Is it normal to believe in god, but refuse to name, him/her/it?

83% Normal
32 Comments

I was raised in a Catholic home, but i've never found faith in Jesus. In my mind, there are two general schools of thought:

1. Science can explain everything. We just don't know everything yet.
2. An conscious creator brought us into existence.

I believe #2 because in my mind, the universe had to have a beginning. It must be something outside the realm of human understanding. To me, science is not eternal.

So I believe in a god. But I think it is arrogant to think that we know who/what it is and what they want. "Holy" books appear to be man-made as people having been fighting (My god is the true god!) over who is right for centuries. So when I pray, I pray to "God" as I believe one should be grateful for one's existence.

Whew! Long story for a short question. Is this a relatively normal and logical belief? Or is there a hole in my reasoning?

Voting Results
83% Normal
Based on 80 votes (66 yes)
Help us keep this site organized and clean. Thanks!
[ Report Post ]
Comments ( 32 )
  • dappled
    13 years ago

    For me personally, I don't have a lot to add to this argument but I've been very interested in what howaminotmyself has had to say. It's intelligent and well thought-out and I really appreciate it when people care enough to take the time.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    1
    1
  • howaminotmyself
    13 years ago

    If you don't think I was being overbearing you must not think I'm arrogant.

    Go ahead, be antagonistic. I find it amusing.

    If you put god in a box, of course he can't be both. I choose to let god be. Your god isn't very powerful if he can't be both All, beginning, and nothing at the same time. But you argue as if you don't believe in God. And your arguments assume that you know what these things mean to me. I can understand why someone does not believe. I can also understand why someone does.

    Sure, morally neutral. I choose to view that as a good thing. Just because I see something as good or bad does not mean that god sees it that way. Does god truly "see" the same way I do? I don't think so. But I imagine it to be more like sonar.

    "He is morally neutral and therefore not Good." This does not make it "bad".

    No, he is not the beginning. This word means nothing. Nothing that can be defined in simple terms. If it isn't god, what is it? Energy. What makes something light? The absence of dark. How do you know?

    And I wasn't defining god. I was explaining why defining it is problematic.

    I'm not sure what you are trying to prove with your argument, but I'll play. Do you really not understand why "I" believe in god, or why anyone believes in god. Have you talked yourself out of belief or into it? or are you a young pastor practicing for the big day?

    Either way, it isn't important. I know who I am and I pretty darn happy with myself. Still trying to figure out this whole human thing but it's a work in progress.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    1
    1
      -
    • AdHominus
      13 years ago

      You know what? Forget whatever I've just said if you believe in any of these three ideas.

      God is all-knowing.
      God is all-powerful.
      God is all benevolent.

      If God is Omniscient, how does He know He's Omniscient? Does He know He's Omniscient because He knows everything? Then I could say the same thing and prove I'm God, which is of course absurd.

      If God is Omnipotent, can He create a rock He cannot lift(in ALL circumstances)? If yes, then He's not all powerful since He cannot lift an uniliftable rock. If no, He cannot create an unliftable rock and is therefore Omnipotent. He cannot gain anymore power after creating an unliftable rock because He's already ALL-powerful. He also cannot create an unliftable/liftable rock hybrid in reality without proving 2+3=4. Conversely, He can also do the logically impossible by creating the Universe from nothing/Stories in Holy Books. So you cannot accept the only possible answer without conceding 2+3=4 somehow and that the Universe can be created from nothing(no source material). Thus, making Atheism a viable answer by enabling a sourceless Universe.

      He cannot be all-Benevolent because He is all-powerful and Ontological and thus, morally neutral.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
        -
      • howaminotmyself
        13 years ago

        Thanks, you would be silly to think I was a bad person.

        "If God is Omniscient, how does He know He's Omniscient?"
        Please stop referring to god as "He". This assumes a human figure asking human questions. God has no need to "ask" such questions.

        "Does He know He's Omniscient because He knows everything?"
        God is everything and nothing. Why this focus on knowledge? God created the capacity for knowledge.

        "Then I could say the same thing and prove I'm God, which is of course absurd."
        Yes, I agree- absurd.

        "If God is Omnipotent, can He create a rock He cannot lift(in ALL circumstances)?"
        Interesting, why is god lifting rocks?

