The Old Testament God is a Bumbling, Primitive, Idiot?

reply to post by charles1952

First problem, definitional. He can't be God and a bumbler both, by the very definition of God. It was a silly proposition to begin with and I'm surprised Cogito, Ergo Sum mentioned it. It was so surprising that I wanted to start the thread to see if I had missed something. Apparently, not.

First problem: please point me to a scientifically established definition of the word "god". I don't trust your definition because its not universal.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Dear AfterInfinity,

First problem: please point me to a scientifically established definition of the word "god". I don't trust your definition because its not universal.

I would count it a major success, something that would win some fame even outside ATS, if I could just get through to our members one thing.

PLEASE READ: Science only deals with objects and energies within the natural order. It cannot weigh, measure, or observe God with any of its instruments. It is not possible to say anything "scientifically" about God. It is infinitely harder than telling me the weight of a stone using absolutely nothing but odors.

I will not give, or point you to, a scientific definition of the word "God." I don't believe one can exist.

This might explain one of the reasons we're having so much difficulty understanding each other.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952

PLEASE READ: Science only deals with objects and energies within the natural order. It cannot weigh, measure, or observe God with any of its instruments. It is not possible to say anything "scientifically" about God. It is infinitely harder than telling me the weight of a stone using absolutely nothing but odors.

I will not give, or point you to, a scientific definition of the word "God." I don't believe one can exist.

...Then how in the world do you expect us to take you seriously?!?!

In one post, you've just killed your entire argument. You want to defend your god, but you can't even properly define your god, let alone explain how such a definition qualifies it as anything other than a bumbling, primitive idiot. You're dead in the water. All you can do is make stuff up now. And worse yet, you've admitted that's all you're doing.

"Science only deals with objects and energies within the natural order. It cannot weigh, measure, or observe God with any of its instruments. It is not possible to say anything "scientifically" about God."

You have no scientific basis for any of your statements regarding God, according to your own statement. You have no defense. I'm sorry for your loss, but not for his.

reply to post by charles1952

It is not possible to say anything "scientifically" about God. It is infinitely harder than telling me the weight of a stone using absolutely nothing but odors.

yup.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

...Then how in the world do you expect us to take you seriously?!?!

Wait, AftIn...
did you think he meant he doesn't think "God" exists when he said he didn't "think one" (a definition) "can exist"?

I didn't read it that way at all.
I read: there is no scientific definition of God that I believe to exist.

reply to post by wildtimes


I meant exactly what I said. Read the whole post.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


I did read it, twice. Now again a third time.

You want to defend your god, but you can't even properly define your god, let alone explain how such a definition qualifies it as anything other than a bumbling, primitive idiot.

I don't understand how you interpreted his statement. Can you please reword it?

A 'definition' of God is what you are requesting? In my opinion, there is NO definition that has been concocted via human minds to 'define it'.....

yet many, many people claim that "God" is sitting on a throne in the clouds with a white beard, white chair, white robes.....
poised with a thunderbolt.

To my thinking, "God" can not be anthropomorphized. Yet myriad traditions try to do just that...
because for all the efforts....all the lives spent and lost in pursuing the subject....there still is no ONE UNIVERSAL DEFINITION of "God."

The expression of that "indefinable essence" is: The Golden Rule

reply to post by wildtimes


I can't make it any more simple than what I already said. What I said is what I have to say. I have to take a break. Read it over a few more times if you have to.

reply to post by wildtimes

The expression of that "indefinable essence" is: The Golden Rule

I agree that God is that "indefinable essence" but, I disagree that the "Golden Rule" is representation of God. the concept "Do unto others" isn't universal in nature, yet I can see the beauty of God in her.

I think that there are 2 acceptable definitions of God. One being: God is everything that was, is and will be, as well as everything that wasn't, isn't and won't be. God is the totality of the universe as well as all possibilities. Two, being God isn't, doesn't and will not exist in the created universe. God is the creator of the universe and resides outside of creation. Christians believe in the later, I believe in the former definition.

How's that?

reply to post by windword

I think that there are 2 acceptable definitions of God. One being: God is everything that was, is and will be, as well as everything that wasn't, isn't and won't be. God is the totality of the universe as well as all possibilities. Two, being God isn't, doesn't and will not exist in the created universe. God is the creator of the universe and resides outside of creation. Christians believe in the later, I believe in the former definition.

