Do you talk to GOD?

[Tiassa]

Ok, I take it you have read something in a book that proves gods or a god exists, but you can't communicate it.

No, that's just you being ridiculous.

Or, you haven't found anything in a book that proves gods or a god exists, but again, you can't communicate it.

No, that's just you being silly.

Here is what you wrote:

And, don't forget to read that mountain of religious books old and new, without which a god cannot be understood.

Observe, please, there is nothing in that post about whether or not a god exists.

Again, we remember that you are not to be taken seriously↗. Also remember, you have previously been caught falsifying a quote↗ in order to challenge someone. Inasmuch as you're making stuff up in order to challenge someone—

That's addressed to you Tiassa and not a general question to others here.

—no, that's just your religious zeal.

So, there was this question↑: If you get close to having a useful point, would you actually know it; and now we see the answer is no, you would not.

Part of your error is that you are pursuing a question according to your own assertion of God, and toward that, we might recall Armstrong↑, that it is more important for a particular idea of God to work for the beholder than be logically or scientifically sound. That's easy enough to see when regarding the religious believer, but it also applies to atheistic critics who need particular iterations of God to criticize.

If you had taken things more seriously, then perhaps you might have picked up on the important detail that one need not believe in an assertion of God in order to scrutinize and comprehend it, a point that has been in circulation, here, longer than you have been a member, and has been discussed during your time. In this context, "that mountain of religious books old and new, without which a god cannot be understood", is part of how we come to comprehend God. Your point of challenge, i.e., "something in a book that proves gods or a god exists", is your own invention according to your own need.

 

[Michael 345]

Observe, please, there is nothing in that post about whether or not a god exists.

Observe please - I would presume the words without which a god that the writer of those words has indicated they are presuming god exists

 

[foghorn]

Observe please - I would presume the words without which a god that the writer of those words has indicated they are presuming god exists

That's about it.
To 'read' others (volumes of books) of how to understand a god seems to me to mean there must be something you don't understand about your chosen god.
So, I assume you must have proven to yourself, at least, gods or a god 'exists' in the first place.

 

[Michael 345]

That's about it.
To 'read' others (volumes of books) of how to understand a god seems to me to mean there must be something you don't understand about your chosen god.
So, I assume you must have proven to yourself, at least, gods or a god 'exists' in the first place.

Bit iffy - but so was my question

Call a draw?

 

[Tiassa]

Observe please - I would presume the words without which a god that the writer of those words has indicated they are presuming god exists

Well, it exists on paper. Or in someone's mind. But consider a functional question:

To 'read' others (volumes of books) of how to understand a god seems to me to mean there must be something you don't understand about your chosen god.

Why is any given god the chosen deity?

i.e.—

So, I assume you must have proven to yourself, at least, gods or a god 'exists' in the first place.

—that is fallacious.

Next question: Why do you, I, or the next person care about this, that, or any given deity?

The answer actually points to why we might pay attention to any particular mountain of books.

Or maybe the tankōbon is cool, and all, but you'd really just rather watch the second season of the adaptation.

 

[foghorn]

Why is any given god the chosen deity?

Because you (the person) have being exposed to the idea of gods or a god by a religious family and turn to reading religious books because you have been influenced to believe there is more to understand about your gods , a god or whatever you have chosen to be identified as an intelligent presence in everything.

Next question: Why do you, I, or the next person care about this, that, or any given deity?

Because a belief system that has come down the ages like a culture has a very strong influence for some.

The answer actually points to why we might pay attention to any particular mountain of books.

Closed minds stick to religious books for 'answers'.

Or maybe the tankōbon is cool, and all, but you'd really just rather watch the second season of the adaptation.

Some like the idea of one god if that's what comforts them best. I think that's where you're coming from there?? But, aho there you go

 

[Tiassa]

Because you (the person) have being exposed to the idea of gods or a god by a religious family and turn to reading religious books because you have been influenced to believe there is more to understand about your gods , a god or whatever you have chosen to be identified as an intelligent presence in everything.

This is a reason, but you might be overlooking one. Stay with me:

Because a belief system that has come down the ages like a culture has a very strong influence for some.

There is a point at which—

Closed minds stick to religious books for 'answers'.

—the question is the same for both the believer and the non-believer.

That's what you're overlooking.

The question runs, approximately: Yes, but what does it mean?

If examples feel complicated, it's because the ground has shifted enough that old presuppositions no longer apply. It's one thing, for instance, to note the fact of contradictions within Scripture, but that old corner of evangelical atheism seems to have gone by the wayside, and in large part because the argument against religion was nearly as uncreative and incurious as the religionists it criticized. Think of the idea that in some traditions of Sufism, one is free to abandon religious observance when they finish their training. Sometimes, for the faithful, learning more about their faith can lead them to more intelligent ways of perceiving the world around them. Working through the contradictions can not only alleviate their tensions, but also reshape how the believer understands God, faith, and Scripture. But, sure, there is an idea of a secret that is not really a secret, and to go by the mountains of books, Buddha knew it, Sufis seem aware of it, and apocrypha suggests Jesus tried to explain it to the Apostles.

For the non-believer, whether critic or mere historian, the reason why we might pay attention to what is in the mountain of books has to do with the basic question of why we might give a damn in the first place. It is, for instance, sincerely improbable that your disdain for religion is utterly arbitrary; you have your reasons. If understanding the believers and the deity has any possibility of alleviating some part of that demand, satisfying or fulfilling your reasons for giving a damn, then you might have a stake in understanding how these people think and why.