        "If yes, then He's not all powerful since He cannot lift an uniliftable rock."
        The earth is an unliftable rock. Yet is it liftable by the nature of it's being.

        "If no, He cannot create an unliftable rock and is therefore Omnipotent. He cannot gain anymore power after creating an unliftable rock because He's already ALL-powerful."
        Why would god need to gain power?

        "He also cannot create an unliftable/liftable rock hybrid in reality without proving 2+3=4."
        Now this is just silly.

        "Conversely, He can also do the logically impossible by creating the Universe from nothing/Stories in Holy Books."

        Logic is all fine and good. Love it. But as I've said before, you are viewing creation as having a definite starting point. Eternity does not start. Humans certainly have a starting point but the energy contained within all things are a different story.

        "So you cannot accept the only possible answer without conceding 2+3=4 somehow and that the Universe can be created from nothing(no source material). Thus, making Atheism a viable answer by enabling a sourceless Universe."

        Are you atheist? Are you trying to convert me? Are you not content that my belief of the universe doesn't fit into your logical world view? Okay.

        "He cannot be all-Benevolent because He is all-powerful and Ontological and thus, morally neutral."
        Says you. But clearly not everyone believe the way you do. I'm sure many do. You have proven nothing except you know some big words.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
    • AdHominus
      13 years ago

      "This does not make it "bad""
      -I never said that made him bad. I said it didn't make him Good and therefore not a governor in any sense. If he is not a Creator, nor a governor, He isn't God.

      "Go ahead, be antagonistic. I find it amusing."
      I meant I'm antagonizing your ideas to see if they were worth anything. Not that I was trying to destroy or eliminate them.

      "Sure, morally neutral. I choose to view that as a good thing. Just because I see something as good or bad does not mean that god sees it that way. Does god truly "see" the same way I do? I don't think so. But I imagine it to be more like sonar."
      -You believe in an objective morality based on God, correct? How can you be Good if you base his morals on him?

      "I choose to let god be."
      -Cop out. Once again, circular argument. God is God because He is God?

      "Your god isn't very powerful if he can't be both All, beginning, and nothing at the same time. But you argue as if you don't believe in God."
      -He also is non-existent if you say he is All, beginning, and nothing. There is no choice to allow 2+3=4, I'm sorry.

      "And I wasn't defining god. I was explaining why defining it is problematic. "
      ...While at the same time defining him. You explained that definitions are problematic. You then say God is All.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
        -
      • howaminotmyself
        13 years ago

        You are being antagonistic to see if my opinions have any value? With this intent you have devalued anything I say before I say it.

        Careful with your assumptions. I don't believe that objective morality is based on god. Subjective morality, yes, in those that believe in god for themselves. Even if you don't believe in god, one is still aware that others believe in the concept. Therefore they are subject to the reality of god. Define it or not, you can't escape it. But really, words can't express theses things. (no, the irony is not lost on me) But morality itself it determined by the collective conscious. God plays a role, sure, but it does not stand alone.

        I know a brick wall when I see one. I also know that even a fern will find a way to grow 20 feet from the ground on top of that wall. Eventually the moss will grow thick and will eat away at the mortar. Nothing in life is absolute, except change.

        Embrace circular logic. It isn't a cop out. Just because it does not fulfill your expectations does not make it wrong, irrelevant, or unworthy. Satisfaction can be found in a circle if you want satisfaction in that circle. If you want it to make you crazy, it can do that too. The circle of life, the symbolism of a ring, wheels, cycles, turning, changing, growing, learning, expanding, contracting, eternity, infinity. Or perhaps you didn't notice it was a spiral.

        Maybe your frustrations with circles is a deeper problem you should attend to. Does picking apart my arguments to satisfy some part of your being really fill the void? I don't believe you are looking for answers, you are looking for problems. What is the point here? Do you feel smarter now, better? But don't assume you can quote me, place your preconceived notions of what I meant into that quote, then spit it at me like a sprinkler watering a street. This is not communication. I will quickly lose respect for you.

