Do you believe in a "God"?

Aniihya · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Aniihya** on Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:44 pm

But anyways we need to get this back on topic as it is sort of derailing and is getting off topic.

Kestrel · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Kestrel** on Sat Aug 01, 2015 10:01 am

Group thinking as in making that process responsible for decisions. Politicians may not always admit their own faults but others can sure point them out. People find it easier to point out others their mistakes than their own. So, yeah. Politicians make great scapegoats and scapegoats are (in moderation cause please no Godwin's law) a decent way to keep the peace.

Taxes and gaps, I admittedly focused more on the system in my country than the US. Still, failures of current systems are not something to use as an argument for why an alternative is good unless you point out exactly why it is better and how it circumvents such issues. If A fails that does not mean B succeeds.

Certainly, time and patience (and intrinsic motivation to make it work) are needed, just as much as the money to pay people for their time. It's a complicated system with lots of numbers and room for error. Then there's the task of informing the population. So should something like it come to pass, it is going to take time and therefore money.

I ask for resources and examples so I may examine them and possibly readjust my perspective on the topic. You are simply telling me to believe without giving me reason to. This is why I asked for authors and articles. I'm not asking you to back up your opinion, rather I am open to the possibility there are ways to bypass the issues I see, ways that you've not mentioned or explained to my satisfaction, but could still possibly persuade me.

Also people can think something is X and understand why others think the same thing is Y, without agreeing with them. What you are saying is "You disagree with me therefore you do not understand me." On that note, let's try to trim the "u hypocrite" and "u no understand" down. I mean I don't know if I come across as arrogant as I post, but at least I try my best not to sound condescending. Would be great if you did the same.

As for being on-topic... Well. Nope. I do not believe in a god. Though I'm pretty sure that was obvious by now ;p

dealing with it · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **dealing with it** on Sat Aug 01, 2015 2:39 pm

Kestrel wrote:As for being on-topic... Well. Nope. I do not believe in a god. Though I'm pretty sure that was obvious by now ;p

The OP asks if you believe in any god, not just the Christian one. That opens up a whole realm of possibilities. Aristotle's God is the first cause in a long chain of events that leads to the present. The pantheist God is another name for Reality, and thus meets the criteria of being an infinite higher being, everywhere and everywhen. Neither of these gods even possesses intelligence, let alone punishes and rewards justly.

Aniihya · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Aniihya** on Sat Aug 01, 2015 4:26 pm

On a short not off topic Kestrel, I am not telling you to believe without giving you a reason, I am saying you have a very fixed worldview that doesn't allow room for consideration, consideration is however not acceptance. And no, I am not saying you do not understand me because you disagree, I am saying that you do not understand me because you spoke on terms that didn't indicate an opinion but rather certainty as you said my political beliefs "ARE utopian" and "ARE not realistic". "To be" on its own is a certain statement. "Can be" indicates a statement that indicates a likeness. So pretty much I ask you to keep an eye on your choice of words to avoid writing sentences where "certain language" and "uncertain language" are used interchangably. Certain statements are claims that require evidence, while uncertain statements are uncertain because there is no evidence or evidence otherwise. Do you understand where I am going? Cuz I am quite picky which use of language.

Kestrel · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Kestrel** on Sat Aug 01, 2015 5:08 pm

dealing with it wrote:The OP asks if you believe in any god, not just the Christian one. That opens up a whole realm of possibilities. Aristotle's God is the first cause in a long chain of events that leads to the present. The pantheist God is another name for Reality, and thus meets the criteria of being an infinite higher being, everywhere and everywhen. Neither of these gods even possesses intelligence, let alone punishes and rewards justly.

Well, I said a god. Keyword being 'a'. The short answer is that I have seen not seen sufficient evidence to to consider the existence of the supernatural.

I'm honestly not sure how to interpret a pantheist god in that sense. The way my 10-minute google search made me understand it is that everything is god. Or part of god. As such everything is divine. I like this concept better than that of a personal god, but I'm not sure what the merits of treating everything as divine over treating nothing as divine (or vice versa) are.

Aniihya wrote:that doesn't allow room for consideration

I see issues with you ideology that I think have to be addressed in order for it to have a chance to work. In order to be realistic, the ideology requires expansion beyond that core concept. I don't see it working as is, but am open to suggestions and work-arounds making such an idea more viable. You are saying I have a very fixed worldview. I could turn it around and say that you don't have enough of a grip on the reality of society. The problem with doing that is that it'd just be a matter of time before we'd be going full circle and repeating the same arguments and getting frustrated. Not to mention I'd feel like an ass because I'd be making a lot of assumptions. This is why I address an idea instead of a person. This is why I ask for more information.

Or maybe I'm just not so big on the uncertain statements as you are.

dealing with it · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **dealing with it** on Sat Aug 01, 2015 6:42 pm

Kestrel wrote:I like this concept better than that of a personal god, but I'm not sure what the merits of treating everything as divine over treating nothing as divine (or vice versa) are.

The problem with most definitions of God is that the concept is insufficiently defined for intelligent debate. Once you settle on a definition, it suddenly possible to think about God rationally. Some people hate losing the faith and wonder of their small religions, when really what they should be happy about is the infinite faith and wonder of a divine universe.

