What does the word (god) mean to you?

[baumgarten]

Hooligan,

And this piece of fiction is relevant because?

So will you be quoting anything factual and potentially useful anytime soon?

This adminoshment is nonsensical. The topic of this thread is the definition of God. A relevant scriptural quote provides an answer from the point of view not just of one but of many thousands.

Am I correct in thinking your belief is that God does not exist? If so, then why are you seeking fact in a thread about what God is? If I quoted Tolkien in a thread about hobbits, would you admonish me for saying something non-factual? Of course not; the subject is hobbits, so anything pertinent to hobbits should be acceptable regardless of whether hobbits actually exist and regardless of who thinks they do or don't.

Or, is it possibly your opinion that in consideration of a fictitious character, the most enlightening course of action would be to ignore it, since it isn't real and obviously has no effect -- even as a concept -- on our lives worthy of investigation?

 

[Cris]

Light,

You gave an opinion (Religion is an imagination) and didn't say why.

No it is not an opinion. Religious claims are imaginative concepts. This is fact. Prove a god exists, or a soul exists, or reincarnation is possible, or any other religious claims, and then you can say religions are not just imaginative fiction. Without evidence all you have is fantasy. That is fact not opinion.

In short, the tautological argument is that the large percentage of people's minds are designed in very specific ways to interact with this world and it doesn't appear to be co-incidence - like for instance we experience a need for water, and water exists, we experience a need for love and affection from others, and that also exists - so if large numbers of people are experiencing a need for god, it must indicate that there is something to fulfill that need since we don't have experience of any general desire manifest on an international communal level that this world does not have the capacity to fulfill.

That is total crap. The desire for something doesn’t lead to its existence. Your argument is basic logical fallacy.

No of course not; just merely the obviously childishly simple issue of credibility. ”

you don't state who's credibility - in other words who's authority

Authority??? Inescapable and independent logic.

 

[Cris]

Baumgarten,

This adminoshment is nonsensical. The topic of this thread is the definition of God.

No it isn’t, the topic is about what the word god means to me and I have stated my perception quite clearly.

Am I correct in thinking your belief is that God does not exist?

No. My assertion is that religious claims are fantasies in the absence of evidence for their claims. Whether gods exist or not has not been demonstrated either way.

If so, then why are you seeking fact in a thread about what God is?

How else would you show something isn’t fantasy when someone suggest it isn’t?

If I quoted Tolkien in a thread about hobbits, would you admonish me for saying something non-factual?

Only if you claimed hobbits were real.

Or, is it possibly your opinion that in consideration of a fictitious character, the most enlightening course of action would be to ignore it, since it isn't real and obviously has no effect -- even as a concept -- on our lives worthy of investigation?

Absolutely. But it makes a great topic to debate in an online debate forum.

 

[lightgigantic]

Cris

“ You gave an opinion (Religion is an imagination) and didn't say why. ”

No it is not an opinion. Religious claims are imaginative concepts. This is fact. Prove a god exists, or a soul exists, or reincarnation is possible, or any other religious claims, and then you can say religions are not just imaginative fiction. Without evidence all you have is fantasy. That is fact not opinion.

A highschool drop out could use the same argument to say that an electron doesn't exist - to say that something is perceivable is not to say that it is perceivable to everyone

Here is something anecdotal - when eistein discovered something in outer space that seemed to confirm his theory of relativity it was investigated by the royal british astronomy society (at that time britain was the most powerful country in the world, and the society was highly credible, with links back to newton etc). The head speaker for the society made a press release that this was the most important discovery of the century - when the news reporters asked what it was that he had discovered the speaker was adamant that there was no way for the general public to understand the exact nature of what einstein had discovered -

We would hardly lay as a condition for scientific inquiry that unless a truth was pereceivable to the man on the street it cannot be accepted - on the contrary it is accepted in science that there are very important truths that only a handful of people can understand - why?

