The Rational God

The place for any Religious and/or Philosophical discussions, treatise, absolutions, ramblings, Aliens, UFO's, space exploration, mystical bullshit, astronomy, astrology, etc...
User avatar
Egaladeist
I am the Eg man : Coo Coo Ca Choo
Posts: 18908
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2005 1:02 am
Location: Canada

Post: # 50240Post Egaladeist
Fri Dec 08, 2006 5:29 am

If God is not a parent, then God is useless.
Not so...like catch you're clinging to the concept of parenthood...you want god to be a parent...you're conditioned to act toward god as if god were a parent...so you either embrace god as a parent or you reject god as a parent...
assume for an instant...that god is a perfect form of DNA ( for lack of a better term )...a builder...

assume also that like our DNA constructs us...god's DNA constructs the universe...

indifference to the creation does not beget uselessness.

Assume also that this god is aware...intelligent...ever building and destroying...by it's own nature...

assume that is god''s sole purpose...to create and destroy.

Not to parent.

Religion took the concept of a creator god...the author of existence...and gave it human qualities...personified it...gave it the ability to have personal individual relationships with it's creation...

a parent.

But is god a parent? Life teaches us that god is not a parent...rather...god is a builder.

God builds the universe as we build a house...we are aware of the house...we may even like the house...we may even take care that the house is maintained...but we do not talk to the house or develop a personal relationship with it.



User avatar
Harbinger
Aspiring Anti-Christ
Posts: 821
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 1:01 am
Location: University X

Post: # 50244Post Harbinger
Fri Dec 08, 2006 7:25 am

Egaladeist wrote:
If God is not a parent, then God is useless.
Not so...like catch you're clinging to the concept of parenthood...you want god to be a parent...you're conditioned to act toward god as if god were a parent...so you either embrace god as a parent or you reject god as a parent...
assume for an instant...that god is a perfect form of DNA ( for lack of a better term )...a builder...

assume also that like our DNA constructs us...god's DNA constructs the universe...

indifference to the creation does not beget uselessness.

Assume also that this god is aware...intelligent...ever building and destroying...by it's own nature...

assume that is god''s sole purpose...to create and destroy.

Not to parent.
If that is the case, what use of a God do we have? Saying God merely is "all that is all" makes no sense. Your personifying something which has no identity, character, or persona. Even the term "God" becomes pointless and states nothing in such case. Again I say:
Harbinger wrote:If God is not a parent, then God is useless. Acknowledgement yeilds nothing and conceptualization of God only hinders. So If God is indifferent, there is really no proof or point in proving or accepting God's existance.

User avatar
Egaladeist
I am the Eg man : Coo Coo Ca Choo
Posts: 18908
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2005 1:02 am
Location: Canada

Post: # 50245Post Egaladeist
Fri Dec 08, 2006 7:47 am

Your personifying something which has no identity, character, or persona
How so? the only way I could see this would be if I assume you're referring to the term ' god ' itself being personified ...but...
I am not associating the term ' god ' with a personable entity...in fact I am doing just the opposite.
If that is the case, what use of a God do we have?
Obviously if god is the builder/creator...then we need god to build...
if you're referring to the personification of ' god ' then...we don't have any need.

This realization however does not mean the denial of the existence of god based upon a lack of personal relationship...
we don't deny the existence of gravity just because we can't pray to it and form a personal relationship with it...

we nevertheless still need it ;)

User avatar
Harbinger
Aspiring Anti-Christ
Posts: 821
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 1:01 am
Location: University X

Post: # 50246Post Harbinger
Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:18 am

I'm finding it difficult to approach your argument.

We don't know their is a God, or that such a "necessary substance or force" which we can call God even exists, or is actually necessary or fundemental to the universe as a whole.

Basically, you've subtly given me the task of proving which is unknown--something impossible to do. You're saying, "Oxygen is God", and I'm saying, "Oxygen is Oxygen." No?

