Total Posts:133|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

God is a Concept

PureX
Posts: 1,533
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 8:31:13 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
I keep seeing all these forums asking if "God is real", and demanding some proposed "proof" of God's reality. And I'm a bit puzzled by it.

Don't we all understand that "God" is a way of perceiving and conceiving our experience of reality, and thus cannot be proven to be an aspect of reality apart from human cognition? Does beauty "exist"? Does justice "exist"? Does love "exist"? Of course they do, but not as a reality unto themselves. They exist as part of our experience of reality. They exist as human cognitive conceptualizations of that experience.

The concept of "God" is similar. It is a way of conceptualizing and understanding our experience of existing in a reality that we can't fully comprehend. It's the conceptual embodiment/personification of the great mystery of our existence: the mystery of it's source, sustenance, and purpose.

So why are we asking if God is real?

It's a silly question, as God is as real as love, beauty, or justice is real. And no one is asking if they are "real" or not. Also, why are we asking for "objective proof" of God? That's a ridiculous request, as well. God has never been proposed to exist as an object exists, so why would anyone expect there to be objective proof of it?

If we're going to debate the conceptual ideal of God, we should be asking about how the ideal functions in the lives of those who adhere to it. And debating the value of that functional manifestation in the individual's life and within society as a whole.

Just sayin.
dee-em
Posts: 6,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 11:44:11 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/5/2016 8:31:13 PM, PureX wrote:
I keep seeing all these forums asking if "God is real", and demanding some proposed "proof" of God's reality. And I'm a bit puzzled by it.

Don't we all understand that "God" is a way of perceiving and conceiving our experience of reality, and thus cannot be proven to be an aspect of reality apart from human cognition? Does beauty "exist"? Does justice "exist"? Does love "exist"? Of course they do, but not as a reality unto themselves. They exist as part of our experience of reality. They exist as human cognitive conceptualizations of that experience.

No gods have ever been understood this way. They have always been interventionist entities usually with human or superhuman attributes and motivations. You are making up your own personal definition.

The concept of "God" is similar. It is a way of conceptualizing and understanding our experience of existing in a reality that we can't fully comprehend. It's the conceptual embodiment/personification of the great mystery of our existence: the mystery of it's source, sustenance, and purpose.

That matches no definition of God I have ever seen. Please cite your source.

So why are we asking if God is real?

It's a silly question, as God is as real as love, beauty, or justice is real.

All those things are subjective. Are you suggesting that God is subjective?

And no one is asking if they are "real" or not. Also, why are we asking for "objective proof" of God? That's a ridiculous request, as well. God has never been proposed to exist as an object exists, ...

What? I beg to differ. God has always been proposed that way.

... so why would anyone expect there to be objective proof of it?

If we're going to debate the conceptual ideal of God, we should be asking about how the ideal functions in the lives of those who adhere to it. And debating the value of that functional manifestation in the individual's life and within society as a whole.

Just sayin.
dee-em
Posts: 6,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2016 12:30:16 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
"God"

God is a Concept by which we measure our pain
I'll say it again
God is a Concept by which we measure our pain

I don't believe in magic
I don't believe in I-ching
I don't believe in Bible
I don't believe in Tarot
I don't believe in Hitler
I don't believe in Jesus
I don't believe in Kennedy
I don't believe in Buddha
I don't believe in Mantra
I don't believe in Gita
I don't believe in Yoga
I don't believe in Kings
I don't believe in Elvis
I don't believe in Zimmerman
I don't believe in Beatles

I just believe in me, Yoko and me, and that's reality

The dream is over
What can I say?
The dream is over
Yesterday
I was the dreamweaver
But now I'm reborn
I was the walrus
But now I'm John
And so, dear friends,
You'll just have to carry on
The dream is over

--- John Lennon
janesix
Posts: 3,491
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2016 12:34:54 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/5/2016 8:31:13 PM, PureX wrote:
I keep seeing all these forums asking if "God is real", and demanding some proposed "proof" of God's reality. And I'm a bit puzzled by it.

Don't we all understand that "God" is a way of perceiving and conceiving our experience of reality, and thus cannot be proven to be an aspect of reality apart from human cognition? Does beauty "exist"? Does justice "exist"? Does love "exist"? Of course they do, but not as a reality unto themselves. They exist as part of our experience of reality. They exist as human cognitive conceptualizations of that experience.

The concept of "God" is similar. It is a way of conceptualizing and understanding our experience of existing in a reality that we can't fully comprehend. It's the conceptual embodiment/personification of the great mystery of our existence: the mystery of it's source, sustenance, and purpose.

So why are we asking if God is real?

It's a silly question, as God is as real as love, beauty, or justice is real. And no one is asking if they are "real" or not. Also, why are we asking for "objective proof" of God? That's a ridiculous request, as well. God has never been proposed to exist as an object exists, so why would anyone expect there to be objective proof of it?

If we're going to debate the conceptual ideal of God, we should be asking about how the ideal functions in the lives of those who adhere to it. And debating the value of that functional manifestation in the individual's life and within society as a whole.

Just sayin.

God is not a concept. God is the creator of the universe and everything in it.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2016 12:53:06 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/5/2016 8:31:13 PM, PureX wrote:
I keep seeing all these forums asking if "God is real", and demanding some proposed "proof" of God's reality. And I'm a bit puzzled by it.

Don't we all understand that "God" is a way of perceiving and conceiving our experience of reality, and thus cannot be proven to be an aspect of reality apart from human cognition?

No, all people obviously do not understand that at all. We need to understand that not all people have the same mentality or perceptions. There will always be people in this world who are more mentally mature and intelligent than others. The mature ones understand the immature minds because they have been though immaturity. The immature ones do not understand the mature minds and perspectives due to their own minds and perspectives not having developed that far yet. It all takes time. Some obviously take longer to mature than others and some never mature completely due to mental or physical disabilities.
Not all adults are mentally mature.

Does beauty "exist"? Does justice "exist"? Does love "exist"? Of course they do, but not as a reality unto themselves. They exist as part of our experience of reality. They exist as human cognitive conceptualizations of that experience.

The concept of "God" is similar. It is a way of conceptualizing and understanding our experience of existing in a reality that we can't fully comprehend. It's the conceptual embodiment/personification of the great mystery of our existence: the mystery of it's source, sustenance, and purpose.

The concept of God is even compared to the concept of Love in the bible with the statement God IS Love.
If readers took that literally, they would see God as an emotion rather than as a entity with supernatural powers who actually listens to human requests.
Does Love see and hear humans? Is Love some invisible person who cares about humans or is it merely a human attitude and emotion which manifests through human actions?

So why are we asking if God is real?

People ask if God is real in the same way a child would ask if Santa is real. Such people obviously doubt the reality of the invisible character who supposedly has supernatural powers and loves humans yet still lets them suffer for no apparent reason except that they do not believe in or worship mythical characters.

It's a silly question, as God is as real as love, beauty, or justice is real. And no one is asking if they are "real" or not.

Exactly. The CONCEPT is obviously real and has a strong influence on many people.

Also, why are we asking for "objective proof" of God? That's a ridiculous request, as well. God has never been proposed to exist as an object exists, so why would anyone expect there to be objective proof of it?