“ In short, the tautological argument is that the large percentage of people's minds are designed in very specific ways to interact with this world and it doesn't appear to be co-incidence - like for instance we experience a need for water, and water exists, we experience a need for love and affection from others, and that also exists - so if large numbers of people are experiencing a need for god, it must indicate that there is something to fulfill that need since we don't have experience of any general desire manifest on an international communal level that this world does not have the capacity to fulfill. ”

That is total crap. The desire for something doesn’t lead to its existence. Your argument is basic logical fallacy.

the tautological argument is that desire towards an object that is uniformly expressed by everyone actually exists - the evidence is that we have no examples of anything uniformly desired in this world that doesn't exist - so as it relates to this thread, an overwhelming phenomena of people desiring something transcendent indicate s that something transcendent exists - even the american constituition of all people being equal is an example of this transcendental desire (on what material grounds are all people equal?).

“ No of course not; just merely the obviously childishly simple issue of credibility. ”

you don't state who's credibility - in other words who's authority ”

Authority??? Inescapable and independent logic.

??? Which seems to be by my terms of evidence there is no evidence for god (interestingly by the same means of evidence, your mind doesn't exist either, since it is invisible to the definitions of standard contemporary empiricism)

 

[Cris]

lightgigantic

A highschool drop out could use the same argument to say that an electron doesn't exist - to say that something is perceivable is not to say that it is perceivable to everyone

No, I made no mention of something not existing. How then would you prove that those who claim to perceive can actually perceive and are not simply imagining what they claim?

We would hardly lay as a condition for scientific inquiry that unless a truth was pereceivable to the man on the street it cannot be accepted - on the contrary it is accepted in science that there are very important truths that only a handful of people can understand - why?

That is not true. The basis of science is repeatable and reproducible experimentation. Once the method is published anyone with the appropriate funding can reproduce the findings, even the man on the street.

the tautological argument is that desire towards an object that is uniformly expressed by everyone actually exists - the evidence is that we have no examples of anything uniformly desired in this world that doesn't exist - so as it relates to this thread, an overwhelming phenomena of people desiring something transcendent indicate s that something transcendent exists - even the american constituition of all people being equal is an example of this transcendental desire (on what material grounds are all people equal?).

And it remains a basic logical fallacy. It does not follow that something must exist because it is desired no matter how many people are involved. Truth is not determined by a majority vote.

??? Which seems to be by my terms of evidence there is no evidence for god (interestingly by the same means of evidence, your mind doesn't exist either, since it is invisible to the definitions of standard contemporary empiricism)

That is a misleading comparison. That is a label given to physical phenomena that can be measured. The god label does not apply to anything that can be measured.

 

[lightgigantic]

cris

“ A highschool drop out could use the same argument to say that an electron doesn't exist - to say that something is perceivable is not to say that it is perceivable to everyone ”

No, I made no mention of something not existing.

something not existing according to your powers of perception ....

How then would you prove that those who claim to perceive can actually perceive and are not simply imagining what they claim?

same way as any other pocess of confirming the perceptions - qualification (not in the institutional sense but in the sense of an existing thing having qualities and the person perceiving the thing also having qualities)

“ We would hardly lay as a condition for scientific inquiry that unless a truth was pereceivable to the man on the street it cannot be accepted - on the contrary it is accepted in science that there are very important truths that only a handful of people can understand - why? ”

That is not true. The basis of science is repeatable and reproducible experimentation. Once the method is published anyone with the appropriate funding can reproduce the findings, even the man on the street.

yes - anyone who takes to the process perceives the result - as the einstein example shows, those who don't take to the process don't

“ the tautological argument is that desire towards an object that is uniformly expressed by everyone actually exists - the evidence is that we have no examples of anything uniformly desired in this world that doesn't exist - so as it relates to this thread, an overwhelming phenomena of people desiring something transcendent indicate s that something transcendent exists - even the american constituition of all people being equal is an example of this transcendental desire (on what material grounds are all people equal?). ”

And it remains a basic logical fallacy. It does not follow that something must exist because it is desired no matter how many people are involved. Truth is not determined by a majority vote.

can you provide a single example of some object that an overwhelming number of people desire through all times and cultures that does not exist?