        Sorry this got so long. Communication can be a tricky thing.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        -1
        -1
          -
        • AdHominus
          13 years ago

          "You are being antagonistic to see if my opinions have any value? With this intent you have devalued anything I say before I say it."
          By antagonistic I don't mean evil. I mean I'm being critical. I would've devalued you if I said "I want to destroy you". Of course, I didn't say that.
          "I don't believe that objective morality is based on god. Subjective morality, yes, in those that believe in god for themselves."
          So you believe in a subjective morality that's based on something. That's a big fat contradiction right there.
          "Even if you don't believe in god, one is still aware that others believe in the concept. Therefore they are subject to the reality of god. "
          Even if you don't believe in Krishna, you are still aware that others believe in Krishna. Therefore you are a subject to Krishna.
          ...Right?
          "Define it or not, you can't escape it."
          Define it or not, you can't escape Allah. You see a pattern here? People who you disagree with use the same arguments.
          "Nothing in life is absolute, except change."
          A brick wall≠Math.
          "Embrace circular logic. It isn't a cop out. Just because it does not fulfill your expectations does not make it wrong, irrelevant, or unworthy. Satisfaction can be found in a circle if you want satisfaction in that circle."
          Holy... wow. That's the craziest scene of linguistic acrobatics I have ever seen. The ONLY thing you want is satisfaction? Do you see this, Valkeer? Apparently... a Red herring argument is valid, because Herring is tasty. Ad Hominem attacks are used to Advertise your debate strength... ultimate debate strategy.
          "Maybe your frustrations with circles is a deeper problem you should attend to. Does picking apart my arguments to satisfy some part of your being really fill the void"
          Now you're playing Internet Psychologist. Sunken to a new low, have you?

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          0
          0
            -
          • howaminotmyself
            13 years ago

            And what are you playing?

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            -1
            -1
              -
            • AdHominus
              13 years ago

              "And what are you playing?"
              Do you perceive me as a threat?
              If this is even slightly fazing, it shows the untenablility of your beliefs.

              "I get that all you want is to be the antagonist. You win.

              If you ever want to have a real conversation you may have to rethink your communication techniques. I really don't think you ever asked a question where you wanted an honest answer."
              I know you answered honestly. I don't think you're a bad person. The problem is an answer can be both honest and wrong.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
              0
              0
            • howaminotmyself
              13 years ago

              I get that all you want is to be the antagonist. You win.

              If you ever want to have a real conversation you may have to rethink your communication techniques. I really don't think you ever asked a question where you wanted an honest answer.

              But if your only goal is to be an antagonist, well, that's kind of sad :(

              Comment Hidden ( show )
              0
              0
  • dappled
    13 years ago

    It's a simple question but why does existence have to have a beginning? I think it's an assumption that it does, rather than a rigorous proof.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    1
    1
  • timebobbu
    13 years ago

    GOD ISNT REAL!!!!! IDIOTS!!!!

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • howaminotmyself
    13 years ago

    I think more people believe like you do then are willing to admit it, just maybe not on this site.

    God does not need a beginning because that assumes, well, a beginning. God is all. God falls outside the realm of time and human consciousness is not ready to understand. It is a bit arrogant to think that humans have the answers to "everything."

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • [Old Memory]
    13 years ago

    If a river branches off into 30 different sources won't they all be the same as their source and give evidence back to it?

    In other words, if God created the universe shouldn't we be able to prove him through science, sociology, religion or any other lens through which we perceive the murky nature of Truth?

    I thought about addressing the Bible but the post would be too long. Maybe tomorrow I will.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • AdHominus
    13 years ago

    "Just because you say so, why not save a step via Occam's Razor?"
    That sentence is structure weirdly. The thing is that you feel the need for an explanation for the Cosmos, so you get rid of unanswered questions by dumping them on a separate apparatus (god). That's not getting rid of the problem.
    For example, what's the purpose of life without God? Then what's the purpose of God's existence?
    Adding God to the equation is unnecessary and it's best to be conservative until we gain further knowledge.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • AdHominus
    13 years ago

    I think it's completely normal. I have many friends with similar beliefs. However, you believe in God because everything needs a cause? Why doesn't God need a cause? Just because you say so, why not save a step via Occam's Razor? I think asking for a beginning of time is nonsensical. Beginnings happen in time. And since we learned from Einstein that time acts as a dimension, what's the space equivalent of a beginning? How can God make a linear decision without time? Because he's God? That's both an unfounded presupposition and a Circular argument. Why only one God? How does he(assuming it's a he) think without Emergence? And finally, of course Science isn't eternal, it's not supposed to be.
    As you can see there are so many possibilities. Let's not jump to conclusions until we are ready.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • [Old Memory]
    13 years ago

    The reason I keep asking you questions is because you present me with an ambiguous frankly meaningless argument and anything I say will inevitably be much the same so by questioning you I'm trying to bring the discussion back to a point to where it can be of some help to people.

