Originally posted by psmith81992
I'm no different than you imposing your "I don't believe in God but if I do I'm going to describe him using my own biases". Hypocrisy is a *****.
Yes, you are. I don't declare every opinion not fitting my worldview non-existant. Do I?
That aside: I can't remember using my own words to describe God, nor did I make a statement regarding my personal set of beliefs. So thanks for the attempted ad hominem right into the void. Baseless, pointless, your signature style.
"God" isn't a purely human concept. "God" exists in all three major religions, and much moreso in the Torah than anywhere else. God and his name exist in the scriptures. Stop calling it a human concept unless you're continuing to push your agenda while attempting to criticize me at the same time.
And where did those texts come from? And which one of them is to be believed when making contradicting claims regarding the nature of God? Is God the omnibenevolent being that sacrifices his son for the wellbeing of mankind that the New Testament describes? Is he the rather old fashioned Fire-from-the-Sky guy, that appears as one of the main characters in the Old Testament / Torah? Is "God" the "Allah" present in the Quran?
That aside: Of course "God" is a completely human concept. It doesn't matter if you believe in him or not - the word and the ideas associated to it are terms coined by humans. And those, by their very nature, must fail in describing something compeltely inhuman (e.g. godlike). Since humans can't grasp the extend of the power or knowledge such a being may have, it's natural to assume that both resources are endless ("omni..."😉. Are they? Probably doesn't make a difference from the perspective of a human being.
With the latter being, just to point that out for you once again, the single source for everything that pops up in your head when you think "God" - regardless if he exists or not.
Originally posted by Nai
Yes, you are. I don't declare every opinion not fitting my worldview non-existant. Do I?That aside: I can't remember using my own words to describe God, nor did I make a statement regarding my personal set of beliefs. So thanks for the attempted ad hominem right into the void. Baseless, pointless, your signature style.
And where did those texts come from? And which one of them is to be believed when making contradicting claims regarding the nature of God? Is God the omnibenevolent being that sacrifices his son for the wellbeing of mankind that the New Testament describes? Is he the rather old fashioned Fire-from-the-Sky guy, that appears as one of the main characters in the Old Testament / Torah? Is "God" the "Allah" present in the Quran?
That aside: Of course "God" is a completely human concept. It doesn't matter if you believe in him or not - the word and the ideas associated to it are terms coined by humans. And those, by their very nature, must fail in describing something compeltely inhuman (e.g. godlike). Since humans can't grasp the extend of the power or knowledge such a being may have, it's natural to assume that both resources are endless ("omni..."😉. Are they? Probably doesn't make a difference from the perspective of a human being.
With the latter being, just to point that out for you once again, the single source for everything that pops up in your head when you think "God" - regardless if he exists or not.
Nai, as usual, is eloquent and on point. Dave, as usual, is a troll and conservative ****.
/debate.
Wow. Janus has no idea how to use the word troll unless it's confirmation bias for him. Still mad a conservatives because he can't catch a break in life. Good laugh there. So when your only contribution to a thread is to call someone a troll and a ****, looks like you become the troll.
Yes, you are. I don't declare every opinion not fitting my worldview non-existant. Do I?That aside: I can't remember using my own words to describe God, nor did I make a statement regarding my personal set of beliefs. So thanks for the attempted ad hominem right into the void. Baseless, pointless, your signature style.
And where did those texts come from? And which one of them is to be believed when making contradicting claims regarding the nature of God? Is God the omnibenevolent being that sacrifices his son for the wellbeing of mankind that the New Testament describes? Is he the rather old fashioned Fire-from-the-Sky guy, that appears as one of the main characters in the Old Testament / Torah? Is "God" the "Allah" present in the Quran?
That aside: Of course "God" is a completely human concept. It doesn't matter if you believe in him or not - the word and the ideas associated to it are terms coined by humans. And those, by their very nature, must fail in describing something compeltely inhuman (e.g. godlike). Since humans can't grasp the extend of the power or knowledge such a being may have, it's natural to assume that both resources are endless ("omni..."😉. Are they? Probably doesn't make a difference from the perspective of a human being.