I guess if you can have 'objective proof' of Love, you could have 'objective proof' of God in the same way but only if you perceived God to be the same kind of emotion as Love and something that can be recognised in the same way as you might recognise Love.
However, when it comes to any 'objective proof' I doubt such a thing exists since all human perception is subjective since it is subject to each individual mind and filtered through human biases, beliefs, preconceived ideas and teachings which have been passed down through generations.
All things are proof of nothing but themselves.

If we're going to debate the conceptual ideal of God, we should be asking about how the ideal functions in the lives of those who adhere to it. And debating the value of that functional manifestation in the individual's life and within society as a whole.

The concept seems to create a lot of division and contention between people in this world but how boring would the world be if every person agreed on everything and thought alike? Who would be left to challenge human thinking, perceptions or beliefs? If opposite perspectives did not exist, how would that affect human reasoning and logic?
The character God is supposed to represent goodness and the Devil character is supposed to represent evil but when people perceive good as evil and vice versa, their own perception creates conflict and divisions amongst them.
PureX
Posts: 1,533
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2016 2:45:34 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/5/2016 11:44:11 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/5/2016 8:31:13 PM, PureX wrote:
I keep seeing all these forums asking if "God is real", and demanding some proposed "proof" of God's reality. And I'm a bit puzzled by it.

Don't we all understand that "God" is a way of perceiving and conceiving our experience of reality, and thus cannot be proven to be an aspect of reality apart from human cognition? Does beauty "exist"? Does justice "exist"? Does love "exist"? Of course they do, but not as a reality unto themselves. They exist as part of our experience of reality. They exist as human cognitive conceptualizations of that experience.

No gods have ever been understood this way. They have always been interventionist entities usually with human or superhuman attributes and motivations. You are making up your own personal definition.

The concept of "God" is similar. It is a way of conceptualizing and understanding our experience of existing in a reality that we can't fully comprehend. It's the conceptual embodiment/personification of the great mystery of our existence: the mystery of it's source, sustenance, and purpose.

That matches no definition of God I have ever seen. Please cite your source.

So why are we asking if God is real?

It's a silly question, as God is as real as love, beauty, or justice is real.

All those things are subjective. Are you suggesting that God is subjective?

And no one is asking if they are "real" or not. Also, why are we asking for "objective proof" of God? That's a ridiculous request, as well. God has never been proposed to exist as an object exists, ...

What? I beg to differ. God has always been proposed that way.

... so why would anyone expect there to be objective proof of it?

If we're going to debate the conceptual ideal of God, we should be asking about how the ideal functions in the lives of those who adhere to it. And debating the value of that functional manifestation in the individual's life and within society as a whole.

Just saying.

I think you're trying very hard not to recognize the reality of the God-concept by focussing on the imagery people use, in their minds, to maintain their grasp of it. And that you should perhaps query yourself in that regard, as to why.

The vast majority of humans now and throughout history have conceived of "God" (or the gods) as human-like beings with inexplicable powers that allow them to control our fates. They have never, as far as I know, been proposed to exist in our reality. But instead, to exist in some alternative reality from which they can then effect ours. Thus, for atheists to demand "objective evidence" for the existence of these gods is absurd. As no one has ever proposed that these gods exist as we objectively comprehend the realm of existence.

I would have thought this would be obvious, especially to an non-theists.

I agree that some theists are unaware of their own consciousness, and so cannot cognate the difference between what they believe about the world they experience, and the actual world that they are experiencing. And this is unfortunate because it is a doorway to dysfunction and even insanity. But why would any thinking person then choose to debate with them about the truth of reality when their debate opponent has clearly revealed themselves to be unable and/or unwilling to recognize that there is a difference between their idea of what it real and true and what is actually real and true? It would be logically incoherent to do so.
PureX
Posts: 1,533
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2016 2:51:56 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/6/2016 12:34:54 AM, janesix wrote:

God is the creator of the universe and everything in it.

That's how you choose to 'conceptualize the unknown'. And I'm not disagree with you. I am simply pointing out what you are actually doing when you hold forth such a statement.
PureX
Posts: 1,533
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2016 3:13:22 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/6/2016 12:53:06 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/5/2016 8:31:13 PM, PureX wrote:
I keep seeing all these forums asking if "God is real", and demanding some proposed "proof" of God's reality. And I'm a bit puzzled by it.

Don't we all understand that "God" is a way of perceiving and conceiving our experience of reality, and thus cannot be proven to be an aspect of reality apart from human cognition?

No, all people obviously do not understand that at all. We need to understand that not all people have the same mentality or perceptions. There will always be people in this world who are more mentally mature and intelligent than others. The mature ones understand the immature minds because they have been though immaturity. The immature ones do not understand the mature minds and perspectives due to their own minds and perspectives not having developed that far yet. It all takes time. Some obviously take longer to mature than others and some never mature completely due to mental or physical disabilities.
Not all adults are mentally mature.

Does beauty "exist"? Does justice "exist"? Does love "exist"? Of course they do, but not as a reality unto themselves. They exist as part of our experience of reality. They exist as human cognitive conceptualizations of that experience.

The concept of "God" is similar. It is a way of conceptualizing and understanding our experience of existing in a reality that we can't fully comprehend. It's the conceptual embodiment/personification of the great mystery of our existence: the mystery of it's source, sustenance, and purpose.

The concept of God is even compared to the concept of Love in the bible with the statement God IS Love.
If readers took that literally, they would see God as an emotion rather than as a entity with supernatural powers who actually listens to human requests.
Does Love see and hear humans? Is Love some invisible person who cares about humans or is it merely a human attitude and emotion which manifests through human actions?

So why are we asking if God is real?

People ask if God is real in the same way a child would ask if Santa is real. Such people obviously doubt the reality of the invisible character who supposedly has supernatural powers and loves humans yet still lets them suffer for no apparent reason except that they do not believe in or worship mythical characters.

It's a silly question, as God is as real as love, beauty, or justice is real. And no one is asking if they are "real" or not.

Exactly. The CONCEPT is obviously real and has a strong influence on many people.

Also, why are we asking for "objective proof" of God? That's a ridiculous request, as well. God has never been proposed to exist as an object exists, so why would anyone expect there to be objective proof of it?

I guess if you can have 'objective proof' of Love, you could have 'objective proof' of God in the same way but only if you perceived God to be the same kind of emotion as Love and something that can be recognised in the same way as you might recognise Love.
However, when it comes to any 'objective proof' I doubt such a thing exists since all human perception is subjective since it is subject to each individual mind and filtered through human biases, beliefs, preconceived ideas and teachings which have been passed down through generations.
All things are proof of nothing but themselves.

If we're going to debate the conceptual ideal of God, we should be asking about how the ideal functions in the lives of those who adhere to it. And debating the value of that functional manifestation in the individual's life and within society as a whole.

The concept seems to create a lot of division and contention between people in this world but how boring would the world be if every person agreed on everything and thought alike? Who would be left to challenge human thinking, perceptions or beliefs? If opposite perspectives did not exist, how would that affect human reasoning and logic?
The character God is supposed to represent goodness and the Devil character is supposed to represent evil but when people perceive good as evil and vice versa, their own perception creates conflict and divisions amongst them.

I think that too often we let ourselves get caught up in the symbols and metaphors that we humans have to use to conceptualize the inexplicable, and then we lose sight of the inexplicable nature of reality, itself, that drives us to invent these various god-images, and myths, and allegories, and so on. I am not an atheist. But nor do I agree to allow myself to be mesmerized like some naive child by the symbols and myths of others, as if they were some sort of alternate reality of their own. Or some invisible, "magical" aspect of my existence.

