It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

For the sake of argument, let’s admit that God exists.

page: 11
14
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Aphorism
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 





If the word god appears to exist does it have to have a book for it to appear in?
The word god appears in what?

Spinoza reckons the whole world (including thought and words) appears in God.



Yes. But we call that the universe now. Same thing, better name.

Just to clarify:-
Are you saying that the word 'god' appears in the universe and 'universe' is just another name for God?
When I asked the question - What is it that Spinoza is pointing at when he uses the word 'God' in your honest opinion? Is your answer 'universe'?
What is the 'that' which you consider is called universe now?
edit on 8-1-2014 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Aphorism
Plainly stated, since God is only ever found within books, art, rhetoric and from various forms of human expression—indeed, we cannot know about God any other way—we must assume that this is as what, as where, and as how, God exists. This subject we can deny or have an opinion about; this character we pray to; this character we refuse to contemplate. From what we can confirm, it exists as a word in its fundamental form. All talk about God is talk about this word.

Forget 'we'.
Is the above quote what you assume?



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Itisnowagain
Your grandfather was an appearance that has now ceased to be


No, he was actually quite a real person that existed.


- but that which knows the appearance will never cease.


Then follow through and show me where he is now or you are full of it.


Notice that which appears cannot be held onto. Things come and go. Can you even hold on to a thought, make it not move/change to another thought?


Yes, actually I can hold onto a thought. That is not hard at all.


Notice that the one that is seeing/knowing the appearance never goes away - never goes anywhere, never changes.

edit on 8-1-2014 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)


Random gibberish is very unconvincing.



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Itisnowagain

Who's god?


I spelled that out very clearly.


There is only God and things appear and disappear in God.


Random words that mean nothing do so little for the argument you want to make.



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Buttonlip
Random words that mean nothing do so little for the argument you want to make.


This is from wiki.


French philosopher Martial Guéroult suggested the term "Panentheism", rather than "Pantheism" to describe Spinoza’s view of the relation between God and the world. The world is not God, but it is, in a strong sense, "in" God. Not only do finite things have God as their cause; they cannot be conceived without God.
en.wikipedia.org...

No doubt they appear to be random words also.



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 11:27 AM
link   
I don't think very much that wasn't fairly obvious was developed in the first post. You are simply assigning all non-null ontological states the quality of existence. For instance, you basically just declared that all concepts exist, but that doesn't get us very far in argument. If someone asked, "do unicorns exist?", and I replied, "yes, the concept exists", we haven't really made any ground outside of stating the obvious. Anyone can see that concepts exist, but the person was interested in whether the unicorn happened to be more than simply a concept.

No one asks whether a deity exists, and is asking about the existence of the concept. Most people would not be pleased if they called up a retail store asking if they had a certain item in stock, and then arrived to find that although that item wasn't there per se, the concept of the item existed. That was clearly not what the concern was, and pointing out that concepts exist didn't advance anyone's interests that day.

Also, it is a minor quibble, but biblical sources are not the only place a deity is found; there are literally hundreds of religions and philosophies that incorporate a deity; it doesn't make sense to single out only one source, especially when that source is itself based on earlier sources. This doesn't advance the argument that a deity exists so much, but it is a critical point. You don't have to dismiss merely the christian god, you have to dismiss all possible deities if your interest is in proving one doesn't exist.



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Itisnowagain


No doubt they appear to be random words also.


Not at all. What you quoted makes sense. What you posted is just gibberish.



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Buttonlip

Itisnowagain


No doubt they appear to be random words also.


Not at all. What you quoted makes sense. What you posted is just gibberish.

Did you see that it says that every finite thing is conceived by God?



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Buttonlip

Itisnowagain


No doubt they appear to be random words also.


What you quoted makes sense.



The world is not God, but it is, in a strong sense, "in" God. Not only do finite things have God as their cause; they cannot be conceived without God.