With the latter being, just to point that out for you once again, the single source for everything that pops up in your head when you think "God" - regardless if he exists or not.
Another thing I've noticed is that you're quick to point out that my view tries to dominate others, while ignoring everyone else who happens to limit God without indicating it's a personal opinion instead of an all encompassing view. If you don't need that indication, then there's no reason to criticize my view either since it's a personal opinion.
http://taliabobalia.com/post/121260544859
this video showed up on my dash and i had to go to three different blogs with unbearable themes to find a webpage that I can link. The story is worth the 2 minutes to watch!
Originally posted by psmith81992
You have attempted to explain "God" over the years if I recall, I can definitely look. So no ad hominem there.
Certainly not. I have questioned some terms used to describe him, even the word "God" itself, but if he should exists, he is clearly beyond explanation.
That's the question. But you've already been presumptuous by calling the texts "man made".
How is that presumptous, DS?
I know the "editing process" of the New Testament in detail, and it is pretty clear that the collection of works as they are now were sorted and put together by man. And for everything in the Old Testament, even assuming that the respective name givers of the books (e.g. Moses) are the authors: Those were human beings, who would have been baffled by "God" as much as we are now. The Quran likewise didn't drop from the sky, but was written by human beings, with all the limited understanding of the subject they were writing about, that we encounter today.
And we have nothing to suggest otherwise, so I really wonder, what you find "presumptous". The alternative to calling those texts "man made" would be to suggest that God is inable to get his message across correctly, forcing him to correct himself multiple times (Torah / Old Testament -> New Testament -> Quran). That, I assume, would be presumptious (or outright blasphemous).
If we are to assume God is "omni", as you just stated, what kind of logic is it to argue about God's actions and intents? "If God existed then (entire personal bias or desire here)"? That leads me back to my initial point. We cannot really know or understand God if he truly exists. So the rest is conjecture.
Well. The problem stems from the fact, that certain "actions" (or the lack of them) appear outright evil, seen from our human point of view, contradicting the idea, that God is all good, omnibenevolent. Because he allows "evil" things to happen, and has created "evil" things. On the same basis, one could argue his "omnipotence" (he allows evil things to happen, he is all good, he can't have the power to stop them). And so on, and so forth.
The point is: If we can't understand "God", why do we attempt to put tags on him and then attempt to defend that tags? A "higher being" compared to ourselves would be so far beyond our abilities to comprehend, that we can't describe it. And it would - probably - be completely inhuman, with goals, motivations or agendas we can't grasp. But that is one of my points to criticize such definitions of God: We can't know, yet we assume and then proceed to defend our assumptions.
For all we know, God - if he exists - could be rather like the Gods of the Greece, Roman or North mythology: A really powerful being with "human" flaws. After all, the texts state, that he formed human beings after his own image, right? And some of his "actions" seem to suggest that. But if such a higher being exists, I consider it more likely to be something that is fundamentally different from a human being. Because ethics, just as example, is one of the things such a being might be not adhere to. Imagine an omnipotent and omniscient spider (or some other creature that fundamentally differs from a human being). Scary? Well. That's, kind of, the point, isn't it?
Another thing I've noticed is that you're quick to point out that my view tries to dominate others, while ignoring everyone else who happens to limit God without indicating it's a personal opinion instead of an all encompassing view. If you don't need that indication, then there's no reason to criticize my view either since it's a personal opinion.
Apparently, you didn't understand my critique. By stating that one can either believe in God with all things attributed to him or not believe in him at all, you painted a picture in which only those two opinions do exist. As I said already: There is a nice amount of opinions regarding the question in between those two extremes. There a deists, that believe that there is a higher being, but that it doesn't have to be like the "God" that the monotheist religions believe in. There are agnostics, that simply point to the fact, that the existance of such a being can't be proven and won't believe in it for that single reason. And so on.
What kind of personal opinion you have on the issue of "God" wasn't the point. The point was, that there are more views on the issue than you - as it seems - thought about. So I was just criticizing your ignorance in regards to those other mindsets, not your personal beliefs. I'm not a die hard atheist who thinks that every believe in a higher being is bad on a fundamental level.