    Nice try with adrenaline. It's a reaction to strongly felt emotion not the cause of it. Emotions are outside the realm of material and affect us the material so this silly notion you have that God can't interact with the material is nonsense.
    _________________________________

    "Read. It. Again. Derp."

    I did. Plenty of times. It's still of no use to me. No matter how you believe about the man, Jesus conveyed his greatest points through using simple fables. Western culture has been greatly influenced by a single man who basically told people his beliefs through stories. Amazing.

    Again I say it: Don't underestimate the power of simplicity.
    _________________________

    "Newton...I do. Most influential scientist"

    Good for you; not many know him. But my point was to say that Einstein's simple phrase had meteoric impact on people whereas Newton's 1000s of pages of theory, relativism, and "deep" thought have had little influence.

    I say it again: Simplicity.
    _________________________________
    "You have no proof"

    If by no proof you mean "great example that I never proved wrong" then yes I have no proof.
    ______________________________________________

    "Can you proof the nonexistence of Godzilla?"

    No and I don't have to. The burden of proof is on those who would perpetuate his existence. I proposed that God did exist by evidence of the First Law of Thermodynamics along with the fact that our universe had a beginning.

    I'm not sure where you're going with the Godzilla comment.
    ______________________

    It's unfortunate that you're very good at kicking up dust and arguing but seem to have so few answers. I had hoped to learn something from this thread.

    Again, the questions:

    What is the definition of Time and Space to you? How does it interact with the foundations of reality? What is reality? Can it come in degrees or as Morpheus says, "Is reality just the chemical responses in our brain?"

    More Red Herring and Circular Reasoning in your arguments. I must have more!!

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • [Old Memory]
    13 years ago

    Ai Corumba this kid...

    "He said (she) that God was all"

    I know what she said and I explained that "all" was born into this world as good but had the potential for evil. Nothing was ever created that couldn't be in symbiosis with everything else so if that's the case then our Creator was and is just.

    Not that such an ambiguous argument benefits anybody but there you have it.
    ________________________________
    "That's not how we decide what's evil"

    According to whom? My point was to say you can't point to the Creator of an idealistic system (Government in my example) and say he's evil because the system became corrupt.

    But since we're throwing out words I'll call your post Red Herring with a side dish of Circular Reasoning. Don't move the goalpost!
    ______________________________________________
    "I was saying that if you didn't read my post"

    I did. I found it ambiguous and lacking. It was of no benefit to me and taught me nothing. Even now you make no sense just as a baby's garbling is senseless chatter. If you have wisdom it'll die with you since you were never able to communicate it effectively.

    Who remembers the genius of Newton? No one. Who remembers the simple phrase "E=MC2" and it's creator? Billions.

    ____________________________________

    "If something is separate it cannot interact"

    In what sense? I think you mean dimensional or across planes of reality and if that's the case what's your proof?

    "Something is real if it's dependent"

    On what? What do you mean? Do you know?
    ________________________________________

    "The cake maker has to be material to interact with the cake"

    Ok champ! I suspect your point is that God can't possibly be as He has to be material to interact with the material. What's your proof for that? Emotions are outside the realm of material yet influence material around them all the time. So again, your proof?

    If you're going to use that as proof against God let me say that the First Law of Thermodynamics states among other things that "Energy cannot be created or destroyed" yet scientific evidence also points to the fact our Universe had a beginning.

    So the Universe came into being (energy/ matter was created at some point in time) yet a proven law says that it can't happen. How would you explain this without using an intelligent metaphysical Consciousness (God) outside of the natural laws of our Universe?
    __________________________________________
    I'll post these questions again as you seem allergic to giving any kind of solid proof for the things you say:

    What is the definition of Time and Space to you? How does it interact with the foundations of reality? What is reality? Can it come in degrees or as Morpheus says, "Is reality just the chemical responses in our brain?"

    Also: your arguments are filled with Red Herrings. Absolutely bursting at the ears with it. I got a fever! And the only prescription is more Red Herring!