The world is not God - the world consisting of finite things is 'IN' God.
Things have a beginning and ending (finite things) are caused by God and are seen/known by God.
edit on 8-1-2014 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by joeraynor
 





I don't think very much that wasn't fairly obvious was developed in the first post. You are simply assigning all non-null ontological states the quality of existence. For instance, you basically just declared that all concepts exist, but that doesn't get us very far in argument. If someone asked, "do unicorns exist?", and I replied, "yes, the concept exists", we haven't really made any ground outside of stating the obvious. Anyone can see that concepts exist, but the person was interested in whether the unicorn happened to be more than simply a concept.


Great point. And this is what I think is the problem with making an incomplete proposition. The question should be (in my opinion), "what do unicorns exist as?". How can we talk about unicorns if there wasn't something of unicorns that existed to talk about? For instance, it would be impossible for me to describe a color or shape that doesn't exist. Yet I can describe a unicorn exactly. I think it best to admit that "something" of the unicorn exists, and that we should describe what that is.


No one asks whether a deity exists, and is asking about the existence of the concept. Most people would not be pleased if they called up a retail store asking if they had a certain item in stock, and then arrived to find that although that item wasn't there per se, the concept of the item existed. That was clearly not what the concern was, and pointing out that concepts exist didn't advance anyone's interests that day.


True enough; but I am strictly talking about entirely abstract, not concrete, concepts. I believe that abstract concepts exist as abstract concepts, and therefor should be shown to be abstract concepts before any other considerations are taken.


Also, it is a minor quibble, but biblical sources are not the only place a deity is found; there are literally hundreds of religions and philosophies that incorporate a deity; it doesn't make sense to single out only one source, especially when that source is itself based on earlier sources. This doesn't advance the argument that a deity exists so much, but it is a critical point. You don't have to dismiss merely the christian god, you have to dismiss all possible deities if your interest is in proving one doesn't exist.


You are correct. By biblical sources I meant religious texts (a mistake on my part), and by God I meant everyone's personal version of God.



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by itsallgonenow
 


That's a pretty cruel god you've got there.



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Aphorism
 


I have a feeling you might have a dedicated interest in liguistic philosophy, because those are the only sort of people who key on on such distinctions. There is very much that is taken for granted in normal speech; for instance, many words and phrases are ambiguous, but the intended meaning is generally clear from context; the inability to accept the need for making assumptions in communication is at once a trait shared by computers and linguistic philosophers, lol.

You might like some of Bertrand Russel's writings in that area, or maybe Chomsky of course. The first half of the 20th century in philosophy was partially spent advancing concepts such as this ontological distinction here.

Heck, if you are feeling dangerous, read Alexius Meinong, haha... you can puzzle over whether a wish that was once wished but wasn't fulfilled has being or not (an actual example).



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 03:37 PM
link   
My reply might not be 100% related to the topic, but I'll just state some of my recent thoughts on this question.

For some time, as I was raised in a Christian family (which is by no means very religious), I believed I was Christian too. However, later I realised I don't quite believe what was written in the Bible. Yes, I admired the wisdom of the book, but that is where I drew the line. Up to maybe one week ago I believed I was an atheist because, you know, atheists are the ones who think science is above everything and I am a huge nerd myself.

Now the interesting bit: I asked myself - are atheists so scientific as they claim to be? I reached to the conclusion that atheism is as much belief as any other religion. I can hear now the atheists among you getting agitated, lol. But tell me then, how does science show that God doesn't exist? You'll say now that there has been no evidence for the contrary, and time and experience are in favour of rejection of a theory, right?

Let me ask you then, if you are faintly (it doesn't matter actually) familiar with physics, how is the Universe created? I mean, REALLY? Don't tell me a fancy Big Bang theory that can't be understood at all and just gives the illusion of knowing more, while we don't know anything (that's like expressing one variable as another variable and a constant - seems like you have explained some of the stuff, but you still need one value). Isn't quantum mechanics itself a big riddle? And if you remember, people from over a century ago believed that Newtonian physics explained everything. It's virtually the same stance - you're walking on thin ice. That there is no evidence doesn't mean that some won't crop up tomorrow and prove that there is a god. Therefore, you believe the lack of evidence is enough, while past experience show us that this is not the case at all.