The great existential mystery is real enough. And as a thinking human being I feel compelled to grapple with it. As have countless billions of humans before me. And I understand that these various god-concepts are how many of those past (and present) humans chose to envision that inexplicable existential mystery, and relate to it. And I don't discount their vision: their symbols and myths and allegories, etc., but neither will I succumb to them as a reality unto themselves. Because I think that would be both crazy and dishonest.

You are right to point out that many of us have given ourselves over to these kinds of conceptual artifice, and adopted them as the "true answer" to the mystery. Sort of like accepting a billboard depicting a beautiful lake is the beautiful lake, itself. But are there really that many?

Maybe so. Though I find that hard to accept.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2016 3:30:16 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/5/2016 8:31:13 PM, PureX wrote:
I keep seeing all these forums asking if "God is real", and demanding some proposed "proof" of God's reality. And I'm a bit puzzled by it.

Don't we all understand that "God" is a way of perceiving and conceiving our experience of reality, and thus cannot be proven to be an aspect of reality apart from human cognition? Does beauty "exist"? Does justice "exist"? Does love "exist"? Of course they do, but not as a reality unto themselves. They exist as part of our experience of reality. They exist as human cognitive conceptualizations of that experience.

The concept of "God" is similar. It is a way of conceptualizing and understanding our experience of existing in a reality that we can't fully comprehend. It's the conceptual embodiment/personification of the great mystery of our existence: the mystery of it's source, sustenance, and purpose.

So why are we asking if God is real?

It's a silly question, as God is as real as love, beauty, or justice is real. And no one is asking if they are "real" or not. Also, why are we asking for "objective proof" of God? That's a ridiculous request, as well. God has never been proposed to exist as an object exists, so why would anyone expect there to be objective proof of it?
Here's an analogy I usually use. I can use every mathematical equation used in geometry to prove that a right angle is only 60 degrees and then do the same to prove a straight line is 120 degrees. What's the issue here? It is of course that the originator of the concept defines the variables. Most debates concerning God is met with people who are incapable of accepting the definitions within the concept so the debate moves into a definition debate not a debate of the concept.
If we're going to debate the conceptual ideal of God, we should be asking about how the ideal functions in the lives of those who adhere to it. And debating the value of that functional manifestation in the individual's life and within society as a whole.
God is eternal is a definition within the concept. So why would someone be so ignorant as to say who created God? The problem is people want to debunk definitions because they think it debunks the concept. They simply think in terms of a composition type fallacy. Attempt a subjective view of a definition so that definition is dismissed. They then think that dismissing a definition results in invalidating the whole concept. Invalidate part and their reasoning means it invalidates the whole.
Just sayin.
bulproof
Posts: 25,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2016 3:36:13 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/6/2016 3:30:16 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 6/5/2016 8:31:13 PM, PureX wrote:
I keep seeing all these forums asking if "God is real", and demanding some proposed "proof" of God's reality. And I'm a bit puzzled by it.

Don't we all understand that "God" is a way of perceiving and conceiving our experience of reality, and thus cannot be proven to be an aspect of reality apart from human cognition? Does beauty "exist"? Does justice "exist"? Does love "exist"? Of course they do, but not as a reality unto themselves. They exist as part of our experience of reality. They exist as human cognitive conceptualizations of that experience.

The concept of "God" is similar. It is a way of conceptualizing and understanding our experience of existing in a reality that we can't fully comprehend. It's the conceptual embodiment/personification of the great mystery of our existence: the mystery of it's source, sustenance, and purpose.

So why are we asking if God is real?

It's a silly question, as God is as real as love, beauty, or justice is real. And no one is asking if they are "real" or not. Also, why are we asking for "objective proof" of God? That's a ridiculous request, as well. God has never been proposed to exist as an object exists, so why would anyone expect there to be objective proof of it?
Here's an analogy I usually use. I can use every mathematical equation used in geometry to prove that a right angle is only 60 degrees and then do the same to prove a straight line is 120 degrees. What's the issue here? It is of course that the originator of the concept defines the variables. Most debates concerning God is met with people who are incapable of accepting the definitions within the concept so the debate moves into a definition debate not a debate of the concept.
If we're going to debate the conceptual ideal of God, we should be asking about how the ideal functions in the lives of those who adhere to it. And debating the value of that functional manifestation in the individual's life and within society as a whole.
God is eternal is a definition within the concept. So why would someone be so ignorant as to say who created God? The problem is people want to debunk definitions because they think it debunks the concept. They simply think in terms of a composition type fallacy. Attempt a subjective view of a definition so that definition is dismissed. They then think that dismissing a definition results in invalidating the whole concept. Invalidate part and their reasoning means it invalidates the whole.
Just sayin.
Gods are a CLAIM made by humans, when the claimants can provide supporting evidence for that CLAIM then a discussion might ensue, until then the CLAIM is quite logically rejected.
It's not a matter of me invalidating a part it's a matter of you being unable to validate any.
Casten
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2016 3:48:45 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
I'm sympathetic to this mindset. But in my experience, it's a minority mindset. Other theists do claim that God is an objective being. That he in fact predates humanity, and is not dependent on the human perspective, as such ideas as justice and love are.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2016 6:25:30 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/6/2016 3:36:13 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/6/2016 3:30:16 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 6/5/2016 8:31:13 PM, PureX wrote:
I keep seeing all these forums asking if "God is real", and demanding some proposed "proof" of God's reality. And I'm a bit puzzled by it.

Don't we all understand that "God" is a way of perceiving and conceiving our experience of reality, and thus cannot be proven to be an aspect of reality apart from human cognition? Does beauty "exist"? Does justice "exist"? Does love "exist"? Of course they do, but not as a reality unto themselves. They exist as part of our experience of reality. They exist as human cognitive conceptualizations of that experience.

The concept of "God" is similar. It is a way of conceptualizing and understanding our experience of existing in a reality that we can't fully comprehend. It's the conceptual embodiment/personification of the great mystery of our existence: the mystery of it's source, sustenance, and purpose.

So why are we asking if God is real?

It's a silly question, as God is as real as love, beauty, or justice is real. And no one is asking if they are "real" or not. Also, why are we asking for "objective proof" of God? That's a ridiculous request, as well. God has never been proposed to exist as an object exists, so why would anyone expect there to be objective proof of it?
Here's an analogy I usually use. I can use every mathematical equation used in geometry to prove that a right angle is only 60 degrees and then do the same to prove a straight line is 120 degrees. What's the issue here? It is of course that the originator of the concept defines the variables. Most debates concerning God is met with people who are incapable of accepting the definitions within the concept so the debate moves into a definition debate not a debate of the concept.
If we're going to debate the conceptual ideal of God, we should be asking about how the ideal functions in the lives of those who adhere to it. And debating the value of that functional manifestation in the individual's life and within society as a whole.
God is eternal is a definition within the concept. So why would someone be so ignorant as to say who created God? The problem is people want to debunk definitions because they think it debunks the concept. They simply think in terms of a composition type fallacy. Attempt a subjective view of a definition so that definition is dismissed. They then think that dismissing a definition results in invalidating the whole concept. Invalidate part and their reasoning means it invalidates the whole.
Just sayin.
Gods are a CLAIM made by humans when the claimants can provide supporting evidence for that CLAIM then a discussion might ensue, until then the CLAIM is quite logically rejected.
This is completely ignorant and a straw man. You simply are saying that all debates about God are whether God exists first then nothing else is valid to debate. That's ridiculous.
Many people debate omnipotence, not whether an omnipotent God exists but whether it's a viable definition. People also Debate the nature of God which is another example of a God debate that's irrelevant to proving God exists first before a discussion can be pursued.
It's not a matter of me invalidating a part it's a matter of you being unable to validate any.
Wrong. Are you being purposely obtuse? Atheist try to invalidate aspects of how God is defined to debunk Gods existence all the time.
You are simply saying God isn't a concept? Lmao.....Prove it
bulproof
Posts: 25,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2016 7:17:46 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/6/2016 6:25:30 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 6/6/2016 3:36:13 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/6/2016 3:30:16 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 6/5/2016 8:31:13 PM, PureX wrote:
I keep seeing all these forums asking if "God is real", and demanding some proposed "proof" of God's reality. And I'm a bit puzzled by it.