“ ??? Which seems to be by my terms of evidence there is no evidence for god (interestingly by the same means of evidence, your mind doesn't exist either, since it is invisible to the definitions of standard contemporary empiricism) ”

That is a misleading comparison. That is a label given to physical phenomena that can be measured. The god label does not apply to anything that can be measured.

neither can the mind - does that mean the mind does not exist?

 

[Enterprise-D]

hi Lightee...

Couldn't help but add these 2 cents:

can you provide a single example of some object that an overwhelming number of people desire through all times and cultures that does not exist?

It is immaterial whether there were any other object of desire, this challenge does not ascribe truth to your claims. As Cris maintains, truth is not a majority vote.

neither can the mind - does that mean the mind does not exist?

The existence of the mind has no bearing on the existence of anything else. Therefore proof that the mind does or does not exist will not add any value to your claim.

 

[Godless]

Toilet paper!

You asked

 

[baumgarten]

Baumgarten,

No it isn’t, the topic is about what the word god means to me and I have stated my perception quite clearly.

Very good. Someone else has attempted to state what the word means to them. Why shoot it down? Because you disagree with it? There's no truly right or wrong answer regarding the meaning of a word. Saying a word that usually represents something imaginary should not be defined in that way, precisely because what it represents is not real, is absurd.

No. My assertion is that religious claims are fantasies in the absence of evidence for their claims. Whether gods exist or not has not been demonstrated either way.

Whether something has been demonstrated usually doesn't keep people from forming an opinion on it. Since your assertion is that religious claims are fantasies in the absence of evidence for their claims, and there is a clear absence of evidence, then I can safely assume that you generally regard religious claims as fantasy, correct?

Only if you claimed hobbits were real.

So what if I didn't, but believed the word intended to refer to something real? I would give the same answer either way. Given only my opinion of the meaning of the word, you could not know whether I actually believed them to be real.

My point is not that you are jumping to conclusions but that you believe those conclusions to be important to this discussion. They aren't.

Another example for your edification: Bigfoot. Say I was a bigfoot enthusiast and I intended to discuss what bigfoot actually means. The meaning of the word bigfoot, I would say, is an elusive, furry hominid that is believed to grow to heights of between eight and nine feet. Such a creature has been sighted in Asia and North America, and is called under different names there. It is my suspicion, however, I would further contend, that these two local terms actually describe the same species of animal. Obviously I believe bigfoot exists.

All that information, and your main point of contention would be whether bigfoot exists? And then you go on to say that since bigfoot cannot be demonstrated to exist, all the cryptozoological information I provided about bigfoot that demonstrates what I think bigfoot is has now been lost. Thrown out as worthless. Even though my post has elucidated what the word bigfoot means not only to myself but to thousands of other fans of the creature. Even though what the word means to various people is exactly the topic of discussion. You throw it out regardless, because I can't show that bigfoot is real. What an asinine thing to do.

Absolutely. But it makes a great topic to debate in an online debate forum.

That's a shame. While I agree it's a great forum topic, I had hoped you would realize -- especially with all your talk of memes -- that an imaginary concept can still have a drastic effect on human behavior, and would therefore be worth studying, if for nothing else than to better understand ourselves.

Yes, you contend, there is no evidence for the actual existence of God. This has been established. Let us not get hung up on it in topics where it doesn't really matter, such as this one.

 

[spidergoat]

...so if large numbers of people are experiencing a need for god, it must indicate that there is something to fulfill that need since we don't have experience of any general desire manifest on an international communal level that this world does not have the capacity to fulfill.

Wow.

Are they experiencing a need for God? Or are people just curious, and the notion of God provides intellectual closure?

Your idea that God is a universal idea is easily refuted. I have a book only on ancient Eastern Religions, and there are more than 30, each one different than the next. Part of the problem is that early translators of ancient religious texts were missionaries with a built in bias for Christianity.

 

[lightgigantic]

Wow.

Are they experiencing a need for God? Or are people just curious, and the notion of God provides intellectual closure?

Your idea that God is a universal idea is easily refuted. I have a book only on ancient Eastern Religions, and there are more than 30, each one different than the next. Part of the problem is that early translators of ancient religious texts were missionaries with a built in bias for Christianity.

Different in what way? principles or details? (is the cause for the universe transcendental?)