The problem I have is that the modern definition of God is exactly that: modern. God is defined as being exactly what those who believe in such a being, want from such a being. God is defined as what they want, rather than what it actually is. It is the only concept defined in such a manner, possibly because it's the only concept invented for such a purpose. Charles's explanation - or lack thereof - only supports that theory.

I find such a tactic cheap and transparent. Now I will take my break, because this is hurting my head. In the meantime, something random:

reply to post by windword


I like it very much.

I, too, include all of what we see/hear/touch/smell around us as manifestations of "God."

Sorry for leaving that out......

I guess when I refer to TGR, I am automatically applying it to ALL THINGS SEEN AND UNSEEN....

Do unto others (whether planets, other unknown species, oceans, flora/fauna, ethereal beings, or people) as you would have them do unto you.

Sorry for not being clear.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Dear AfterInfinity,

I'm terribly sorry to say this, but I'm put in mind of a poster with a similar approach on another thread.

I'm sorry I caused confusion in you mind. I'm not as upset about disagreement as I am about misunderstanding. Let's fix it.

Allow me to defend myself personally, first. Yes, I admit to a certain conceit, but I feel justified in saying I'm not a complete idiot. You read something which seemed to you to say, "After all this time, Charles is denying his belief in a God, he's saying there is no God, it's all a fraud."

That would have been an excellent time for you to pause and say to yourself, "Self, I don't think you're reading it right."

I believe an approach to God can be made by considering His attributes, Omnipotent, Eternal, you know the sort of thing I'm going to say. If you want to call that an imperfect definition, I'll agree with you. It's the best a limited human mind is going to do at this point, though.

When you talk about a "scientific" definition, you're asking for something like "God is a collection of forces and energies of approximately 407.38 kilopickles on the infrayellow spectrum. These energies have a focal point of NW fatitude 1 3/5, and a SE Skinnyline of 27858.167289. Were these energies converted to matter using the Solomon Einstein conversion formula and used car lot, God would weigh approximately...... well, a lot, sort of in the "Yo mama" range, but lots bigger.

Seriously, try to understand. God is not a material object which can be weighed, measured, sniffed, scoped, or otherwise described in similar "scientific" terms. If I were to sit down with a believer, we could talk about what God has been doing in our lives, how He has particularly shown Himself to us in the last week, new understandings He's given us, maybe one of us would have had a vision or message.

Believing puts a new responsibility on the individual. It's as if He gives you a new nature that allows you to "see" and understand things that were dark before. But, He also expects us to use His gifts.

The sad thing is that you can only see "objects," "things" which can be measured with man-made tools. It's possible that nothing I just said made any sense to you. I'd truly like to be of help to you, but I don't know how.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by AfterInfinity

I find such a tactic cheap and transparent. Now I will take my break, because this is hurting my head.

It seems to me that the only definition of God that will be acceptable to you would be the one God's provides for itself by appearing and explaining itself to you!

Unfortunately, I don't see that happening any time soon, no matter what Christians may predict. I think that God has been "created" and defined by humans through the awe and fear they experience, and the acknowledgement of something that is greater and wiser than they, from where they stand. The inability to accurately define that "divine essence" doesn't invalidate the existence of that essence.

reply to post by charles1952

Allow me to defend myself personally, first. Yes, I admit to a certain conceit, but I feel justified in saying I'm not a complete idiot. You read something which seemed to you to say, "After all this time, Charles is denying his belief in a God, he's saying there is no God, it's all a fraud."

No, no. I never said that. I said you've all but confessed that every bit of substance your god possess is provided by yourself. When you die, your god dies with you.

That would have been an excellent time for you to pause and say to yourself, "Self, I don't think you're reading it right."

If, in fact, my "Self" had read it as you've apparently misunderstood. I don't understand what's so difficult to grasp about what I posted. It was in English, right? Lemme check. Yep, it was in English. Astonishing, the number of English users having such difficulty with their own language.

I believe an approach to God can be made by considering His attributes, Omnipotent, Eternal, you know the sort of thing I'm going to say. If you want to call that an imperfect definition, I'll agree with you. It's the best a limited human mind is going to do at this point, though.

I call that a childish definition. The definition of someone who is afraid of imperfect, afraid of being flawed, and tired of being the bottom dog, and decided to invest in a source of strength and confidence that shares all of the dreams and none of the weaknesses.

