| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Sphere" |
| Date: |
17 Sep 2006 08:00:22 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Definition of God |
Bob wrote:
One of the ironies of the theist-atheist debate is that neither side
can define what they mean by God. Theists claim they know God exists
but when pressed to define what they mean, they lapse into religious
jargon. Similarly atheists claim they know that God does not exist but
they too are unable to define what they mean by this God that does not
exist.
No wonder such discussions always degernerate into shouting contests.
Nobody knows what they are talking about.
A proper definition includes a concrete rational description of the
essential and necessary characteristic of the object in question.
Can you define God in these terms?
A god is any entity much larger or more powerful than myself.
An entity over which I have little or no control or influence.
This includes nations, many ideas, religions, natural events
such as hurricanes, etc.
I do not posit any metaphysical power or particular intelligence to
gods. Only that there is little I can do about them other than
hope and pray.
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
.
|
|
| User: "Lion Of Judah" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of God |
18 Sep 2006 07:58:56 AM |
|
|
Sphere wrote:
Bob wrote:
One of the ironies of the theist-atheist debate is that neither side
can define what they mean by God. Theists claim they know God exists
but when pressed to define what they mean, they lapse into religious
jargon. Similarly atheists claim they know that God does not exist but
they too are unable to define what they mean by this God that does not
exist.
No wonder such discussions always degernerate into shouting contests.
Nobody knows what they are talking about.
A proper definition includes a concrete rational description of the
essential and necessary characteristic of the object in question.
Can you define God in these terms?
According to the New Testament, God has seven spirits or traits:
humility, wisdom, knowledge, charity, purity, faith (or possessed of an
idomitable will) and deathless.
God can be observed in someone such as the Buddha or the Christ.
A god is any entity much larger or more powerful than myself.
An entity over which I have little or no control or influence.
This includes nations, many ideas, religions, natural events
such as hurricanes, etc.
I do not posit any metaphysical power or particular intelligence to
gods. Only that there is little I can do about them other than
hope and pray.
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Emmanual Kann" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of God |
20 Sep 2006 03:12:56 PM |
|
|
An Mon, 18 Sep 2006 05:58:56 -0700, Lion Of Judah hat geschreibt:
Sphere wrote:
Bob wrote:
One of the ironies of the theist-atheist debate is that neither side
can define what they mean by God. Theists claim they know God exists
but when pressed to define what they mean, they lapse into religious
jargon. Similarly atheists claim they know that God does not exist but
they too are unable to define what they mean by this God that does not
exist.
No wonder such discussions always degernerate into shouting contests.
Nobody knows what they are talking about.
A proper definition includes a concrete rational description of the
essential and necessary characteristic of the object in question.
Can you define God in these terms?
According to the New Testament, God has seven spirits or traits:
humility, wisdom, knowledge, charity, purity, faith (or possessed of an
idomitable will) and deathless.
God can be observed in someone such as the Buddha or the Christ.
A god is any entity much larger or more powerful than myself.
An entity over which I have little or no control or influence.
This includes nations, many ideas, religions, natural events
such as hurricanes, etc.
I do not posit any metaphysical power or particular intelligence to
gods. Only that there is little I can do about them other than
hope and pray.
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
God is the answer to all the unanswerable questions (the truth value of
all Goedel statements).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave K" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of God |
21 Sep 2006 08:00:12 AM |
|
|
Emmanual Kann wrote:
An Mon, 18 Sep 2006 05:58:56 -0700, Lion Of Judah hat geschreibt:
Sphere wrote:
Bob wrote:
One of the ironies of the theist-atheist debate is that neither side
can define what they mean by God. Theists claim they know God exists
but when pressed to define what they mean, they lapse into religious
jargon. Similarly atheists claim they know that God does not exist but
they too are unable to define what they mean by this God that does not
exist.
No wonder such discussions always degernerate into shouting contests.
Nobody knows what they are talking about.
A proper definition includes a concrete rational description of the
essential and necessary characteristic of the object in question.
Can you define God in these terms?
According to the New Testament, God has seven spirits or traits:
humility, wisdom, knowledge, charity, purity, faith (or possessed of an
idomitable will) and deathless.
God can be observed in someone such as the Buddha or the Christ.
A god is any entity much larger or more powerful than myself.
An entity over which I have little or no control or influence.
This includes nations, many ideas, religions, natural events
such as hurricanes, etc.
I do not posit any metaphysical power or particular intelligence to
gods. Only that there is little I can do about them other than
hope and pray.