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
      -
    • AdHominus
      13 years ago

      Part 2 of rebut:
      "I'll post these questions again as you seem allergic to giving any kind of solid proof for the things you say:"
      Once again. Can you prove Godzilla doesn't exist? Your needs are impossible to fulfill because you can't prove a negative.
      Time and space:4-Dimensional fabric allowing the unfolding of 3d Euclidian geometrical shapes and interaction of forces and matter. Pretty much, it's letter in place of a variable in a mathematical equation.

      So, red herrings. Does the thinking make your brain hurt? Maybe you should take a nap. :(
      "Ai Corumba this kid..."
      D'awww now you're attempting your computer screen? How cute.
      "I know what she said and I explained that "all" was born into this world as good but had the potential for evil. Nothing was ever created that couldn't be in symbiosis with everything else so if that's the case then our Creator was and is just. "
      You don't get it. She is saying God is All, therefore God is the Universe.
      God created everything (including evil), so he is the source of all suffering and all good. Since they cancel out he is neutral. Do you get it or are you still confused?
      "Not that such an ambiguous argument benefits anybody but there you have it."
      Read the rest of my earlier response. She did not believe God was the First cause to avoid the cause-of-the-cause response in my original comment, and so what's left of her God is his morality and governorship. Since it doesn't even have morals, it's not a God.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
    • AdHominus
      13 years ago

      Part 1 of rebut:
      She's a she? I apologize. I did not check her profile and made a presumption."According to whom? My point was to say you can't point to the Creator of an idealistic system (Government in my example) and say he's evil because the system became corrupt."
      I agree. However a perfect system CANNOT get corrupt in the first place, and you are completely ignoring the fact that God created evil in the first place. It's his fault. You were using Circular reasoning because "X is X because of X" instead of maybe "Y, therefore X."

      "I did. I found it ambiguous and lacking. It was of no benefit to me and taught me nothing."
      Read. It. Again.

      "Who remembers the genius of Newton?"
      I do. Arguably the greatest and most influential Scientist ever to live.

      "In what sense? I think you mean dimensional or across planes of reality and if that's the case what's your proof? "
      Hitchens says it best. That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. Now you're disputing the definition of separations? What about all that talk of red herrings?

      "On what? What do you mean? Do you know?"
      Something is real if it's real relative to something else. If it's in its own little Universe, it can't possibly affect me or you or anyone. So in effect it's not real.

      "What's your proof for that? Emotions are outside the realm of material yet influence material around them all the time"
      You have no proof of Transcendence, until you do, my skepticism is sound. Can you proof the nonexistence of Godzilla? You have to try and prove Godzilla first. Emotions are material, very much so. Seratonin, adrenaline, oxytocin, it goes on and on and on.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
  • [Old Memory]
    13 years ago

    hellboy333:

    First Law of Thermodynamics. How could the Big Bang have ever been without violating a proven law of science?

    Also the idea that mindless explosive energy can create order makes about as much sense as releasing a raging bull into your room and expecting a clean, orderly room.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • hellboy333
    13 years ago

    Big Bang theory people, look it up.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
      -
    • howaminotmyself
      13 years ago

      I know a few people who like this tv show but I have never seen it.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
  • [Old Memory]
    13 years ago

    "If God is everything then he's then he's also immoral. He is malicious and everything that's wrong with the world"

    If there is light you've created the potential for it's equal and opposite: darkness. But it's only a potential. Nothing God ever created was designed with the purpose to destroy life and since all creation gives back to it's creator a symbiosis it's illogical to say God is evil.

    Saying God is evil is like looking at the perfect governmental state and saying it's evil because there will always be potential for it's collapse or corruption. What then would be the alternative? To form no government?

    "if this is hyberbole, then fuck you"

    But tell me how you really feel.
    ______________________________

    "How can God interact with Time and Space without becoming material? Magic?"

    I'm not even sure what you're trying to say with such ambigious relative logic.

    Does the cake maker become a cake because he interacts with the base materials? Of course not, so where you heading with this statement?

    What is the definition of Time and Space to you? How does it interact with the foundations of reality? What is reality? Can it come in degrees or as Morpheus says, "Is reality just the chemical responses in our brain?"

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
      -
    • AdHominus
      13 years ago

      Typed this in a hurry, sorry if this is poorly structured. Also, extremely long reply. You can ignore most of it and criticize certain parts.