Don't we all understand that "God" is a way of perceiving and conceiving our experience of reality, and thus cannot be proven to be an aspect of reality apart from human cognition? Does beauty "exist"? Does justice "exist"? Does love "exist"? Of course they do, but not as a reality unto themselves. They exist as part of our experience of reality. They exist as human cognitive conceptualizations of that experience.

The concept of "God" is similar. It is a way of conceptualizing and understanding our experience of existing in a reality that we can't fully comprehend. It's the conceptual embodiment/personification of the great mystery of our existence: the mystery of it's source, sustenance, and purpose.

So why are we asking if God is real?

It's a silly question, as God is as real as love, beauty, or justice is real. And no one is asking if they are "real" or not. Also, why are we asking for "objective proof" of God? That's a ridiculous request, as well. God has never been proposed to exist as an object exists, so why would anyone expect there to be objective proof of it?
Here's an analogy I usually use. I can use every mathematical equation used in geometry to prove that a right angle is only 60 degrees and then do the same to prove a straight line is 120 degrees. What's the issue here? It is of course that the originator of the concept defines the variables. Most debates concerning God is met with people who are incapable of accepting the definitions within the concept so the debate moves into a definition debate not a debate of the concept.
If we're going to debate the conceptual ideal of God, we should be asking about how the ideal functions in the lives of those who adhere to it. And debating the value of that functional manifestation in the individual's life and within society as a whole.
God is eternal is a definition within the concept. So why would someone be so ignorant as to say who created God? The problem is people want to debunk definitions because they think it debunks the concept. They simply think in terms of a composition type fallacy. Attempt a subjective view of a definition so that definition is dismissed. They then think that dismissing a definition results in invalidating the whole concept. Invalidate part and their reasoning means it invalidates the whole.
Just sayin.
Gods are a CLAIM made by humans when the claimants can provide supporting evidence for that CLAIM then a discussion might ensue, until then the CLAIM is quite logically rejected.
This is completely ignorant and a straw man.
It's certainly not ignorant nor is it a strawman, it is in fact the truth. Who or what else claims the existence of gods, gods most certainly don't.
You simply are saying that all debates about God are whether God exists first then nothing else is valid to debate. That's ridiculous.
Well lets debate invisible martians, you first.
Many people debate omnipotence, not whether an omnipotent God exists but whether it's a viable definition.
The omnipotence CLAIM is incoherent with or without your god, so what is your point?
People also Debate the nature of God which is another example of a God debate that's irrelevant to proving God exists first before a discussion can be pursued.
Unless your god exists it has no nature and since you can't support the CLAIM that it exists the debate is meaningless.
It's not a matter of me invalidating a part it's a matter of you being unable to validate any.
Wrong. Are you being purposely obtuse?
No. I am stating a fact, the claimants cannot validate even a skeric of their claim, I have no need to invalidate that which is invalidated by the proposer.
Atheist try to invalidate aspects of how God is defined to debunk Gods existence all the time.
Defining something that has no evidence of existence is a lovely exercise in imaginary thinking, but of course the results are meaningless.
You are simply saying God isn't a concept? Lmao.....Prove it
What was it you said about a strawman? Try some honesty for a change.
dee-em
Posts: 6,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2016 12:52:17 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/6/2016 2:45:34 AM, PureX wrote:
At 6/5/2016 11:44:11 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/5/2016 8:31:13 PM, PureX wrote:
I keep seeing all these forums asking if "God is real", and demanding some proposed "proof" of God's reality. And I'm a bit puzzled by it.

Don't we all understand that "God" is a way of perceiving and conceiving our experience of reality, and thus cannot be proven to be an aspect of reality apart from human cognition? Does beauty "exist"? Does justice "exist"? Does love "exist"? Of course they do, but not as a reality unto themselves. They exist as part of our experience of reality. They exist as human cognitive conceptualizations of that experience.

No gods have ever been understood this way. They have always been interventionist entities usually with human or superhuman attributes and motivations. You are making up your own personal definition.

The concept of "God" is similar. It is a way of conceptualizing and understanding our experience of existing in a reality that we can't fully comprehend. It's the conceptual embodiment/personification of the great mystery of our existence: the mystery of it's source, sustenance, and purpose.

That matches no definition of God I have ever seen. Please cite your source.

So why are we asking if God is real?

It's a silly question, as God is as real as love, beauty, or justice is real.

All those things are subjective. Are you suggesting that God is subjective?

And no one is asking if they are "real" or not. Also, why are we asking for "objective proof" of God? That's a ridiculous request, as well. God has never been proposed to exist as an object exists, ...

What? I beg to differ. God has always been proposed that way.

... so why would anyone expect there to be objective proof of it?

If we're going to debate the conceptual ideal of God, we should be asking about how the ideal functions in the lives of those who adhere to it. And debating the value of that functional manifestation in the individual's life and within society as a whole.

Just saying.

I think you're trying very hard not to recognize the reality of the God-concept by focussing on the imagery people use, in their minds, to maintain their grasp of it. And that you should perhaps query yourself in that regard, as to why.

I fully recognize that the concept of God is a human construct. That is not the issue.

The vast majority of humans now and throughout history have conceived of "God" (or the gods) as human-like beings with inexplicable powers that allow them to control our fates. They have never, as far as I know, been proposed to exist in our reality.

Nonsense. Out of the thousands of gods invented by men, most have been presumed to exist in our reality. That includes the Egyptian, Greek, Roman and Norse pantheon of gods and even the Abrahamic god at the outset. Yahweh was in the heavens (above the clouds) but the heavens were still part of reality although separated from the Earthly realm. St. Paul for example claimed to have visited one of these levels of heaven. It was only as philosophers and theologians began to query the lack of presence of such a god, that he was pushed further and further away. Later, as science discovered more about the universe the god-of-the-gaps was pushed right out of the universe altogether. This is a relatively recent phenomenon in religious thought.

But instead, to exist in some alternative reality from which they can then effect ours. Thus, for atheists to demand "objective evidence" for the existence of these gods is absurd. As no one has ever proposed that these gods exist as we objectively comprehend the realm of existence.

Not true as already explained. Anyway, how does that scenario differ from non-existence if you have no objective way, according to you, of distinguishing between the two? It's a useless hypothesis.

I would have thought this would be obvious, especially to an non-theists.

No, it is not obvious because theists will tell you that they interact with a personal God. That is when we ask for objective evidence of this relationship. Atheists respond to the claims made by theists since we have no knowledge of God ourselves (by definition). They claim to know things and we, quite rightly, expect them to substantiate such assertions.