The key word: believe. You can't even "prove" you exist and my answer isn't a figment of your imagination, can you? Then how can you "prove" or "disprove" god, or even more broadly and philosophically speaking, how can you prove/disprove anything? You can't. To say that gravity exists is not a fact, it's a belief. Because gravity is a scientific theory, not an absolute truth.

Therefore, you guys have no right to mock each other, because you can both be right (according to quantum physics, you can both be right simultaneously, lol). No one knows. I am not sure if anyone will know, but we certainly won't be able to. This only shows how agnosticism is correlated to how scientifically thinking you are and you are deluding yourself that you are being scientific for denying that something exists because of lack of proof. So please, atheists, don't call yourself scientific. It's ridiculous.

I think I am agnostic now, but you know what? I don't care at all. I am living my life, because I have resigned to muse over unexplainable questions. I have already lost much time on that. And there is one (nearly) certain thing, we all will die, so time is valuable. I very wholeheartedly advise you to follow my example.



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Godzilla123
 


Going to leave this here in response to your rant:

Agnostic atheism


Agnostic atheism, also called atheistic agnosticism, is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact. The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who believes that one or more deities exist but claims that the existence or nonexistence of such is unknown or cannot be known.[1][2][3]

edit on 8-1-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


Thank you, kind sir. To be honest, I wasn't aware of these sub-belief categories. By the way, this wasn't a rant. Or maybe it was a rant against the rants of theists and atheists. A rant against pointless arguing and negative emotions.



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Godzilla123
 


Tis fine. Just letting you know that not all atheists are dogmatic in their non-belief in a god like believers like to portray them as.



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Aphorism
reply to post by spy66
 





Scripture is all written based on inspiration; said to be the Word of God. Jesus walked the Earth to forfill scripture. How can any of us prove a inspiration physically to you? That is something you must find within Your self. There are other ways to prove to Your self that God exists. But that would demand some Scientific understanding from Your part. You could start With asking Your self if the infinite exists. Either it does or it dosent. If you Accept it. How did the infinite form finite existance when the infinite is a absolute constant? I can Challenge you on this, but i know you will reject the fact in the end, because you wouldnt understand. Because you are already proving it, that you dont. edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)


Who says divine inspiration is the word of god? Only the people who wrote the bible and the people who claim the bible is the word of God. You're taking someone else's words as the word of god; that sounds almost blasphemous to me. But I know you'd reject that because you wouldn't understand.


Yes i am saying it is. I am not just taking their Word for it. I know that God Works through Our minds.

There is a verse that says; Ask me anything and i will answer. Do you think God will answer With verbal Words?

You dont know how God works. How can you even be here and argue aginst him?



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


Well, same goes for believers - not all of them believe blindly (there are agnostic theists as well, according to the link you gave me). I have nothing against them - my post didn't concern them in the first place. It concerned those hardcore believers and determined atheists, i.e. the extremes of both sides, who can spend hours arguing/hating/flaming each other over something which cannot be proven.
edit on 8-1-2014 by Godzilla123 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 04:04 PM
link   
All ideologies are idiotic, whether religious or political, for it is conceptual thinking, the conceptual word, which has so unfortunately divided man.
Jiddu Kristnamurti.



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by joeraynor
 


Ah you've read me like a book. Yes I've been into Russell, Wittgenstein, Chomsky, Quine, Derrida etc. I've never heard of Meinong; I will definitely check him out. Personally I find it all boring, and usually steer clear of the technical stuff, however it is strangely profound to think about. Thank you for chiming in—I thought all was at a loss in this thread.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join