      "If there is light you've created the potential for it's equal and opposite: darkness. But it's only a potential. Nothing God ever created was designed with the purpose to destroy life and since all creation gives back to it's creator a symbiosis it's illogical to say God is evil."
      -He said God was all, not that he created potential for evil(in fact the poster EXPLICITLY differentiated between a first cause and being Ontological). Don't try to move the goalpost.

      "Saying God is evil is like looking at the perfect governmental state and saying it's evil because there will always be potential for it's collapse or corruption. What then would be the alternative? To form no government?"
      -That's not how we decide if something is evil. We decide if it's evil if it's damage outweighs utility.
      "...>perfect governmental state< and saying it's evil because >there will always be potential for it's collapse or corruption<."<--- Contradiction.

      "But tell me how you really feel."
      -I was saying if you simply didn't read my post and resorted to Ad Hominem for the sake of rhetoric. (see:username)

      "I'm not even sure what you're trying to say with such ambigious relative logic."
      -That's because you're clueless and insincere. Read that again. If something is SEPARATE, it cannot interact. Something is real if it's dependent and not in stasis. Therefore the Transcendent idea of God cannot exist because if it's true, God doesn't exist. Also, your analogy is shoddy.

      "Does the cake maker become a cake because he interacts with the base materials? Of course not, so where you heading with this statement? "
      -The cake maker has to be material to interact with the cake(more material). Try again.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
        -
      • AdHominus
        13 years ago

        "What is the definition of Time and Space to you? How does it interact with the foundations of reality? What is reality? Can it come in degrees or as Morpheus says, "Is reality just the chemical responses in our brain?""
        -Time and space is the 4-Dimensional fabric allowing to unfolding of 3d Euclidian geometrical shapes and interaction of forces and matter. Pretty much, it's letter in place of a variable in a mathematical equation.
        -You have it backwards. The foundations of reality don't interact with spacetime, space IS the foundation of reality(along with four forces). That answers your first and second question. Chemical responses in the brain are responses to feedback fed to our brains when we're affected by reality. Supposing reality is just our senses like in the Matrix is presupposing a premise without a linear train of thought to reach that idea. If we cannot deduce the 'real reality', it literally does not exist since it is in stasis.

        "First Law of Thermodynamics. How could the Big Bang have ever been without violating a proven law of science?
        Also the idea that mindless explosive energy can create order makes about as much sense as releasing a raging bull into your room and expecting a clean, orderly room."
        -It wasn't a ball of energy in spacetime. It WAS spacetime."
        The pre-Bang Universe didn't reduce into entropy because it was Eternal in a sense. All time was contained, so Thermodynamics can't work by proxy. You seem to be ignoring the fact that the Singularity WAS order because it was also all forces of the Universe. This argument is extremely easy because of your lack of knowledge of the Big Bang Theory, neutering every single criticism you throw at me.
        You seemed to have also ignored my main question; how do you know there is a God?

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
  • [Old Memory]
    13 years ago

    I believe something created us on purpose but i dont know if its gof allah etc so i dont use this force by name and im sure that this creator wont be mad if it is god or allah because how is man or woman supposed to know things out of their understanding?

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • AdHominus
    13 years ago

    howaminotmyself
    "God does not need a beginning because that assumes, well, a beginning."
    Exactly. That is a circular argument, and you are also arbitrarily not carrying out your First Cause argument.
    God is the beginning because He is the beginning. <-- Do you see a problem with this?
    How is God supposed to interact with TIme and Space without becoming material? Every time something interacts with a another thing, it becomes material. How does God avoid this? Magic?
    "God is all."
    Then God is also immoral. He is also despicable, craven, capricious, malicious, and bloodthirsty. He is everything wrong with the Universe. He is also Satan if He is all.
    If you reject my conclusion, don't use this statement.

    "God falls outside the realm of time and human consciousness is not ready to understand."
    Then you shouldn't believe He exists. Heck you shouldn't even KNOW about him if this is true. If he was outside of understanding, then you would be an Atheist.