I agree that some theists are unaware of their own consciousness, and so cannot cognate the difference between what they believe about the world they experience, and the actual world that they are experiencing. And this is unfortunate because it is a doorway to dysfunction and even insanity. But why would any thinking person then choose to debate with them about the truth of reality when their debate opponent has clearly revealed themselves to be unable and/or unwilling to recognize that there is a difference between their idea of what it real and true and what is actually real and true? It would be logically incoherent to do so.

Huh? Surely it is a duty of atheists to point out the delusion under which theists operate. Are you suggesting that we should just leave them to their delusion and stop caring even if these people act on their delusions in a way which is detrimental to society?
PureX
Posts: 1,533
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2016 1:42:34 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/6/2016 3:30:16 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 6/5/2016 8:31:13 PM, PureX wrote:
I keep seeing all these forums asking if "God is real", and demanding some proposed "proof" of God's reality. And I'm a bit puzzled by it.

Don't we all understand that "God" is a way of perceiving and conceiving our experience of reality, and thus cannot be proven to be an aspect of reality apart from human cognition? Does beauty "exist"? Does justice "exist"? Does love "exist"? Of course they do, but not as a reality unto themselves. They exist as part of our experience of reality. They exist as human cognitive conceptualizations of that experience.

The concept of "God" is similar. It is a way of conceptualizing and understanding our experience of existing in a reality that we can't fully comprehend. It's the conceptual embodiment/personification of the great mystery of our existence: the mystery of it's source, sustenance, and purpose.

So why are we asking if God is real?

It's a silly question, as God is as real as love, beauty, or justice is real. And no one is asking if they are "real" or not. Also, why are we asking for "objective proof" of God? That's a ridiculous request, as well. God has never been proposed to exist as an object exists, so why would anyone expect there to be objective proof of it?
Here's an analogy I usually use. I can use every mathematical equation used in geometry to prove that a right angle is only 60 degrees and then do the same to prove a straight line is 120 degrees. What's the issue here? It is of course that the originator of the concept defines the variables. Most debates concerning God is met with people who are incapable of accepting the definitions within the concept so the debate moves into a definition debate not a debate of the concept.
If we're going to debate the conceptual ideal of God, we should be asking about how the ideal functions in the lives of those who adhere to it. And debating the value of that functional manifestation in the individual's life and within society as a whole.
God is eternal is a definition within the concept. So why would someone be so ignorant as to say who created God? The problem is people want to debunk definitions because they think it debunks the concept. They simply think in terms of a composition type fallacy. Attempt a subjective view of a definition so that definition is dismissed. They then think that dismissing a definition results in invalidating the whole concept. Invalidate part and their reasoning means it invalidates the whole.

I agree. But it's like thinking that if we can disprove the physical reality of Santa Clause we can invalidate the whole concept of Christmas. It's illogical. And yet in forum after forum, here, people expend much energy and time doing exactly this.
PureX
Posts: 1,533
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2016 2:04:00 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/6/2016 12:52:17 PM, dee-em wrote:

Surely it is a duty of atheists to point out the delusion under which theists operate. Are you suggesting that we should just leave them to their delusion and stop caring even if these people act on their delusions in a way which is detrimental to society?

Most of the atheists I see on these forums appear to be obsessed with the idea of their own righteousness, to the point that they argue endlessly with theists who are incapable of recognizing their position.

Just as you keep insisting that my claim that God is an ideological existential concept is false, so that you can continue to dismiss theism as a whole based on your "objective" dismissal of the symbols and myths that people use to help them conceptualize and relate to the ideal of "God". It's as though you think you're invalidating Christmas by 'objectively proving that Santa Claus isn't real'. And yet that's just as irrational an idea as a grown adult believing that Santa Clause IS objectively real.

What I'm suggesting is that perhaps these atheists ought to ferret out and dispel a few of their own irrational delusions before they try correcting the irrational delusions of others.
PureX
Posts: 1,533
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2016 2:30:05 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
If I were to claim that my wife is beautiful, how could I possibly prove this claim to someone else, unless they conceived of beauty in a similar way as I do?

The point is that there are concepts of reality that, when we hold to them, will define reality for us. And thereby create their own "evidence of validation". And the concept of God is one of these concepts. Which is why it's absurd to ask me to prove to you that my wife is beautiful, should I make that claim. And why it is absurd to ask me to prove that my God is real should I make that claim. God is real to those who hold to that ideal. That's how ideals work. And once held, they generate their own evidence that acts as proof. But to those who don't hold to that ideal, there will be no evidence or proof, forthcoming. Because they have already denied that possibility.

If, for example, I have chosen to believe that love is a myth: a lie that we humans invent for ourselves to give meaning and purpose to our need to bond with each other, how could anyone prove otherwise? Once I decide it's a myth, I dismiss any possibility of it being otherwise, in advance. And anything anyone proposes to the contrary will be, to me, just part of the myth.

Once we understand that "God" is an ideal through which the 'believer' experiences and understands reality, we also must understand that it generates it's own evidence, and even 'proof'. Which is why it's nearly impossible to dispel as untrue from the position of an 'outsider'. From a position of non-acceptance.

And it's why asking "is God real" is foolish. Because God is as real as we choose to believe. Just as my wife is beautiful, regardless of what anyone else thinks or says.
Outplayz
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2016 10:50:16 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/5/2016 8:31:13 PM, PureX wrote:
I keep seeing all these forums asking if "God is real", and demanding some proposed "proof" of God's reality. And I'm a bit puzzled by it.

Don't we all understand that "God" is a way of perceiving and conceiving our experience of reality, and thus cannot be proven to be an aspect of reality apart from human cognition? Does beauty "exist"? Does justice "exist"? Does love "exist"? Of course they do, but not as a reality unto themselves. They exist as part of our experience of reality. They exist as human cognitive conceptualizations of that experience.

The concept of "God" is similar. It is a way of conceptualizing and understanding our experience of existing in a reality that we can't fully comprehend. It's the conceptual embodiment/personification of the great mystery of our existence: the mystery of it's source, sustenance, and purpose.

So why are we asking if God is real?

It's a silly question, as God is as real as love, beauty, or justice is real. And no one is asking if they are "real" or not. Also, why are we asking for "objective proof" of God? That's a ridiculous request, as well. God has never been proposed to exist as an object exists, so why would anyone expect there to be objective proof of it?

If we're going to debate the conceptual ideal of God, we should be asking about how the ideal functions in the lives of those who adhere to it. And debating the value of that functional manifestation in the individual's life and within society as a whole.

Just sayin.

I really like this post. Although, the others answering that most theists think God is a being with powers is true. However, even if that is true there is just as much subjectivity in a metaphysical being as there is to what we can define here; like the beauty of your wife. The beauty of your wife can be tested too, however there may be many results. Is she considered what people find beautiful in media? Then, according to what countries belief of beauty? Then, according to what societies standard of beauty? Lets say (with no offense meant at all) that she is not considered under any of these standards of beauty, but you still see her as beautiful. I am also just as certain there will be other men (and women ;p) that find her beautiful. There will be a large group of people that find her beautiful and a large number of people that don't. What is my point here? Compare this as an analogy to belief and religion. People that find your wife to be beautiful (Atheists), versus people that don't find you wife to be beautiful (Theists). The theists are telling the large group that doesn't see the beauty that they "must" see the beauty, marry, and spend the rest of there life with her (Heaven/eternity). While the atheists see their standard of beauty and would rather stay with what "they would choose" to spend the rest of their life with.