Inasmuch as we have any reason to want to understand something we are not, a mountain of books is more a treasure than a curse.

Like I said↑, it's a weird rhetorical condition in which you're not necessarily wrong, but don't actually care about the context in which you are correct.

 

[Hapsburg]

Do you talk to GOD?
That's it.
That's the question.

Several of them, yes.
Prayer and offering are fundamentally about having a conversation with the divinity(ies) in question, about building a reciprocal relationship with them-- what the Hellenes called kharis. And listening for their answers in various ways, from subtle signs, to divination, to overt epiphanies. This is the basis of not just ritual, but really any kind of theistic religion.

 

[Write4U]

And listening for their answers in various ways, from subtle signs, to divination, to overt epiphanies. This is the basis of not just ritual, but really any kind of theistic religion.

Can you give me an example of a subtle sign , or a divination, or an epiphany?

 

[Write4U]

This may well be the origin of theism and the evolution of ritual behavior. Is this recognition of divinity?

 

[Hapsburg]

Can you give me an example of a subtle sign , or a divination, or an epiphany?

Some signs can be subtle rather than overt or obvious. Something that might otherwise seem mundane, but is too much of a coincidence to just be written off.

Divination is an art and religious practice, or a form of magic according to some definitions, that offers insight into a situation, in this case the will of the gods or spirits. Various methods exist, some of the most popular being cartomancy (card reading, often with Tarot cards today), astrology, augury, pyromancy, tea reading, scrying, etc. Mediumship might fall under this as well.

Epiphany, in the religious sense, is the overt presence of a god or spirit, the manifestation such a being in an obvious or observable way. Usually through visions or possession-- mediumship might also be categorized under this, it's ambiguous.

 

[Write4U]

Epiphany, in the religious sense, is the overt presence of a god or spirit, the manifestation such a being in an obvious or observable way. Usually through visions or possession-- mediumship might also be categorized under this, it's ambiguous.

Exactly, it's ambiguous.
By that standard all works of fiction are epiphanies. It doesn't prove anything other than an active imagination.

There are more disciplined explanations of "how things work" that are based on repeatable evidence and that are unambiguous in their origins and self-organization.

The concept of a "living" Designer Agency is a convenient catch-all and requires no proof. But according to Occam, the complexity of the concept almost certainly rules out it's veracity.

Moreover we have seen the simpler complexities of which no mention is made in any scripture or used as constituent parts of the greater wholeness.

Behold the origin of matter.

Scripture does not say "In the beginning was the word and the word was the atom".

And that is demonstrably true.

 

[Hapsburg]

Exactly, it's ambiguous.

Definitions covering such a broad concept usually are.

By that standard all works of fiction are epiphanies.

The ancient Greeks certainly would say that most creative acts were inspired by the Muses or a god such as Apollo or Dionysos.

It doesn't prove anything other than an active imagination.

That's a valid interpretation. Epiphanies and theophanies are subjective. I don't expect mine to convince others, and I don't attempt to. I merely state my perspective and my experiences. I'm not here to argue with you-- you asked for definitions.

Scripture does not say "In the beginning was the word and the word was the atom".

I don't really care what "Scripture" says, my religion doesn't have any equivalent to such texts. It has a body of myths, but these are not to be taken literally for the most part. Nothing in Hellenic polytheism contradicts what we know scientifically-- if anything, Classical philosophy is one of the roots of modern science and mathematics.

 

[Michael 345]

Classical philosophy

Please give an example

 

[Write4U]

I don't really care what "Scripture" says, my religion doesn't have any equivalent to such texts. It has a body of myths, but these are not to be taken literally for the most part. Nothing in Hellenic polytheism contradicts what we know scientifically-- if anything,

Mathematics? He is reputed to have been associated with Hellenism, but I don't see any mention of his practice any Hellenistic rituals or tenets, other than the secular tenets as described in the Golden Verses.

Today, Pythagoras is mostly remembered for his mathematical ideas, and by association with the work early Pythagoreans did in advancing mathematical concepts and theories on harmonic musical intervals, the definition of numbers, proportion and mathematical methods such as arithmetic and geometry. The mathēmatikoi philosophers claimed that numbers were at the heart of everything and constructed a new view of the cosmos. In the mathēmatikoi tradition of Pythagoreanism the Earth was removed from the center of the universe. The mathēmatikoi believed that the Earth, along with other celestial bodies, orbited around a central fire. This, they believed, constituted a celestial harmony.[24]

Pythagoreanism - Wikipedia

But I cannot make a connection between Mathematics with its god-like logical properties and Gods that have no defined place in the fabric of the Universe other than allegory.
In the presence of Mathematics, gods become superfluous, IMO.

 

[Hapsburg]

Please give an example

Pythagoreanism, Platonism and Neoplatonism, and Classical Stoicism all are part of the Classical philosophical tradition. And they were also heavily influenced by, and influenced in turn, the polytheistic religion of the Greco-Roman world.

 

[ThazzarBaal]

It's a constant - I'm not even aware of it sometimes, but every part of my being talks to God. God talks back, and although inaudible I still get the messages sometimes - when I'm open to hearing the voice of silent guidance, the small sparks of thoughts and ideas, ideals and the way life experiences motivate the communication between God and myself.

Seeing right and hearing right isn't easy with so much deliberate miscommunicated information that had been fed to us, so I try to be a fact checker and objective whilst honing my subjective understanding of events.

 

[mathman]

People who believe in god talk to it often (pray), but answering back seems no to occur.

 

[foghorn]

whoops.