I am a figment of God's imagination he becomes a figment of mine because I imagine him. But I don't see how it makes me delusional... well, at least not any more delusional than anyone else who dares to use their imagination anyway.

@Alan McDougall,

God is not abstract God is concrete, just reach out and touch your computer monitor and you will know this

@Solace,

Solace wrote:

But when we tell our notion of God (or any other thing) do we have to clarify that it is just our notion?

I'd like this not to be so, but with so much preconceived notion regarding the term, when conceptualizing and sharing, the listener usually assumes the thinker is speaking objectively. This is why I choose to clarify it is just a notion, like any other notion, and should be considered and examined.

Solace wrote:

I mean I realize that whether or not I am a figment of God's imagination he becomes a figment of mine because I imagine him.

This isn't exactly what I'm saying. I'm saying we are actually the creators.

Solace wrote:

But I don't see how it makes me delusional... well, at least not any more delusional than anyone else who dares to use their imagination anyway.

The delusion is not in the construction of the notion, or any notion, the delusion is in the profound emotion attached to the term. Emotion short-circuits the contemplation usually, causing dissonance, and creating an objective, personal hole which people choose to dive into in order to construct meaning.

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall wrote:

God is not abstract God is concrete, just reach out and touch your computer monitor and you will know this

And statements like this are why people take offense. I can already feel the profound emotion building by those that may or may not agree with Alan's notion of God. And it's not wrong that Alan shared his notion; I honestly just don't feel most people are mature enough to consider without being overly emotional.

Philosophy Forum

The mystery of G-D the Benevolent and the Garden of Eden

Quick Links

My Account

able2know