Or rather, it seems that you're trying to say God is a type of Plogiston. That last post just seemed to me like you're making up something unknown, then saying it is essential? (No offense)

User avatar
Egaladeist
I am the Eg man : Coo Coo Ca Choo
Posts: 18908
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2005 1:02 am
Location: Canada

Post: # 50264Post Egaladeist
Fri Dec 08, 2006 1:34 pm

No offense taken :D

But...we do know that there is a god...or...at least we should...the only thing is to determine what that god is and is in relation to us. ;)

catch
Wankers Cramp - no - its from typing - HONEST
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 3:49 am

Post: # 50269Post catch
Fri Dec 08, 2006 2:16 pm

Eg... first things first... cut back on the "research chemicals" the long term effects of fringe tryptamines are still pretty hazy. ;)
for someone who opposes the religious concepts you seem to still be steeped in them...maybe you are more influenced by religion than you think you are?
Um... I suppose I could remove all religious context in a conversation about religion, but I don't know how productive it would be.
Until you can get the ' Fatherly ' concept out of your mind...I guess you will always blame god for man's mistakes.
Except that I don't view god as a father nor do I blame an external entity for humanity's more questionable activities. In fact I have no particular beliefs about around god at all... however if there is such an entity as god, I fail to see how, as a creator, as the creator god would be some sort of cousin (unless the known universe is some sort of cosmic Alabama).
assume that is god''s sole purpose...to create and destroy.
Who can create? Parents! Be it the parent of another biological entity or a company or painting or software thread. Many instance of creation and abandonment are seen throughout nature, where do you come off stating the absolute that parenting = nurturing and the rest of us are "clinging" to some incorrect definition?
if you're referring to the personification of ' god ' then...we don't have any need.
Joseph Campbell and Carl Jung would disagree with you here. We have a deep need for personifying god. We lack the capacity to process that which is bigger than ourselves ("the face of god") so we personify and compartmentalize god into archetypal myths ("the masks of god") which have repeated themselves through all cultures in stories and art from Gilgamesh to Luke Skywalker. This relationship with god through the collective unconscious is what binds us as humanity with the same stories and the same perceptions and the same dreams.
But...we do know that there is a god...or...at least we should
I suppose it depends on how you define god.

cheers,

catch
Proud Nubian Princess

User avatar
dinowuff
I've posted HOW many
Posts: 5330
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2005 11:26 pm
Are you a Spammer: No
Location: galactic longitude 359° 56′ 39.4″, galactic latitude −0° 2′ 46.2″
Contact:

Post: # 50276Post dinowuff
Fri Dec 08, 2006 3:24 pm

Two pages of posts and this thing hasn't gone off topic yet?

Perhaps there is a God and She's guiding this thread to the ultimate truth. Not to be coufused with the ultimate question. :roll: :roll: :roll:
Image
No lusers were harmed in the creation of this Taz Zone Post.
AND I WANT TO KNOW WHY NOT!
09:F9:11:02:9D:74:E3:5B:D8:41:56:C5:63:56:88:C0

User avatar
Egaladeist
I am the Eg man : Coo Coo Ca Choo
Posts: 18908
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2005 1:02 am
Location: Canada

Post: # 50294Post Egaladeist
Fri Dec 08, 2006 5:19 pm

however if there is such an entity as god, I fail to see how, as a creator, as the creator god would be some sort of cousin
You know I was using that not in a literal sense but as an example in distance.
Many instance of creation and abandonment are seen throughout nature, where do you come off stating the absolute that parenting = nurturing and the rest of us are "clinging" to some incorrect definition?
Yes, nature shows many examples of parents not parenting...parenting does not always involve nurturing...but then you're still comparing god to an animal/insect/whatever...I'm not saying that god is a creature or follows our concepts of parenting.

Your DNA constructs you does it not? Is it a parent? If it does not guide you and fulfill you does it lack parenting skills?