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
God is the answer to all the unanswerable questions (the truth value of
all Goedel statements).
"God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual
thought. It's as simple as that." - Joseph Campbell
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas Robert Malthus" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of God |
21 Sep 2006 01:47:14 PM |
|
|
In article <1158843612.803723.83870@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
dkotschess@yahoo.com says...
Emmanual Kann wrote:
An Mon, 18 Sep 2006 05:58:56 -0700, Lion Of Judah hat geschreibt:
God is the answer to all the unanswerable questions (the truth value of
all Goedel statements).
Yeah, and his address is on the j-axis.
"God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual
thought. It's as simple as that." - Joseph Campbell
"Joseph Campbell is a metaphor for a simple level of intellectual
thought. Transcend that." -- God
--
Thomas
Another World Is Possible
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of God |
21 Sep 2006 03:15:59 PM |
|
|
Thomas Robert Malthus wrote:
"God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual
thought. It's as simple as that." - Joseph Campbell
"Joseph Campbell is a metaphor for a simple level of intellectual
thought. Transcend that." -- God
Many people have almost no capability for intellectual thought.
God is a third rate substitute.
--
You are a fluke of the Universe
You have no right to be here,
and whether you can hear it or not,
the Universe is laughing behind your back.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas Robert Malthus" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of God |
21 Sep 2006 03:54:23 PM |
|
|
In article <12h5sp4d0bah4d1@corp.supernews.com>,
says...
Thomas Robert Malthus wrote:
"God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual
thought. It's as simple as that." - Joseph Campbell
"Joseph Campbell is a metaphor for a simple level of intellectual
thought. Transcend that." -- God
Many people have almost no capability for intellectual thought.
God is a third rate substitute.
No, dude, you are supposed to rearrange the words, not use
entirely new ones.
Sheesh...
--
Thomas
Another World Is Possible
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sphere" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of God |
20 Sep 2006 06:12:41 PM |
|
|
Emmanual Kann wrote:
An Mon, 18 Sep 2006 05:58:56 -0700, Lion Of Judah hat geschreibt:
Sphere wrote:
Bob wrote:
One of the ironies of the theist-atheist debate is that neither side
can define what they mean by God. Theists claim they know God exists
but when pressed to define what they mean, they lapse into religious
jargon. Similarly atheists claim they know that God does not exist but
they too are unable to define what they mean by this God that does not
exist.
No wonder such discussions always degernerate into shouting contests.
Nobody knows what they are talking about.
A proper definition includes a concrete rational description of the
essential and necessary characteristic of the object in question.
Can you define God in these terms?
According to the New Testament, God has seven spirits or traits:
humility, wisdom, knowledge, charity, purity, faith (or possessed of an
idomitable will) and deathless.
God can be observed in someone such as the Buddha or the Christ.
A god is any entity much larger or more powerful than myself.
An entity over which I have little or no control or influence.
This includes nations, many ideas, religions, natural events
such as hurricanes, etc.
I do not posit any metaphysical power or particular intelligence to
gods. Only that there is little I can do about them other than
hope and pray.
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
God is the answer to all the unanswerable questions (the truth value of
all Goedel statements).
Is this a definition?
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sphere" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of God |
20 Sep 2006 06:10:30 PM |
|
|
Lion Of Judah wrote:
Sphere wrote:
Bob wrote:
One of the ironies of the theist-atheist debate is that neither side
can define what they mean by God. Theists claim they know God exists
but when pressed to define what they mean, they lapse into religious
jargon. Similarly atheists claim they know that God does not exist but
they too are unable to define what they mean by this God that does not
exist.
No wonder such discussions always degernerate into shouting contests.
Nobody knows what they are talking about.
A proper definition includes a concrete rational description of the
essential and necessary characteristic of the object in question.
Can you define God in these terms?
According to the New Testament, God has seven spirits or traits:
The New Testament wsa written in a language I do not
read by people I am not interested in.
humility, wisdom, knowledge, charity, purity, faith (or possessed of an
idomitable will) and deathless.
God can be observed in someone such as the Buddha or the Christ.
Buddha rejected all notions of Self.
A god is any entity much larger or more powerful than myself.
An entity over which I have little or no control or influence.
This includes nations, many ideas, religions, natural events
such as hurricanes, etc.
I do not posit any metaphysical power or particular intelligence to
gods. Only that there is little I can do about them other than
hope and pray.