    "It is a bit arrogant to think that humans have the answers to "everything."
    It's also a bit arrogant to think you, the Theist, have all the answers.
    evilcarrotman:
    "I'm curious to know what your motivation in life is."
    Personally, it's my family and friends. In terms on Humanity I don't know. Maybe some day we'll find it.
    Valkeer:
    "To him and me it means as much as a toddler's gibberish. "
    I apologize. I typed this on my Iphone before I went to bed. Each of my questions are just what came to mind, if you just segment what I've said and maybe Google a few terms you can flesh out meaning.
    Well, unless this is just hyperbole. If so, f#%k you.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    -1
    -1
      -
    • howaminotmyself
      13 years ago

      The nature of this site makes it difficult to actually have this type of conversation without being long winded and misunderstood.

      I'm sorry if I sound arrogant, I have no intention of being overbearing. I'm human, it happens to the best of us. (and I'm kind of a narcissist too) It's a trap. Your free to come to your own conclusion but once you try to express that conclusion as "the answer" you become arrogant. How's that for circular logic?

      But I never said god was the beginning. I said god was "all." My point was that the concept of "beginning" requires a definite starting point as well as a definition for end. Yes, some scripture may tell you different, and some scientists require this concept to be defined before they are satisfied with the answer but all that will get you is some verbal sparring. Sounds fun, eh?

      However you are still trying to shove a square peg into a round hole. I didn't say god fell outside human consciousness, you misunderstood me. I merely meant that we cannot define god using human calculations. Humans are very advanced according to our own definition of the word. This doesn't mean we have everything figured out. But we never cease to amaze ourselves with what we can accomplish and/or discover. Do you sincerely believe that people will come to a consensus on this issue?

      I know I risk sounding arrogant, and I know I tend to use more words than necessary to get my point across but I still continue just in case my thoughts resonate with someone. Although I'm certain someone will surely put words in my mouth (or fingers as the case may be) but this debate will only end when death shows us. By all means, keep trying, some of the best inventions happen by accident.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      1
      1
        -
      • AdHominus
        13 years ago

        "I'm sorry if I sound arrogant, I have no intention of being overbearing. I'm human, it happens to the best of us."
        I don't think you're overbearing. I barely know you. Whatever I say is what I reckon from your posts- rhetoric.
        "Your free to come to your own conclusion but once you try to express that conclusion as "the answer" you become arrogant. How's that for circular logic?"
        If you're saying I said that was Circular Logic, please revise what I've stated. Your example is not circular logic, I'm sorry you thought I said it was.
        I don't claim to hold an answer, I'm just trying to act as an Antagonist right now.

        "But I never said god was the beginning. I said god was "all." My point was that the concept of "beginning" requires a definite starting point as well as a definition for end. Yes, some scripture may tell you different, and some scientists require this concept to be defined before they are satisfied with the answer but all that will get you is some verbal sparring. Sounds fun, eh?"
        And I've said this 'God' can't possibly be God if He both All and not Beginning.
        If He is all, He is morally neutral and therefore not Good. And if He's not the beginning He's not a creator. And Hence, not God.

        "My point was that the concept of "beginning" requires a definite starting point as well as a definition for end"
        End= Heat Death?

        "I merely meant that we cannot define god using human calculations."
        Then don't try to. Eternal, separate from time/space, everything, it looks to me like you're attempting to define God.

        "I know I risk sounding arrogant"
        I don't care if you do. I only care if you make a good point and get it across, that's all.

        I don't see why you believe there is a God (do you?).

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        -1
        -1
  • [Old Memory]
    13 years ago

    -Puts On Boxing Gloves-

    WARNING: Long Post

    AdHominus: I finally read your post and...wut? Maybe you are saying something profound but what good is your wisdom if the common man can't understand it? To him and me it means as much as a toddler's gibberish.

    Never underestimate the power of simplicity and black/white on man's mind.

    howaminotmyself: Lol I actually don't take much issue with your post other than you assume that by coming to conclusions of God's nature we're being arrogant.

    Even to take the stance that God's nature is unknowable is to narrow down his nature and define him. Inevitably we will come to conclusions about God so if that's the case then we should dig in earnest and "drink deeply from the well of wisdom or not at all".

    Alright get at me! I'm going to bed.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    -1
    -1
  • evilcarrotman
    13 years ago

    These are some great responses from everyone. I always thought of time as a constant. AdHominus, you raise a lot of really good questions that deserve some consideration. You show a reluctance to accept a self fulfilling prophecy. That has always been a concern of mine too. I'm curious to know what your motivation in life is.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    -1
    -1