No...and it's not supposed to.
We have a deep need for personifying god.
I addressed this on the first page...I agree that many are dependent upon and have a deep-seated need for a god or a saviour of sorts even if that saviour is a Rabbit's Foot or a Wishing Star...but...that once someone comes to realize that god is indifferent on a personal level, that dependence upon god to fulfill him is no longer justified and he can come into his own to sort his own problems without that dependence fettering him.

catch
Wankers Cramp - no - its from typing - HONEST
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 3:49 am

Post: # 50327Post catch
Fri Dec 08, 2006 9:28 pm

You know I was using that not in a literal sense but as an example in distance.
Your argument doesn't hold water... you call god the creator, then you call god the cousin implying a lateral and less hierarchical distance, then you liken god to DNA or the elements that we are comprised of.
Your DNA constructs you does it not? Is it a parent? If it does not guide you and fulfill you does it lack parenting skills?
The idea that all things are comprised of god is nothing new and nothing that automatically rules god out of a parental role. In fact, I would submit that god couldn't just be limited to what we or even the universe is made of as god would go by another name: "DNA" or "matter" or "the universe" instead of "god."

So if other terms exist for those things, it stands to reason that god must be something else, something less tangible, more of a role than a thing... hmm what sort of role would one deem appropriate... oh I know! Our cousin! ;)
I addressed this on the first page...I agree that many are dependent upon and have a deep-seated need for a god or a saviour of sorts even if that saviour is a Rabbit's Foot or a Wishing Star
You did not address what I was saying on the first page or if you did it was so badly as to be unrecognizable for what it was intended to be. Even here you do not address what I was talking about, I'm not talking of saviors or superstition.

I am talking about myth and archetypes and threads that connect discrete elements of humanity. I am talking about "the hero with a thousand faces" and the foundation of all of humanity upon the foundation of masks of god. This has nothing to do with prayer or dependence upon god, but the fact we are all small expressions of god and we are all connected... connected in fate, connected in our dreams, connected in our stories, and connected in god.

Even if god holds no other role than this, god could still be viewed as a mighty matri/patriarch that holds the family together. This role is not the intended role, but it is an aggregation of our ability to perceive god. And again, nurturing and blame have nothing to do with it.

cheers,

catch
Proud Nubian Princess

User avatar
Egaladeist
I am the Eg man : Coo Coo Ca Choo
Posts: 18908
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2005 1:02 am
Location: Canada

Post: # 50339Post Egaladeist
Fri Dec 08, 2006 10:01 pm

Now you're just arguing for the sake of arguing...I'm assuming this because I assume you are intelligent and can understand my points...therefore, you are arguing because you just like to argue without any point to it or you haven't bothered to read my posts...
then you call god the cousin implying a lateral and less hierarchical distance
eg. I never called god a cousin: I said try thinking of god in terms of a distant cousin in respect to your answer about parental responsibility. that god is far removed from parental responsibility...like a third cousin.

This is how you twist things around to appear like you're following the topic when you're just adding whatever you want to it. Arguing points and issues that have no relation to what was actually said or the context it was said in.

Rhetoric doesn't impress me..especially when it's manipulated to appear like you're following the context of the argument.

I'll continue this conversation with some one else who wants to have a serious discussion...who prefers to keep the conversation on topic and in context.

That way I don't have to continually go back to previous discussions to correct the context every time you change the context or put words into my mouth I never said...which is a waste of my time.

User avatar
Harbinger
Aspiring Anti-Christ
Posts: 821
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 1:01 am
Location: University X

Post: # 50351Post Harbinger
Fri Dec 08, 2006 11:29 pm

Harbinger wrote:I'm finding it difficult to approach your argument.

We don't know their is a God, or that such a "necessary substance or force" which we can call God even exists, or is actually necessary or fundemental to the universe as a whole.

Basically, you've subtly given me the task of proving which is unknown--something impossible to do. You're saying, "Oxygen is God", and I'm saying, "Oxygen is Oxygen." No?

Or rather, it seems that you're trying to say God is a type of Plogiston. That last post just seemed to me like you're making up something unknown, then saying it is essential? (No offense)
Egaladeist wrote:No offense taken :D

But...we do know that there is a god...or...at least we should...the only thing is to determine what that god is and is in relation to us. ;)
I dunno. It seems like my points just got dismissed by rhetoric there. We don't know there is a God, some think they do, some think they don't.

