Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Jaster Mereel, Jun 12, 2007.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
That doesn't change my point about limiting the concept of God. If you are asserting that spiritual things are things, and that God is spiritual, then you are also asserting that God is not a spiritual nothing.
The reverse also works.
A perfect example of a completely useless contribution to a conversation about the concept of God.
Now, if you were going to elaborate, then it would be something else entirely.
Or, the true nature of the universe cannot be grasped by dualistic thought processes.
Why is that? Do you happen to know what is the true nature of the universe? Care to share that with everyone else?
That should be obvious by your attempt to explain god as;
A thing or Nothing are the two dualistic states, by your own admission neither adequately explain the subject at hand. Therefore a dualistic way of trying to describe such things always falls short.
I do not need to know the true nature of the universe to know that trying to describe in dualistic terms always falls short. i.e.
Created / un created
Thing / nothing
Finite / eternal
It is equally as improbable that the universe has always been; as it is improbable that it was created. Therefore the answer must lie outside of these dualsitic thought constructions.
Anthropomorphization of nature.
God is a fictional character designed as a tool to manipulate the masses by a power hungry few.
Ever since Nietzche said "God is dead", something had to replace the word "God", so the opposite emerged, the word "fuck".
Is like, if you are loving, but then say "there is no love", hate emerge.
Is the same, so now everyone likes to fuck with fucking fucks.
Barrel me and chuck me down a blocked drain.
Does my cynicism show that much? Or are you another example of the religious subterfuge?
Cant you see humanity does not need a god, we are all love from birth.
sure you are not creating something fictional to manipulate the masses?
God to me is nothing more than an abstract concept, that is, until I can see what goes into this abstractness, or even, why I should believe in a god or God.................
Well, to define God is not possible for us I think, perhaps we forget sometimes that the world is not made by humans...even though we understand some of the world, actually we have no clue as to how anything exists at all, or what principle keeps it existing. It's a mystery.
God: A fairytale designed to make the darkness beyond the fire ring less frightening.
Except that, to believers (escpecially through history) God is often a concept far more frightening than any darkness could be. ???
Also - in your analogy, what does the fire ring stand for?
How about Jesus( who is GOD)? just an abstract thought[/COLOR], or a liar , maybe a lunatic?
God? Some kind of abstract propaganda created to control people IMO. There's no scientific proof that this supposedly omnipotent Saruman look-alike exist. Shananigan...
Hmmm... It could be that god is us. We are all gods. We conceptualised god ourselves afterall. Supposedly we are in god's image. If so why is it that we are not perfect and omnipotent?. Perhaps the conceptualising of god involves us defining ourselves as perfect as it gets as a specie on this planet. What's to say we are not gods ourselves. We afterall have abilities beyond any other specimen on this planet. We have highly evolved body structure and can adapt to pretty much any location on Earth. We can use tools and create. Our brain capacity is great. Look what science has allowed us to to do these days and human created that. As a matter of fact we are able to create lots of things. Things of past that were created by human are still wonders today. Things created today would surely be wonder to those of the past. The bible afterall was also created by human.
With that said, it's ironic that people that literally actually believe in 'god' might be holding us back from achieving what they worship. Why? Perhaps if there really is such thing as a god maybe it might be their intention for us to be gods ourselves. :shrug:
Would we be limited by an animal's description of ourselves?
A particular person might be known as "friend", "food-getter", "big", "not here" or "here" based on the time of day, or whatever. Sounds like a pretty limited description of a human to me.
I am having a hard time defining God in a way that doesn't, because of my limited perspective, create a definition which seems that it cannot be entirely accurate - the way an observation of the movement of an electron results in a description which may not contain a fully expressive picture.
God is a circle whose circumference is nowhere, and whose centre is everywhere.
A frail and limited mind projecting itself into the unknown.
Separate names with a comma.