Pantheism is very helpful, since nearly every quality of the common sense version of God remains intact. Like the word "Being", "God" is a big word ripe with useful philosophical meaning.

However, there is a danger. As Hegel said, explaining the universe by reference to God is like writing down the word "animals" and believing you have come to a complete zoology. God is everything, but everything is not God.

The other danger of pantheism is the emergence of panentheism. Panentheism is the belief that Reality is all part of God, but God is more than all of Reality. Immediately, it becomes apparent that Reality, in that case, no longer means Everything that exists, which is to say that unreal things exist. That's a contradiction.

Aniihya · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Aniihya** on Sat Aug 01, 2015 10:02 pm

I gave you a summary of the concept, not the full thing. If I was to write the full thing it would fill many pages. That is why I had to keep it brief presenting simple the core concept.

Kestrel · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Kestrel** on Sun Aug 02, 2015 5:24 pm

dealing with it wrote:The problem with most definitions of God is that the concept is insufficiently defined for intelligent debate. Once you settle on a definition, it suddenly possible to think about God rationally. Some people hate losing the faith and wonder of their small religions, when really what they should be happy about is the infinite faith and wonder of a divine universe.

Pantheism is very helpful, since nearly every quality of the common sense version of God remains intact. Like the word "Being", "God" is a big word ripe with useful philosophical meaning.

However, there is a danger. As Hegel said, explaining the universe by reference to God is like writing down the word "animals" and believing you have come to a complete zoology. God is everything, but everything is not God.

The other danger of pantheism is the emergence of panentheism. Panentheism is the belief that Reality is all part of God, but God is more than all of Reality. Immediately, it becomes apparent that Reality, in that case, no longer means Everything that exists, which is to say that unreal things exist. That's a contradiction.

So basically, a tool to help facilitate conversation between ideologies, functioning as an icebreaker to discussing our universe without getting hung up over my gods' dick is bigger than your god's bologna sandwiches.

Besides it's own thing, of course.

Dangers come with all types of (lack of) faith, though. For example, gnostic atheism I feel is just as blind as gnostic theism. Moderation and grounded conversation is key.

dealing with it · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **dealing with it** on Sun Aug 02, 2015 8:50 pm

Kestrel wrote:So basically, a tool to help facilitate conversation between ideologies...

Yes, in other words, a definition.

Kestrel wrote:Besides it's own thing, of course.

Just to make sure we're on the same page, Spinoza explored the consequences of pantheism in the 1600's.

Kestrel wrote:For example, gnostic atheism I feel is just as blind as gnostic theism. Moderation and grounded conversation is key.

Moderation is key to all things, especially to moderation.

It's hard to have the wisdom to know that gnosticism is juvenile unless you were once a child.

Coldwell · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Coldwell** on Wed Aug 05, 2015 1:49 pm

I believe in a "supreme being," I don't really have a name for it/him. He has a white beard, and enjoys KFC nuggets (much to my disgust). He's also as big as the Empire State Building. He lives in this place that's built on clouds.

dealing with it · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **dealing with it** on Wed Aug 05, 2015 5:50 pm

Your god is empirical, and ultimately testable. You do the metaphysical concept a disservice with this strawman.

Coldwell · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Coldwell** on Wed Aug 05, 2015 11:30 pm

Strawman?

I don't follow.

dealing with it · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **dealing with it** on Thu Aug 06, 2015 2:30 pm

Wikipedia wrote:A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Coldwell · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Coldwell** on Thu Aug 06, 2015 10:26 pm

Are you saying that what I said was a "strawman" argument against the concept of "God?"

dealing with it · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **dealing with it** on Thu Aug 06, 2015 10:32 pm

Yes, that is all. Do you disagree?

Coldwell · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Coldwell** on Thu Aug 06, 2015 10:35 pm

Yeah, I disagree. The original question was "Do you believe in a "God"?"

My answer was a yes. I haven't made any argument against the concept of "God."

dealing with it · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **dealing with it** on Fri Aug 07, 2015 12:08 am

I apologize. I thought you were trying to be silly. It came across as insincere in relation to the seriousness of the thread.

Aniihya · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Aniihya** on Fri Aug 07, 2015 7:55 pm

Offbeater, if you had said grey beard and goes to the grocery store in pyjamas, I would have asked if you adhere to Dudeism.

Coldwell · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Coldwell** on Sat Aug 08, 2015 7:12 pm

Who knows. Maybe he has some secret life that I don't know of, I'm only mortal.

Do you believe in a "God"?

a topic in Discussion & Debate, a part of the RPG forum.

Re: Do you believe in a "God"?

Re: Do you believe in a "God"?

Re: Do you believe in a "God"?

Re: Do you believe in a "God"?

Re: Do you believe in a "God"?

Re: Do you believe in a "God"?

Re: Do you believe in a "God"?

Re: Do you believe in a "God"?

Re: Do you believe in a "God"?

Re: Do you believe in a "God"?

Re: Do you believe in a "God"?

Re: Do you believe in a "God"?

Re: Do you believe in a "God"?

Re: Do you believe in a "God"?

Re: Do you believe in a "God"?

Re: Do you believe in a "God"?

Re: Do you believe in a "God"?

Re: Do you believe in a "God"?

Re: Do you believe in a "God"?

Post a reply

Make a Donation

Who is online