Christianity doesn't have the monopoly on monotheism

 

[lightgigantic]

Enterprise

It is immaterial whether there were any other object of desire, this challenge does not ascribe truth to your claims. As Cris maintains, truth is not a majority vote.

you can refute tautology by giving example of some object that people desire in an overwhelming majority in all times and place in this world that doesn't exist

The existence of the mind has no bearing on the existence of anything else. Therefore proof that the mind does or does not exist will not add any value to your claim.

Well to start with if its not clear whether we have a mind or not the foundations of debate become difficult to establish

 

[spidergoat]

Different in what way? principles or details? (is the cause for the universe transcendental?)

Christianity doesn't have the monopoly on monotheism

Some are monotheistic, but attribute different roles of and rules from the deity. The Deity sometimes has very different origins. Sometimes another diety created the world and departed, another is the caretaker worthy of worship. Others say the deity exists but is not involved in our lives. Other religions are polytheistic, or atheistic (Taoism). Taoism attributes the apparent order of the universe to passive non personal qualities inherent in matter (nature). Some propose that existence had no beginning (Buddhism), and is circular in nature.

Some misinformed missionaries actually translated the word Tao into God, a reprehensible act of sabotage.

 

[lightgigantic]

spidergoat

Some are monotheistic, but attribute different roles of and rules from the deity. The Deity sometimes has very different origins. Sometimes another diety created the world and departed, another is the caretaker worthy of worship.

Worthy of worship? People worship for different reasons

BG 7.23
Men of small intelligence worship the demigods, and their fruits are limited and temporary. Those who worship the demigods go to the planets of the demigods, but My devotees ultimately reach My supreme planet.

Still there is an acknowledgement to an entity who fulfills the functional role of god -

Others say the deity exists but is not involved in our lives.

This is an advanced theistic point of discussion - the nature of the relationship between god and the living entity

Other religions are polytheistic,

still they ascribe transcendent causes

or atheistic (Taoism). Taoism attributes the apparent order of the universe to passive non personal qualities inherent in matter (nature).

so an "energy" takes on the transcendent qualities of god

Some propose that existence had no beginning (Buddhism), and is circular in nature.

this is about material nature and not the transcendent nature of god - buddhists commonly enetertain the notion of nirvana too

Some misinformed missionaries actually translated the word Tao into God, a reprehensible act of sabotage.

probably because of connotations with the divine

 

[spidergoat]

“ or atheistic (Taoism). Taoism attributes the apparent order of the universe to passive non personal qualities inherent in matter (nature). ”

so an "energy" takes on the transcendent qualities of god

Am I to believe that the "universal nature of God" you proposed is now reduced to ideas of "transcendence"? That's hardly the same thing, is it?
Besides, Tao is not an "energy" above and beyond the material, it is a quality of matter. That makes it supremely materialistic.


“ Some propose that existence had no beginning (Buddhism), and is circular in nature. ”

this is about material nature and not the transcendent nature of god - buddhists commonly enetertain the notion of nirvana too

Nirvana is a state of mind.

probably because of connotations with the divine
Due only to the conditioning of the minds of the missionaries.

 

[Oniw17]

Please post your religion if so and what you believe the word (god) means.

I'm an atheist. I believe god to be a metaphor for nature.

 

[Cris]

Light,

something not existing according to your powers of perception ....

Not sure you understand my perspective yet. I don’t know whether a god of some type exists or not, no one can show; so until then the concept is fantasy. This is as I have said already, a factual statement.

“ How then would you prove that those who claim to perceive can actually perceive and are not simply imagining what they claim? ”

same way as any other pocess of confirming the perceptions - qualification (not in the institutional sense but in the sense of an existing thing having qualities and the person perceiving the thing also having qualities)

Science doesn’t operate through qualifications only observation. If the observations cannot be independently verified then the qualifications are irrelevant.

