John_Taverner wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2015 at 3:05pm:

Now now.

By their fruits ye shall know them.

The world is god's material fruit.


God has given us two books by which to comprehend him by: the scriptures and the world. Decipher each by the light of the other.

Soren wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2015 at 8:30pm:


Yes, that shared meaning you speak of would be the dictionary. So you may use words
(preferably English) to explain your definition if you like.

If you think it's impossible to explain in words, then what use is the bible?


So far, I gather that your definition of god is of a spiritual nature without physical presence.
If so, what is this spirit capable of doing in regards to answering prayers, punishing, rewarding, creating, destroying..etc.?

A few other definitions that I've come across:


Quote:


Quote:


Quote:




Apparently, god is a "he", so I'm assuming god has a dick and is therefore a physical entity.
Describing a spirit or a force, the term should be "it"....unless of course, one might be anthropomorphizing. Soren, you unreasonable twit 

John Smith wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2015 at 10:10pm:


As an atheist I'll go as far as there is no evidence of any god therefore there is no reason to believe one exists. If the religionists were deists I don't have a problem, the conundrum, and my answer to it is, are any of the gods put forward by man in any way admirable? Above the petty emotions and fallibilities of man? I certainly don't think so. The Jew/Christian/Muslim god says he creates evil yet they put the blame on Satan, weird.

Another thought that springs to mind when Christians say we are being tested, is number one "why? doesn't he know me?" Omniscience is not one of his strong points but he apparently claims it as one of his two greatest feats. Omniscience and omnipotence.

And two "If this is a test, maybe he's trying to weed out the chaff from the wheat, the goats from the sheep and the ones who believe silly crap just because someone told them to are in for the sin bin of hell for not using the resources(brain) provided by him, not the sceptics that use the mind that god supposedly gave, to increase the wealth, the knowledge of man rather than be mired in dogmatic beliefs that retard it. After all it only makes sense you want the best and brightest, not the me toos." It's a great test for the me toos, they'd fall for it no prob. See Matthew 25:14 for an example

edit: If god was an employer for eg. who would he hire after giving all applicants a test? The ones that can adapt and think for themselves or the ones that fall on their knees and ask someone else to fix their problem for them? IE, their employer.

Setanta wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2015 at 10:49pm:


Basically. you're stuck with what you've got.  God is not a commodity that you buy in the supermarket. He's not some  belly laughing Budai.
You can't pick and choose. You have no say in choosing what the creator is like.

If as a kid you had an abusive father, you couldn't just pretend that he doesn't exist. You can't say that because he lacks admirable qualities, you can just ignore him.

OK, I'm an atheist too, but I was once a lay preacher. I experienced God in a way that was much stronger than the average tacit believer. I let go because, well it's a long story, but I probably started asking too many questions.  I realised all the inconsistencies, and I realised that I was believing and experiencing exactly what I wanted to believe and experience.

"The essence of Christianity is told us in the Garden of Eden history. The fruit that was forbidden was on the tree of knowledge. The subtext is, All the suffering you have is because you wanted to find out what was going on. You could be in the Garden of Eden if you had just keep your f^cking mouth shut and hadn't asked any questions."

Frank Zappa

"Get smart and I'll f^ck you over" sayeth the lord.

Amadd wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2015 at 9:48pm:

Put your hand on the table.
Then decide to lift it.
And then lift it.
What caused your hand to move? 
Your will, an entirely non-material, non-scientific force which nevertheless moved matter, your hand.
What is more, that non-material will is much more you than your material hand.

Quote:


Actually I was highlighting your hypocrisy in regards to anthropomorphizing god.
You have eyes, yet you choose not to see. You have the ability to reason, yet you
will against reason.


I may choose to lift my hand from the table, however, without a hand, the nerve connections..etc., that will is futile.
Similarly, without the will to use my hand, the hand is useless. However, even that will is limited because the hand eventually moves against all conscious will.

Of course the mind and body are connected. The grey and white electrically charged matter goes hand in hand (so to speak) with one's own body, but nomatter how much one might employ their  will and pray to lift the hand of another, nothing happens. Praying doesn't change the laws of physics and the mind alone cannot bend spoons.

Without the will to reason, known facts are wasted on the degenerative.

Amadd wrote on Apr 26^th, 2015 at 9:39am:



You look for god in the hand - the tissue, the nerves, the material - but should look in the sphere of the will.

The  important thing is that YOU are your will, not your hand. Look for laws of nature when you study the hand. But these are irrelevant when you study the will. Science is impotent when you  look at the will, where your personhood is.

Stratos wrote on Apr 26^th, 2015 at 11:48am:


That is really irrelevant because what you actually mean by 'understad'- and probably do not realise because you do not quite understand it - is 'understood scientifically'.


But how many times do you need to be told that science is limited and is not equipped  at all to deal with the totality of human experience? You are banging on about 'understanding' as if the only 'understanding' was mathematical/scientific/material. But that is not the case. If you knew any science you would appreciate its limitations.