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lion Of Judah" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of God |
21 Sep 2006 08:57:44 AM |
|
|
Sphere wrote:
Lion Of Judah wrote:
According to the New Testament, God has seven spirits or traits:
The New Testament wsa written in a language I do not
read by people I am not interested in.
humility, wisdom, knowledge, charity, purity, faith (or possessed of an
idomitable will) and deathless.
God can be observed in someone such as the Buddha or the Christ.
Buddha rejected all notions of Self.
Correction-- Buddha rejected all notions of not-Self as Self.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave K" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of God |
21 Sep 2006 10:01:17 AM |
|
|
Lion Of Judah wrote:
Sphere wrote:
Lion Of Judah wrote:
According to the New Testament, God has seven spirits or traits:
The New Testament wsa written in a language I do not
read by people I am not interested in.
humility, wisdom, knowledge, charity, purity, faith (or possessed of an
idomitable will) and deathless.
God can be observed in someone such as the Buddha or the Christ.
Buddha rejected all notions of Self.
Correction-- Buddha rejected all notions of not-Self as Self.
Notions of a self or notions of not-self are still notions. If you
have a "notion" of God which is a non-notion, or an idea that "God is a
metaphor for that which transcends intellectual thought," which is the
version I loosely hold, (a non-idea), then this isn't a problem.
Note that this isn't the God that's currently being warred over. Wars
are about ideas.
-DaveK
.
|
|
|
| User: "bob600" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of God |
21 Sep 2006 01:15:11 PM |
|
|
Dave K wrote:
Lion Of Judah wrote:
Sphere wrote:
Lion Of Judah wrote:
According to the New Testament, God has seven spirits or traits:
The New Testament wsa written in a language I do not
read by people I am not interested in.
humility, wisdom, knowledge, charity, purity, faith (or possessed of an
idomitable will) and deathless.
God can be observed in someone such as the Buddha or the Christ.
Buddha rejected all notions of Self.
Correction-- Buddha rejected all notions of not-Self as Self.
Notions of a self or notions of not-self are still notions. If you
have a "notion" of God which is a non-notion, or an idea that "God is a
metaphor for that which transcends intellectual thought," which is the
version I loosely hold, (a non-idea), then this isn't a problem.
Note that this isn't the God that's currently being warred over. Wars
are about ideas.
Bob600 replies:- Wars are about power and profit, the idea is useful
but irrelevant.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave K" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of God |
21 Sep 2006 08:49:56 PM |
|
|
bob600 wrote:
Dave K wrote:
Lion Of Judah wrote:
Sphere wrote:
Lion Of Judah wrote:
According to the New Testament, God has seven spirits or traits:
The New Testament wsa written in a language I do not
read by people I am not interested in.
humility, wisdom, knowledge, charity, purity, faith (or possessed of an
idomitable will) and deathless.
God can be observed in someone such as the Buddha or the Christ.
Buddha rejected all notions of Self.
Correction-- Buddha rejected all notions of not-Self as Self.
Notions of a self or notions of not-self are still notions. If you
have a "notion" of God which is a non-notion, or an idea that "God is a
metaphor for that which transcends intellectual thought," which is the
version I loosely hold, (a non-idea), then this isn't a problem.
Note that this isn't the God that's currently being warred over. Wars
are about ideas.
Bob600 replies:- Wars are about power
an idea
and profit
an idea
.
|
|
|
| User: "Citizen Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of God |
22 Sep 2006 05:58:44 AM |
|
|
On 21 Sep 2006 18:49:56 -0700, "Dave K" <dkotschess@yahoo.com> wrote:
Bob600 replies:- Wars are about power
an idea
a stupid one
and profit
an idea
a stupid one
--
"There is no distinctly native American criminal class save Congress."
--Mark Twain
.
|
|
|
| User: "bob600" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of God |
22 Sep 2006 08:30:13 AM |
|
|
Citizen Bob wrote:
On 21 Sep 2006 18:49:56 -0700, "Dave K" <dkotschess@yahoo.com> wrote:
Bob600 replies:- Wars are about power
an idea
a stupid one
Bob600 replies again "sigh" :- As an answer this is an even stupider
one.
and profit
an idea
a stupid one
Bob600 replies again "sigh" :- As an answer this is an even stupider
one.