I see this kind of subjectivity in the belief of God and also think God is a concept; however, i also believe there are "realms/universes/other dimensions." I believe it as a concept here to strive for, but to some, Lucifer is also a standard. Darkness is also their beauty. My belief has hints of existentialism in its metaphysical platform, but i can't prove it bc of what you have said... belief is subjective. But, why is this subjectivity not recognized? Why is it that Valhalla and Heaven can't exist together? The ones that believed they are going to Valhalla go there, and Christians go to there paradise. I understand you are explaining the concept of God as natural forces, but why can't i imagine the concept of God as something eternal? Therefore, I can conclude that i am also eternal and in control of where i go next. I think the observer is forever making their world. Right now, it is a human experience. What if it is the same thing when you are not here anymore? You just live your character in another life, in another "world." I mean, what else can i be other than me? Yet, i am sure my character is needed in many worlds but maybe not needed in others. I just wont go there, i will marry what i find beautiful. I think if there is a metaphysical concept of God, this is the type of platform its eternity would have.
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2016 11:03:57 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
"God", being a word, is a concept.

The concept, however, points to something that is beyond conception.

It's not an easy paradox for people to get around.

The concept is like a finger pointing at the moon. If you keep staring at the finger, you aren't going to see what it is pointing at.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
dee-em
Posts: 6,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2016 11:13:27 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/6/2016 2:04:00 PM, PureX wrote:
At 6/6/2016 12:52:17 PM, dee-em wrote:

Surely it is a duty of atheists to point out the delusion under which theists operate. Are you suggesting that we should just leave them to their delusion and stop caring even if these people act on their delusions in a way which is detrimental to society?

Most of the atheists I see on these forums appear to be obsessed with the idea of their own righteousness, to the point that they argue endlessly with theists who are incapable of recognizing their position.

So answer the question. Should we abandon theists to their delusions? Is that what you are advocating?

Just as you keep insisting that my claim that God is an ideological existential concept is false, so that you can continue to dismiss theism as a whole based on your "objective" dismissal of the symbols and myths that people use to help them conceptualize and relate to the ideal of "God".

You misunderstand. You have your own personal idea of what God-belief is all about and you seek to make that the mint standard for all theists. This is what I am refuting. Who died and made you a spokesman for theism? Clearly the majority of theists do not share your views on God-belief. Atheists here argue against claims made continually by such theists. I can't make that any more plain.

It's as though you think you're invalidating Christmas by 'objectively proving that Santa Claus isn't real'. And yet that's just as irrational an idea as a grown adult believing that Santa Clause IS objectively real.

Lol. That's exactly what most theists believe and why we demand that they substantiate their claims. If there were people who sincerely argued that Santa Claus was a real being then there would be a forum where a-Santa Clausists would argue against. Your analogy is absurd since it refutes itself. There are no such (adult) people who claim that Santa Claus is real.

What I'm suggesting is that perhaps these atheists ought to ferret out and dispel a few of their own irrational delusions before they try correcting the irrational delusions of others.

What irrational delusions do atheists have, pray tell? The delusion you seem to suffer from is that atheists are a homogeneous group with a shared belief system. Please enlighten us.
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2016 11:26:11 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
It's impossible to substantiate a claim to someone who refuses to make an attempt to understand these concepts properly.

God is The Ultimate Reality. This is not only understood by theologians, but it is also acknowledged by the dictionary. When an atheist hears the word "God", they think it means something other than what it really does.

When these people refuse to be corrected, it only tells me that they were never really all that honest to begin with, and they have knowingly chosen to take themselves as God.

Yeah, they're pretty much petulant satanists. I can't take them seriously, it's the height of stupidity.

That said, I am also aware of the fact that there are many self professed atheists who are in fact honest, but have been mislead about about the actual meaning of their position.

An atheist, by definition, is someone who denies the existence of Ultimate Reality. The position is by nature impossible to substantiate.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2016 11:39:49 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/6/2016 3:13:22 AM, PureX wrote:
At 6/6/2016 12:53:06 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/5/2016 8:31:13 PM, PureX wrote:

If we're going to debate the conceptual ideal of God, we should be asking about how the ideal functions in the lives of those who adhere to it. And debating the value of that functional manifestation in the individual's life and within society as a whole.

The concept seems to create a lot of division and contention between people in this world but how boring would the world be if every person agreed on everything and thought alike? Who would be left to challenge human thinking, perceptions or beliefs? If opposite perspectives did not exist, how would that affect human reasoning and logic?
The character God is supposed to represent goodness and the Devil character is supposed to represent evil but when people perceive good as evil and vice versa, their own perception creates conflict and divisions amongst them.

I think that too often we let ourselves get caught up in the symbols and metaphors that we humans have to use to conceptualize the inexplicable, and then we lose sight of the inexplicable nature of reality, itself, that drives us to invent these various god-images, and myths, and allegories, and so on. I am not an atheist. But nor do I agree to allow myself to be mesmerized like some naive child by the symbols and myths of others, as if they were some sort of alternate reality of their own. Or some invisible, "magical" aspect of my existence.

Why do you think the nature of reality is inexplicable?
The invention of mythical characters and fables is simply part of human creativity and expression. Abstract art forms are part of that expression.
As for an alternate reality, do you think fantasy is an alternate reality due to being imaginary?
I tend to think it is. I think many get lost in their fantasies and due to their belief that those fantasies/ imaginations are real, they find it hard to face the reality that the things they imagine to be real are not real at all, in spite of human imagination being very real.
Obviously the mind can 'trick' people into believing a lie is the truth or something imaginary is real. Hallucinations, mirages, delusions, self deceptions, etc are all 'tricks' of the human mind.
Mature people all understand that nothing magical actually exists and any perceived magic is due to an illusion.
Fantasy is obviously part of human existence and human nature. The sad thing is that it seems many people attempt to 'escape' from reality and their personal 'fantasy land' seems to be the only place of escape for them.

The great existential mystery is real enough. And as a thinking human being I feel compelled to grapple with it. As have countless billions of humans before me. And I understand that these various god-concepts are how many of those past (and present) humans chose to envision that inexplicable existential mystery, and relate to it. And I don't discount their vision: their symbols and myths and allegories, etc., but neither will I succumb to them as a reality unto themselves. Because I think that would be both crazy and dishonest.

' Great existential mystery' ? Why do you think existence is a great mystery? Is it not obvious that nature works in cycles and each form of existence has its reproductive cycles? I see nothing mysterious about the cycles of nature.
I think symbols, myths, allegories, are indeed a reality unto themselves in the sense of being a fantasy. Fantasy is obviously an intricate part of our human reality but it can also be seen as a reality unto itself . It all depends on how people separate fantasy and reality in their own perception. Obviously the 'separation line' is different in individual perceptions.

You are right to point out that many of us have given ourselves over to these kinds of conceptual artifice, and adopted them as the "true answer" to the mystery. Sort of like accepting a billboard depicting a beautiful lake is the beautiful lake, itself. But are there really that many?

Maybe so. Though I find that hard to accept.

There seem to be as many human perceptions as there are individuals. No two people see, perceive or understand all things exactly alike. Some agree on a few things but I doubt anyone at all would agree 100% on every topic they discuss.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It seems the same is true when it comes to human perception of reality, truth and human concepts.
It all boils down to individual perception, belief, opinions, speculations, taste, etc. Humans are very subjective creatures.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2016 12:18:14 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/6/2016 11:03:57 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
"God", being a word, is a concept.