Perfectly natural, but also perfectly foolhardy.

When you talk about a "scientific" definition, you're asking for something like "God is a collection of forces and energies of approximately 407.38 kilopickles on the infrayellow spectrum. These energies have a focal point of NW fatitude 1 3/5, and a SE Skinnyline of 27858.167289. Were these energies converted to matter using the Solomon Einstein conversion formula and used car lot, God would weigh approximately...... well, a lot, sort of in the "Yo mama" range, but lots bigger.

Huh. So you DO know what I'm looking for. Something that gives me a reason to believe you aren't exactly what I described above.

Seriously, try to understand. God is not a material object which can be weighed, measured, sniffed, scoped, or otherwise described in similar "scientific" terms. If I were to sit down with a believer, we could talk about what God has been doing in our lives, how He has particularly shown Himself to us in the last week, new understandings He's given us, maybe one of us would have had a vision or message.

That's just two people talking about their interpretive abilities. Their ability to make connections regardless of whether it's logically sound or not. Why? Because it makes them feel good. So do drugs.

Believing puts a new responsibility on the individual. It's as if He gives you a new nature that allows you to "see" and understand things that were dark before. But, He also expects us to use His gifts.

Really? I thought that was SCIENCE. Oh well.

The sad thing is that you can only see "objects," "things" which can be measured with man-made tools. It's possible that nothing I just said made any sense to you. I'd truly like to be of help to you, but I don't know how.

I don't need your pity, or your respect. I just wish people would care as much about this world as they did about the next. Sadly, I don't see that happening. What I do see happening is people getting so sick of what they have that they let it die, and they die along with it, still clutching their juvenile dreams of what could have been.

I am curious as to why you asked a question you didn't want the answer to. You asked a question without any intention of modifying or adjusting your stance in the matter. You made up your mind before you asked the question. So why bother?

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Huh. So you DO know what I'm looking for.

What?
You want an actual maths-and-chemistry-and-physics explanation before you would believe in 'other' beings -- wait...not 'beings'; rather 'forces' -- than what we see APPARENT here on earth?

Okay. I get it now.
thx

reply to post by wildtimes

Dear wildtimes,

This is an unusual post, but I don't think it's off-topic or in violation of the T&C. I would like to continue the discussion and the thread, but I am having great difficulty understanding AfterInfinity. He takes the time to explain, but I find his explanations just as obscure.

Would you consider serving as a translator? I can't pay much, but I'd be ever so grateful.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952

I would like to continue the discussion and the thread, but I am having great difficulty understanding AfterInfinity. He takes the time to explain, but I find his explanations just as obscure.

Would you consider serving as a translator?

Well, I would, but I don't think it's possible....

I get some of his posts, but not all. Some seem very spot-on, others obscure.
I'm baffled, too; you in your way, and I in mine.

Erm....

AftIn, would you like to continue the discussion and the thread?

reply to post by wildtimes

What?
You want an actual maths-and-chemistry-and-physics explanation before you would believe in 'other' beings -- wait...not 'beings'; rather 'forces' -- than what we see APPARENT here on earth?

Okay. I get it now.
thx

Oh, okay. I understand. Scientific examination is taboo here. Sorry for the mistake. Dunno what I was thinking, expecting something like that out of a subject like this. One would think I'd learn, but somehow, I keep having faith.

Kinda reminds me why I avoid relying on it so much.

wildtimes
reply to post by charles1952

 

I would like to continue the discussion and the thread, but I am having great difficulty understanding AfterInfinity. He takes the time to explain, but I find his explanations just as obscure.

Would you consider serving as a translator?

Well, I would, but I don't think it's possible....

I get some of his posts, but not all. Some seem very spot-on, others obscure.
I'm baffled, too; you in your way, and I in mine.

Erm....

AftIn, would you like to continue the discussion and the thread?

I'm not positive. I'm speaking plain English here, but you guys are acting as though my methods are outrageous and incomprehensible. Which is a first, actually.

Especially for you, Wild. You've always seemed very in tune with my processes, but this appears to be a complete 180 on your part.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Let me ask a question. Assume (Crazy, I know) that God has announced that He will appear at such and such a place, at a given time. He has announced the He will appear in His real essence, as He actually is. Not in flesh or other disguise like a burning bush. The ATS Foundation gives you unlimited funds to cover this and get proof of God.

What instruments do you bring?