"It may be possiable that there is no distinctly native American criminal class save Congress." --Bob600 (the real spirit of the quote)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sphere" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of God |
22 Sep 2006 11:57:20 PM |
|
|
bob600 wrote:
Citizen Bob wrote:
On 21 Sep 2006 18:49:56 -0700, "Dave K" <dkotschess@yahoo.com> wrote:
Bob600 replies:- Wars are about power
an idea
a stupid one
Bob600 replies again "sigh" :- As an answer this is an even stupider
one.
and profit
an idea
a stupid one
Bob600 replies again "sigh" :- As an answer this is an even stupider
one.
What's love, what's love got to do with it?
What's love but a second hand emotion?
.
|
|
|
| User: "bob600" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of God |
23 Sep 2006 07:30:46 AM |
|
|
Sphere wrote:
bob600 wrote:
Citizen Bob wrote:
On 21 Sep 2006 18:49:56 -0700, "Dave K" <dkotschess@yahoo.com> wrote:
Bob600 replies:- Wars are about power
an idea
a stupid one
Bob600 replies again "sigh" :- As an answer this is an even stupider
one.
and profit
an idea
a stupid one
Bob600 replies again "sigh" :- As an answer this is an even stupider
one.
What's love, what's love got to do with it?
What's love but a second hand emotion?
Bob600 replies:- Sphere, you are as daft as I am.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sphere" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of God |
23 Sep 2006 10:32:42 PM |
|
|
bob600 wrote:
Sphere wrote:
bob600 wrote:
Citizen Bob wrote:
On 21 Sep 2006 18:49:56 -0700, "Dave K" <dkotschess@yahoo.com> wrote:
Bob600 replies:- Wars are about power
an idea
a stupid one
Bob600 replies again "sigh" :- As an answer this is an even stupider
one.
and profit
an idea
a stupid one
Bob600 replies again "sigh" :- As an answer this is an even stupider
one.
What's love, what's love got to do with it?
What's love but a second hand emotion?
Bob600 replies:- Sphere, you are as daft as I am.
Sometimes a rational response is totally irrational.
.
|
|
|
| User: "bob600" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of God |
26 Sep 2006 03:13:04 PM |
|
|
Sphere wrote:
bob600 wrote:
Sphere wrote:
bob600 wrote:
Citizen Bob wrote:
On 21 Sep 2006 18:49:56 -0700, "Dave K" <dkotschess@yahoo.com> wrote:
Bob600 replies:- Wars are about power
an idea
a stupid one
Bob600 replies again "sigh" :- As an answer this is an even stupider
one.
and profit
an idea
a stupid one
Bob600 replies again "sigh" :- As an answer this is an even stupider
one.
What's love, what's love got to do with it?
What's love but a second hand emotion?
Bob600 replies:- Sphere, you are as daft as I am.
Sometimes a rational response is totally irrational.
Bob600 replies:- And as a suitable response that is totally rational.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sphere" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of God |
21 Sep 2006 07:01:22 PM |
|
|
Lion Of Judah wrote:
Sphere wrote:
Lion Of Judah wrote:
According to the New Testament, God has seven spirits or traits:
The New Testament wsa written in a language I do not
read by people I am not interested in.
humility, wisdom, knowledge, charity, purity, faith (or possessed of an
idomitable will) and deathless.
God can be observed in someone such as the Buddha or the Christ.
Buddha rejected all notions of Self.
Correction-- Buddha rejected all notions of not-Self as Self.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-ditthi/index.html
"There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person...
does not discern what ideas are fit for attention, or what ideas are
unfit for attention. This being so, he does not attend to ideas fit for
attention, and attends instead to ideas unfit for attention... This is
how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the
past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what,
what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the
future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future?
Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is
inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What
am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'
"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view
arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true &
established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely
by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by
means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely
by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true &
established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine
- the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good &
bad actions - is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting,
eternal, not subject to change, and will endure as long as eternity.
This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion
of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of
views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth,
aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He
is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.
"The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones... discerns what ideas
are fit for attention, and what ideas are unfit for attention. This
being so, he does not attend to ideas unfit for attention, and attends
[instead] to ideas fit for attention... He attends appropriately, This
is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation
of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress. As he
attends appropriately in this way, three fetters are abandoned in him:
identity-view, doubt, and grasping at precepts & practices."
- MN 2
Digging out my copy of the Majjhima Nikaya
and finding a bookmark at this passage,
I can tell you that this is from the Sabbasava
Sutta, paragraphs 7-9.
Sorry, but this is only one example of many in
the Suttas where Buddha rejects the idea of Self --
not just the object of the idea of Self. You are simply
about as wrong as it gets.
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