The concept, however, points to something that is beyond conception.

Is anything really beyond conception or are things only beyond conception to the people who do not believe that they have the ability to conceive them?

It's not an easy paradox for people to get around.

To understand a paradox, one needs to be able to comprehend how apparently absurd or contradicting concepts can work together as a whole and be perfectly valid, well founded and true.

The concept is like a finger pointing at the moon. If you keep staring at the finger, you aren't going to see what it is pointing at.

I doubt any humans will keep staring at a finger without looking to see what its pointing at. The problem with that analogy is that the moon is also visible and obvious to see. When a finger points at something invisible, what proof does anyone have that the invisible thing exists?
I can point a finger at you all day and claim that I believe you have a conscience because I see evidence of it in you but pointing a finger at you and claiming you have a conscience which I can see evidence of, will never convince anyone else that you have one if they do not interpret your words, actions or attitudes in the same way as I do. All they would see is my finger and you but they will never see your conscience unless they interpret your words, actions and attitudes as being evidence of one.
God is like a conscience. A concept which is invisible and within humans but impossible to prove you have one due to it being subject to human perception and interpretation.
Take the story of Jesus as an example of human perception. Some perceived the character as evil and others perceived the character as good. The same character was perceived in totally opposite ways in the story and still is perceived in totally opposite ways today. What one man perceives as good, another perceives as evil. What one man perceives as true, another perceives as false. The problem is not in the object or concept which is being perceived or judged but in human perception.
All things simply are what they are regardless of humans perception or opinion.
All existing things 'say' I AM that I AM simply by existing. All are evidence of nothing but themselves.

Do you have a conscience? Can you prove to anyone that you have a conscience?
If so, how would you go about proving it? Pointing a finger at it and trying to get anyone to see it, is useless since your conscience is invisible.

The same applies to love. How does one prove they have any love within them, to people who don't see their words or actions as loving ?
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2016 12:27:57 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/7/2016 12:18:14 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/6/2016 11:03:57 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
"God", being a word, is a concept.

The concept, however, points to something that is beyond conception.

Is anything really beyond conception or are things only beyond conception to the people who do not believe that they have the ability to conceive them?


If you could put God in a box, it wouldn't be God.

It's not an easy paradox for people to get around.

To understand a paradox, one needs to be able to comprehend how apparently absurd or contradicting concepts can work together as a whole and be perfectly valid, well founded and true.

Sho 'nuff

The concept is like a finger pointing at the moon. If you keep staring at the finger, you aren't going to see what it is pointing at.

I doubt any humans will keep staring at a finger without looking to see what its pointing at. The problem with that analogy is that the moon is also visible and obvious to see. When a finger points at something invisible, what proof does anyone have that the invisible thing exists?
I can point a finger at you all day and claim that I believe you have a conscience because I see evidence of it in you but pointing a finger at you and claiming you have a conscience which I can see evidence of, will never convince anyone else that you have one if they do not interpret your words, actions or attitudes in the same way as I do. All they would see is my finger and you but they will never see your conscience unless they interpret your words, actions and attitudes as being evidence of one.
God is like a conscience. A concept which is invisible and within humans but impossible to prove you have one due to it being subject to human perception and interpretation.
Take the story of Jesus as an example of human perception. Some perceived the character as evil and others perceived the character as good. The same character was perceived in totally opposite ways in the story and still is perceived in totally opposite ways today. What one man perceives as good, another perceives as evil. What one man perceives as true, another perceives as false. The problem is not in the object or concept which is being perceived or judged but in human perception.
All things simply are what they are regardless of humans perception or opinion.
All existing things 'say' I AM that I AM simply by existing. All are evidence of nothing but themselves.

Do you have a conscience? Can you prove to anyone that you have a conscience?
If so, how would you go about proving it? Pointing a finger at it and trying to get anyone to see it, is useless since your conscience is invisible.

The same applies to love. How does one prove they have any love within them, to people who don't see their words or actions as loving ?

I'm reading all this, and I think you have stretched this metaphor to the point that you are missing entirely what I'm saying.

It's really kind of dumb to ask someone to prove The Ultimate Reality.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2016 12:34:45 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/6/2016 11:13:27 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/6/2016 2:04:00 PM, PureX wrote:

It's as though you think you're invalidating Christmas by 'objectively proving that Santa Claus isn't real'. And yet that's just as irrational an idea as a grown adult believing that Santa Clause IS objectively real.

Lol. That's exactly what most theists believe and why we demand that they substantiate their claims. If there were people who sincerely argued that Santa Claus was a real being then there would be a forum where a-Santa Clausists would argue against. Your analogy is absurd since it refutes itself. There are no such (adult) people who claim that Santa Claus is real.

That depends on whether you understand and define Santa Claus to be a CONCEPT or a magical character or an actor. Many adults tell children that Santa is real. If they didn't, no children would believe Santa was real. The childish belief is due to the adults lying to the children just for the fun of it as well as for businesses to make money from the concept.
Don't many mature adults play the role of Santa? When you see a man dressed up as Santa , is the man real or not? Does dressing up in a Santa suit and handing out gifts to strangers, make a person Santa?
The concept of a character giving gifts to others regardless of whether they are good or bad and holding back gifts from bad people is the same concept in religion and mythology regardless of whether you call the character Santa or God. Both characters have an unbiased aspect to them where they treat all the same but also have a seemingly biased aspect to them where they treat good people differently to bad people.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2016 12:34:47 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/7/2016 12:27:57 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 6/7/2016 12:18:14 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/6/2016 11:03:57 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
"God", being a word, is a concept.

The concept, however, points to something that is beyond conception.

Is anything really beyond conception or are things only beyond conception to the people who do not believe that they have the ability to conceive them?


If you could put God in a box, it wouldn't be God.

It's not an easy paradox for people to get around.

To understand a paradox, one needs to be able to comprehend how apparently absurd or contradicting concepts can work together as a whole and be perfectly valid, well founded and true.

Sho 'nuff

The concept is like a finger pointing at the moon. If you keep staring at the finger, you aren't going to see what it is pointing at.

I doubt any humans will keep staring at a finger without looking to see what its pointing at. The problem with that analogy is that the moon is also visible and obvious to see. When a finger points at something invisible, what proof does anyone have that the invisible thing exists?
I can point a finger at you all day and claim that I believe you have a conscience because I see evidence of it in you but pointing a finger at you and claiming you have a conscience which I can see evidence of, will never convince anyone else that you have one if they do not interpret your words, actions or attitudes in the same way as I do. All they would see is my finger and you but they will never see your conscience unless they interpret your words, actions and attitudes as being evidence of one.
God is like a conscience. A concept which is invisible and within humans but impossible to prove you have one due to it being subject to human perception and interpretation.
Take the story of Jesus as an example of human perception. Some perceived the character as evil and others perceived the character as good. The same character was perceived in totally opposite ways in the story and still is perceived in totally opposite ways today. What one man perceives as good, another perceives as evil. What one man perceives as true, another perceives as false. The problem is not in the object or concept which is being perceived or judged but in human perception.
All things simply are what they are regardless of humans perception or opinion.
All existing things 'say' I AM that I AM simply by existing. All are evidence of nothing but themselves.

Do you have a conscience? Can you prove to anyone that you have a conscience?
If so, how would you go about proving it? Pointing a finger at it and trying to get anyone to see it, is useless since your conscience is invisible.