And for the "all encompassing view": It is rather clear, that a God, as he is described by monotheistic people can't exists, because his (in)activities don't fit the corresponding descriptions or because said descriptions are illogicial themselves (e.g. the problem with "omnipotence"😉. That doesn't mean that he can't exist at all. It just means that his ground personnel tends to get things wrong. They're just humans, after all...
Certainly not. I have questioned some terms used to describe him, even the word "God" itself, but if he should exists, he is clearly beyond explanation.
How is that presumptous, DS?
I know the "editing process" of the New Testament in detail, and it is pretty clear that the collection of works as they are now were sorted and put together by man. And for everything in the Old Testament, even assuming that the respective name givers of the books (e.g. Moses) are the authors: Those were human beings, who would have been baffled by "God" as much as we are now. The Quran likewise didn't drop from the sky, but was written by human beings, with all the limited understanding of the subject they were writing about, that we encounter today.
Well. The problem stems from the fact, that certain "actions" (or the lack of them) appear outright evil, seen from our human point of view, contradicting the idea, that God is all good, omnibenevolent. Because he allows "evil" things to happen, and has created "evil" things. On the same basis, one could argue his "omnipotence" (he allows evil things to happen, he is all good, he can't have the power to stop them). And so on, and so forth.
The point is: If we can't understand "God", why do we attempt to put tags on him and then attempt to defend that tags? A "higher being" compared to ourselves would be so far beyond our abilities to comprehend, that we can't describe it. And it would - probably - be completely inhuman, with goals, motivations or agendas we can't grasp. But that is one of my points to criticize such definitions of God: We can't know, yet we assume and then proceed to defend our assumptions.
For all we know, God - if he exists - could be rather like the Gods of the Greece, Roman or North mythology: A really powerful being with "human" flaws. After all, the texts state, that he formed human beings after his own image, right? And some of his "actions" seem to suggest that. But if such a higher being exists, I consider it more likely to be something that is fundamentally different from a human being. Because ethics, just as example, is one of the things such a being might be not adhere to. Imagine an omnipotent and omniscient spider (or some other creature that fundamentally differs from a human being). Scary? Well. That's, kind of, the point, isn't it?
Apparently, you didn't understand my critique. By stating that one can either believe in God with all things attributed to him or not believe in him at all, you painted a picture in which only those two opinions do exist. As I said already: There is a nice amount of opinions regarding the question in between those two extremes. There a deists, that believe that there is a higher being, but that it doesn't have to be like the "God" that the monotheist religions believe in. There are agnostics, that simply point to the fact, that the existance of such a being can't be proven and won't believe in it for that single reason. And so on.
What kind of personal opinion you have on the issue of "God" wasn't the point. The point was, that there are more views on the issue than you - as it seems - thought about. So I was just criticizing your ignorance in regards to those other mindsets, not your personal beliefs. I'm not a die hard atheist who thinks that every believe in a higher being is bad on a fundamental level.
And for the "all encompassing view": It is rather clear, that a God, as he is described by monotheistic people can't exists, because his (in)activities don't fit the corresponding descriptions or because said descriptions are illogicial themselves (e.g. the problem with "omnipotence"😉. That doesn't mean that he can't exist at all. It just means that his ground personnel tends to get things wrong. They're just humans, after all...
Originally posted by psmith81992
Great. Now compare the inflation rates from the 50s to today and tell me how close we were to that? I'm not sure if you're trying to establish some causation/correlation, if there is any.
My mistake. According to http://www.dollartimes.com/inflation/inflation.php?amount=10&year=1950, it's more like 99%. Progress!
Putin is literally insane. But honestly, this isn't surprising.
Originally posted by psmith81992
Wow. Janus has no idea how to use the word troll unless it's confirmation bias for him. Still mad a conservatives because he can't catch a break in life. Good laugh there. So when your only contribution to a thread is to call someone a troll and a ****, looks like you become the troll.