You're using the term 'God' in an extremely ambiguous sense. In your posts before it was implied to be something concrete, now it is a relative abstraction?

Can you please define what God is to you, so that I at least have an idea where you are going with this. God to you is obviously not a person. God is an unknown/unproven law of nature/physics?

I repeat my earlier statement about Phlogiston.

User avatar
Egaladeist
I am the Eg man : Coo Coo Ca Choo
Posts: 18908
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2005 1:02 am
Location: Canada

Post: # 50352Post Egaladeist
Fri Dec 08, 2006 11:41 pm

God is an unknown/unproven law of nature/physics?
You're getting there :D Only that it's not unproven or unknown...just circumstantial.

There is evidence of the existence of god by natural definition...though it is circumstantial at best.

Assume that god is like an ocean...( like, not actually an ocean catch ;) :roll: )...containing all the elements of existence in it's own make-up like DNA ( ( like, not actually DNA ;) :roll: )...and like DNA it has a predestined solution/creation to fulfill...
in this sense god is a creator...or rather god's make-up, genetic-code, or whatever you want to call it...creates.

A philosopher once remarked that all things are differentiations of the same thing...the one thing...
that god is the one thing from which the multitude of things spring into existence.

catch
Wankers Cramp - no - its from typing - HONEST
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 3:49 am

Post: # 50365Post catch
Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:19 am

Eg, your points are not cohesive (and contain no less than five different logical fallacies), but I am so glad that you know exactly what god is.

cheers,

catch
Proud Nubian Princess

User avatar
Harbinger
Aspiring Anti-Christ
Posts: 821
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 1:01 am
Location: University X

Post: # 50372Post Harbinger
Sat Dec 09, 2006 5:43 am

Egaladeist wrote:A philosopher once remarked that all things are differentiations of the same thing...the one thing...
that god is the one thing from which the multitude of things spring into existence.
Well, he was a Philosopher, not a scientist, lol.

I believe that Sir was Plato, the same individual that said this realm is only but a shadow of another kind of "ethereal" plane of "Forms" where a every object in this world was created by individual spirits or "forms" of that world--such as a chair, or stool.

I'm beginning to understand your concept of God I think.

User avatar
Egaladeist
I am the Eg man : Coo Coo Ca Choo
Posts: 18908
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2005 1:02 am
Location: Canada

Post: # 50378Post Egaladeist
Sat Dec 09, 2006 12:31 pm

Eg, your points are not cohesive (and contain no less than five different logical fallacies), but I am so glad that you know exactly what god is.
catch, you completely missed the point...and I'm not surprised.

This is usually what happens when people think they are experts at all subjects...you should really stick to what you are good at.

That's exactly why I don't argue with you over computer theory, or argue with dino over databases, or foxy over motorcycles, etc...I know that I am not an expert of all topics.

Do you know how many experts I've encountered in my life who've never even read to any extent any religious or philosophical documents?

This is perhaps the one area of study that everyone thinks they are an expert without even opening a book.

To answer your above comment...again :roll: ...I never said I know what god is:

again to put things in proper context for you....as you seem to love twisting things around...I said:

"But...we do know that there is a god...or...at least we should..the only thing is to determine what that god is and is in relation to us."

If I knew what god is why would I say we still need to determine what god is :roll:

...I've only stated that god exists :roIl: ...if you read my posts you would have noticed that almost all my statements are in the form of questions...using words like ' perhaps '...' consider '...' imagine '

if you want to argue with me on a topic I do know first learn how to read...but I know you won't because it makes you look so much more intelligent to take things out of context and then pose a ridiculous argument based upon that.

This is a thesis...not a declaration. Do you even know the difference?

Hi Harbinger,

Philosophers begot science...prior to Socrates that is what science was.

And it was not Plato...it was known primarily as words of Diogenes...but several before and after him used similar words concluding the same thing that god is one...and from the one came many.

When researching religious and philosophical documents/manuscripts you look for commonalities between them...one such commonality is the belief in god...
from there each culture/society adds their own special twists and turns to that belief.
Generally speaking commonalities share some form of truth...as they cross cultures/societies and cross even expanses.

Post Reply