The same applies to love. How does one prove they have any love within them, to people who don't see their words or actions as loving ?

I'm reading all this, and I think you have stretched this metaphor to the point that you are missing entirely what I'm saying.

It's really kind of dumb to ask someone to prove The Ultimate Reality.

Not when they go on and on and on about it like you do. Show us this Ultimate Reality or just stfu.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2016 12:42:34 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/7/2016 12:34:47 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/7/2016 12:27:57 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 6/7/2016 12:18:14 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/6/2016 11:03:57 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
"God", being a word, is a concept.

The concept, however, points to something that is beyond conception.

Is anything really beyond conception or are things only beyond conception to the people who do not believe that they have the ability to conceive them?


If you could put God in a box, it wouldn't be God.

It's not an easy paradox for people to get around.

To understand a paradox, one needs to be able to comprehend how apparently absurd or contradicting concepts can work together as a whole and be perfectly valid, well founded and true.

Sho 'nuff

The concept is like a finger pointing at the moon. If you keep staring at the finger, you aren't going to see what it is pointing at.

I doubt any humans will keep staring at a finger without looking to see what its pointing at. The problem with that analogy is that the moon is also visible and obvious to see. When a finger points at something invisible, what proof does anyone have that the invisible thing exists?
I can point a finger at you all day and claim that I believe you have a conscience because I see evidence of it in you but pointing a finger at you and claiming you have a conscience which I can see evidence of, will never convince anyone else that you have one if they do not interpret your words, actions or attitudes in the same way as I do. All they would see is my finger and you but they will never see your conscience unless they interpret your words, actions and attitudes as being evidence of one.
God is like a conscience. A concept which is invisible and within humans but impossible to prove you have one due to it being subject to human perception and interpretation.
Take the story of Jesus as an example of human perception. Some perceived the character as evil and others perceived the character as good. The same character was perceived in totally opposite ways in the story and still is perceived in totally opposite ways today. What one man perceives as good, another perceives as evil. What one man perceives as true, another perceives as false. The problem is not in the object or concept which is being perceived or judged but in human perception.
All things simply are what they are regardless of humans perception or opinion.
All existing things 'say' I AM that I AM simply by existing. All are evidence of nothing but themselves.

Do you have a conscience? Can you prove to anyone that you have a conscience?
If so, how would you go about proving it? Pointing a finger at it and trying to get anyone to see it, is useless since your conscience is invisible.

The same applies to love. How does one prove they have any love within them, to people who don't see their words or actions as loving ?

I'm reading all this, and I think you have stretched this metaphor to the point that you are missing entirely what I'm saying.

It's really kind of dumb to ask someone to prove The Ultimate Reality.

Not when they go on and on and on about it like you do. Show us this Ultimate Reality or just stfu.

I don't think you realize how stupid your demand is.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
dee-em
Posts: 6,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2016 12:47:01 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/7/2016 12:34:47 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

It's really kind of dumb to ask someone to prove The Ultimate Reality.

Not when they go on and on and on about it like you do. Show us this Ultimate Reality or just stfu.

Let me get out my crystal ball. He will give you the dictionary definitions for "ultimate" and "reality" and then claim this is the proof that God=Ultimate Reality exists. No matter how many times you teach him the fallacy of arguing by dictionary definition, he will persist. End of prophecy.
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2016 12:53:46 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/7/2016 12:47:01 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/7/2016 12:34:47 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

It's really kind of dumb to ask someone to prove The Ultimate Reality.

Not when they go on and on and on about it like you do. Show us this Ultimate Reality or just stfu.

Let me get out my crystal ball. He will give you the dictionary definitions for "ultimate" and "reality" and then claim this is the proof that God=Ultimate Reality exists. No matter how many times you teach him the fallacy of arguing by dictionary definition, he will persist. End of prophecy.

No, this is how YOU take it, because you can't tell the difference between the spirit of the law, and the letter of the law.

If you actually understood what "The Ultimate Reality" means, you'd realize how incredibly stupid your so called "rebuttal" is.

The fact of the matter is, you aren't accepting the definition because you know it makes you wrong. Oh, and it it makes you look stupid.

What you don't realize is, you make yourself look even dumber by refusing to acknowledge the truth.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2016 12:56:37 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/7/2016 12:27:57 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 6/7/2016 12:18:14 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/6/2016 11:03:57 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
"God", being a word, is a concept.

The concept, however, points to something that is beyond conception.

Is anything really beyond conception or are things only beyond conception to the people who do not believe that they have the ability to conceive them?


If you could put God in a box, it wouldn't be God.

Ones conception or perception is only confined if you cannot think outside the box.
I can think outside the box. Can you ?
The concept of infinity and eternity or anything infinite and eternal can be perceived by any intelligent person without placing it in "a box". Boxes have boundaries. Eternity and infinity obviously does not.

It's not an easy paradox for people to get around.

To understand a paradox, one needs to be able to comprehend how apparently absurd or contradicting concepts can work together as a whole and be perfectly valid, well founded and true.

Sho 'nuff

I interpret that term as your agreement.

The concept is like a finger pointing at the moon. If you keep staring at the finger, you aren't going to see what it is pointing at.

I doubt any humans will keep staring at a finger without looking to see what its pointing at. The problem with that analogy is that the moon is also visible and obvious to see. When a finger points at something invisible, what proof does anyone have that the invisible thing exists?
I can point a finger at you all day and claim that I believe you have a conscience because I see evidence of it in you but pointing a finger at you and claiming you have a conscience which I can see evidence of, will never convince anyone else that you have one if they do not interpret your words, actions or attitudes in the same way as I do. All they would see is my finger and you but they will never see your conscience unless they interpret your words, actions and attitudes as being evidence of one.
God is like a conscience. A concept which is invisible and within humans but impossible to prove you have one due to it being subject to human perception and interpretation.
Take the story of Jesus as an example of human perception. Some perceived the character as evil and others perceived the character as good. The same character was perceived in totally opposite ways in the story and still is perceived in totally opposite ways today. What one man perceives as good, another perceives as evil. What one man perceives as true, another perceives as false. The problem is not in the object or concept which is being perceived or judged but in human perception.
All things simply are what they are regardless of humans perception or opinion.
All existing things 'say' I AM that I AM simply by existing. All are evidence of nothing but themselves.

Do you have a conscience? Can you prove to anyone that you have a conscience?
If so, how would you go about proving it? Pointing a finger at it and trying to get anyone to see it, is useless since your conscience is invisible.

The same applies to love. How does one prove they have any love within them, to people who don't see their words or actions as loving ?

I'm reading all this, and I think you have stretched this metaphor to the point that you are missing entirely what I'm saying.

It's really kind of dumb to ask someone to prove The Ultimate Reality.

Define "Ultimate Reality"
What is the difference between reality and your so called "Ultimate reality" ?
Does the adjective 'Ultimate', change reality ?
Reality is what it is. It has opposite aspects which are all part of the WHOLE picture.
Is your perception of "Ultimate reality" somehow different from the WHOLE picture which contains all opposites?

Is your "Ultimate reality" an invisible entity who has supernatural powers and can actually hear people and grant their requests if they happen to request something "according to his will" ?
OR
Is Ultimate reality simply ALL ( visible and invisible objects and principles ) that exists today, have existed in the past and will exist in the future regardless of what mankind thinks and believes about them?