Your claim is that some people can perceive gods and others cannot and those who cannot must accept the claims of those who claim they can perceive. Again what is the proof that those who claim to have perception of gods do indeed have such perception? Without an independent and verifiable mechanism, we have no reason to believe the claims of perception and cannot distinguish such claims from the more credible explanation of deluded fantasy.

yes - anyone who takes to the process perceives the result - as the einstein example shows, those who don't take to the process don't

Please prove that the process you claim for qualification actually results in a true perception of a god.

can you provide a single example of some object that an overwhelming number of people desire through all times and cultures that does not exist?

This is irrelevant. Take a class in logic and come back when you understand why your claims are gibberish.

That is a misleading comparison. That is a label given to physical phenomena that can be measured. The god label does not apply to anything that can be measured. ”

neither can the mind - does that mean the mind does not exist?

The activity generated by neural networks is measurable. It is these properties of the brain that we label as mind. The god label on the other hand has no underlying foundations that we can observe or measure.

 

[Cris]

Baumgarten,

Someone else has attempted to state what the word means to them. Why shoot it down?

For example? Whose perception have I shot down? Apart from my opening dissertation my other posts have been replies to light’s disagreement of my post.

Because you disagree with it?

With whom do you think I have disagreed?

There's no truly right or wrong answer regarding the meaning of a word.

Surely that is nonsense. While some words might have multiple meanings and some might have ambiguous meanings, as a whole most words have fairly precise meanings otherwise we would never be able to effectively communicate with each other. But that is the generic case, however for some specifics, like “god” then indeed its definition is very unclear. I have merely offered how I perceive the meaning of the word and Lightgigantic has disagreed with me. Shouldn’t you be directing your objections at Light and not me?

Saying a word that usually represents something imaginary should not be defined in that way, precisely because what it represents is not real, is absurd.

But I haven’t said that. Something imaginary might well be real.

Whether something has been demonstrated usually doesn't keep people from forming an opinion on it. Since your assertion is that religious claims are fantasies in the absence of evidence for their claims, and there is a clear absence of evidence, then I can safely assume that you generally regard religious claims as fantasy, correct?

Yes, correct.

“ Only if you claimed hobbits were real. ”

So what if I didn't, but believed the word intended to refer to something real? I would give the same answer either way. Given only my opinion of the meaning of the word, you could not know whether I actually believed them to be real.

Fine, but then that is a different issue. In the case of gods people do hold beliefs that these concepts represent a reality. If the god concept were to be proposed as a neutral speculation then the discussion would take on different characteristics.

My point is not that you are jumping to conclusions but that you believe those conclusions to be important to this discussion. They aren't.

I’m not sure I attached any importance to my perception of the word, it was merely my perception.

Not sure the relevance of the Bigfoot example. I have no opinions on Bigfoot, I do have one for the word god, whether people agree with it or not.

That's a shame. While I agree it's a great forum topic, I had hoped you would realize -- especially with all your talk of memes -- that an imaginary concept can still have a drastic effect on human behavior, and would therefore be worth studying, if for nothing else than to better understand ourselves.

I think we are talking at cross purposes. I agree with that statement.

Yes, you contend, there is no evidence for the actual existence of God. This has been established. Let us not get hung up on it in topics where it doesn't really matter, such as this one.

I’m not, it is light that has issues with my perception.

 

[lightgigantic]

spidergoat

so an "energy" takes on the transcendent qualities of god

Am I to believe that the "universal nature of God" you proposed is now reduced to ideas of "transcendence"?

God certainly has quite afew transcendental qualities and attributes - the notion represented by taoism certainly falls under his job description, to say the least

Besides, Tao is not an "energy" above and beyond the material, it is a quality of matter. That makes it supremely materialistic.

so energy is not material? At the very least taoism has a few metaphysical components

“ Some propose that existence had no beginning (Buddhism), and is circular in nature. ”

this is about material nature and not the transcendent nature of god - buddhists commonly enetertain the notion of nirvana too

Nirvana is a state of mind.

actually nirvana is a state without mind - hence transcendental (ie beyond the capacity of the senses)

probably because of connotations with the divine
Due only to the conditioning of the minds of the missionaries.

divinity also includes transcendental attributes

 

[lightgigantic]

I'm an atheist. I believe god to be a metaphor for nature.

Just curious .......

Why would nature need a metaphor?

Usually it works the other way - nature is a metaphor for god